|
Health Canada Bull on Codex
by Chris Gupta
www.newmediaexplorer.org
March 10, 2005
..."In the
final paragraph Health Canada provides the
crucial piece of mis-information, namely that all this "will apply in
countries that regulate such products as foods .... will not be applicable
in this country." Totally untrue. First, voluntary compliance has already
been outvoted at that same November 2004 meeting referred to earlier in
their statement. Second, the interlocking treaties ensure compliance
regardless. Third, this is a sub-committee of Codex which looks at special
foods, only those foods with medicinal properties. That allows them (unless
challenged, as they now are in the International Court, last January) to
control entire classes of these supplements according to their junk science
approach (Grossklaus Report October 2004), which most of you haven't had a
chance to read yet. The EU Directive itself, with all of its clearly stated
ideas on how to restrict which classes of supplements, is already the
authority cited on the Health Canada website section that deal with
supplements. The whole thing is rigged - the science and the compliance. In
short: no science and no choice. Or, put another way: bogus science and
illusory choice. Finally, what is not said is this: if supplements remain
foods, Codex would have the power, only through its foods committees, to
deal with one supplement at a time and for trade purposes only. That would
mean, North American companies could tell Codex to fly a kite, as most trade
by far is internal to this continent. It would also mean that any messing
around with any supplement would involve real science, a plurality of
opinions and so on - not only the handpicked, secret committee appointed by
Codex."...
The following dialogue between Croft and Helke is a must read as the
misinformation generated by vested interests continually baffles even the
most sane amongst us...
Chris Gupta
Croft, I am getting battle fatigue over this Codex mess and the nonsense
that comes out of Ottawa. This, as all the other nonsense from NAFTA to our
regulatory system on drugs, is the ultimate spin of half-truths disguised in
logical argument that has, in fact, no basis. Have you had a systematic
reasoned answer to this by others? Below is one of my previous ones again,
in case you want it, which follows the statement made by Health Canada in
late February (pasted below - their statement and my answer). I am attaching
also the legal analysis that shows how the interlocking treaties, to which
Canada is a signatory, lock us into Codex guidelines. The third item is a
fabulous article by Cynthia Ramsay which ought to be widely circulated.
Cheers, Helke
My response is this time in point form:
1. In paragraph one, the Health Canada advisor states: "CAC [standards] are
intended for voluntary use by governments...". This is untrue. Last November
according to all reports by those who attended the voluntary status was
rejected and Codex voted in complete compliance by all member states. See
the attachment I sent you by Lawloft. Canada objected, to its credit, but it
was outvoted. Whatever Codex decided on nutrients with medicinal properties
is now binding.
2. In paragraph two he provides the fact that the CCNFSDU is a "technical
subsidiary body" of Codex in general. My point exactly - it is Codex that
treats these supplements as a third category to be specially attended to and
regulated. They have, according to the case heard in the International Court
no such mandate or jurisdiction; this subsidiary is contrary to the EU
Constitution.
3. In paragraph three he makes three points all of which are, charitably
judged, doublespeak. As usually is the case with Health Canada: the question
always haunts one: are they criminal or are they stupid? I don't care which
it is they are, you and I are neither and need to attend to the facts and
defend ourselves. The three points he makes are:
a. the guidelines are supposed to be "safe, efficacious....etc." There never
was any evidence that they were anything else by safe. The supplements being
targeted are not Chinese herbs in which sometimes heavy metals or ground-up
endangered species' parts were found. The Codex subsidiary committee is
going after the standard stuff in every health food store that has no body
count. No harmonization is needed, no report has ever been filed (to my
knowledge) showing that there are trade barriers, misleading packaging etc.
etc. Total smoke screen. Codex is pro-active, not reactive in this case,
which they have no mandate to be. It is standard medicine that has
established safety levels of vitamins and minerals, and on those standard
research reports from the peer-reviewed medical journals, the production of
vitamins and minerals are based. This is of vital significance - this fact
is the basis for the organized objection to this whole exercise by doctors
from around the world, also a little known fact in the health food industry.
Remember: everything you produce, sell and develop comes from mainstream
medical research!
b. Health Canada asserts that only vitamins and minerals are involved.
This
is untrue. The EU Directive has two lists, the "positive" and the "negative"
list - download the text from the internet and see for yourself. All other
supplements and herbal medicines are the ones to be targeted the same way
when the first "positive" list has been dealt with.
c. Health Canada refers to "scientific risk assessment based on generally
accepted scientific data...". This is so horrendous a deception that it
feels like being struck in the face. The report that has already been
published which utilizes these "scientific risk assessment" data is written
by Codex chairman Dr. Grossklaus and his team. The report is only in German,
and Germany has already made its recommendations law in January - even
though the report was only publicly available in November (go figure!). I am
preparing a detailed summary of this one. This report advises that all
vitamins and minerals be roughly reduced to one fourth of the current RDA
because the report asserts that we must assume that all people get vitamins
and minerals anyway from their foods. The effect of this recommendation is
that vitamins and minerals in therapeutic doses can only be provided through
doctors, but only until after Codex has decided what those levels are. The
RDA is totally inappropriate already, which is why people decide on the
basis of their bio-individual needs how much to take. Worst of all, the
science upon which this tabacco-science report relies is all incestuous,
internal Codex material and outdated reports - nothing contemporary! As I
have said before: if this report was a PhD thesis, the faculty would sent
Grossklaus and company back to kindergarten to learn how to write a proper
review. No university would award a PhD on the basis of this nonsense.
d. The person in charge of this risk assessment is a certain Mrs. Taylor, on
loan from the FDA whose claim to infamy is that she passed bovine growth
hormone for human and animal consumption after the FDA scientists en masse
protested its use because of its carcinogenicity. Her husband was in charge
of the team that developed bovine growth hormone at Monsanto. She will not
reveal whom she has chosen as her expert panel, and currently petitions are
going to the UN's Kofi Anan to force her to reveal who is on her team.
However, Christine Taylor is small potatoes - the stage is already set: the
"safety" recommendations, from which this formula of dividing of the RDAs by
4 originated, have already been established by none other than Pfizer!
Imagine that: Pfizer telling the whole world what levels of vitamins are
safe. This would be hysterically funny if it wasn't deadly serious.
3. In the first paragraph about the "Canadian Position", Health Canada
stated that it objected to Codex's ideas - which was due to the enormous
protests that came to the government as MP Lunney began to prepare his bill.
The arguments provided are right and based on our Constitution.
4. In the
final paragraph Health Canada provides the crucial piece of mis-information,
namely that all this "will apply in countries that regulate such products as
foods .... will not be applicable in this country." Totally untrue. First,
voluntary compliance has already been outvoted at that same November 2004
meeting referred to earlier in their statement. Second, the interlocking
treaties ensure compliance regardless. Third, this is a sub-committee of
Codex which looks at special foods, only those foods with medicinal
properties. That allows them (unless challenged, as they now are in the
International Court, last January) to control entire classes of these
supplements according to their junk science approach (Grossklaus Report
October 2004), which most of you haven't had a chance to read yet. The EU
Directive itself, with all of its clearly stated ideas on how to restrict
which classes of supplements, is already the authority cited on the Health
Canada website section that deal with supplements. The whole thing is rigged
- the science and the compliance. In short: no science and no choice. Or,
put another way: bogus science and illusory choice. Finally, what is not
said is this: if supplements remain foods, Codex would have the power, only
through its foods committees, to deal with one supplement at a time and for
trade purposes only. That would mean, North American companies could tell
Codex to fly a kite, as most trade by far is internal to this continent. It
would also mean that any messing around with any supplement would involve
real science, a plurality of opinions and so on - not only the handpicked,
secret committee appointed by Codex.
This plan is to be ratified in July in Rome. If the International Court
declares this exercise unconstitutional, this Codex sub-committee will have
to go right back to phase one and figure out another way to accomplish their
ends. If simultaneously Canada has Bill C 420 in place, this sub-committee's
jurisdiction is questionable. Foods, according to the Codex mandate, vary so
enormously (as Health Canada pointed out) in availability and quantity as
well as differing population requirements, the whole thing becomes
uncontrollable, except for export and import considerations.
The "foods vs drugs" paradox is puzzling at first, but not anymore when one
considers the various smoke screens involved and the outright deception
underlying the entire argument. That deception is the use of bogus science.
Cheers, Helke
|
