this is a GREAT question and answer piece about CODEX.
Please post this attachementon your websites and pass on to patients, family and friends. Thank you. Sherri Codex Questions© 1.) What's the difference between the EU Food Supplements Directive and Codex? EFSD is the regulatory body of the EU created to promulgate and enforce standards harmonious with CODEX ALIMENTARIUS since the EU was "harmonized" with CODEX in 2002 by an act of the European Parliament. The EFSD is not an organ of CODEX ALIMENTARIUS or directly related to it in any way. CODEX ALIMENTARIUS is a compendium of standards approved by the CODEX ALIMETNARIUS Commission, set up by the United Nations in the early 1960s to 1. Provide clean and abundant food for the world's population and 2. Remove international trade barriers to the movement of that food across national borders. EFSD can set rules and impose fines or other penalties in the EU (e.g., a 5000 Euro fine for any store that does not remove banned substances like those forbidden by that organization on August 1, 2005 [assuming the Alliance For Natural Health case does not go against it in June, 2005]). CODEX ALIMENTARIUS Committees, creates committees (of which there are 20), which propose standards for ratification by the CODEX ALIEMNTARIUS Commission. Those standards (like the Vitamin and Mineral Standards, up for ratification by the CODEX ALIMENTARIUS Commission at its meeting in Rome, July 4-9, 2005) if ratified, become the basis for international trade dispute resolution under the World Trade Organization (WTO) and are enforceable by trade sanctions in any sector(s) of the economy of the "non-harmonized" nation. Many people stop there in their analysis of the impact CODEX ALIMETNARIUS. CODEX ALIMENTARIUS is a set of standards supposedly only for international trade, not a law and not a treaty. However, once accepted, its standards can be enforced by the WTO, of which we are treaty members. We are bound by the standards and regulations of that organization under the WTO Treaty and by Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution which says that treaty law supersedes domestic law. The WTO has the power, which it has already used many times here in the US, to change domestic law (tax law, endangered species protection acts and food standards have all been changed by the US at the WTO behest). The changes have been in clear defiance of the will of the people as demonstrated through the laws of States and of the United States which have been changed based on compliance with WTO standards. Although it is neither a law nor a treaty the reality has already been demonstrated in the courts, in the regulatory agencies and in Congress that CODEX ALIMENTARIUS Commission and its Committees have begun a process which would expand their mandate to include making the standards of CODEX ALIMENTARIUS serve as the laws of each member country of the WTO. In fact, this expansion was objected to by the Regional Member of the CODEX ALIMENTARIUS Commission for North America, Dr. F. Ed. Scarboro. This expansion has been discussed openly since 1967 as a goal by the members of the CODEX ALIMENTARIUS Commission. 2.) Why should Americans be concerned about what's happening in Europe? There are two answers to that question depending upon the outcome of the Alliance for Natural Health legal case. If the Alliance for Natural Health binding judgment in June, 2005 upholds the recent opinion by the Advocate General of the Court, supplements will not disappear from shelves in the EU on August 1, 2005. Since the Advocate General's opinion states that he has no problem with the existence of the standards, there will be EFSD standards in effect in Europe. But under this scenario, the EFSD would go back to the drawing board and come up with new standards which it will again promulgate and enforce. But if the case goes against ANH, 75% of the supplements available in Europe will disappear on August 1, 2005. Either way, the rest of CODEX ALIMENTARIUS, (the irradiated foods, the contaminated animal sources, the GMOs, the deadly elevation in permissible pesticide and toxin standards, etc.) all of it, continues to roll toward implementation in Europe. By the way, the EFSD is even worse than CODEX: its restrictions are more damaging than CODEX itself yet it has been praised by the Chairman of the CODEX ALIMENTARIUS Commission, Dr. Rolf Grossklaus, as being the way CODEX should look in the future. Either way, events in the US will continue to roll forward as well since the European Court of Justice finding has no standing or official weight in the United States. The opinion in favor of the ANH position, however, while not binding, is a moral victory which should help us remember that the democratic process still protects us if we remember to use it properly. 3.) Will what's happening in Europe have any effect on Codex? Even under the best of circumstances, the EFSD WILL promulgate regulations impacting European supplement access and those standards will be harmonious with CODEX ALIMETNARIUS (whose Chairman said in 2002 "Nutrition has no place in medicine") so those standards will not be favorable to health freedom and nutritional supplements. But that is Europe's version of CODEX, not CODEX itself. It is hard to say exactly what the unofficial impact would be (if any) since the Chairman of the CODEX Commission is a European and openly defers to the opinion of the European Union representative to the CODEX ALIMENTARIUS Commission. However, officially, the effect of the ANH court decision will have no impact on CODEX ALIMENTARIUS. 4.) Was the ban on supplements in Australia that eliminated over 1600 products from store shelves part of Codex? We can only presume that the "CODEX mind" was at work in Australia but since Australia has not yet made its schedule for the implementation of CODEX ALIMENTARIUS public, no public act of "harmonization" has yet taken place. It is more likely that it was an action which was conceptually connected but technically unrelated. After all, if consumers get used to not having supplements available to them, they won't make too big a fuss when it becomes official. 5.) What is C-420 all about in Canada and are they fighting a different battle than we are here in the U.S.? Supposedly to "protect dietary supplements from CODEX", those supplements were removed from the category of foods (which is where DSHEA keeps them in the United States) and placed in the "Drug" category. When that was done, those concerned were informed that supplements would be placed in a new category created especially for them so that they would continue to be available. That new category was, however, lost in translation and they are now unavailable in Canada. C-420 is an attempt to return dietary supplements to the "food" category as in the US. They are unavailable in Canada now. However, passage of C-420 would make them vulnerable to CODEX in Canada so the situation is an even more difficult situation for advocates of Health Freedom in Canada. 6.) Critics of Codex believe that America is being set up for defeat because we only have 1 vote at Codex compared to all the votes of the EU and other restrictive countries. Should we be concerned that a small African country like Nigeria has the same voting power at Codex as the U.S.? Critics of CODEX should be concerned that CODEX is being rammed through an anti-democratic process by an unelected, profoundly industry-influenced set of delegates whose model of reality is shaped by Big Pharma, Big Chema and Big Agra, but not Big Picture. If our one delegate were a fearless advocate for our well-being, smaller countries like Ghana and Tanzania which understand the deaths CODEX will bring them, and the larger ones like India and South Africa who understand it, too, would rally around the US and protect our global well-being. As it is, the US delegate, on loan by the pharma-friendly FDA, is voting with the "Bigs". It is we, the "littles", who will pay the price, and a very high price, indeed: death and suffering from the ravages of under- nutrition and poisoned food for ourselves and our children and their children as well. We should be concerned with the agenda of CODEX ALIMETNARIUS itself, not just with its profoundly anti-democratic structure. When dissent erupts, Dr. Grossklaus, the Chairman, either declares the issue settled by "consensus" or puts the topic off for a year or into the jurisdiction of another body (as was illegally done with herbs). If the dissent continues, Dr. Grossklaus has been known to have the delegate objecting to not being called on (i.e., India) bodily removed by guards so he could then declare the matter "approved by consensus" while the US delegate, and the Canadian one as well, sat silent. Perhaps what we should be most deeply concerned about is that the US representative, a career employee of the notoriously industry- friendly FDA, is demonstrably NOT a friend of Health Freedom or of nutritional medicine, clean food, non-GMO crops or upper toxic residue limits consistent with health and longevity. 7.) What can be done to stop ratification of a very restrictive vitamin and mineral standard at the next Codex meeting in July? Unless the US chooses to protect its people rather than its industries, we will need a full-blown miracle to stop ratification of the Vitamin and Mineral Standard this July. Start praying. US law, however, still belongs to Americans. Canadian law still belongs to Canadians. Tell Congress and Parliament BY FAX what you want them to do and make them understand that lack of re-election will remove them from Congress/Parliament permanently if they restrict or limit our Health Freedoms. 8.) What steps can be taken to ensure that DSHEA will be protected and the FDA's hands will be tied from interfering in our industry in the future? In those faxes, make it clear that DSHEA is good for us and that we will support it as part of our legislative protection for Health Freedom. Restrict or limit Health Freedom, Mr./Ms Congressperson, and your days in Congress are done! The next election cycle is on its way. 9.) The supplement industry has been working on implementing Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) for many years and the FDA is very close to issuing final rules. Is there any relationship to Codex and GMP standards and if not, should we be concerned this is just another way for the FDA to make it very difficult for small companies to manufacture nutritional supplements? If they are truly GMPs, not rules to make it more difficult for small manufactures to remain in business, they they should be supported. Consider the supplement-hostile history of the FDA and their continuing assault on supplements (nearly free of dangerous side effects, inexpensive, highly effective for prevention, treatment and cure of chronic diseases) in the context of their protection of drugs (highly toxic chemicals, fabulously expensive, strikingly ineffective for the prevention, treatment and cure of chronic diseases) and I suggest you become worried, very worried! 10.) Which government agency would be responsible for adopting Codex guidelines? REL: CODEX guidelines can be adopted in two ways: a. REGULATION Regulatory agencies like the FDA, USDA, EPA, etc., can promulgate standards and regulations which are in harmony with CODEX standards and have already done so. b. LEGISLATION The U. S. Senate can pass legislation "harmonizing" the United States with CODEX ALIMENTARIUS. This would mean that all standards, even those yet to be promulgated, are accepted in full, in advance, by the United States. Whether this means that they would automatically become our domestic standards is the subject of a great deal of mis- (or dis-) information. And the answer is that it is not clear. They might. Remember, treaty law trumps domestic law and CODEX ALIMENTARIUS is extending its mandate to include forcing all WTO member nations to adopt CODEX domestically. The WTO has the power to make that happen according to the treaty we signed when it was created in 1995. Amendments and legislation to "harmonize" us with CODEX have been introduced and, until now, beaten back by vigorous public lobbying and letters in the past. Remember, once the US is harmonized, we cannot be "un-harmonized" as long was we are members of the WTO. According to the WTO treaty, we cannot leave the WTO by voting ourselves out until 2010, the year that CODEX ALIMENTARIUS will go into full global implementation. 11.) Is there anything that can be done to take authority away from the FDA so they can't by-pass DSHEA with Codex standards? Under current law, the FDA can promulgate standards for domestic use which are the same (or worse than) CODEX: right now there is no direct way to prevent them from doing that. Those standards can by- pass DSHEA. The FDA, however, is under the legislative oversight of Congress and the administrative oversight of the Health and Human Services Department (HHS) which is also subject to Congressional oversight. Congress is the key to CODEX prevention here in the US. FAX Congress and tell them to "Just Say NO! to CODEX and anything else that threatens our health freedom!" and to say it loud enough for the FDA, EPA, USDA and all the other `A's to hear. 12.) What is the best thing concerned citizens can do to protect our health freedoms? GET INVOLVED! a. Visit www.HealthFreedomUSA.org. Follow the instructions to send faxes to your Congressional Delegation and use the Sample Letters on that site or write your own. Be sure to include the information in the Sample Letters in your own, however. If you choose, you can cut and paste those Sample Letters into the form at http://capwiz.com/fconl/home/ and send faxes from your computer to your legislators and the President. b. Alert your friends and neighbors, patients and merchants to the problem and help them send faxes, too. c. Order bulk copies of Crusader's Special CODEX Interview Issue and distribute it widely. d. Write letters to the editor to your local and national papers and magazines. e. Organize showings of the Natural Solutions Documentary (premiere date: April 22, 2005) f. Send your contact information to the Natural Solutions Foundation at www.HealthFreedomUSA.org and don't forget to g. Volunteer your time to the Natural Solutions Foundation and h. Give generously on site or by mail to The Natural Solutions Foundation . 13.) What steps can health food stores take since it's obvious that the trade associations that are supposed to protect our supplement rights are misleading them? REL: Look at the Board members, organizational membership and donation histories of organizations like NNFA and CRN. If their Boards and members do not represent your interests, why would you expect their positions represent your interests? Carefully crafted and sophisticated disinformation strategies have lead to Press Releases and members' communiqués designed to lull you into a comfortable sleep while your industry is destroyed, leaving only the pharmaceutical industry-owned supplement manufactures (and people in search of health freedom) bereft of any products with which to protect ourselves. These organizations maintain that CODEX will be good for you and your business while the preamble to CODEX ALIMENTARIUS states that it is forbidden to use any nutritional substance to "prevent, treat or cure any disease or condition". You decide and take the appropriate steps to come out of CODEX COMA and stop CODEX from damaging all of us. Rima E. Laibow, MD Medical Director Natural Solutions Foundation www.HealthFreedomUSA.org [email protected] -- The Silver List is a moderated forum for discussing Colloidal Silver. Instructions for unsubscribing are posted at: http://silverlist.org To post, address your message to: [email protected] Silver List archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html Address Off-Topic messages to: [email protected] OT Archive: http://escribe.com/health/silverofftopiclist/index.html List maintainer: Mike Devour <[email protected]>
