Saturday, February 20, 2010

The Return of Codex Alimentarius?

When I became aware of the Codex Alimentarius concern, the biggest detail which made this seem a "conspiracy theory" to me was the very specific date of implementation offered by some of the loudest warning voices. Apparently on December 31, 2009 the full range of this global, UN-driven policy was supposed to come into effect, removing or almost totally restricting the ability for the general public to attain natural foods, dietary supplements (vitamins and minerals), and natural non-chemically derived medications. Then within the next year, and subsequent years, billions would die (I also find it hard to believe that these massive corporations would willingly and rapidly wipe out the vast majority of their customer base).

BUT, I have no difficulty at all in believing that these corporations would do whatever it takes to keep as many people as possible needing to buy their products. History has shown that morality rapidly disappears from societies of people beyond some general size in number. This doesn't mean that all individual members of the society see their morals vanish, but that of the society itself does seem to. This is especially the case in corporations, where the very basic purpose of the thing is to derive profit for the (and especially certain) members of the society.

So I went and tried to read Codex. I did read some of the documents and know that I should read more, but to focus on it too much would drive me mad. It is exceedingly long and detailed and indescribably boring. But some of it is pretty scary, such as the amount of attention paid to detailing what chemicals, toxins and otherwise, which were allowed in any specific product. Not getting rid of the toxins, but determining how much was considered safe to consume. And no discussion, that I saw, of the problems with overlapping various combinations of these "safe" amounts. From what I read, it did not seem so much a manual for wiping out huge swaths of humanity but for keeping them just going on in an increasingly toxic environment, internally and externally...and keeping them addicted to large-scale corporate goods.

It seemed to me that, as with all large scale control mechanisms, for one such as Codex Alimentarius to be implemented successfully it would mean doing so gradually, so as not to overly arouse the masses. One of the first specific concerns about Codex was the push for Bovine Growth Hormone to be used in ALL cows, thereby being introduced to all Beef and bovine dairy products. This has been, at least temporarily, avoided in most of the world.
Canada also has a bill in Parliament now, I cannot remember its "name", which speaks to this issue...apparently on the side of Codex. C-somethingorother has been talked about for a few years now. Personally, I thought it had disappeared as well. Silly human, losing focus...

But then, a week or so ago I heard about a National Post article which was supposedly about Canada banning the sale of all natural dietary and health products. I figured that I should have a look for this article, but kept getting distracted (very sore neck, Olympics, etc). Well today I found it and it looks like another quiet step towards restricting natural products.

The article is here (at least as this is being written).

What it actually says, and I find problems with both sides fo the debate, is that Canadian Pharmacy regulators are asking that Canadian Pharmacies do not sell natural remedies which have not been licensed by the Canadian government. I'm not sure exactly to what extent this Vitamin C a natural health remedy? Can I not buy echinacea at Save-On anymore because it contains a pharmacy?

In some ways, I can see why such products might need to be regulated to a certain extent. It would be pretty easy to label any garbage as some kind of natural remedy or product without SOME regulation, especially as things are now when there is just no way one individual can properly investigate the origins of everything they consume. But at the same time, Big Pharma and other global corporations like to keep us needing more and more of their crap and to see their crap regulated less and less. I can't speak for everyone but I know on which side I stand. We don't get to demand to be taken care of, we have to take responsibility for ourselves or we lose our right to be....simple as that.

Anyway, I don't really have the time to go off onto a rant here, although it is tempting! I just wanted to point out that winning one battle doesn't mean we can let down our guard. Those who want control will always keep prodding to see what control can be taken. As much as I wish it were not so, some of us have to stand ready to oppose that control...and to be wary of becoming it ourselves.

Peace and comfort, brothers and sisters.


linda said...

What brought the Codex home for me was kim chi believe it or not. The Japanese started to market a product that was similar but not the same as Korean kim chi. Korea took it to the codex (who ever is governing it, not sure off hand) and got kim chi placed on the list which protects it as a Korean and not Japanese product. Japan in turn had to call their product something else. Seems silly but it does indicate something about possible propriety goals of the Codex in my opinion. LIke yourself, I have tried to read it but it takes dedication that I don't have right now.

Jerry said...

Interesting. I hadn't come across any information that suggested Codex would be handling genetic definitions but I guess it makes sense that the UN wants one of their arms in charge of it. Considering the level of corporate involvement (ie. Monsanto, etc.) its no big surprise that they'd find a proprietary angle.