I have an analysis of fluoride but it was done in 2000 and I would be most interested if any changes have been made to it since. Perhaps it would be interesting to see if those MP's who wish to have fluoride in their drinking water know exactly what the 'ingredients' are that make up fluoride? Anne
Commission fails in third attempt to lift Austrian GMO ban
02.03.2009 @ 17:23 CET
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - European environment ministers on Wednesday (2 March) once again rejected the European Commission's efforts to have national bans on the cultivation of genetically modified corn in Austria and Hungary lifted.
It is the third time the commission has attempted to get ministers to tell Vienna to lift its ban on the growing of ‘MON 810' maize - produced by US-based Monsanto, and ‘T25' maize - produced by Germany's Bayer, and the second time the EU executive has tried to get Budapest's ban on the growing of the Monsanto corn lifted.
The commission failed to get GMO corn bans in Hungary and Austria lifted (Photo: European Commission)
The EU executive tried to lift Austria's ban on the two crops in June 2005 and December 2006. Hungary's ban was also unsuccessfully targeted in February 2007.
MON 810 is the only GMO crop allowed to be grown in the EU, but according to the bloc's GMO laws, countries can ban individual GM crops for environmental and health reasons. Cultivation of T25 however is not permitted.
Ministers from 22 member states rejected efforts regarding both T25 and MON810, a vote jubilantly described by France's ecology minister, Jean-Louis Borloo, as: "a wide qualified majority - without precedent for this subject."
"The Council confirms today, with an even stronger majority the votes it took in 2005, 2006 and 2007 on the same safeguard clauses, based on the same arguments," he said.
"[Environment ministers] considered national safeguard clauses to be based on a more rigorous evaluation than that which had led to the authorisation of GMOs at the European Union level on the basis of earlier legislation," he added.
Mr Borloo also said that the ministers reaffirmed their desire to see a beefed up evaluation of GMOs, taking into account territorial particularities and the crops' potential medium-to-long-term impacts.
Europa Bio, representing Europe's biotech industry "expressed its profound disappointment" at the decision, saying the move flies in the face of science.
"It is incomprehensible that some member states choose to ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence as to the safety of these GM products and the commercial reality of their safe growth and consumption for more than a decade around the world," said says Nathalie Moll, a director with the group.
GMO opponents also claim to have the forces of science behind them, with Friends of the Earth, saying that peer-reviewed research has demonstrated negative effects on organisms that were never supposed to be targeted by the crops, on soil and on river ecosystems.
Helen Holder, European GMO campaign coordinator at Friends of the Earth Europe said:
"Today's vote is a clear message that European countries will not be bullied into taking unsound decisions regarding their environment, their farming and their citizens' health," said Helen Holder, a GMO campaigner with the NGO.
"The commission must now abandon its unpopular proposals once and for all and get down to the real work of improving GMO risk assessments in the EU, as ministers have requested," she added.
Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000168 EndHTML:0000016286 StartFragment:0000000828 EndFragment:0000016269
Have you heard of Codex Alimentarius? 21st Feb 2009.
Before I had a computer I used to go almost every day to the top floor of my local University where the European Union’s Documentation Centre was, to delve among the bound Books that held EU Directives and debates from the European Parliament. It was during that time that I first came across “Novel Foods”. Something new and unexpected, for I certainly had never heard of it before, and ‘flipping’ through the pages I saw the paragraph in the Official Journal of the EC (16.9.97 L 253/13) beneath the heading, “The Ability of the GMM to survive in and colonise the human gut” with the passage underneath “The genetic modification might facilitate survival during passage through the intestines and colonization of the human gut. Antagonistic and synergistic effects on the composition of the intestinal flora may occur and have an influence on human health. Therefore experimental data are required on the respective properties of the GMO”. I was hooked. And that was my introduction to Genetic Modification and to eventually going round talking to the ladies at local Women Institutes and from what I had read at that time (1997) to get them as involved as I was in writing letters about the forth coming GMO’s in food.
What made me so angry at that time was when I read (28.4.97 C 132/30) that a GM maize had been passed in the EU Parliament, even though 13 out of 15 opposed the placing on the market of a maize, which read, “whereas large scale use of the Bt (Bacillus Thuringiensis) toxin raises environmental concerns”. And also, “and the conclusions of the Scientific Committee for Food on the risks of transmission to man of a tracer gene resistant to antibiotics.” I understand there are still concerns even now. Perhaps it may bring an understanding to you, why, not only do I not trust anything that contains GMO’s in food now, I most certainly do not trust the people that place these goods on the market for innocent children to eat or drink. No, I will never forgive them for what they are doing.
I had to find out more. What else were we not being told? What is in the ordinary glass of milk we give our children? Is it from cows that have been injected with rBGH? I was learning fast. Animals treated with the hormone are allegedly subjected to stress. For about 12 weeks after calving, a cow produces milk. During this process, the cow loses weight, is infertile and is more susceptible to diseases. As the milk output diminishes, the cow's body begins to recover. By injecting a cow with rBGH, (To the best of my knowledge, not here in the UK.) a farmer extends this milching period by eight to 12 weeks. Even as these hormone injections substantially increase the cow's milk output, they also make her more susceptible to disease. The cows can suffer from mastitis. But hey, they are only cows.
I read in the Daily Mail, written by Sean Poulter 3.7.2006, Front Page headlines “Alarm over Beef imports” and headed on page 6 “Cancer fears over super-sized beef cattle.” “Fears about eating beef from cattle pumped up with growth hormones”. Sean Poulter wrote that, John Verrall, a member of a government advisory committee, said there is alarming evidence it can trigger breast and other cancers. Mr Verrill was concerned that he defied an official attempt to gag him. (Good for him). The EU currently bans the use of Growth hormones that was in 2006, so what is it NOW?
The US cattle industry started using hormones to enhance beef production in 1956 but it was in the 1970s US food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved six hormone growth promotants (HGPs). These included three naturally occurring hormones and three synthetically prepared hormones. So far, as I understand it, none of these are allowed in the UK or EU. The question I would ask, does cooking kill off the hormones? Does eating “RARE” steak kill off the hormone? Do you eat beef or veal when on holiday there? The Americans certainly like and enjoy their meat. Wow! Do they? Have you seen the portions they have in restaurants? Is imported meat tested for hormones from across the duck pond from South of the American border?
I now come to something that frightens the life out of me, “Codex Alimentarius” which literary translated from Latin means, “Food Code. Sometimes just simply, “Codex” is used but that is the only thing that is “simple”. This time we are looking at a kind of ‘World Government’ because we are looking at the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations (UN) and the World Health Organisation (WHO) for they created Codex Alimentarius in 1963. There are about 168 member Countries representing 97 percent of the world. “He who controls the food supply and what we eat, rules the world yes?” The WTO has allegedly mechanisms in place to override any national law that interferes, but we already knew that because we do not control our food now, do we? We passed that responsibility on to the EU and they in turn come under the WTO. And yes GMO’s play a very important part in it. Ah yes, and food irradiation, even organic food to be irradiated. The regulations allow any food to be irradiated at any dose, without regard to health implications. (Grow your own and start now)
Certain beneficial nutrients will be allowed on a positive list such as the delicious, delectable Fluoride, and how I wish all of you would ask for an analysis of the make up of fluoride. You really should know-for is it coming to YOU any time soon if it isn’t with you already.
These organisations are in control of everything we eat and drink, and I believe the aim is all food must be GMO eventually. Is all this permanent? The Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) reach their final approval (after an eight-step process) they then become binding on all GATT-signatories. (The end of 2009 seems to be ‘significant’). Thereafter no Gatt Signatory Country may use as a trade barrier any standard or guideline that disagrees with a Codex guideline or standard. And you thought we had joined a Common Market for trade? Did our Government ask us if WE wanted the EU to pass on the responsibility of our food on to the WTO/UN/FAO? If so, WHEN?
While much concern for a great many people comes from additives, supplements, vitamins etc, ‘it’ not only ignores the people for it certainly does not rely on “Community involvement” for its decisions are made by governmental appointees and you will not be surprised by this, “behind closed doors”. In the early 1990s, Codex began to look at harmonising standards for food supplements. Remember 2002 and the proposed re-classifying of pharmaceutical drugs? The hand wringing worrying times for the Heath Food shops?
How could we not have heard more about “Codex Alimentarius” before now? It has been mentioned in our Parliament for The European Scrutiny Ninth Report looked at COM (01) 287 and although found ‘politically important’ was ‘cleared’ with the Conclusion, “Although the Government’s original Explanatory Memorandum of 5th July 2001 implied that the concerns over influence related to consumers generally rather than simply to those in the UK, we have noted the views expressed in the consultation exercise. We have also noted the present position on subsidiarity, and, as a result, we are now clearing the document.” Well that’s all right then isn’t it? What a farce! It would not have mattered one jot how many people objected, it was a done deal already and our own Parliament and Government is powerless to do anything about it. (Still sovereign are they? Ha, Bosh!).
On Farming Today (19.2.2009) it was said that farmers are finding it difficult to buy non-GM feed for poultry and cattle, plus it is a little dearer too, so they might have to decide to buy GM feed. My response to that was, “There are many people like me that go out of their way to go to shops or outlets that only sell British Meat and poultry, because we believe it to be the best, the freshest and to support our own farmers. If those British farmers are going to use GM feed there is no point in any of us insisting on buying BRITISH any more. Didn't that "Charles” in the interview understand that? We might just as well go for the cheapest whereever it comes from. It will be the PRODUCERS of GM feed that will have won and make all the profit, and when there is no GM FREE FEED left because farmers are not buying it any more, the cost of GM feed can go as high as the producers of GM feed decide and want. The farmers and people will then have to pay the piper exactly what they decide to charge for it is the producers that are playing the tune and will be for ever more”.
Not that I want to put you off writing but when the dietary supplements went through the EU Parliament more than 550 million e-mails flooded in to the EU Parliament, it still went through. That sure is some democracy eh?
Sick of writing letters to MP’s? One quote I (almost) came across, “Remember, politicians do not always at first ‘see the light’, but by Hell, you can make ‘em feel the heat, and the tragic loneliness of being out of a job”. Make it happen. I write this now because in one paper I looked at it said, “All advice on nutrition (Including written on line or journal articles or oral advice to a friend, family member or anyone) will be illegal. This includes naturalnews.com reports on vitamins and minerals and all nutritionist’s consultations.” What a load of rubbish! Who would believe THAT? But then, sadly, I remember and I look at what is happening in our Britain of “today”. Anne Palmer
COM (2001)287 final.
Hansard Monday 4th December 2000 Canberra, Australia.
Accession of the European Community to the Codex Alimentaurius Commission COM (01) 287. Legal base 37,95,133, and 152 (4) in conjunction with Art 300 (3) EC. Co-decision and consultation,: qualified Majority Voting. Really scraping around.
Codex Alimentarius Commission Report of the 26th session of the FAO/WHO Coorrdinating Committee for Europe Warsaw, Poland 7-10 October 2008.
Summary Record of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health Brussels 12the Feb 2008.
Various entries and questions held in our Parliament from 1999 –2008
Codex Overview hhtp://www.thenhf.com/codex_overview.htm
Natural Products Association Issue Centre-Codex Alimentarius.
Seven Trent Water =Fluoridation
Accession of the European Community to the Codex Alimentarius Commission.
Codex Alimentaruis and the international Politics of Food Irridation
Current EU Legislation hinders biodynamic agriculture and food production
Part of the Speech by Petr Gandalovič in the Agriculture Committee of the European Parliament.
Codex Alimetarius http://www.bio.org/foodag/background/codex.asp
Codex Alimentarius-An emerging Threat. http://www.vitalitymagazine.com/node/310
National Health Federation. http://www.thenhf.com/codex/codex_handout.pdf
Growth Hormones in food: who benefits? Abhijit Banerjee Aug 02 2008
Posts 10. Damascus Codex Alimentarius Dec 5th 2008 http://www.islamonline.net/disussione/message.jspa?messageID=167334#167334
Pick your subject http://www.islamonline.net/discussione/profile.jspa?userID=577611
BT Toxins in Genetically Modified Crops: Regulation by Deceit by Prof Joe Cummins.
Daily Mail 3rd July 2006.
http://www.fluoridefreewater.ie/pressreleases/PressRelease0900.htm
http://homepage.eircom.net/~fluoridefree/campaign_update/default.htm
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption
Posts
