Britannia Radio

As Genetically Modified Organisms in food is in the news once again,

I am sending an article I sent round early 2009, with more points added to it,

-yes it is long- including access to debates in UK Parliament 2011.

Monsanto is still the major firm involved.

I fight this because I want to protect my Grandchildren for I see nothing wrong with our food at present.

Will it be labelled?

Can you avoid GMO's if you want to?

Other EU Countries are saying "NO",

it looks as if this Government will accept unless people make a stand.

Will planting Fields of GMO produce contaminate the rest.

Try google for that and other problems that seem to or may arise.

It is all just about money and profit and to Hell with the health of the people?

Make up you own mind. It is after all just one more fight isn't it?

A

Have you heard of Codex Alimentarius? 21^st Feb 2009. Updated 20.5.2011.

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 5^th 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 4^th 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 26^th 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 5^th 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 3^rd 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

http://www.trufax.org/catalog/fluoridechrono.html

Updated 2.5.2011. Accession of the European Community to the Codex Alimentarius Commission

The primary mission of the Codex Alimentarius Commission is to protect the health of consumers and to ensure fair practices in international food trade, in particular by laying down standards, set out in the Codex Alimentarius. The accession of the European Community should help strengthen consistency between the standards, guidelines and recommendations adopted under the Codex and the other relevant international obligations binding on the European Community and its Member States in the area of food standards.

Search this

http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/food_safety/international_dimension_enlargement/f84006_en.htm

Friday May 2011

The Codex Alimentarius is a series of food standards and related texts that aim to provide a high level of consumer protection and fair practice in the international trade of food and agricultural products.

The organisation charged with the development of the Codex standards and related texts is the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC), which is an intergovernmental body jointly sponsored by the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and the World Health Organisation (WHO). Membership is open to all Member Nations and Associate Members of FAO/WHO, and currently comprises of over 160 countries. International non-governmental organisations, such as consumer, academic or industry bodies, may attend Codex meetings as observers.

The Food Standards Agency represents the UK at Codex. To contact us on Codex issues email:codex_fsa@foodstandards.gsi.gov.uk Or at the Codex enquiry point Tel: 020 7276 8664.

Further information on Codex can be obtained from the Codex website attached below. This website includes background information, past reports, agendas, papers and dates of future meetings.

How does it work?

• The detailed work of Codex Alimentarius Commission on drafting standards, codes of practice and other guidance is handled by about thirty Committees which fall into three general categories: commodity committees (covering a particular commodity; e.g. Milk and Milk Products); horizontal committees (dealing with issues applicable across a range of commodities e.g. labelling, food additives and contaminants); and regional committees (one for each of the seven Codex regions e.g. Europe).
• Codex standards are developed through a formal procedure, consisting of eight stages or "steps" which rely on consensus for their agreement. If consensus cannot be achieved, then it is possible for a vote to be called, but this is avoided if possible (Member countries can vote; observer organisations have no vote). Agreed standards are voluntary, implementation by member countries is not necessarily automatic.

Why is Codex important?

• Food standards are becoming more important as international trade in food opens up and consumers are more concerned about safety and quality. Standards must provide a high level of consumer protection and not unnecessarily restrict trade. Codex is recognised in the relevant World Trade Organisation (WTO) agreements as the international body able to provide these guarantees. In the event of a trade dispute Codex standards would become accepted reference documents for its settlement. This underlines the increasing importance of Codex in international law.

Can I influence Codex?

• The UK adopted a consultation structure for Codex in 1992 when the National Codex Consultative Committee (NCCC) was formed. This committee is representative of consumer, enforcement, and industry bodies, but is open to all stakeholders. The NCCC is invited to consider issues and papers that are to be placed before the Codex Alimentarius Commission and its subordinate committees and to become involved in the standard setting process via the UK government.

The Food Standards Agency runs the NCCC. Members of the NCCC and relevant interested parties are invited by the FSA Codex Contact Point (see list below) for the particular Codex Committee to meet prior meetings of the CAC and its sub-committees, to discuss the Codex papers that have been circulated. Written comments are also invited. This ensures that the views of all interest groups are taken into account when preparing the UK line on Codex matter. It is not possible to programme these meetings too far in advance, as meeting dates can change and the EU programme is not known more than six months in advance.

Do Consumers have a voice?

• Consumers are stakeholders and members of the NCCC. The UK experience of overall consultation in this way has been very positive. But it is also clear that stakeholders are unequal in knowledge and resources and consumers are most disadvantaged in access to resources. This means it is often difficult to obtain a consumer viewpoint on issues. Limited resources mean consumer groups are often unable to give Codex papers as high a priority as they would wish due to concerns for more immediate UK or EU matters. Their participation in the consultation process is limited further because Codex documents are of a very technical and complex nature and are difficult for the non-expert to comprehend.
• The FSA has taken a number of steps to improve consumer access to Codex. An additional resource to consumers was created when the FSA established a Codex Consumer Group (CCG). This group is made up of the major consumer groups with expertise in Codex. It is charged with reviewing the Codex work programme to prioritise and identify issues of greatest concern to consumers. The FSA has then provided the means for an independent expert analysis of these issues for consumers and an in-depth consultation to ensure a clear consumer voice in the UK Government's dealing with Codex. The UK continues to press Codex for improvements to encourage increased input from Consumer Organisations across the work of Codex Alimentarius.

European Union Membership of Codex

• The European Commission has been negotiating community membership of Codex for some years, and this has now been achieved. The basis in Community law was established and the necessary rule changes in Codex have been made. The Commission wrote to the Director-General of the UN/FAO in November 2003 to formally complete the accession process. This means that the European Commission has relinquished its observer status in Codex and now represents all EU countries on matters of EU competence.

At meetings of the CAC and its subsidiary committees this will mean that

• The Commission will speak and vote in Codex on behalf of the Community on all issues of exclusive Community competence.
• The Commission will also speak and vote on behalf of the Community on all issues of mixed competence where the preponderance of the competence lays with the Community. The UK and other EU Member States are still able to contribute to the debate in Codex matters of Community and mixed competence to support and develop the Community line.
• The UK and other EU Member States would also be able to speak and vote on issues within areas of exclusive Member State competence.
• The UK and other EU Member States would be able to speak and vote on issues of mixed competence when the preponderance of the competence lies with the Member States.

Codex contact points in the FSA

• The Food Standards Agency acts as the national contact point for the UK in Codex. Much of the work of Codex is specialised and is therefore delegated to members of staff in FSA with the appropriate expertise. These internal Codex Committee Contact points take responsibility for specific Codex Committees and:
• Distribute all Codex papers relating to their committee/s to NCCC members, interested parties etc.
• Organise consultation on these issues to feed into the UK position on Codex.
• Respond to Codex on standards and other texts in the step procedure
• Represent the UK at the Codex Committee meeting
• Acting as the secretariat for the Codex Committees which the UK hosts - Codex Committee on Fats and Oils and Codex Committee on Sugars
  
  
  http://www.food.gov.uk/foodindustry/regulation/Codexbranch/

Food: Codex Alimentarius 22 July 2010 : Column WA229

Question

Asked by Baroness Byford

To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their stance on the work of the Codex Alimentarius. [HL1171]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe): The Government is a member of Codex Alimentarius, which seeks to strengthen food safety systems around the world. The United Kingdom continues to work with other countries through Codex Alimentarius to develop risk-based international food standards that are underpinned by the best available evidence.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/100722w0001.htm

Codex Alimentarius 9 May 2008 : Column 1256W

Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what status the Codex Alimentarius has in the regulatory regime for medicines; and what assessment the Government have made of the effects of full introduction of the Codex on the regulation of natural, herbal and homeopathic medicines. [203513]

Dawn Primarolo: The Codex Alimentarius Commission was created in 1963 by the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and the World Health Organisation (WHO) to develop food standards, guidelines and related texts such as codes of practice under the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme. The Codex Alimentarius standards are used as a reference point for consumers, food producers and processors, national food control agencies and the international food trade.

The Codex Alimentarius is not part of the regulatory framework for medicinal products and has not therefore been taken into consideration when regulating natural, herbal and homeopathic medicinal products. However, certain excipients in medicines, such as colourings, are covered by food standards which are taken into account by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency before allowing their use in medicinal products in the United Kingdom.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm080509/text/80509w0015.htm

EC Accession to Codex Alimentarious

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P5-TA-2001-0673+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN

UK Parliament 14^th June 2011

Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con): Despite that, some member states have sought freedom, within an EU science-based system, to decide whether GMOs should be cultivated on their territory, leading the Commission to bring forward these three documents. The most important one is COM(10) 375, which would provide for a greater measure of national discretion in the cultivation of GMOs. In particular, the Commission notes that although member states might wish to impose a ban for non-scientific reasons—such as land use, political or economic considerations including consumer preference, and national policies on biodiversity—the current EU legislation does not provide them with the necessary freedom.

The Commission has therefore proposed that the legislation provide an explicit legal base, authorising member states to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of authorised GMOs in their territory. However, it stresses that the conditions that protect human and animal health and the environment are based on the assessment made by the EU as part of its authorisation and cannot be amended. Consequently, any discretion would have to rest on other grounds and to conform with both the provisions in the treaties and the EU’s international obligations.’’’’’’

GMOs are an issue of great political controversy. We have all read in newspapers about Frankenstein foods and other such stories, and the general public’s concern about where the food they are going to eat comes from. The European Union’s approach seems rather cowardly. It is saying, “As far as we can tell, the scientific evidence on the safety of GMOs is clear; therefore, we want to approve them. However, we recognise that there are political problems and we are therefore going to allow countries to bring in bans that are not allowed under international law.” Inevitably, these bans will be overturned by the courts—either by the panel of the World Trade Organisation or, conceivably, by the European Court of Justice itself.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmgeneral/euro/110614/110614s01.htm

The 6th July 2011

The European Parliament yesterday (5 July) backed plans to let member states choose whether to ban the cultivation of genetically-modified (GM) crops on their territory, giving a detailed list of grounds on which such bans could be imposed.

The House voted on Tuesday (5 July) to amend European Commission proposals for an EU regulation that would allow member states to restrict or ban the cultivation on their territory of GM crops, which have been given safety approval at EU level. All on

http://www.euractiv.com/cap/parliament-paves-way-gmo-crop-bans-news-506277

In other words, and perhaps because this is so controversial, Nation States can decide for themselves whether they want GM foods forever.

Industry federations and trade unions

• EuropaBio: Comments on the European Parliament’s debate on the proposal to “nationalise” cultivation of GM crops (5 July 2011)

NGOs and Think-Tanks

• Friends of the Earth Europe: European Parliament votes on climate and GMOs (5 July 2011)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gt2yoohfMw&feature=related

Looking behind the US spin:

WTO ruling does not prevent countries from restricting or

banning GMOs

http://www.foei.org/en/media/archive/2006/WTO_briefing.pdf

GM Time =line watch-take your time to look at this-it gives you an update on matters. http://www.genewatch.org/sub-568798

http://wakeup-world.com/2012/05/18/gmo-alert-startling-new-research/