Health Tyranny: Codex Alimentarius, part 1

Excerpt from Codex Alimentarius -- The End of Health Freedom

Brandon Turbeville -- Activist Post

Contrary to popular belief Codex Alimentarius is neither a law nor a policy.  It is in fact a functioning body, a Commission, created by the Food and Agricultural Organization and the World Health Organization under the direction of the United Nations. The confusion in this regard is largely due to statements made by many critics referring to the “implementation” of Codex Alimentarius as if it were legislation waiting to come into effect. A more accurate phrase would be the “implementation of Codex Alimentarius guidelines,” as it would more adequately describe the situation.

Codex is merely another tool in the chest of an elite group of individuals whose goal is to wield complete control over the world. Power over the food supply is essential in order to achieve this. As will be discussed later, Codex Alimentarius will be “implemented” whenever guidelines are established and national governments begin to arrange their domestic laws in accordance with the standards set by the organization.

The existence of Codex Alimentarius as a policy-making body has roots going back over a hundred years. The name itself, Codex Alimentarius, is Latin for “food code”[1]  and directly descended from the Codex Alimentarius Austriacus, a set of standards and descriptions of a variety of foods in the Austria-Hungarian Empire between 1897 and 1911.[2] This set of standards was the brainchild of both the food industry and academia and was used by the courts in order to determine food identity in a legal fashion.

Even as far back as 1897, nations were being pushed toward harmonization of national laws into an international set of standards that would reduce the “barriers to trade” created by differences in national laws.[3] As the Codex Alimentarius Austriacus gained steam in its localized area, the idea of having a single set of standards for all of Europe began to pick up steam as well. From 1954-1958, Austria successfully pursued the creation of the Codex Alimentarius Europaeus (the European Codex Alimentarius). Almost immediately the UN directed FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization) sprang into action when the FAO Regional Conference for Europe expressed the desire for a global international set of standards for food. The FAO Regional Conference then sent a proposal up the chain of command to the FAO itself with the suggestion to create a joint FAO/WHO programme dealing with food standards.

The very next year, the Codex Alimentarius Europeaus adopted a resolution that its work on food standards be taken over by the FAO. In 1961, it was decided by the WHO, Codex Alimentarius Europaeus, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and the FAO Conference to create an international food standards programme known as the Codex Alimentarius.[4]  In 1963, as a result of the resolutions passed by these organizations two years earlier, Codex Alimentarius was officially created.[5]

Although created under the auspices of the FAO and the WHO, there is some controversy regarding individuals who may or may not have participated in the establishment of Codex. Many anti-Codex organizations have asserted that Nazi war criminals, Fritz Ter Meer[6] and Hermann Schmitz[7] in particular, were principal architects of the organization. Because many of these claims are made with only indirect evidence, or no evidence at all, one might be tempted to disregard them at first glance. However, as the allegations gain more and more adherents, Codex has attempted to refute them. In its Frequently Asked Questions section, Codex answers the question, “Is it true that Codex was created by a former war criminal to control the world food supply?”[8]  It then goes on to answer the charges by stating:

No. It is a false claim. You just need to type the words "Codex Alimentarius" in any search engine and you will find lots of these rumors about Codex. Usually the people spreading them will give no proof but will ask you to send donations or to sign petitions against Codex. 

Truthful information about Codex is found on the Internet - there is nothing to hide from our side - we are a public institution working in public for the public - we are happy if people want to know more about our work and ask questions. There is an official Codex Contact Point in each member country who will be pleased to answer your questions on Codex.[9]

But, as one can see from the statement above, Codex’s response does very little to answer this question beyond simply disagreeing with it. While it is true that many individuals who make this claim provide little evidence for it, the presentation of the information does not necessarily negate its truthfulness. In fact, Codex offers its own website as a source for accurate information about the organization; yet, beyond the FAQ section, there is nothing to be found that is relevant to the “war criminal” allegations. Furthermore, the codexalimentarius.net website is virtually indecipherable, almost to the point of being completely useless. In the end, this response raises more questions than it answers. This is because Codex, if it wanted, could put these rumors to rest by simply posting a list of the individuals and organizations that funded or played an integral role in its creation. However, it does nothing of the sort. Beyond mentioning the FAO and the WHO, we are completely unaware of who or how many other individuals and organizations participated in the creation of Codex Alimentarius.

The “war criminal” claims center around the chemical conglomerate known as I.G. Farben. I.G. Farben was made up of several German chemical firms including, BASF, Bayer, Hoechst and AGFA,[10] that merged together. It was essentially the manufacturing wing of the Third Reich and was the engine behind the Nazi war machine. The company provided the vast majority of explosives and synthetic gasoline used for the military conquest and murder of millions. It also manufactured the now infamous Zyklon-B gas used in the gas chambers.  Not only that, but it was influential in the conducting of experiments on concentration camp victims. Indeed, camp victims were often purchased outright at the behest of the company for the express purposes of testing by several different branches of the company, particularly Bayer and Hoechst.

Without I.G. Farben, the German wars simply could not have been sustained. During the Nuremberg war trials, the tribunal convicted 24 board members and executives of the company and dissolved it into several different daughter companies. Namely, BASF, Hoechst (later to be known as Aventis), and Bayer. By 1951, virtually all 24 of these executives were released, including Fritz Ter Meer and Hermann Schmitz. Ter Meer had been a member of the I.G. Farben executive committee from 1926-1945 and also a member of the working committee and the technical committee as well as a director of the infamous Section II. He was also the ambassador to Italy given full power by the Reich Minister for armaments and war production and was the industrialist most responsible for Auschwitz. Schmitz was also a member of the I.G. Farben executive committee from 1926-1935, and was chairman of the board and “head of finances” from 1935-1945. He was also head of military economics and a member of the Nazi party. Both men were found guilty by the Nuremberg war tribunal in 1948, yet Schmitz was released in 1950 and Ter Meer in 1952.[11]

After all this, Schmitz was appointed board member of the German bank of Berlin West in 1952 and in 1956, the honorary chairman of the board of Rheinish steel plants. Ter Meer, however, was even more successful. Upon his release, he was appointed board member of Bayer in 1955 and, in 1956 was appointed chairman. In the years following, he would take on many additional roles such as chairman of the board of Theodore Goldschmidt AG, deputy chairman of the board of Commerzbank and Bank-Association AG, as well as a board member of the Waggonfabrik Uerdingen, Duesseldorger Waggonfabrik AG, the bank association of West Germany, and United Industrial Enterprises AG.[12] These are documented connections for both of these men. Indeed, Ter Meer’s’ connections to the pharmaceutical firm Bayer earned him a foundation named in his honor, the Fritz Ter-Meer Foundation.[13] Through all of this however, this writer could not confirm that either Ter Meer or Schmitz had direct connections to the creation of Codex Alimentarius.

However, Codex does nothing to dispel the allegations besides simply disagreeing with them and the connections are not at all implausible. Codex is very secretive about its beginnings, as evidenced on its website where it only states that it was created at the behest of the FAO and the WHO. It is highly unlikely that such an organization would be created without the assistance, input, and even funding of privately owned international corporations. Thanks to both the anti-Codex community and Codex Alimentarius itself, there is no evidence (again at least to this author) that documents which individuals or corporations were involved in its establishment. However, there are other ties that lend more credence to the belief that war criminals played a role in the creation of Codex.

[1]  Tips, Scott C. “Codex Alimentarius: Global Food Imperialism.” FHR. 2007. P. ii.

[2]  “Opening Statement by Dr. B.P. Dutia Assistant Director-General Economic and Social Policy Department, FAO to the Nineteenth Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission.” Food and Agricultural Organization. July 1, 1991.  http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/005/t0490e/T0490E04.htm

See also,

Taylor, Paul Anthony. “Codex Guidelines for Vitamins and Minerals – Optional or Mandatory?” Dr.Rath Health Foundation. http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/features/codex_wto.html

[3]  “Codex Alimentarius: how it all began.” Food and Agricultural Organization.  http://www.fao.org/docrep/v7700t/v7700t09.htm   Accessed April 23, 2010.

[4]  “Understanding the Codex Alimentarius.” World Health Organization. Food and Agricultural Organization. 2006. P. 7 http://www.scribd.com/doc/25710873/WHO-Understanding-the-Codex-Alimentarius   Accessed April 23, 2010.

[5]  Tips, Scott C. “Codex Alimentarius: Global Food Imperialism.” FHR. 2007. P.ii

[6]  “The History of the ‘Business With Disease.’” Dr. Rath Health Foundation. http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/PHARMACEUTICAL_BUSINESS/history_of_the_pharmaceutical_industry.htm Accessed April 26 <http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/PHARMACEUTICAL_BUSINESS/history_of_the_pharmaceutical_industry.htm%20Accessed%20April%2026> , 2010.

[7]  Minton, Barbara. “Codex Threatens Health of Billions.” Naturalnews. July 30, 2009. http://www.naturalnews.com/026731_CODEX_food_health.html

[8]  “FAQs – Rumours” CodexAlimentarius.net  http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/faq_rum.jsp#R1  Accessed April 26, 2010.

[9]  Ibid.

[10]  Behreandt, Dennis. “The crimes of I.G. Farben: during WWII, I.G. Farben, a synthetic-fuels manufacturer for the German war machine, was a major supporter of the Nazi regime and a willing co-conspirator in the Holocaust.” The New American. November 27, 2006. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JZS/is_24_22/ai_n24996865/  Accessed April 26, 2010.

See also,

“The Documentation About ‘Codex Alimentarius.’” Dr. Rath Health Foundation. http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/PHARMACEUTICAL_BUSINESS/health_movement_against_codex/health_movement24.htm  Accessed April 26, 2010.

[11]  “The History of the ‘Business With Disease.’” Dr. Rath Health Foundation. http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/PHARMACEUTICAL_BUSINESS/history_of_the_pharmaceutical_industry.htm Accessed April 26 <http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/PHARMACEUTICAL_BUSINESS/history_of_the_pharmaceutical_industry.htm%20Accessed%20April%2026> , 2010.

[12]  Ibid.

[13]  Weimbs Lab: Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology University of California, Santa Barbra. http://www.lifesci.ucsb.edu/mcdb/labs/weimbs/people/weimbs/index.html   Accessed April 27, 2010. Dr. Thomas Weimbs received a scholarship from the Fritz ter Meer Foundation in 1988.

Phone Co.s Screwing the US with $320 Billion Broadband Rip-Off

Americans are stuck with an inferior and overpriced communications system, compared with the rest of the world, and we're being ripped off in the process.
By David Rosen and Bruce Kushnick, AlterNet
Posted on October 7, 2010

Since 1991, the telecom companies have pocketed an estimated $320 billion --- that's about $3,000 per household.

This is a conservative estimate of the wide-scale plunder that includes monies garnered from hidden rate hikes, depreciation allowances, write-offs and other schemes. Ironically, in 2009, the FCC's National Broadband plan claimed it will cost about $350 billion to fully upgrade America's infrastructure.

The principal consequence of the great broadband con is not only that Americans are stuck with an inferior and overpriced communications system, but the nation's global economic competitiveness has been undermined.

In a June 2010 report, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) ranked the U.S. 15th on broadband subscribers with 24.6 percent penetration; the consulting group, Strategy Analytics, is even more pessimistic, ranking the U.S. 20th with a "broadband" penetration rate of 67 percent compared to South Korea (95 percent), Netherlands (85 percent) and Canada (76 percent). Making matters worse, Strategy Analytics projects the U.S. ranking falling to 23rd by year-end 2010.

But these are just overall statistics. Today, people in Japan, Korea, Europe and other countries get broadband services that are 100-mbps services in both directions for what we pay for inferior, Asymmetric Digital Subscriber line (ADSL), while in Hong Kong companies have started to offer 1-gigabit speeds.*

Part of the reason for this is these countries have sunk more fiber optical cable into the ground and connected more homes to the next-generation grid. According to the OECD, the U.S. ranks 11th with only 5 percent fiber penetration, compared to Japan (54 percent), Korea (49 percent) and European OECD countries (11 percent).

Another reason for the woeful state of U.S. broadband is that we have one of the slowest networks in the world. According to the technology company, Akamai, the U.S. ranked 22nd globally in average connection datarate speed, averaging only 3.8-mbps in Q-4 2009. In comparison, Korea's average datarate was nearly three-times faster (11.7-mbps), Hong Kong more then double (8.6-mbps) and Japan was at 7.6-mbps. A surprise to many, Romania had an average rate of 7.2-mbps and Latvia clocked at 6.2-mbps.

Screwed

Grand cons regularly screw Americans. Millions bet the lottery that never pays off; millions go to Las Vegas and Atlantic City hoping for the big score and leave with empty pockets; and millions bet big-time on a housing run-up and lost big, big time. Hustlers offer a zillion get-rich schemes over TV and the Internet that people accepted either out of naivety, greed or desperation. But one of the greatest -- and little reported -- scams perpetuated on the American public is the broadband con.

The scam was simple. Starting in 1991, Verizon, Qwest and what became AT&T offered each state -- in true "Godfather" style -- a deal they couldn't refuse: Deregulate us and we'll give you Al Gore's future. They argued that if state Public Utility Commission (PUCs) awarded them higher rates and stopped examining their books, they would upgrade the then-current telecommunications infrastructure, the analog Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) of aging copper wiring, into high-speed and two-way digital optical fiber networks.

State regulators, like state politicians, are seduced by the sound of empty promises -- especially when sizable campaign contributions and other perks come their way. Hey, what are a few extra bucks charged to the customer every month for pie-in-the-sky promises? And who cares about massive tax breaks, accelerated depreciation allowances and enormous tax write-offs? The promises sound good on election day and nobody, least of all the voter, reads the fine print.

The broadband con has been played out across the country. In California, Pacific Bell (now part of AT&T) claimed it would spend $16 billion and have 5.5 million homes wired by 2000. Instead, after a merger with SBC in 1997 (renamed AT&T in 2005), it secured state deregulation and simply stopped building out the fiber-based broadband infrastructure. On the East Coast, things were pretty much the same. Bell Atlantic, which covered New Jersey to Virginia and is now part of Verizon, claimed it would spend $11 billion and have 8.7 million homes wires by 2000. And in Connecticut, SNET (now also part of AT&T) promised to spend $4.5 billion and have the entire state rewired by 2007. In the mid-West, the story was similar. Ameritech (now part of AT&T and which controlled five states, including Illinois and Ohio) claimed they would have 6 million homes wired by 2000. For Ohio, Ameritech claimed it would rewire every school, library and hospital with fiber by 2000. None of these promises have been realized.

Over the last two decades, the telcos have engaged in a lot of sleight-of-hand tricks to make Americans believe that broadband was real and their service was the world's best. In 1996 the Internet hit and everyone wanted to go online. This migration to the World Wide Web was led, not by AT&T and Verizon, but by thousands of small and larger ISPs from AOL and Prodigy to over 9,500 small ISPs.

By 1998, not only did the telephone companies mostly stop building out their networks, but instead of rolling out the next-generation "info superhighway," they pulled a bait-and-switch and rolled backward, offering customers ADSL service, a watered-down "broadband" connection that runs on good old copper wire.

Another trick used by telecoms has been to submit to federal and state regulators falsified cost models, often lying to regulators and the public. For example, the great lie was voiced in 1991 when the telecom boldly announced the new broadband age based on technologies that they claimed capable of delivering 45-mbps bi-directional services, but the technologies didn't exist and couldn't work out at the cost models submitted. When pushed, the phone companies presented self-produced, self-funded or self-serving "research" by shill think-tanks to buttress their claim for higher rates.

Now, nearly two decades after Gore announced the Info Superhighway and the telcos secured deregulation to build out the next-generation communications infrastructure, the nation's two largest phone companies, Verizon and AT&T, have begun to seriously deploy fiber services. In 2004 and with much fanfare, Verizon introduced FiOS, a fiber-to-the-home service. Today, it claims only 3.6 million subscribers and new subscriptions have stalled.

AT&T, which originally promised to launch its advances service, U-verse, in 2006 in 15 markets, got it running in 2007 but in only 11 markets -- and then not through an entire market. As of the end of Q-2, 2010, it claimed 2.5 million subscribers. Sadly, the telecoms have only 6 million full broadband fiber subscribers as of 2010. What happened to the other 94 million households they promised to sign-up?

Americans have paid and paid again billions of dollars for an imaginary upgrade to create a fiber optic future. The estimate of $320 billion has already been collected which means that every household has paid almost $3,000 to upgrade the phone networks. The question no wants to really address is simple: What have Americans gotten for the telecom broadband rip-off?

Playing the con

In order to understand how the broadband con works, it is useful to examine how it has played out in one state and extrapolate this to the other 49 states. In this case, we will examine New Jersey as representative of a nationwide policy.

New Jersey state law requires that by 2010, 100 percent of the state is to be rewired with 45-mbps, bi-directional service. To meet this goal, Verizon collected approximately $13 billion in approved rate increases, tax break and other incentives related to upgrading the Public Switched Telephone Networks. To cover its tracks, Verizon submitted false statements year after year, claiming that it was close to fulfilling its obligations. For example, in its 2000 Annual Report, it claimed that 52 percent of the state could receive "45-mbps in both directions or higher."

Based on such false claims, Verizon has benefited for significant pricing increases for essentially inexpensive computerized services. For example, Call Waiting and Call Forwarding cost less then $.01 cent to offer yet the company charges $4-$7 for such features. In addition, fees for inside wiring went up to $7.00 from $1.25.

The company also benefited from more invisible perks. It secured massive write-offs on its network even though it wasn't being replaced; it actually secured a write-off of over 105 percent above the amount of construction. These write-offs helped save it billions in taxes. These factors have helped significantly heighten the company's Return on Equity, the standard measurement of profits, jump from 12-14 percent before deregulation to 30-40 percent.

But all this gets complicated as they are no longer required to submit full New Jersey annual or quarterly reports and the FCC's filing requirements stopped in 2007. So, in 2009, Verizon, New Jersey outlined financials showed a "net income" loss of $194 million dollars, and a $160 million "tax benefit" and a series of "affiliate transactions," meaning transferring expenses to the utility but without showing monies flowing back.

Verizon's New Jersey coverage is for approximately 3.2 million households, which represents about 3 percent of total U.S. households. Extrapolating from New Jersey, we estimate that Americans have been bilked of at least $320 billion since deregulation went into effect in the mid-'90s.

Digital Houdini

Federal and state regulators ignore the great telecom rip-off -- politicians simply get too many contributions from too many lobbyists to worry about their constituents' phone bills. Telephone companies have orchestrated a massive digital Houdini act in which they present an image of an essential service that offers customers more for less.

After almost 20 years of telecom deregulation, the American communications infrastructure is in shambles. The FCC's broadband plans are now in play. While much debate has taken place over the future of net neutrality, particularly in light of the Google-Verizon proposal to maintain Internet net neutrality on wireline distribution and end it on wireless communications, little attention has been paid to the never-ending rate hikes, failure to deliver on previous promises, poor state of fiber deployment, and into who pocketed the missing $320 billion in over charges.

In 1967, James Coburn stared in a wonderful satire, The President's Analyst, about the corrupting power of a secretive TPC, the phone company. The film pits the Central Enquiries Agency (CEA) against the Federal Bureau of Regulation (FBR), an all-male agency consisting of J. Edgar Hoover look-alikes all under five-foot-six-inches tall. In the intervening four decades, but especially since the break-up of AT&T in 1984 and deregulation starting in 1993, the power of the telecommunications companies, including the cable industry, has both increasingly grown and become increasingly invisible.

A century ago, giant corporate trusts dominated America's economic landscape. A century later, they are back in full force and even greater control over the nation's economic life and political culture.

(For more detailed analyses of the great broadband rip-off, visit www.teletruth.com.)

U.S. Exits (?) Longest Recession Since World War II

(Sorry, I don't buy it. The fact that a 7 member "panel" determines when we are IN a recession, and when we emerge from one is ludicrous! This article is crap! You can't have a real recovery with 1/5 of the workforce, under- or unemployed.--jef)

***

by Andrew Beatty - Monday, September 20, 2010 by Agence France Presse

WASHINGTON - The U.S. economy exited recession in June 2009, the National Bureau of Economic Research said Monday, making it official that the downturn was the longest in more than half a century.

More than eight million jobs were lost in the slump that was triggered by dodgy Wall Street mortgage investments.

President Barack Obama said the end of the "Great Recession" would come as little solace to the millions of people who are still out of work

"Even though economists may say that the recession officially ended last year, obviously for the millions of people who are still out of work, people who have seen their home values decline, people who are struggling to pay the bills day to day, it's still very real for them."

The NBER underscored that slow pace of recovery as it issued a statement that confirmed: "The recession lasted 18 months, which makes it the longest of any recession since World War II.

"The committee did not conclude that economic conditions since that month have been favorable or that the economy has returned to operating at normal capacity," it noted, pointedly.

At the same time it warned "economic activity is typically below normal in the early stages of an expansion, and it sometimes remains so well into the expansion."

Earlier on Monday the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development warned that the U.S. economy would grow at a slower-than-expected rate of 1.5 per cent this year.

The Paris-based OECD said U.S. growth would be far less than the 3.2 per cent predicted in May, and would increase to only 2.3 per cent next year raising the specter of a painfully slow recovery.

"The United States is slowly recovering from a severe recession and, with economic growth projected to remain low for some time," the OECD said.

The body added that "unemployment is likely to stay elevated for a relatively long period."

"Continuation of targeted support for the labor market may also be necessary until private sector employment picks up more strongly."

But there was some good news.

Despite economists' warnings of a double-dip recession, the NBER said the economy had already recovered enough that any new slide would be an entirely new recession.

"The committee decided that any future downturn of the economy would be a new recession and not a continuation of the recession that began in December 2007."

"The basis for this decision was the length and strength of the recovery to date."

Unlike many countries where a recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of shrinking growth domestic product, in the United States it is determined by a seven-member NBER panel. (A panel?!?! So, it's bullshit, then, this so called recovery--jef)

Although the depth of the crisis had already been clear, the NBER confirmed it was longer than those which began in 1973 and 1981 and which both lasted 16 months.