Codex Attack on Vitamins 3

8 - ANTIBIOTICS, DRUGS,

GROWTH STIMULANTS,

AND OTHER HORMONES

IN FOOD ANIMALS

Useless guidelines--Codex has prepared "guidelines" to "prevent irresponsible use of veterinary drugs." But they are a sham. Poorly worded and with so many generalities and exceptions as to be unenforceable, the "guidelines" are worthless.

In striking contrast are the very strict Codex regulations concerning nutritional supplements and herbs: (1) Minutely controlled and detailed prohibition of nutritional standards. (2) Sharply defined positive list and a broad explicit and implicit negative list which effectively prohibits all therapeutic dosages of all nutrients.

Veterinary drugs are permitted without limitor penalty even if overusedregardless of how harmful they may be to livestock and humans. But invaluable nutritious and essential substances are forbidden or reduced to meaningless small amounts.

9 - ORGANIC FOODS

Eliminate organic foodsCodex even wants to get rid of "organic" foods! Why? How would big business make extra money by doing that? In two ways: (1) The primary advantage is that, without quality food, people will become sicker and need more drugs. (2) A lesser advantage is that farmers will decide to buy more insecticides and chemical fertilizers; since, under Codex, "organic foods" no longer mean anything.

Accomplished by relabelingThe standards and definitions of "organic food" will be changed. Under Codex, a farmer or rancher will be able to call his products "organic"when they are full of toxic poisons. The Codex definition of "organic food" includes as little as 70% organic contentsbut without saying that on the label. (The other 30% can consist of poisons or contaminants.)

Organic, free range and biodynamic farming (both crops and livestock), while technically permitted, are defined so loosely that antibiotics, toxins like Rotenone, fish and dairy products for livestock feed, and veterinary drugs (including antimicrobials) may be used at the discretion of the certifying agent or farmer.

Drought, hardship, severe conditions, or "other" situations can all cause the definition of "organic" to be stretched beyond reason and safety. There are no penalties for violation of "organic" farming principles for either crops or animals.

Organic livestockCodex approved new guidelines for organic livestock production, which greatly reduce the reality of "organic." The chemical standards for animal feed and treatment are changed.

Short conversion timesBoth plants and animals can be given poisons of various kinds only a little time before harvesting, milking, or butchering. Farmers need only switch to "organic," no-chemical methods just before harvesting. Ranchers can move livestock to "organic" fields just prior to going to market.

10 - IRRADIATION OF FOOD

Irradiation mandatoryCodex Alimentarius fully legalizesand requires irradiationof food at the time of harvesting or butchering. Yet irradiation is widely opposed by food safety advocates.

Although allegedly designed to "protect us from food-borne illness," there is considerable scientific evidence that irradiation of food generates extremely high amounts of free radicals in the food. Protein structures are modified in unhealthy ways by introducing ionizing radiation into food before it is eaten.

Flooded with radiationCodex has weakened the international food irradiation rule, by allowing any food to be irradiated at any dose, regardless of how high it may be. The new standard lists no maximum radiation dose to which foods can be treated!

The previous limit was 10 kilo Gray, a dose of radiation equivalent to 330 million chest X-rays. At such doses, the chemical composition of foods can be altered. Vitamins, proteins, and other nutrients can be destroyed. And flavor, odor, and texture can be corrupted.

The decision to do this was made by the chairman of Codex, over the objections of more than 10 countries (including Austria, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Mexico, and Spain).

Obeying its mastersThe International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a UN subsidiary, owes its loyalty to the nuclear industry; therefore it works with governments to devise new ways to sell them nuclear technologies. It is impossible for the main advocate of nuclear technology to advise Codex in a disinterested, scientific manner because of its vested interests in the speedy and complete adoption of food irradiation.

Faulty studiesA report by Public Citizen says this:

Repeatedly irradiatedThe irradiation of food produces immense, free-radical populations in that food. The higher the ionizing dose, the higher the free-radical production. Under Codex, food components may be irradiated and then, as they are combined with other components, they may be irradiated again. And again, and again! Each time, the free-radical population is increased.

The only protection against their pervasive damage is high doses of anti-oxidants like Vitamin C, beta carotene, glutathione, etc.which would be illegal under Codex.

CODEX AND FAO HEADQUARTERED IN ROME

I found this fact buried within an obscure Codex affiliated website. "The Secretary of the Codex Alimentarius Commission is a senior FAO official who serves as the chief of the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programmes, located within the Food Quality and Standards Service of the Food and Nutrition Division at FAO in Rome. The Commissions Secretariat is based at FAOs Rome Headquarters . . The Codex Commission meets every two years, alternately at FAO headquarters in Rome and at WHO headquarters in Geneva."food.gov.uk

JULY 3, 2005 - U.S. CODEX OFFICE MEETING

On the opening day of the July 4-9 Codex meetings in Rome, the decision was made to approve the Codex Alimentarius rules. Here is a report on this:

JULY 4, 2005 - CODEX APPROVAL AT ROME

BEWARE OF IADSA

That concludes Diane Millers report. What is "IADSA"? It seemed to be an important health organization, yet it urged adoption of Codex. Checking on this, here is what I learned from their website:

Sounds good, but where does IADSA stand in regard to Codex? Careful reading of the data on their website reveals that, while IADSA purports to be representing nutritional supplement manufacturers and sellers, it is actually a front organization for the drug manufacturers and Codex! Intermingled with talk about the value of vitamins and minerals, you will read full approval for the objectives of Codex.

After arriving at that conclusion, based on personal examination of the iadsa.org website, I found this:

IADSA was apparently set up to fool the food supplement industry into thinking it would fight their battle for them, so they could relax and do nothing. To a great extent, over the past decade or so, IADSA succeeded. Many supplement manufacturers and health-food outlets assumed that IADSA was fighting their battles for them.

CAFTA AGREEMENT

CAFTA has already been passed by the U.S. Senate. As soon as it passes the House of Representatives, we are told the U.S. government will be forced, by the terms of that CAFTA agreement, to restrict vitamin and supplement sales in accordance with the "German Model" of health care.

When that happens, the 1994 DSHEA (Dietary Supplement Health & Education Act), which protects the nutritional rights of Americans, will be nullified, the North American supplement industry (and its health-food stores) will crumble.

However, enforcement is not inevitable. At the present time, over fifty percent (50%) of the total U.S. health dollar is spent annually for non-medical health and healing products. Fully 88% of U.S. adults use some kind of "alternative" to drugs and hospitals. If they wish, they can oppose this.

HELKE FERRIE VISITS GERMANY

GATT URUGUAY ROUND AGREEMENT

Under the terms of the Uruguay Round of GATT, which created the World Trade Organization, the United States agreed to harmonize its domestic laws to the international standards. This includes standards for dietary supplements being developed by the United Nations Codex Alimentarius Commissions Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Use.

In other words, because we agreed to the Uruguay Rounds changes, we are supposed to obey Codex and not let Congress oppose it.

Not only that, but Codex Alimentarius is now enforceable through the World Trade Organization (WTO). If a country disagrees with or refuses to follow Codex standards, the WTO applies pressure by withdrawing trade privileges and imposing crippling trade sanctions. Congress has already bowed to this pressure several times and so have the governments of many countries.

While the exemption clause USC 3512(a)(1) and (a)(2) was created to supposedly protect our laws from harmonization to international standards, it has proven to be totally ineffective. The United States has already lost seven trade disputes, despite the exemption clause. Due to the enormous pressures put on them by lobbyists from multinational corporations (who contribute millions to congressional campaigns), Congress bowed to pressure and changed U.S. laws.

It appears our government (as well as all others) is being manipulated one way or another to serve the goals of the UN, the World Health Organization, and the World Trade Organization. It has been said that "food control equals people control."

STATEMENT BY PUBLIC CITIZEN

Public Citizen is an outstanding organization which was founded by Ralph Nader in 1971. It serves to warn Americans of various dangers.

Here is a remarkably good summary statement, prepared by one of their attorneys about the Codex Alimentarius threat! Written about 1997, it discusses the problems and carefully explains some solutions.

As throughout this report, all the bold face and brackets in the Public Citizen report are ours:

"The Codex Alimentarius Commission is an international standard-setting body established jointly in 1962 by the United Nations World Health Organization and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization to facilitate international trade of food. At its inception, Codex set identity standardsthat is, descriptive standards for foodsso that traders around the world would, for example, have a common understanding of what was being bought and sold as peanut oil. The 158 member countries of Codex are encouraged to accept and implement Codex-approved food standards nationally, but are not obligated to do so. The United States has participated in Codex activities since 1962; but, historically, Codex standards were not considered to be safety standards, nor were they accepted as safety standards by FDA. 21 C.F.R. 130.6.

"Recent international trade agreements have caused a radical change in the nature of Codex standards. Both the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) have changed the status of Codex standards by designating Codex as the international body establishing presumptively trade-legitimate food safety standards. No longer are standards set by Codex purely designed to facilitate smooth trading negotiations, nor are they voluntary.

"Codex standardswhich traditionally served as a minimum floor of acceptable quality for less developed countrieshave become the presumptive international standards for food safety and labeling. Under the Uruguay Rounds Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement), regulatory requirements that exceed Codex standards may be challenged as trade barriers. While the SPS Agreement does not require countries to adopt Codex standards as their own national standards, a country must have a scientific justification to establish or maintain a more stringent standard to meet its chosen level of protection. The burden of proof to show a scientific justification falls on the country with a standard that is more stringent than Codex. Thus Codex standards now have new significance in the United States and for the FDAs regulatory activities because other countries may challenge an FDA safety standard as a trade barrier if the standard exceeds [is different than] the requirements set by Codex.

"Despite the heightened status and responsibility that is given to Codex and its standards under the NAFTA, GATT, and SPS Agreements, significant problems in the way Codex operates have not been addressed:

"1 - Codex Was Created to Promote International Trade and Employs Procedures that Jeopardize the Safety of the U.S. Food Supply.

"Codex is poorly suited to establishing global food safety standards because its mandate to protect public health takes a backseat to its competing mandate to promote international trade. Codexs focus on facilitating international trade contrasts sharply with the domestic mandate in the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) which is to protect and promote the public health, regardless of its impact on trade. Moreover, it threatens to trump United States standards that are based solely on public health, such as the Delaney Clause, which permits no risk of cancer from exposure to carcinogens in food. In contrast to FDAs public health mandate provided by the FFDCA, Codex has no over-arching mandate to protect public health and no codified standard that requires precautionary principles to be applied or spells out precisely how to assess whether consumer health is adequately protected.

"Instead, Codex allows health and safety standards to be set by popular votes which may be based on economic factors having nothing to do with public health protection. Codex gives each member country an opportunity to vote on each standard, even when that country has a self-interest in a less-protective standard. Thus, France and other European countries that sell non-pasteurized cheese object to any Codex dairy standards that would require pasteurization, just as pottery-producing nations like Portugal and Spain would object to stringent lead standards. It is not surprising that the United States would be outvoted by countries with less protective safety standards; because, if those countries vote to accept higher standards, their products would be banned from international trade. Thus, there is significant pressure to keep Codex standards weak.

"2 - Lack of Public Participation in Codex Standard-Setting.

"Codex has operated without adequate mechanisms for obtaining public input or maintaining public accountability. Meetings of the Codex Executive Committee are closed, even when the agenda includes decisions on risk management and other important policy issues. Observers are also excluded from the meetings of the two expert committees that perform the scientific evaluations which support Codex standardsthe Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) and the Joint FAO/WHO Meetings on Pesticide Residues (JMPR). While Non-Governmental Organizations [NGOs] are allowed to attend the Commissions meetings, the needed background documents are rarely provided with adequate lead times and procedural rulings by the secretariat have precluded full dissemination of consumer perspectives [have omitted giving the full facts] to Codex participants. Moreover, certain Commission decisions are taken in private sessions. For example, the decision to accept Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) for growth-promoting hormones in meat productiona subject of great interest to consumer groups in many countrieswas taken by secret ballot at the Commissions 21st (July 1995) meeting.

"Thus, Codex procedures are completely at odds with the transparent and participatory way in which FDA sets safety standards in the United States. Domestically, the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) ensure that the public has notice and the opportunity to comment on proposed rules, and that advisory committees are balanced and open to the public. No such democratically accountable policy making process is followed by Codex.

"In recent years, some consumer and environmental organizations have attended Codex meetings and have sought to make Codex more open and participatory. Consumer and environmental representation, however, has remained sporadic and Codex has not yet significantly reformed its processes to ensure more meaningful public participation.

"The United States delegation to Codex is not headed by FDAwhose sole mandate is to protect the public health, but by USDAan agency with a mandate to promote the sale of U.S. agricultural products abroad. Not surprisingly, industry has been intimately involved in Codex from the outset. For example, at the most recent Codex meeting in June, representatives who attended came from Coca-Cola, Pepsi Cola, Monsanto, and Pfizer as well as such trade groups as the International Dairy Federation, the International Council of Grocery Manufacturers Associations, the International Organization of the Flavour Industry, the International Soft Drink Council, and the International Glutamate Technical Committee. In contrast, consumers, public health advocates, and environmental organizations have been relative latecomers and still comprise a very minor voice.

"A 1993 study reported that over eighty percent of the non-governmental participants of national delegations to recent Codex committees represented industry while only one percent represented public interest organizations. Of the 37 non-governmental organizations that participated at the most recent Codex meeting this summer, only three represented the public interest community. And while many of the delegations of member countries included industry advisers, only three countriesthe United States, Germany, and Norwayhad consumer representatives on their delegations.

"3 - The Rationale and Process for Codex Decisions Needs Strengthening.

"According to a report released by the Office of the U.S. Coordinator for Codex Alimentarius ("U.S. Codex") in February 1995, aspects of the scientific and administrative procedures followed in the elaboration of [Codex health and safety standards] warrant attention to their transparency, their consistency between and within committees, and their adequacy of data requirements. U.S. Codex identified three concerns related to the scientific basis for Codex decision:

"(1) The basic scientific approaches employed in the expert committees evaluations need clearer articulation and public review.

"(2) The relationships among the technical experts, governments, and non-governmental organizations need to be examined and clarified.

"(3) Systematic processes need to be established for continuous reassessment and updating of the scientific approaches and the data evaluations themselves.

"U.S. Codex then established a goal that within five years, with the support of U.S. Codex, Codex Alimentarius decisions will be widely recognized and fully accepted as being based on strong, consistent scientific principles. In an apparent effort to achieve this goal at the most recent Codex meeting in June 1997, the United States delegation emphasized that the risk analysis process should be transparent and that it was extremely important that results of risk assessment be published to be available for others to obtain information and/or to confirm their own evaluations. While Codex is currently developing an action for development and application of risk analysis principles and guidelines in all Codex activities, Codex put off making firm recommendations for adoption of definitions for risk assessment policy and risk profile until the 23rd Session (in 1999) . .

"No comprehensive comparison of FDA and Codex standards has been conducted recently. However, a 1997 report by the Center for Science in the Public Interest pointed to five areas in which the Codex standard falls below existing FDA and USDA regulatory requirements: pasteurization of dairy products, food additives, mineral content of bottled water, meat inspection, and lead contamination. Moreover, in 1991, the U.S. General Accounting Office conducted a comparison of U.S. pesticide standards to Codex pesticide standards. While many pesticide tolerances or maximum residue levels (MRLs) could not be directly compared because the standards are defined differently, GAO found that for those that could be compared, among the pesticides that EPA has rated as probable carcinogens, the United States has lower MRLs (a more stringent standard) in 55 percent of the cases. GAO determined that acceptance of Codexs higher (less stringent) standards could raise health concerns because of possible increased exposure. Indeed, a 1994 analysis by Public Citizen and the Environmental Working Group found that adopting Codex tolerances for pesticides where they are higher than U.S. tolerances would increase allowable cancer risk 12 times over current U.S. levels.

"FDAs Consideration of Codex Standards

"Congress has made clear that FDAs obligations to protect the public from adulterated and misbranded food under the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) have not been reduced or modified by the United States participation in international trade agreements. In approving and implementing the Uruguay Round trade agreements, Congress explicitly provided that nothing in this Act shall be construed to amend or modify any law of the United States, including any law relating to the protection of human, animal, or plant life or health. Moreover, the Statement of Administrative Action, written by the Administration and approved by Congress when it implemented the Uruguay Round agreements, specifically lists the FFDCA as a federal environmental and health measure that is not amended or modified by the agreements. Accordingly, FDA may not adopt Codex standards that do not comply with the statutory requirements set forth in the FFDCA.

"FDAs primary goal in consideration of Codex standards, as in all of its international harmonization activities, must be to preserve and enhance its ability to accomplish its public health mission. With this goal in mind, we make the following suggestions:

"(1) FDA procedures for review of Codex standards must ensure that the agency is exercising its own independent judgment (uninfluenced by international trade pressures) when it considers whether a particular Codex standard will improve public health in the United States. The review should ensure that the relevant science on which the Codex standard was based is independent from industry influence and has not changed; that the Codex standard reflects the newest science and consumer protection concerns, including precautionary principles; that the factual and scientific bases for the Codex standard are part of the record made available to the public; and that the standard maintains the flexibility to respond to emerging health hazards and other new information.

"(2) FDA should only consider for adoption Codex standards that provide a greater level of protection than current U.S. standards or address concerns not yet regulated by FDA. For example, in 1991, GAO determined that Codex standards had lower (more stringent) MRLs for certain carcinogenic pesticides than United States MRLs in 27 percent of the comparable cases. Codex standards like these that would increase the level of consumer protection should be reviewed first and adopted. Codex standards that are adopted domestically should be reviewed at least once every three to five years to ensure that the standard still offers the highest level of health and consumer protection.

"(3) In order to identify other Codex standards for review, FDA should look to those FDA regulations that need updating and revision and consider any relevant Codex standards in conjunction with a review of FDA regulations. For example, FDA intends to review its regulations pertaining to identity, quality, and fill of container for standardized food in order to simplify the regulations where practicable and to take into account the impact of the 1990 NLEA amendments. 60 Fed. Reg. 67492 (Dec. 29, 1995). As part of this review, FDA should consider any relevant Codex standards. Whenever FDA plans to issue a new FDA regulation (or revise an existing regulation), the agency should also review any relevant Codex standards.

"(4) FDA should not give priority to standards adopted since 1993, because there is no basis for assuming that post-1993 standards are better than those adopted previously. It is true that Codex standards adopted from 1993 forward are intended to reflect the new role of Codex standards under the SPS and TBT agreements, while those adopted previously were intended to provide product standardization and guidance to developing nations. But the significant problems are the way Codex-set standards continue; thus there is no merit to any assumption that post-1993 standards are more likely to be deserving of adoption as U.S. safety standards than those adopted previously.

"However, post-1993 Codex standards are more likely to be upheld by WTO in a trade challenge and are, therefore, much more worrisome from the public health perspective. FDA must make sufficient resources available so that it can conduct necessary scientific studies and defend its position at the WTO.

"In future Codex proceedings, FDA should strongly object to any Codex standards that are weaker than FDA standards. Indeed, the new U.S. strategic plan calls for FDA employees who participate in Codex proceedings to determine whether acceptance of a Codex standard would affect the health and safety of American consumers. FDA should not only ascertain when Codex standards fall below U.S. requirements, but also object to the approval of such standards by Codex and place on the record its reasons for contesting the soundness of Codexs proposed standard. If the United States cannot successfully block the development of weaker Codex standards, then it should record its position in the minutes and reports of Codex proceedings, to establish a record that clearly demonstrates why the Codex standard does not sufficiently protect consumers. This record will help discourage potential trade complaints and serve as a basis for a defense before the WTO if necessary.

"(5) Public participation in the review of Codex standards is critical. FDAs proposal to publish a Federal Register notice of newly adopted Codex standards is a sensible way to get preliminary public input on the priority, to attach, to review, and evaluate particular standards. Not only should this notice also be posted on the FDAs Web page, but FDA should take affirmative steps to ensure that consumers, health organizations, and interested academics receive this information. Moreover, this notice should not be either the first or last step in providing the public with the opportunity to participate. At the front end, FDA should strive to improve public participation in the Codex standard-setting process itself, so that the public has input into the Codex standards before they are finalized. Moreover, in those situations in which FDA decides to pursue adoption of a Codex standard, a separate notice should be published in the Federal Register and the public should be given the opportunity to comment.

"Currently, FDA reviews Codex standards for adoption in the United States in one of the following three ways: (1) An individual files a petition for adoption of a Codex standard; and, if reasonable grounds are provided in the petition, FDA publishes the petition in the Federal Register for comment. (2) On the FDAs own initiative, a proposal for adoption of a Codex standard is published in the Federal Register or (3), after publication in the Federal Register, the public submits comments on whether a Codex standard should be adopted. After reviewing the comments, FDA either publishes a proposal to establish a food standard or publishes a notice terminating consideration of the standard. 21 C.F.R. 130.6, 564.6.

"These regulations should be clarified in three ways: First, the regulation should provide guidance to the petitioner by setting forth the criteria FDA will use to decide whether to publish the petition for comment. In light of FDAs public health mandate, FDA should require a petitioner to make a prima facie case that the adoption of a Codex standard would not lower current FDA standards or otherwise raise public health concerns. Only in such circumstances would the petition be published for comment.

"Second, the regulation should provide that FDA would, on its own initiative, consider adoption of a Codex standard when (1) the Codex standard provides a greater level of protection than a current FDA standard or addresses concerns not yet regulated by FDA, (2) a Codex standard is relevant to new or revised FDA regulations, or (3) a Codex standard would improve the public health or consumer protection.

"Third, the Federal Register notice provided for in 130.6(b)(3) should, at a minimum, (1) describe the Codex standard and its comparability to an FDA standard; (2) provide FDAs preliminary views on the Codex standard, including its potential for acceptance by FDA and whether rule making would be necessary; (3) describe information the agency would need for adequate evaluation of the standard; (4) invite information on relative importance of the standard to public health protection; and (5) state the agencys preliminary plans to perform substantive review of the standard. Based on the comments received, FDA would either decide to proceed with review of the Codex standard, and publish a notice to that effect in the Federal Register for additional comment, or decide against further review of the standard.

"Conclusion

"FDAs statutory mandate is to ensure public health and consumer protection. Codex standards should only be adopted when they will improve food safety and labeling in the United States. Given FDAs limited resources, FDA should focus on review of Codex standards (1) when the Codex standard provides a greater level of protection than a current FDA standard or addresses concerns not yet regulated by FDA and (2) when a Codex standard is relevant to new or revised FDA regulations. FDA should strive to improve public participation in the Codex standard-setting process itself and provide the public with notice-and-comment opportunities, when the agency considers adoption of a Codex standard.

"Respectfully submitted, Lucinda Sikes, Staff Attorney, Public Citizen Litigation Group, 1600 20th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20009."

THE BIGGEST POLITICAL SPENDER

The Drug Industry is in the news as the largest, single "purchaser of political power" (as one news source called it) in the nation. Their drug profits must be fantastic for them to be able to do this. According to a July 6, 2005, NPR news report, the Drug Industry spent over $128 million on lobbyists and campaigns last year. This is far more than any other trade group in America. Its drug prices have greatly increased in recent years.

Here is earlier data on this same subject:

A June 27, 2005, news announcement about Drug Industry contributions for this falls election, in California, by PhRMA (Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America) totaled $27,555,607 by June 27, 2005. Here are additional statistics:

"Drug company contributions to Republicans alone: The Republicans alone received more than $40 million in political contributions from the drug industry since 2000."Center for Responsive Politics, September 1, 2004.

" Id say we are actively participating in the democratic process, says Jeff Trewhitt, a spokesman for its trade group, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA).

"But the sheer volume of their expenditures, Allen [a consumer advocate] worries, gives drugmakers so much weight in the political arena that they are able to thwart legislation they dont like. Everyone has a right to lobby their members of Congress, Allen notes, but the drug industry has more money than anybody else.

"How much the drugmakers spend in total on these efforts throughout the nation is not known. "We dont divulge operating costs," says Trewhitt.

"But the drug industrys political influence in Washington alone during the 1999-2000 election cycle has been documented in an in-depth investigation by the consumer watchdog group, Public Citizen. This reveals that the drug industry (1) spent $177 million on lobbying members of Congress and $20 million on campaign contributions in 1999-2000, in sum more than any other industry; (2) employed 625 lobbyists in 2000more than one for each member of Congress!

According to his teams analysis of official lobbying disclosure records, the industry recruited high-priced talent and payed individual lobbyists, on average, more than $12,000 a month. Besides the in-house lobbyists working full time for the drug companies or their trade groups, 460 were hired from 19 of Washingtons top lobbying firms.

"And in what Clemente describes as the revolving door between government and industry, more than half the 625 lobbyists had previously worked on Capitol Hill or in other federal government jobs. They included 21 former members of Congress from both parties10 Democrats and 11 Republicans.

"Incumbent candidates running for, or planning to seek, re-election received 79 percent of the contributions by pharmaceutical interests. Candidates challenging them received just 3 percent of the contributions while 17 percent went to candidates running for an open seat.

"The pharmaceutical companies backed winning candidates. Seventy-six percent of the $10 million given to candidates went to winners while losing candidates received only 13 percent of the funds.

" The pattern of contributions here shows that PhRMA and its member companies were looking at getting the most for their money, by giving to candidates of both parties and by giving primarily to incumbent candidates who win more often than do their challengers, noted Ed Bender, executive director of the Institute. By giving to incumbents, the companies were banking on candidates more likely to be in a position to act on legislation. The fact that the top recipients of funds in selected states also held leadership positions shows that the contributions were made with an eye to which candidates would have the power to set the policy direction for the state. "AARP.

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Federal Register where the FDA states its intention to harmonize with Codex standards: iahf.com/codx-fda.txt

We cannot tell you how you should vote or what you should tell your elected representatives about Codex. That must be your own decision.

To contact your U.S. Congressional Representatives: http://www.house.gov

To contact your U.S. Congressional Senators: http://www.senate.gov

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

I am not a health-advocate political campaigner; I am just an American who wants to find out what is going on here. In preparing this report, I discovered this:

1 - The government and regular media are totally blank on this epic sellout. Only a few independents on the web discuss the crisis. The cause, I discovered, is massive political and medical advertising. Drug companies charge fabulous amounts for their products. They then funnel immense amounts of, what I consider, hush money to maintain the news blackout.

2 - Even in the "independent media," relatively little data is to be found. Mostly snippets here and there. The cause appears twofold: First, there is always so much else to write about; and, second, the various departments of the Codex cartel have consistently used extreme stealth and secrecy, to hide the various steps in their gradual takeover. This present report may be the largest you will find anywhere. You are welcome to copy and circulate it as widely as you wish to.

3 - A significant part of the Codex plan has been to work very slowly, over a 20-year period, while carefully crafting rules, inventing a myriad of committees, changing and updating rules, and pinning down every loose endso that the final result would be a strait jacket around world food intake, from which it could not escape. Step by step, this work has proceeded, using slick words like "harmonize" (basic governmental changes) and "consensus" (no voting allowed).

4 - Why so much stealth and extremely slow caution? Because the Codex cartel knew that it must lead Western governments and their citizens into such a tight jail cellthat they could not afterwards arise and shake off the shackles within it.

The problem is that the peoples of those nations can demand changes and overthrow their governments at the election box, if the situation becomes too bad.

5 - So the drug/seed/insecticide/hormone (all poisonous chemicals or dangerous seeds) cartel decided to invent the World Trade Organization as the vehicle for takeover. The nations would fear to oppose the WTO, lest they be forbidden to sell their products on international markets. With the industrialized nations safely in their pocket, the cartel steamroller could force the entire world to buy their productsor else.

6 - Any solution? Oh, yes. If the citizens will be told the facts, then, when the Codex crisis hitsthey will arise as one and demand withdrawal from Codex, even if it means getting rid of the WTO. Actually, all that needs to be done is to rescind the provisions approved at the 1995 Uruguay Round of GATT, that created the World Trade Organization,which requires the nations to "harmonize" domestic laws to WTO standards.

The WTO is a chain about every nations neck, controlled by big business, yet not answerable to any nation! Such a situation is incredible. Only decided government action can provide an escape; but political bribe money forbids that, unless citizens demand it strongly enough.

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

Here is part of the web of international organizations with which Codex works, in order to accomplish its objectives:

United Nations: Established in 1945, the UN is mandated to ensure a humane life for everyone throughout the world. The efforts address key areas of peace, human rights, environmental protection, health and poverty eradication with more than 30 affiliated organizations to achieve each element. The UN is comprised of 189 member states.

World Health Organization (WHO): WHO was established in 1948 by the United Nations in order to ensure high global health standards. Health is defined in WHOs Constitution as "a state of complete physical, mental and social well being, not only the absence of disease or infirmity." It is governed by 191 member nations.

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO): Under the United Nations, the FAO was founded in 1945 with a mandate "to raise levels of nutrition and standards of living, to improve agricultural productivity, and to better the condition of rural populations." FAO has 183 member countries, plus one member organization: the European Community.

World Trade Organization (WTO): The World Trade Organization, established in 1995, is a powerful global commerce agency, which transformed the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) into an enforceable global commerce code. The WTO is one of the main mechanisms of corporate globalization. The WTO agreements are negotiated and signed by many of the worlds trading nations and ratified in their parliaments. Currently, there are 144 member states.

The European Commission on Food Safety: The ECFS oversees food safety, including food irradiation, for the European Union.

Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA): While not officially part of the Codex Alimentarius Commission structure, JECFA provides independent scientific expert advice to the Commission and its specialist Committees. Both parents select membership to the Committee. FAO and WHO maintain separate websites for the Committee with respective points of view.

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA): IAEA is a UN agency that promotes nuclear technologies, including global acceptance of food irradiation. In 1959, IAEA signed a WHO agreement, granting the IAEA primary responsibility for promoting atomic energy for "peaceful" uses throughout the world. IAEA maintains 134 member states.

International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation (ICGFI): ICGFI evaluates and monitors global developments in food irradiation while consulting member nations and the FAO/WHO/IAEA evaluate and monitor the application of food irradiation. It also supplies information to the joint FAO/IAEA/WHO Expert Committee on the Wholesomeness of Irradiated Food and the Codex Alimentarius Commission. ICGFI is currently composed of 46 member states.