Wednesday, December 7, 2011
As every nation in the world marches forward to a completely integrated and globalized society, the control of food is an absolute necessity for those who seek to accelerate amalgamation. It is for this reason that we see an increase in domestic legislation that mirrors the guidelines and demands of international standard-setting organizations. These attempts at harmonization of national laws, specifically those regarding food, are coming in daily from all sides of the globe.
Whether it’s the GMO fight in the United States, Mexico, and Europe, or the question of the level ofvitamins and minerals in supplements, the Biotech Corporations are continually winning most of their battles with the help of mass ignorance, national governments, the World Trade Organization and similar entities.
Indeed, when one begins to examine many of the debates regarding food and food regulation, one name appears over and over – Codex Alimentarius.
For those who may be unaware of what Codex Alimentarius is, I refer you to my book Codex Alimentarius – The End of Health Freedom. Briefly speaking, however, Codex is an agency created under the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO)and thereby functions under direction of the United Nations (UN).
Codex Alimentarius sets the standards by which the World Trade Organization implements its dispute settlements and international trade policies. Codex Guidelines, once agreed upon, are enforced by the WTO and other related treaties. Essentially, Codex sets the standards for the world regarding food, vitamins and minerals, GMO’s, and almost everything else that humans consume.
any ingredient or nutrient or other constituent of any food or drink, whether that ingredient or nutrient or other constituent is consumed or represented for consumption on its own by humans, or is used in the preparation of, or mixed with or added to, any food or drink; and anything that is or is intended to be mixed with or added to any food or drink.
Herein, food is defined literally as anything that can be consumed by humans and it retains this definition at whatever the stage of its development.
Therefore, corn may be considered food whenever it is being sold at a market. It may be considered food when it is being shucked, and it may be considered food when it is being grown. It is also considered food before being grown — in seed form.
Not only that, but because many seeds themselves are consumed by humans, seeds naturally fall under this tyrannical legislation as much as anything else.
As a result of the new policies to be implemented as a result of Food Bill 160-2, anyone then engaged in producing and distributing food would be subject to the regulation and monitoring of the new authorization program. Of course, the classification of “food producer,” applies to individuals who grow two or three tomato plants for their own consumption as much as it does to major Agri-businesses.
That being said, there are clearly financial concerns with the new bill as well. Obviously, Big-Agra would easily be able to pay the monitoring fees for the new Soviet program while small farmers, where they still exist, could not. In addition, individuals would certainly no longer be able to continue selling their food at the local farmers market, local restaurants, or even to other individuals.
True to form, the questions regarding the new legislation are being brushed off by the New Zealand government, particularly those individuals in the New Zealand government who have been pushing the bill from the start.
For instance, Kate Wilkinson, New Zealand Minister of Food Safety recently stated to Campbell Live that concerns over the Food Bill were part of some kind of “conspiracy theory” and that she didn’t understand where all this “conspiracy theory” was coming from.
Before I continue, I must ask if all this doesn’t sound eerily familiar. It certainly does to me.
The similarities between the law in the United States and the one being proposed in New Zealand are quite striking, so much in fact that they can scarcely be considered a coincidence — especially when both of these bills are themselves disturbingly similar to Codex Alimentarius Guidelines and recommendations. Indeed, upon closer examination it appears that there is more of a pattern than some members of national governments would have us believe. No doubt this is almost always the case.
But back to Miss “Conspiracy Theory” Kate Wilkinson for a moment. To answer her question as to where all the “conspiracy theories” have come from, perhaps she should look at her own statements.
Indeed, in a letter to Green MP Sue Kedgley, who has expressed some attenuated level of criticism toward the bill, Wilkinson wrote:
The barter or selling of propagation food seeds and food seedlings is in scope [of the Bill] . . . However the sale or exchange of seeds for propagation, and seedlings (whether this occurs in the context of a garden centre, a market, or between those in a community of interest), is not intended to be captured. [emphasis added]
Notice also that her pathetic attempt to reassure Kedgley of the harmlessness of the bill is that it is not intended to be used against private citizens who share seeds with one another and their community. Indeed, Wilkinson’s response throughout her letter to Kedgley (pdf) centers aroundintentions, while, at the same time, openly admits that, “With such broadness, there is inevitably the potential for activities it was never contemplated as ‘in scope’ to be technically captured.”
This article was posted: Wednesday, December 7, 2011 at 10:38 am