by Mystic Biscuit
WARNING! This Blog Post May Make you THINK about Autonomous and Free Learning! “Study hard what interests you the most in the most undisciplined, irreverent and original manner possible.” ― Richard P. Feynman And, Feynman, one of the most respected physicists of our time, was right. Study what interests YOU. When you stare at that whiteboard (or more appropriately, white”bored”!) and bamboozle your brain with all the irrelevant information that means nothing to you at all, take time to consider what you really want to know in your life, what you really want to learn about, what interests YOU and what activities you want to see in your non-routine as routine is just another way of letting the state control your already boring day. In your free-learning and free thinking day what do YOU actually want to know about and what will be useful to YOU?
Not everyone has the opportunity to be home-schooled. Some people still have the ridiculous notion that it is not allowed and that the only way to learn is through the system prescribed by the all powerful and pervading government which actually has no say or power over your education at all unless you allow them to have. So, I invite you, to add your thoughts here on how you would like your autonomous learning experience to be. Please post ideas and suggestions on alternative ways of learning to help others see the light. Here are a few fun and interesting websites where learning can take place without a whiteboard:
Please add to this list on the forum, IRC, twitter or our face book, after all it is your space for your thoughts, add links, philosophical thoughts, autonomous writing, your book reviews and anything you would like to share or express, and, don't forget your art gallery too :) Mystic Biscuit Taken from Article http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/14/cia-drones-pakistan-us-air-force-documentary
I recently bought a book written by Brett Scott 'The Heretic's Guide To Global Finance: Hacking The Future of Money'. Although I've still not finished it, I thought it would be a good idea to make a glossary of complex banking terms/scams that the layman would understand and be able to digest and see the financial crooks for what they are, but when I looked into it I was dumb founded at the amount of complex and what I regard as criminal scams the financial world has dreamt up, which seem to be all covered or relate to maritime law, the one that serves corporate rather than the people, which is common law.
If anyone has the ability to explain in layman's terms each of the scams the financial world gets up to, they can be published here. It's about time the world understood how they are really controlled. Can you see what you're really fighting for or are you just doing what your told to do by criminals?
What is Guerrilla Gardening? In practice Guerrilla gardening is the cultivation of neglected and unused pieces of land within, and around our towns and Cities, the land on which people usually carry out this form of gardening on is owned by Councils, statutory departments, and some is under private ownership. To sum Guerrilla Gardening up in a nutshell I would say that it is groups of people who cultivate plants within the Public and Civic space without necessarily seeking permission. Guerrilla gardening for a permanent culture As we move towards a possible sustainable future, Guerrilla gardening has an important role to play, particularly in the development of local food production. The current peak in a number of resources such as Oil and gas means that we can no longer rely on our food being grown thousands of miles away, Guerrilla gardening in built up urban areas could be employed to turn local vacant patches of land into fertile food growing areas. It is also and effective way of greening up heavily urbanised areas and bringing back the wildlife that previously lived in the area. Guerrilla gardening promotes civic involvement and community building through active participation, and it is this active participation and community building which is so important in the development of a broader grassroots global social movement. Article taken from http://www.permanentculturenow.com/guerrilla-gardening/ Guerilla Gardening with Rob Avis of Verge Permaculture http://www.youtube.com/user/VergePermaculture
In the late 1880's, trade journals in the electrical sciences were predicting "free electricity" in the near future. Incredible discoveries about the nature of electricity were becoming commonplace. Within 20 years, there would be automobiles, airplanes, movies, recorded music, telephones, radio, and practical cameras. For the first time in history, common people were encouraged to envision a utopian future filled with abundant modern transportation and communication, as well as jobs, housing and food for everyone. So what happened? Where did the new energy breakthroughs go? Was this excitement about free electricity all just wishful thinking that science eventually disproved?
Current State of Technology. The answer is no. Spectacular new energy technologies were developed right along with other breakthroughs. Since then, multiple methods for producing vast amounts of energy at extremely low cost have been developed. None of these technologies have made it to the open consumer market, however. Why this is true will be discussed shortly. First, here is a short list of new energy technologies. The common feature connecting all of these discoveries is that they use a small amount of one form of energy to control or release a large amount of a different kind of energy.
Four Invisible Forces. There are four forces that have worked together to create this situation. The wealthiest families and their central banking institutions are the first force. Their motivations are greed and the need to control almost everything except themselves. Their plan is to eventually control all of the resources of the world, and thereby control everyone's life through the availability of all goods and services. An independent source of wealth (new energy device) in the hands of every person in the world ruins their plans for world domination. They don't want any competition. The weapons they have used to enforce this include intimidation, "expert" debunkers, buying and shelving of technology, and murder of inventors. They have also promoted the scientific theory that states free energy is impossible (laws of thermodynamics). The second force is national governments. The problem here is related to the maintenance of national security. There is a constant jockeying for position and influence in world affairs, and the strongest party wins. In economics, it's the golden rule: "The one with the gold makes the rules." Unlimited energy on this planet will lead to an inevitable reshuffling of the balance of power. Everybody will want it, and at the same time, want to prevent everyone else from getting it. So, national governments' motivations are self-preservation. Their weapons include preventing the issuance of patents based on national security grounds, harassment of inventors with criminal charges, tax audits, threats, phone taps, arson, theft, and a host of other intimidations which make the business of building and marketing a new energy machine practically impossible. The third force consists of deluded inventors and con men. On the periphery of the extraordinary scientific breakthroughs that constitute real new energy technologies, lies a shadow world of unexplained anomalies, marginal inventions and unscrupulous promoters. The first two forces have constantly used the media to promote the worst examples of this group, to distract the public's attention, and to discredit real breakthroughs by associating them with the frauds. So, the third force is delusion and dishonesty. The motivations are self-aggrandizement, greed, want of power over others, and a false sense of self-importance. The weapons used are lying, cheating, self-delusion and arrogance combined with bad science. The fourth force operating to postpone the public availability of new energy technology is all of the rest of us. It may be easy to see how narrow and selfish the motivations of the other forces are, but actually, these motivations are still very much alive in each of us as well. Like the wealthiest families, don't we each secretly harbor illusions of false superiority and want to control others instead of ourselves? Also, wouldn't you sell out if the price were high enough? Or like the governments, don't we each want to ensure our own survival? Or like the deluded inventor, don't we trade a comfortable illusion once in a while for an uncomfortable fact? Or don't we still fear the unknown, even if it promises a great reward? All four forces are just different aspects of the same process. There is really only one force preventing the availability of new energy technology, and that is unspiritually motivated behavior. New energy technology is an outward manifestation of divine abundance. It is the engine of the economy of an enlightened society, where people voluntarily behave in a respectful and civil manner toward each other. Unspiritualized humans cannot be trusted with new energy. They will only do what they have always done, which is to take merciless advantage of each other, or kill each other and themselves in the process. The Opportunity. What is new is that you and I can communicate with each other now better than at anytime in the past. The Internet offers us, the fourth force, an opportunity to overcome the combined efforts of the other forces preventing new energy technology from spreading. What is starting to happen is that inventors are publishing their work, instead of patenting it and keeping it secret. More and more, people are "giving away" information on these technologies in books, videos and websites. While there is still a great deal of useless information about new energy on the Internet, the availability of good information is rising rapidly. All of us constitute the fourth force. If we stand up and refuse to remain ignorant and action-less, we can change the course of history. Only mass action can create the world we want. The other three forces will not help us put a fuelless power plant in our homes. New energy technology will change everything about the way we live, work and relate to each other. It obsoletes greed and fear for survival. But like all exercises of spiritual faith, we must first manifest generosity and trust in our own lives. New energy technology is here. It has been here for decades. Communications technology and the Internet have torn the veil of secrecy off of this remarkable fact. People all over the world are starting to build new energy devices. The bankers and governments don't want this to happen, but can't stop it. Tremendous economic instabilities and wars will be used to distract people's attention from the new energy movement. There will be essentially no major media coverage of this aspect of what is going on. Western society is in many ways spiraling toward self-destruction due to the accumulated effects of greed and corruption. New energy technologies cannot stop this trend. If, however, you have a new energy device, you may be better positioned to support the transition that is underway. The question is, who will ultimately control the emerging world government, the first force, or the fourth force? Those who choose the fourth force may live to see the dawn of the world of new energy. I challenge you to be among the ones who do so. New Energy Sources was written by Peter Lindemann, D. Sc. and summarized and edited by Fred Burks Article taken from http://www.wanttoknow.info/newenergysources First check that homeschooling is legal in the country you live in. Why homeschool? There are many reasons why people choose to educate their children at home. Here are a few:
Article taken from http://www.christopherushomeschool.org/learning-more/homeschooling-101.html What is home education? Home education is increasingly popular in the UK. Known as 'homeschooling' in the United States, it simply means that parents take responsibility for their children's education rather than delegating it to a school. Home education in the UK can take a variety of different forms; the law requires that education should suit each individual child or teenager, so there is no need to follow any system or curriculum. Home education and the law Home education is legal throughout the UK, although the laws in the four countries of the UK (England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales) are not exactly the same. According to the 1996 education act in England and Wales, it is parents (not the state) who are responsible for providing their children's education 'in school or otherwise'. Their education must be suitable for the age, ability and aptitude of each child. The same wording is used in Northern Ireland. Scottish law says that 'every child has a right to an education, and it is the duty of the parent of every school age child to provide that education, either by sending the child to school, or by other means.' Thus it is up to each family to ensure that their children receive appropriate education, which will vary from child to child. Home educators in the UK do not have to be trained teachers, nor do they need any special qualifications to educate their children. Although some families choose to use a structured 'homeschool' curriculum, others pick and choose educational books from bookshops. Still others use the Internet and libraries to find suitable educational resources, and a growing number follow the 'autonomous' style of education, following the children's interests, learning through discussion and life in general. Why home educate? Sometimes children are taken out of school due to bullying or other serious problems, but there are a growing number of British parents who home educate their children from the start. This site explains some of the reasons that families in the UK are choosing home education, with suggestions about how to get started and links to resources and legal information for home educators, with a guide to taking GCSEs for those who wish to do so. Article taken from http://home-ed.info/index.html Useful link https://www.gov.uk/home-education GMOs, or “genetically modified organisms,” are plants or animals that have been genetically engineered with DNA from bacteria, viruses or other plants and animals. These experimental combinations of genes from different species cannot occur in nature or in traditional crossbreeding. Virtually all commercial GMOs are engineered to withstand direct application of herbicide and/or to produce an insecticide. Despite biotech industry promises, none of the GMO traits currently on the market offer increased yield, drought tolerance, enhanced nutrition, or any other consumer benefit. Meanwhile, a growing body of evidence connects GMOs with health problems, environmental damage and violation of farmers’ and consumers’ rights. Are GMOs safe? Most developed nations do not consider GMOs to be safe. In more than 60 countries around the world, including Australia, Japan, and all of the countries in the European Union, there are significant restrictions or outright bans on the production and sale of GMOs. In the U.S., the government has approved GMOs based on studies conducted by the same corporations that created them and profit from their sale. Increasingly, Americans are taking matters into their own hands and choosing to opt out of the GMO experiment. Are GMOs labeled? Unfortunately, even though polls consistently show that a significant majority of Americans want to know if the food they’re purchasing contains GMOs, the powerful biotech lobby has succeeded in keeping this information from the public. In the absence of mandatory labeling, the Non-GMO Project was created to give consumers the informed choice they deserve. What are the impacts of GMOs on the environment? Over 80% of all GMOs grown worldwide are engineered for herbicide tolerance. As a result, use of toxic herbicides like Roundup has increased 15 times since GMOs were introduced. GMO crops are also responsible for the emergence of “super weeds” and “super bugs:’ which can only be killed with ever more toxic poisons like 2,4-D (a major ingredient in Agent Orange). GMOs are a direct extension of chemical agriculture, and are developed and sold by the world’s biggest chemical companies. The long-term impacts of GMOs are unknown, and once released into the environment these novel organisms cannot be recalled. How do GMOs affect farmers? Because GMOs are novel life forms, biotechnology companies have been able to obtain patents with which to restrict their use. As a result, the companies that make GMOs now have the power to sue farmers whose fields are contaminated with GMOs, even when it is the result of inevitable drift from neighboring fields. GMOs therefore pose a serious threat to farmer sovereignty and to the national food security of any country where they are grown, including the United States. Article take from http://www.nongmoproject.org/learn-more/ What is Codex Alimentarius? The Codex Alimentarius Commission, Latin for 'food code', is an inter-governmental body that sets guidelines and standards to ensure ‘fair trade practices’ and consumer protection in relation to the global trade of food. It was established for this purpose in 1963 so has more than 40 years’ experience controlling food in an ever-more globalized world. It has over 170 member countries within the framework of the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme established by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Its primary stated purpose is “protecting the health of consumers and ensuring fair practices in the food trade.” The Commission also promotes coordination of all food standards work undertaken by international governmental and non-governmental organizations (INGO’s). The guidelines and standards are used as a benchmark for regional/national legislation and in World Trade Orgaization (WTO) diputes. Work is conducted through nearly 30 committees, each dealing with specific areas of food, and decisions are based on consensus voting by member countries. INGO’s do not have voting rights, but may influence proceedings. Most INGO’s present at Codex meetings represent transnational corporation interests. Single greatest threat to our access to natural health products? The Codex Alimentarius Commission is responsible for establishing a system of guidelines, standards and recommendations that guides the direction of the global food supply. It aims to tell us what is safe, but in the process often uses criteria that are manipulated to support the interests of the world’s largest corporations. Admirable, some might say, but of course, just how are governments in Codex protecting health, based on what criteria and — what exactly is meant by ‘fair trade practices’? Well, it’s certainly got nothing to do with the fair trade movement that aims to support farmers and producers in developing countries while promoting sustainability. It’s much more about a system of guidelines and standards that work to the advantage of the largest global food suppliers and producers. In such company, inevitably, small producers and suppliers get left out in the cold -- as do small governments that disagree with the thrust of some of the decisions made under the Codex banner. Codex Alimentarius, certainly in alternative circles, is often claimed to be the single greatest threat to our continued access to natural health products and wholesome foods. Robert Verkerk, of the Alliance for Natural Health, challenges some of the misconceptions and explains both what Codex is really about and what else we should be concerned about. Misinformation about Codex There was a rumour circulating that Codex was going to come into force on December 31st 2009. This rumour was incorrect. This date actually represented one of many implementation dates of the European Food Supplements Directive and was nothing directly to do with Codex. The text for the Codex Guideline on Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements, which has been based closely on the EU Directive—sharing some of its text verbatim—was ratified in July 2005 but is unlikely to finalised until around 2012 or 2013. It is only at this time it is likely to be used as the basis for national and regional laws in many parts of the world. To a large extent, Codex guidelines on food supplements are irrelevant to Europeans as they simply reflect the European laws on which they are based and it is the laws that ultimately affect our access to products, not the Codex guideline. Many other guidelines and standards, for example those affecting genetically modified (GM) foods and organic foods are complete, although they tend to be subject to regular amendment. Some of the misinformation on Codex appears to be deliberately disseminated, while other parts are unwitting reproductions of the misinformation by concerned yet naive individuals. Among the common erroneous facts are:
These are big claims indeed. They are also deeply worrying for anyone who cares about managing his or her health naturally, be it by consuming copious quantities of wholesome, organic whole foods or taking lashings of supplementary vitamins, minerals and herbs — or both. The problem is that these claims are not all true. Some are actually quite far off the mark, yet most contain elements of truth. How do governments make their decisions over how to control the world’s food supply? Codex is comprised of over 40 committees, task forces and expert groups which deal with nearly every facet of food production. Codex’s remit covers almost all areas of the food supply, ranging from cereals, cocoa, dairy, meat, meat hygiene, sugars and fresh fruit and vegetables to more controversial issues such as food labelling, food additives, contaminants in food, pesticide residues and genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Committee meetings are hosted by particular national governments and held either in the host country or another part of the world. For example, the host government for the Codex Committee on Food Labelling (CCFL) is Canada, whilst that for the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU), which deals, among other things, with food supplements, infant and formulae, is Germany. All Codex country members are permitted to attend each annual meeting or ‘session’ and the meeting is facilitated and closely managed by the Committee’s chair and secretariat that sits at the top table facing the delegates. Behind the country delegates, which typically comprise between three and five members, are the international, non-governmental organisations (INGOs). Depending on the meeting, these might include large consumer groups such as Consumers International, but they tend to be dominated by industry interests. That tends to mean the various international associations representing the food, pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries. Decision-making in committee meetings is by so-called consensus among governments. INGOs are not allowed to vote, but they can certainly interject during meetings and therefore have the potential to influence decisions. Observations about the Codex process Codex Alimentarius does not represent any law. It is however, the guidelines, standards and recommendations instigated by the inter-governmental organisation of Codex that has such broad ramifications on how the global food trade and food safety considerations are managed. Government delegations that sit in the committees and task forces of Codex are not democratically elected representatives; they are bureaucrats. One of the over-riding changes we have witnessed in recent years is the increasing influence of bureaucrats in rule making, for example, even the USA, which prides itself as a true democracy, has seen massive growth in the influence of federal agencies as compared with democratically elected Congress. Jonathan Emord, in his book The Rise of Tyranny, estimates that as much as 75% of all laws in the USA are now created by agencies, completely bypassing the democratic process. While the bureaucrats in the country delegations of Codex are theoretically responsive to concerns of stakeholders and members of the public, often engaging with them via consultations, the practical reality is that the primary steer comes from major cooperations. Small businesses and individuals may even make representations in consultations to governments, but by and large their views are ignored. Decision-making at Codex occurs by consensus, each country carrying a single vote. This process is complicated by the fact that countries may assemble as trading blocks, given changes to Codex procedural rules in 2003. The European Union now acts as a trading block where a single unelected European Commission official typically represents Government representatives of the EU’s 27 Member States, alongside those Member States present . Government delegations and the committee secretariat may be influenced by international non-governmental organisations (INGO’s) who participate in the Codex process where official observer status has been granted. While INGO’s purportedly reflect all interest relevant to a given committees activities (e.g. GMO’s, food additives, pesticide residues, food hygiene, etc.), the reality is that INGO influence is disproportionately in favour of trade associations representing the largest trans-national cooperations in the food sector. While excited debates during the course of Codex meetings may often occur between various INGO’s, governments and the Secretariat, it seems much of this is for show as a demonstration of Codex’s consensus process. The reality is somewhat more stark; in most situations, the primary decisions have already been made prior to the meeting and INGO’s voicing a contrary opinion will effectively find that its views have little or no traction. Another interesting observation that can be drawn from Codex meetings is the extent of the influence of certain country delegations, and the lack of influence of others. For example, the case for the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU) appears to be disproportionately influenced by the US, EU and Canadian government delegations with the German-controlled Secretariat chaired by Dr Rolf Grossklaus exerting the primary influence. In these meetings, it is clear that these Government delegations have conferred deeply during the months preceding the annual CCNFSDU meeting, aided by particular trade associations in order to resolve decisions in their respective favours. What issues does Codex exert influence over? There is no doubt that Codex develops the prime system of guidance for the global food supply. Whether we’re looking at the amounts of pesticide residues or particular micro-organisms that are considered safe, the amount of gluten allowed in gluten-free foods, transport and storage systems for fresh fruit and vegetables or the safety of food additives or genetically modified (GM) crops, the particular Codex guideline or standard related to the issue is viewed as the key benchmark for international trade. One of the trends we see, given the disproportionate influence of very large corporate concerns, is that GM foods, contaminants, additives, pesticide residues and other synthetic chemicals that many of us regard as intrinsically harmful, are pushed for all they’re worth, being deemed safe at those concentrations typically used in processed foods. On the other hand, those things we consider intrinsically beneficial, such as vitamins and minerals, are given a very tough ride. If that weren’t enough, Codex standards for healthy food production systems such as organic production systems, are being increasingly degraded in order to suit the needs and interests of the transnational corporations which are the key beneficiaries of the global food trade. Looking through the diverse range of issues covered by Codex, it’s possible to tease out some of the issues of greatest concern to natural health. Important issues which Codex affects that impact our ability to manage our health naturally Genetically modified (GM) food
Is Codex voluntary? Because many of the issues take years to reach resolution, needing to work their way through the long-drawn-out, iterative, eight-step consensus-based decision-making process detailed in the Codex Procedural Manual, sharp time lines are rarely known until an issue in the very late stages of consideration. Moreover, the impact of any standard or guideline is not immediate, as its impact is normally only really noticed by consumers or producers once national laws have been harmonised with Codex. But when citizens express their concerns about Codex to their governments, the common response is along the lines of: “Don’t worry, Codex is a voluntary system of guidelines and standards that is not mandatory. Codex doesn’t represent the law.” The US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) has made its views on this clear for several years, particularly given that most American concerns about Codex have centred around its impact on the US’s fertile, dietary supplements industry. While the FDA attempts to downgrade the significance of Codex in the creation of laws on foods and related substances, such as dietary (food) supplements, the FDA is somewhat economical with the truth. It rightly pinpoints Article 3 of the Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement of the World Trade Organization (WTO) as being of significance, but in my view, wrongly dismisses its crucial relevance. Wider impacts Mexico, where the laws have historically been lax enough to allow a thriving natural and integrated cancer treatment industry to flourish, is now being forced to clamp down on its own laws. The Trilateral Co-operation Charter, signed by the USA, Canada and Mexico, is increasingly becoming the mechanism to tighten the screws in all three countries. If the North American Free Trade Agreement proceeds, this will likely ensure that policies affecting natural health (including GM, food additives, pesticide residues and all the other things that Codex deals with) will be aligned to the existing European system. It's almost certainly why we see a transition away from Europe's traditional anti-GM stance towards a pro-GM stance—massively opposed by the European public—because that's the way the US and Canada want it to be. Once these various trading blocs are aligned, smaller nations will be forced increasingly to dance to the tune of Codex. Damage caused by the global food trade We’ve established so far that the Codex Alimentarius Commission is the prevailing mechanism that dictates the rules governing the global trade of food. We’ve also established that the WTO is the ‘policeman’ that ensures these rules are abided by. The question we need to ask ourselves is whether these rules are good for us, the people, and whether they are good for the environment. The ANH position is that the development of the global food trade in the last 30 years is neither good for our health, nor is it good for the environment. The system has few winners — the main ones being the transnational corporations being directly involved in the global production and trade of food and the pharmaceutical industry that profits from the increasing chronic disease burden that results. One of the key characteristics of the contemporary global food trade is its simplicity and lack of diversity. The nutritional content and quality of foods is a low priority. Food hygiene as a means of controlling pathogens that cause food borne illness (a very real and persistent threat to health) is a key priority but methods for managing such pathogens, such as the use of irradiation or large quantities of preservatives, deplete the integrity and quality of the food. The increasing use of GMO’s, which are endorsed by Codex, is a huge problem both in terms of the effects on human health, and the environment. We uphold that the increasing control of our food supply by a small number of governments and an even smaller number of corporations is counter to the needs and requirements of the majority of the population of the world. A considerable and growing body of work points to the fact that environmental and health sustainability requires the efficient functioning of local and community based food production and healthcare systems that are optimally adapted to the local requirements. Such systems demand increasing decentralisation rather than increasing centralisation. They demand community and individual engagement rather than community and individual disempowerment. When the UN looked to 400 scientists from 60 countries to offer views on viable approaches to solving the challenge of food security and world hunger as part of the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASDT) project, the general thrust argued against biotechnology as a solution. In fact, the report stressed that making subsistence farmers dependent on GM seeds produced by just a handful of companies was completely counter to the food security requirements of these farmers. It stressed that sustainable and community based farming were central to a solution and of course Codex Alimentarius currently works in a completely opposite direction. Why are countries forced to dance to the Codex tango? While countries like the USA are vocalising that they have no intention of harmonising their national laws with Codex guidelines, they admit they will have to comply for exports in order to avoid falling foul of the global trade policeman, the WTO. But these claims are both deceptive and hollow; they fail to take on board the full implications of the double-edged sword that is Codex, dealing on one hand with the facilitation of global trade and, on the other, the restriction of trade, supposedly on the basis of consumer safety. As we’ve seen, the whole purpose of Codex Alimentarius is to instigate a system of guidelines to which countries can adapt their laws to facilitate so-called fair trading practices in relation to food. That means removing barriers to trade. And since the WTO arbitrates on such matters, let’s examine the WTO’s SPS Agreement. The Agreement, under Article 3, specifically requires that countries harmonise their sanitary and phytosanitary measures with international guidelines, standards or recommendations. This article specifically uses the verb shall rather than should. The Agreement clearly states that for matters concerning food safety, those guidelines, standards or recommendations established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission are the ones relevant for harmonisation. Since the Agreement quite centrally deals with the issue of consumer protection, it follows that countries are mandated to harmonise their national laws to Codex. In actual fact, countries can be even more restrictive than Codex, under the terms of Article 3, although such restriction needs to be scientifically justified. Should there be a dispute over the effect of a country’s laws restricting trade or not adequately protecting consumers, the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (WTODSB) can be summoned to arbitrate. This of course is something that powerful nations can entertain, while for smaller, developing countries, dependent on food trade, getting sucked into a trade dispute is likely only to end in tears. A good example of the consequences of a trade dispute managed through the WTODSB is the long-running case of the EU ban on imports of beef treated with artificial growth hormones in the US and Canada. The dispute costs the EU over $116 million annually in sanctions paid to the US, with another $11m paid to Canada, and has now run for over 10 years with still no resolution in sight. Compliance is the only real option unless your pockets are as deep as those of a powerful trading bloc, such as the EU. The Bottom Line Given that Codex does not create laws but merely delivers guidelines, standards and recommendations, its outputs are characterised as innocuous by many governments and corporations that benefit from them. The reality is that most countries find they have no option but to harmonise their laws to Codex as they are unable to face the sanctions imposed on them by the WTODSB, the ultimate enforcer of Codex’s rules governing the global food trade. When it comes to us either being poisoned by pollutants or chemicals in our food, or having our fundamental rights and freedoms restricted by losing access to wholesome, natural foods and nutrients, it is of course not Codex itself that provides the legal instrument that impacts us; it is the national and regional laws of countries. This distancing of Codex from the law seems to allow Codex to escape direct culpability—but of course also makes its operation so insiduous. As the global food trade continues to expand and regional and local food production comes under increasing pressure from the biggest agricultural and food producers in the world, Codex continues its work. In some cases, Codex guidelines and standards are built on existing legal templates, such as in the case of the Codex Guideline on Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements, which is modelled closely on the EU Food Supplements Directive. Codex then allows this model to be exported internationally. In other cases, such as with GM foods, where the US legal model — which presumes GM foods are substantially equivalent to conventional foods and therefore intrinsically safe — is increasingly acting as the international model relevant to biotechnology products. Although we can all engage with our governments to try to show them the short-sightedness of so much that they engage with within the committee rooms of Codex, probably our most powerful weapon is our ability to choose what we eat. While many of us are still able to exercise freedom of choice, one of the most effective actions we can take is to be selective in our choice of foods. We should, for example, support those food production systems that contribute positively to our health, while rejecting those that don’t. We also have to ensure those around us — and especially our children — understand the importance of consumer power. Combine this with targeted lobbying of governments and elected representatives and we could see fundamental change to our food supply, a change that has the ability to facilitate our return to the foods to which our genes have adapted over millennia. Crunch Time Ironically, when it comes to Codex assessments of the safety of nutrients, they do take into account the nutrients consumed in the diet and substract these from the lowest amounts they consider safe using multiple safety factors and selective, worse-case scientific data. The end result? Codex-compliant food supplements containing diddly squat of life-saving micronutrients. Dr Bruce Ames, Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of California, Berkeley, and a Senior Scientist at Children's Hospital Oakland Research Institute (CHORI), is one of many scientists who have long argued, on the basis of ample scientific evidence, that micronutrient deficiencies, associated with modern western diets, are one of the most important factors in the epidemic of chronic diseases. These diseases include the ‘Big 5’: heart disease, cancer, diabetes, obesity and osteoporosis, which now contribute to the greatest burden on our healthcare systems. Codex, and regulatory regimes based on it, undoubtedly present one of the greatest threats to any healthcare system which seeks to deal with the fundamental causes of disease by addressing micronutrient intakes. Are you willing to let governments and corporations control what you put into your body? Or will you play your part in helping to reverse the trend towards the global control of our food supply and the dumbing down of natural medicines based on faulty, manipulated science. Thomas Jefferson’s words must be allowed to ring loudly in our heads as we effect these changes that are urgently needed to prevent any further distancing between humans and our natural heritage. We must protect not only our lifeblood but that of future generations. Article taken from http://www.anh-europe.org/campaigns/codex#What_is_codex
Codex Alimentarius Part 1 http://youtu.be/WWRxT_6L_pA Getting Nutrition Part 2 http://youtu.be/OPybbh7ux58 Codex, Food & Monsanto Part 3 http://youtu.be/mxMjlAUeW2s Videos taken From BBC5tv http://www.youtube.com/user/BBC5tv |