Monsanto’s Roundup Triggers Over 40 Plant Diseases

New Diseases Endanger Human and Animal Health

By Jeffrey Smith
January 19, 2011

While visiting a seed corn dealer’s demonstration plots in Iowa last fall, Dr. Don Huber walked passed a soybean field and noticed a distinct line separating severely diseased yellowing soybeans on the right from healthy green plants on the left (see photo). The yellow section was suffering from Sudden Death Syndrome (SDS), a serious plant disease that ravaged the Midwest in 2009 and ’10, driving down yields and profits. Something had caused that area of soybeans to be highly susceptible and Don had a good idea what it was.

The diseased field on the right had glyphosate applied the previous season. Photo by Don Huber

Don Huber spent 35 years as a plant pathologist at Purdue University and knows a lot about what causes green plants to turn yellow and die prematurely. He asked the seed dealer why the SDS was so severe in the one area of the field and not the other. “Did you plant something there last year that wasn’t planted in the rest of the field?” he asked. Sure enough, precisely where the severe SDS was, the dealer had grown alfalfa, which he later killed off at the end of the season by spraying a glyphosate-based herbicide (such as Roundup). The healthy part of the field, on the other hand, had been planted to sweet corn and hadn’t received glyphosate.

This was yet another confirmation that Roundup was triggering SDS. In many fields, the evidence is even more obvious. The disease was most severe at the ends of rows where the herbicide applicator looped back to make another pass (see photo). That’s where extra Roundup was applied.

Don’s a scientist; it takes more than a few photos for him to draw conclusions. But Don’s got more—lots more. For over 20 years, Don studied Roundup’s active ingredient glyphosate. He’s one of the world’s experts. And he can rattle off study after study that eliminate any doubt that glyphosate is contributing not only to the huge increase in SDS, but to the outbreak of numerous other diseases. (See selected reading list.)

Roundup: The perfect storm for plant disease

Sudden Death Syndrome is more severe at the ends of rows, where Roundup dose is strongest. Photo by Amy Bandy.

More than 30% of all herbicides sprayed anywhere contain glyphosate—the world’s bestselling weed killer. It was patented by Monsanto for use in their Roundup brand, which became more popular when they introduced “Roundup Ready” crops starting in 1996. These genetically modified (GM) plants, which now include soy, corn, cotton, canola, and sugar beets, have inserted genetic material from viruses and bacteria that allows the crops to withstand applications of normally deadly Roundup.

(Monsanto requires farmers who buy Roundup Ready seeds to only use the company’s Roundup brand of glyphosate. This has extended the company’s grip on the glyphosate market, even after its patent expired in 2000.)

The herbicide doesn’t destroy plants directly. It rather cooks up a unique perfect storm of conditions that revs up disease-causing organisms in the soil, and at the same time wipes out plant defenses against those diseases. The mechanisms are well-documented but rarely cited.

  • The glyphosate molecule grabs vital nutrients and doesn’t let them go. This process is called chelation and was actually the original property for which glyphosate was patented in 1964. It was only 10 years later that it was patented as an herbicide. When applied to crops, it deprives them of vital minerals necessary for healthy plant function—especially for resisting serious soilborne diseases. The importance of minerals for protecting against disease is well established. In fact, mineral availability was the single most important measurement used by several famous plant breeders to identify disease-resistant varieties.
  • Glyphosate annihilates beneficial soil organisms, such as Pseudomonas and Bacillus bacteria that live around the roots. Since they facilitate the uptake of plant nutrients and suppress disease-causing organisms, their untimely deaths means the plant gets even weaker and the pathogens even stronger.
  • The herbicide can interfere with photosynthesis, reduce water use efficiency, lower lignin , damage and shorten root systems, cause plants to release important sugars, and change soil pH—all of which can negatively affect crop health.
  • Glyphosate itself is slightly toxic to plants. It also breaks down slowly in soil to form another chemical called AMPA (aminomethylphosphonic acid) which is also toxic. But even the combined toxic effects of glyphosate and AMPA are not sufficient on their own to kill plants. It has been demonstrated numerous times since 1984
  • The actual plant assassins, according to Purdue weed scientists and others, are severe disease-causing organisms present in almost all soils. Glyphosate dramatically promotes these, which in turn overrun the weakened crops with deadly infections.

    Glyphosate with sterile soil (A) only stunts plant growth. In normal soil (B), pathogens kill the plant. Control (C) shows normal growth.

“This is the herbicidal mode of action of glyphosate,” says Don. “It increases susceptibility to disease, suppresses natural disease controls such as beneficial organisms, and promotes virulence of soilborne pathogens at the same time.” In fact, he points out that “If you apply certain fungicides to weeds, it destroys the herbicidal activity of glyphosate!”

By weakening plants and promoting disease, glyphosate opens the door for lots of problems in the field. According to Don, “There are more than 40 diseases of crop plants that are reported to increase with the use of glyphosate, and that number keeps growing as people recognize the association between glyphosate and disease.”

Roundup promotes human and animal toxins

Photo by Robert Kremer

Some of the fungi promoted by glyphosate produce dangerous toxins that can end up in food and feed. Sudden Death Syndrome, for example, is caused by the Fusarium fungus. USDA scientist Robert Kremer found a 500% increase in Fusarium root infection of Roundup Ready soybeans when glyphosate is applied (see photos and chart). Corn, wheat, and many other plants can also suffer from serious Fusarium-based diseases.

But Fusarium’s wrath is not limited to plants. According to a report by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, toxins from Fusarium on various types of food crops have been associated with disease outbreaks throughout history. They’ve “been linked to the plague epidemics” of medieval Europe, “large-scale human toxicosis in Eastern Europe,” oesophageal cancer in southern Africa and parts of China, joint diseases in Asia and southern Africa, and a blood disorder in Russia. Fusarium toxins have also been shown to cause animal diseases and induce infertility.

As Roundup use rises, plant disease skyrockets

When Roundup Ready crops were introduced in 1996, Monsanto boldly claimed that herbicide use would drop as a result. It did—slightly—for three years. But over the next 10 years, it grew considerably. Total herbicide use in the US jumped by a whopping 383 million pounds in the 13 years after GMOs came on the scene. The greatest contributor is Roundup.

Over time, many types of weeds that would once keel over with just a tiny dose of Roundup now require heavier and heavier applications. Some are nearly invincible. In reality, these super-weeds are resistant not to the glyphosate itself, but to the soilborne pathogens that normally do the killing in Roundup sprayed fields.

Having hundreds of thousands of acres infested with weeds that resist plant disease and weed killer has been devastating to many US farmers, whose first response is to pour on more and more Roundup. Its use is now accelerating. Nearly half of the huge 13-year increase in herbicide use took place in just the last 2 years. This has serious implications.

As US farmers drench more than 135 million acres of Roundup Ready crops with Roundup, plant diseases are enjoying an unprecedented explosion across America’s most productive crop lands. Don rattles off a lengthy list of diseases that were once under effective management and control, but are now creating severe hardship. (The list includes SDS and Corynespora root rot of soybeans, citrus variegated chlorosis (CVC), Fusarium wilt of cotton, Verticillium wilt of potato, take-all root, crown, and stem blight of cereals, Fusarium root and crown rot, Fusarium head blight, Pythium root rot and damping off, Goss’ wilt of corn, and many more.)

In Brazil, the new “Mad Soy Disease” is ravaging huge tracts of soybean acreage. Although scientists have not yet determined its cause, Don points out that various symptoms resemble a rice disease (bakanae) which is caused by Fusarium.

Corn dies young

In recent years, corn plants and entire fields in the Midwest have been dying earlier and earlier due to various diseases. Seasoned and observant farmers say they’re never seen anything like it.

“A decade ago, corn plants remained green and healthy well into September,” says Bob Streit, an agronomist in Iowa. “But over the last three years, diseases have turned the plants yellow, then brown, about 8 to 10 days earlier each season. In 2010, yellowing started around July 7th and yield losses were devastating for many growers.”

Bob and other crop experts believe that the increased use of glyphosate is the primary contributor to this disease trend. It has already reduced corn yields significantly. “If the corn dies much earlier,” says Bob, “it might collapse the corn harvest in the US, and threaten the food chain that it supports.”

A question of bugs

In addition to promoting plant diseases, which is well-established, spraying Roundup might also promote insects. That’s because many bugs seek sick plants. Scientists point out that healthy plants produce nutrients in a form that many insects cannot assimilate. Thus, farmers around the world report less insect problems among high quality, nutrient-dense crops. Weaker plants, on the other hand, create insect smorgasbords. This suggests that plants ravaged with diseases promoted by glyphosate may also attract more insects, which in turn will increase the use of toxic pesticides. More study is needed to confirm this.

Roundup persists in the environment

Monsanto used to boast that Roundup is biodegradable, claiming that it breaks down quickly in the soil. But courts in the US and Europe disagreed and found them guilty of false advertising. In fact, Monsanto’s own test data revealed that only 2% of the product broke down after 28 days.

Whether glyphosate degrades in weeks, months, or years varies widely due to factors in the soil, including pH, clay , types of minerals, residues from Roundup Ready crops, and the presence of the specialized enzymes needed to break down the herbicide molecule. In some conditions, glyphosate can grab hold of soil nutrients and remain stable for long periods. One study showed that it took up to 22 years for glyphosate to degrade only half its volume! So much for trusting Monsanto’s product claims.

Glyphosate can attack from above and below. It can drift over from a neighbors farm and wreak havoc. And it can even be released from dying weeds, travel through the soil, and then be taken up by healthy crops.

The amount of glyphosate that can cause damage is tiny. European scientists demonstrated that less than half an ounce per acre inhibits the ability of plants to take up and transport essential micronutrients (see chart).

As a result, more and more farmers are finding that crops planted in years after Roundup is applied suffer from weakened defenses and increased soilborne diseases. The situation is getting worse for many reasons.

  • The glyphosate concentration in the soil builds up season after season with each subsequent application.
  • Glyphosate can also accumulate for 6-8 years inside perennial plants like alfalfa, which get sprayed over and over.
  • Glyphosate residues in the soil that become bound and immobilized can be reactivated by the application of phosphate fertilizers or through other methods. Potato growers in the West and Midwest, for example, have experienced severe losses from glyphosate that has been reactivated.
  • Glyphosate can find its way onto farmland accidentally, through drifting spray, in contaminated water, and even through chicken manure!

    Wheat affected after 10 years of glyphosate field applications.

Imagine the shock of farmers who spread chicken manure in their fields to add nutrients, but instead found that the glyphosate in the manure tied up nutrients in the soil, promoted plant disease, and killed off weeds or crops. Test results of the manure showed glyphosate/AMPA concentrations at a whopping 0.36-0.75 parts per million (ppm). The normal herbicidal rate of glyphosate is about 0.5 ppm/acre.

Manure from other animals may also be spreading the herbicide, since US livestock consume copious amounts of glyphosate—which accumulates in corn kernels and soybeans. If it isn’t found in livestock manure (or urine), that may be even worse. If glyphosate is not exiting the animal, it must be accumulating with every meal, ending up in our meat and possibly milk.

Add this threat to the already high glyphosate residues inside our own diets due to corn and soybeans, and we have yet another serious problem threatening our health. Glyphosate has been linked to sterility, hormone disruption, abnormal and lower sperm counts, miscarriages, placental cell death, birth defects, and cancer, to name a few. (See resource list on glyphosate health effects.)

Nutrient loss in humans and animals

The same nutrients that glyphosate chelates and deprives plants are also vital for human and animal health. These include iron, zinc, copper, manganese, magnesium, calcium, boron, and others. Deficiencies of these elements in our diets, alone or in combination, are known to interfere with vital enzyme systems and cause a long list of disorders and diseases.

Alzheimer’s, for example, is linked with reduced copper and magnesium. Don Huber points out that this disease has jumped 9000% since 1990.

Manganese, zinc, and copper are also vital for proper functioning of the SOD (superoxide dismustase) cycle. This is key for stemming inflammation and is an important component in detoxifying unwanted chemical compounds in humans and animals.

Glyphosate-induced mineral deficiencies can easily go unidentified and untreated. Even when laboratory tests are done, they can sometimes detect adequate mineral levels, but miss the fact that glyphosate has already rendered them unusable.

Glyphosate can tie up minerals for years and years, essentially removing them from the pool of nutrients available for plants, animals, and humans. If we combine the more than 135 million pounds of glyphosate-based herbicides applied in the US in 2010 with total applications over the past 30 years, we may have already eliminated millions of pounds of nutrients from our food supply.

This loss is something we simply can’t afford. We’re already suffering from progressive nutrient deprivation even without Roundup. In a UK study, for example, they found between 16-76% less nutrients in 1991, compared to levels in the same foods in 1940.

Livestock disease and mineral deficiency

Roundup Ready crops dominate US livestock feed. Soy and corn are most prevalent—93% of US soy and nearly 70% of corn are Roundup Ready. Animals are also fed derivatives of the other three Roundup Ready crops: canola, sugar beets, and cottonseed. Nutrient loss from glyphosate can therefore be severe.

This is especially true for manganese (Mn), which is not only chelated by glyphosate, but also reduced in Roundup Ready plants (see photo). One veterinarian finds low manganese in every livestock liver he measures. Another vet sent the liver of a stillborn calf out for testing. The lab report stated: No Detectible Levels of Manganese—in spite of the fact that the mineral was in adequate concentrations in his region. When that vet started adding manganese to the feed of a herd, disease rates dropped from a staggering 20% to less than ½%.

Veterinarians who started their practice after GMOs were introduced in 1996 might assume that many chronic or acute animal disorders are common and to be expected. But several older vets have stated flat out that animals have gotten much sicker since GMOs came on the scene. And when they switch livestock from GMO to non-GMO feed, the improvement in health is dramatic. Unfortunately, no one is tracking this, nor is anyone looking at the impacts of consuming milk and meat from GM-fed animals.

Alfalfa madness, brought to you by Monsanto and the USDA

As we continue to drench our fields with Roundup, the perfect storm gets bigger and bigger. Don asks the sobering question: “How much of the hundreds of millions of pounds of glyphosate that have been applied to our most productive farm soils over the past 30 years is still available to damage subsequent crops through its effects on nutrient availability, increased disease, or reduced nutrient of our food and feed?”

Instead of taking urgent steps to protect our land and food, the USDA just made plans to make things worse. In December they released their Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on Roundup Ready alfalfa, which Monsanto hopes to reintroduce to the market.

Alfalfa is the fourth largest crop in the US, grown on 22 million acres. It is used primarily as a high protein source to feed dairy cattle and other ruminant animals. At present, weeds are not a big deal for alfalfa. Only 7% of alfalfa acreage is ever sprayed with an herbicide of any kind. If Roundup Ready alfalfa is approved, however, herbicide use would jump to unprecedented levels, and the weed killer of choice would of course be Roundup.

Even without the application of glyphosate, the nutritional quality of Roundup Ready alfalfa will be less, since Roundup Ready crops, by their nature, have reduced mineral . When glyphosate is applied, nutrient quality suffers even more (see chart).

The chance that Roundup would increase soilborne diseases in alfalfa fields is a near certainty. In fact, Alfalfa may suffer more than other Roundup Ready crops. As a perennial, it can accumulate Roundup year after year. It is a deep-rooted plant, and glyphosate leaches into sub soils. And “Fusarium is a very serious pathogen of alfalfa,” says Don. “So too are Phytophthora and Pythium,” both of which are promoted by glyphosate. “Why would you even consider jeopardizing the productivity and nutrient quality of the third most valuable crop in the US?” he asks in frustration, “especially since we have no way of removing the gene once it is spread throughout the alfalfa gene pool.”

It’s already spreading. Monsanto had marketed Roundup Ready alfalfa for a year, until a federal court declared its approval to be illegal in 2007. They demanded that the USDA produce an EIS in order to account for possible environmental damage. But even with the seeds taken off the market, the RR alfalfa that had already been planted has been contaminating non-GMO varieties. Cal/West Seeds, for example, discovered that more than 12% of their seed lots tested positive for contamination in 2009, up from 3% in 2008.

In their EIS, the USDA does acknowledge that genetically modified alfalfa can contaminate organic and non-GMO alfalfa, and that this could create economic hardship. They are even considering the unprecedented step of placing restrictions on RR alfalfa seed fields, requiring isolation distances. Experience suggests that this will slow down, but not eliminate GMO contamination. Furthermore, studies confirm that genes do transfer from GM crops into soil and soil organisms, and can jump into fungus through cuts on the surface of GM plants. But the EIS does not adequately address these threats and their implications.

Instead, the USDA largely marches lock-step with the biotech industry and turns a blind eye to the widespread harm that Roundup is already inflicting. If they decide to approve Monsanto’s alfalfa, the USDA may ultimately be blamed for a catastrophe of epic proportions.

Biofuels Emit 400 percent more CO2 than Regular Fuels

Although CO2 is not the pollutant crazy environmentalists portray it to be, where is the environmental solution on the current use of biofuels if they emit more of that ‘pollutant’ than gasoline or diesel?  There isn’t any.  It’s all about monopoly and control.

By Ethan A. Huff

A recent report issued by the European Union has revealed that biofuels, or fuel made from living, renewable sources, is not really all that beneficial to the environment. Rather than reduce the net carbon footprint as intended, biofuels can produce four times more carbon dioxide pollution than conventional fossil fuels do.

Common biofuels like corn ethanol, which has become a popular additive in gasoline, and soy biodiesel, which is being used in commercial trucks and other diesel-fueled vehicles, are often considered to be environmentally-friendly because they are renewable. But in order to grow enough of these crops to use for both food and fuel, large swaths of land around the world are being converted into crop fields for growing biofuels.

In other words, millions of acres of lush rainforests are becoming corn and soy fields in order to provide enough of these resources for their new uses. The net carbon footprint of growing crops for fuel is far higher than what is emitted from simple fossil fuel usage.

According to the report, American soybeans have an indirect carbon footprint of 340kg of CO2 per gigajoule (GJ), while conventional diesel and gasoline create only 85kg/GJ. Similarly, the European rapeseed, a plant similar to the North American canola, indirectly produces 150kg/GJ because additional land in other nations has been converted to grow rapeseed for food in order to replace the native crops that are now being grown for fuel.

Ironically, the amount of direct and indirect resources used to grow food for fuel is quite high compared to that of conventional fossil fuels. Biofuels also do not burn as efficiently and can be rough on the engines they fuel. Ethanol-enriched gasoline can also reduce gas mileage efficiency by upwards of 25 percent, depending on the vehicle.

Growing food for fuel ends up increasing the price of food for consumers. It also puts additional strain on families, many of whom are already having difficulties making ends meet in current economic conditions.

When all is said and done, biofuels seem to be a whole lot of hype with not a lot of benefit. Environmentally, fiscally and practically, biofuels are a disaster. Fossil fuels may not be an ideal form of clean energy, but at this point in time, they make a lot more sense than biofuels.

Choosing healthy foods now called a mental disorder

NaturalNews.com

In its never-ending attempt to fabricate “mental disorders” out of every human activity, the psychiatric industry is now pushing the

Eating healthy foods, pseudo-scientists say, is sign of a mental disorder.

most ridiculous disease they’ve invented yet: Healthy eating disorder.

This is no joke: If you focus on eating healthy foods, you’re “mentally diseased” and probably need some sort of chemical treatment involving powerful psychotropic drugs. The Guardiannewspaper reports, “Fixation with healthy eating can be sign of serious psychological disorder” and goes on to claim this “disease” is called orthorexia nervosa — which is basically just Latin for “nervous about correct eating.”

But they can’t just called it “nervous healthy eating disorder” because that doesn’t sound like they know what they’re talking about. So they translate it into Latin where it sounds smart (even though it isn’t). That’s where most disease names come from: Doctors just describe the symptoms they see with a name like osteoporosis (which means “bones with holes in them”).

Getting back to this fabricated “orthorexia” disease, the Guardian goes on to report, “Orthorexics commonly have rigid rules around eating. Refusing to touch sugar, salt, caffeine, alcohol, wheat, gluten, yeast, soya, corn and dairy foods is just the start of their diet restrictions. Any foods that have come into contact with pesticides, herbicides or contain artificial additives are also out.”

Wait a second. So attempting to avoid chemicals, dairy, soy and sugar now makes you a mental health patient? Yep. According to these experts. If you actually take special care to avoid pesticides, herbicides and genetically modified ingredients like soy and sugar, there’s something wrong with you.

But did you notice that eating junk food is assumed to be “normal?” If you eat processed junk foods laced with synthetic chemicals, that’s okay with them. The mental patients are the ones who choose organic, natural foods, apparently.

What is “normal” when it comes to foods?

I told you this was coming. Years ago, I warned NaturalNews readers that an attempt might soon be under way to outlaw broccoli because of its anti-cancer phytonutrients. This mental health assault on health-conscious consumers is part of that agenda. It’s an effort to marginalize healthy eaters by declaring them to be mentally unstable and therefore justify carting them off to mental institutions where they will be injected with psychiatric drugs and fed institutional food that’s all processed, dead and full of toxic chemicals.

The Guardian even goes to the ridiculous extreme of saying, “The obsession about which foods are “good” and which are “bad” means orthorexics can end up malnourished.”

Follow the non-logic on this, if you can: Eating “good” foods will cause malnutrition! Eating bad foods, I suppose, is assumed to provide all the nutrients you need. That’s about as crazy a statement on nutrition as I’ve ever read. No wonder people are so diseased today: The mainstream media is telling them that eating health food is a mental disorder that will cause malnutrition!
Shut up and swallow your Soylent Green

It’s just like I reported years ago: You’re not supposed to question your food, folks. Sit down, shut up, dig in and chow down. Stop thinking about what you’re eating and just do what you’re told by the mainstream media and its processed food advertisers. Questioning the health properties of your junk food is a mental disorder, didn’t you know? And if you “obsess” over foods (by doing such things as reading the ingredients labels, for example), then you’re weird. Maybe even sick.

That’s the message they’re broadcasting now. Junk food eaters are “normal” and “sane” and “nourished.” But health food eaters are diseased, abnormal and malnourished.

But why, you ask, would they attack healthy eaters? People like Dr. Gabriel Cousens can tell you why: Because increased mental and spiritual awareness is only possible while on a diet of living, natural foods.

Eating junk foods keeps you dumbed down and easy to control, you see. It literally messes with your mind, numbing your senses with MSG, aspartame and yeast extract. People who subsist on junk foods are docile and quickly lose the ability to think for themselves. They go along with whatever they’re told by the TV or those in apparent positions of authority, never questioning their actions or what’s really happening in the world around them.

In contrast to that, people who eat health-enhancing natural foods — with all the medicinal nutrients still intact — begin to awaken their minds and spirits. Over time, they begin to question the reality around them and they pursue more enlightened explorations of topics like community, nature, ethics, philosophy and the big picture of things that are happening in the world. They become “aware” and can start to see the very fabric of the Matrix, so to speak.

This, of course, is a huge danger to those who run our consumption-based society because consumption depends on ignorance combined with suggestibility. For people to keep blindly buying foods, medicines, health insurance and consumer goods, they need to have their higher brain functions switched off. Processed junk foods laced with toxic chemicals just happens to achieve that rather nicely. Why do you think dead, processed foods remain the default meals in public schools, hospitals and prisons? It’s because dead foods turn off higher levels of awareness and keep people focused on whatever distractions you can feed their brains: Television, violence, fear, sports, sex and so on.

But living as a zombie is, in one way quite “normal” in society today because so many people are doing it. But that doesn’t make it normal in my book: The real “normal” is an empowered, healthy, awakened person nourished with living foods and operating as a sovereign citizen in a free world. Eating living foods is like taking the red pill because over time it opens up a whole new perspective on the fabric of reality. It sets you free to think for yourself.

But eating processed junk foods is like taking the blue pill because it keeps you trapped in a fabricated reality where your life experiences are fabricated by consumer product companies who hijack your senses with designer chemicals (like MSG) that fool your brain into thinking you’re eating real food.

If you want to be alive, aware and in control of your own life, eat more healthy living foods. But don’t expect to be popular with mainstream mental health “experts” or dietitians — they’re all being programmed to consider you to be “crazy” because you don’t follow their mainstream diets of dead foods laced with synthetic chemicals.

But you and I know the truth here: We are the normal ones. The junk food eaters are the real mental patients, and the only way to wake them up to the real world is to start feeding them living foods.

Some people are ready to take the red pill, and others aren’t. All you can do is show them the door. They must open it themselves.

In the mean time, try to avoid the mental health agents who are trying to label you as having a mental disorder just because you pay attention to what you put in your body. There’s nothing wrong with avoiding sugar, soy, MSG, aspartame, HFCS and other toxic chemicals in the food supply. In fact, your very life depends on it.

Oh, and by the way, if you want to join the health experts who keep inventing new fictitious diseases and disorders, check out my popular Disease Mongering Engine web page where you can invent your own new diseases at the click of a button! You’ll find it at:http://www.naturalnews.com/disease-…

Codex Alimentarius: No More Health Freedom

The United Nations and World Health Organization’s FrankenScience to Push Restrictions on What You Eat

By Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
May 1, 2010

Almost no time is given to considering the one type of freedom that we all seem to take for granted. Health freedom, or the possibility to choose a good state of being and to nourish it through methods of our own choosing, is something that many times borders into the abstract. Besides being a population accustomed with consuming pharmaceuticals as a way to “maintain” and “improve” our health, many people are unaware that all we need to stay healthy is to provide our body with the nutrients it needs in order to maintain a strong immune system. Part of the reason why this is so is that we all have been brought up within a cultural frame that from our very early years induces us to rely on processed synthetic products, instead of the natural ones which cost just a fraction of the price and that are more effective in providing us the health we all seek.

If the fact natural medicines and products really are the solution to our health problems was not true, the big pharmaceutical conglomerates would not spend billions every year in research and development with profit written all over it. If you have never asked yourself where pharmaceuticals come from, this is a good time to learn. To a great extent, such products are developed based on the curative properties of natural ingredients found in plants and trees. They are then copied and synthetically mass produced for everyone to consume. Given the fact chemical conglomerates use natural solutions to create their products, one would think there would be a concerted effort to promote the use of such natural solutions, however it is not so. Since the 1960´s there is a concerted effort to not only limit the choices we as consumers and human beings have in order to take care of our health, but also to restrict the access to food itself as we know it.

Codex Alimentarius (Codex for short) means “Food Code.” This world food code is a United Nations agency, jointly sponsored by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). It has existed for nearly 50 years and its International Statute gives it a joint mission: protecting food safety and promoting world food trade. It is supposed to do so by adopting voluntary Guidelines and Standards (defining foods in international trade) and its decisions are enforced through the World Trade Organization (WTO) which considers its Guidelines and Standards as presumptive evidence in WTO trade disputes. It has become a creature of the Bigs – Big Govt, Big Agra, Big Pharma… etc.

Codex Alimentarius (Codex for short) means “Food Code.” This world food code is a United Nations agency, jointly sponsored by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). It has existed for nearly 50 years and its International Statute gives it a joint mission: protecting food safety and promoting world food trade. It is supposed to do so by adopting voluntary Guidelines and Standards (defining foods in international trade) and its decisions are enforced through the World Trade Organization (WTO) which considers its Guidelines and Standards as presumptive evidence in WTO trade disputes. It has become a creature of the Bigs – Big Govt, Big Agra, Big Pharma… etc.

In order to understand what Codex Alimentarius is, one needs to know it has nothing to do with consumer protection as its charter says. Such statement is just a catchy phrase to have the people and the nations approve its implementation. “Codex Alimentarius” means “food rules” in Latin. The plan was born in 1962 when the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) was founded by the U.N. to supposedly facilitate trade relations. In reality, it was created to regulate and control the way in which food and nutrition are guided and how products are sold to people. It is indeed all about the profits of multi-national corporations. The relation is very simple: the more natural products people use, the less profits the pharmaceutical corporations make. Codex Alimentarius was created to protect Big Pharma´s profits through the elimination of natural health products and treatments. What is more alarming at this point is that Codex was scheduled to be approved on December 31st, 2009. Once this plan is signed, it will be mandated through its approval by Congresses around the world, and imposed to all nations; a lot like the Copenhagen Treaty is intended to be implemented.

As in several other programs that the U.N. FAO and WHO want to impose, Codex is based on pseudo-science. For example, it classifies nutrients as toxins and uses “Risk Assessment” to set ultra low so-called “safe upper limits” for them. The proper science for classifying nutrients and its proper levels is Biochemistry, but Codex does not use Biochemistry. Instead, it uses Risk Assessment which is a branch of Toxicology, or the science of assessing toxins. Those who propose Codex as a way to maintain and improve health have the unscientific idea that vitamins and other nutrients´consumption needs to be reduced. Codex is composed of a series of rules specifically focused on all aspects of food. For example, one of them ratified (approved) on July 2005; Vitamin and Mineral Guideline (VMG), seeks to ban all high potency and clinically effective vitamins and minerals such as Vitamin C which would be limited to a few milligrams per dose. Other nutrients, such as amino acids, are also under threat.

How was Codex broadly accepted?

As it is typical in this kind of programs, the U.N. and the WHO use their favorite technique to mandate and implement Codex Alimentarius; that is Compartmentalization. In plain words, this is the policy of creating little groups of people who in theory work for a common purpose; to achieve a grand goal, but who in reality are fed different kinds and amounts of information in order to manipulate the outcome of such discussions. Codex is not the exception. Although its formation seems inclusive from the outside, the truth is that each and every committee created to work on Codex, had its own set of standards and guidelines. Such committees formed at the local, regional and international levels are headed by the CAC, the top-level of the Codex hierarchy. After these committees and task forces formulate rules which become ready for ratification (once they reach step 8 of the formulation process), they are then presented to the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) for ratification.

Codex is not only unscientific and manipulated; it is also undemocratic. One example of how Codex is run is the way in which the Chairman of the CAC conducts business. Dr. Grossklaus, Chairman of CAC and anti-nutrition Chairman of the pivotal “Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses” (CCNFSDU), had the delegate from India bodily removed during a November 2003 CCNFSDU meeting. The delegate’s crime? Insisting on discussing the inclusion of CCNFSDU-approved material in baby formula which could kill 10% of newborns in his country. After the delegate was forcibly removed, Dr. Grossklaus declared the issue approved by “consensus”. The Chairman can prevent a delegate from being heard by deliberately refraining from turning on the delegate’s microphone. So if the Chairman (i.e. Dr. Grossklaus) does not like what is being said, he can flip a switch and that will be that. This guarantees that there is no sustained opposition if the Chairman does not want there to be any opposition.

How will Codex be Implemented?

According to Codex Alimetarius´ own records, once a rule or standard is ratified by CAC it becomes an official regulation and it is implemented through the World Health Organization (WHO) where it is used to decide trade disputes. Outrageous sanctions will be applied onto countries that are deemed to be in violation of the Codex Alimentarius Standards via the World Trade Organization (WTO) Dispute Resolution process. By Codex´s writings a compliant nation is deemed to be the automatic winner in a trade dispute with a country whose laws are not Codex-compliant. The plan then gives the WTO a set of rules to judge if a country is providing a hidden or overt barrier to trade (i.e. not complying domestically with Codex regulations).

The prevailing country, by the way, selects the area in which the trade sanctions will be applied in order to damage the offending country in the way that serves its needs best. Both the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement (SPSA) and the Technical Barrier to Trade Agreement (TBTA) have provisions which could be used to force law into compliance with Codex Alimentarius. Many fear that both CAFTA and NAFTA could do the same (force compliance with Codex) as could the FTAA agreement. Article 3 of the SPSA makes domestic compliance mandatory with WTO-accepted standards (e.g. Codex Alimentarius) regarding toxins. Countries whose domestic law complies with Codex are held to be in automatic compliance with Codex Alimentarius for the WTO Dispute Resolution purposes. Countries not in internal compliance with Codex Alimentarius can be held to be providing a hidden barrier to trade in any food-related trade dispute and be subject to severe WTO trade sanctions.
Carolyn Dean, M.D., N.D., author of “Death by Medicine”, attended a Codex committee meeting (CCNFSDU, Bonn, 2004), a long-time employee of Codex told her that once the World Trade Organization took over Codex in 1995…

“It was no longer in the hands of the 165 member nations of the WHO (World Health Organization) but in the hands of trade organizations in the 148 countries of the WTO (World Trade Organization), which seems intent on standardizing everything to do with international trade in our emerging global economy.”

How will Codex negatively affect humans and the Environment?

Implementation of Codex Alimentarius would result in severe consequences for human and the environment. For example, high potency nutrients will be labeled as illegal, valuable nutrients not on Codex list will be illegal, new nutrients or herbs will be illegal, traditional medicines with nutritional value will be illegal, antibiotic and hormone-free milk, poultry, fish and meat will not be available in supermarkets due to degraded organic standards, levels of pesticides, hormones, animal drugs and other toxins will be increased in the food supply, labeling for GMOs will not be required, irradiated food will become an accepted practice, and so on.
A new study by French scientists from the universities of Caen and Rouen on three varieties of genetically modified maize, shows clear evidence of health risks. Spain is the only EU country that allows the cultivation of one of these maize, MON810, in large scale. The other two corns are authorized for import and for entry into human and animal food supplies. Farmers, consumers and environmentalists call for applying the precautionary principle and ban GM crops and foods. The study was conducted through tests by the multinational Monsanto, which sells the three types of corn. The science team examined data from tests with rats that were submitted to obtain authorization, which were hitherto confidential and have been obtained in many cases through the courts. According to the authors, it is the first time that these confidential tests from Monsanto have been released to be reviewed by independent researchers.

Scientists have found clear evidence -by analyzing the data- that there are health risks in blood parameters associated with kidney and liver functions. The changes observed in transgenic maize are the three typical patterns of disruption in the metabolic system. The team also sharply criticized the way the data were analyzed by Monsanto, without complying with international statistical standards, or standards for food tests. The three maize have, however, clearance from European authorities, which enabled them to enter the food and feed in Europe. “These studies demonstrate that it is not possible to guarantee the safety of GM food. We must apply the precautionary principle and withdraw transgenic food from our agriculture and our food “said David Sanchez, in charge of Agriculture and Food Friends of the Earth.

This new study adds to a long list of independent studies on the environmental impacts and health risks of transgenic products, which are repeatedly ignored by the Spanish and European authorities. Ana Etchenique, vice president of the Confederation of Consumers and Users (CECU) said: “It is not possible that a government listens to the industry before the public. The government has to ensure responsible agricultural practices for food safety and the health of citizens / consumers. Why our government does not follow the lead of countries like France, Austria and Germany, which already have banned the planting of GM crops? ”

According to the Natural Solutions Foundation, Codex will also bring a considerable loss of access to natural products, which would mean a huge increase in illness. On July 4 in Rome, the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) ratified the destructive Codex Alimentarius “Vitamin and Mineral Guideline”. Vitamins and minerals in doses high enough to have a therapeutic effect could become just a memory. Other nutrients (such as amino acids and herbs) will, according to Codex, follow quickly. The driving force of the VMG is economics, not medicine, and has nothing to do with consumer protection. Dr. Rima Laibow a co-founder of NSF has been fighting Codex for many years, and she concludes that nothing positive will result from the adoption of the U.N.´s sponsored program. “High potency nutritional products are highly beneficial for health. Many people would suffer greatly if nutritional products were removed from their reach while health promotion and disease prevention would be nearly impossible without them,” Laibow says.

This would leave, says the doctor, more than 60% of the world’s population without any legal medical care of any kind. In addition to cutting down access to vitamins and supplements, Codex also promotes the use of pesticides and other chemicals in the food supply such as growth hormone as well as insect and vegetable genes in produce. The direct health consequence of this will be a perpetual state of disease because both pesticides and drugs are highly toxic to the liver, our primary organ of detoxification. The poisoning of organs and enzyme systems leads to side effects and illness. If you think that the connection between pesticides and Big pharma is unbelievable, if you do not think a corporation could ever plan such a continuum of disease, think again. It is well-known that drug companies fabricate illnesses for the sake of drug sales. For example, the “fabrication” of mental illnesses.

“Despite a nearly 500 percent increase in mental health drugs being prescribed to children in the previous six years, the NFC [New Freedom Commission on Mental Health] recommended a plan of mandatory mental health screening for all public school students and follow-up treatment with drugs when needed. “The fact is, this is nothing more than another elaborate profiteering scheme hatched by Bush and the pharmaceutical industry to convert the millions of people in public systems into customers for new psychiatric drugs in order to funnel more tax dollars to Pharma,” asserts Evelyn Pringle on the Online Journal.

Codex Alimentarius allows pesticides, veterinary drugs and other toxic residues in foods at levels much higher than even industry lobbyists have asked for! In speaking only of current pesticide levels (Codex levels would be much higher), the Ontario College of Family Physicians notes. Codex Alimentarius would not only allow for the use of more pesticides, hormones, antibiotics and other GMO in food, but will also open the door to more dangerous substances like aflatoxin. This drug is a strong carcinogen in milk, peanuts, almonds and other foods. Aflatoxin is the second most potent non-radiation cancer-inducing agent known to man. However, Codex allows corporations to use high levels of aflatoxin in milk: 0.5 mg/kg. That is at least 100 times more than the recommended dose.

How to stop Codex on its tracks?

As it often happens, the people will need to rise against Codex in an effort to inform their relatives, neighbors and friends. The best way in which countries can reject Codex Alimentarius is by opting out of it. This is a decision that must be made by the people through Congress. A letter is available here to send to your Congressman along with detailed information contained in this article or any of the sources provided. Each Congress and the representatives who are negotiating Codex in each local, regional and international committee need to oppose Codex and officially, on behalf of each nation, opt out of it. Only a massive opposition by the people can defeat this initiative. Citizens may not trust their politicians to make the right decisions when it comes to their health freedom. So, contact your government officials and inform them about Codex right now.

Sources:

Who is Behind Codex Alimentarius?

Amended Codex vitamin and mineral guide

Risk Assessment Science + Nutrition = A Toxic Brew!

Documentary: We Become Silent – The Last Days Of Health Freedom

British Parliament Officially Warns About Pharmaceutical Industry

8-Step Codex Decision Process

50 Harmful Effects of Genetically Modified Foods

Codex Threatens the Health of Billions

Billions of people expected to die under Codex Alimentarius

The Coming Nutricide: Former Nazi is the Father of Codex

Los riesgos para la salud de transgénicos cultivados y consumidos en España