Sustainable Development: Genocide turned into a Necessity

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | APRIL 30, 2011

Often times, we hear sustainable development and sustainability were originated in the early 70’s and strengthened through the 80’s and 90’s. During any given research effort, most publications allege that the concern to maintain natural resources as tools for current and future generations was born in 1972, when a United Nations Conference in Sweden brought forward three principles: the interdependence of human beings and the natural environment, the links between economic development, social development, and environmental protection and the need for a global vision and common principles. Credit for developing those principles is given to the World Commission on Environment and Development of 1987.

The United Nations is the main enactor of Eugenics, a policy initiated by the founders of the Nazi movement.

Common wisdom portrays the collectivist view that sustainability and sustainable development with policies and initiatives to protect the environment from humanity’s abuses and with this to promote the benefit of the masses. Nowadays, the protection of the environment has become the most luminous spear carried by anyone and everyone, independent of race, social status, age or religion. In fact, environmentalism has become in itself the religion of choice for many. The environmentalist support for sustainability is almost inherently rooted in our lives; more than we even think. It has been applied to economics, construction, community planning, agriculture, security, natality and so on.

Countless meetings were arranged in the past 50 years in order to convince the masses that no future was complete without a sustainable approach to human existence. First, the Club of Rome came up with documents like “Limits of Growth” and “A New Path for World Development” which have as their bastion the movement to globalize the planet and social engineer everything from social values to employment, trade, demographics, politics, economics and so on; all in an effort to deindustrialize the planet and turn it into what predecessor organizations -League of Nations- wanted. Along with think-tanks like the Club of Rome, other equally prominent organizations operate in order to bring a new social, economic and developmental order into place. The United Nations, a child of the globalists who founded the League of Nations with the intention of ‘ending conflict’, has its own list of pro-deindustrialization branches and documents. For example, the United Nations Environment Programme for Development (UNEP), preaches the principles of failed green policies and green economies. The United Nations Conference on Environmental Development of 1992, better known as the Earth Summit, promotes plans like Agenda 21, the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity which intend and are slowly achieving Kurt Waldheim’s ecofacist dream to depopulate the planet.

Where did modern environmentalism originate?

Although there is plenty of documentation regarding how false environmentalism is linked to the so called “green wing” of the Nazi Party, no one gets into that history in depth. Main line historians and environmentalists usually decide to ignore it and the public that is bamboozled into believing the dogmas of modern genocidal ecology does not know about it. Pertinent questions to ask regarding the Nazi origins of the green movement is, What is its inspiration? What were the goals it wanted to achieve? How did the murdering ideology of the National Socialist Party gave in to what is in appearance an unheard love for nature?

Germany was not only the place where the genocidal policy of sustainability was born, but it was also the land where it became reality. The Nazi germans and its followers adopted many of the green policies we see in modern societies and brought them to prominence. Science and the study of creatures and their environments were first talked about in Germany during the years that preceded the Nazi rise to power. The genocidal nature of environmentalism originated from a demented love for nature. (1)

Nazi thinkers and some predecessors were sure humans had to be equaled to plants, animals and insects in order to have balance in the world. These train of thought has been seen in modern environmentalist minds such as Bolivian president Evo Morales and the promoter of the Gaia theory, James Lovelock, who believe that massive amounts of people must die in order to gain natural balance. Recently, author and environmentalist Keith Farnish used one of his books to call for acts of sabotage and environmental terrorism like blowing up dams and destroying cities to return the planet to its form before the Industrial Revolution occurred. Along with Farnish, other highly respected so-called scientists like NASA’s Dr. James Hansen endorsed this line of thought.

Ernst Moritz Arndt

One of the fathers of what we call today environmentalism is Ernst Moritz Arndt. Together with Wilhelm Heinrich Riehl, Arndt had infinite hatred for the Enlightenment. Both were well-known for their extreme nationalistic views which they used to advance the ideals of the welfare state. These two men, but mainly Arndt was identified as the first ecological thinker. Arndt wrote on an 1815 article that “When one sees nature in a necessary connectedness and interrelationship, then all things are equally important — shrub, worm, plant, human, stone, nothing first or last, but all one single unity.” (2) What separated Arndt’s environmentalist ideas from those of others was that he closely blended his thoughts on respecting nature with xenophobic discourses and entangled them with the very existence of the Germans and Germany. While he defended the environment in most of his writings, he also called for racial purity and damned other races such as the Jews and the French. It was that love for nature and hatred towards the Jews what would later guide the persecution and murder of those who were not Arians.

Wilhelm Heinrich Riehl, a graduate from Arndt’s school of thought made sure his teacher’s work did not wastefully dissipate. In an article dated 1853, Riehl showed his strong opposition to industrialism and said: “We must save the forest, not only so that our ovens do not become cold in winter, but also so that the pulse of life of the people continues to beat warm and joyfully, so that Germany remains German.” (3) He opposed any type of urbanization while using anti-Semitism to approve of peasantry and its way of life. Both Riehl’s and Arndt’s ideas were later adopted by the völkisch movement, which was a mixture of nationalistic populism and mad love for nature. The leaders of the völkischs advocated a move back to the simplicity of living off the land while blaming urban living and rationalism for the environmental destruction. (4) At the core of the hatred was an old but meaningful element that had driven antisemitic groups like the völkischs for a long time: The Jewish people. Why? The Jews were the middle class of the time, and the apparent sick love for nature and the environment included an equally sickening hatred for anyone and anything that endangered that thought or way of life. (5)

After establishing their long sought relation between antisemitism and love towards nature, the völkischs extended their prejudice through the 19th and 20th centuries. The anti-industrialization, anti-jewish type of speech rooted itself along with racial purity and Arian superiority just in time for the rise of the Nazi Party’s trip to power.

Nazi ecology and the link to racism

In 1867, Ernst Haeckel, a German zoologist first used the term “ecology” and linked it to the study of creatures and their environments. Haeckel was heavily influenced by social Darwinism to a point that he became the father of a kind of social Darwinism known as “monism”. He founded the German Monist League, an organization guided by völkisch principles. Haeckel as well as Riehl and Arndt believed in racial superiority and were strongly opposed to social mixing. In addition, he also approved of racial eugenics. His thoughts were the base for what later would be known as the anti-semitic National Socialism in Germany. Indeed, Haeckel became a prominent speaker on racism, nationalism and the german model of imperialism. (6) Towards the end of his life, Haeckel became a member of the Thule Society, an organization that later served as the political base for the creation of the Nazi Party. (7) Haeckel, as the creator of ecology, Riehl and Arndt as his predecessors and other thinkers such as Willibald Hentschel, Wilhelm Bölsche and BrunoWille, get all the credit for tightly threading environmentalism to national socialism, racism, anti-Semitism and the political environmental that we all know took over Germany pre and post World War I.

One of the most revealing facts about ancient and current ecological authoritarianism is the belief by sponsors of this view that humans must be encapsulated in “biological categories” and “biological zones” over which an iron fist technocratic authority must rule. Haeckel said that civilizations and nature should be governed by the same laws. The origin of this way of thinking is a reactionary anti-humanist thought. The Monists, believed humans although not themselves- were insignificant when compared to the greatness of the environment. Similar ideas are seen in modern initiatives sponsored by the Club of Rome, The Carnegie Foundation, The United Nations, NASA, as well as some colleges and universities that are funded by globalists who endorse eugenics for the sake of cleansing the planet. Take for example the text of the United Nations Convention on Biodiversitywhich has been named as the politics and religion of modern environmentalism. Among other goals, the Convention intends to “reorganize” Western civilization by excluding all human activity from 50 percent of the American continent. It wants to divide the land into “bioregions” with “buffer zones” and “corridors”. Under this plan, humans will live in tightly guarded and heavily monitored areas, from which they can never leave. This green globalist agenda is promoted by the United Nations since 1992, when it was officially presented during the first Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. The same policies will be implemented in Asia, Africa and Europe.

Ernst Haeckel

Writings from the Carnegie Foundation also commit treasure to the implementation of policies like Agenda 21 and the Convention on Biodiversity. The foundation has expressed pride on ancient practices that resembled mass murder by the powers that be in an effort to cleanse the lands from undesirable people. The Carnegie Institution touted the work of Emperor Ghengis Khan and “validated his work as a “green emperor” due to the fact his actions included the murder of 40 million people. According to its writings, this helped lower carbon emissions and keep the planet cool.

Monists used their anti-humanist sentiment together with the völkisch ideas to discriminate against progress, urbanism and those who thought differently. On his Lebensgesetze (Laws of Life),biologist Raoul Francé, wrote that natural order determines social order. He said racial mixing was unnatural. He is up until today an acclaimed founder of contemporary eco-fascism for “pioneering the ecological movement.” (8) Francé also promoted an alleged connection between environmental purity and ‘racial’ purity. Francé and his disciples claimed that a change from peasant life to modernism would mean the degradation of the race and that the cities were diabolical and inorganic. (9)

By the early years of the twentieth century an ‘ecological’ argumentation, saturated with right-wing political content, had become somehow respected within the culture of Germany. During the turbulent period surrounding World War I, the mixture of ethnocentric fanaticism, regressive rejection of modernity and genuine environmental concern proved to be a very deadly mixture.

The Nazi Environmentalism in Action

Some people see it as a contradiction that modern eugenicists although still pushing for Nazi-style environmentalism also belong to the technocratic corporate elites. This is not a surprise because the elites that supported the Third Reich were also industrialists who, as it usually happens, controlled many segments of the population and the thinking classes. This practice has always born fruits because it guarantees complete control, no matter what the outcome is. Men like Fritz Todt, a heavy weight of the National Socialist movement in Germany as well as Albert Speer, his successor after 1942, were involved in the construction of infrastructure such as the Autobahn, one of the largest projects in the history of engineering in Germany. Todt wanted to build the Autobahn in a way that benefited his class the most, but that at the same time promoted and maintained certain sensitivity towards nature. (10)

“Todt demanded of the completed work of technology a harmony with nature and with the landscape, thereby fulfilling modern ecological principles of engineering as well as the ‘organological’ principles of his own era along with their roots in völkisch ideology.” (11) Just as it happened with Arndt, Riehl and Darré, Todt and his partners had an endless and inseparable bond to völkisch nationalism. Todt said once: “The fulfillment of mere transportation purposes is not the final aim of German highway construction. The German highway must be an expression of its surrounding landscape and an expression of the German essence.” (12) One of Todt’s aides, Alwin Seifert, was the Reich’s advocate for the Landscape. In discharging his official duties Seifert stressed the importance of wilderness and energetically opposed monoculture, wetlands drainage and chemical agriculture. He criticized Darré as too moderate, and “called for an agricultural revolution towards ‘a more peasant-like, natural, simple’ method of farming, ‘independent of capital’.” (13)

The prominent place that nature had within the Nazi Party helped enact the massive industrial and military advancement that enabled Hitler to bully the rest of Europe for a while. The most radical initiatives were created and carried out as they always received the seal of approval by the highest officers of the Nazi state. Another influential member of the Reich was Chancellor Rudolph Hess, who was the green wing’s strong point within the party. Hess’s power in the governmental institutions of the National Socialist regime as he was Hitler’s personal assistant. Many even consider him the Führer’s most trusted man.Hess became a member of the Nazi party in 1920 and rapidly made his way up to the top. He was the second man in the waiting list to take power if Hitler and/or Göring were unable to take on the duty. Any and all new laws that were approved by the government were had to go through Hess’ hands first, before being enacted.

In the photo: Adolf Hitler, Göring and behind him, Rudolph Hess.

In the early thirties, a complete series of laws and ordinances were passed under Hess’ sponsorship. One of those ordinances which closely hits home today is the the foundation of the nature preserves. But perhaps the most successful accomplishment of Nazi environmentalism in Germany was the Reichsnaturschutzgesetz. This nature protecting law established guidelines for safeguarding flora, fauna, and “natural monuments” and restricted commercial access to remaining tracts of wilderness. Similar policies have been written now under United Nations Agenda 21 and the Convention on Biodiversity. Just as it happens with these two documents, the Nazi required local officials to ask for permission to higher authorities before making any alterations in the countryside.Along with the Reichsnaturschutzgesetz, the most important contribution that the Nazis made to modern eugenics and false environmentalism was to integrate mainstream environmentalism into the Nazi enterprise.

Sustainable Development Today

Page 350 of the Global Biodiversity Assessment Report says that livestock such as cows, sheep, goats and horses are not sustainable. People and organizations that support sustainable development claim that animals humans should stop eating meat, because animals pollute the environment. The complete program of sustainability is based on an effort to change human behavior to states that ordinarily humans would not approve or enjoy. This changes in human behavior are mostly brought upon by instigating fear. Fear of global warming, climate change, natural disasters, wars, famine, droughts and so on.

What kinds of things does sustainable development actually want to do? Sustainability and changes in human behavior are not only related to environment, agriculture and pollution. It is a complete package of reforms that will ultimately change societal behavior at a global scale. It is common to find educational programs that sponsor and teach children how to prepare in order to live in a sustainable world. But when the tactics do not work successfully, the globalists in charge of the sustainable agenda, the foundations and organizations financially supported by globalist corporations resort to fear tactics.

Along with the educational systems, the sustainable agenda also acts directly in the economies, health care systems, farming, social and cultural affairs as well as public safety. In the last 50 years we have seen a run to create alliances between corporations and the government, which has resulted in the corporate controlled governmental systems or corporate fascism we all live under. On private property, new ordinances and laws continue to end the right to buy and maintain any kind of land without the auspices of the authorities. That is why property taxes are charged to property owners even though money was paid when the purchase of such land occurred. Under the guidelines of Agenda 21 and the United Nations Convention on Biodiversity, the largest masses of lands, namely national parks, natural reserves and conservation areas have been signed to the United Nations.

The obesity pandemic that ravages the planet up until today, brought upon by massive propaganda campaigns paid for by the food industry was the tool to bring along laws and directives that basically allow the government to tell people what they can eat or drink. In the United States, school principals and boards now do not allow parents to pack their children’s lunches and snacks. In the meantime, new regulations introduced through Codex Alimentarius ban the sale and use of natural supplements and the plantation of food crops in small and medium sized farms, while allowing big agricultural corporations to pollute the environment with genetically modified plants and animals. These kind of policies have caused the suicide of hundreds if not thousands of Indian farmers who have gotten in debt to purchase Monsanto’s genetically engineered pesticide ready corn and cotton seed. Since farmers signed their lives away to Monsanto, crop yields have been significantly lower, and the soils have been completely depleted of all nutrients.

In the social and cultural aspects, political correctness has been massively adopted and dissent is seen as a form of racism and terrorism. Immigration policies have gone from mildly protecting private property and the rights of the individual to sponsoring open borders, fake free-trade agreements that destroy industry and production in the west costing the jobs of millions of people across the continents. Religious criticism of homosexuality and other practices or ways of living is labeled as homophobic, while deep religious beliefs are seen as extremist. Mobility in urban areas has also been touched by the fake environmentalist policies first thought out by the Nazis. Oil speculation and price manipulation by the OPEC cartel makes the cost of transportation to rise exponentially. The same has happened with food prices. Car pooling as well as bus and train commuting is encouraged in order to reduce CO2 pollution, while the elites that beg for the end of industrialization live in lavish palaces and fly around the planet in their fuel-guzzling private jets and yachts.

When it comes to societal safety, the governments, also under policies of sustainable development continue to work on laws to step over the constitutions of the sovereign states they claim to represent and defend. Freedom of speech, freedom of movement and the rights to privacy are continuously violated with the establishment of a techno-military industrial complex that monitors everyone’s moves, financial records, behaviours, health, habits, politics, religious beliefs and so on, all in the name of security.

What is the ultimate goal of the current sustainable development policies? Population reduction. Sustainable Development is indeed a plan to be applied for the length of human existence. It is a plan created by someone else to apply it to you, your children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. The belief behind the supposed need to massively reduce the planet’s population is Thomas Malthus’ mistaken idea that population growth outpaces food availability. He thought overpopulation occurred due to reductions in mortality rates and that the world would be out of food by 1890. He then recommended to kill the poor, the old and the sick, and leave the rest to die of hunger. Malthus’ ideas were picked up more recently by Paul Earlich in 1968. Earlich said that irresponsible reproductive behavior would leave the planet with no food in the 1970’s. This imaginary crisis has proven false every time the globalists schedule another date for it to happen. Calculations of the Population Research Institute reveal that today the world’s population can live comfortably with enough food in an area the size of the American state of Texas.

The truth is that at the current natal rate, many countries in Europe and Asia are experiencing the problems related to an aging population which is not being properly replaced by new citizens. In North, Central and South America, governments struggle to support their traditional welfare systems due to the fact that more people are retiring and less people are contributing to the coffers of the central governments, social security and health care programs. Ironically, population growth will become stable naturally -that is it will stop growing and begin to decrease- once the sum of all humans gets to about 9 billion. Learn more about the science of population growth here.

Well, so what if there is enough land mass to leave? Is there enough food for everyone? If you are a believer of only ‘official’ information an statistics, it so happens that the very own United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation as well as the World Food Programme agree that there is currently enough food on the planet to feed everyone. The problem is, not everyone has access to food. Why? Several reasons. Price speculation, using food such as corn and sugar cane to produce inefficient fuels and of course artificially created food scarcity. Modern cultivation techniques would even allow to plant crops in the most arid areas of Africa. Many believe that the giant continent may be able to feed the whole world if such techniques are applied with due diligence. So, why are more people going hungry everyday? Simply put, poverty, conflict and poor agricultural infrastructure in countries where those hungry people live. War is one of the main causes of crop destruction. And who are the sponsors of war and conflict? The military industrial complex controlled by the same globalists who want us to be green and friendly to the environment. Reducing the number of people on the planet would not solve an overpopulation problem, if it existed. That is just another fear tactic used by the globalists who up until today perpetuate the Nazi dream. For a detailed explanation on how the United Nations hides its eugenics programme under supposed initiatives to promote reproductive health, end poverty and decrease the appearance of disease, watch the four-part report (Part 1) (Part 2) (Part 3) (Part 4)

Sources for this article include:

(1) Raymond H. Dominick, The Environmental Movement in Germany: Prophets and Pioneers, 1871-1971

(2) Der Begriff des Volksgeistes in Ernst Moritz Arndts Geschichtsanschauung, Langensalza, 1914.

(3) Wilhelm Heinrich Riehl, Feld und Wald, Stuttgart, 1857, p. 52.

(4) George Mosse, The Crisis of German Ideology: Intellectual Origins of the Third Reich, New York.

(5) Lucy Dawidowicz, The War Against the Jews 1933-1945, New York, 1975, pp. 61-62.

(6) Daniel Gasman, The Scientific Origins of National Socialism: Social Darwinism in Ernst Haeckel and the German Monist League, New York, 1971, p. xvii.

(7) Gasman’s thesis about the politics of Monism is hardly uncontroversial; the book’s central argument, however, is sound.

(8) See the foreword to the 1982 reprint of his 1923 book Die Entdeckung der Heimat, published by the far-right MUT Verlag.

(9) Mosse, The Crisis of German Ideology, p. 101.

(10) Bramwell, Ecology in the 20th Century, p. 197.

(11) Karl-Heinz Ludwig, Technik und Ingenieure im Dritten Reich, Düsseldorf, 1974, p. 337.

(12) Quoted in Rolf Peter Sieferle, Fortschrittsfeinde? Opposition gegen Technik und Industrie von der Romantik bis zur Gegenwart, München, 1984, p. 220.

(13) Dominick, “The Nazis and the Nature Conservationists”, p. 529.

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