It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
POPs remain intact in the environment for long periods, become widely distributed geographically, accumulate in the fatty tissue of living organisms and are highly toxic to humans and wildlife. They increase brain, bladder, biliary, lung, breast and other cancers, cause damage to the kidney, liver, adrenals and thyroid, can cause decreased fertility, immune suppression, diabetes, porphyria, cardiovascular disease, fatal skin lesions especially in children and nursing infants (“pink sore”), headache, dizziness, nausea, general malaise, and vomiting, followed by muscle twitching, myoclonic jerks and convulsions.
… a body that was established in 1963 by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). ….
The Codex Alimentarius is recognized by the World Trade Organization as an international reference point for the resolution of disputes concerning food safety and consumer protection.
Source 3: Ref. 1
A Living Modified Organism (LMO) is defined in the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety as any living organism that possesses a novel combination of genetic material obtained through the use of modern biotechnology. The Protocol also defines the terms 'living organism' and 'modern biotechnology'. In everyday usage LMOs are usually considered to be the same as GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms), but definitions and interpretations of the term GMO vary widely.
Association Kokopelli were found guilty of selling traditional and rare seed varieties, which were not on the official EU-approved list. Such seeds are deemed illegal to sell on the grounds that it gives the seller an “unfair trading advantage”.
a certain percentage of harmful pollutants to pass for third world nations to trade with one another…
1. Do you believe that there is parity, fairness and democracy in how the CAC is legislated?
2. Do you agree with the Risk Assessment model as an approach to dietary supplements?
3. Do you believe that countries will be allowed to set their own, higher, Reccommended Daily Intake levels when the CAC finalizes its maximum level limits for vitamins and minerals?
Humans are imperfect, and as such, everything we make will have its kinks and quarks but I believe that if we strive to better ourselves and our work we can make the CAC a more Democratic and fair for all whom it serves.
…Their should be regulations about the amounts of supplements. You can overdose on some of this stuff but it is not commonly reported on.
Harvard University recently released a report… (of)… a longitudinal study of nearly 100,000 nurses for about twenty years. Their research has shown that the impact of folic acid supplementation reduces cancer of the colon by a massive 75-80%.
John Hopkin’s Medical Center’s nutrition department recently stated, “Based on studies where people take a supplement, vitamin E seems to reduce risk of some cancers by 60 to 70 percent. Increased levels of vitamin E also appear to decrease the amount of fat (lipids) in the arteries, and to reduce the risk of heart disease by 80 to 90 percent.”
Questions I would like answered please,
So, How does the Codex Alimentarius truly represent a Threat to the end of the world as we know it?
Would you let them to choose for you what you can and can not plant if this were only an A or B , yes or no, sort of choice?
Round 1 - Introductions:
Both gave a good synopsis of their view on the subject. Titorite, however, failed to expand on his view or give any sort of support.
First Round: 10-8 TheWayISeeIt
Round 2 - Support
TheWayISeeIt came back on a relentless attack. She brought forth multiple sources to back up her original claim.
Titorite's second post was far too short. I happen to like posts to be short, sweet, and to the point, but there has to be some substance to them. His question posed at the end is the only thing that kept him close this round:
So in short closing can you show me any direct proof ,that the actions of the
Codex Alimentarius has forcibly controlled what a farmer grew and sold?
Second Round: 10-9 TheWayISeeIt
Round 3: Rebuttal and Support
TheWayISeeIt did a good job responding to titorite's question from the last round. She stayed on the offensive, brought new support to her claim, and successfully rebutted her opponent's statements.
Titorite did a good job on rebutting, but failed to provide any sources. Also, he provided no support for his own claims again.
Third Round: 10-9 TheWayISeeIt
Round 4: Rebuttal and Support
TheWayISeeIt continued to be strong offensively. Titorite failed to make his post on time. Decisive victory this round.
Fourth Round: TheWayISeeIt 10-8
Round 5: Closing Statements
TheWayISeeIt was smart in keeping her statements short and compact. Had titorite responded, it would have been difficult to make up for the missed post, and the strength of her conclusion.
Fifth Round: TheWayISeeIt: 10-8
The winner by knockout, making her debut in ATS Cage Fighting and now undefeated at 1-0, knocking out her opponent in the third round with a spinning back fist:
Theeeeeeeeeeeeeee Wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy I See It.
TheWayISeeIt won this debate hands down.
titorite offered 0 supporting testimony, or facts to back up his argument, and overall barely seemed to try to debate this topic.
Also allowing his 24 hour extension to pass without replying, gave his opponent the final post without reply sealed his defeat in this debate.
I really have no choice but to find in favor of TheWayISeeIt. She consistently presented compelling information to the topic and there does seem to be an issue with the 'labeling' of basic nutrients as harmful, thus the regulation of them seems a bit dubious.
Titorite never seemed to show up. He had a few valid points, most notably the recognition that people of different regions will require a variance in their nutritional diets, but there didn't seem to be enough interaction with the corporate turn on nutrients.
While I do not believe that Codex Alimentarius consitutes the end of the world 'period', I do think that if the corporate world, namely pharmaceutical and food companies, were to write the laws on what is a viable ingestant, then it is 'The End Of The World As We Know It'; as in there is change brewing in the air.
And TheWayISeeIt convinced me of this more that titorite convinced me of the opposing view.
TheWayISeeIt wins this one hands down.