Challenge Match: titorite vs TheWayISeeIt : "Codex Alimentarius: TEOTWAKI or Safe at Last?", page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times
Topic started on 16-10-2008 @ 10:08 PM by semperfortis
The topic for this debate is "Codex Alimentarius: TEOTWAKI or Safe at Last?"

titorite will be arguing the pro position.
TheWayISeeIt will argue the con position and will open the debate.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

There is a 10,000 character limit per post.

Any character count in excess of 10,000 will be deleted prior to the judging process.

Editing is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each individual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources.

Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.

The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.

When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.

This Is The Time Limit Policy:
Each debater must post within 24 hours of the timestamp on the last post. If your opponent is late, you may post immediately without waiting for an announcement of turn forfeiture. If you are late, you may post late, unless your opponent has already posted.

Each debater is entitled to one extension of 24 hours. The request should be posted in this thread and is automatically granted- the 24 hour extension begins at the expiration of the previous deadline, not at the time of the extension request.

In the unlikely event that tardiness results in simultaneous posting by both debaters, the late post will be deleted unless it appears in its proper order in the thread.

Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.


reply posted on 18-10-2008 @ 12:57 PM by TheWayISeeIt
Thanks to MemoryShock for shepherding me to a basic understanding of how to issue and execute on a debate challenge, Semperfortis for moderating and to titorite for accepting my challenge. Special thanks to the Judges who, by taking the time out of their lives to render a verdict, will also be helping me in my quest to become Educated in the Art of Debate.


OPENING STATEMENT

The Codex Alimentarius – The End Of The World As We Know It

"If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." — Thomas Jefferson

The Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) was created in 1963 by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) – an adjunct of the UN -- to develop food standards and guidelines with the ostensible purpose of ensuring fair trade practices, promoting coordination of food standards and protecting the health of consumers.

The CAC is currently comprised of a 171 countries -- 97% of the world -- and uses consensus to set the rules for the world’s international trade in food. It has more than twenty active committees and task forces deciding on anything from animal feed to fisheries, genetic modification of plants and animals, to dosage amounts in nutritional supplements, to acceptable pesticides and their residues.

The creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) on January 1, 1995 made the Codex Alimentarius internationally binding as the WTO has accepted the CAC as the standard by which international trade disputes will be handled. Any nation that has entered into trade agreements through the WTO and/or its various adjunctive treaties will eventually be forced, by necessity of trade, to adopt Codex the standards.


TO POINT:

For the first time in the history of mankind, organizations that are global in their structure and goals are attempting to – and have nearly succeeded at – taking control of the world’s food supply, the result being control over every individual’s access to nutrition from “farm to fork”.

The implications of this are vast and damning to the future health of our species and the planet as a whole as –

THE CODEX ALIMENTARIUS WILL CONTROL every legal consumable substance for humans and food animals in every country that trades in said substances.

The CAC’s oversight, when fully extended to include the details that will actually and truly affect everyone’s very-own-personal ‘You-And-Yours-Reality’, includes:


    1. Genetically modified organisms
    2. Toxic residues of all manner
    3. Vitamins, minerals and nutrients
    4. Antibiotics, drugs, growth stimulants, and other hormones in food animals,
    5. Organic foods
    6. Irradiation of food


By dint of that alone, if the CAC succeeds, one could argue that Codex Alimentarius represents The End Of The World As We Know It, but I have no intention of stopping there as there is a much larger case to be made.


THE CASE:

I will show by reason of how the CAC convenes, legislates, researches and arbitrates that a the primary reason for its existence, in its current incarnation, is to exert control over the global population and to promote ‘Big Agro/Pharma/Chemical and GMO’ interests in a globalized marketplace.

I will demonstrate time and again how the CAC gives clear priority to those interests over the consumer’s health, safety and freedom.

The implementation of this nefarious agreement on a global scale will indeed change the world, but not for the betterment of mankind, as my opponent will state, but to its great detriment.

I intend to demonstrate how virtually every man, woman and child will be negatively affected by the Codex Alimentarius due to:


    1. Global inundation of food laden with known toxins and carcinogens
    2. Food that will have dramatically diminished nutritional capacity due to the unfettered use of toxic pesticides, irradiation and genetically modified seed
    3. Loss of access to adequate supplemental nutrition
    4. A radically degraded environment and the likely loss of multitudinous ‘heirloom’ seed lines due to large-scale planting of GM
    5. Countries losing their true sovereignty as their economies and, in turn, their entire populations will find themselves at the mercy of the WTO’s enforcement of the Codex standards


As my esteemed opponent has taken the Pro position he is sure to argue – and to make trivial examples to prove -- the simple-minded delusion that the Codex is being put in place to keep us safe. What other motivating factor could there be for these many decades of wrangling other than the safety and good of the consumer, he will ask.

Global control for the WTO/FAO and the enrichment of these Global Corporations will be my response to that query, and I hope at the end of this debate it will be yours as well.


reply posted on 19-10-2008 @ 07:14 AM by titorite
reply to post by TheWayISeeIt



MY thanks to all involved for your contributions. For I only contribute this part and the rest of the debate is the readers , the judges, the mods, and my opponent and so to all of you I say: Thank you.

I would like to aly fears that the Codex Alimentarius is part of any grand conspiracy to take over all that you eat and drink. Its true purpose is merely as a sub committee of the WTO to help regulate standards, food safety , and other miscellaneous details related to the food industry. In an age of global trade in cow meat and fresh herbs it is important to build entities such as the Codex Alimentarius to ensure both safe and fair food trade.



reply posted on 19-10-2008 @ 08:09 PM by TheWayISeeIt
FIRST STATEMENT

In May 2005 the Stockholm Convention was signed by 176 countries, the U.S. included, where they committed to eliminating from the environment and the food supply 12 of the most toxic pesticides 9 of the 12 are considered Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP’s). POP’s are defined as such because they remain in the environment for extended periods of time which allows them to move

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.


The CAC allows for 7 of 9 of these poisons, they are:


    Aldrin
    Chorldane
    Dieldrin
    Endrin
    Heptachlor
    Hexachlorobenzene
    Mirex


I cite this as my first example of The End Of The World as We Know It and a point in case for many of the prongs of my argument.

Here we see a loss of sovereignty of a 176 nations that have committed themselves to a completely different course of action. The poisoning of the food supply with known biological toxins and carcinogens and policy that surely leads to a blanket contamination of our environment on a global scale

This is also a clear example of the CAC acting to benefit Corporate Interests over that of the consumers , as surely these 176 countries would not be banning these chemicals if they were essential to food production or considered them harmless to their populations even with the consideration of a cost-benefit ratio.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My opponent is entirely incorrect in his/her statement that the CAC is a ‘sub-committee’ of the WTO. As I stated in my opening, the CAC is:


… 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 2: Ref. 1

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have chosen to be brief in this post as I am unclear from my opponents Opening Statement whether or not they intend to go forward with this debate. If so, I am looking forward to making up for lost time.

Edited by Semperfortis to fix link

[edit on 10/20/2008 by semperfortis]


reply posted on 20-10-2008 @ 08:40 AM by titorite
reply to post by TheWayISeeIt



Yes my opening statement was brief. You have nailed most of the points right away. But can you tell me how many farmers has the Codex prevented from planting whatever seeds they like for personal food production? Surely me and you are able to cut out any middle man and plant our own gardens to grow and eat our own food with fear of the CAC police detaining us right?

And just because the Codex Alimentarius, allows for a certain percentage of harmful pollutants to pass for third world nations to trade with one another this does not mean that any developed nation is forbidden to have higher than CAC standards does it? Just because one is allowed to do something does not mean one rushes out to start doing it. And I fail to see how the Codex Alimentarius poses a risk to my personal sovereignty. I am still as free and sovereign regardless of any choice the UN or any governmental body for that matter, makes. Wouldn't you agree?


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?

I will accept anything from military intervention to trade tariffs But I would like to see DIRECT EVIDENCE that this evil organization prevents farmers from organically growing legacy seeds if they so choose.


reply posted on 20-10-2008 @ 03:30 PM by TheWayISeeIt
SECOND STATEMENT

You cannot grow food if you do not have access to:

Arable land
Water supply
Knowledge of agricultural practices

I would point out that the vast majority of the world’s population does not have access to all three of these required elements. For starters 51% of the global populous resides in urban areas.

Source 1: Ref. 1

And the worst hunger is currently in the world’s rural areas where the landless poor make up, by far, the biggest segment of those suffering from malnutrition. Source 2: Ref. 1

GMO/LMO and the Cartagena Protocol slight-of-hand

The CAC policy on GMO is all out no restriction on GMO foods in international trade. The primary driving countries behind the CAC, with the exception of the EU, are adamantly opposed to even the labeling of GMO food. There is so much feinting, dodging and obfuscation around its policy that one has to look closely at what the CAC is doing as opposed to what it is saying, so let me make this very clear:

In 2000 an international agreement called The Cartagena Protocol was signed by every member country of the CAC where the term Living Modified Organism (LMO) was introduced as an alternate phrase for GMO. The CAC is using the reference to the Cartagena Protocol as their position on LMO (which is simply GMO by another name).


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.
Source 3: Ref. 1


As to you and I being able to personally plant our own gardens with heirloom seeds – and in this instance assuming you I currently reside in either the live in the U.S.or E.U. – it seems the answer is going to be NO!

Allow me to explain, using some conjecture as the CAC has not been implemented in its entirety yet, so the WTO is not fully enforcing its standards.

But if we look at the “harmonization act” which states that the FDA intends to fall fully in line with Codex Standards Source 4: Ref. 1

And what the European Commission – which has also agreed on “harmonizing” and is already employing CAC standards in many cases – is doing:


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”.

Source 5: Ref. 1

We have a clear example of a farmer being forbidden aka NOT FREE TO plant/sell/harvest clean seed lines. I think it is safe to say that while the EU is taking a stance against the U.S. in regards GMO labeling, they have no issue handing the seed supply over to, and then legislating on behalf of, corporate interests.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In regards to the CAC and pesticides, I’d also like to point out that the CAC is out right removing Maximum Residue Levels (MRL’s) on many of the POP’s I referenced in my earlier post.

So this is not remotely a situation that can be characterized as :


a certain percentage of harmful pollutants to pass for third world nations to trade with one another…


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I feel that I have fully addressed my Opponents points, but would like to make a few more of my own as I believe this is the most urgent issue facing mankind to date and there is very little undersatnding or even conversation on the topic.

As I have used my allotted limit for Sources, I would like to expand this debate by asking my opponent:

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?



[edit on 10/20/2008 by semperfortis]


reply posted on 21-10-2008 @ 03:30 PM by titorite
reply to post by TheWayISeeIt



To get back at it with Statement Number two?

1. Do you believe that there is parity, fairness and democracy in how the CAC is legislated?



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.


2. Do you agree with the Risk Assessment model as an approach to dietary supplements?



Sorda... I mean Do you what happens when you take high doses of Niacin?
I can testify from experience that it will burn your skin blotchy for awhile. Their should be regulations about the amounts of supplements. You can overdose on some of this stuff but it is not commonly reported on.


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?


Yes, if they are full of the right people making the right decisions, then they most certainly will accommodate regions by the humankinds' different and distinct supplemental needs. Northpole folk need more fat and equator folks don't have the same kinds of needs as those that live in arctic climates so I am sure the CAC will recognize the needs of the many peoples they represent.




TO continue now:
So I see how the CAC might economically Challenge commercial farmers as they work out more balanced methods of interaction but I still fail to see how it is the end of the world as we know it. People can still grow food for themselves. You might be surprised to see what you can harvest from a five gallon bucket and a little love. In more under-developed nations I often see problem between food and people but I often wonder what it is that keeps them from getting better. But I bet it has less to do with the CAC and alot more to do with war and local politics.



The act of planting any plant on your own property for your own consumption is pretty well protected everywhere that I know of. And even if it was still prohibited unilaterally one can still plant whatever plants they like for ascetic purposes. I know I find Moa Hung, Salvia ,Carrots, and roses to all be beautiful plants and all legal to grow and all are edible. Rose is a good source of vitamins.

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?

Does the CAC currently impede you from growing the plants you desire?


reply posted on 21-10-2008 @ 09:15 PM by TheWayISeeIt
THIRD STATEMENT



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.


I fail to see how my opponent and I bettering ourselves is going to make the CAC more democratic or fair for ‘all whom it serves’, when the very process by which it is legislated is CAC defined consensus and the CAC’s definition is absence of sustained opposition to a proposal or text.

Add to that equation that the Chairperson of any CAC committee in session is in entire control of when, and if, any delegation gets time to discuss the agenda and can arbitrarily deny any further discussion without being in violation of any of the meeting standards.

That same Chairperson can, at any time, decide that consensus has been reached and move to the next point of discussion. Their power is absolute. This scenario more often than not leaves the various member nation delegations amendments, or opposition, entirely unheard, discussed or addressed.

The whole process is inherently undemocratic as is the Codex itself because it is designed to supersede and bypass all laws and governmental process of the 171 countries (97% of the world) that will be dramatically altered by its implementation.

One might even go so far as to say that it will be The End Of the World As We Know It .

As to my opponent’s response to my question of :


“2. Do you agree with the Risk Assessment model as an approach to dietary supplements?”



…Their should be regulations about the amounts of supplements. You can overdose on some of this stuff but it is not commonly reported on.



The risk assessment model is designed to, and defined as, the evaluation of the risk posed to human health and/or the environment by the actual, or potential, presence and/or use of specific pollutants. It is used as a toxicological evaluation of chemical poisons and other contaminants.

Meaning the CAC’s position on vitamins and minerals, naturally occurring or supplemental, is that they are toxic.

This is the first time in the history of mankind that nutrition is deemed as a pollutant, and this historic precedent is being set by the very body that intends to regulate the entire human population’s access to it.

Furthermore, it is simply untrue that overdose by nutritional supplement is under, or less, reported than any other cause of death in this country. And, in fact, is so rare that it is statistically insignificant measuring at 0.0001% as the reason of cause of death in the U.S. population. Source 1: Ref. 1

While properly prescribed and used FDA approved pharmaceuticals is fourth on the list at 5.18%.

And let us keep in mind that you can overdose on just about anything that is, and will remain, commonly available in a post-Codex world; aspirin, alcohol, olive oil, etc. So the point that regulating upper limits on vitamins and minerals serves solely as consumer protection is patently moot. The only entity being served and protected by these insidious standards is the Pharmaceutical and Health Industries.

To further make the points of:

a) the essential benefits of supplemental nutrition -- and research that keeps bearing out the positive significance of it

b) the Health Industry’s attempts to squelch it

Let’s look at the following examples:


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.”


Source 2: Ref. 1

John Hopkins's board member Benjamin Caballero, a pediatrician and director of the Center for Human Nutrition at the School of Public Health then went on to say that they don’t recommend people take supplements, but that we all eat a balanced diet including 5 servings of fruits and vegetables.

Source 3: Ref. 1

The link above is an in depth interview with Caballero from 1998, and while the topic is not the Codex, his comments serve as the perfect example of the CAC’s position on required nutrition and how they intend to determine new nutritional levels. I urge my opponent and judges to read it carefully.

There is no discussion, however, about the ever decreasing amount of nutrition that is available to us from our food supply due to production of GMO, escalating pesticide use, and our food animals eating nutrient deficient diets. Bear in mind that each of those causes of nutrient deficiency will be infinitely more prevalent throughout the world when the Codex Alimentarius is fully implemented and enforced by the WTO.

So, even if one could manage to eat five servings, etc. -- based on the current nutrient levels in the common food supply that is produced by standard farming practices -- one would still need to have the choice of access to supplementary nutrition in order not to fall ill with preventable diseases and maladies.

Ladies, Gentlemen and Judges let us take a moment to ponder that impending loss of personal freedom that not only deters us from our natural course, but shackles us to dependency on the Agro/Pharma and Health Industries.

I would cite this as yet another arrow in my quiver that demonstrates the Codex Alimentarius is far from making us safe at last, but truly represents The End Of The World As We Know It.



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?


See above Statement.


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?


I would not like to let them choose for me, but if I cannot access the requirements articulated in my second statement hten it is a moot point what I would like to plant. But if I could access those requirements and there was only GM seed available the CAC will control my planting options.

Does the CAC currently impede you from growing the plants you desire?

As I have pointed out, the Codex Alimentarius has not been fully implemented yet and it will be enforced on a national level by the WTO when it is.



reply posted on 24-10-2008 @ 12:45 PM by TheWayISeeIt
CLOSING STATMENT


"Control the oil and you control entire nations; control the food and you control the people." - Henry Kissinger


It seems my opponent has taken a powder, so I will be brief in my closing as I fear I am in danger of relentlessly expounding my position in lieu of debating my opponent’s.

I believe I have clearly exampled each and every point raised in my opening and shown that the more educated one becomes about the Codex Alimentarius, the more one realizes that it is not designed to make us ‘Safe at Last’, but to benefit Big Agro/Pharma/Chemical/Health Industries at every opportunity and at a great cost to the global population and environment.

When one further takes into consideration that in 2005 the Chairman of the CAC’s Nutrition Committee, Rolf Grossklaus, and the representative of the EU Basil Mathioudakis, agreed that nutrition has nothing to do with prevention of illness as that is the exclusive province of medicine, I believe the point is tragically driven home.

Source 1 Ref: 1

I have also shown that the Codex Alimentarius will allow the WTO/FAO to exert a level of absolute, and undemocratic control, over sovereign states by completely bypassing their legislative process and prerogatives. This shadowy group will further control every man, woman and child's rights to access food that is not tainted by genetic modification and unlimited anounts of carcinogenic pestisides as well as adequate nutrition that is required to maintain good health.

Ladies, Gentlemen and Judges, there is no question in my mind that the Codex Alimentarius, if implemented, represents The End Of The World As We Know It and it is my great hope that there is no longer any question in yours.


reply posted on 27-10-2008 @ 11:42 PM by semperfortis
Yes Ladies and Gentlemen...

The results are in...

And the winner is..........................

By Unanimous Decision............

TheWayISeeIt!!!!!!!

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.

Congrats.


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.


Congratulations!!!

The thread is now open for comments

Semper
Pages:     ^^TOP^^