I have grouped the Health Care and the Food Safety bills together because they interlock in several ways. The large pharmaceutical and agricultural operations are becoming intertwined. For example Cargill, originally a grain trader, has built a plant to produce a pharmaceutical product, Regenasure, a new glucosamine dietary supplement made from corn. link
The FDA and USDA have historically regulated not only our food but our medicine. Internationally, Codex Alimentarius, guided by the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, is charged with establishing international standards for foods, food additives, vitamins and minerals. ”The food standards that it [Codex] establishes are backed by the power of the World Trade Organization (WTO), which settles trade disputes between nations by ruling upon complaints and then levying punitive fines upon the offending country.” Scott Tips link
CODEX influenced laws in the EU has increased the price of a small bottle of supplements up to $150 or more. Each capsule contains as little as 5 to 10 mg, making it impossible for people to get enough of a nutrient to benefit their health. In Canada,some interpretations of Bill C-51, mean a person giving herbal tea to their child ”..could be considered selling drugs to a minor. A person producing herbs could be charged as a drug dealer” link
Because of President Clinton's ratification of WTO, US laws are no longer written by Americans but by the international organizations responsible for the Canadian and EU laws described above. Countries that resist implementing these “International Standards” as laws (a procedure ominously called Harmonization) are subject to WTO trade sanctions. Under WTO rules, cases involving enforcement of the International Standards are heard in complete secrecy by a tribunal of three trade bureaucrats who have no conflict of interest rules binding them, therefore three Monsanto lawyers can rule on a case of material interest to Monsanto. ”All court documents are confidential and cannot be published. It is a modern version of the Spanish Inquisition with far more power.' The WTO and Politics of GMO by F. William Engdahl
Scott Tips has attended several Codex Alimentarius committee meetings as the National Health Federation delegate, The meetings are run not by voting but by ”a procedure sweetly called “consensus.” When he [the chairman] decides that the subject has been adequately discussed, he then announces what the consensus is and moves on... Not surprisingly, in finding consensus, this German chairman consistently and unerringly rules in favor of the representative for the European Union' Germany of course is the home of many of the big harmaceutical_companies_of_Germany" target="_blank" class="postlink">pharmaceutical houses and the German Association of Research-based Pharmaceutical Companies, German Association of Research-based Pharmaceutical Companies, VFA
So whats the big deal? How can this German stuff have anything to do with laws in the United states correct?
The FDA has plainly stated its position on international Harmonization of Laws,. ”Failure to reach a consistent, harmonized set of laws, regulations and standards within the freetrade agreements and the World Trade Organization Agreements can result in considerable economic repercussions.” The FDA even names the International Organizations the FDA is now taking its orders from:
- Codex Alimentarius
- International Office of Epizootics
- International Plant Protection Convention
- World Health Organization
- Food and Agricultural Organization
- Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA)
- Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues
- Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Microbiological Risk Assessments
- Pan American Health Organization
- Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
So how did the United Stated manage to give up its sovereignty on such important issues as food and medicine? The answer is we did not.
During the debate on approving the WTO Agreement, Congress was justifiably worried that the multinational pact was in conflict with U.S. Sovereignty. Arguments for ratification were vehemently endorsed by Clinton Administration officials who were eager to get the agreement passed Congress. Congressional fears were lulled by pointing out Congress is ultimately responsible for changing the laws of the United States; and second, the U.S. is entitled to withdraw from the WTO. Also a feature of the Uruguay Round agreements are described as follows:
United States Law to Prevail in Conflict The URAA puts U.S. sovereignty and U.S. law under perfect protection. According to the Act, if there is a conflict between U.S. and any of the Uruguay Round agreements, U.S. law will take precedence regardless when U.S. law is enacted. § 3512 (a) states: "No provision of any of the Uruguay Round Agreements, nor the application of any such provision to any person or circumstance, that is inconsistent with any law of the United States shall have effect." Specifically, implementing the WTO agreements shall not be construed to "amend or modify any law of the United States, including any law relating to (i) the protection of human, animal, or plant life or health, (ii) the protection of the environment, or (iii) worker safety", or to "limit any authority conferred under any law of the United States, including section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974." link
Almost never does anyone ask ‘who really controls the WTO?'
”The question is of utmost importance...WTO decisions, decisions which have the full power of international law and can force governments to repeal local laws for health, safety... The powerful private interests who control WTO agriculture policy prefer to remain in the background as little-publicized NGO’s. One of the most influential in creating the WTO in the first place was an organization called the IPC or the International Food and Agricultural Trade Policy Council or International Policy Council, for short. “ The WTO and Politics of GMO by F. William Engdahl