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.
Originally posted by Northwarden
Now for researching the Codex, this is what I've been concerning about surfacing. I've mentioned it a few times, Obamacare, and now Bill C-6 in Canada link us to it & the nwo.
Codex allows Deadly Pesticides
[edit on 15-4-2010 by Northwarden]
You can probably get better information from the actual Codex, than from sites writing about the Codex
W2: Shouldn't the residue limits of all dangerous substances and contaminants in foods be zero? Why does Codex allow more than zero?
In an ideal world food should be free of all dangerous substances. Unfortunately we do not live in an ideal world and we still have to eat. Even products that have been produced without use of pesticides can contain residues of banned substances due to their previous use in the environment. Even organically grown products may contain hazardous (naturally occurring) contaminants such as aflatoxins. If we wanted to ban all foods that have residues of one or the other substance our tables could be rather empty.
Codex follows an approach called "risk analysis". First, the risk of an identified hazard to humans is assessed by independent scientific expert bodies ("risk assessment"). A hazard may be any physical, chemical or microbiological agent. Then, on the basis of the outcome of risk assessment, the relevant Codex committee discusses what action should be taken to keep the risk below an acceptable level ("risk management"). Whereas risk assessment looks, for example, at the toxicity of and probable exposure to pesticides or contaminants, risk management looks at the big picture which also includes the diet of different population, the feasibility and costs of different risk management options, while keeping in mid the need to make safe food available to all at affordable prices.
Governments in each country are responsible for the risk management in many different areas and may decide on differently: well known non-food-related risk management examples that affect all of us are e.g. the amount of alcohol allowed in the blood when driving or the speed limit on motorways.
W3: Why does Codex list some substances that are banned by the Stockholm Convention?
The Stockholm Convention deals with Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). POPs are organic compounds that are resistant to environmental degradation through chemical, biological, and photolytic processes. These substances also bioaccumulate in human and animal tissue and biomagnify in food chains, and thus can have a significant impact on human health and the environment. Many of the first generation organochlorine insecticides such as DDT had these characteristics.
The Stockholm Convention entered into force on 17 May 2004 with ratification by an initial 128 parties and 151 signatories. Parties to the convention committed themselves to outlaw nine chemicals, to limit the use of DDT to malaria control and to curtail inadvertent production of dioxins and furans.
Banning the use of POPs does not automatically and immediately remove their residues from the environment, agricultural commodity, animal feed or food (because they are persistent and still present due to previous use). It will take some time until they will degrade to undetectable levels in the environment.
As many POPs were used as pesticides, the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues has dealt with them. There are two kinds of maximum residue limits that the committee may set:
* maximum residue limits (MRLs) are established for pesticides which are currently intentionally used to protect agricultural crops; and
* extraneous maximum residue limits (EMRLs) are established for compounds that are no longer used as pesticides but residues are arising from environmental sources as a result of previous use.
Codex has established safe EMRLs for some POPs and future sessions of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues will consider this matter further and eventually decide if these EMRLS are still needed.
Originally posted by Jenna
That article left out an entire paragraph explaining the "your walnuts are drugs" line.
Diamond Food Inc. 2/22/10
Because of these intended uses, your walnut products are drugs within the meaning of section 201 (g)(1)(B) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 321(g)(B)]. Your walnut products are also new drugs under section 201(p) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 321(p)] because they are not generally recognized as safe and effective for the above referenced conditions. Therefore, under section 505(a) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 355(a)], they may not be legally marketed with the above claims in the United States without an approved new drug application. Additionally, your walnut products are offered for conditions that are not amenable to self-diagnosis and treatment by individuals who are not medical practitioners; therefore, adequate directions for use cannot be written so that a layperson can use these drugs safely for their intended purposes. Thus, your walnut products are also misbranded under section 502(f)(1) of the Act, in that the labeling for these drugs fails to bear adequate directions for use [21 U.S.C. § 352(f)(1)].
21 U.S.C. § 321
21 U.S.C. § 352
21 U.S.C. § 355
If they're advertising their walnuts as being able to lower chances of heart attacks, cancer and help cure depression, then I'd have to agree with the FDA on this one.
Originally posted by WWJFKD
reply to post by pieman
Based on claims made on your firm's website, we have determined that your walnut products are promoted for conditions that cause them to be drugs because these products are intended for use in the prevention, mitigation, and treatment of disease.
You are being promoted
Because of these intended uses, your walnut products are drugs
I think when the FDA calls you a drug, you are a drug.