The Festering Fraud behind Food Safety Reform

By Nicole Johnson

“The general public must recognize that only after the demystification of U.S. agriculture will family farmers, labor, and consumers see beyond corporate agribusiness’ manipulations to the point where they will recognize that both their mutual interests and the future of agriculture can be best decided through a system that not only practices political democracy, but economic democracy as well.” – Ingolf Voegler

Introduction

Readers of the New York Times were recently treated to a rarely glimpsed view of how the globally-sourced industrial food complex assembles the raw ingredients of the omnipresent hamburger. In his startling expose entitled “E. Coli Path Shows Flaws in Ground Beef Inspection,” Michael Moss provides a window from which to witness well-hidden meat industry practices that most people, judging from some six hundred comments left on the New York Times website within 24 hours of the article’s publication, find thoroughly repulsive.[1]

Moss’s article tracing the processing history of the E.coli-contaminated hamburger consumed by Stephanie Smith, which left her body ravaged and permanently disabled, has much to commend it. While detailing how Cargill shaves costs by scraping together its “American Chef’s Selection Angus Beef Patties” from trimmings and mash-like products sold to it by no less than four suppliers, Moss uncovers how the company failed to follow its own safety plans without facing any interference from the USDA until some one got very, very sick.

However, the article leaves out critical information from its analysis that would help us understand why so much is wrong with the meat inspection process today. Filling in these gaps is important if we want to take the correct measures improve the safety of our meat supply. Furthermore, if we don’t gain a fuller understanding of how and why the meat industry’s inspection process became an essentially unregulated, privatized affair, we are likely to repeat the same mistake and allow Congress to pass food “safety” legislation that will serve to make the world a safer place for the cartels controlling the global produce trade but do nothing at all for the safety of our food supply.

The vested interests behind the creation of the 2009 Food Safety Enhancement Act and its Senate companion bill S. 510, the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, are the same vested interests who were behind the earlier deregulation of the meat and poultry inspection process. They aim to minimize the regulatory obstacles faced by transnational corporations engaged in international trade, which is increasingly becoming the movement of goods from one subsidiary affiliate to another subsidiary affiliate. And they’re using the issue of food safety to con us into consenting to their wishes.

To read more ....

The Battle to Save the Polish Countryside

We're facing the same thing here with S 510 which, in fact, is meant to "harmonize" with laws in the EU already decimating farmers. S 510 also relies on onerous, vicious and false hygiene or food safety standards as part of an WTO plan to eliminate farmers and take control over world food and over farmers' land.

Poland ’s peasant farmers are the true trustees of its countryside

by Sir Julian Rose

Poland is accustomed to fighting rearguard actions to throw off unwelcome invaders. Throughout the 19th century period of “The Partitians” - occupation by Russia and then Austria – the Poles kept in their hearts a longing for a day when they could be freed from the yoke of repression and find genuine independence. After finally succeeding in 1918 to rid themselves of the invaders, they were soon engulfed in conflict again, this time with the invading Nazi Germany. They responded with the 1939-45 resistance movement that sprouted up in the fields, small towns and main cities.

As many will know, the Poles fought alongside the British throughout the Second World War - a time when Poland’s government in exile had its head quarters in London. I remember quite well when I was a boy a Polish exile who lived in our village (Whitchurch-on-Thames) coming regularly to my family home and diligently cleaning the chimneys. He spoke little, but did a very thorough job.

It was only in 1989 that Poland finally threw off the last repressive regime of occupation in their land, the Russian communists. So, the last nineteen years of freedom have been been the longest historical period of non-occupation in a very long time.

The Nobel prize winning author Thomas Mann, who fled Nazi Germany before World War Two, was reported to have remarked just before his death in 1969 that although the Nazis had been defeated, he feared that fascism had not: “I am concerned about the weak position of freedom in post world war Europe and North America,” he said.

We can surely identify with his concern. ‘The weak position of freedom’ is evident throughout our increasingly pacified Orwellian society, and has recently come to undermine the long standing traditions of the Polish countryside, particularly the independence of the peasant and family farms, and the huge biodiversity of the Polish countryside of which they are the prime trustees.

The communists failed to quell the small Polish peasant farmers into submission during their period of occupation, which left the Country with a rich, if rather confusing, legacy of approximately one and a half million small scale family farms (average size 18 acres) dotted around the Polish Provinces, but particularly prevalent in the south and east.

“The European Union is simply not interested in small farms”

When I was first invited in November 2000 by Jadwiga Lopata, founder of The International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside, to come to Poland as a co-director of this newly established non governmental organisation, the Country was preparing itself, or more correctly, being prepared for entry into the European Union. Opinions were strongly divided concerning the merits of such an action and those most against included the farmers.

One of our first tasks, as I saw it, was to warn the Poles just what ‘joining the EU’ would mean for the farming population, for rural communities and for the renowned biodiversity of the countryside.

Through the auspices of a senior civil servant in Warsaw, Jadwiga and I were able to address a meeting with the Brussels-based committee responsible for negotiating Poland’s agricultural terms of entry into the EU. It proved to be an ominous foretaste of things to come.

The first thing that struck us was the fact that out of the twelve people sitting in the room at the European Commission, not one was Polish. I explained to the attendant body that in a Country where 22 percent of the working population are involved in agriculture, and the majority on small farms, it would not be a good idea to follow the same regime as had been operated in the UK and other EU member countries, in which ‘restructuring’ agriculture had involved throwing the best farmers off the land and amalgamating their farms into large scale monocultural operations designed to supply the predatory supermarket chains. You could have heard a pin drop.

To read more ....

History, HACCP and the Food Safety Con Job

[This article applies to S 510 or whatever "food safety" bills they may at the last minute, insert.]

By Nicole Johnson

“The vested interests – if we explain the situation by their influence – can only get the public to act as they wish by manipulating public opinion, by playing upon the public’s indifference, confusions, prejudices, pugnacities or fears. And the only way in which the power of the interests can be undermined and their maneuvers defeated is by bringing home to the public its indifference, the absurdity of its prejudices, or the hollowness of its fears; by showing that it is indifferent to dangers where real danger exists; frightened by dangers which are nonexistent.”

– Sir Norman Angell (1872 – 1967)

Introduction

Vested interest groups have orchestrated a legislative lullaby to hush the public’s growing unease with the safety of its food supply. Their enablers in the mainstream corporate controlled media amplify a chorus of government officials and non-governmental organizations admonishing that the public must be confident that the food it buys is safe. But having confidence our food is safe is not the same as having food that is safe and wholesome to eat.

The American public has a great and unmet need to understand the true impacts (that is, the predictable consequences) of the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009, before the Senates passes its version of this dangerous bill. The US Congress has a long, tragic history of passing legislation that promotes the industrialization of our food supply, effectively implementing the wishes — both stated and unstated — of agribusiness, and it’s about to do it again.

Using the pretext of food safety, those behind the Food Safety Enhancement Act seek to institute changes the American public would not condone if it understood what is at stake. The country is being duped into believing that the pseudo-scientific measures prescribed by the bill will prevent new outbreaks of food-borne illnesses when in reality FSEA will usher in a number of undesirable outcomes, none of which do a thing to improve food safety. On the contrary, these measures will permit large processors to become an essentially unregulated segment of the industry by privatizing the inspection process, and — at the same time — the new regulations will constitute a cost-prohibitive barrier for small players to remain in business, making them easy targets for indiscriminant enforcement and greater market consolidation.

To read more ....

Monsanto's Baby: S 510

The 2009 Food ‘Safety’ Bills Harmonize

Agribusiness Practices in Service of

Corporate Global Governance

By Nicole Johnson

“I think it’s time to de-professionalize the public debate on matters that vitally affect the lives of ordinary people. It’s time to snatch our futures back from the “experts.” Time to ask, in ordinary language, the public question and to demand, in ordinary language, the public answer.” – Arundhati Roy, Power Politics

It’s enough to make you so queasy you lose your lunch. HR 875, the “Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009,” is a head-spinning piece of legislation that would radically change the structure of the US government’s regulatory agencies, usurping states rights to federalize food inspection and determine what agricultural practices are permissible. Considerable concern has been voiced about what this bill would mean for small and medium sized farmers, organic farming, the future of conventional and organic seeds, the food localization movement, and even home gardens. HR 875 would give regulators the power to enter private property, which is conveniently redefined as “premises,” and impose enormous fines for noncompliance. Though not discussed in the corporate media, numerous articles about it appear on the internet, launching a debate about whether or not Monsanto is behind the bill.

In response to these articles, Brad Mitchell, a member of Monsanto’s public relations staff who writes for the company’s new blog — a less-than-stealth effort to counter the public’s deep distrust of the predatory corporation — has gone on record stating that Monsanto has absolutely nothing at all to do with the bill.

Brad’s assurances aside, experience dictates that taking Monsanto at its word is patently foolish.

To read more ....

Canadian Lessons That Apply to S 510 Here

Canadians rallied and stopped C-51

The Latest News on Bill C-51 as of September 1

September 2008 Features

by Helke Ferrie

In April, the federal government informed Canadians that they were going to protect the nation’s children, and the rest of us, against unimaginable harm and potential fraud, in exchange for the loss of our most basic Constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms. Towards this end Prime Minister Harper introduced legislation that would effectively outlaw natural health products and give the food, drug, and chemical industries license to saturate our food, medicines, air, water, and soil with as much poison as their cost-benefit calculations might suggest are profitably manageable. Unfortunately, this is no exaggeration.

The Harper government’s proposed Bills C-51 (to amend the Food and Drugs Act) and C-52 (to amend the Hazardous Products Act) appear to have been crafted very carefully along the lines of Hitler’s prescient observation that people are more likely to believe a Big Lie than little ones. Fortunately, unlike Germany in the 1930’s, Canadians have a century and a half of experience with democracy and almost eight hundred years of ancestral memory of Common Law.

For me, as a medical science writer used to analyzing the cognitive dissonance between verifiable scientific facts and government and industry obfuscation of those facts, C-51 and C-52 are so far the lowest of all low points I have encountered.

To read more ....

In Poland, 'green' fields besieged

By Elisabeth Rosenthal

Published: Thursday, April 3, 2008

• SIGN IN TO RECOMMEND
• TWITTER
• SIGN IN TO E-MAIL
• PRINT
• SINGLE PAGE
• SHARECLOSE

STRYSZOW, Poland — Depending on your point of view, Szczepan Master is either an incorrigible Luddite or a visionary. A small farmer, proud of his pure, high-quality products, he works his land the way Polish farmers have for centuries.

He keeps his livestock in a straw-floored "barn" that is part of his house, entered through a kitchen door. He slaughters his own pigs. His wife milks cows by hand. He rejects genetically modified seeds. Instead of spraying his crops, he turns his fields in winter, preferring a workhorse to a tractor, to let the frost kill off pests residing there.

While traditional farms like his could be dismissed as a nostalgic throwback, they are also increasingly seen as the future - if only they can survive.

Master's way of farming - his way of life - has been badly threatened in the two years since Poland joined the European Union, a victim of sanitary laws and mandates to encourage efficiency and competition that favor mechanized commercial farms, farmers here say.

To read more ...

In the US, the "sanitary laws" come in the form of S 510, and like in Poland, it is based on transparent absurdity, is a threat to the existence of farmers safely providing local food people desire, and is being driven by corporations intent on global control over food.

The incalculable unconstitutionality S 510 will unleash

The following testimony by Shawn Buckley on C-6 in Canada reveals the impact that S 510 in the US would have as well. The multinational corporations in the WTO are making the same moves in both places to destroy local producers and seize their property. It is their plan to legalize theft.

THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

EVIDENCE

OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 25, 2009

The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, to which was referred Bill C-6, An Act respecting the safety of consumer products, met this day at 4 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.

Senator Art Eggleton (Chair) in the chair.

The Chair: Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. Today we continue with the topic of Bill C-6, An Act respecting the safety of consumer products.

We have two lawyers here at the table with us, since much of the focus on Bill C-6 has been on different provisions in the bill. We have two of them to give us some advice in that respect.

Shaun Buckley is a constitutional lawyer. He has written extensively on the subject of Bill C-6 and some of its predecessor legislation.

Cyndee Cherniak is a law professor. She is a counsel at Lang Michener, involved in international trade law, and she is also an adjunct professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law in Cleveland, Ohio.

Thank you both for coming. You have about 10 minutes each and then we will enter into dialogue and questions.

Shawn P. Buckley, Constitutional Lawyer, as an individual: I will take more of a legal philosophical approach, which is where my interest in this bill lies. It lies there because I have some very significant concerns about where we are moving and the precedent that this will set. It is interesting because we are dealing with a safety bill. This is to protect consumers, and it is very hard to resist safety legislation. Yet, when I look at the bill, it raises, in my mind, safety concerns from a legal philosophical perspective.

I did not always feel that way. My first introduction to the bill was, like everyone else, through government advertising. Prior to the election this was Bill C-52, which was really the same, with a few minor changes, primarily in the area of privacy. I was sitting down reading my newspaper and there was a half-page advertisement with pictures of cute, vulnerable-looking kids and a caption, "protecting you and your family." It was purely designed to evoke an emotional response, and it did evoke an emotional response. I felt proud that my government was going to do something to protect us. Then when I was asked to look at the bill, the first question I asked myself was: Do you mean today in Canada we do not have legislation to protect consumers? Do you mean the government cannot step in and effectively, if a product is dangerous, intervene?

When I started to look at it I found that there were overlapping pieces of legislation. The most obvious one is the Hazardous Products Act, and I will concede that this act goes further than it does; but the Hazardous Products Act is a fairly effective piece of legislation if the government finds that there is a significant risk. Where it differs is in the procedural safeguards when property is seized.

We also have the Competition Act to cover some areas here. Clearly, the Criminal Code covers some areas. I think we would be amiss if we ignored the civil law, tort litigation, which historically has been the biggest break on the use of consumer products that are unsafe.

I am looking at this legislation and realize, first, yes, it has some features not in other legislation, but those features could be added without actually changing our legal philosophical landscape. When I looked at the bill, what first alarmed me was what I call a move away from the rule of law. When I say rule of law, I do not mean it in a technical, lawyer sense. A lawyer will view a rule of law as a legal principle that is so accepted that we expect courts to follow it without discretion. When I say rule of law here, I mean it more as a citizen would interpret it. A rule of law as a citizen would interpret it is that a person's body or property cannot be interfered with by the state without supervision by the courts. When I lecture on this topic, to make it simple for people I say imagine going back in history before we had courts interceding between the person and the state. If the ruler wanted to imprison you, the soldiers came and dragged you into the dungeon and that was it. If the ruler wanted to take your property, the soldiers would come and take your property and that was it. We did not have courts or procedural fairness, and revolutions were fought on this issue.

It is actually a very significant legal principle that we have in Canada that before the state can interfere with you as a person or before the state can interfere with your property in a significant way, they have to go through the courts. The courts adjudicate between the citizen and the state. That is what is changing with this bill, and that is what alarms me. Many administrative acts allow the state to seize documents, and courts do not seem concerned about that if they are pursuing legitimate, administrative purposes, and many acts allow the state to temporarily interfere with property, but this takes it to an entirely new level that I think creates a dangerous precedent.

Look at section 20 of the act, the seizure powers. I could ask rhetorically, what is the time limit for a seizure when an inspector seizes property? The discretion to seize property is extremely wide. There does not have to be a safety concern to seize property under this act. I could rhetorically ask, are there any limits on the amount of property they can seize? No, there are no limits. Do they have to report seizure to a court? No, they do not. If they charge you with an offence, then all of a sudden a court will perhaps supervise the property once they get to forfeiture proceedings at the end.

You have to understand this is a bill being billed to protect people and their families. If you own a family business, an inspector can walk in and effectively take control of your business and ruin you financially over regulatory violations that may have nothing to do with safety. That is the reality of this bill. If your property has been seized for them to check for compliance or for them to enforce compliance and, as I say, they decide to charge you criminally, they will not be able to forfeit your property without a court intervening. If they charge you administratively, it is a different story. Section 30 of this act allows them to order you to recall, and section 31 allows them to actually make broad orders. They can order you to stop sale. They can basically order you to do anything necessary in the inspector's opinion to assumedly bring you into compliance with the act.

Let us imagine you are a small family business. An inspector has found some violation that does not really create a safety risk and has taken control of your business and has decided they will not charge you criminally. They issue an order against you and you do not adhere to the strict letter of that order, so you are charged administratively with violating the order. You do not get to go to court. There is no way under this act that you could have a court review that order. In fact, you do not get to present any evidence orally, nothing under oath. You are restricted to submitting in writing to the minister. In fact, the act prohibits the minister from considering anything but writing. You are not presumed innocent until you are proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If you do not do anything, you are just presumed guilty. If you have been issued this violation ticket and you do nothing, you are presumed guilty.

You can appeal to the minister. The minister decides whether you are guilty on the lower civil standard of balance of probabilities. The two main defences that you would have in an administrative law context, due diligence and honest but mistaken belief, are taken away from you under the act. You are not actually reviewing whether the order was reasonable or whether there was a health risk. The minister is only reviewing whether or not you adhered to the order, and that is actually very important for you to consider. The minister is only allowed to consider whether or not you violated the order, not to look behind the order to see if this was reasonable or justified or excessive. If the minister determines on a balance of probabilities that you are guilty, then section 61 of the act allows the minister, in his or her discretion, to decide to keep your property. It can be forfeited to the state.

In that scenario where you have been charged administratively, we have the state effectively taking control of your property for an unlimited period of time, never reporting it to a court, no limits on the amount of seizure, grey area for the reasons for the seizure, and your property can actually be forfeited to the state without any court supervision. We have a joining of the executive power and the judicial power in that context.

When I reviewed this act and saw that we have basically moved away from what I call the rule of law, it raised the question in my mind: Are we in a situation in Canada today where consumer products are creating such a risk that we have to abandon significant procedural safeguards and move away from the rule of law?

You will not hear me say that I have a concern about tightening up consumer legislation. You will not hear me say that there are not some positives on this act. However, if we want to have a reporting system or better tracking systems and things like that so we could actually address some legitimate safety concerns, can we not do those things in a way that actually enables us to still uphold as actually significant the rule of law? You will not find a political philosopher who will say that it is safe to allow the police to become the decision maker when it comes to seizure of property.

When I read the act, I have to tell you that I was personally just terrified that this creates a significant precedent of the move away from the rule of law, and it makes me feel very insecure. I would discourage my children very strongly from ever going into selling or manufacturing consumer goods because I know they would be in a situation where the state can be both the police and the judge.

The other thing that I would want to address as extremely significant is this abolition of the rule of trespass. I find it absolutely amazing. The RCMP or OPP or municipal police investigating very serious matters cannot come onto our property. If we tell them to leave and they do not leave, they can be charged criminally and they can be sued civilly. We have so cherished our right to private enjoyment of property that we will not allow the police to trespass, but we will absolve Health Canada inspectors from going onto our property without a warrant and without being invited. They can be on our property and not even be investigating us. They can be investigating somebody else.

It raised the question in my mind, again, are consumer products posing such a risk to Canadians that we cannot ensure consumer safety without abolishing the law of trespass? It sets a dangerous precedent. If it starts here for Health Canada, then what prevents another bureaucracy from going to the government and introducing legislation saying they need to have the same powers because they are also dealing with significant things?

Approaching this from a legal philosophical perspective, I have to say that the precedent this bill represents is very troubling. Ironically, it is a safety bill, but we also have to consider whether or not it is in the long-term interests of Canadians to move away from fundamental legal principles that we have all been taught are extremely important for our liberty and our safety.

The Chair: I sense you have more to tell us, but I think we will flesh it out in the question and dialogue period.

Mr. Buckley: I could go on for hours.

Cyndee Todgham Cherniak, Adjunct Professor, Case Western Reserve University School of Law, as an individual: My first comment is a basic premise. In trade law, you have good protectionism and you have bad protectionism. Bill C-6 clearly has some good trade protectionism in that the aim of the bill is to protect Canadian consumers from harm caused by goods. That is good protectionism. It is a good thing to do. None of my comments are intended to detract from the good potential of the bill. However, the ability for the Canadian government to prohibit a manufacturer or importers from selling creates some concern.

The question is whether Bill C-6, in its current form and language, opens the potential for bad protectionism; do we have the balance correct in this bill?

Bad protectionism is protecting Canadian manufacturers from foreign competition. Bad protectionism is technical barriers to trade. Bad protectionism is disguised restrictions to keep a wall up at the border so that foreign goods cannot get into Canada. Also, bad protectionism is putting up a wall at the border so Canadian manufacturers do not offshore some of their production; it is a two-way street.

Probably this is where my comments may get a little unpopular. However, I am not here on behalf of any client. I am not here on behalf of any international organization or NGO. I was asked to come and comment because I am a trade lawyer, a trade professor and a consultant to the Asian Development Bank. I have actually looked at 100 free trade agreements in my spare time.

As Bill C-6 is written, I do not see any intention to breach Canada's international obligations. I want to stress that as it is written, I do not see it as intending on doing something in particular when I read the language. However, my question is whether there is sufficient guidance in the bill or whether the powers are too broad, so that we can venture into the bad protectionism. That is really what I am here to talk about.

I will bring up five problems. There are more, but I do not want to go on and on, so I will address five issues that I see.

When I look at sections 5 to 8 of Bill C-6, I ask whether it could be used to justify an importation ban so that foreign goods are kept out in order to protect Canadian manufacturers. Paragraph 7(a) will allow an importation ban if an inspector determines that a consumer product is a danger to human health or safety. There is a similar provision in paragraph 8(a) with respect to retailers advertising and selling a consumer product that they know is a danger to human health and safety.

While there is a definition of danger to human health or safety in the proposed law, there are no clear rules. I do not know what that means, and I will not be able to advise foreign clients as to what that means and when someone will come to that determination. Therefore, is it possible for this to be misused?

Is it possible for me as a lawyer to have a new area of practice whereby I go to the Canadian government officials on behalf of domestic manufacturers and say: "I think these goods are of lower quality; they are a danger to Canadians so you need to investigate and stop them at the border."? When I look at what is going on in some foreign jurisdictions, I have seen that happen with respect to goods getting stopped at the border.

Hence, we have WTO cases; not necessarily on this basis, but there is a fear right now – especially with all this "buy America" talk. There are a number of protectionist measures going up in place around the world.

It is possible we will react in fear, without science or justification for our fear. It is possible we will go offside what is called "the precautionary principle" in international law. It is also possible that we will stop Canadian goods from coming in when they are manufactured offshore so that a manufacturer can be more competitive in the Canadian environment.

I talk about "what if." What if Canada was looking at a foreign jurisdiction, one of our trading partners who were going to pass this law? Would we have concerns if the shoe was on the other foot, so to speak; if Canadian manufacturers who want to get into a foreign market can have their goods stopped at someone else's border?

What if our bill gets adopted by some of our trading partners as the precedent? Could this type of bill be used against Canadians? We are supposed to lead the way. If leading the way may cause harm to our people – and we see that potential – should we not be looking at it from the perspective of our trading partners as well?

The bill adds business risk. Business risk was already discussed by Mr. Buckley, so I will not go on. However, when you have business risk, not all business risk is bad but you need to have clear rules for both the Canadian businesses and foreign businesses, because we do need some of the foreign goods.

The bill is also lacking in conformity, assessment procedures and other provisions to ensure that it is not used as a technical barrier to trade, a disguised restriction on trade – a trade-restrictive or trade-distortive measure. We can improve Bill C-6 if there is a clear statement that the bill will be interpreted consistently with Canada's international obligations.

We do not have that in the bill. It is ironic that we required, through negotiation with the Americans, to have a similar provision in their "Buy America" legislation that it would not be used for bad protectionism. We have a precedent that we can borrow from our friends to the south.

If the bill included clear rules on what factors will go into the determination of whether a good is a danger to human health and safety, and if we could have clear rules about advance approvals that can be obtained to control business risk, such as advance rulings with clear procedures for appeal, then we might encourage some of our business partners to come forward and work with us so that we reduce the likelihood of dangerous goods entering into Canada.

Could we have provisions to deal with when goods are an imminent threat where immediate action is required, such as the melamine case out of China; and where there is a concern, but a more detailed and lengthy process should be available?

Problem number two is when I look at the international obligations. I look at paragraph four of the preamble, which states:

Whereas the Parliament of Canada wishes to foster cooperation within the Government of Canada, between the governments in this country and with foreign governments and international organizations, in particular by sharing information. . . .

I do not see any provisions in the bill to do that. In fact, given the strictness of the provisions that my friend was talking about, foreign governments may be reluctant to share information with us because they do not want to disadvantage their businesses that have market access into the Canadian market. As we can see by a number of WTO cases, importation bans are taken very seriously by foreign governments.

It is also worth pointing out that two executives involved in the milk scandal in China were executed yesterday. Other countries have a different view on consumer protection and the penalties for consumer protection. Does this bill put us in a place where we may be in an uncomfortable position in sharing information? I just point that out in passing.

Problem number three is the requirement to provide any and all documents and disclosure. Section 38 establishes criminal consequences for infraction, and other provisions allow inspectors to go and obtain any document. Paragraph 20(2)(c) permits an inspector to examine any document and take copies.

It does not exclude legal opinions. It does not exclude anything that may be subject to solicitor/client privilege, but it also does not exclude technical intellectual property documents, secrets that companies do not want to have in the public realm. Should the Canadian government be required to get a court order in order to get these sorts of documents and have the opportunity to prevent the disclosure of these documents?

The requirement to provide any and all documents raises concerns of company secrets getting in the wrong hands. What if the shoe was on the other foot and it was China or Nigeria or someone else who was going to be able to get Canadian businesses' secret documents, their intellectual property? If the shoe was on the other foot, would we be concerned that maybe someone would be using Canadian secrets to infringe Canadian intellectual property rights? We need to consider that.

I had a recent case coming out of China on behalf of a client, where the Chinese customs seized goods leaving China and allowed the person making the complaint to go in and look at all the documents, take photocopies, and then file patents to contradict the Canadian exporter's rights. Things happen around the world. We learn from these experiences, so I can see the potential for some mischief in this bill.

Sections 15 and 16 grant the minister the right to disclose personal information and confidential business information without the consent of the manufacturer, importer, et cetera. Section 17 goes even farther and allows the minister to disclose confidential business information to the public where there is a serious and imminent danger.

The question is whether alerting the public would require the disclosure of any type of confidential business information. When you look at the definition of "confidential business information," it seems to go beyond what is necessary to alert someone to a danger and the secrets of the business.

The time frames for reporting incidents is short and might not be realistic in the corporate or international context. For example, subsection 14(2) requires a report of incidents within 2 days and subsection 14(3) within 10 days. By putting the number of days in a statute, you are setting up good corporate citizens to fail. Generally under international law, reporting requirements need to be reasonable and sometimes translations need to take place. As well, there are time zones to consider. I am not sure whether this will work.

The last point is that there does not appear to be a due diligence provision, as Mr. Buckley said. Also, if this is about consumer protection, should we not have a due diligence provision that says: Come forward and act in a duly diligent manner. If you do that, we understand mistakes can be made. Someone can have all the best intentions but then afterward, we come across additional information. If you have a due diligence defence and a due diligence process, would we not encourage foreign businesses to comply and come forward to work up front so that nothing bad happens? Should we not have that as part of this bill? It would allow our trading partners to understand Canadian law and Canadians' needs, concerns and procedures.

I would be happy to answer any questions.

The Chair: I thank you both for your opening comments. Mr. Buckley, I will tell you what Health Canada officials have told us, and ask you to respond. You talked about the precedent. Health Canada officials say that the powers outlined in this legislation are similar to other pieces of legislation, such as the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Pest Control Products Act, the Canadian Labour Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Health of Animals Act. You also talked about the law of trespass being abolished by Bill C-6. Government officials have said that no, the inspectors will be permitted to pass over or enter a private property for carrying out their duties under the law.

Could you comment on the trespass part of this and the precedent review of other pieces of legislation?

Mr. Buckley: I will start with the comment on trespass. We are not expecting Health Canada inspectors on their off time to decide to wander onto people's properties. I take it as a given that they will exercise their duties under the act, as broad as that authority is. I do not know that it is any consolation to Canadians that health inspectors cannot go into their house without a warrant but can go onto their private property. I do not read this as limiting them from staying out of your out buildings. They can certainly enter commercial premises. I am most concerned about the private property in terms of the residential property aspect. It is no consolation that they might investigate you or your neighbour.

The bill exempts them from the law of trespass, which raises the question: If I am carrying out a business in my home, they have the right under the act to come to my house and ask if I will let them in to inspect the home. If I will not, they have the right to apply for a warrant under the act that would be restricted to verifying compliance with the act. That is common. Those types of provisions are in our current Food and Drug Act, which they administer. That is different from exempting inspectors from the law of trespass. This bill is a precedent. I am not familiar with the Environmental Protection Act. Of the acts you listed, the only one I am familiar with is the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which is a criminal act that does not allow the police to seize property and not report it to a court. Under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, if a police officer seizes property, it needs to be reported to a court.

Section 8 of the Charter clearly governs that. I do a lot of work in the controlled drugs and substances field involving seizures with warrants and seizures from cars. It is nothing akin at all to what we are looking at in Bill C-6. It is possible that there are similar provisions in other pieces of legislation that I am not aware of, but I do not think it removes the precedent that the bill would set, which this committee needs to consider.

Let us say for argument's sake that the Environmental Protection Act allows inspectors to seize property under that act and never report it to a court and that they can charge administratively and forfeit it to the Crown without the court ever learning of the property. That would be alarming and would be an example of other agencies wanting it because one agency has it. Let us say this is the first example of such proposed legislation and it passes. Is the next bureaucracy going to line up and say, well Health Canada has it, is it okay? I am here to say that I have read this bill and I am alarmed by its extremely broad scope. I ask the question: Is it necessary for us to protect ourselves from consumer products and allow the state to have such broad sweeping powers without court supervision? You do not hear me saying that consumer protection is not necessary. Parts of this bill could enhance consumer safety but it is the question of having private property seized without limits or supervision. If I were a small business owner and it happened to me, putting my livelihood and provisions for my family in jeopardy without any recourse, I would find it intolerable. One of the dangers of allowing the state to have these types of powers is that those subject to those powers become alienated from the state because the state becomes a complete adversary without a forum, such as a court, to resolve issues. The state has an interest in consumer protection, but we have laws, such as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and section 8 which guarantees everyone the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, to moderate how the state interacts with us. If anybody wants to ask me about jurisdiction, I am anxious to talk about whether the federal government has jurisdiction to pass this bill because of its overall breadth.

The Chair: Ms. Cherniak, I appreciate your analysis of good and bad protection. When Health Canada officials were here, they said that Bill C-6 is consistent with changes to product safety legislation in the United States and in the European Union. Do you agree?

Ms. Cherniak: I have not looked at the EU or the U.S. provisions. I looked at this from a perspective of whether this is consistent with Canada's international obligation and not criticizing another state's decisions. When I looked at this bill as it is written, nothing jumps off the page to indicate that something could go to the WTO tomorrow. I can see a great deal of potential for bad protectionism and actions to be taken under this bill that will lead to disputes that go either to the WTO or to a NAFTA panel or to another FTA panel.

Senator Eaton: Mr. Buckley, I am not a lawyer, so I do not understand the law as well as you understand it. Perhaps you could explain. I believe you said in your last response to Senator Eggleton that inspectors were exempted from the law of trespass. Could you explain?

Mr. Buckley: Yes. I believe it is subsection 20(4), which exempts them from liability for being on people's property. We have inherited the law of trespass from the English Common Law.

Senator Eaton: A point of order -- I have understood that on the contrary, inspectors are liable. They can be taken to court and be charged if they misuse their right to go on your property.

The Chair: I do not think it is a point of order, but you have clarified your question so Mr. Buckley can take it from there.

Mr. Buckley: I am not sure that I am following now.

Senator Eaton: They could be charged. If somebody goes into a shopping mall, goes into your store and starts breaking apart your products, it is my understanding from Health Canada that they could be held responsible and be charged if they misused their right of inspection.

Mr. Buckley: That is interesting. As I say, I read section 20(4) as exempting them and people accompanying them, entering on or passing through private property. Just the way I am reading that, it basically exempts them from the law of trespass.

The Chair: “ . . . they are not liable for doing so” are the last few words.

Senator Eaton: They are not liable for crossing into a shopping mall but that does not excuse them from not behaving according to the law.

Mr. Buckley: I have to stick with my answer. First, it is not limited to shopping malls.

Senator Eaton: They need a warrant to go into someone's private house. If they destroy or wilfully do things that are not right, according to this bill, they are subject to being charged.

Mr. Buckley: The interesting thing about this subsection 24 is that when you look at administrative law and administrative law cases, courts have been very clear. When a section says an inspector can go where he expects there is something regulated by the act, that is completely allowed, and he can inspect documents and basically check for compliance.

When we look at the first part of this section 20(1), where they can enter on the property, that is valid, where they can examine and test things. In my opinion, that would be valid administrative law. It is very well accepted that they can go on to commercial premises. They can even go up to a home; let us say you had a home-based business with a consumer product. They are allowed to do that and that is a given. No one will charge someone for going into a shopping mall because he or she is not trespassing. Everyone is allowed to go into a mall. There is an implied invitation. When I read 20(4), it sticks out: Why did they need that there, being that courts accept inspectors' rights to go on to property? It is set out in a common way. This first part of section 20 does not alarm me -- I see a pattern with other acts -- but this 20(4) jumped out and it is not limited to commercial premises. It is anything and it is actually on the private property that I think it is designed for, unless you are jumping into someone's storage yard at night.

Senator Eaton: To go into a private property, they need consent or a warrant. If you go into someone's house you need a warrant or consent.

Senator Day: You said private property.

Senator Eaton: A shopping mall is private property.

The Chair: Senator, let us keep this to questions to the witness, please, and give him a chance to respond.

Senator Eaton: I am, but I guess we disagree.

I do not understand what you are saying.

Mr. Buckley: The way the law of trespass works is that we start with the premise that we have absolute right to private enjoyment of our property, but we do give that up in certain contexts where there is an implied invitation. For example, if we go to the mall, that is designed to be a public place and there is an implied invitation for us to go there, so you would not ever be violating the law of trespass going to the mall, unless it was after hours when you are not expected to be there.

Even in our private homes, there is an implied invitation that someone can walk up and ring the doorbell and ask a question and interact. Your neighbour can come to your door and ask to borrow a cup of sugar, or someone can come and solicit, but beyond that, if you told them to leave, they would have leave. It is the same with the police. The police could walk up to your door if there has been a crime and they are going door to door to see of anyone has seen something. Even though they are investigating a crime, they are not trespassing using this implied licence, but the licence ends whenever you tell people to leave. If you told the police, "I am sorry, I do not want you on my property; please leave," at that point they have to leave. At that point any private citizen has to leave. This implied licence is now withdrawn and you are liable for trespass if you do not honour it.

As I read section 20(4), if I told a Health Canada inspector to leave my private property, they are exempt, as is anyone accompanying them to assist them.

Senator Eaton: What are you defining as private property?

Mr. Buckley: It is very broad. It could be commercial property where there is not an implied licence for you to be there.

Senator Eaton: Could it be a manufacturer of toys, for instance?

Mr. Buckley: It is a good question. It is important to understand. Under section 20(1), they are exempted certainly to go on to commercial property to check for compliance under the act, so even that alone would exempt them from the law of trespass. As I say that, the first part of section 20 is a very common type of wording and a common type of power. We actually want inspectors under regulatory regimes to be able to check for compliance, or the system breaks down. We do want to grant them the right to go on to commercial premises. We want them to be able to inspect machinery if that is relevant, or check documents if that is relevant. We give them that power and the courts are good at allowing that to happen, because otherwise how do you enforce a regulatory regime or check for it? In that circumstance, they would already be exempted. If you or I did that, we would be trespassing. I have no objection to that at all.

As I read section 20(4), it is broad enough to also include private property, meaning residential and things like that.

Senator Eaton: If it is residential, they have to have a warrant or your consent.

Mr. Buckley: That is not how I read that section. I guess maybe that is where we differ.

Senator Eaton: Can you give me concrete examples of something other than residential property that you consider private property that is not a shopping mall and not a manufacturer?

The Chair: Let us get the answer and then I have to move on to another senator.

Mr. Buckley: The short answer is that we have from a private property perspective personal residence and, as far as this act goes, commercial property. Those are the only two we are talking about.

Senator Martin: Mr. Buckley, I will begin with the question that you asked during your presentation, which is: Is it in the best interests of Canadians? My questions are coming from that place of wanting to find out whether it is in the best interests of Canadians. I too am not a lawyer but I am a parent. I was watching CBC News yesterday, The National with Peter Mansbridge, about the recent case with the drop-side cribs and a mother who at this time cannot afford to buy another crib because they are very expensive. At this time she is using a temporary playpen. These cribs are potentially very dangerous to these babies and they could lead to great injury, perhaps even suffocation. I am sure many parents who own these cribs are not sleeping very well at night. Is it in the best interests of Canadians for Health Canada to have the power, the tool to order mandatory recalls in such cases?

I know in this case there is a recall, but as you know, there are no powers currently for ordering recalls. It is all voluntary. Is it in the best interests of Canadians, Mr. Buckley, to give Health Canada the tool that is written in this act?

Mr. Buckley: Just so I understand your question, are you limiting it to recall, or do you want me to answer more broadly?

Senator Martin: I am focusing now on recall because that power does not exist in the Hazardous Products Act, which you cited as being sufficient. Is it in the best interests of Canadians to have this act that is about 40 years old and has not been modernized and without Health Canada having the power of recall? What is your opinion about what is in the best interests of Canadians?

Mr. Buckley: That is interesting, because even when I look at the Consumer Protection Act, it has ministerial powers that seem to have been borrowed from the Hazardous Products Act where the minister can make an order, but there are some procedural safeguards there.

There are several different issues here. It is perhaps a good thing that this involves consumer safety because it is difficult to resist consumer safety. It is. A question like babies in cribs is an emotional issue, and I think we are obligated to say the government should do everything it can to ensure the safety of babies and cribs. Does that mean that we cannot regulate things like crib safety and cannot protect babies without involving the court when the state will take control over private property? That is the question. You have not heard me criticize consumer safety. You have not heard me criticize the objects of the act. You have certainly heard me say there is a danger to allowing the state to take control over private property without court supervision.

There is a danger. We have grown up and taken it for granted that we will not have state agents in our yard. We have taken it for granted that if the state seizes or takes our property or interacts with us in any way, that we will be in court. They will compel us to go to court over it, and the court will deal with it. Do we want our children to not take privacy rights and the enjoyment of private property for granted? It is an interesting question. Do we want our children to not assume that if the state will seize their property, then the state will have them in court and the court will supervise the process? I am not criticizing legitimate state ends, but I think we could craft effective consumer protection legislation to deal even with these emotional issues in a way that also respects the rule of law. That is all I am saying.

Senator Martin: Thank you for your explanation. I would disagree with you in terms of the powers that are written in this act for the minister and for the inspectors in situations where it requires urgent response, and when it comes to the lives of consumers, and especially our most vulnerable and, in this case, babies. We have also heard from different witnesses that Health Canada has a record of trust and collaboration, and we heard the confidence of various groups that have worked with them. We also heard from the Privacy Commissioner last week, who gave her endorsement or confidence in Health Canada in all of her meetings and consultations. There is assessment to be done in the regulatory phase where she again feels that that process will be very transparent and interactive. We too as senators could be viewing what that will look like.

What is happening in the news is emotional. We think that things are safe when we buy them. Our consumers assume that what they purchase in stores is safe. The fact that in Canada, Health Canada does not have the authority to do any mandatory recalls concerns me. I am going back to this question of what is in the best interest of Canadians. We may differ on that.

The Chair: Do you have a further response, Mr. Buckley?

Mr. Buckley: I would be more comfortable with the procedure we have in the Hazardous Products Act, where the minister, if there is a significant risk, can make an order that is immediately binding. It is reviewable in case they got it wrong, and if they have not got it wrong, it can be renewed and enforced, but with some review mechanism. I agree that when a risk pops up, there should be a mechanism, but I am absolutely firm that I do not view it as long-term in our interests, even from a safety perspective, to be allowing this without court supervision and to be joining the executive and the judicial branches.

Senator Martin: We heard some statistics from Safe Kids Canada that unintentional injuries are the leading cause of death of Canadians ages 1 to 34, with nearly half the injuries being caused by consumer products. Do you have any evidence to support your mention of consumer products being low risk?

Mr. Buckley: I have not said that.

Senator Martin: Earlier you had mentioned that it was a lower risk.

Mr. Buckley: Was I meaning lower risk in comparison to drugs?

Senator Martin: You also said it in other statements you made outside today.

Mr. Buckley: Outside of today, certainly, when I compare consumer products to things like chemicals or pharmaceutical drugs, I view them as a lower risk, by far. That is definitely my personal opinion, although it was not an issue I was addressing here.

Senator Segal: I thank the witnesses for making themselves available. I am glad we were able to accommodate Mr. Buckley's challenging and important schedule. I want to step back from the specifics and see if I can get you to share your considered opinion based on your interaction with these issues both on the trade side and on consumer safety and purveyor's rights side.

What do you think is really happening here? I ask the question in a specific way. Many of the issues that you have raised have been raised by other members of the committee, although perhaps not as articulately as Mr. Buckley has. The response from Health Canada has been one of the reasonable person. Health Canada is a reasonable place with reasonable people working to protect the public. Their inspectors will act in a reasonable way. Therefore, the presumption that they would go to the extremes that you may very well believe, and there may be an objective analysis to suggest the law might let them go to, is perhaps somewhat unfair. I would be interested in your reflection on that.

Ms. Cherniak, as we saw with some tobacco legislation a few weeks ago, Health Canada is not in the trade business. They are in the public protection business. The Department of Foreign Affairs and all that stuff and people who interact with the WTO are part of that specialized world that you professionally cohabit, I guess. The question becomes: What would you think of a preamble that simply inserted the proposition, as you suggested, same thing we were delighted to get from President Barack Obama, namely, that no provisions of this act are meant to operate notwithstanding Canada's international trade obligations? Would that give you a measure of confidence about how this might be interpreted, or are there problems that are more severe?

Ms. Cherniak: The provision in the buy-America legislation does not give me much confidence that it will not be applied in a bad protectionist manner. Therefore, just having the provision in there does not do a whole lot. However, it may guide state actors in the decisions that they make.

In the United States, we see that maybe in some cases they do and in some cases they do not. However, I would think that in Canada, it may assist in the guidance of those applying the law. When they are asking questions such as should we engage in this recall, should we take this step or if we have choices, what should we do, under the provision in the legislation that says we will act consistently with our international obligations, they ask DFAIT and JLT or whomever what is acting consistently within our international obligations, and the actions taken would be consistent with those obligations.

The Chair: Mr. Buckley, on the other question of Health Canada officials?

Mr. Buckley: Right, and the "reasonable person." First, I would not expect any bureaucracy appearing before a Senate committee asking to be given sweeping powers to say they are unreasonable and they will abuse this and you cannot trust them. I would certainly expect them to say everything is fine. There is nothing to worry about here, citizen; move along.

I just spent three weeks in Federal Court trying to get Health Canada’s seizure power under the Food and Drugs Act declared unconstitutional in what is a very egregious case. We had there a company that had developed a vitamin and mineral supplement for bipolar disorder, called the EMPowerplus; and Health Canada was taking it off of the market because it did not have a drug identification number.

This is in 2003. The Natural Health Product Regulations are set to come into effect in 2004, and basically the entire natural health product industry is illegal because they cannot get DINs. That is why we are getting new regulations.

Before Health Canada seizes a shipment and starts turning away shipments at the border – because it is shipped in from the United States – they had received ample communications that they would be putting people at risk, including risk of suicide, if they continued. They continued.

One inspector agreed under oath that Health Canada was basically receiving constant communications that their activities were leading to suicides. We had Mr. Ron Lejeunesse, who is the head of the Alberta branch of the Canadian Mental Health Association – no connection with Health Canada, no connection with TrueHope – who was publicly blaming Health Canada for suicides of Canadian Mental Health Association members.

This gentleman used to run the Province of Alberta's mental health programs. He is a heavy hitter in the mental health field, and all of this was ignored. There were protests on the Hill – the “Red Umbrella” ladies; there were press conferences, letters and rallies.

It was literally a case study in how to draw attention to the fact that a bureaucracy is causing harm. Yet they did not relent for approximately a year, until an arrangement was reached with the minister.

I practice widely in the area of dealing with companies that make natural health products that Health Canada is going by. I have never actually heard Health Canada described as a reasonable person until today. It very well may be that in other areas they are.

The problem with the Food and Drugs Act section 23(1)(d), they are allowed to seize if they believe that an offence has taken place. They can only release when they are fully satisfied that there is no violation. There is actually some symmetry with a provision in this act.

If you basically give the government a power to seize when there is a violation and they can only release when there is full compliance, that is what you will get. Inspector after inspector told us under oath the only consideration was whether they were in compliance. If you pass this act and you give the inspectors the power to take control over private property, to check for and ensure compliance, that is what you will get. You will get exactly what you give them.

If I am a property owner and I have an inspector acting reasonably – they are treating me well – but they seize my stock, I do not get to go to court, they charge me for an administrative violation and the state forfeits my property, it does not matter how reasonable that was or was not. It is a move away from the rule of law. It is a move away from procedural fairness.

I am willing to presume that Health Canada right now is committing to acting reasonably, but that is not the issue. The issue is do we give anyone, a reasonable person, these powers? Laws are passed and they stay there for a long time. You are giving people enormous discretion on some very significant property right issues.

Senator Segal: Health Canada has been very forthcoming with respect to a long consultative process on the regulations, which will shape what the statutory reality is on the ground. In your judgment, is there any regulatory specificity that might emerge from those discussions with various parts of the to-be-regulated industry that could provide a measure of either confidence or balance relative to how the statutory parts of the law were enforced?

What constitutes a risk? What constitutes a problem? Are there definitions of what constitutes, for example, the issue my colleague Senator Eaton raised – a private or a non-private facility that may be subject to search and seizure, those sorts of things?

Do you have any hope or belief that an honest, regulatory process, where there was open consultation, could provide some measure of comfort for the vast majority of manufacturers, producers, wholesalers, importers who are honourable people and who want to go about their business in an honourable way? Or do you fear that if the legislation passes, the regulatory process will somehow not be managed honestly, or really has no hope of generating the kind of balance and fairness which clearly, on the trade side in one case and on the purveyor's rights side, you are looking for in your submissions to us today?

Mr. Buckley: First, when a law is passed, it will now be the courts that interpret the law. Let us assume we are not dealing with a constitutional challenge, where just the court is interpreting the law. The court will not be swayed by some modus operandi between industry and Health Canada that may have commenced, greased passage and gained support for a bill. The court will interpret the law according to a whole set of procedures for a statutory interpretation.

Also, I would say that Health Canada is obligated, once the law is passed, to enforce it in its true meaning and not to shackle itself by policy. It is an interesting question because I think the responsibility of both the House of Commons and the Senate is to ensure that it is passing laws, first, that are clear on things like risk. I would echo my friend's comments on how vague it is – the concept of risk.

If there are questions about what is property and is the law of trespass abolished, these things should be clear going in. They should not be subject to opinion. Laws are supposed to be clear. They should be defining, with some certitude, what is going on.

I was not focusing on the ambiguity in this act; my friend covered that. However, there are many ambiguities, and I would have difficulty instructing clients as to the scope of the act.

Clearly, whatever the scope is, it should not be bound by a policy or some agreement between industry and Health Canada. I do not think that is really a consideration that the Senate or House of Commons should be taking into account. That is just my opinion.

Ms. Cherniak: In addition to what my friend said, I will go back to the first question that you asked, Senator Segal, which is what is happening? From the international perspective, I asked that question as well. Is this a reaction to some of the international scandals that came out of China and elsewhere a year ago? If we are reacting to an external issue by putting something into the regulations, will those regulations change as the wind changes as we react to media attention to some of these issues? I trust that regulations are put forward in good faith but I also trust that we react at times such that changes can be made so that a particular circumstance can fit into a regulatory regime so that action can be taken to erect a blockage at the border. Therein lies my concern. Creating a mechanism quickly to stop things form entering the country, such the milk containing melamine from China is not necessarily a bad thing. However, even when we do not have scientific evidence a public outcry can occur about a product. What do we do in that case? Do we have the right balance? That is my question.

Senator Ogilvie: Mr. Buckley, if I understood you correctly, a great deal of what you said had to do with the phrase "state seizure of property." The state was in the person of regulators who would be carrying out the action of the state. I heard you explicitly start a major portion of your commentary at clause 31 of the bill leading you through to the seizure and disposal of property at clause 61.

My reading of the bill is such that by clause 31, a number of steps have been initiated to provide the individual corporation or other identified object of a product contravening or potentially contravening the legislation with an opportunity to comply or show that their properties do conform. Clause 31 says that if a person has not complied up to this point, a series of steps can be initiated with regard to stopping manufacturing, et cetera, and can provide an order in this regard, but this order must include a statement for the reasons of the measure and the time and manner in which the measure is carried out. The individual or corporation is provided with time to comply, and on it goes through a series of events.

I am having difficulty understanding why society cannot lay out a reasonable set of steps that allow an individual, a corporation or other entity to comply and show that a product is safe within the terms of safety under an act. If they continue to refuse to do so, surely a stage would be reached whereby, provided sufficient grounds exist, the state must have the opportunity to act on behalf of consumers to protect them. That is my observation.

Mr. Buckley: It is interesting. Let us agree that we want the state to be able to ensure that consumer products are safe. You do not hear me saying otherwise. It is actually quite fantastic that an inspector could show up at the door of a business he does not know, find the owner non-compliant, find no safety risk other than a presumed risk for non-compliance, and seize the property right then and there. The inspector could write an order stating that if the owner does not comply with it, every day is an offence. If the owner is charged criminally, every day is an offence with significant penalties. Yes, a court will adjudicate it but they can charge you administratively, whether the order was properly made or made sense is not even an issue, id you did not comply with the order. Let us say that an inspector comes to your premises. You are not compliant and you are not willing to be compliant and you disagree with them. They will get a warrant and seize your property and the court will manage it. I am not aware of circumstances where the existing rule of law is not working. That confuses me with this bill. If this were completely exigent and I could not get a telewarrant but I had to interfere right away, with 48 hours to report with a court, then I would be less concerned. You do not hear me saying that consumer safety is not an important issue. You do not hear me saying that there is not room to improve the legislation we have. However, you have me saying surely to goodness we can accomplish those legitimate goals in a way that involves the courts and involves the rule of law.

That is where I differ. When I look at the objects of the bill, I do not see why we cannot have consumer safety and involve the courts. It has been working. I do not think it is a case of suddenly in 2009 consumer products are more risky than they were before. There has always been risk and there have always been shady operators and fraud. We have a number of laws to protect against those things. Currently, we charge people and we have the courts supervise the seizure of property.

The Chair: Do you have a further question?

Senator Ogilvie: I have heard you but I do not agree with your interpretation. My interpretation is that the individual, corporation or entity has the opportunity to respond to the issue raised. If they refuse to respond then presumably, at some point, they will have to suffer the consequences.

My reading of the law is that inspectors are subject to the rule of law and have to justify their action under normal Canadian law. Thank you.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Buckley: We will just have to disagree on that.

Senator Cordy: As a non-lawyer, it is interesting to have the legal perspectives that you are both offering. We are all interested in product safety, which you mentioned at the outset. We would hope that the products Canadians receive would be safe. It is not the reality, so we have to have legislation to make things better for Canadians.

At times when proposed legislation is drafted there are unintended consequences. This bill contains what I hope are unintended consequences. Mr. Buckley, you talked about moving away from the rule of law. Will a person be found guilty by not a court of law, not a judge, not a jury, but a minister of the Crown? I have a few concerns about that. Clause 20(4) says that an inspector carrying out their functions or any person accompanying them may enter on or pass through or over private property. They are not liable for doing so.

Clause 21 says that if the place mentioned in subsection 21 is a dwelling house, the inspector may not enter it without the consent of the occupant, except under the authority of a warrant issued under subsection 2. Subsection 2 says that a justice of the peace may give that warrant. I am not a lawyer. Is there a difference between getting a warrant from a justice of the peace and getting a warrant from a judge?

Mr. Buckley: Good question. So that you are aware, most warrants are issued by justices of the peace. Even under the Criminal Code provisions, which would be the search warrant provisions Health Canada currently uses, it is issued by a justice of the peace., if a justice of the peace is not available, then a judge may sit as a justice of the peace. It is the norm for the warrant to be issued by a justice of the peace.

Senator Cordy: It is just the norm.

Mr. Buckley: It is not a lower standard, if that is what you were thinking. No, it is not a lower standard.

Senator Cordy: I am also wondering about disclosure of information by the minister. You made reference to it in sections 15, 16 and 17. We have had businesses quite concerned that this disclosure of information by the minister may be disclosed not only to a person but to a government, and the definition of a government is not the Canadian government but it is the government of Thailand or China or India or any other government. Not only is the information disclosed, but it can be done without the consent of the individual. Again, the individual is deemed to be guilty before any discussion whatsoever with the inspector.

Mr. Buckley: Do you want me to answer? I am thinking my friend is probably better placed to answer that privacy question.

The Chair: Either one of you, or both of you if you like. Go ahead.

Ms. Cherniak: In my experience, in the Customs Act and in the Special Import Measures Act, provisions prevent government officials, including the minister, from disclosing sensitive customs information to third parties. They can share it internally within the government, but they cannot give the information to a competitor. They cannot give the information to someone that writes in for an Access to Information request, and they cannot give the information to a foreign government. We have precedent in other pieces of legislation where information that is provided is kept confidential by the government. If you are giving the information in order to resolve a dispute or to communicate effectively and efficiently so that the right decision is made by a decision maker, it is not disclosed to other persons.

What if the shoe was on the other foot? What if this piece of legislation were passed in a foreign jurisdiction and a Canadian company has patents or trademarks or some information and they really do not want their intellectual property rights to be infringed in a foreign market? What would we be saying if a foreign jurisdiction passed this legislation? I will pick on the Chinese, but I do not mean to. A Chinese minister could hand this information over to a factory owner in China who is concerned about the quality of a Canadian good. We would not want that to happen if it was a foreign jurisdiction. Should there not be checks and balances that someone's sensitive business information will not be shared and it will not be shared to a foreign government? That can lead to all sorts of other complications. What if we are wrong? What if there is not a problem with respect to these goods? All of a sudden we have created a tempest in a teapot just because one individual did not understand some of the business interests or some of the intellectual property rights interests, et cetera. An inspector cannot know everything.

Senator Cordy: The information can be given without having any discussion with the person whatsoever, so you are right.

Senator Eaton: What if it were reversed? What if, for instance, Korea issued a mandatory recall and we had that product in a Canadian store? Would we not expect the Korean government to let us know why they were recalling that product that was sitting on our shelves? When you talk about exchanging information between governments, first, is it not confidential, and second, would it not be really to do with why the product was recalled and not personal information about the product that competitors would want to know?

Ms. Cherniak: You have asked a very good question, but I think that the definition of "business information" in the legislation is broader than what is needed to communicate to consumers. If Korea were communicating with its consumers publicly that a particular Canadian good --

Senator Eaton: No, no. Korea recalls one of its own products that sits on Canadian shelves. They communicate to the Canadian government, "We want X toy taken off your shelves, or we suggest you do so because we have taken it off ours." Would we not want them to feel free to communicate to us why they are recalling the product?

Ms. Cherniak: That would be an issue of Korean law under the Korean legislation as to what information can or cannot be disclosed, but the Canadian government would be able to get the same information that is released publicly in Korea that may not be sensitive business information. The fact that it is a particular model of a particular product that is manufactured by a particular Korean manufacturer at a particular plant would not be sensitive business information, and I would have no problem with that being communicated without consent, but Bill C-6 as drafted goes beyond the definition of business information.

“confidential business information” — in respect of a person to whose business or affairs the information relates — means business information

(a) that is not publicly available;

(b) in respect of which the person has taken measures that are reasonable in the circumstances to ensure that it remains not publicly available; and

(c) that has actual or potential economic value to the person or their competitors because it is not publicly available and its disclosure would result in a material financial loss to the person or a material financial gain to their competitors.

That is the information, and should that be released publicly without consent? Should we not be concerned about that? If the shoe were on the other foot, we would not want Canadian's not-publicly-available information to be given to competitors. I will use your example. We would not want a Korean competitor to have that information so that they can duplicate the Canadian product so that the Canadian can no longer exploit their patent rights.

The Chair: I have to move on, senator. I am sorry.

Senator Eaton: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: We are running out of time. I have you down for the second round, senator. I am going to Senator Dyck.

Senator Dyck: Thank you both for your very clear presentations. Everyone around the table agrees that we need to provide Canadians with safe consumer products. It seems from what you have said, Mr. Buckley, that the concern is whether we have gone too far in this legislation where we are sort of trampling on the rights of people who are involved in the manufacture or sale of consumer products. I believe you said something like, "Are consumer products creating such a risk that we need such a bill as Bill C-6 with such far-reaching powers?"

Are you saying that if there were situations where there was extreme risk, we might need something such as this, or are you saying that the risk right now from consumer products is such that the ends do not justify the means? In other words, what is proposed in here goes far beyond what is necessary in order to protect consumers?

Mr. Buckley: That is an excellent question. How many powers a state should have in any given situation tends to be fact-specific. For example, if we had a serious pandemic, which is something in the public mind, then it may be very reasonable for the state to say, "You cannot leave your house if you are sick," or, "You cannot send your kids to school." That would be an emergency situation in which I think even the courts would agree with the government that you can encroach on rights in areas that you could not otherwise.

It is funny, because most of the examples that were given, such as lead in baby toys and cribs, were examples where there were recalls and where the situation did work. In fact, I am not aware of companies that do not recall, because you are just a sitting duck both criminally and civilly if you do not. I am not saying there is not room for the minister to have the power to order recalls, but when I was asking that question, it really was rhetorical. My opinion is that consumer products have not moved into a higher risk area. Last year was the same as this year was the same as 10 years ago. I definitely do not think we are in an area where we need to be giving up fundamental freedoms in the area of consumer legislation.

Senator Keon: This is interesting stuff. I do not know how many thousands of emails we have had saying the same thing. The question is whether this legislation does encroach on freedoms of individuals guaranteed under the Charter.

Earlier, you zeroed in on clause 4 of section 20. I just do not believe that any inspector in Canada, under any circumstances, is above the law. I think if he breaks the law, you can go get him. I do not believe the points made on all these emails, which is fundamentally that.

Can you give me an example of any sector in Canada that is above the law?

Mr. Buckley: If I understand the question correctly, is there any regulatory sector –

Senator Keon: No, I mean any sector. Go as broad as you like.

Mr. Buckley: So you mean they can break the law at whim.

Obviously, I cannot; but is that not a different question? If we pass this bill, then they are not breaking the law if they seize property, assuming there is not a constitutional challenge.

For example, if an inspector believes an offence has taken place and seizes property because of that, under this act, I would argue that section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has kicked in and what we call in law the "hunter standards" – we need to have a warrant issued by an independent person on objective criteria – has kicked in and that seizure would not be illegal.

Would the seizure be legal if they do not believe there is an offence? That is curious, because I am not aware of the state actually taking control of large amounts of property without belief an offence has taken place. Usually, we do not want the state to take control of property if there is not concern that an offence has taken place.

In the act, you are not supposed to sell things that are dangerous. If there is a significant health risk and we were using today's law where they need to get a warrant, we expect them to show to a justice that there is a health risk.

If you are a justice and you have a government agency telling you there is a health risk, you are inclined to issue a warrant, play it safe, and if they are wrong, have that sorted out in court later on. Courts always err on the side of public safety and we expect them to.

I think it is a different question. Let us assume that I am right and this really is going into new territory. If I am wrong and there has been some other legislation passed, it does not change the fact that this is changing fundamentally the state right to control over property, versus the individual right. This act has such broad application because consumer product is defined so broadly. Literally, it is anything, start to finish, that ends up in the hands of the consumer, exempted for other acts that are covering specific things.

However, this act covers a wide part of our economy. Do we want inspectors to legally be able to take control of property without the belief that an offence has taken place? In my opinion, once they believe an offence has taken place and that is why they are seizing property, I am fairly confident courts will say at that point section 8 of the Charter kicks in and there has to be a warrant. Therefore, they would have to go under the criminal code process to get a warrant. In my submission, that is a strong opinion that I hold and courts are consistent on that point.

If any of you want to look it up, there is the Supreme Court of Canada decision, Regina v. Jarvis, on this point. The year before that, there was an Ontario Court of Appeal decision, Regina v. Inco. Those cases deal with a situation where we have valid administrative powers, so the inspectors have the right to go in, get information and ask questions. They are valid powers, but they are exercising them after they believe an offence has been committed.

The question is at what point do you have to stop using valid administrative powers, and then section 8 of the Charter kicks in and criminal safeguards apply? Usually, once you believe an offence has taken place, section 8 of the Charter kicks in and you have to get a warrant.

The way this act is written, I am reading it as only allowing legal seizure of property prior to the belief that an offence has taken place. Do we want that? Let us assume that is legal. Do we want inspectors to be able to take control over property for undefined periods of time without reporting to a court, without limits on the amount of their seizure and with very grey criteria for the seizure?

When I read the act, I am not sure where it ends. It is not very specific. If this was about safety, should there not be perhaps a safety threshold for them to do this? It is just an interesting question, if that is what it is about.

I am not sure that I answered your question.

Ms. Cherniak: I do not think that anyone is above the law, but I am looking at it from a balance perspective. I am also a sales tax practitioner; in that part of my life, I look at it as inspectors and auditors are human beings and they sometimes get it wrong. We would not have the Tax Court if they did not get it wrong sometimes.

If we have an inspector in this circumstance who, notwithstanding best intentions, gets it wrong, what is going to happen to the business? Inspectors can make mistakes. If a business is considered and it gets out into the media that they have unsafe products for consumers, people will not buy from that business. That business will go out of business.

They will be spending a lot of money to set everything straight. Yet it may be, at the end of the day, their reputation is so damaged by a mistake in assumptions that the business will never come back. That is where I come back to a balance: Does this legislation have the right checks and balances in it?

The Chair: Colleagues, it is 10 minutes to the hour. We have to vacate the room at six o'clock because another committee is coming in. I need five minutes at the end to talk about processing the balance of Bill C-6. I am afraid we will not have time to get to a second round.

Senator Day: Thank you to each of you for helping us to focus. This is a difficult role to play because we typically deal with policy matters, and there is not one person here that goes against the policy purpose of this legislation.

However, when we are asked to look at a piece of legislation – and we will be shortly asked to look at this on a clause-by-clause basis – that reminds us, and you have helped us do that today, that it is not the platitudes from a department of health that we are accepting here. It is these words that are going to form a law that will hopefully protect our consumers. Let us hope as well that it will not be overly burdensome on the 99 per cent of business people who are honest and not interested in putting products on the market that are not safe.

When we were going through the analysis, there was confusion between clause 20(4) which deals with private property and the inspector not being liable upon entering private property and clause 20(5), which deals with the requirement to obtain a warrant in the case of a dwelling place. Why not require a warrant for all property? Why are the types of properties dealt with separately? Obviously, it is for some policy reason that is not clear. Let Senator Martin talked about baby cribs. My understanding is that the recent recall order of cribs is voluntary, not mandated. It worked very well with 150 voluntary recalls last year. You used that as a basis for arguing that there should be power within a department to have the right to mandate a recall.

My first question is: Why would we allow someone that we call an inspector to be the judge and jury on an issue and to order a recall? Why would we not have that at a higher level, such as the minister who has a political responsibility? Can you help me with that?

Mr. Buckley: That is the point I am trying to make. You have not heard me say that there should not be a power to order a recall. Because that has such dramatic impact, it needs to be reviewable. I am not opposed to the structure that was set out in the Hazardous Products Act or if you had to apply to a court to get a recall order. However, I would caution against having an inspector do it and having it non-reviewable except by another inspector.

The Chair: I am sorry, Senator Day; we have run out of time.

Senator Day: I am just warming up.

The Chair: Ms. Cherniak, do you have a brief comment to make on Senator Day's question?

Ms. Cherniak: I agree that there will be a burden on small, medium and large businesses, and importers and exporters under this proposed legislation. Are these economic times the right time to place an additional burden on business? There is a chill factor given the extreme results that can take place under a piece of legislation. Will business spend so much time trying to ensure that they do not run afoul to the point that their goods become too expensive? I am not detracting from consumer protection or safety and I do not mean to suggest that. I agree with your comment that there will be an additional burden of unnecessary work for a number of our good businesses. I am not talking about the ones that have crossed the line or might be close to the line.

Senator Day: You agree with the first part of my comment that the majority of business people are not interested in putting unsafe consumer products on the market.

Ms. Cherniak: I have not seen that.

The Chair: I am sure we could go another hour here but our adjournment time is at hand.

I thank the two witnesses, Mr. Buckley and Ms. Cherniak, for appearing on Bill C-6.

Senators, tomorrow's meeting will be the last one involving witnesses when we will hear from Health Canada officials. We will question them on a number of things that we have heard from previous witnesses.

Given that there is a lot of information to absorb I propose that we begin clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-6 at next week's meeting on Wednesday, from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. I understand there might be a conflicting event, and we try to accommodate those. If we do not proceed in the 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. time frame, we could ask permission of the Senate to begin the meeting earlier on Wednesday. We will need two hours to do clause-by-clause consideration because people have indicated that they have a number of areas of concern to address. We can try for permission to meet at 2:30 p.m. while the Senate is still sitting.

The second option is to go to the next day, Thursday, which is one week from tomorrow. The third option is to call a special meeting on this Friday or next Monday. Are there comments? Do you want a special meeting or do you want to go to the next regular meeting?

Senator Day: I prefer the next regular meeting.

Senator Keon: The special meeting conflicts.

The Chair: I am hearing from most of you that you do not want a special meeting. You would rather go to the next regular meeting.

Senator Eaton: We can go to the reception later. This bill is very important.

The Chair: That is okay by me. I am not invited.

Senator Eaton: I could make sure, if you pass the bill chair, that you are invited. I can invite you too, Senator Cordy.

The Chair: We could ask for a dispensation to meet earlier or we could try the regular time slot and do as much as we can, notwithstanding the other event, on Wednesday.

Senator Eaton: We could arrive at the event later or we could begin the meeting earlier.

Senator Segal: How is three o'clock, perhaps?

Senator Ogilvie: Tomorrow we will hear from Health Canada officials.

The Chair: Tomorrow is our Thursday meeting when we will hear from Health Canada officials. I am talking about going to clause-by-clause consideration next week.

Senator Ogilvie: Is there no chance of continuing tomorrow's meeting through lunch to begin clause-by-clause?

Senator Day: With a complicated bill it is practice in the Senate to allow senators to consider the evidence they have heard and to not proceed immediately into clause-by-clause. Typically, we would do it the next day, which would be our meeting next week.

The Chair: Is it the next day, Friday, or is it the next meeting day, Wednesday, during our regular time slot.

Senator Ogilvie: It is the next regularly scheduled meeting day.

The Chair: Shall I seek leave to begin the meeting earlier on Wednesday?

Some Hon. Senators: Yes.

The Chair: I suggest we begin at three o'clock. Do I have consensus? I will ask for leave to meet at 3 p.m., even though the Senate may still be sitting, and we will go to 6 p.m. If we do not finish, we will have the next day, Thursday, to complete.

Senator Cordy: Health officials are coming tomorrow. Will the minister come?

The Chair: The minister has been invited but is not available, so we are told.

Senator Day: Some Senate committees refuse to pass a bill unless the minister comes to talk about how important it is, although I am not suggesting that.

The Chair: We have invited her. You asked in a previous meeting whether we invited her and we did so.

Senator Cordy: When Senator LeBreton was a member of the Social Affairs Committee, she would not let a bill pass unless the minister appeared before the committee. You can tell her that I quoted her. I am willing to let it go but this is an important bill. We have heard many concerns expressed by legal experts and people in the business field. It would have been helpful for the committee to hear from the minister.

The Chair: Point well taken. We could ask again or ask senators on the government side of the chamber to urge the minister to appear.

Senator Day: Perhaps we could ask the sponsor of the bill in the Senate to use her good offices to try to convince the minister to come, even for part of the time.

Senator Martin: I will do my part and ask on behalf of the committee.

The Chair: This will be for the meeting tomorrow.

We are agreed that I will seek leave to meet at three o'clock next Wednesday.

(The committee adjourned.)

Don't let Henry Waxman kill you

This arrived by email in Waxman's district today from CREDO.  Who are they? 

"Don't let your food kill you."

"Your member of Congress, Rep. Henry Waxman, sits on the powerful Energy and Commerce Committee. That committee will consider crucial food safety legislation on Wednesday. You need to let Rep. Henry Waxman know today that you expect him to stand with his constituents — not big industrial food companies — when it comes to food safety. ...

"Thankfully, Congress is now paying attention." 

Thankfully?  The same Congress run by lobbyists?  Paying attention to what?  Surely not us.  

The Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009 represents a good basis for reform ...

Who designed this email?    

and would be first major update of food safety legislation in decades. But big food industry players are fighting tooth and nail to weaken the bill — 

Stop, please.  This is unbearable.  The "big food industry players" are the very ones who wrote the bill.  For sure no consumers wrote the bill or sent out the message.  Where are they fighting "tooth and nail to weaken it"?  Give one instance.  Just one. 

The only people opposing these bills are regular people because the bills "scare the hell out of [them]."  

"All in all, I haven't seen a more devastating attempt at infringement on an individual's personal way of life than the USA PATRIOT act. This must be stopped... at all costs."

The "big food industry players" are creating this smoke and mirrors game where they want people to push for exactly what industry wants.  How?   By telling us  that "big bad industry" is "fighting tooth and nail" to weaken it.  What industry wants is as much power behind this bill as possible.

it's up to us to tell Congress to strengthen and pass a bill that really protects our food supply.

Protecting our food system would mean decentralizing it and getting it entirely out of the hands of the industries who wrote these bills and into our farmers' hands and our own.  These bills would do the opposite, getting rid of farmers and even requiring licensing and monitoring and surveillance and warrantless entry of our gardens.

Go see Food, Inc.  Realize that all the companies being indicted by the movie are the very ones whom Waxman is supporting.  They wrote Waxman's bill.  They are the corporations sending out this lying email, trying to get people to push for Waxman's truly traitorous bill as though they would be pushing against corporations.  

Waxman's bill takes the worst parts of the other dangerous "anti-food safety" bills out there now and makes a kind of frankenstein version.  Waxman's monster

1.  ends US sovereignty over its own food supply, gutting our Constitutional control over our food supply and transferring it to the hands of multinationals like Monsanto, Tysons, Cargills, etc.  

http://yupfarming.blogspot.com/2009/05/food-safety-bills-more-dangerous-than_08.html

2.  sets up a giant agency to control the entire US food supply with Monsanto in charge of it.  Yes, Monsanto.  http://www.postcarbon.org/monsanto_planting_seeds_white_house  Google "most evil corporation on the planet" and it will come up.  Watch "The World According to Monsanto" for an inkling of the insanity of having them control our food supply to say nothing of the astounding corruption and betrayal of our very existence that Obama is okaying this.

3. takes control of all seed, making us as dependent as Iraq now is on corporations' whim and all GM-food for our survival.

a.  Monsanto is doing this worldwide.
http://www.grain.org/briefings/?id=202

b.  It's the Kissinger plan, "control food, control people."
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message540769/pg1

c.  Here is how easily it can be done, using "food safety" as the means.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Seeds--How-to-criminalize-by-Linn-Cohen-Cole-090319-579.html

 

4. sets up NAIS, the national animal identification system which will wipe out what is left of our real farmers and take all US farmland.

a.  All the bills contain a reference to "tracing" which triggers NAIS, the National Animal Identification System.  Inside NAIS (bad enough that it will wipe out farmers financially which is the intent) is something called "Premises" ID.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/savePolishCountryside.php

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/03/europe/poland.php?page=2

b.  Anyone raising even a single animal or any plants would be forced onto NAIS and thus onto "premises" (supposedly about registering where your property is in case of an animal disease outbreak - notice how swine flu is out there now?).

c.  "Premises," however, is not "property" which is protected under the US Constitution, but an international term, quite different from property and one that says the person is a mere stake holder in their land.  The USDA would not change the term to "property" or answer whether this was theft of land.  Nor would they answer, if everyone becomes mere stake holders in the land, for whom are they holding the stake (all US farmland)?  [Speculation.  For what possible purpose?  Collateral on the bailout?  http://www.newswithviews.com/brownfield/brownfield59.htm

 

Did Hillary Clinton really make promises to the Chinese that they can come with troops to claim what is theirs if we default? 

http://thegreendragon.ning.com/forum/topics/govt-gives-china-eminent ]

 

5.  includes a hidden Codex, a plan devised by Nazi-related German pharmaceutical companies http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/PHARMACEUTICAL_BUSINESS/history_of_the_pharmaceutical_industry.htm  which is considered world fascism and is expected to kill millions. http://www.iahf.com/world/980622i.html

 http://yupfarming.blogspot.com/2009/05/codex-inside-food-safety-bills-will.html

YouTube - Codex Alimentarius: Food Lies "They" Don't Want You ...
	8 min - Apr 2, 2008 -  From http://www.thebestofrawfood.com/Listen to Brian Clement's raw food speech ... Join YouTube for a free account, or sign in if you are already ... www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhApQ3QkG0Q -

6.  creates a police state.

a.  the bills give "the Administrator" power over every person in the country who "holds" food (everyone).

http://yupfarming.blogspot.com/2009/04/jam-and-water-watch.html

b.   set up a division for this that is independently funded so no congressional oversight.

c.  includes massive punishments (million dollar a day fines and up to ten years in prison) but these punishments are not exclusive of anything more that may be available (leaving the door open to ... anything.  Torture?).  http://yupfarming.blogspot.com/2009/04/food-safety-as-totalitarian-weapon.html

d.  is expected to be run by Monsanto lawyer Michael Taylor - http://www.postcarbon.org/monsanto_planting_seeds_white_house) so Monsanto, considered the evilest corporation in the world and the greatest threat to food and nature, will have power over the entire US food supply, including over decisions on punishments.

e.  with no judicial review over even the appropriateness and validity of punishments for as yet unstated "crimes."  So, they could apply this to anyone, to anything at all, and it doesn't have to have any relation whatever to food ... and it is not subject to review.  A police state. 

f.  and this is all on top of surveillance, monitoring, warrantless entry, no due process, taking of all records, etc. included in the bills
http://yupfarming.blogspot.com/2009/04/central-food-patriot-act-hr-875.html

 

g.  Monsanto's Taylor was involved in designing the bills. 

http://farmwars.info/?p=594

 

The twisted email urges us to 

Tell Rep. Waxman — a member of the powerful House Energy & Commerce Committee — to pass food safety legislation with teeth. 

Teeth?  The very last thing we need for Waxman to give these massive and grossly corrupt corporations he is pandering to is teeth.  Teeth?  The better to kill us with CAFOs and pesticides and antibiotics and GMOs and loss of our farmers and seed and our own gardens?

The bills to be stopped entirely.

The question is why is Waxman doing this?  What is wrong with him?  Why is he killing us?

Chemical companies bring "food safety" bills

While we are all staring highly controversial "food safety" bills in the face brought to us by huge chemical companies like Monsanto and  the Nazi-connected German pharmaceutical/chemical corporations that designed CODEX Alimentarius, it might be useful to pause and look at a basic part of everyone's diet - water - and think.  

Think about chemicals and about promises of health and about government agencies and about power and about industrialization of normal things and about profits and  and about media and about fear and about influence and about bias about the corporate use of the words "safe" and "science." 

With gratitude to  http://www.ahealedplanet.net/mdaq.htm

 

(In)"1916...that grand old pioneer of advancement in dentistry, G.V. Black...presented his epoch making studies on the role of fluorine in producing mottled enamel....The studies...by...the US Public Health Service (USPHS) led to a nationwide effort to eliminate...excessive fluorine in the drinking water (by) the USPHS..."

"...our knowledge of the subject certainly does not warrant the introduction of fluorine in community water supplies generally."

"Sodium Fluoride is a highly toxic substance..., it may be definitely harmful."

"...the potentialities for harm far outweigh those for good. - Editorial Dept., Journal of American Dental Association. L.P. Anthony, DDS, Editor, Oct. 1, 1944.

"Don't drink fluoridated water...Fluoride is a corrosive poison which will produce harm on a long term basis." - AMA President, Dr. Charles Heyd.

 

"I am a former state health director...It is disturbing to me when the men in the Public Health Service (PHS), who, as late as 1950, were not ready to endorse the universal use of fluorine, have now (1952), almost to a man, come out for the endorsement."

"It is difficult for me to understand how high officials in the PHS could change their mind, over a three-month period, and completely reverse the field.  Where once they advocated the go-slow sign on the use of fluorides, they now apparently have gone overboard, and put out large amounts of propaganda favoring the fluoridation of water.  I am certain that the dental profession merely echoes and endorses the opinions of the PHS."

"...I cannot find any public evidence...that the AMA, the ADA (Dental), or several other health agencies, now recommending the fluoridation of water, had done any original ("experimental") work of their own.  These groups were simply endorsing each other's opinions."

"You will note that all of the experts grounded in the science of bio-chemistry have advocated the go-slow sign on the use of fluorides in drinking water.  I believe that the dental profession and other public-minded individuals. like myself, have been misled by the PHS, because all of the facts have not been made available upon this subject."...

"I sometimes wonder if (a major aluminum company) might not have a deep interest in getting rid of the waste products from the manufacture of aluminum, because these products contain a large amount of fluoride.  In this connection it is interesting to know that (a bureaucrat), who now heads up the Federal Security Administration (precursor to the US Public Health Service), and the firm of attorneys he was with...represents (that aluminum company)." - US Congressman, Dr. A.L. Miller, Chairman, Special Committee on Chemicals in Foods, "Fluoridation of Water, Extension of Remarks., Congressional Record, 1952.

 

(As of 1983)"Belgium, West Germany, and Sweden have abandoned their pilot fluoridation experiments on human populations, and are not fluoridating any public water supplies.  Sweden, Denmark, and Holland have banned it completely.  Many other countries, such as France, Italy, and Norway have never fluoridated their drinking water.  Only about 2% of the population of Europe is living in a fluoridated area;" - John Yiamouyiannis, PhD, bio-chemistry, BS, U of Chicago; President, Safe Water Foundation, Fluoride: The Aging Factor.

 

"Within weeks after Dr. Yiamouyiannis next spoke out against fluoridation, he was put on probation, was told he would never receive a raise again, and was advised to find another job.  Dr. Yiamouyiannis was ultimately forced to resign." - John Yiamouyiannis, PhD, editor, Chemical Abstracts Service, American Chemical Society, Fluoride: The Aging Factor.

 

"The fluoride ion exerts its toxic effect by inhibiting the action of many enzyme systems." - Dr. L.P. Sumner, Cornell U. and Dr. H. Theorell; Uppsala U., Sweden, both Nobel Laureates, enzyme chemistry. (Sumner 1946, Chemistry, Theorell 1955, Medicine).

 

"Thus some some of the serious charges that are being laid at fluoride's door - genetic damage, cancer, birth defects, and allergy response - may arise from fluoride interference after all." - Journal of American Chemical Society, and New Scientist, both January 1981.

 

"It took almost six months to persuade the public library in ...to include the book, The American Fluoridation Experiment, by F.B. Exner, MD, and G.L. Walbott, MD.  Then, one year later it was found in the waste disposal container stamped 'Discarded...'" - Eden Ranch,Organic Consumer Report, 1978.

 

"Thus, under careful examination of original data, cross-examination under oath of scientific proponents, and critical follow up assessments of effects, neither the efficacy nor the safety of fluoridation has been demonstrated.  Nevertheless, it seems impossible to engage the scientific community or the public health authorities in any effort to examine the subject."

"The reexamination of subjects on which strong recommendations have been made challenge one's commitment to integrity.  If, as scientists and public health advisors, we can't muster the courage to meet those challenges, perhaps we should all take up a more honest profession such as used car sales or TV repair where at least the results of our services are unequivocal." - Frederick I. Scott, Editor(ial), American Laboratory, September 1980.

 

"The legislation...of...fluoridation..is unreasonable and a violation of the due process clause of the Illinois Constitution..."

"This record is barren of any credible and reputable, scientific epidemiological studies and/or analysis of statistical data, which would support the Illinois Legislature's determination that fluoridation of the public water supplies is both a safe and effective means of promoting public health.

"..(Fluoridation) is unconstitutional....(and)..an unreasonable exercise of police power..." - Judge Ronald Niemann, Circuit Court, Ill. Decree, Illinois Pure Water and Ruby Hale vs. Director of Public Health and Director of EPA, State of Illinois., Health Action, Feb, 1982.

 

"...The evidence that fluoridation of the public water supply at the rate of one part per million is carcinogenic is irrefutable."

"...Say somebody shot somebody....We...are so concerned about whether this evidence was admitted properly...(and) not recognize the intrusion into our sacred individuality that is being caused every time people turn on the faucet? ...I am astounded by how much untruth has been officially promulgated (pro fluoridation)." - Justice John Flaherty, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, address, June 7, 1981.

 

"Dr. Miller: 'The USDA made some examination...(and) recommended to the farmers that fluorine not be added to the water...of (pregnant) sows because it did something to the pigs that were unborn...Do you think it might be wise for the (US)PHS...to inquire what might happen to pregnant women and the unborn child...?'"

"Dr. Porterfield: 'No, sir; I think there is a difference....There is more money available for matters that have economic value than there is for health.'" - Chemicals in Foods and Cosmetics, Hearings, Select Committee, US House, 1952.

The stunning naivete of the sustainable ag community

The sustainable ag community seems to have not noticed that everything they cares about is at stake with six "food safety" bills in congress, another one from Waxman on the way.

They seem not to have noticed the timing - just after the inauguration, when hope was high and attention diverted by that and the bailout. 

They seem not to have noticed that the bills had to have been prepared well in advance of any peanut issues, suddenly showing up as they did.

They seem not to have noticed that were it not for work by ordinary people to say the bills are dangerous, they may have already slipped through congress, unnoticed, as "food safety."

They seem not to have noticed that they are Hillary Clinton's presidential platform to create a massive and centralized "food safety" department, a platform developed with her advisor Mark Penn, CEO of Burson Marsteller, representing Monsanto.

They seem not to have noticed Hillary Clinton's ties going back to Arkansas and the Rose Law Firm - to Walmart, Tysons and Monsanto - world leaders in industrial food, industrial farming, biotech.  

http://www.counterpunch.org/cole02082008.html

They seem not to have noticed DeLauro's ties to agribusiness or her harshness in dealing with farmers.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/4/12/719195/-The-blogosphere-gets-it-right-on-food-safety-bills

They seem not to have noticed DeLauro's husband's work with the Clintons and Monsanto, http://www.gqrr.com/index.php?ID=403

 including his interest in globalization and helping corporations frame issues to their advantage.  http://www.gqrr.com/index.php?ID=408

They seem not to have noticed the Clinton's have a history with food safety and that Bill Clinton gave us the first "food safety" plan - HACCP.  http://www.organicconsumers.org/irrad/ctf.cfm

They seem not to have noticed that HACCP was an agribusiness/WTO bonanza which got rid of inspections, lowered food safety standards, wiped out safe local processors who were competition,   

http://www.nader.org/index.php?/archives/158-USDA-vs-John-Munsell.html

and centralized the food supply into WTO members' hands, including his friends at Tysons.

They seem not to have noticed that Bill Clinton's "food safety" plan - HACCP - increased illnesses and led to deaths and blocked trace back to corporate slaughterhouses.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/foodsafety/conagra_tainted_meat.cfm

They seem not to have noticed that Bill Clinton got us into the WTO with big promises US sovereignty would never be affected and Hillary bills - coming in through Rosa DeLauro and other Clinton friends - would eliminate US sovereignty over its own food supply, giving all power to the WTO.

http://yupfarming.blogspot.com/2009/05/food-safety-bills-more-dangerous-than_08.html

They seem not to have noticed that Monsanto is taking over seed world wide, including in the EU.   http://www.grain.org/briefings/?id=202

They seem not to have noticed that the bills here are harmonized with the laws in the EU so seeing what is happening to them is seeing what the bills here will do.

They seem not to have noticed the immense and rapid decline in small farming in the EU.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/06/business/global/06smithfield.html

They seem not to have noticed it's intentional.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/savePolishCountryside.php

They seem not to have noticed the huge loss of diversity in seeds in the EU as only those placed on a government registry may be sold and since it costs a fortune to get seeds there, farmers can't and biotech can.

They seem not to have noticed the FDA redefined seed as food and seed storage as one source of contamination or the implications.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/FOOD-SAFETY-REGULATIONS--by-Linn-Cohen-Cole-090108-947.html

They seem not to have noticed the implications playing out already as the FDA has made normal seed cleaning equipment - central to sustainable agriculture - illegal and set the 'food safety" standard for the equipment so high it would cost a million or more to meet it, and separate equipment (and another million plus) is now required for each line of seed.

They seem not to have noticed the "food safety" bills never mention the word "seed" and yet can eliminate ownership of them by simply doing to "storing" what they have already done to "sorting" - raise the standard above anyone's capacity to meet it.  

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Seeds--How-to-criminalize-by-Linn-Cohen-Cole-090319-579.html

They seem not to have noticed they need seed to exist and the country needs human control over them to remain a functioning democracy.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/patent/iraq111704.cfm

They seem not to have noticed that NAIS is in the bills and includes a version for plants as well, meaning all US farmland would be under it.

They seem not to have noticed that NAIS includes Premises ID which is not "property" covered under the Constitution but an international term, that appears to make owners mere "stake holders" in their property.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/NAIS--a-coerced-AND-hidde-by-Marti-Oakley-090115-879.html

They seem not to have noticed the peculiarity of even a single chicken putting someone under NAIS and that their even getting rid of the chicken would not remove the land from "premises" registration, nor would selling the land to someone without animals.

They seem not to have noticed this makes the argument that Premises ID is needed for tracing animal diseases, false.

They seem not to have noticed the USDA for 5 years will not change the word to "property" or answer if it is so that landowners become mere "stake holders" or answer the accompanying question - "If those holding all US farmland are mere stake holders, who are they holding the stake for?"

They seem not to have noticed that some believe that all US farmland, collected through this shift in a single word, may be collateral on the bailout and if we default, others - perhaps China - will claim it.

http://www.newswithviews.com/brownfield/brownfield59.htm

They seem not to have noticed the bills are essentially Codex Alimentarius, http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5266884912495233634

the primary political battlefield where the war is being waged about who will regulate and control the global food supply, from field and stable to table.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2D4-noTiCg

They seem not to have noticed Codex is working with other groups supporting the following agendas: 

1. The chemical industry's aim that all animals be treated with antibiotics and hormones. 

2. The largest seed company in the world (Monsanto) is working toward 100% genetically-modified crops. 

3. The nuclear industry's goal of irradiating all foods including plants and livestock. 

4. All industries' goal: phasing out truly organic foods, or at least, making them extremely difficult to obtain. 

They seem not to have noticed that under Codex, all nutrients (vitamins and minerals) are to be considered toxins/poisons and are to be removed from all food because Codex prohibits the use of nutrients to "prevent, treat or cure any condition or disease"

They seem not to have noticed that all food (including organic) is to be irradiated, removing all toxic nutrients from food (unless eaten locally and raw).

They seem not to have noticed that nutrients allowed will be limited to a Positive List developed by Codex which will include such beneficial nutrients like Fluoride (3.8 mg daily) developed from environmental waste. All other nutrients will be prohibited nationally and internationally to all Codex-compliant countries [2].

They seem not to have noticed that all nutrients (e.g., CoQ10, Vitamins A, B, C, D, Zinc and Magnesium) that have any positive health impact on the body will be deemed illegal under Codex and are to be reduced to amounts negligible to humans' health [3].

They seem not to have noticed that people will not even be able to obtain these anywhere in the world even with a prescription.

They seem not to have noticed that all advice on nutrition (including written online or journal articles or oral advice to a friend, family member or anyone) will be illegal, including reports on vitamins and minerals and all nutritionist's consultations.

They seem not to have noticed the bills contain a civil and criminal penalty section that sets up an independent funding source so there will be no congressional oversight, has unlimited punishments even beyond the massive ones listed, will be applied by "the Administrator" (see below) without judicial review over even validity and appropriateness.

http://yupfarming.blogspot.com/2009/04/food-safety-as-totalitarian-weapon.html

They seem not to have noticed those penalties apply to everyone in the country who "holds" food.   http://yupfarming.blogspot.com/2009/04/jam-and-water-watch.html

They seem not to have noticed those penalties come on top of no due process, warrantless entry, surveillance, monitoring, taking of all records, ....

http://yupfarming.blogspot.com/2009/04/central-food-patriot-act-hr-875.html

They seem not to have noticed that those promoting the bills use canny verbiage to deny they will regulate or shut down organic farming, gardening, farmers markets, etc.  by saying "there is no language in the bill" that says those things, while those opposing the bills flag the worrisome fact of broad and vague language and then point instead to what the bills will actually do.

They seem not to have noticed that, though so much is at stake, the organizations they count on are quoting reassurances from the very people who introduced the bills, despite their close ties to agribusiness and Monsanto.

They seem not to have noticed that the organizations they count on plan to compromise with the bills, trusting industry's friends' reassurances while dismissing the long list of threats which farming/health/food/leftist friends have easily seen in them.

They seem not to have noticed the oddness of that or flinched at Monsanto bragging in comments on websites that Grist and Slow Food agree with them there is no problem.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-2009-Food-Safety-Bil-by-Nicole-Johnson-090418-680.html

They seem not to have noticed in reassuring them nothing is wrong, their own organizations are aligned with Monsanto interests.

They seem not to have noticed that Monsanto has repeatedly shown up on websites, trashing those criticizing them, while saying they are not involved with the bills at all.

They seem not to have noticed that Bill Clinton gave us Michael Taylor and Taylor gave us rBGH and unlabeled, unregulated GMOs.

They seem not to have noticed Taylor is back, dressed as a "food safety" professor now, and was on Obama's transition team.  

They seem not to have noticed that Food Democracy Now says Monsanto, through Michael Taylor, is expecting to run the giant agency the bills will set up and to control the entire US food supply, including all farms and homes and gardens.

They seem not to have noticed that Codex was developed by Nazis.

They seem not to have noticed the bills are Kissinger Plan of "control food, control people."

They seem not to have noticed these bills are a more extreme threat to our country, our democracy, and each of us individually than the bailout.

They seem not to have noticed they should be mobilizing for all they are worth.

Corporations attempt to redefine reality: Safety, Nutrients, Seed, Herbs, Sell, Property

Biodiversity is being displaced in order to leave synthetic GMOs in its stead.  A great shrinking of nature and then clamping down on its use is going on around the world, to force nature into private hands.  

The same phenomenon is occurring in language.  Normal words are being supplanted by synthetic definitions that have no relation to normal or even to reality, but those redefinitions are being pushed as aggressively as GMOs and are central to establishing control over biology.

Redefinition One:  Safety

Six alleged "food safety" bills in Congress (Hr 875, HR 814, HR 1332, HR 759, S 425 and S 510) apply impossible to meet regulations, bureaucracy, and costs that will wipe out small local farmers and food producers, the backbone of food security for any region, and industrialize those remaining through mandating pesticides,GMO feed, and drugs; they contain CODEX Alimentarius http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?page_id=161

which, in declaring all nutrients toxins and limiting access to them, is a profound danger to human health; and they are unconstitutional, allowing for no due process, but establishing warrantless entry, surveillance, monitoring, and massive, open-ended penalties with no congressional oversight and no judicial review.

Those corporate interests pushing these measures "redefine" severe dangers to our country as "food safety," wrapping them in the positive connotation of protecting the public from harm.  The hundreds of pages of bills, in reality, would (at a minimum) remove the safety of having local farmers, eliminate choice of food, expose people to harm from pesticides, and animals fed GMOs and drugs, criminalize alternative health and natural substances to maintain health and life, and subvert the Constitution and our democracy. 

The absence of small farmers, of choice in food, of access to nutrients and choice of healers, of democratic rights and of freedom itself, are redefined as "safety."

Bad is redefined as  good.

Redefinition Two:  Nutrients 

Under CODEX, all nutrients are redefined as toxins or contaminants, to be removed from free human usage to protect the public from "risk."

What is the standard definition of "nutrient"?  Many sources of given:

Definition of nutrient :  any substance that is assimilated (taken in) by an organisms that is needed for the organism to live, grow, breathe, move, excrete waste, or reproduce. Examples: carbon dioxide, nitrate, and phosphate, proteins, vitamins, and minerals. 

http://www.everythingbio.com/glos/definition.php?word=nutrient

n.  A source of nourishment, especially a nourishing ingredient in a food.  adj.  Providing nourishment.  [Latin nūtriēns, nūtrient-, present participle of nūtrīre, to suckle.]  http://www.answers.com/topic/nutrient

nutrient nu·tri·ent (noo´tre-int)

1. nourishing; providing nutrition.

2. a food or other substance that provides energy or building material for the survival and growth of a living organism.

Dorland's Medical Dictionary for Health Consumers. © 2007 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved.

nu·tri·ent (ntr-nt)  n.  A source of nourishment, especially an ingredient in a food.  The American Heritage® Medical Dictionary Copyright © 2007, 2004 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Nutrient  A food substance that provides energy or is necessary for growth and repair. Examples of nutrients are vitamins, minerals, carbohydrates, fats, and proteins.  Mentioned in: Antidiarrheal Drugs, Carbohydrate Intolerance  Gale Encyclopedia of Medicine. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

nutrient  [no̅o̅′trē·ənt]  Etymology: L, nutriens, food that nourishes  a chemical substance that provides nourishment and affects the nutritive and metabolic processes of the body. Nutrients are essential for growth, reproduction, and maintenance of health.  Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 8th edition. © 2009, Elsevier.

CODEX Alimentarius redefines nutrients, deeming them not only "not nourishing" (the opposite of what they are) but hazardous.  This redefinition prepares the ground for their removal, though they are essential elements of survival and growth.  By "labeling" them toxins and contaminants, CODEX promoters claim it is about protecting people from the risk of harm, though in reality it is designed to deprive people of critical free access to the literal building blocks of life so they will be left with only corporately owned synthetic pharmaceuticals.

How is such a radical overturning of the known value of nutrients accomplished?

"Previously, dietary supplements, such as vitamins and minerals, couldn't be regulated by the FDA.  Under this bill, a food-borne illness outbreak is defined as:

"the occurrence of 2 or more cases of a similar illness resulting from the ingestion of a common food."

Now, those things that cause an "outbreak" are considered "contaminants."  

both vitamin c and magnesium can cause diarrhea in some people at currently acceptable dosage levels. Magnesium will do it to almost anyone if they take the entire current RDA (500 mg.) at the same time. If two people get diarrhea from either of these substances, their status as "contaminants" will be cemented, putting them under the regulation of these agencies under DHHS. ...

The bill [Hr 875, one of the six "food safety" bills comprising CODEX] states that the Administrator of Food Safety only has to come up with a list of "contaminants" they will regulate SIX MOTHS AFTER enactment of the bill.

"This means that congress will have a bill in front of them that every fan of peanut butter will want passed  from its name alone, yet not have any idea what this person, (be they an employee of Monsanto, or a pharmaceutical company, or a tobacco executive, or a health-food guru,) intends to regulate or outlaw.

http://yupfarming.blogspot.com/2009/05/codex-inside-hr-875-herbs-vitamins-and.html

Consuming nutrients is not only normal but vital.  It is not only an aspect of food safety but the only true basis for any food safety.  

But these CODEX bills would set a "risk" standard that would be used to indict normal, essential-to-life-itself nutrients as harmful and then redefine them as contaminants.  By a misuse of science and of logic and of language, the bills would attempt to counter reality itself.  

The essential meaning imbedded in human understanding, and the knowledge of the relationship of nutrients to "nourishing" and "nutritious" would be turned on its head.  Out of the most primary goodness for life itself - nutrients - the bills would create something extreme in the negative.  This is biologically nonsensical but the redefinitions would still exist and have legal force.

"Codex specialists insist that codex will eventually implement a Napoleonic code of what we'll be allowed to consume. This sure sounds like a beginning of that to me."

http://yupfarming.blogspot.com/2009/05/codex-inside-hr-875-herbs-vitamins-and.html

Good is redefined as bad.

Redefinition Three:  Seeds  

In Iraq, where ancient seed banks were plundered (the actual theft of biodiversity), laws were put in place afterwards which mimic the biologic theft.  They displaced "natural" or common meanings of words and the historical laws that had always existed there before, laws which took for granted the existence of normal seeds and that those seeds were owned by farmers and that those farmers were free to collect and reuse or sell them.  

While the focus in Iraq has been on Bremer's Order Number 81 which installed intellectual property laws that suit Monsanto and other multinationals and give them absolute control over agriculture by stopping farmers from using their own seeds,  http://www.uruknet.de/?p=m47991&hd=&size=1&l=e  the focus here is on redefinitions of "normal" things that made that possible, definitions which are occurring now around the world.

Normal seeds become "infringing" and GMO seeds become "the protected variety."

Under this mandate, Iraq's commercial farmers must now buy "registered seeds." These are normally imported by Monsanto, Cargill and the World Wide Wheat Company. Unfortunately, these registered seeds are "terminator" seeds, meaning "sterile."  ...

"What makes this Order 81 even more outrageous is that Iraqi farmers have been saving wheat and barley seeds since at least 4000 BC, when irrigated agriculture first emerged, and probably even to about 8000 BC, when wheat was first domesticated. Mesopotamia's farmers have now been trumped by white-smocked, corporate bio-engineers from Florida who strive to replace hundreds of natural varieties with a handful of genetically scrambled hybrids. ...

"Order 81 ... is quite diabolical upon closer inspection. First, it forces Iraq's commercial farmers to use registered terminator seeds (the "protected variety"). Then it defines natural seeds as illegal (the "infringing variety"), in a classic Orwellian turn of language.

"This is so incredible that it must be re-stated: the exotic genetically scrambled seeds are the "protected variety" and the indigenous seeds are the "infringing variety."

"As Jeffrey Smith explains, author of Order 81: Re-Engineering Iraqi Agriculture:  "To qualify for PVP [Plant Variety Protection], seeds have to meet the following criteria: they must be 'new, distinct, uniform and stable'... it is impossible for the seeds developed by the people of Iraq to meet these criteria. Their seeds are not 'new' as they are the product of millennia of development. Nor are they 'distinct'. The free exchange of seeds practiced for centuries ensures that characteristics are spread and shared across local varieties. And they are the opposite of 'uniform' and 'stable' by the very nature of their biodiversity." (3)

"Order 81 comes with the Orwellian title of "Plant Variety Protection." Any self-respecting scientist knows, however, that imposing biological standardization accomplishes the exact opposite: It reduces biodiversity and threatens species. So Order 81 comes with an Orwellian title and consists of Orwellian provisions."

Power is then put behind that redefinition of normal:

Just in case Iraqi farmer can't read, Order 81 enforces the new monopoly on seeds with the jackboot. Order 81 makes this clear in its own text, buried at the bottom of the document, as is most screw-you fine print:

"The court may order the confiscation of the infringing variety as well as the materials and tools substantially used in the infringement of the protected variety. The court may also decide to destroy the infringing variety as well as the materials and tools or to dispose of them in any noncommercial purpose." (5)

In the US, the FDA has redefined seeds as food.  

Then, it redefined the most basic agricultural elements necessary to all farming -agricultural water, manure, harvesting, transporting and seed cleaning equipment, and seed storage - as "sources of contamination."  

That made it possible, all in the name of "food safety," to simple raise the standards so high that use of one of those elements (seed cleaning equipment) is already prohibitively expensive and the others are threatened.  Meanwhile, pesticides and herbicides and chemical fertilizers, all known to be deadly contaminants, are not listed. 

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Seeds--How-to-criminalize-by-Linn-Cohen-Cole-090319-579.html

Historic normal is redefined as illegal, encroaching abnormal is redefined as the legal standard, and historic normal is eliminated.

Redefinition Four:  Herbs  

If one can't get nutrients commercially, one might grow them as food and herbs.

Monsanto and the Thai government have come under sharp criticism from NGOs for their encouraging the use of agrochemical and technologies there.  http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/1887...   At the same time, "[t]he Industry Ministry - aiming to control pesticide production and commercialisation - announced its new regulation on February 3, listing the 13 plants as "hazardous substances type 1" under the 1992 Hazardous Substances Act."  

So, being an organic farmer just got much harder.  Organic farmers who grow their own herbs, whether as a substitute for pesticides or to sell, are being told those herbs are now to be listed as hazards.  

"The plants are: neem, citronella grass, tumeric, ginger, Chinese ginger, African marigold, Siam weed or bitter bush, tea seed cake, chilli, Chinese celery, ringworn bush, glory lily and stemona.

"They are widely used among farmers as alternatives for expensive and toxic farm chemicals, pesticides and herbicides.

"Meanwhile, the Department of Agriculture, a member of the hazardous substances committee, has proposed the new draft requiring growers, manufacturers, importers and exporters of pesticides made from the 13 herbal plants to conform to the Department of Agriculture and follow safety and quality control regulations issued by the committee."

For safety, they say, those who are working with the agrochemical companies.  

The redefinition is not inconsequential.  Besides imposing a regulatory burden and cost, the redefinition comes with force.  People who mix chili powder or ginger with water and spray it on their plants would be considered criminals for not following government regulations over ... normal harmless herbs.

"Law violators will face six months in jail and a fine of 50,000 baht."

The government, as its excuse for this action, said "it was receiving a lot of complaints from organic farmers and the department had no regulations to control the misuse of herbal pesticides."   Misuse of herbal pesticides?  Is it not peculiar for organic farmers (or any other group) to complain to the government about their own actions?

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Govt-C...

Safe and nontoxic efforts to avoid hazards are redefined as hazardous.  That hazardous standard can then be used to drive out safe and nontoxic.

Redefinition Five:  Sell

The old definition of "sell":  

"includes the offer for sale, expose for sale, have in possession for sale and distribute, whether or not the distribution is made for consideration."  

[In Canada, under Bill C-51] The NEW definition of "sell," however, opens the door for a very broad interpretation:  

"includes offer for sale, expose for sale or have in possession for sale, or distribute to one or more persons, whether or not the distribution is made for consideration and in relation to a device, includes lease, offer for lease, expose for lease or have in possession for lease."

"Now, what's the reason for redefining the meaning of the word "sell" to include the simple act of "distributing to one or more persons"? Who does this new meaning benefit? Who does this now include that was not included before? Why the need for such a broad definition?  

"In plain English, it appears the law now applies if I were to simply give something to another person for free, whether it's a stranger or a family member."

Thus, giving your child chamomile tea could be defined as "selling" a controlled substance (nutrient) to a minor and be a felony.  This redefinition of "sell," added to the redefinition of "nutrients," then, puts immense force to stopping free human access to something as normal and essential as nutrients.  

The redefinition of sell expands the real meaning to allow those in power to criminalize its opposite - donating, sharing, giving - at will, so any contact whatever with substance those in power wish to control, can be "made to seem" illegal.

Redefinition Six:  Property  

The National Animal Identification System which is part of all the "food danger" bills, contains the word "premises."  It is not a redefinition but a sly substitution for another word - "property" - leaving it to people to believe they mean the same thing since, in common usage, they often do.  But as with the items above in which great care was taken over controlling meaning, using "premises" instead of "property" appears not to be accidental.  

"With any governmental agency, the words used in any law, regulation, rule or other declaration by the government or its agencies must be carefully scrutinized. What may seem to be nothing more than a simple word-swap may actually be a new legal definition and one that may come back to haunt you. Under NAIS the term [property] is swapped for Premises.

"Property is the term used to indicate private ownership of a thing such as land or animals and is protected by rights in the Constitution. It does signify legal ownership, and who is the legal owner and allows you access to a Civil Court and protection under the Constitution.

"Premises is a term derived from the International Law of Contracts which are the international rules, for conducting business, usually corporate, whereby [non- human entities] are declared to be [persons]. Agreeing to the redefining of  [property] and to the conversion to premises, eliminates civil protections and redefines you as an [legal entity] who may or may not own the thing in question.  This also subjects you to Administrative Courts using statute and codes which are derived from the International Law of Contracts (ILC) and prohibits any use of rights enumerated or otherwise within the constitution.

"Neither the government nor its agencies or agents have listed any limits with regard to any authority any or all of them may now assume or implement as a result of rule making or changes to policies, mandates and regulations. This means you do NOT know all the terms of the contract.

"Neither is NAIS an [adhesion contract] wherein the terms and conditions of the contract never, ever change because USDA or even Congress can change the rules and regulations at any time.

"Since the USDA is a self regulating and rule making agency, in effect making its own laws and enforcing them at will, rules could be changed at a later date drastically affecting everyone who has entered into this contract.  ...

"In the end, we need to understand that property has a far different meaning under the laws than the word [premises]. Had there not been an intention to render a change in the status of property ownership and control there would have been no need to use the word Premises." 

http://www.gnhealth.com/articles/pdf/NAIS.pdf

Rights under the constitution become no rights whatever through a word substitution.  Protection becomes loss of ownership and rights.  Good becomes bad.  

 Corporate redefinitions in the "food safety" bills are set to end American farming and choice of foods, put health practitioners and access to adequate nutrients essential for survival out of reach, and curtail fundamental democratic rights.  Corporate redefinition of normal seeds in Iraq has put them out of legal reach, and threatens survival there.  A redefinition in Thailand threatens farmers and the safe and valuable herbs they use as alternatives to chemicals.  A redefinition of "sell" in Canada threatens prison sentences for sharing.  A slip between two similar sounding words threatens theft of rights and land.

"Normal" and good is being redefined as dangerous.  Through redefinition, essential things needed for existence are being shut down, limited or made difficult to attain.  Meanwhile, "abnormal" and bad - limiting human beings' access to what they depend on to live and be healthy, GMO seeds, violations of basic rights ... - is redefined as "protecting people from risk" and as "safety."

In reality, these few simple redefinitions cloak lies, monopoly, corruption, theft, civil rights and human rights abuses, and unfathomable threat to human life itself.

The Corporate redefinition of Normal

Biodiversity is being displaced in order to leave synthetic GMOs in its stead.  A great shrinking of nature and then clamping down on its use is forcing it into private hands.  

The same phenomenon is occurring in language where normal words are being supplanted by synthetic definitions that have no relation to normal or even to facts, but those redefinitions are central to establishing control over biology.

Redefinition One:  Seeds

In Iraq, where ancient seed banks were plundered (the actual theft of biodiversity), laws were put in place afterwards which mimic the biologic theft.  They displaced "natural" or common meanings of words and the historical laws that had always existed there before, laws which took for granted the existence of normal seeds and that those seeds were owned by farmers and that those farmers were free to collect and reuse or sell them.  

While the focus in Iraq has been on Bremer's Order Number 81 which installed intellectual property laws that suit Monsanto and other multinationals and give them absolute control over agriculture by stopping farmers from using their own seeds, http://www.uruknet.de/?p=m47991&hd=&size=1&l=e

the focus here is on redefinitions of "normal" things that made that possible, definitions which are occurring now around the world.

Normal seeds become "infringing" and GMO seeds become "the protected variety."

"Under this mandate, Iraq's commercial farmers must now buy "registered seeds." These are normally imported by Monsanto, Cargill and the World Wide Wheat Company. Unfortunately, these registered seeds are "terminator" seeds, meaning "sterile."  ...

"What makes this Order 81 even more outrageous is that Iraqi farmers have been saving wheat and barley seeds since at least 4000 BC, when irrigated agriculture first emerged, and probably even to about 8000 BC, when wheat was first domesticated. Mesopotamia's farmers have now been trumped by white-smocked, corporate bio-engineers from Florida who strive to replace hundreds of natural varieties with a handful of genetically scrambled hybrids. ...

"Order 81 ... is quite diabolical upon closer inspection. First, it forces Iraq's commercial farmers to use registered terminator seeds (the "protected variety"). Then it defines natural seeds as illegal (the "infringing variety"), in a classic Orwellian turn of language.

"This is so incredible that it must be re-stated: the exotic genetically scrambled seeds are the "protected variety" and the indigenous seeds are the "infringing variety."

"As Jeffrey Smith explains, author of Order 81: Re-Engineering Iraqi Agriculture:

"To qualify for PVP [Plant Variety Protection], seeds have to meet the following criteria: they must be 'new, distinct, uniform and stable'... it is impossible for the seeds developed by the people of Iraq to meet these criteria. Their seeds are not 'new' as they are the product of millennia of development. Nor are they 'distinct'. The free exchange of seeds practiced for centuries ensures that characteristics are spread and shared across local varieties. And they are the opposite of 'uniform' and 'stable' by the very nature of their biodiversity." (3)

"Order 81 comes with the Orwellian title of "Plant Variety Protection." Any self-respecting scientist knows, however, that imposing biological standardization accomplishes the exact opposite: It reduces biodiversity and threatens species. So Order 81 comes with an Orwellian title and consists of Orwellian provisions."

Power is then put behind that redefinition of normal:

Just in case Iraqi farmer can't read, Order 81 enforces the new monopoly on seeds with the jackboot. Order 81 makes this clear in its own text, buried at the bottom of the document, as is most screw-you fine print:

"The court may order the confiscation of the infringing variety as well as the materials and tools substantially used in the infringement of the protected variety. The court may also decide to destroy the infringing variety as well as the materials and tools or to dispose of them in any noncommercial purpose." (5)

In the US, the FDA has redefined seeds as food.  

It has also redefined the most basic agricultural elements necessary to all farming  (agricultural water, manure, harvesting, transporting and seed cleaning equipment, and seed storage) as "sources of contamination."  

Then, in the name of "food safety" it raised the standards for cleanliness so high that use of one of those elements is already prohibitively expensive and the others are threatened.  Meanwhile, pesticides and herbicides and chemical fertilizers, known to be deadly contaminants, are not listed.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Seeds--How-to-criminalize-by-Linn-Cohen-Cole-090319-579.html

Redefinition Two:  Nutrients

Under CODEX nutrients are redefined as toxins or contaminants, to be removed from free human usage.

What is the standard definition of "nutrient"?  Many sources of given:

Definition of nutrient :

any substance that is assimilated (taken in) by an organisms that is needed for the organism to live, grow, breathe, move, excrete waste, or reproduce. Examples: carbon dioxide, nitrate, and phosphate, proteins, vitamins, and minerals.
http://www.everythingbio.com/glos/definition.php?word=nutrient

n.

A source of nourishment, especially a nourishing ingredient in a food.

adj.

Providing nourishment.

[Latin nūtriēns, nūtrient-, present participle of nūtrīre, to suckle.]

http://www.answers.com/topic/nutrient

nutrient /nu·tri·ent/ (noo´tre-int)

1. nourishing; providing nutrition.

2. a food or other substance that provides energy or building material for the survival and growth of a living organism.

Dorland's Medical Dictionary for Health Consumers. © 2007 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved.

nu·tri·ent (ntr-nt) n. A source of nourishment, especially an ingredient in a food.

The American Heritage® Medical Dictionary Copyright © 2007, 2004 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Nutrient

A food substance that provides energy or is necessary for growth and repair. Examples of nutrients are vitamins, minerals, carbohydrates, fats, and proteins.

Mentioned in: Antidiarrheal Drugs, Carbohydrate Intolerance

Gale Encyclopedia of Medicine. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

nutrient

[no̅o̅′trē·ənt]

Etymology: L, nutriens, food that nourishes

a chemical substance that provides nourishment and affects the nutritive and metabolic processes of the body. Nutrients are essential for growth, reproduction, and maintenance of health.

Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 8th edition. © 2009, Elsevier.

CODEX Alimentarius redefines nutrients, changing them from nourishing to hazardous.  This prepares the ground for saying the removal of essential elements of survival and growth protects people from the risk of harm, though in reality it undermines fundamentals of people's health by limiting critical free access to the very building blocks of life.

"Previously, dietary supplements, such as vitamins and minerals, couldn't be regulated by the FDA.  Under this bill, a food-borne illness outbreak is defined as:

"the occurrence of 2 or more cases of a similar illness resulting from the ingestion of a common food."

Now, those things that cause an "outbreak" are considered "contaminants."  

both vitamin c and magnesium can cause diarrhea in some people at currently acceptable dosage levels. Magnesium will do it to almost anyone if they take the entire current RDA (500 mg.) at the same time. If two people get diarrhea from either of these substances, their status as "contaminants" will be cemented, putting them under the regulation of these agencies under DHHS. ...

The bill [Hr 875, one of the six "food safety" bills comprising CODEX] states that the Administrator of Food Safety only has to come up with a list of "contaminants" they will regulate SIX MOTHS AFTER enactment of the bill.

"This means that congress will have a bill in front of them that every fan of peanut butter will want passed  from its name alone, yet not have any idea what this person, (be they an employee of Monsanto, or a pharmaceutical company, or a tobacco executive, or a health-food guru,) intends to regulate or outlaw. http://yupfarming.blogspot.com/2009/05/codex-inside-hr-875-herbs-vitamins-and.html

Thus, "food safety" bills which are actually a danger to food, are redefined as protective, and using the positive meaning of "the name alone," are falsely promoted.  

And the bills themselves redefine normal, essential-to-life-itself nutrients as contaminants, reversing the normal and very positive definition to an extreme of negative.

"Codex specialists insist that codex will eventually implement a Napoleonic code of what we'll be allowed to consume. This sure sounds like a beginning of that to me."
http://yupfarming.blogspot.com/2009/05/codex-inside-hr-875-herbs-vitamins-and.html

 

Consuming nutrients is not only normal but vital.  But just as corporate redefinition of normal seeds in Iraq put them out of legal reach, corporate redefinition in the "food safety" bills is set to criminalize nutrients essential for survival.  

Normal is being made abnormal and being shut down.  Abnormal - limiting human beings' access to what they depend on to live and be healthy - is redefined as "safety."

Redefinition Three:  Herbs

Monsanto and the Thai government have come under sharp criticism from NGOs for their encouraging the use of agrochemical and technologies there.  http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/1887-cn.htm   At the same time, "[t]he Industry Ministry - aiming to control pesticide production and commercialisation - announced its new regulation on February 3, listing the 13 plants as "hazardous substances type 1" under the 1992 Hazardous Substances Act."  

So suddenly, being an organic farmer just got much harder.  Organic farmers who grow their own herbs as a substitute for pesticides are being told those herbs are now to be listed as hazards.  

"The plants are: neem, citronella grass, tumeric, ginger, Chinese ginger, African marigold, Siam weed or bitter bush, tea seed cake, chilli, Chinese celery, ringworn bush, glory lily and stemona.

"They are widely used among farmers as alternatives for expensive and toxic farm chemicals, pesticides and herbicides.

"Meanwhile, the Department of Agriculture, a member of the hazardous substances committee, has proposed the new draft requiring growers, manufacturers, importers and exporters of pesticides made from the 13 herbal plants to conform to the Department of Agriculture and follow safety and quality control regulations issued by the committee."

For safety, they say, those who are working with the agrochemical companies.   

The redefinition is not inconsequential.  Besides imposing a regulatory burden and cost, the redefinition comes with force.  People who mix chili powder or ginger with water and spray it on their plants would be considered criminals for not following government regulations over ... normal harmless herbs.

 

"Law violators will face six months in jail and a fine of 50,000 baht."

The government, as its excuse for this action, said "it was receiving a lot of complaints from organic farmers and the department had no regulations to control the misuse of herbal pesticides."   Misuse of herbal pesticides?  Is it not peculiar for organic farmers (or any other group) to complain to the government about their own actions?

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Govt-Called-Cancel-Rules-Listing-H-t242231.html

Redefinition Four:  Sell

The old definition of "sell":  

"includes the offer for sale, expose for sale, have in possession for sale and distribute, whether or not the distribution is made for consideration."  

[In Canada, under Bill C-51] The NEW definition of "sell," however, opens the door for a very broad interpretation:  

"includes offer for sale, expose for sale or have in possession for sale, or distribute to one or more persons, whether or not the distribution is made for consideration and in relation to a device, includes lease, offer for lease, expose for lease or have in possession for lease." 

"Now, what's the reason for redefining the meaning of the word "sell" to include the simple act of "distributing to one or more persons"? Who does this new meaning benefit? Who does this now include that was not included before? Why the need for such a broad definition?  

"In plain English, it appears the law now applies if I were to simply give something to another person for free, whether it's a stranger or a family member."

Thus, giving your child chamomile tea could be defined as "selling" a controlled substance (nutrient) to a minor and be a felony.  This redefinition of "sell," added to the redefinition of "nutrients," then, puts immense force to stopping free human access to something as normal and essential as nutrients.  

Hidden Redefinition through Sly Substitution:  Premises for property

The National Animal Identification System which is part of all the "food danger" bills, contains the word "premises."  It is not a redefinition but a substitution for another word - "property" - leaving it to people to believe they mean the same thing since in common usage, they often do.  But as with the items above in which great care was taken over controlling meaning, using "premises" instead of "property" appears not to be accidental.  

"With any governmental agency, the words used in any law, regulation, rule or other declaration by the government or its agencies must be carefully scrutinized. What may seem to be nothing more than a simple word-swap may actually be a new legal definition and one that may come back to haunt you. Under NAIS the term [property] is swapped for Premises. 

 

"Property is the term used to indicate private ownership of a thing such as land or animals and is protected by rights in the Constitution. It does signify legal ownership, and who is the legal owner and allows you access to a Civil Court and protection under the Constitution. 

 

"Premises is a term derived from the International Law of Contracts which are the international rules, for conducting business, usually corporate, whereby [non- human entities] are declared to be [persons]. Agreeing to the redefining of  [property] and to the conversion to premises, eliminates civil protections and redefines you as an [legal entity] who may or may not own the thing in question.  This also subjects you to Administrative Courts using statute and codes which are derived from the International Law of Contracts (ILC) and prohibits any use of rights enumerated or otherwise within the constitution. 

"Neither the government nor its agencies or agents have listed any limits with regard to any authority any or all of them may now assume or implement as a result of rule making or changes to policies, mandates and regulations. This means you do NOT know all the terms of the contract. 

 

"Neither is NAIS an [adhesion contract] wherein the terms and conditions of the contract never, ever change because USDA or even Congress can change the rules and regulations at any time. 

 

"Since the USDA is a self regulating and rule making agency, in effect making its own laws and enforcing them at will, rules could be changed at a later date drastically affecting everyone who has entered into this contract.  ...

"In the end, we need to understand that property has a far different meaning under the laws than the word [premises]. Had there not been an intention to render a change in the status of property ownership and control there would have been no need to use the word Premises."
http://www.gnhealth.com/articles/pdf/NAIS.pdf

 

 

These few simple redefinitions cloak theft, monopoly, government corruption, civil rights and human rights abuses, and unfathomable threat to human life itself. 

Laws to Redefine Normal as Hazardous

The article below is from Thailand, where herbs such as ginger and chili are being suddenly being called "hazardous."  

The "food safety" bills here do the same thing, redefining normal as hazardous and putting it under government control or requiring licensing which, by its costs, would put it out of reach. Normal seeds are being treated in this way in the EU.  The "food safety" bills here would put seeds out of reach by suddenly redefining  such normal things as agricultural water, manure, harvesting, transporting and seed cleaning equipment, and seed storage facilities as "sources of contamination" and from there, raising the standards for their use to a level farmers couldn't meet.

  http://www.opednews.com/articles/Seeds--How-to-criminalize-by-Linn-Cohen-Cole-090319-579.html

This was the same sinister means used to prevent black people from voting.  Poll taxes or literacy tests were both obstacles to entry while "seeming" to still allow constitutional rights.  

The literacy test parallels these bills in another way.  Those "so concerned" about others' competence to vote were themselves anti-democratic, using rigged tests while relying on references to "democracy" as false packaging for their unconstitutionality, to stop people who had a basic right to vote.   Similarly, those "so concerned" about  "food safety" are the very corporations most responsible for dangerous food, using tortured laws and rigged measures of cleanliness to eliminate those producing healthy food - a human right.

 http://www.opednews.com/articles/Farming--Why-Obama-s-gove-by-Linn-Cohen-Cole-090125-421.html

The "food safety" bills bury profound human rights abuses and constitutional violations under "health."  

The following article can allow the reader to see how mind-bending redefinitions of normal are used by governments on behalf of industry (the pesticide industry in this case), to limit access to safe natural plant material that is, in fact, every human being's biologic inheritance.  

How easily those with power turn things upside down, redefining things however they want - white becoming black, safe becoming danger, danger becoming nutritious.  Inch by inch they displace normal, making it harder, making it too costly, making it illegal here and there, making it unavailable, until it is pushed to the far fringes or ceases to exist altogether.

CODEX Alimentarius is imbedded in the "food safety" bills in congress and would allow corporations to take absolute control over all farming, gardens, food in any location, animals, and even all nutrients.  Nutrients would be redefined as toxins or contaminants, in just this astoundingly false and totalitarian way, the better to wrest them from people and put them under government/corporate control.   

Codex is the core of what are actually anti-"food safety' bills which, upside down again, progressives are pushing to have become law in the US.   

Codex was developed by Nazis.

Govt called to cancel rules listing herbs as hazardous

BANGKOK: -- A group of organic farmers and alternative agricultural activists have called on the government to cancel regulations listing 13 herbal plants as hazardous substances, saying they would destroy local initiative in using the plants as alternative pesticides in place of chemicals.

The group also asked the government to withdraw this legislation - an Industry Ministerial regulation and a Draft of Agricultural Ministerial regulation - within 30 days.

If there was no response from the government they would gather at Government House to submit their petition and pressure Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, said the group's leader, Thai Health Foundation's director, Veerapong Kriangsinyot.

The Industry Ministry - aiming to control pesticide production and commercialisation - announced its new regulation on February 3, listing the 13 plants as "hazardous substances type 1" under the 1992 Hazardous Substances Act.

The plants are: neem, citronella grass, tumeric, ginger, Chinese ginger, African marigold, Siam weed or bitter bush, tea seed cake, chilli, Chinese celery, ringworn bush, glory lily and stemona.

They are widely used among farmers as alternatives for expensive and toxic farm chemicals, pesticides and herbicides.

Meanwhile, the Department of Agriculture, a member of the hazardous substances committee, has proposed the new draft requiring growers, manufacturers, importers and exporters of pesticides made from the 13 herbal plants to conform to the Department of Agriculture and follow safety and quality control regulations issued by the committee. Law violators will face six months in jail and a fine of 50,000 baht.

A 44 year-old organic farmer from Suphan Buri province, Sumalee Tanyachareon said the regulation has made her life more difficult. She must inform the agricultural office that she cultivates some of the 13 herbal plants and produces them as a pesticide.

"The regulation would be an obstacle and a burden for farmers instead of promoting organic farming," she said.

Sumalee previously used chemical pesticides to kill insects in her rice farms. Now she uses herbal pesticide, after learning it is cheaper and safer than chemical pesticide.

She said regardless of whether the regulation is withdrawn or not, she will continue to use home-made herbal pesticide as it cuts costs on her rice farms.

Department of Agriculture's director general, Somchai Chanarong insisted the new regulation and the draft would not affect the use of herbal plants in the country. Growers or manufacturers were required only to inform agricultural agencies when they produced herbal pesticide for commercialisation.

" We want to protect the consumer from someone who would cheat them and sell faked products," he said.

Department of Industrial Works' director general, Rachada Singkalwanich said the announcement of the industry ministerial regulation followed a proposal from the Department of Agriculture.

" The Department of Agriculture proposed this regulation because it was receiving a lot of complaints from organic farmers and the department had no regulations to control the misuse of herbal pesticides. "

The Department of Agriculture would draw up a guideline for relevant agencies on the nature of the herbal plants. If the Department of Agriculture had such a regulation, the Department of Industrial Works would withdraw the 13 herbal plants from the hazardous substances list.

Meanwhile, the Public Health Deputy Minister, Manit Nopamorbodhi said he would discuss with the Industry Minister how to help people understand more about the role of the 13 herbal plants in daily lives.

In the near future, he said he would ask the Department for Development of Thai Traditional and Alternative Medicine to produce a logo as a safety warning display for herbal products sold in the market.

The Department for Development of Thai Traditional and Alternative Medicine's director general, Dr Nara Nakwattananukul said there was misunderstanding about the implementation of the industry ministerial regulation to list the 13 herbal plant as hazardous substances.

Under the regulation, farmers are allowed to use herbal plants as medicine. They do not have to register with the Department of Agriculture if they have small herbal plantations.

The department will organise a meeting which invite related agencies to discuss over this issue on this Friday.

-- The Nation 2009-02-12

USDA employing Delphi Technique: Prepare to be Delphi’d!

by Marti Oakley at the Proud Political Junkie's Gazette.

For those unaware of NAIS, it is a WTO program meant to override US laws and facilitate movement of (even diseased) animals across international borders for the benefit of its corporate members.  Here is a video:  http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_16869.cfm

The program has the corporate advantage of wiping out its competition.  Even the USDA's own numbers indicate it will eliminate small farmers and independent ranchers.  The result:  http://www.sierraclub.org/factoryfarms/nightmare_documentary.asp

Laws harmonized with bills containing NAIS here have done just that in Europe:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/06/business/global/06smithfield.html

USDA employing Delphi Technique: Prepare to be Delphi'd!

 I have concluded the USDA and its henchmen really do believe we are all stupid.  I have come to this conclusion after months of reading the misinformation, the disinformation and the outright lies the USDA has put forward in an attempt to force the implementation of the National Animal Identification system and the companion land grabbing piece, Premises ID. 

Maybe Tom Vilsack and those conducting these bogus listening sessions believed no one would take the time to actually read, research or comprehend the intent of these bills.  Its possible Vilsack & Team USDA figured if congress didn't read the bills, we probably wouldn't either.  Wrong!

As every state in the Union mounts a campaign to halt the implementation of any of these international agreements and Codex Alimentarius mandates, rules and regulations, USDA was forced to conduct a "listening" tour.  Of course…..there was never any real intent to listen to anything.  These are staged meetings where control of the crowd, content of the dialogue, is all determined before hand.  At least that's what USDA team leaders thought would happen.

 

I believe it must come something of a surprise to find out not only did we read the bills, we printed them off…went over them line by line and realized NAIS, Premises ID and the fake food safety bills were nothing less than a coup meant to destroy and overtake the agricultural system in the US, replacing it with corporate industrialized farming and concentrated animal operations.  We aren't about to let that happen.

As with any unelected bureaucracy, USDA decided all on its own that NAIS, Premises ID was a done deal.  Oh! The arrogance of these little agency dictators in waiting

To make sure (they thought) they could limit the commenting, limit the statements and prevent most of the audience from participating at all the USDA employs the Delphi Technique.  This is the technique of dividing and conquering.  Simply put, every one who attended the [sic] Harrisburg meeting was handed a folder with a colored dot on it.  When the break-out sessions started……anyone attending was more than likely separated from those they came with and sent to a room with a corresponding color coding. 

The break-out sessions are nothing more than the Delphi Technique revisited and a means to divide the attendees and diffuse the conversation.  Who ever might be in opposition to the conclusions, policies, or programs the facilitator is advancing is quickly singled out and actively shunned. 

The biggest goal of the facilitator is for him/her to be perceived as part of the group.  Once this is done, the facilitator asks for ideas and opinions, leading the group carefully to the pre-determined conclusions and leaving them believing it was all their idea.  Only it didn't work this time.  The farmers and ranchers, the cattlemen and horse people stood their ground.  The only people shunned and shut out of the meetings were the facilitators. 

It would seem we are not all quite as stupid as the USDA wants to believe we are.  We don't need or want NAIS or Premises ID.  And we will not stop until this horrible program is done away with altogether.  Then on to the fake food safety bills!

Grab your butt Mr. Vilsack…its on!

© 2009 Marti Oakley

Never anticipating the monumental backlash, Rep. Collin Peterson (D) from Minnesota declared after the March 11, 2009 Agriculture hearing that he intended to see that NAIS was fully implemented by the end of the year.  As I am from Peterson's district in Minnesota I would like to declare that I intend to see him fully recalled from office at the same time, if it is passed.

May 20, 2009

This excerpt, taken from an article by an attendee of the Harrisburg meeting, supports Marti Oakley:

"The Delphi Technique was utilized at this purported listening session.  A google search turns up the information that it is a technique used successfully in other venues and other countries as well as in the US to deal with groups of uneducated people who may have strong emotions and opposing opinions.  A facilitator is utilized to try to lead the discussion in smaller "breakout" groups which will later be examined by 'experts' who will pull the comments collected into a cohesive 'consensus'. 

"Well, there was the consensus of those who had taken money from the USDA to promote NAIS. 

"And then there was the consensus from the Amishmen, the other religions, the local farmers' markets, and all the other consumers and producers in attendance, ...that the USDA should scrap the program and allow the free market to dictate traceability.  Those that wish to enter into international contracts may be free to do so, those that do not sell to those markets would not have to bear the crushing costs of that participation. 

"The only question that remains is ...was the USDA listening to the consensus among the expert testimonies provided by the farmers, producers, and consumers present at this, the first of 14 scheduled purported listening sessions, or will USDA 'experts', esconsed in their ivory towers far above those of us who live the real life, provide their own version of 'the consensus'?"

Here is the full article:

Purported Listening Session---First of 14

The first USDA National Animal Identification System purported listening session took place on May 14th, 2009 at the Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Farm Show Complex.  It was scheduled during the busiest time of the year, in the middle of a rainy spring planting and birthing season, yet many took time out of their farming schedules, or took off from work to attend. 

Attendees came from Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, New Jersey, Ohio,  New York, and one woman even flew in from Oregon to make sure their opposition was recorded.  There are very few of these purported listening sessions scheduled around the country, as of the beginning of the session only 7 had been scheduled and posted to the USDA site.  The torrential rains which hit us slowed down many of us, and prevented many others from being able to get through at all. 

The USDA personnel did not wear badges or name tags, yet attendees signing in were given a folder which included a name tag which said, "Hello, my name is...."  One person there felt that if the USDA  personnel were not 'tagged', then attendees didn't need 'tagging' either.  It would very soon become apparent just who was who.  One little girl wrote "NONAIS" instead of her name, her older brother wrote "NOUSDA" on his name tag.  He handed it to one of the USDA employees sitting at the press table on his way out at the lunch break, and refused to return for the afternoon 'breakout' session.

Those in attendance were selected by lottery for an opportunity to speak during the morning session, many more numbers were called than there were people present, and yet there was a bit of a verbal scuffle that broke out over one attendee's 1st Amendment Rights.  Darol Dickinson of Ohio made a 7 hour drive to attend this listening session, he had preregistered and had received his ticket and had waited patiently for his number to be called up.   At one point one gentleman crossed the aisle and handed him his ticket, number 87, which had just been called, and asked Mr. Dickinson to speak for his three minute time segment, as he did not wish to speak. 

When Mr. Dickinson stood up before the mikes in the lineup of those whose numbers had been called up, he was accosted by a blonde, suited woman who insisted his number had not been called and he was not going to be allowed to speak.  He felt that he had been singled out to be prevented from speaking, as his number, 63, was never called.  He showed her that the number in his hand had in fact been called, and stated politely that he had made a 7 hour drive to speak to them.  When his turn at the mike came, he began reading his prepared presentation.  At 2.5 minutes, per the modus operandi of the day, the USDA moderator informed him that his three minutes were nearly up.  He asked that she restart the clock to allow him to finish, as he had his tickets, and thus had three minutes plus another gentleman's three minutes for a total of 6 minutes which he needed in order to finish his presentation. 

Things looked bad for him as the USDA officials tried to argue him down, but the crowd spoke out insisting that he be allowed to finish his presentation.  

The room was lined on both sides with security guards who had been instructed to be on alert if the blonde woman stood up and approached anyone, and if that person refused her instructions they were to surround them and remove them from the room.  All these guards were not sufficient to intimidate those proud farmers and ranchers,  the backbone of the nation was in clear evidence on that day.  The crowd was a peaceful group of people who clearly had deep religious principles, however they were almost unanimously adamantly opposed to NAIS and determined to make sure that everyone there had their chance to speak.  They wanted to hear, and they wanted the nation to hear what Darol Dickinson had to say.

Darol Dickinson received an apology from the moderator, saying she had made a mistake, and he finished his comments.  After he sat down, a USDA official spoke up sternly to say that there would be no more ceding of time to anyone else for the rest of the session.  Apparently they did not like what he had to say and wanted to make sure that they didn't have to 'listen' to anymore of that sort of thing.

There was a contingent of Amishmen in attendance, and during the breaks one of them was heard to say that they had been told that 90% of the farmers of Pennsylvania had already enrolled in NAIS, and was delighted to hear that in fact that was a lie, as in fact 97-99% of all livestock producers and animal owners are opposed to the system. 

The previously voluntary disease control programs have been rolled over into NAIS without notifying the participants that they are now under a 'new international contract', instead of the US Constitution, and what the terms of that contract actually entail.  One of the attendees actually entered the comment that her husband had enrolled their property based on erroneous information and without her knowledge or consent.  He now regrets that action, and they like many others in their situation, would like to be removed from the program.

Other attendees ranged from mothers with babes in arms, children and young adults who see in this NAIS the death of their future dreams of living close to the land, retired farmers speaking out on behalf of their heirs, producers from across the agricultural industry and a wide spectrum of species interests.  Market masters and professionals from many industries with interest in small farms, as well as consumers were in attendance to have their complaints (and the complaints of members of their  organizations) against the NAIS entered into the federal record.  Some were there to ask where their previous letters opposing the NAIS were recorded, which the USDA personnel had no knowledge and could not answer. 

It is a matter of grave concern when isolated populations are deceived into enrolling in a program with such grave conflicts with certain 'inalienable' rights, recognized and guaranteed under our United States Constitution as well as state sovereignty, and many states' own Constitutions.

There were about four or five people there to beg almost piteously for the USDA to immediately implement the mandatory NAIS, however when they stood up at the mike they introduced themselves and named the organization which they were there to represent,...each of those organizations have received huge sums of bribe money in the form of "Cooperative Agreements" to promote the mandatory NAIS.  Ms. Joyce Bupps from  IDAIRY, (over $1 million) The Holstein Association, (also a "Cooperative Agreements" beneficiary), Dave McIhenny representing Pennsylvania Farm Bureau,  and others were there to help try to 'reach a consensus'. 

Toward the end of the afternoon breakout session, an 11 year old little girl (from an independent diversified farmstead in south central PA) determinedly held her hand high for a tiring three minutes,  before being recognized by one of the facilitators.  She stood up to say, after a minute or so of looking for and finding her shy little voice, "I will not participate in NAIS.  I have my rights.  I have the United States Constitution at my back."  The room was silent for a moment, then applause.

During this session, future USDA listening meetings on NAIS were announced, the woman did not have her list before her, stated that 6 more had been scheduled and was able to name off St. Louis, MO, NM, Rapid City, South Dakota, and Florida.

Monday, May 18:  Pasco, Wash.
Wednesday, May 20:  Austin, Texas
Thursday, May 21:  Birmingham, Ala.
Friday, May 22:  Louisville, Ky.
Wednesday, May 27:  Storrs, Conn.
Monday, June 1:  Loveland, Colo.

Showing up at these sessions is of the utmost importance in order to make sure that they are conducted with integrity.  Farmers, ranchers and consumers have been writing, calling and emailing the USDA, state vets, and legislators since the original planning documents were leaked from a secret meeting in Chicago years ago.  At one point the USDA called for letters, thousands wrote, yet the USDA officials who were asking for those letters and were present at this first 'listening session', were unable to even remember that they had asked for those letters, let alone what happened to them. 

The citizens of this nation have for far too long left the business of politics to the politicians under the mistaken assumption that they were tending to their own business.  It has become clear even to children that tending to business includes supervision and redirection of those hired (via our votes) to be our delegates to represent us in the legislative process,...less the local producers as well as our nation, be legislated out of existence.  Call up and schedule a face to face meeting with your legislators at both the state and federal levels, (face to face meetings are the most effective method of communicating with your legislators, according to this reporter's own legislators at both state and federal levels.) ....and show up at one or more of these sessions.

The Delphi Technique was utilized at this purported listening session.  A google search turns up the information that it is a technique used successfully in other venues and other countries as well as in the US to deal with groups of uneducated people who may have strong emotions and opposing opinions.  A facilitator is utilized to try to lead the discussion in smaller "breakout" groups which will later be examined by 'experts' who will pull the comments collected into a cohesive 'consensus'. 

Well, there was the consensus of those who had taken money from the USDA to promote NAIS. 

And then there was the consensus from the Amishmen, the other religions, the local farmers' markets, and all the other consumers and producers in attendance, ...that the USDA should scrap the program and allow the free market to dictate traceability.  Those that wish to enter into international contracts may be free to do so, those that do not sell to those markets would not have to bear the crushing costs of that participation. 

The only question that remains is ...was the USDA listening to the consensus among the expert testimonies provided by the farmers, producers, and consumers present at this, the first of 14 scheduled purported listening sessions, or will USDA 'experts', esconsed in their ivory towers far above those of us who live the real life, provide their own version of 'the consensus'?

Minnesota judge's medical ruling and the "food safety" bills

Judge orders parents to give child chemotherapy or give up child

(NaturalNews) Against the wishes of both the parents and the 13-year-old patient in question, a Minnesota judge has ruled that Daniel Hauser must undergo conventional chemotherapy treatments, which are characterized by the mass-poisoning of the patient with toxic chemicals.

For opting to explore alternative and natural remedies rather than chemotherapy for their son, the parents were accused of medical neglect and now face having their son taken away from them by Child Protective Services (CPS). They may also face prison time if they refuse to follow the judge's orders.

Daniel was diagnosed with  Hodgkin's Lymphoma, a health condition that is widely known by alternative cancer practitioners to be reversible (curable), especially in younger patients. Conventional medical doctors have told the courts that unless Daniel is subjected to toxicchemotherapy treatments, he has a 95% chance of dying.

To read more .... 

Industrial medicine:  Illegal to treat one's family in non-corporate, non-industrial ways.  

FDA oversteps its regulatory authority to block information on natural, more effective and harmless means of controlling pain, http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2006/mar2006_cover_cherries_01.htm 
in corrupt preference for the continuing 16,500 deaths a year from NSAIDs.

"It has been estimated conservatively that 16,500 NSAID-related deaths occur among patients with rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthritis every year in the United States. This figure is similar to the number of deaths from the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome and considerably greater than the number of deaths from multiple myeloma, asthma, cervical cancer, or Hodgkin's disease.

If deaths from gastrointestinal toxic effects of NSAIDs were tabulated separately in the National Vital Statistics reports, these effects would constitute the 15th most common cause of death in the United States. Yet these toxic effects remain largely a "silent epidemic," with many physicians and most patients unaware of the magnitude of the problem. Furthermore, the mortality statistics do not include deaths ascribed to the use of over-the-counter NSAIDs."
http://www.cpmission.com/main/NSAIDs2.html

Industrial food:  Increasingly illegal to choose non-corporate, non-industrial food such as raw milk, raw almonds, raw apple juice, ...  

USDA attacks raw milk which is not associated with cancer risks or yearly deaths, in corrupt preference for corporate rBGH milk associated with 7 times increased risk of breast cancer and increased risk of prostate and colon cancer, and blocks labeling of the hormone.  http://www.counterpunch.org/cohen04262008.html

"[For years, m]illions [in California] consumed commercial raw milk, ... not a single incidence was reported. During the same period, there were many instances of contamination in pasteurized milk, some of which resulted in death.  [I]f we withdrew ... every food type responsible for a case of food poisoning, there would be virtually nothing left to eat. But only raw milk has been singled out for general removal from the food supply. 

"... the bacteria in raw milk is the healthy bacteria of lactic-acid fermentation while the bacteria in pasteurized milk is the bacteria of spoilage. ... Both raw and pasteurized milk contain E. coli, normally a benign microorganism. The most likely source of the new strains of virulent E. coli is genetically engineered soy, fed to cows in large commercial dairies. If there is any type of milk likely to harbor these virulent breeds, it is commercial pasteurized milk. ... Children fed raw milk have more resistance to TB, scurvy, flu, diphtheria, pneumonia, asthma, allergic skin problems and tooth decay. In addition, their growth and calcium absorption was superior."   (In California, there is currently an effort to ban raw milk.

"Four distinct groups of bacteria survive pasteurization....the strep of pasteurized milk are the most frequent cause of rheumatic fever --the most deadly disease of childhood.'" - USDA
http://westonaprice.org/children/rawmilk.html
 
Yale research on raw milk

In a dramatic illustration of the potential for microbes to prevent disease, researchers at Yale University and the University of Chicago showed that mice exposed to common stomach bacteria were protected against the development of Type I diabetes.

The findings, reported in the journal Nature, support the so-called "hygiene hypothesis" – the theory that a lack of exposure to parasites, bacteria and viruses in the developed world may lead to increased risk of diseases like allergies, asthma, and other disorders of the immune system. The results also suggest that exposure to some forms of bacteria might actually help prevent onset of Type I diabetes, an autoimmune disease in which the patient's immune system launches an attack on cells in the pancreas that produce insulin. 

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-09/yu-bp091908.php ]

The "food safety" bills in congress bring together the FDA  

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_25_17/ai_76402712/

and the USDA, 

http://www.animallaw.info/cases/causfd2007wl1020786.htm

two corrupt agencies serving industry and not public health,

and would cement multinational industrial control over food and health access, even going so far as to redefine nutrients as contaminants to put them out of reach (but not doing so with GMOs or pesticides).  Under Codex Alimentarius, hidden inside these bills, and in place now in the EU, herb gardens are illegal.  

http://yupfarming.blogspot.com/2009/05/codex-inside-hr-875-herbs-vitamins-and.html

YouTube - Codex Alimentarius Lecture by Ian R. Crane - 1 of 9
	10 min - Jun 20, 2008 -  1 of 9Taken from ConCen:  Never heard of Codex Alimentarius? That's exactly what they want! The UN plan to eradicate organic farming & to ... www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2D4-noTiCg -

The penalties in the "food safety" bills for non-compliance would cover everyone in the country who "holds" food, and are massive, open-ended, life destroying, and come with no judicial review even over appropriateness and validity.

http://yupfarming.blogspot.com/2009/04/food-safety-as-totalitarian-weapon.html

 

Rosa DeLauro tarred by HR 875

How many frightening things are buried in that bill.  

No one is even denying the bill would allow for the take 

over of all normal seed or that Monsanto is waiting to 

have control over the entire US food supply.  

Rosa DeLauro has denied her bill would criminalize 

organic gardening or affect home gardens but the reality 

of HR 875 is turning out to be additionally dire.

DeLauro and others pushing these bills have said those 

who wrote them were "well intentioned" and were just 

"naive" about their impact on small producers. But over 

the hundreds of pages of these bills, somehow everything 

is consistently terrible for farmers and consumers and 

animals and plants and the land,  and somehow nothing 

at all is "naively" good for them or bad for industry.

Now people have discovered that in addition to its 

destructiveness to farmers, food, seed, farmers markets, 

our home gardens, and homemade food, DeLauro's bill 

contains CODEX Alimentarius.  

For those who do not know what that means, CODEX is 

a complete take over of all nutrients.  All nutrients.  

Nutrients are what human beings need to survive.  

CODEX is the full triumph of the pharmaceutical industry 

which, in declaring all nutrients toxins and putting them 

out of reach, can assure business from human illness 

and then remain the only source in the world of products 

for treating the diseases it has caused through 

devastating vitamin and mineral deficiencies.

In the EU, where it already exists,CODEX has 

eliminated all access to supplements (vitamins, 

minerals, herbs) in sufficient quantities to cure anything.  

This control over people's need to secure adequate 

nutrients for their health, even extends to making herb 

gardens a crime.

Rosa DeLauro has a complex task ahead of her. She will 

have to defend calling herself a feminist despite 

introducing a bill which removes all chance for people 

to find healthy, pure food or to grow it themselves. The 

consequences of her bill will be illnesses and then 

leaving families entirely dependent on the profit-driven 

"mercy" of Big PHARM and Big PHARMA for only 

processed, genetically engineered food and synthetic, 

genetically engineered drugs.

Not easy to fold increasing nationwide sickness and 

premature death, and aiding corporations in 

accomplishing a total monopoly over the health needs 

of everyone in the country, into the term "feminist."

Codex inside "food safety" bills will mandate pesticides

Michael Taylor, executive and lawyer at a multinational pesticide company - Monsanto - is waiting to control the US food supply.  http://www.postcarbon.org/monsanto_planting_seeds_white_house

Monsanto's Robert Fraley:  " What you are seeing is not just a consolidation of seed companies, it s really a consolidation of the entire food chain."

Codex is wedged into the "food safety" bills and as one can see below, it will mandate pesticides, even banned ones.  

Will Michelle Obama's organic garden be included?   

World War One and Michelle Obama 
  

... Most of the chemical "tools" taken for granted by modern agribusiness are products of warfare. Is this merely an indirect consequence of the tragic history of the 20th century, or does it suggest that the currently dismal state of our soils, fresh water supplies and rural economies is an outgrowth of agribusiness' emergence from wartime in some important ways? ...

To read more ...

Some Codex standards will take effect on December 31, 2009 and once initiated are completely irrevocable.  They include (a truncated list):  

* All nutrients (vitamins and minerals) are to be considered toxins/poisons and are to be removed from all food because Codex prohibits the use of nutrients to “prevent, treat or cure any condition or disease”

* All food (including organic) is to be irradiated, removing all toxic nutrients from food (unless eaten locally and raw).

* Nutrients allowed will be limited to a Positive List developed by Codex which will include such beneficial nutrients like Fluoride (3.8 mg daily) developed from environmental waste. All other nutrients will be prohibited nationally and internationally to all Codex-compliant countries [2].

* All nutrients (e.g., CoQ10, Vitamins A, B, C, D, Zinc and Magnesium) that have any positive health impact on the body will be deemed illegal under Codex and are to be reduced to amounts negligible to humans’ health [3].

* You will not even be able to obtain these anywhere in the world even with a prescription.

* All advice on nutrition (including written online or journal articles or oral advice to a friend, family member or anyone) will be illegal. This includes naturalnews.com reports on vitamins and minerals and all nutritionists' consultations.

* All dairy cows are to be treated with Monsanto’s recombinant bovine growth hormone.

* All animals used for food are to be treated with potent antibiotics and exogenous growth hormones.

* The reintroduction of deadly and carcinogenic organic pesticides that in 1991, 176 countries (including the U.S.) have banned worldwide including 7 of the 12 worst at the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pesticides (e.g., Hexachlorobenzene, Toxaphene, and Aldrin) will be allowed back into food at elevated levels [4].

(Thanks to Abu Ahmed for this compilation.)


NPR - India's "cancer train"

by Daniel Zwerdling/NPR

Each night, "the cancer train," as locals have dubbed it, departs from this platform at the station in Bathinda, in India's Punjab state. It travels overnight to the town of Bikaner, where the government's regional cancer center is located.

"... People say they never used to see so many cancer patients in this farm region. Cancer was considered an urban disease, suffered by people who lived in cities choked with industry and pollution.

But research by one of the most respected medical institutes in India recently found that farming villages using large amounts of pesticides have significantly higher rates of cancer than villages that use less of the chemicals..."

To read more ...