Codex fulfills the worst of German stereotypes of their applying industrial force and obsessive control to insane ideas about "hygiene." In their last infamous "clean up," Nazis applied industrial "hygiene" to people. They put together an extensive and very detailed plan both for judging those they considered dirty/inferior (including tracking birth lineage) and for dealing with them: arranging trains, arranging concentration camps, arranging gas chambers, arranging lies to get people quietly onto the trains (country internment) and then more lies to get them quietly into the gas chambers (showers after travel), arranging gassing of them, arranging people to climb over the dead bodies and dig out the gold from their teeth, arranging use of the dead's skin for lampshades or soap, arranging crematoria, arranging propaganda to hide their "organization achievements" from the world.
Now these highly organized industrial hygiene obsessives, in conjunction with multinationals in the WTO, have turned their focus on food.
Not a good fit with that glorious stuff people have been intimate with since birth, that stuff which spells comfort and happiness, whose sauce runs down the chin from a luscious barbeque or that makes a creamy raw milk mustache on the upper lip or that babies get all over themselves, grinning in pleasure, or that lovers feed each other in front of the fire. It is the stuff which people believe with good reason, belongs to them by right of existence in the human race, by their simply being in the natural world with it.
American public, meet Nazi Codex.
Having spent decades designing their program, the industries in the WTO are now rolling out their master plan, Codex Alimentarius, intended to disabuse this country of its history and right to play in its food or with its food or during its food or in growing its food or in selling it.
Curiously, though Codex covers every food in the world in detail and though it is quite extensive in pages of text and agencies it's woven into and in international regulations that have been arranged , the corporations which designed it (pharmaceutical, biotech, agribusiness, etc.) haven't announced its arrival. They haven't mentioned it at all. It is hidden in the food safety bills now in the Senate, never called by name or even alluded to, and if asked whether the current bills contain it, Codex is denied.
They appear to have put as much effort into concealing it as into making it.
And media has said nothing about it.
Michael Taylor, the Monsanto VP who wrote a white paper for Monsanto on how to sue dairy farmers for saying honestly that their milk was rBGH-free, twisted what seemed at the time to be all decent use of common language by such trickery, but Codex, within bills that Taylor appears to have contributed, moves into new territory altogether concerning language and even beyond language.
And this is where Wisconsin comes in. The Wisconsin Senate bill has this in it.
"The bill prohibits labeling a product as Wisconsin certified honey or implying that a product is Wisconsin certified honey, unless the product has been determined by testing to meet the standards established by DATCP, DATCP has approved a summary of the testing, and the product was produced in this state."
An expensive bar to a local farmer labeling his own honey, honey.
But the bill is far more than intrusive and unnecessary and even more than a possibly insurmountable financial bar because the bill includes the following stunning sentence:
The bill also prohibits labeling a product as honey or implying that a product is honey, unless the product meets the standards established by DATCP.
So, Wisconsin farmers, even if they don't care about saying they are producing "Wisconsin" honey and would give up voicing simple realty that they are, indeed, producing Wisconsin honey, would, under this bill, not be able to label their honey as honey at all.
What is it, then?
What does Wisconsin's Senate want them to do with it? Not sell it, that's for certain.
Through letting Codex loose on local farmers, Wisconsin Senate's bill is saying that if farmers can't afford an expensive nonsensical test that would buy them a certificate to allow them to speak the words honestly (Wisconsin honey), what farmers make they may not even say aloud.
Does the Senate want even more than that? If not, what do they legally mean by "implying"?
How is "implying" defined? It's not but the Senate is setting farmers up for $1000 fines and huge court costs for "implying" honey is what it actually is. Hard on the farmer to not imply reality.
If someone on a farm sees a jar of syrupy stuff and sees a bee flying around the farmer's head, is the farmer implying the stuff in the jar is honey? Or is the person inferring? Is the only way a farmer can not "imply" something is honey, by disassociating entirely from it?
Does the Senate want that - no farmer being associated with honey at all?
The farmer, notice, can't even say, "This is uncertified honey" or "The state of Wisconsin is not comfortable with this honey." The farmer, in fact, can't even get near honey and anyone else at the same time without potentially being accused of implying it is honey. What the farmer supposed to do, scream "Sit!" at the honey or put the jars in the compost pile or toss the jars around with the kids or wear it on his head, all not to imply the obvious but imply "dog," "garden waste," "ball," or "hat," instead?
Those behind Codex are seeking not only control of all food and to take over normal words related to it, but even to control an amorphous and thus unlimited zone of association with it. Codex provides those behind Codex endless fees associated with food and all the penalties incurred in anyone speaking or "acting wrongly" in relation to food.
Now, having been shat on by Nazis, suddenly good ole American food has fees and penalties, for even daring to speak of it. It's punishment looking for an undefined infraction, doing the judging, and reaping the reward.
The bill doesn't prohibit "implying that a product is honey" to the act of marketing." No, it says only "implying that a product is honey." At all.
Is there ever a time when the poor farmer can relax and even imply this to his wife? In the privacy of their bedroom? To his children as he offers them breakfast? To the bees, as he tends the hive?
Is the point Wisconsin farmers are supposed to stop selling honey as food and leave it to the multinationals?
Will the farmers start selling their bottles of honey as "Wisconsin crap," the Wisconsin's joke on its own farmers?
Or as the Wisconsin Senate's "Eff the Farmer" fluid?
None of it meant for human consumption.
Morality-free.
2009 − 2010 LEGISLATURE
2009 SENATE BILL 419
LRB−3834/1 CTS:cjs:rs
December 3, 2009 − Introduced by Senators VINEHOUT, LEHMAN, MILLER and SCHULTZ, cosponsored by Representatives GARTHWAITE, VRUWINK, BARCA, BALLWEG, BROOKS, CLARK, HILGENBERG, KERKMAN, KNODL, MOLEPSKE JR., A. OTT, PASCH, POPE−ROBERTS, RIPP, ROYS, SCHNEIDER, STEINBRINK, TAUCHEN, TURNER, A. WILLIAMS, YOUNG and ZIGMUNT. Referred to Committee on Agriculture and Higher Education.
1 AN ACT to create 100.187 of the statutes; relating to: requiring the Department
2 of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection to establish standards for
3 products sold as honey, prohibiting the labeling as Wisconsin certified honey of
4 a product that has not been determined to meet the standards, prohibiting the
5 labeling as honey of a product that does not meet the standards, and requiring
6 the exercise of rule−making authority.
Analysis by the Legislative Reference Bureau
This bill requires the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) to promulgate rules that establish standards for products sold as honey and standards for the testing by private laboratories of samples submitted by persons who wish to sell honey produced in this state as Wisconsin certified honey. The standards for honey must be consistent with the standard for honey under the Codex Alimentarius of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the World Health Organization.
The bill prohibits labeling a product as Wisconsin certified honey or implying that a product is Wisconsin certified honey, unless the product has been determined by testing to meet the standards established by DATCP, DATCP has approved a summary of the testing, and the product was produced in this state. Under the bill, DATCP investigates violations of this prohibition and may bring an action to enjoin violations.
The bill also prohibits labeling a product as honey or implying that a product is honey, unless the product meets the standards established by DATCP. Any person who suffers damages as a result of a violation of this prohibition may bring an action against the violator to recover the amount of the person’s damages or $1,000, whichever is greater, plus reasonable attorney fees.
For further information see the state fiscal estimate, which will be printed as an appendix to this bill.
The people of the state of Wisconsin, represented in senate and assembly, do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. 100.187 of the statutes is created to read:
100.187 Sale of honey and Wisconsin certified honey; rules, prohibitions. (1) The department shall promulgate rules that do all the following:
(a) Establish standards for products sold as honey that are consistent with the standard for honey under the Codex Alimentarius of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the World Health Organization, number 12−1981, as revised in 2001.
(b) Establish standards for testing by private laboratories of samples
submitted by persons who intend to sell honey produced in this state as Wisconsin certified honey to determine whether the samples meet the standards established under par. (a).
(2) (a) No person may label a product as Wisconsin certified honey or imply that a product is Wisconsin certified honey unless all of the following apply:
1. The product has been determined to meet the standards established under sub. (1) (a) by a laboratory whose testing procedures meet standards established under sub. (1) (b).
2. A summary of the results of the testing performed under subd. 1. have been submitted to the department and approved by the department.
2009 − 2010 Legislature − 2 −
(b) The department shall investigate violations of this subsection and may bring an action for permanent or temporary injunctive or other relief in any circuit court against a person who violates this subsection.
(3) (a) No person may label a product as honey or imply that a product is honey unless the product meets the standards established under sub. (1) (a).
(b) Any person who suffers damages as a result of a violation of this subsection may bring an action for damages against the violator for the amount of the person’s damages or $1,000, whichever is greater. Notwithstanding s. 814.04 (1), a court shall award to a prevailing plaintiff in an action under this paragraph reasonable attorney fees.
[Max Guthrie is a visual artist with an interest in environmental recovery in the absence of industrialism, and in language predicted by Orwell.]
No comments:
Post a Comment