The defenselessness of consumers is practically total against the illegal and deceptive initiatives of the chemical multinationals led by BAYER / MONSANTO.
On this occasion, at the recent meeting of theCodex Alimentarius held in Berlin, an attempt was made to define genetically modified food ingredients as 'biofortified' and thus could mislead consumers.
This contravenes the provisions of theCodex Alimentarius of defining biofortification. This definition is based on the improvement of the nutritional quality of food crops through conventional plant breeding (not through genetic engineering) with the aim that the nutrients are bioavailable after digestion.
Biofortification using genetic engineering techniques is to increase the content of a certain nutrient in a food. For example, in the case of folic acid, the synthesis of this molecule in plants takes place in three different cell compartments: chloroplasts, cytosol and mitochondria.This vitamin is made up of three pieces, each of which is formed in one of these compartments. By increasing the content of each of these pieces, we can achieve an increase in the final piece: vitamin B9.
The attempt was frustrated thanks to various interventions, in particular theNational Health Federation, a leading international non-governmental organization for health freedom and the only international non-governmental public health organization represented in Codex. But the battle is far from over.
TheCodex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU) of the Commission ofCodex Alimentarius It met in Berlin in early December and its mission is to draft provisions on nutritional aspects for all foods. It also develops international guidelines and standards for foods for special dietary uses that are used to facilitate standardized world trade.
Based on previous meetings, the initial intention of the Committee was to develop a definition of biofortification that could be used uniformly throughout the world. Biofortification originally referred to increasing certain vitamin and mineral contents of staple food crops through crossing, and not through genetic engineering, for example, by increasing the vitamin or iron content of sweet potatoes so that populations malnourished received better nutrition.
However, according to NHF President Scott Tips, Monsanto wants to change the wording to include biofortified GM foods and has apparently swayed Codex delegates in that direction. Tips says:"I am sure Monsanto would be delighted to be able to market its synthetic products under a name that begins with the word 'bio'."
This year's CCNFSDU meeting witnessed a lively debate on biofortification. At the 2016 CCNFSDU meeting, President Pia Noble (married to a former Bayer executive) opined that the definition should be as broad as possible and that recombinant technology should be included. By the 2017 meeting, the proposed definition had been modified to include transgenic foods.
Historically, they have manipulated language to hide the true nature of the poisons that they administer to us on a daily basis in food ‘manufactured’ using industrial agriculture. From calling PHYTOSANITARIES to synthetic chemical substances used to poison nature to which we, for lack of a better expression, call AGTOTOXICS.
The EU has raised a valid objection that “biofortification” would cause confusion in many European countries because the widespread use of the word “bio” is synonymous with “ecological”. EU countries have been very emphatic and support this position, arguing that the definition should be restrictive, not broad.
The inclusion of GM foods in any definition of biofortification can confuse consumers as to whether they are buying organic products or anything else. Monsanto seeks to capitalize on the green market with the loaded word 'bio', ”argues Scott Tips.
At the Codex meeting in Berlin, Tips addressed the 300 delegates present in the room."Although the NHF was one of the first supporters of biofortification, since then we have reached such a point that from being something good at first it has gone on to have negative connotations", explained Tips.
He added that if Codex allowed any production method and any source to become part of the definition of biofortification, this would lead to deception of the worst kind.
As Steven Druker has exposed in his book"Genes altered, the truth distorted", GM foods shouldn't even be on the market, given the disappointments and bypassing the procedures that got them there in the first place. But now that they are on the market, most consumers want GM foods to be labeled. In the United States alone, about 90% of consumers want such labeling. The proposed definition tries to disguise transgenic foods under the term "biofortification".
"That is dishonest. It is shameful, and for all those who sincerely care about the credibility and transparency of Codex, you should absolutely and emphatically oppose this definition ", Tips said.
The NHF considers that this is simply a strategy to achieve a hidden way of entry into the countries of genetically modified foods that are not necessary and unwanted. In his address to the assembled delegates, Tips added:“It is a very sad situation, in which we have reached the point where we must manipulate our natural foods to provide better nutrition, all this because we have dedicated ourselves to very poor agricultural practices that have seen a 50% decrease in vitamins and minerals from our food over the past 50 years. We are not going to remedy poor nutrition by engaging in fraudulent marketing practices and sleight of hand with this definition. "
Delegates to various Codex committees tend to be regulatory agency bureaucrats and representatives of large corporations, including agricultural giants such as Monsanto. These interests have undue influence on Codex. Over the years, Scott Tips and his NHF colleagues, although outnumbered in meetings, have been tireless in their efforts to reduce undue influence of business on Codex. As the NHF and others urged the committee to adopt a clear, non-misleading definition that excluded GM foods, no final decision was made on the definition of biofortification.
Now it is up to the commission to resolve the matter at next year's meeting or even the next.
The National Health Federation:
The National Health Federation is the only health-related organization accredited by the Codex Alimentarius Commission to participate in all Codex meetings. Actively formulates global policies on food, beverages and nutritional supplements.
The Codex Alimentarius Commission is chaired by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the World Health Organization. Its 27 committees establish uniform standards and guidelines on food safety for its member countries and promote the free international movement of food products and nutritional supplements.
The original source of this article is the National Health Federation website: Monsanto Uses Codex to Hide GMOs from Consumers
With information from: