FDA allows unsafe drugs to be fed to livestock

Thank you for reminding us of the dangers in our food...HFCS is one of the worst...causing fatty liver, liver disease, depression, obesity, high blood pressure, cancer. I know you know the issues surrounding red meat production, dangerous chemicals, pharma, and Alzheimer's from Mad Cow Prions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XjY2m0bAaU three pigs....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJjE-UtqQdU&feature=related... their all made out of ticky tacky and they all look just the same.

I really enjoyed that....he lives in my soul...and so do you.

Ractopamine™ is a dangerous drug called a Beta Agonist. It is too dangerous for use in – or contact with – humans. Contact must be prevented, according to the FDA, by protective gear, careful post-use washing, and other cautions.

Yet, somehow, the US, along with 24 other nations, allows Ractopamine™ to be fed to cattle, pigs, turkeys, etc., up to the moment of their slaughter. Why? Because they put on a great deal of weight very quickly increasing the price paid for each animal to their industrial, factory food growers. The FDA says that, magically, Ractopamine™ is safe for use in food animals.

China and 159 other countries disagree. Those countries include the 27 members of the EU, whose Food Safety Agency determined that the cardiac, cancer and reproductive risks are far too great to allow it to be used in food animals.

Since the US, serving its corporate constituency, is the dominant force in Codex, it comes as no surprise that Codex wants to approve Ractopamine™ over the strenuous objections of China, the EU and other nations.

To make sure that China did not have a level playing field on which to voice its objections, the US actually went so far as to deny the Chinese delegate a visa to attend the Codex Committee on Food Additives meeting at which the groundwork was laid for approval of this toxic additive. Later the Chinese were told since they had not objected at the meeting at which they they had been excluded, their objections were not valid. Logical, yes?

Applying its customary pressure, the US managed to get the Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives to approve Ractopamine™ and produce 4 Maximum Residual Limits (MRLs) for ratification here at this CAC meeting today.

Objection was enormous and meeting after meeting was held outside of the regular hours to twist arms. Of course, it helps in this arm twisting that the Codex Chair, Karen Hulebek, is from the US.

Here, first, is the debate up to the dramatic moment when Codex make it clear that it really, really does not want us — the public observers from the Natural Solutions Foundation — here. Of course, that tells us how very important it is for us to BE here!

Chair: Can CAC adopt the 4 Ractopamine™ MRLs?

China: “We opposed MRLs on the first day [of this meeting]. Now the Chair proposes to adopt them. In order to facilitate this, China has made the greatest possible concession on the basis of a footnote which we were willing to have adopted. We have made lots of consultations and compromises over the last several days. We have not reached consensus on the footnote and some people could not approve the footnote.
Your view [Madam Chairwoman], anyhow, is a combination of the views of several countries. Even on that basis we failed to reach consensus, given that China’s minimum objections have not been met, we do not have any other option than to oppose the adoption of the Ractopamine standards.”

EU: “As we were on Monday, we are still opposed to the MRL adoption on ractopamine. We have had very constructive and productive discussion but we did not achieve a consensus and must oppose adoption of MRLs.”

US: “Earlier this week we heard clearly from JECFA that the issue to adopt the MRLs is no longer a food safety issue. After years of study, JECFA and CCCF have said that there is no food safety issue. Countries should not be allowed to stop adoption of standards on the basis of their own political agendas. However, we did hear a scientific problem with lung MRL [from China on Monday, noting that lung is consumed in China and is very high in Ractopamine™-treated animal] so work should go forward on this standard [to adopt the MRLs]. For the US the answer is clear: we support adoption of all Ractopamine™ MRLs without any footnotes.”

Canada: “We, too, note the decision that this commission took at its last session. We appreciate the significant work undertaken by JECFA and commend our Chinese colleagues submitting data to JECFA. However, JECFA has made it clear that the proposed MRLs are appropriate and in that context we support that adoption.
We have, however, heard the objections of China and others and draw attention to [a Codex standard] which recognizes that where a member government has a view different from that of Codex, while it should follow Codex, it can base its standards on something different and for those who opposed this standard, we encourage the application of these principles.”

[REL: this is, of course, the Codex Two-Step Process that we've reminded the nations of the world can protect them against political gaming such as with Ractopamine™]

Norway: “Norway will associate with ourselves with the statement made by China and the EU. We appreciate the work to reach consensus on a footnote. We are in opposition to the adoption of the MRLs.”

Mexico: “We recognize the Codex Alimentarius as a scientific decision-based body. Codex has said there is no problem [with Ractopamine™ MRLs] and therefore we support adoption.”

Korea: “We believe that Codex assures food safety to domestic market. We feel that further delaying adoption of Codex standards of Ractopamine is only a war of attrition. It is better to have Codex standards than not so we support adoption.”

Brazil: “We believe that adoption should be conducted on scientific position so we support adoption.”

Russia: “We stated our opposition on Monday. Today we received instruction from our government and are strongly opposed to adoption of residual levels of Ractopamine™. We believe that the principle here is to protect consumers and not harm them. So we propose to postpone adoption until further information makes it clear that it is safe. We have to reach real consensus.”

Japan: “Considering the discussion so far, we are of the view that it is time to reach certain consensus on this matter.”

Switzerland: “We have the opportunity to express our position on Monday. We are strongly opposed to the adoption of the standard on Ractopamine™.”

Chile: “We are eager to strengthen the Codex process. Now the Codex is in doubt because we are denying a scientifically based determination of MRL. WTO says that if we have a scientific basis for an MRL we MUST adopt it. There is a scientific basis and we can adopt the standard now.”

Croatia: “we strongly support position of EU [opposing Ractopamine™ MRLs).”

South Africa: “When we spoke on Monday we tried to bring to this august house that we consistently said that we base decisions on some scientific advice. I always think of a case when a country exports on the basis of its results from a lab and when the results are saying something else, it questions the laboratory. Here we are consistently questioning the advice of JECFA. Today we want to question the science. JECFA has advised [Codex] since 2008, and last year we said based on additional information we would put the decision [to approve Ractopamine™] off for another year, so take the information from China to JECFA and still their answer is the same. So now the question is whether JECFA is good enough to give us scientific advice. If I question it now, then I am saying JECFA is not good enough for us. We believe that the right decision would be for all of us to adopt these MRLs.”

Philippines: “We sustain our support for the proposed JECFA MRLs for Ractopamine™. This is consistent with established daily intake.”

Dominican Republic: “We supports what has been said by Chile, South Africa, Mexico, Brazil and we support approval of MRLs where JECFA is our scientific basis. Were we to ignore it , we would be ignoring the scientific progress brought to us by JECFA.”

Rwanda: “Let us be guided by science rather than by conscience of emotion. JECDFA was commissioned by this house so let us respect the work that was done.”

Zambia: “A lot has already been spoken. I just wish to repeat what I said on Monday. Codex created JECFA……

INTERRUPTION BECAUSE SEVERAL GUARDS CAME AROUND AND DEMANDED THAT GENERAL STUBBLEBINE AND I LEAVE OUR SEATS, WHERE WE HAD BEEN FOR 3 DAYS, AND INSISTED THAT WE LEAVE TO SIT IN A TOTALLY EMPTY SECTION RESERVED FOR THE – OTHER THAN US – NON EXISTENT PUBLIC OBSERVERS!

WHO DID NOT WANT US HERE AND WANTED TO SHOW THAT WE WERE NOT APPRECIATED? PERHAPS DR. CLAUDE MOSHE, A FORMER CHAIR OF THE CODEX COMMISSION WHO GLEEFULLY ANNOUNCED THAT OUR APPLICATION FOR OBSERVER STATUS HAD BEEN TURNED DOWN AT A PREVIOUS CAC MEETING DESPITE THE FACT THAT NSF MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS FOR NGO OBSERVE STATUS?

PERHAPS KAREN HULLEBECK, THE CURRENT CHAIR OF THE CAC WHO MAY NOT HAVE LIKED OUR COMMENTARY IN WHICH SHE COMPARED HER SELF AND HER WORK TO THAT OF MOTHER THERESA, MUCH TO OUR SCORN AND DERISION? PERHAPS THE VERY POWERFUL US DELEGATION WHICH MAY NOT TAKE KINDLY TO THE IDEA THAT WE ARE ACTIVELY SEEKING TO GET THE US OUT OF CODEX?

OR COULD HAVE BEEN THE AMERICAN LAWYER WHO HOLDS ONTO THE “HEALTH FREEDOM” SEAT AT CODEX AND WHOSE EMAIL LIST, SOME SAY, HAS AS MANY AS 15,000 PEOPLE WHO WOULD TRY, AGAIN, TO DEMONSTRATE HOW ‘POWERFUL’ HE THINKS HE IS?

COULD BE ANY OF THEM.

I guess being relegated to this empty zone is better than what happens in Rome where we, alone of all participants of any type, are met with armed guards (!!) to prevent us from talking to delegates (our friends among the health-conscious countries find us anyway). Could be some other admirer of our effective work. Dunno, but it is a tribute to the fact that we are saying what Codex does not want said. And God knows that what they want hidden needs to be said, loudly and frequently. This is a genocidal organization in its roots and, tragically, in its fruits. See “Nutricide” for more on its founding and reason for being: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5266884912495233634#

Who else is saying what they do not want you to know? No

Read More: http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?p=5879