PDA

View Full Version : Billions of People Expected to Die Under Current Codex Alimentarius Guidelines




TCE
07-21-2009, 11:26 AM
(NaturalNews) Your right to eat healthy food and use supplements of your choice is rapidly vanishing, but every effort has been made to keep you in the dark about the coming nutricide. Codex Alimentarius is scheduled for full global implementation on December 31, 2009, and not a word has been spoken in main stream media about this threat to humanity. Yet, according to the projections of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), a minimum of 3 billion people will die from the Codex mandated vitamin and mineral guideline alone. As the clock ticks toward this irrevocable deadline, the Natural Solutions Foundation (NSF) and its medical director, Dr. Rima Laibow, are feverishly working to change Codex guidelines. They need your help.

Former Nazi is father of contemporary Codex

Codex is the enemy of everyone except those who will profit from it, according to Dr. Laibow. She points to its association with those who committed crimes during the Nazi regime. At the end of World War II, the Nuremberg tribunal judged Nazis who had committed horrendous crimes against humanity and sentenced them to prison terms. One of those found guilty was the president of the megalithic corporation I.G. Farben, Hermann Schmitz. His company was the largest chemical manufacturing enterprise in the world, and had extraordinary political and economic power and influence with the Hitlerian Nazi state. Farben produced the gas used in the Nazi gas chambers, and the steal for the railroads built to transport people to their deaths.

While serving his prison term, Schmitz looked for an alternative to brute force for controlling people and realized that people could be controlled through their food supply. When he got out of prison, he went to his friends at the United Nations (UN) and laid out a plan to take over the control of food worldwide. A trade commission called Codex Alimentarius (Latin for food code) was re-created under the guise of it being a consumer protection commission. But Codex was never in the business of protecting people. It has always been about money and profits at the expense of people.

In 1962, the timetable was set for Codex to be fully implemented on a global level by December 31, 2009. Under Codex, committees were established to create guidelines on such topics as fish and fisheries, fats and oils, fruits and vegetables, ground nuts, nutrition, food for specialized uses, and vitamins and minerals. There were 27 committees in all, creating a huge bureaucracy. Under Codex there are over 4,000 guidelines and regulations on everything that can be put into your mouth with the exception of pharmaceuticals which are not regulated by Codex.

Codex is a weapon being used to reduce the level of nutrition worldwide

Codex is an industry dominated regulation setting organization, and as such has no legal standing. Participation in Codex is said to be voluntary. But Codex has risen to the level of de facto legal standing because Codex is administered by the WHO and FAO. They fund it and run it at the request of the UN. Since the WHO and FAO are supposed to be about health, there is conflict of interest. The committees of Codex work up guidelines, rules and regulations, and present them to a Codex commission for ratification. Once they are ratified and approved by consensus, they become mandatory for any country that is a member of the WHO.

Codex was accepted when the WTO was formed in 1994 as a means of harmonizing food standards globally for easy trade between countries. As a result, countries must harmonize with Codex if they want to have any standing in a trade dispute. When disputes arise and countries are pulled in to WTO, the one that is Codex compliant automatically wins, regardless of the merits of its case.

Dr. Laiblow sees codex as a weapon to make every nation scurry to become compliant to the decline in nutritional standards. She points out that compliance in the U.S. will mark the end of its consumer protection laws. Codex will not serve consumers. Codex will serve the interests of the medical, pharmaceutical, biotechnology, chemical, and big agricultural industries.

Under Codex, nutrients are classified as poisons

The Dietary Substances Health and Education Act (DSHEA), was signed into law in 1994 for the purpose of ensuring that safe and appropriately labeled products would remain available to those who wanted to use them. In the findings associated with this law, Congress stated that there may be a positive relationship between sound dietary practice and good health, and a connection between dietary supplement use, reduced health-care expenses, and disease prevention. Under DSHEA, nutrients and herbs are classified as food. There is no upper limit set, and access is freely given. Americans are allowed to have any nutrients they want, because under English common law, anything that is not expressly forbidden is permitted.

Codex, on the other hand, is based on Napoleonic law under which anything not expressly permitted is forbidden. Therefore, only what is expressly allowed under Codex will be permitted, and everything else is forbidden. In 1994, the same year DSHEA was signed, Codex had nutrients declared to be toxic and poisonous. And as poisons, they claimed people must be protected from them through the use of toxicology and risk assessment, under which scientists test small doses on animals until they are able to discern an impact. They then take the first sign of the most minimal impact and divide this amount by 100 to establish a safety margin required from these poisons. This means that the largest dose of any nutrient allowed under Codex is 1/100th of the amount shown to produce the first discernable impact.

Nutrients allowed under codex are limited to those on the positive list, expected to contain only 18 nutrients, one of them being fluoride. Dr. Laibow points out that although fluoride has no biological benefit whatsoever, it does make people complacent.

The codex proponents now have several bills before Congress designed to overturn and get rid of DSHEA. Once this is accomplished, the U.S. will have been harmonized with the vitamin and mineral guidelines of codex. High potency, therapeutically effective, significant nutrients will then be illegal in the way that heroin is illegal. They will not even be available by prescription.

Codex supports toxic food additives, pesticides and GM foods

Codex poses a significant threat to the food supply, according to Dr. Robert Verkerk, founder and director of the Alliance for Natural Health. About 300 dangerous food additives that are mainly synthetic will be allowed under Codex, including aspartame, BHA, BHT, potassium bromate, tartrazine, and more. Dr. Verkerk is particularly concerned that no consideration has been given to potential risks associated with long-term exposure to mixtures of additives.

Codex sets limits for the dangerous industrial chemicals that can be used in food, but they are incredibly high, and the list of chemicals that can be used is long. In 2001, 176 countries including the U.S. got together and decided that 12 highly toxic organic chemicals, known as persistent organic pollutants (POPS) were so bad that they had to be banned. There are many more than 12 toxic chemicals used on food, but these 12 were unanimously declared to be the worst. Of these, 9 are pesticides.

Under Codex, 7 of the 9 forbidden POPS will again be allowed in the production of food. All together, Codex allows over 3,275 different pesticides, including those that are suspected carcinogens or endocrine disrupters. There is no consideration of the long-term effects of exposure to mixtures of pesticide residues in food.

Organic food governance will be dumbed down to suit the interests of large food producers. Various synthetic chemical additives and processing aids will be allowed, and food labeled as organic may be irradiated. Labeling will permit the use of hidden, non-organic ingredients.

Monsanto, a member of Codex, will benefit greatly as production of genetically modified (GM) foods are stepped up and more GM plants are given the green light. Terminator seeds will be approved for international trade. GM food animals will also be on the way.

Under Codex, every dairy animal can be treated with growth hormone, and all animals in the food chain will be treated with sub-clinical levels of antibiotics, according to Dr. Laibow. She claims that Codex will lead to the required irradiation of all foods with the exception of those grown locally and sold raw.

Dr. Laiblow sees Codex as "food regulations that are in fact the legalization of mandated toxicity and under-nutrition". According to her, the WHO and FAO estimate that of the 3 billion people initially expected to die as the result of the Codex vitamin and mineral guidelines, 2 billion of them will die from the preventable diseases that result from under-nutrition, such as cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and many others. Those who will live will be the wealthy elites who are able to somehow provide themselves with sources of clean food and other nutrients.

Codex is legalized genocide

Dr. Gregory Damato, Ph.D., writing for Natural News, has characterized Codex as "population control for money". He sees Codex as run by the U.S. and controlled by the big pharmaceutical corporations and the likes of Monsanto with the purpose of reducing the population of the world to a level considered sustainable by those promulgating the New World Order. This would mean a reduction of approximately 93 percent of the current world population.

Once Codex standards are adopted there will be no turning back. When Codex compliance is instigated in any area, as long as the country remains a member of the WTO, those standards cannot be repealed, or altered in any way.

Natural Solutions Foundation is working to revamp Codex guidelines worldwide

Some hope remains. Over the years, the WTO has accepted Codex standards as presumptive evidence of the rules of trade between countries. However, several times in history, the WTO has refused to make Codex the single and only standard to be used in trade disputes. Under Codex's own statutes, their guidelines are claimed to be "advisory", and nations are able to set up their own guidelines.

Since compliance with Codex standards is simply presumptive evidence, and not finally determinative, a nation can opt out of the guidelines in an effort to protect its traditional foods and remedies. The Codex Two Step is a legal strategy that the Natural Solutions Foundation has developed to help nations wanting to do this. Under Step One, the country develops its own food and health guidelines that may be at variance with Codex guidelines. For example, it may be much stricter on the issues of toxins in the food supply or on the issue of genetically modified foods. It may require, for example, that companies using GM ingredients be required to indicate them on food labels. In countries that refuse to use GM foods, this can be indicated on their label too, so that people can make informed choices.

So, the first step is for a country to set up its guidelines. The Second Step is to adopt a national law that implements those guidelines on a sound scientific basis. The NSF is preparing models to be used for doing this that are available to any country. There is a model vitamin and mineral guideline, and a model of a food and health statute to implement that guideline.

Normally, in a trade dispute before the WTO, the country that has adopted Codex guidelines will be the winner of that dispute based on those guidelines being presumptive evidence. However, when countries have gone through the two step process to create their own guidelines, there is no such presumption, and the WTO will look at the science behind the guidelines.

In the U.S. the door is open to Codex

In 1995, the FDA issued a policy statement saying that international standards such as Codex would supersede U.S. laws governing all food. Under the Central American Free Trade Agreement, which is illegal under current U.S. law, but is legal under international law, the U.S. is required to conform to Codex as it stands on December 31, 2009.

This is why NSF needs your help. Because the current pro-Codex stance of the U.S. is in violation of current laws, NSF has created a Citizen's Petition in which they are asking the U.S. government to amend its Codex position according to the Two Step plan that Codex allows. This petition is a ground-breaking legal approach to compel the government to hold public hearings and move from a pro-illness Codex position to a pro-health position. If the government does not respond in an appropriate manner, the next step in the process is to take them to court.

A Citizen's Petition is a legal means to focus a government agency's attention on an issue of concern to citizens. Once a Citizen's Petition has been entered, a docket to debate it is opened and public comment is accepted. A Citizen's Petition does have one thing in common with the more familiar types of petitions. Any number of people can add their names to it and become co-petitioners.

So far, over 30,000 people have joined this petition, and three members of Congress have written a Congressional Letter in support of it. NSF needs you to read and sign this petition by going to http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?pa... On this site you will also find a letter that can be sent to the U.S. Codex Manager, Dr. Edwin Scarbrough, and Dr. Barbara Schneeman, Head of the FDA's Office of Nutritional Products.

Dr. Liabow is encouraging people to pass the word about Codex to everyone they know or with whom they come in contact. As a reader of Natural News, you are in the forefront of knowledge regarding health standards and the need to safeguard them. You are probably someone who others look to for advice on health matters. As such, you are in a special position to help this petition move forward. The new guidelines created by NSF have mandated biochemically individual determination of optimal health. These guidelines need to be adopted by Congress and also by other countries who value their traditional foods and remedies.

When Dr. Laibow was recently working in Washington D.C. to inform the members of Congress about Codex, she found that very few of them knew anything about it all. As they have become informed, some have come out against Codex. This makes writing to your congressmen on this issue critically important. Tell they about the threat of Codex. Suggest that they need a congressional briefing on the issue and suggest that they contact Dr. Rima Laibow. Remember, any negative part of Codex can be overturned by a guideline that is positive.

Icymudpuppy
07-21-2009, 11:33 AM
They can have my rototiller when the pry it from my cold dead fingers.

muh_roads
07-21-2009, 11:47 AM
scary

Warrior_of_Freedom
07-21-2009, 12:25 PM
i thought foods are already less nutritious with GM food

Rael
07-21-2009, 01:00 PM
From what I can tell it is voluntary.

Sandman33
07-21-2009, 01:43 PM
Codex Alimentarius is real and goes full bore this December. It really should be listed and stickied here.

TCE
07-21-2009, 02:01 PM
i thought foods are already less nutritious with GM food

Genetically modified foods are obviously less nutritious than non-GM alternatives. However, Codex looks to make it impossible to tell what is and is not a GM food.


From what I can tell it is voluntary.

Voluntary-The NWO suggests that you submit to our "voluntary" guidelines to wipe out half of the population. No pressure.

Additionally, consider this: Virtually all federal mandates are "voluntary" when they are first introduced. However, eventually the federal government always persuades states to jump on board.


Codex Alimentarius is real and goes full bore this December. It really should be listed and stickied here.

I absolutely agree with this. This is going to make Cap and Trade look like lillies by the lake.

Zippyjuan
07-21-2009, 02:05 PM
"Billions to Die" is certainly overhyping it. As the title of the piece indicates, it is a "guideline"- not international law. It does not prevent countries like the US from having stricter standards from those suggested in the guidlines.

But this is the line which makes me discount the entire piece (assuming I got past the headline):

Codex is legalized genocide

Dr. Gregory Damato, Ph.D., writing for Natural News, has characterized Codex as "population control for money". He sees Codex as run by the U.S. and controlled by the big pharmaceutical corporations and the likes of Monsanto with the purpose of reducing the population of the world to a level considered sustainable by those promulgating the New World Order. This would mean a reduction of approximately 93 percent of the current world population.

If Monsanto and the big pharmaceutical corporations killed off 93% of the population, they would also destroy the market for their products. That would be rediculous for them to do so.

TCE
07-21-2009, 02:10 PM
"Billions to Die" is certainly overhyping it. As the title of the piece indicates, it is a "guideline"- not international law. It does not prevent countries like the US from having stricter standards from those suggested in the guidlines.

But this is the line which makes me discount the entire piece (assuming I got past the headline):


If Monsanto and the big pharmaceutical corporations killed off 93% of the population, they would also destroy the market for their products. That would be rediculous for them to do so.

I disagree. The author is suggesting that Monsanto and the U.S. are both being run by the New World Order. As most of us know, one of the reported goals of the NWO is to have a major population reduction. Those two lines may begin edging into conspiracy theory, sure, but they could very possibly be true.

teacherone
07-21-2009, 02:21 PM
Doesn't look dangerous...just a huge waste of money. Just look at their standards report on honey-- 8pages long and in four languages. Official standards list for thousands of food items found here. (http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/standard_list.do?lang=en)
PS Don't believe everything you read on the internet ;)


CODEX STAN 12-1981 Page 1 of 8
Adopted in 1981. Revisions 1987 and 2001.
CODEX STANDARD FOR HONEY
CODEX STAN 12-19811
The Annex to this Standard is intended for voluntary application by commercial partners and not for application by Governments.
1. SCOPE
1.1 Part One of this Standard applies to all honeys produced by honey bees and covers all styles of honey presentations which are processed and ultimately intended for direct consumption. Part Two covers honey for industrial uses or as an ingredient in other foods.
1.2 Parts Two of this Standard also covers honey which is packed for sale in bulk containers, which may be repacked into retail packs.
PART ONE
2. DESCRIPTION
2.1 DEFINITION
Honey is the natural sweet substance produced by honey bees from the nectar of plants or from secretions of living parts of plants or excretions of plant sucking insects on the living parts of plants, which the bees collect, transform by combining with specific substances of their own, deposit, dehydrate, store and leave in the honey comb to ripen and mature.
2.1.1 Blossom Honey or Nectar Honey is the honey which comes from nectars of plants.
2.1.2 Honeydew Honey is the honey which comes mainly from excretions of plant sucking insects (Hemiptera) on the living parts of plants or secretions of living parts of plants.
2.2 DESCRIPTION
Honey consists essentially of different sugars, predominantly fructose and glucose as well as other substances such as organic acids, enzymes and solid particles derived from honey collection. The colour of honey varies from nearly colourless to dark brown. The consistency can be fluid, viscous or partly to entirely crystallised. The flavour and aroma vary, but are derived from the plant origin.
3. ESSENTIAL COMPOSITION AND QUALITY FACTORS
3.1 Honey sold as such shall not have added to it any food ingredient, including food additives, nor shall any other additions be made other than honey. Honey shall not have any objectionable matter, flavour, aroma, or taint absorbed from foreign matter during its processing and storage. The honey shall not have begun to ferment or effervesce. No pollen or constituent particular to honey may be removed except where this is unavoidable in the removal of foreign inorganic or organic matter.
1 Secretariat’s note: At the time of the adoption the Commission agreed that further work would be undertaken on certain technical issues, particularly the provisions concerning Moisture Content.
CODEX STAN 12-1981 Page 2 of 8
Adopted in 1981. Revisions 1987 and 2001.
3.2 Honey shall not be heated or processed to such an extent that its essential composition is changed and/ or its quality is impaired.
3.3 Chemical or biochemical treatments shall not be used to influence honey crystallisation.
3.4 MOISTURE CONTENT
(a) Honeys not listed below - not more than 20%
(b) Heather honey (Calluna) - not more than 23%
3.5 SUGARS CONTENT
3.5.1 Fructose and Glucose Content (sum of both)
(a) Honey not listed below
- not less than 60 g/100g
(b) Honeydew honey,
blends of honeydew honey with blossom honey
- not less than 45 g/100g
3.5.2 Sucrose Content
(a) Honey not listed below
not more than 5 g/100g
(b) Alfalfa (Medicago sativa), Citrus spp., False Acacia (Robinia pseudoacacia), French Honeysuckle (Hedysarum), Menzies Banksia (Banksia menziesii),Red Gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis), Leatherwood (Eucryphia lucida), Eucryphia milligani
- not more than 10 g/100g
(c) Lavender (Lavandula spp),Borage (Borago officinalis)
- not more than 15 g/100g
3.6 WATER INSOLUBLE SOLIDS CONTENT
(a) Honeys other than pressed honey
- not more than 0.1 g/100g
(b) Pressed honey
- not more than 0.5 g/100g
4. CONTAMINANTS
4.1 HEAVY METALS2
Honey shall be free from heavy metals in amounts which may represent a hazard to human health. The products covered by this Standard shall comply with those maximum levels for heavy metals established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission.
4.2 RESIDUES OF PESTICIDES AND VETERINARY DRUGS
The products covered by this standard shall comply with those maximum residue limits for honey established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission.
5. HYGIENE
2 These levels will be established in consultation between the Codex Committee on Sugars and the Codex Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants as soon as possible.
CODEX STAN 12-1981 Page 3 of 8
Adopted in 1981. Revisions 1987 and 2001.
5.1 It is recommended that the products covered by the provisions of this standard be prepared and handled in accordance with the appropriate sections of the Recommended International Code of Practice - General Principles of Food Hygiene recommended by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC/RCP 1-1969), and other relevant Codex texts such as Codes of Hygienic Practice and Codes of Practice.
5.2 The products should comply with any microbiological criteria established in accordance with the Principles for the Establishment and Application of Microbiological Criteria for Foods (CAC/GL 21-1997).
6. LABELLING
In addition to the provisions of the General Standard for the Labelling of Pre-packaged Foods (CODEX STAN 1-1985), the following specific provisions apply:
6.1 THE NAME OF THE FOOD
6.1.1 Products conforming to Part One of the Standard shall be designated 'honey'.
6.1.2 For products described in 2.1.1 the name of the food may be supplemented by the term “blossom” or “nectar”.
6.1.3 For products described in 2.1.2 the word “honeydew” may be placed in close proximity to the name of the food.
6.1.4 For mixtures of the products described in 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 the name of the food may be supplemented with the words “a blend of honeydew honey with blossom honey”.
6.1.5 Honey may be designated by the name of the geographical or topographical region if the honey was produced exclusively within the area referred to in the designation.
6.1.6 Honey may be designated according to floral or plant source if it comes wholly or mainly from that particular source and has the organoleptic, physicochemical and microscopic properties corresponding with that origin.
6.1.7 Where honey has been designated according to floral or plant source (6.1.6) then the common name or the botanical name of the floral source shall be in close proximity to the word "honey".
6.1.8 Where honey has been designated according to floral, plant source, or by the name of a geographical or topological region, then the name of the country where the honey has been produced shall be declared.
6.1.9 The subsidiary designations listed in 6.1.10 may not be used unless the honey conforms to the appropriate description contained therein. The styles in 6.1.11 (b) and (c) shall be declared.
6.1.10 Honey may be designated according to the method of removal from the comb.
(a) Extracted Honey is honey obtained by centrifuging decapped broodless combs.
(b) Pressed Honey is honey obtained by pressing broodless combs.
(c) Drained Honey is honey obtained by draining decapped broodless combs.
6.1.11 Honey may be designated according to the following styles:
(a) Honey which is honey in liquid or crystalline state or a mixture of the two;
(b) Comb Honey which is honey stored by bees in the cells of freshly built broodless combs and which is sold in sealed whole combs or sections of such combs;
CODEX STAN 12-1981 Page 4 of 8
Adopted in 1981. Revisions 1987 and 2001.
(c) Cut comb in honey or chunk honey which is honey containing one or more pieces of comb honey.
6.1.12 Honey which has been filtered in such a way as to result in the significant removal of pollen shall be designated filtered honey.
6.2 LABELLING OF NON-RETAIL CONTAINERS
6.2.1 Information on labelling as specified in The General Standard for the Labelling of Pre-packaged Foods and in Section 6.1 shall be given either on the container or in accompanying documents, except that the name of the product, lot identification and the name and address of the producer, processor or packer shall appear on the container.
7. METHODS OF SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
The methods of sampling and analysis to be employed for the determination of the compositional and quality factors are detailed below:
7.1 SAMPLE PREPARATION
Samples should be prepared in accordance with AOAC 920.180.
7.2 DETERMINATION OF MOISTURE CONTENT3
AOAC 969.38B / J. Assoc. Public Analysts (1992) 28 (4) 183-187 / MAFF Validated method V21 for moisture in honey.
7.3 DETERMINATION OF SUGARS CONTENT4
7.3.1 Fructose and Glucose Content (sum of both)
7.3.2 Sucrose content
7.4 DETERMINATION OF WATER-INSOLUBLE SOLIDS CONTENT
J. Assoc. Public Analysts (1992) 28 (4) 189-193/ MAFF Validated method V22 for water insoluble solids in honey
7.5 DETERMINATION OF ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY4
7.6 DETERMINATION OF SUGARS ADDED TO HONEY (AUTHENTICITY)5
AOAC 977.20 for sugar profile,
AOAC 991.41 internal standard for SCIRA (stable carbon isotope ratio analysis).
3 These methods are identical
4 To be finalized.
5 CCS noted that a screening method for the detection of cane sugar adulteration of honey was available.
CODEX STAN 12-1981 Page 5 of 8
Adopted in 1981. Revisions 1987 and 2001.
ANNEX
This text is intended for voluntary application by commercial partners and not for application by governments.
1. ADDITIONAL COMPOSITION AND QUALITY FACTORS
Honey may have the following compositional and quality factors:
1.1 FREE ACIDITY
The free acidity of honey may be not more than 50 milliequivalents acid per 1000g.
1.2 DIASTASE ACTIVITY
The diastase activity of honey, determined after processing and/or blending, in general not less than 8 Schade units and in the case of honeys with a low natural enzyme content not less than 3 Schade Units.
1.3 HYDROXYMETHYLFURFURAL CONTENT
The hydroxymethylfurfural content of honey after processing and/or blending shall not be more than 40 mg/kg. However, in the case of honey of declared origin from countries or regions with tropical ambient temperatures, and blends of these honeys, the HMF content shall not be more than 80 mg/kg.
1.4 ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY
(a) honey not listed under (b) or (c), and blends of these honeys
- not more than 0.8 mS/cm
(b) Honeydew and chestnut honey and blends of these except with those listed under (c)
- not less than 0.8 mS/cm
(c) Exceptions : Strawberry tree (Arbutus unedo), Bell Heather (Erica), Eucalyptus, Lime (Tilia spp), Ling Heather (Calluna vulgaris) Manuka or Jelly bush (Leptospermum), Tea tree (Melaleuca spp).
2. METHODS OF SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
The methods of sampling and analysis to be employed for the determination of the additional compositional and quality factors set out in Section 1 of this Annex are detailed below:
2.1 SAMPLE PREPARATION
The method of sample preparation is described in section 7.1 of the Standard. In the determination of diastase activity (2.2.2) and hydroxymethylfurfural content (2.2.3), samples are prepared without heating.
2.2 METHODS OF ANALYSIS
2.2.1 Determination of Acidity
J. Assoc. Public Analysts (1992) 28 (4) 171-175 / MAFF validated method V19 for acidity in honey
2.2.2 Determination of Diastase Activity
AOAC 958.09
CODEX STAN 12-1981 Page 6 of 8
Adopted in 1981. Revisions 1987 and 2001.
2.2.3 Determination of hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) content
AOAC 980.23
CODEX STAN 12-1981 Page 7 of 8
Adopted in 1981. Revisions 1987 and 2001.
2.3. LITERATURE REFERENCES
Bogdanov S, Honigdiastase, Gegenüberstellung verschiedener Bestimmungsmethoden, Mitt. Gebiete Lebensmitt. Hyg. 75, 214-220 (1984)
Bogdanov S and Lischer P, Interlaboratory trial of the European Honey Commission: Phadebas and Schade Diastase determination methods, Humidity by refractometry and Invertase activity: Report for the participants 1993.
Chataway HD (1932) Canad J Res 6, 540; (1933) Canad J Res 8, 435; (1935) Canad Bee J 43, (8) 215.
DIN-NORM 10750 (July 1990): Bestimmung der Diastase-Aktivität.
DIN. Norm, Entwurf: Bestimmung des Gehaltes an Hydroxymethylfurfural: Photometrisches Verfahren nach Winkler (1990)
Determination of Diastase with Phadebas, Swiss Food Manual, Chapter 23A, Honey, Bern, 1995.
Figueiredo V, HMF Interlaboratory Trial, Report for the participants, Basel canton chemist laboratory, (1991)
Jeurings J and Kuppers F, High Performance Liquid Chromatography of Furfural and Hydroxymethylfurfural in Spirits and Honey. J. AOAC, 1215 (1980).
Determination of Hydroxymethylfurfural by HPLC, Swiss Food Manual, Kapitel Honig, Eidg. Druck und Materialzentrale 1995
International Honey Commission Collaborative Trial (in press).
Hadorn H (1961) Mitt Gebiete Lebens u Hyg, 52, 67.
Kiermeier F, Koberlein W (1954) Z Unters Lebensmitt, 98, 329.
Lane JH and Eynon L (1923) J Soc Chem Ind 42, 32T, 143T, 463T.
Schade J. E., Marsh G. L. and Eckert J. E.: Diastase activity and hydroxymethylfurfural in honey and their usefulness in detecting heat adulteration. Food Research 23, 446-463 (1958).
Siegenthaler U, Eine einfache und rasche Methode zur Bestimmung der α-Glucosidase (Saccharase) im Honig. Mitt. Geb. Lebensmittelunters. Hyg. 68, 251-258 (1977).
Turner JH, Rebers PA, Barrick PL and Cotton RH (1954) Anal Chem, 26, 898.
Walker HS (1917) J Ind Eng Chem, 2, 490.
Wedmore EB (1955), Bee World, 36, 197.
White JW Kushnir I and Subors MH (1964) Food Technol, 18, 555.
FW (1959) JAOAC, 42, 344.
White J, Spectrophotometric Method for Hydroxymethylfurfural in Honey. J. AOAC, 509 (1979).
Winkler O: Beitrag zum Nachweis und zur Bestimmung von Oxymethylfurfural in Honig und Kunsthonig. Z. Lebensm. Forsch. 102, 160-167 (1955)
Harmonised methods of the European Honey Commission, Apidologie - special issue, 28, 1997
NOTE: CCS asked CCMAS to consider retaining only those essential references.
CODEX STAN 12-1981 Page 8 of 8
Adopted in 1981. Revisions 1987 and 2001.
PART TWO
[Honey for Industrial Uses or as an Ingredient in other Foods]
This part is subject to further consideration.

Zippyjuan
07-21-2009, 02:35 PM
I disagree. The author is suggesting that Monsanto and the U.S. are both being run by the New World Order. As most of us know, one of the reported goals of the NWO is to have a major population reduction. Those two lines may begin edging into conspiracy theory, sure, but they could very possibly be true.
"As most of us know" certainly does not apply to me- I don't believe in the NWO bs. If there were such a group they could have taken over things long ago but haven't. Population control could have been done long ago.

devil21
07-21-2009, 10:26 PM
The major point of CA is to further subject sovereign nations to the control of a world body. The UN for military and dispute issues, IMF for financial issues, next the WTO for food issues, etc. Whether CA is part of a greater plan for population control is beside the point (though the possibility shouldn't be ignored). It's another tool to chip away at US sovereignty while simultaneously filling the pockets of those at the very top through complete control of a resource.

XNavyNuke
01-21-2010, 07:09 PM
Heads-up Wisconsin members. SB-419 is being pushed through your legislature.

Honey production not always sweet (http://www.thecountrytoday.com/story-opinions.asp?id=BMC444RR0J1)


So how do we protect consumers from ruthless honey launderers? I learned there is no national or state standard for honey. So I introduced legislation to establish a standard for products sold as honey in Wisconsin.

A honey standard is composed of specific ranges of sugar levels, moisture content and other scientific indicators of quality. I used the international standard set by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, a body recognized by the World Trade Organization as an international reference point for the resolution of disputes concerning food safety and consumer protection.

All regularly produced honey in Wisconsin should easily meet this standard. Honey typically will fail to meet this standard only when it has been packaged improperly, blended with artificial sweeteners, watered down or when it contains elements of certain antibiotics and other chemicals.

Emphasis mine. Imagine how difficult/expensive it will be for a hobbyist with one or two hives to prove that his/her honey is compliant with the Codex.

XNN