Codex Alimentarius Permits a Wide Range of Dangerous Chemicals in FoodBrandon Turbeville Aldrin and Dieldrin No production, import, or export allowed. FIFRA No production, import, or export allowed. FIFRA FIFRA No production, import, or export allowed. FIFRA No production, import, or export allowed. FIFRA No production, import, or export allowed. No production, import, or export allowed. Approved for manufacture and use for chemical intermediate (allowed under the Convention). PCBs TSCA Toxaphene No production, import, or export allowed. Dioxins and Furans CAA In this regard, we now arrive at one of the more baffling instances of the Codex Alimentarius global guideline machine. While it is well known that pesticides are becoming increasingly permissible and accepted all across the world, it is quite predictable that Codex would allow a vast majority of them to exist as residues in food. Yet POPs, which are banned or restricted by not only national laws but international agreements as well, are also allowed to reside in food. It is not at all surprising that Codex would disregard national laws. This is common practice. Yet to fly in the face of international agreements is quite another matter, especially agreements formulated by the very organizations that played such a vital role in the creation of Codex. But this is, in fact, the case. We are witnessing an ordinary mode of function in the process of incrementalism in this situation, the incremental creation and establishment of a one world government. Indeed, many instances of tyranny begin with benefits early on. In this case, the benefit of signing treaties under the auspices of the United Nations has produced some relevant and positive results the banning and restriction of POPs. However, as nations move further and further along this road and the UN begins to show its true colors, the relevance of these treaties will be diminished and the new global bodies such as Codex Alimentarius will begin to change the very few agreements that have done any good in the world and push forward in the direction of a global structure of corporate dominance. The previous benefit of the international agreement(s) are destined to exist only temporarily. An example of this can be seen clearly within the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues in comparison with U.S. law. As expressed in the summary provided above, the United States has eliminated the registration of most POPs for use inside the country and has revoked tolerances for many of these substances in food. Codex, however, has done exactly the opposite. In the face of both national law and international agreements to the contrary, the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues (CCPR) and subsequently the Codex Alimentarius Commission permits seven of the original twelve POPs to exist as residues in food. In reference to the Codex guidelines, it is important to note that while the upper limits set on the residues of non-POP pesticides are labeled as Maximum Residue Limits (MRL), the labeling is slightly different for POP residues. For these chemicals, the designation is Extraneous Maximum Residue Limits. However, this distinction is merely semantics, as the supposedly extraneous MRLs are not very different from the common MRLs used for non-POP pesticides. Indeed, the limits imposed upon POPs in food are barely distinguishable from those set for any other pesticide residue. The values are expressed as mg/kg (ppm) and reflect the same level of concern as any other chemical evaluated by Codex. So the use of the term extraneous is, itself, misleading as it implies that the presence of POPs in food will be so small as to warrant no concern. Yet the fact that these EMRLs have to be set in the first place, and set so high, contradicts this intended assumption. Nevertheless, EMRLs have been set for seven of the 12 original POPs banned by the Stockholm Convention and U.S. law. They include DDT, Endrin, Heptachlor, Chlordane, Aldrin, Dieldrin, and Hexachlorobenzene. Currently, the EMRL for each chemical has not been evaluated for every food substance that it might contaminate, yet the commodities that have been examined and the subsequent EMRLs established for them do not bode well. For instance, DDT EMRLs are set at .2 ppm for carrots, .1 for cereal grains, .3 for poultry meat and a whopping 5 for meat with the exception of marine mammals.[7] Similar levels are established for Endrin, which is 2-4 times more toxic than DDT.[8] Indeed, this is the pattern for six of the seven POPs allowed in food under Codex guidelines. Observe the data presented below: Please note: for the purpose of this discussion, the values of ppm (parts per million) will be used. Although Codex uses values in mg/kg, these values are easily converted to the equivalent of the mg/kg in terms of ppm. DDT Endrin Aldrin Dieldrin Heptachlor Chlordane While some might argue that the levels permitted for these substances by the CCPR are so low that they should warrant no concern, the fact is that there should be no levels of any of these substances in food at all. Setting EMRLs for these pesticides only serve to legitimize their consumption as well as their potential reintroduction to the food supply and the environment. However, what may cause more concern than accepting levels of POPs in food is the lack of an EMRL for certain substances among the establishment of EMRLs for others. Indeed, this is the case for many general pesticides as well as some POPs.[9] If Codex were to establish an EMRL for particular hazardous chemical such as Hexachlorobenzene, the situation would be bad enough. If it were to simply ignore the question of EMRLs for a whole group of substances and claim neutrality, one might be alarmed but at least the logic would be consistent. However, in a situation in which Codex sets EMRLs for at least one substance, the lack of an EMRL effectively lifts the ceiling on the levels that might be present in the food. For this reason, only an EMRL of 0 is acceptable. Indeed, it is only an EMRL of 0 that prohibits the contamination of food from pesticide residues. Notes: Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Florence, South Carolina. He has a Bachelors Degree from Francis Marion University and is the author of three books, Codex Alimentarius The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, and Five Sense Solutionsand Dispatches From a Dissident.Turbeville has published over 200 articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbevilles podcast Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com. 