codex_alimentarious . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_isdBSrBihk why food is made to kill. 081126 ... dafremen see also: arbeit_macht_frei 081126 ... past codex also provides international standards for food safety (which, of course, would facilitate trade). that lady is a bit off in her spin. 081126 ... dafremen I'd never heard of Codex Alimentarius until now. With this in mind (and with an open mind) I decided not to take Dr. Laibow at her word. I also decided to not take the previous blatherskite at THEIR word. Instead, I went to codexalimentuius.net and started reading through their standards. Here is an excerpt that should provide a perfect example of the sort of "protection" that the previous blatherskite was referring to. It seems that Codex Alimentarius has a section related to Contaminants and Toxins in foods. This is from their standard..straight from their site, not hers. "Codex Alimentarius defines a contaminant as follows: Any substance not intentionally added to food, which is present in such food as a result of the production (including operations carried out in crop husbandry, animal husbandry and veterinary medicine), manufacture, processing, preparation, treatment, packing, packaging, transport or holding of such food or as a result of environmental contamination. The term DOES NOT INCLUDE insect fragments, rodent hairs and other extraneous matter. THIS STANDARD APPLIES TO ANY SUBSTANCE that meets the terms of the Codex definition for a contaminant, including contaminants in feed for food-producing animals, EXCEPT: 1) Contaminants having only food quality significance, but no public health significance, in the food(s). 2) PESTICIDE RESIDUES, as defined by the Codex definition that are within the terms of reference of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues (CCPR). Pesticide residues arising from pesticide uses not associated with food production may be considered for inclusion in the GSCTF if not dealt with by the CCPR. 3) RESIDUES OF VETERINARY DRUGS, as defined by the Codex definition, that are within the terms of reference of the Codex Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods (CCRVDF)." So it seems that anything not added to a food intentionally is a contaminant EXCEPT: INSECT FRAGMENTS RODENT HAIRS OTHER EXTRANEOUS MATTER PESTICIDES AND VETERINARY DRUGS Way to protect us Codex Alimentarius! Should I keep reading? Or will I find more of this sort of "protection?" 081126 ... past codex is not a substitute for competent regulators and good regulations regarding food safety. it does not protect you. that's up to, i think and could be wrong in your particular case daf, the usda fsis (and to a lesser extent usda aphis). it does, however, provide comprehensive reference points for international minimum standards. in many ways its similar to the oie (organisation international de epizooties - the group that looks at animal diseases, especially those that can jump the species barrier), but with a different focus. also, minimum standards are dragged down by the least rigorous member. food safety, in the end, remains in your own hands and that of your national regulator. 081126 ... . people_poisoned_through_food 120226 ... da for_your_safety sir 230726 ... . the lack of regulations over food safety, genetically modified plants have lead us directly to genetically modified injections that most of you just rolled your sleeve right up for cause daddy said they were safe even as you were unwittingly enrolled in the saftey trials history professors that think one nazi flag at a protest makes everyone there nazis while not even realizing the serious violations of the nuremberg codes (right to informed consent and right to refuse) going on all around them... safe_and_effective safe_and_effective safe_and_effective trust_the_science trust_the_science trust_the_science you know...the science brought to you by pfizer. who have been fined billions for lying about their science. who wanted to hide their data for 75 years. 230727 what's it to you? who go blather from