By Dr. Gregory Damato

The latest Codex Alimentarius Commission meeting held in Geneva recently
concluded with some interesting outcomes. Some long simmering acrimony has
begun to surface as the U.S. continues to force the biased agendas of Big
Pharma, Big Chema, Big Agra and the like forward without considering the
input of many other countries.
Typically if the U.S. does not want a country's input, the host country
simply denies their official delegates visas to the meeting.

Several countries have recently objected to this practice and stated that
because of this and other reasons, decisions made by codex in their absence
do not have international legitimacy. One major point of contention has been
the U.S. and Codex's staunch refusal to allow labeling of Genetically
Modified Organisms (GMOs). Norway, Switzerland, Russia, Japan and virtually
all African countries and the 26 countries of the EU (European Union) have
fought the U.S. for nearly 18 years to allow mandatory labeling of GMOs. The
U.S. fallaciously considers GMOs equal to non-GMOs solely based on a 1992
Executive Order from then-president George H. W. Bush, therefore no
pre-market safety testing occurs on any GMOs before they are released into
the food chain in the U.S. The FDA refuses to review any safety data except
for a single, preliminary review early in the organism's development.

Opponents of the U.S. policy prohibiting labeling of genetically modified
food conclude that the U.S. does not want GMOs labeled because of the
potential legal ramifications and liability to the manufacturers and to the
U.S. government if these foods could be traced. If millions of people are
harmed or killed due to the instability of the inserted DNA promoter viruses
and marker bacteria into GMOs when interacting with the dynamic and fluid
structure of the human body, then millions of lawsuits may result. But, if
they are totally untraceable, then zero corporate or government liability
can be assessed. FDA scientists have repeatedly warned about releasing GMOs
into the general food supply because of their dangers, but have been
routinely ignored or overruled.

Prior to the Geneva meeting, the Codex Committee on Food Labeling met in
Canada. The meeting concluded with several pro-mandatory GMO labeling
nations angry that Codex had not objectively analyzed the empirical research
detailing the dangers of GMOs that South Africa prepared. This document
delineated the necessity of mandatory labeling of GMOs, but was ignored and
subsequently withdrawn on U.S. pressure of an independent nation (South
Africa). As a result, several countries planned to scrap the requirements of
Codex and adopt their own labeling system for GMOs in an effort to curtail
the spread of "lethal" food. This had led to a real quandary for the WHO
(World Health Organization) and FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization).

According to Rima E. Laibow, M.D., medical director of the Natural Solutions
Foundation (www.healthfreedomusa.org) , who was a public observer at the
latest meeting in Geneva, the WHO and FAO have finally stepped in and
decided to undertake a program designed to identify low-level contamination
of GMOs in food. The definition of low-level contamination will still depend
on each individual country's standards. For example, the U.S. currently
allows for up to 10% (the highest of any country in the world) of GMO
contamination of organic foods and amazingly still allows them to be
considered USDA certified organic. Governments that actually care about the
health of their people, like the EU, allow only 0.9% contamination, while
other countries permit merely 0.1%.

The WHO and FAO used the term contamination and simply did not describe the
GMOs as being mixed in with normal food. This term is also very noteworthy
as most research on the dangers of GMOs can no longer be denied. The U.S. of
course, vehemently objected to such a designation, but this time to no
avail. Although not going as far as to require mandatory labeling of GMOs,
this recognition by WHO and FAO (the parent bodies of Codex) that GMOs can
contaminate food is a huge win for health freedom. Expanding that
requirement to mandatory labeling is the next logical step, but is still a
work in progress. The Natural Solutions Foundations in-country work with
African and other pro-health nations can be expected to markedly strengthen
this trend as unease and distrust of GMOs escalates internationally.

More information on this subject is available on the foundation website,
www.healthfreedomusa.org