quote:

---

JULY 15, 2005. On Wednesday night, I appeared on a panel on Coast to Coast AM with George Noory. We discussed the implications of the July
4 ruling by Codex on vitamins and minerals.

Since then, I've received emails asking me to repeat my position.

There is much to say about this, but I'll boil it down for the moment.

Codex Guidelines are suggestions and recommendations and they are labeled "optional." However, the World Trade Organization (WTO) decided, some time ago, to use these guidelines as hard and fast rules that bind all 172 WTO-member nations, including the US.

One can find wording in the GATT Treaty---which is the basis for WTO---that would allow member nations to wriggle out of WTO commands when those commands conflict with domestic laws of WTO-member nations. BUT the rubber meets the road when a member nation files a grievance with WTO, claiming that another member nation is restraining free trade.

At that point, we are into the Twilight Zone. GATT language, no GATT language---everything becomes the kingdom of the WTO grievance panel.
They decide. They issue rulings. They punish, they reward.

And their decision, after possible appeal, is final. If a member nation that is found guilty of restraint of free trade refuses to abide by that decision, huge $$ sanctions ensue.

Let me give you a recent example of the eccentricity (to say the
least) of the WTO. This past spring, Antigua filed a grievance against the US. Well, it was really against THE STATE OF UTAH. But the US government is the umbrella that, in WTO's eyes, rules Utah.

Antigua is big on Internet gambling. Companies based there run gambling sites. These are legal.

These companies are very, very interested in business from the US.

Utah, however, has a state law against gambling. You may think that law is wonderful or silly, but it is the law.

So Antigua filed a grievance with WTO: Utah can't reject Antigua-based gambling websites.

That's "restraint of free trade."

In this case, we are talking about "the electronic export of gambling business from Antigua into the US."

The WTO panel mulled this over and decided that Antigua was right.

So it issued a ruling. Utah can't reject Antigua gambling sites. Utah would have to change its law.

That's how bizarre and intrusive WTO can get.

How could a grievance based on vitamins and minerals affect US consumers?

Right now, we have a law in the US, called DSHEA, that gives US supplement manufacturers pretty wide latitude in the types and potencies of vitamins and minerals they can sell INSIDE THE US.

Other nations are not so free in their laws. Germany and Brazil, for instance.

So let's say that Germany and Brazil file a grievance with the WTO.
Basically, the grievance says this: "We are exporting our supplements into the US. But we are being deprived of income, because we are selling a narrow range of supplements at low potencies. Why? Well, that's what we can manufacture under our own domestic laws. However, when our supplements reach the shores of the United States, they knock up against a fantastic cowboy situation. Hundreds and hundreds of wild and weird supplements at high potencies are being sold inside the US. How can we compete? We estimate we are each losing $200 million a year in sales. If the US had supplement laws that harmonized with our own, we could compete. Help us."

Now, the WTO panel does a Utah:

"Yes, we agree. This is outrageous. The US must harmonize its supplement law to fall in line with the laws of countries like Germany and Brazil. In fact, a risk assessment done by CODEX (this hasn't actually been done yet) states a range of acceptable supplements and acceptable potencies, and the US is grossly exceeding these standards. So the US has to gut DSHEA and put in a new harmonized law, or it will have to pay a total of $400 million a year to Brazil and Germany until it DOES put in a new and better law."

Couldn't happen? Wouldn't happen? Too crazy to happen?

Ask the people of Utah. They are guilty of being electronic-gambling criminals, as far as WTO is concerned.

Meanwhile, the FDA loves Codex and looks forward to influencing Codex's upcoming risk assessment of vitamins and minerals. The FDA would love to destroy DSHEA and institute new draconian supplement law in the US.

Codex, you have to understand, in its guidelines, made a few key choices. For example, it decided that supplements are basically for SUPPLEMENTATION OF DAILY DIET and not for PREVENTION OF CHRONIC DISEASES. It decided, on the issue of safe upper limits for supplements (potencies) to forget RDAs (recommended daily allowances or doses) and instead go for SCIENTIFICALLY ESTABLISHED RISK ASSESSMENT. This last fork in the road means that some organization (not yet chosen) will study supplements and put out a report that claims to know the safe upper limits of potencies. I think you can see where these two basic choices are heading.

These choices will impact how WTO, in turn, rules on grievances member nations file against, say, the US.

Is the roof going to cave in tomorrow?
No.

Is all this a major step on the road toward perdition?
Yes.

Is the game over?
No.

Has the struggle moved to a new level?
Yes.

Can an international body (WTO) exercise control over US domestic laws?
Yes.

Do we need to get out of WTO?
Yes.

Is there another phase of WTO-type control that is waiting in the wings?
Yes.

Is it called CAFTA (Central American Free Trade treaty)?
Yes.

Has it passed the US Senate?
Yes.

Has it passed the House?
Not yet. The White House is working behind the scenes to twist arms and obtain the last few votes needed.

Does CAFTA contain language that would put further pressure on the US to harmonize its supplement law with the laws of other nations where there are far more restrictions on the sale of supplements?
Yes.

Article 3 of CAFTA: "Member nations shall base their food safety [supplement safety included] measures on international [Codex] standards, guidelines or recommendations."

Is there also is a bill in the US Congress now that would rip apart the DSHEA law? Yes. HR 3156.

3156 establishes a similar risk-analysis assessment that Codex decreed needed to be done. 3156 states that even a relatively small risk of adverse health effects could be grounds for outlawing a supplement, unless "sufficient benefit" exists. These would be judgments, of course, for some "science" panel to make. 3156 states that the FDA can ban any supplement even though "there are uncertainties" as to the level of potency where the risk would occur.

Other enemies of supplements in the US are urging further gutting of DSHEA. Supplement manufacturers would have to prove that their supplements are safe, whereas under DSHEA, this burden falls on the government, because THE TRACK RECORD OF SUPPLEMENT SAFETY HAS BEEN EXTRAORDINARY.

Supplement manufacturers would have to somehow keep records of adverse health events. This is treating supplements like drugs.
Unlike supplements, we know that medical drugs approved by the FDA kill at least 100,000 people in the US every year.

Codex is one vector in the squeeze play that is threatening health all over the world

---

quote:

---

And the seductive song the White House is singing sounds familiar. It is the NAFTA theme song. CAFTA will ease the social pressures that have produced waves of illegal aliens. CAFTA will increase U.S. exports. CAFTA will not cost U.S. jobs. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

If Tom DeLay's caucus delivers 200 votes for CAFTA, economic patriots will begin to look outside the GOP for leadership.

---

quote:

---

Today, "free trade" is about something other than the simple exchange of goods. Henry Kissinger tipped the Trilateralists' hand in 1993 when he wrote that NAFTA was the "architecture of a new international system," a great "step forward toward the new world order."

Today's trade agreements are about reshaping the world to conform to the demands of transnational corporations that have shed their national identities and loyalties and want to shed their U.S. workers. Tired of contributing to Medicare and Social Security and having to deal with Americans who need health-care and pension benefits, they want to dump them all and hire Asians who will work for $2 an hour.

Trade treaties have become enabling acts by which global companies desert their home countries. CAFTA will enable U.S. firms to shut down factories here, lay off their labor force, and hire Dominicans and Costa Ricans, but retain free access to the U.S. market. They get to fire their American workers – and keep their American consumers. What a deal.

NAFTA and CAFTA are the shield laws of corporate absconders.

What these companies want ultimately is a world government that will protect their absolute freedom to go where they wish and do what they want – the country be damned.

Before Republicans go down to the well of the House and vote for CAFTA, they need to look at what has already happened to America.

Under Bush, 3 million manufacturing jobs have disappeared, one in every six. States like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Illinois – which went for Reagan twice – are gone. A shift of 60,000 votes in the GOP bastion of Ohio, and Kerry would be president.

The U.S. trade deficit in 2005 will exceed $700 billion – 6 percent of our entire economy. We are awash in foreign debt.

With China, our trade deficit last year was $162 billion. Beijing is using its trade surplus to buy U.S. bonds, giving her a giant claim on U.S. interest payments – and to build and buy the ships, planes and missiles needed to fight a naval war off her coast. Wal-Mart is subsidizing China's strategic buildup.

The industries we are losing now are not only textiles, shoes, TVs and toys, but autos, airplanes and computers. We are no longer the self-sufficient nation of 1940 or 1960. Even American sovereignty is being eroded, as the World Trade Organization orders Congress to change U.S. tax and trade laws, and Congress meekly complies.

America can yet turn this around, but we are reaching a tipping point – where a sovereign, independent and self-sufficient American republic will cease to be.

Thirty House Republicans can stop this process cold by just saying no to CAFTA. The Business Roundtable will get over it. After all, they have no place else to go.

---

quote:

---

When the official 15-minute period ended, CAFTA had gone down to defeat, 180 "nays" to 175 "yeas." But the House leadership was so politically driven to get what they wanted, they broke the House rules: they simply violated the time limit in order to keep twisting arms and making deals until they finally had bought or coerced enough votes to pass CAFTA nearly an hour later. "Twist some Republican arms until they break in a thousand pieces." That statement by Representative Jim Kolbe (R-Arizona) describes the Republican leadership's rabid determination to get the U.S. House to pass the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) -- no matter what.

more:
http://www.thelibertycommittee.org/update07.29.05.htm

---

quote:

---

Here's an update to the CAFTA vote story - It PROVES that there's a case for a new vote:

---

quote:

---

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D) holding an emergency meeting of the House Democratic Steering Committee tonight to discuss formal sanctions against the 15 Democrats who sold out their party and voted for the corporate-written Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). Pelosi raised "the likelihood that defectors' committee assignments would be reviewed at tonight’s meeting of the Steering Committee." That's absolutely necessary - why should Democrats who undermine their party be given plum committee assignments over other, far more loyal and principled Democrats? Pelosi should be commended for her courage - and now she needs to back up her words with action.

The story goes on to note that "Several Democratic sources said Pelosi and other House leaders are particularly upset with New York Reps. Greg Meeks and Ed Towns, members of exclusive committees with safe seats, who voted for CAFTA."

Meeks had the nerve to say that he "voted my conscience" on CAFTA, despite his long history selling off his votes on trade to the highest corporate bidder. He also said while he "knows many of my colleagues are disappointed" he said he has been with Democrats "90 percent of the time" – yeah, except for on all the key economic votes that would allow the Democratic Party to actually paint the kind of serious contrast with the GOP that polls show the American people are waiting for. Roll Call goes on to lay the groundwork for supposedly "endangered" Democrats who represent swing districts to claim they had to vote for CAFTA for their re-election. But as I have earlier noted, that rationale is so dishonest it's hard to believe a Member of Congress could utter it with a straight face.

---

quote:

---

News Advisory:

Area local union leaders of the United Steelworkers (USW) have announced plans to publicly demonstrate their anger Wednesday, Aug. 10, at the congressional district office of U.S. Rep. Jim Matheson (news, bio, voting record) (D-Utah) for his vote to approve the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) as a betrayal of working families.

WHAT: USW workers' public demonstration against Rep. Matheson's CAFTA vote.

WHERE: 240 East Morris Ave. (2430 South), Salt Lake City, Utah

WHEN: Wednesday, Aug. 10 at 3 p.m. (MDT)

Rep. Matheson was among the 15 Democratic members of Congress who narrowly approved the free trade agreement with six countries in Central America. The Jul. 28 vote was 217-215. President Leo Gerard issued a statement following the vote that said: "CAFTA lacked protections for workers' rights, it threatens good paying middle class jobs, it expands the openings for companies to move out of the U.S. and it allows foreign employers to contest our environmental laws."

---