Saturday, November 27, 2010

Activist Post: Endgame Legislation: Lame Duck Session Ushers in Tyranny

Endgame Legislation: Lame Duck Session Ushers in Tyranny

Eric Blair
Activist Post

When most of us think about "lame duck" Congressional sessions we think of a "do-nothing" government. However, this so-called lame duck session appears to be a time where legislation that has the most restrictions to individual rights is being rammed through.

It seems the members of government who have been recently voted out of office are vying for corporate jobs by pushing such legislation as the Food Safety Modernization Act and the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act which are now on the fast track to becoming law. Both of these laws reek of tyranny for the citizens and a means of corporate consolidation for the big boys.

It seems whenever a piece of legislation has the word "safety" in it we can expect to lose our right to make our own decisions.  For example, consumer protection groups pushed hard for the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act in 2008 after large numbers of Chinese-made toys and other products proved to have dangerously unhealthy toxins.



Consequently, the bill was passed with 407 Ayes, 0 Nays in the House. Only later did the public find out that the bill did more to regulate, tax, and impose fines on neighborhood garage sales than it did to stop dangerous Chinese imports.  Clearly, the bill is used to clamp down on an individual's right to sell their used items without governmental oversight.  In other words, the corporate-government will not allow any form of black market to threaten their cartel control of consumerism.

The Food Safety Modernization Act has the backing of establishment liberals who think more big government regulation will protect us from food-borne diseases derived from factory farming.  Their heart seems to be in the right place, but placing trust in this horribly corrupt government to "protect" us makes them utterly gullible. The vote of 74-25 in the Senate proves the bill was more broadly supported than just with progressives, indicating strong corporate support from the Big-Agri lobby that wrote the bill. According to Darrell Castle of the Constitution Party, the bill purports to:

  • Preclude the public’s right to grow, own, trade, transport, share, feed and eat each and every food that nature makes.
  • It will more than likely make Michael Taylor (former Monsanto executive) the Food Czar.
  • End U.S. sovereignty over its own food supply by forcing compliance with WTO guidelines.
  • Even direct sales of food between individuals could be defined as smuggling under the language of the bill.
  • Codex Alimentarius, a global system of control over food and food supplements, would control all U.S. food and supplements. Access to natural food supplements would be removed under Codex rules.
  • Control of all seeds would transfer to Monsanto and other global multinationals.
  • The National Animal Identification System ( NAIS ) would be enacted, forcing bio-chipping and other identification and tracking methods for all animals, whether food or pets.
  • What is left of the American food system would be transferred into total control of Multinational Corporations under the guise of global governance.
Despite the draconian intentions of the bill, many respected alternative agriculture experts like Michael Pollan and Grist have given their lukewarm blessing to the bill as "as step in the right direction."  Controversial bills typically have enough seemingly logical solutions that become the focus of selling new regulations.  This bill is no different, as it gives the appearance of cracking down on large factory farms, exempting small family farms, creating better tracing methods for the origin of food-borne diseases, and certainly injects more financial resources into government agencies tasked with regulating food.  All of these were sold to the public amidst the fear of massive egg and meat recalls because of E. coli and Salmonella contamination.

We should know by now that nearly all legislation is not written or read by our elected officials, but rather by heavy-handed corporate interests who seek nothing less than total domination over their industries.  Yet, the public is still easily swayed.

The second piece of legislation that was flushed out of the Judiciary Committee last week with a 19-0 vote is the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA).  This bill is pure tyranny against Internet freedom.  In other words, they're not even using the guise of protecting the people to hammer this one home.  This bill seeks to arbitrarily create an Internet "Blacklist" of domains, much like the arbitrary "Terror Watch List."  The government is seeking the power to shut access to sites it flags . . . no judge, no evidence, no jury. The law will also apply to websites hosted outside the U.S. where the corporate-government will claim global control over information on the Internet.  The government plans to enforce the blocking of these Blacklisted websites by using major Internet service providers (ISPs).

To demonstrate how draconian this bill is, Copyright Laws are already very clear where if a media corporation can demonstrate that a given website used their material against Fair Use rights, they can be sued individually for damages.  This new law will bypass the current legal system of innocent until proven guilty with no warnings, presentation of evidence of wrong-doing, or determination of fault by a jury of peers.  Although the legislation is said to be focused on sharing movies, music, and television shows; the copyright violations are defined very broadly and will surely extend to any usage of Associated Press or Reuters stories (or the like) and/or images.

This broad definition will essentially put all alternative news websites in violation despite their Fair Use rights. In fact, nearly every article or commentary about world events that is covered by independent news organizations that quote or link to mainstream media stories as a reference may be in violation (including this article you're reading).  The COICA will effectively crush any opposition to the mainstream media's domination on the currently free and open world wide web.  If properly debated and dissected there is no way this bill would be passed, hence the rushing to pass it under a quiet Congressional session.

Both of these bills will likely become laws given their overwhelming support in Congress.  When enacted, the corporate-government tyranny will begin to work stealthily to regulate their competition out of the marketplace.  By the time the vast majority of people realize this tyranny, it will be too late to complain as the independent voices will assuredly be Blacklisted from any debate.

Posted via email from moneytalks's posterous

Thursday, November 25, 2010

UN Cancun Climate Convention Nov. 29 - by-passing U.S. Congress w/ draft treaty ... - WELL REGULATED AMERICAN MILITIAS !

UN Cancun Climate Convention Nov. 29 - by-passing U.S. Congress w/ draft treaty ...

that is 100% enforceable. We were warned, but are we prepared? I fear not for a sellout of this magnitude. Go ahead and ban me if you choose, but we are up sh*ts creek with no paddle. God help us now. Get ready to burn cow manure patties after they dry out while being used for insulation on your huts. Don't think it can happen? That's what they use on their "huts" outside of the Jain Temple in Calcutta.

For those who thought crap n tax (cap & trade) was dead. Wrong again Alex!!!  They aren't even regulating it. They are ceding US sovereignty to the UN and the world.

COPENHAGEN CLIMATE TREATY FRAMEWORK DRAFT: By the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...eaty_draft.pdf

This is the most important document - No "final" exists yet, because the work done in Copenhagen was a disaster and incomplete. Globalists are hoping to complete the work in Cancun that was started in Copenhagen. This document tells it all...

U.N. OFFICIAL ADMITS "WE REDISTRIBUTE WORLD'S WEALTH BY CLIMATE POLICY" http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...#ixzz15hbAcXFj

G20 vows to ‘spare no effort’ for Cancun climate meetinghttp://www.canada.com/technology/vow...827/story.html

Climate progress possible in Cancun despite problems: UN
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Cl...ms_UN_999.html

Investors call for global climate change deal at Cancun
http://www.greenwisebusiness.co.uk/n...ncun-1934.aspx
(Notice California Teachers fund in this article...... It's not about global warming, it's about MONEY!)

WHAT'S AT STAKE IN CANCUN - U.S. IS PUSHING "A NEW PARADIGM" !!!!!!!
INTERNATIONAL FORUM ON GLOBALIZATION

What’s at stake in Cancun?
US pushes “new paradigm” for global climate governance at UNFCCC’s COP 16 in Cancun

The United States is proposing that the UN Climate Conference in Cancun (November 29-December 10) adopt a “new paradigm” for global climate governance that—if formally accepted—would fail to achieve ecological objectives, flout established UN principles of equity, and backtrack from core commitments made by both Clinton and two Bush presidencies.

What’s at stake in Cancun is the circumvention of core values in the current UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) due to US efforts to operationalize its controversial Copenhagen Accord. Instead, the US should recommit to the current UN Convention’s objective and principles, accept emissions targets based on science not skeptics, agree on transparent carbon budgets, and stand aside if it cannot lead so that the world may move on.

All governments must agree to set strong ecological limits on the global economy. The world desperately needs democratic global governance mechanisms that stand a chance to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in our shared atmosphere. If we don’t get commitments soon, we will create atmospheric anarchy. This would permit powerful polluters to continue emitting dangerous gases that poison everyone’s atmosphere, overwhelm the natural world, and overpower the rights of poor countries and communities. If there was ever a global crisis that required cooperation by all governments, the climate crisis is it.

Yet the US approach to Cancun would put the world on an emissions pathway to increase global average temperatures more than double what scientists say we must stay below if we are to prevent dangerous interference with the climate system. Africans can expect even worse. Their “new paradigm” would also abandon already agreed-upon principles of global equity by adding new obligations on to developing countries even though the US has yet to begin honoring its outstanding obligations assumed almost two decades ago.

The US “new paradigm” vs the current UN Convention for global climate governance
US “new paradigm” (Copenhagen Accord) UNFCCC (current Convention)
Ecological ObjectivesFails to fulfill UNFCCC goal to “prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” due to a gaping “gigaton gap” between the pledges to cut emissions based on political “red lines” vs cuts suggested by science.
Currently considering global carbon budgets to set emissions reduction targets based on what science says are ecological limits. Governments must decide what would be equitable “effort sharing” by each country.

Equity Principles
All major emitters list national “pledges” to reduce emissions regardless of status as developing countries, or per person emissions that are far lower than developed countries per person emissions.
“Common but differentiated responsibilities” guide effort sharing, with developing countries bearing biggest burden due to their longer time polluting and greater capabilities.

Sequence of steps
All major emitters act in unison based on what pledges they listed.Developed countries act first, and provide developing countries with finance and technology.

Perhaps the world could tolerate such an approach as provisional—until the US gets its act together by creating a national climate policy—but it would be collective suicide for governments to accept it as a permanent paradigm for governing our atmosphere. Indeed, it would be the essence of irresponsibility. The US must drop this demand, recommit to the UN process, and agree to a science-based target for total emissions that the world will achieve equitably.

Undermining Ecological Integrity
The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change calls for governments to “prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system…within a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner…Parties should protect the climate system for the benefit of present and future generations of humankind, on the basis of equity” where “developed country Parties should take the lead in combating climate change and the adverse effects thereof.”

Most recently articulated by US Special Envoy for Climate Change, Todd Stern, who reports directly to Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, it is not exactly clear from where in the Obama Administration the call is originating for the US to unabashedly backtrack in Cancun from the current Convention’s overall objective to establish ecological limits, and its core principle of sharing efforts equitably.

Special Envoy Stern is preparing instead to operationalize “a set of decisions” cherry-picked from the controversial Copenhagen Accord to present a “balanced package” as the main outcome from Cancun. Forged in the wake of the President’s collecting a Nobel Peace Prize for supporting multilateral approaches via the UN to global challenges like climate change, the Accord sets up a veritable suicide pact for the planet that only invites countries to “pledge” whatever actions governments are willing to put on a list, as opposed to agreeing on a global cap on carbon in accordance with what science says is most prudent.

In addition to failing to recognize the earth’s real ecological limits, it also establishes additional obligations for developing countries, even though the US has yet to deliver on its own outstanding obligations made almost two decades ago – first signed in Rio 1992 by Bush I, operationalized in part in Kyoto 1997 by Clinton-Gore, and reconfirmed most recently in Bali 2007 by Bush II.

The “pledge and review” approach fails to fulfill this essential ecological objective by only requiring countries to list pledges of what they are capable of doing given their current domestic political restraints and then later reviewing those actions to see if they were sufficient. It’s hard to see what guarantees this approach offers the world, which is supposed to peak global emissions by 2015. An approach with more ecological integrity would be for developed countries to formally accept aggregate and individual targets based on sound science so that developing countries can plan their own emissions pathways to keep within the planet’s ecological limits. But until developed countries make these commitments it is difficult and risky for developing countries to commit to legal targets for reducing their emissions since their priority remains poverty alleviation.

Copenhagen was where expectations ran high that a new United Nations agreement would get developed countries to commit to cutting their carbon emissions while providing finance and technology to developing countries wanting to avoid dirty development. China was often accused as the spoiler of a deal, but the US insisted that developing countries first accept additional obligations before acting on its own UN commitments made almost 20 years ago.

Leading developing countries gave in, agreeing to the controversial Copenhagen Accord, although the UN did not formally adopt it. Some countries considered its insufficient voluntary actions as explicitly allowing average global temperatures to increase by almost 4 degrees C (double what science says is safe). The Accord also fails to provide far from enough financial support for poor countries to overcome the higher costs of clean energy or to adapt to the existing impacts of climate change. The paradigm of the Copenhagen Accord may be a clever stitching together of political red lines that hold back each country from making commitments, but it ultimately embodies a failure to govern a looming global crisis and shows a stunning lack of leadership in finding ways to equitably share our shrinking atmospheric space.

How to avoid another Copenhagen catastrophe
Avoiding another serious setback in Cancun could depend on how hard US negotiators insist that the UN accept their proposed “new paradigm” for global climate governance. Abandoning the challenge to make tough but necessary decisions—and instead agree only to what is politically acceptable for each nation—is the definition of the absence of leadership. What the US wants most seems to be reinforcing the regime it rammed through in Copenhagen that sets the world on course to CO2 levels twice what science says is safe.

World leaders need to ensure that CancĂșn does not merely agree on a “balanced package” defined by political restraints among nations but also firmly establishes ecological limits for our atmosphere while agreeing how to fairly share the remaining space. If there is a stalemate in the UN talks, it is because the world has been waiting for the US to live up to the word of its three previous presidents that the country would “take the lead in combating climate change,” while not standing in the way when the rest of the world is ready to advance.

Is a UN Climate Deal necessary? Is it Possible?
Governments must agree to a global cap on carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions, then share the remaining space equitably. Today’s global architecture for governing our atmosphere is indeed still evolving, but it’s already built our only international instrument for legally binding commitments to cut carbon and other greenhouse gases. It is established to assess what the science says then agree on how to share that shrinking atmospheric space. Also, equity is already enshrined among the core principles of the current UN Climate Convention through the concept that parties have “common but differentiating responsibilities and respective capabilities” to address the climate crisis collectively.

Until now, the US has accepted the need for developed countries to “act first” before developing countries commit to any additional obligations. However, going into Cancun, the US is suddenly calling the UN’s Berlin Mandate—which specifically exempts all developing country parties from any new commitments —the “Berlin Wall” that stands in the way against any breakthrough agreements between developed and developing countries. Abandoning an already agreed on core principle at this point after nearly two decades of talks destroys trust and sends a signal that the US is not negotiating in good faith.

We need the world’s governments to come together to cap global emissions (this means agreeing to an aggressive, aggregate amount of annual cuts in carbon by the developed nations first) while also working toward a rapid transition to clean energy in developing countries by providing finance and technology. Vast variations among nations may require some sort of “equity index” with an agreed formula determining legal responsibilities transparently. But for now, the world is waiting for the US to get its act together. So, if it isn’t ready to act then it should not hold back others from acting under an already agreed framework. Bending it too much toward the political necessities of nations, risks breaking its ecological integrity.

US standing under scrutiny
If the US wants to change the Convention, it should seek a new mandate to do so. President Bush’s ties to the oil industry were well known, and climate change impacts have become even more visible under President Obama, so the world’s reaction may rock US diplomacy with even more shock and outrage than when Bush’s 2003withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol.

Instead, US rhetoric going into Cancun is shockingly shrill and sanctimonious. Humility is the first thing US negotiators should pack for Cancun, as America has yet to enact any national climate policy.

Indeed, much of the world perceives America as not negotiating in good faith. Once again, developing countries are being asked by the US to accept additional obligations in order to “unlock finance,” though this is an outstanding US obligation.

To make matters worse for US negotiating leverage, its unstable financial position is known all too well, particularly by Chinese finance authorities that hold US debt and publicly express anxiety anytime the Obama Administration advocates additional spending.

The US is not prepared right now to lead; still it must not hold back the world from moving ahead. It must abandon its proposed new paradigm that would ignore core convention principles of equity and ecology.

Victor Menotti
Executive Director
International Forum on Globalization
1009 General Kennedy Avenue #2
San Francisco, CA 94129 USA
Cel: +1-415-351-8065
Tel: +1-415-561-3491
Fax:+1-415-561-7651
Email: vmenotti@ifg.org
Skype: victormenotti
www.ifg.org
http://www.ifg.org/documents/Whats-a...ncun.final.doc

Posted via email from moneytalks's posterous

Sandcastles

Sandcastles
5-19-7

These appear to come from the annual competition at the Harrison Hot Springs Resort in the Fraser Valley of B.C. Canada.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted via email from moneytalks's posterous

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

Peak energy? What peak energy? – Telegraph Blogs

James Delingpole

James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything. He is the author of numerous fantastically entertaining books including Welcome To Obamaland: I've Seen Your Future And It Doesn't Work, How To Be Right, and the Coward series of WWII adventure novels. His website is www.jamesdelingpole.com.

Peak energy? What peak energy?

Nice propaganda, shame about the truth.

Nice propaganda, shame about the truth.

One of the other lies told by Watermelons – when they’re not bleating about the fast-fading ‘crisis’ of “Man-Made Global Warming” – is that the earth is fast running out of scarce resources. “Even if AGW isn’t quite as true as we pretended it was a few years ago, that’s still no excuse for not taking radical action to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels,” they claim.

Isn’t it?

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (Happy anniversary, GWPF!) has collated several pieces which offer a helpful counter to this hackneyed, and too often unquestioned, eco-fascist narrative.

Here’s the New York Times: (And would Pravda lie to you about a story so very much counter to its preferred ecotard narrative?)

Just as it seemed that the world was running on fumes, giant oil fields were discovered off the coasts of Brazil and Africa, and Canadian oil sands projects expanded so fast, they now provide North America with more oil than Saudi Arabia. In addition, the United States has increased domestic oil production for the first time in a generation.

Meanwhile, another wave of natural gas drilling has taken off in shale rock fields across the United States, and more shale gas drilling is just beginning in Europe and Asia. Add to that an increase in liquefied natural gas export terminals around the world that connected gas, which once had to be flared off, to the world market, and gas prices have plummeted.

Energy experts now predict decades of residential and commercial power at reasonable prices. Simply put, the world of energy has once again been turned upside down.

Here’s CBS on the vast reserves of natural gas now being extracted from shale:

“In the last few years, we’ve discovered the equivalent of two Saudi Arabias of oil in the form of natural gas in the United States. Not one, but two,” Aubrey McClendon, the CEO of Chesapeake Energy, told “60 Minutes” correspondent Lesley Stahl.

“Wait, we have twice as much natural gas in this country, is that what you’re saying, than they have oil in Saudi Arabia?” Stahl asked. “I’m trying to very clearly say exactly that,” he replied.

Does any of this sound to you like evidence that the world is facing the kind of energy crisis which can only be solved by concerted government intervention?

Me neither. One of my many beefs with the green movement is its wilful economic illiteracy. I say “wilful” because I can see no other explanation – except, possibly, arrant stupidity – for the way it so determinedly avoids all the lessons of history which show how infinitely adaptable man is and always has been in the face of “scarce resources.”

Man did not stop building wooden ships because of a shortage of trees. He stopped because he had developed the technology to build ships made of steel instead.

Man did not stop using horse drawn transport because of a concerted government campaign to reduce the piles of steaming horse manure in our cities by introducing a special Equine Transport Tax. He did so because private entrepreneurs invented the internal combustion engine.

Yet the energy policy of statist buffoons including Britain’s very own Huhne the Ecoloon is predicated on precisely this wrong idea: that it is a government’s job to force free citizens kicking and screaming in the direction of inefficient “renewable energy” through such distorting mechanisms as the “feed-in tariffs” (tacked on, by government diktat onto your gas and electricity bills) which have already proved such a disaster in Spain and Germany.

So lets, recap: the reason your energy bills are getting more and more expensive on the verge of what is widely predicted to be yet another obscenely cold winter is 1. to deal with a problem that doesn’t exist (AGW) and 2. to deal with another problem that doesn’t exist (wholly imaginary fast-depleting resources that must urgently be preserved through government intervention).

Posted via email from moneytalks's posterous

Friday, November 19, 2010

US Senate panel approves website shut-down bill - e-commerce, Directors Guild of America, copyright, Center for Democracy and Technology, Bob Pisano - ARN

US Senate panel approves website shut-down bill

The legislation would allow the DOJ to seek to shut down sites infringing copyright

The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee has approved a controversial bill that would allow the government to seek court orders to shut down websites offering materials believed to infringe copyright.

The committee's 19-0 vote Thursday to send the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act to the full Senate earned it praise from the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The bill would allow the Department of Justice to seek court orders requiring U.S. domain-name registrars to shut down domestic websites suspected of hosting infringing materials. The bill would also allow the DOJ, through a court order, to order U.S. Internet service providers to redirect customer traffic away from infringing websites not based in the U.S.

"Rogue websites are essentially digital stores selling illegal and sometimes dangerous products," Senator Patrick Leahy, the main sponsor of the bill, said in a statement. "If they existed in the physical world, the store would be shuttered immediately and the proprietors would be arrested. We cannot excuse the behavior because it happens online and the owners operate overseas. The Internet needs to be free -- not lawless."

Critics of the legislation have said it would censor free speech online and damage the Internet.

"We are disappointed that the Senate Judiciary Committee this morning chose to disregard the concerns of public-interest groups, Internet engineers, Internet companies, human-rights groups and law professors in approving a bill that could do great harm to the public and to the Internet," Gigi Sohn, president of digital rights group Public Knowledge, said in a statement. "We look forward to working with the committee next year to craft a more narrowly tailored bill that deals with the question of rogue websites."

The bill, with 17 Senate co-sponsors, is unlikely to pass through the House of Representatives this year, with only a few working days left in the congressional session. After the newly elected Congress meets in January, Leahy, a Vermont Democrat and Judiciary Committee chairman, would have to reintroduce it in the Senate.

The bill would allow the DOJ to seek court orders targeting websites that are "primarily designed" for or have "no demonstrable, commercially significant purpose" other than copyright infringement.

Critics, including the Center for Democracy and Technology, have said the bill would block free speech and could lead to a fragmentation of the Internet, as other countries attempt to enforce their censorship and other laws on foreign websites.

But several other groups, including the Directors Guild of America and the Screen Actors Guild, praised the committee's action. The bill would target the "worst of the worst" copyright infringing websites, said Bob Pisano, president and interim CEO at the MPAA.

"These rogue sites exist for one purpose only: to make a profit using the Internet to distribute the stolen and counterfeited goods and ideas of others," Pisano said in a statement. "The economic impact of these activities -- millions of lost jobs and dollars -- is profound."

Grant Gross covers technology and telecom policy in the U.S. government for The IDG News Service. Follow Grant on Twitter at GrantGross. Grant's e-mail address is grant_gross@idg.com.

Posted via email from moneytalks's posterous

Michael Chertoff

Hollywood superhero street performers should not face arrest, judge rules | L.A. NOW | Los Angeles Times

Hollywood superhero street performers should not face arrest, judge rules

November 17, 2010 | 11:03 pm

http://images.brisbanetimes.com.au/2009/11/12/856050/spidermancrop-420x0.jpg

Wolverine, Batman and Superman should be allowed to hang out on Hollywood Boulevard without fear of arrest, according to a preliminary injunction issued Wednesday against the city of Los Angeles.

The motion protects the performers who dress up as comic book movie characters on Hollywood Boulevard. Many of them have complained of police harassment in recent months.

About two dozen characters were arrested in June on various charges, including blocking a public sidewalk. Since then, according to the performers, the police have effectively forced anyone in costume off Hollywood Boulevard by threatening them with arrest.

U.S. District Judge Dean Pregerson said in his motion granting the preliminary injunction that the actions of the police “selectively and impermissibly” targeted the characters to prevent them from performing and soliciting tips.

"The court is further sensitive that although costumed performance may not be a traditional form of speech, it is without doubt a protected one," Pregerson wrote.

Matt Balke, a performer who dresses as Wolverine, said in a statement that the decision was a victory for the 1st Amendment.

“For the last few months, the police have been bragging that we have no First Amendment rights unless they give them to us," Balke said. "The court’s decision shows who says what the First Amendment means."

Carol Sobel, the attorney representing Balke and several other plaintiffs in the case, said she expected the performers to be back out on Hollywood Boulevard this weekend.

ALSO

Police seek video surveillance footage in probe of Hollywood publicist Ronni Chasen's slaying

Dramatic video shows smash-and-grab robbery of Glendale jewelry store

-- Kate Linthicum

Photo: Police arrest performer on Hollywood Boulevard. Credit: Los Angeles Times.

Posted via email from moneytalks's posterous

Thursday, November 18, 2010

Activist Post: The History of Health Tyranny: Codex Alimentarius, part 1

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

The History of Health Tyranny: Codex Alimentarius, part 1

Excerpt from Codex Alimentarius -- The End of Health Freedom

Brandon Turbeville -- Activist Post

Contrary to popular belief Codex Alimentarius is neither a law nor a policy.  It is in fact a functioning body, a Commission, created by the Food and Agricultural Organization and the World Health Organization under the direction of the United Nations. The confusion in this regard is largely due to statements made by many critics referring to the “implementation” of Codex Alimentarius as if it were legislation waiting to come into effect. A more accurate phrase would be the “implementation of Codex Alimentarius guidelines,” as it would more adequately describe the situation.

Codex is merely another tool in the chest of an elite group of individuals whose goal is to create a one world government in which they wield complete control. Power over the food supply is essential in order to achieve this. As will be discussed later, Codex Alimentarius will be “implemented” whenever guidelines are established and national governments begin to arrange their domestic laws in accordance with the standards set by the organization.

The existence of Codex Alimentarius as a policy-making body has roots going back over a hundred years. The name itself, Codex Alimentarius, is Latin for “food code”[1]  and directly descended from the Codex Alimentarius Austriacus, a set of standards and descriptions of a variety of foods in the Austria-Hungarian Empire between 1897 and 1911.[2] This set of standards was the brainchild of both the food industry and academia and was used by the courts in order to determine food identity in a legal fashion.



Even as far back as 1897, nations were being pushed toward harmonization of national laws into an international set of standards that would reduce the “barriers to trade” created by differences in national laws.[3] As the Codex Alimentarius Austriacus gained steam in its localized area, the idea of having a single set of standards for all of Europe began to pick up steam as well. From 1954-1958, Austria successfully pursued the creation of the Codex Alimentarius Europaeus (the European Codex Alimentarius). Almost immediately the UN directed FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization) sprang into action when the FAO Regional Conference for Europe expressed the desire for a global international set of standards for food. The FAO Regional Conference then sent a proposal up the chain of command to the FAO itself with the suggestion to create a joint FAO/WHO programme dealing with food standards.

The very next year, the Codex Alimentarius Europeaus adopted a resolution that its work on food standards be taken over by the FAO. In 1961, it was decided by the WHO, Codex Alimentarius Europaeus, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and the FAO Conference to create an international food standards programme known as the Codex Alimentarius.[4]  In 1963, as a result of the resolutions passed by these organizations two years earlier, Codex Alimentarius was officially created.[5]

Although created under the auspices of the FAO and the WHO, there is some controversy regarding individuals who may or may not have participated in the establishment of Codex. Many anti-Codex organizations have asserted that Nazi war criminals, Fritz Ter Meer[6] and Hermann Schmitz[7] in particular, were principal architects of the organization. Because many of these claims are made with only indirect evidence, or no evidence at all, one might be tempted to disregard them at first glance. However, as the allegations gain more and more adherents, Codex has attempted to refute them. In its Frequently Asked Questions section, Codex answers the question, “Is it true that Codex was created by a former war criminal to control the world food supply?”[8]  It then goes on to answer the charges by stating:

No. It is a false claim. You just need to type the words "Codex Alimentarius" in any search engine and you will find lots of these rumors about Codex. Usually the people spreading them will give no proof but will ask you to send donations or to sign petitions against Codex. 
Truthful information about Codex is found on the Internet - there is nothing to hide from our side - we are a public institution working in public for the public - we are happy if people want to know more about our work and ask questions. There is an official Codex Contact Point in each member country who will be pleased to answer your questions on Codex.[9]
But, as one can see from the statement above, Codex’s response does very little to answer this question beyond simply disagreeing with it. While it is true that many individuals who make this claim provide little evidence for it, the presentation of the information does not necessarily negate its truthfulness. In fact, Codex offers its own website as a source for accurate information about the organization; yet, beyond the FAQ section, there is nothing to be found that is relevant to the “war criminal” allegations. Furthermore, the codexalimentarius.net website is virtually indecipherable, almost to the point of being completely useless. In the end, this response raises more questions than it answers. This is because Codex, if it wanted, could put these rumors to rest by simply posting a list of the individuals and organizations that funded or played an integral role in its creation. However, it does nothing of the sort. Beyond mentioning the FAO and the WHO, we are completely unaware of who or how many other individuals and organizations participated in the creation of Codex Alimentarius.

The “war criminal” claims center around the chemical conglomerate known as I.G. Farben. I.G. Farben was made up of several German chemical firms including, BASF, Bayer, Hoechst and AGFA,[10] that merged together. It was essentially the manufacturing wing of the Third Reich and was the engine behind the Nazi war machine. The company provided the vast majority of explosives and synthetic gasoline used for the military conquest and murder of millions. It also manufactured the now infamous Zyklon-B gas used in the gas chambers.  Not only that, but it was influential in the conducting of experiments on concentration camp victims. Indeed, camp victims were often purchased outright at the behest of the company for the express purposes of testing by several different branches of the company, particularly Bayer and Hoechst.

Without I.G. Farben, the German wars simply could not have been sustained. During the Nuremberg war trials, the tribunal convicted 24 board members and executives of the company and dissolved it into several different daughter companies. Namely, BASF, Hoechst (later to be known as Aventis), and Bayer. By 1951, virtually all 24 of these executives were released, including Fritz Ter Meer and Hermann Schmitz. Ter Meer had been a member of the I.G. Farben executive committee from 1926-1945 and also a member of the working committee and the technical committee as well as a director of the infamous Section II. He was also the ambassador to Italy given full power by the Reich Minister for armaments and war production and was the industrialist most responsible for Auschwitz. Schmitz was also a member of the I.G. Farben executive committee from 1926-1935, and was chairman of the board and “head of finances” from 1935-1945. He was also head of military economics and a member of the Nazi party. Both men were found guilty by the Nuremberg war tribunal in 1948, yet Schmitz was released in 1950 and Ter Meer in 1952.[11]

After all this, Schmitz was appointed board member of the German bank of Berlin West in 1952 and in 1956, the honorary chairman of the board of Rheinish steel plants. Ter Meer, however, was even more successful. Upon his release, he was appointed board member of Bayer in 1955 and, in 1956 was appointed chairman. In the years following, he would take on many additional roles such as chairman of the board of Theodore Goldschmidt AG, deputy chairman of the board of Commerzbank and Bank-Association AG, as well as a board member of the Waggonfabrik Uerdingen, Duesseldorger Waggonfabrik AG, the bank association of West Germany, and United Industrial Enterprises AG.[12] These are documented connections for both of these men. Indeed, Ter Meer’s’ connections to the pharmaceutical firm Bayer earned him a foundation named in his honor, the Fritz Ter-Meer Foundation.[13] Through all of this however, this writer could not confirm that either Ter Meer or Schmitz had direct connections to the creation of Codex Alimentarius.

However, Codex does nothing to dispel the allegations besides simply disagreeing with them and the connections are not at all implausible. Codex is very secretive about its beginnings, as evidenced on its website where it only states that it was created at the behest of the FAO and the WHO. It is highly unlikely that such an organization would be created without the assistance, input, and even funding of privately owned international corporations. Thanks to both the anti-Codex community and Codex Alimentarius itself, there is no evidence (again at least to this author) that documents which individuals or corporations were involved in its establishment. However, there are other ties that lend more credence to the belief that war criminals played a role in the creation of Codex.

[1]  Tips, Scott C. “Codex Alimentarius: Global Food Imperialism.” FHR. 2007. P. ii.

[2]  “Opening Statement by Dr. B.P. Dutia Assistant Director-General Economic and Social Policy Department, FAO to the Nineteenth Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission.” Food and Agricultural Organization. July 1, 1991.  http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/005/t0490e/T0490E04.htm

See also,

Taylor, Paul Anthony. “Codex Guidelines for Vitamins and Minerals – Optional or Mandatory?” Dr.Rath Health Foundation. http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/features/codex_wto.html

[3]  “Codex Alimentarius: how it all began.” Food and Agricultural Organization.  http://www.fao.org/docrep/v7700t/v7700t09.htm   Accessed April 23, 2010.

[4]  “Understanding the Codex Alimentarius.” World Health Organization. Food and Agricultural Organization. 2006. P. 7

  Accessed April 23, 2010.

[5]  Tips, Scott C. “Codex Alimentarius: Global Food Imperialism.” FHR. 2007. P.ii

[6]  “The History of the ‘Business With Disease.’” Dr. Rath Health Foundation. http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/PHARMACEUTICAL_BUSINESS/history_of_the_pharmaceutical_industry.htm Accessed April 26 <http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/PHARMACEUTICAL_BUSINESS/history_of_the_pharmaceutical_industry.htm%20Accessed%20April%2026> , 2010.

[7]  Minton, Barbara. “Codex Threatens Health of Billions.” Naturalnews. July 30, 2009. http://www.naturalnews.com/026731_CODEX_food_health.html

[8]  “FAQs – Rumours” CodexAlimentarius.net  http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/faq_rum.jsp#R1  Accessed April 26, 2010.

[9]  Ibid.

[10]  Behreandt, Dennis. “The crimes of I.G. Farben: during WWII, I.G. Farben, a synthetic-fuels manufacturer for the German war machine, was a major supporter of the Nazi regime and a willing co-conspirator in the Holocaust.” The New American. November 27, 2006. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JZS/is_24_22/ai_n24996865/  Accessed April 26, 2010.

See also,

“The Documentation About ‘Codex Alimentarius.’” Dr. Rath Health Foundation. http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/PHARMACEUTICAL_BUSINESS/health_movement_against_codex/health_movement24.htm  Accessed April 26, 2010.

[11]  “The History of the ‘Business With Disease.’” Dr. Rath Health Foundation. http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/PHARMACEUTICAL_BUSINESS/history_of_the_pharmaceutical_industry.htm Accessed April 26 <http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/PHARMACEUTICAL_BUSINESS/history_of_the_pharmaceutical_industry.htm%20Accessed%20April%2026> , 2010.

[12]  Ibid.

[13]  Weimbs Lab: Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology University of California, Santa Barbra. http://www.lifesci.ucsb.edu/mcdb/labs/weimbs/people/weimbs/index.html   Accessed April 27, 2010. Dr. Thomas Weimbs received a scholarship from the Fritz ter Meer Foundation in 1988.


Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Mullins, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor’s Degree from Francis Marion University where he earned the Pee Dee Electric Scholar’s Award as an undergraduate. He has had numerous articles published dealing with a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, and civil liberties. He also the author of Codex Alimentarius - The End of Health Freedom 

Posted via email from moneytalks's posterous

How the Climategate weasels wriggled free – Telegraph Blogs

James Delingpole

James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything. He is the author of numerous fantastically entertaining books including Welcome To Obamaland: I've Seen Your Future And It Doesn't Work, How To Be Right, and the Coward series of WWII adventure novels. His website is www.jamesdelingpole.com.

How the Climategate weasels wriggled free

Delingpole tries to flee lunch engagement at University of East Anglia

Delingpole tries to flee lunch engagement at University of East Anglia

This week marks the anniversary of Climategate but even though I helped break and name the story I’m certainly not celebrating. That’s because, despite the marked shift it effected in public opinion, its effect on public policy-making has been close to zilch.

For chapter and verse on the horrifying disjunct between what all sane, informed people know about “Anthropogenic Global Warming” (ie, it’s a crock)  and what our governments are doing in response (ie, “Nyah nyah. Not listening. We’re going to go ahead with our crazy tax, regulation and wind farm schemes anyway”) I refer you to this superb summary by M’Learned Friend Booker.

Since then, despite a series of unconvincing attempts to clear the Climategate scientists, it has become clear that the 20-year-old climate scare is dying on its feet. The money draining away from the Chicago exchange speaks louder than all those inquiries – and the same point will be made obvious in a fortnight’s time in Cancun, Mexico, as the UN attempts to salvage something from the wreckage at a conference that will draw scarcely a tenth of the numbers that met in Copenhagen.

But to all this deflation of the bubble our political class in Britain remains quite impervious. Our governments in London and Brussels charge on with completely unreal and damaging policies which increasingly look as much of a shambles as the warming scare which inspired them. Scarcely a single politician dares question the Climate Change Act, by far the most expensive law in history, which commits Britain, uniquely in the world, to reducing its CO2 emissions by 80 per cent in 40 years. By the Government’s own estimates, this will cost up to £18 billion a year. Any hope that we could begin to meet such a target without closing down most of our economy is as fanciful as the idea that we can meet our EU commitment to generate 30 per cent of our electricity by 2020 from “renewable” sources, such as wind and solar.

And why is this so? In part, at least, it is because of the abject, ongoing failure of our Mainstream Media to report environmental issues with the robust scepticism that ought to be the natural tack of responsible journalists. Too many environmental reporters are still regurgitating press releases handed to them by activist organisations like the WWF, Greenpeace and Friends Of The Earth. In the MSM, as in government, it’s like Climategate never happened.

Those few pieces on Climategate which HAVE appeared in the MSM tend to have consisted of the various guilty parties trying to spin their way out of it. The disgraced, FOI-breaching, email-deleting, scientific-method-abusing Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia, for example, has granted tame interviews in Nature magazine and the Times presenting himself as a man far more sinned against than sinning. Michael Mann has been doing a similar auto-whitewash job in the US. But if you want to see an ecotard Houdini act at its most sublimely nuanced and slippery, I highly recommend this piece of sophistry from Mike Hulme in the Guardian.

Here’s the bit where it gets really evil:

Second, there has been a re-framing of climate change. The simple linear frame of “here’s the consensus science, now let’s make climate policy” has lost out to the more ambiguous frame: “What combination of contested political values, diverse human ideals and emergent scientific evidence can drive climate policy?” The events of the past year have finally buried the notion that scientific predictions about future climate change can be certain or precise enough to force global policy-making.

The meta-framing of climate change has therefore moved from being bi-polar – that either the scientific evidence is strong enough for action or else it is too weak for action – to being multi-polar – that narratives of climate change mobilise widely differing values which can’t be homogenised through appeals to science. Those actors who have long favoured a linear connection between climate science and climate policy – spanning environmentalists, contrarians and some scientists and politicians – have been forced to rethink. It is clearer today that the battle lines around climate change have to be drawn using the language of politics, values and ethics rather than the one-dimensional language of scientific consensus or lack thereof.

And when I say “evil” I really do mean “evil.” Mike Hulme is professor of climate change at the school of environmental science at the University of East Anglia. In other words he’s not just in the belly of the beast but right up its digestive tract. Yet miraculously, he has managed to emerge from the Climategate scandal smelling of violets. How?

Well there’s a clue in that phrase “the meta-framing of climate change”. Like his fellow arch-fiend Jerome Ravetz (co-inventor of Post Normal Science, the cod-intellectual movement that made Climategate possible) he is fluent in pseudo-academic gobbledegook designed to mean whatever listeners want it to mean. It sounds reasonable to many people because it doesn’t sound dogmatic. But the reason it doesn’t sound dogmatic is because like all postmodern waffle it’s not interested in trivial issues like truth or untruth, right and wrong. For people like Hulme, the science of “Climate Change” is a means to an end – and that end is advancing the goals of the liberal Left through ever more involved and constrictive policy-making.

Translate Hulme’s speech from academese into plain English and what it actually means is something like this: “All right. You rumbled us on Climate Change. But that’s OK. There’s always ocean acidification. And biodiversity. And whatever urgent crisis we dream up next…”

Like the Bourbons, the watermelons of the global green movement have learned nothing and forgotten nothing from Climategate. For them, AGW has never been about science or objective truth. It has always been just a pretext.

Or, metatext, perhaps, if your name is Mike Hulme.

Posted via email from moneytalks's posterous

Radio wave beams can help lower blood pressure, says study | Science | The Guardian

Radio wave beams can help lower blood pressure, says study

Scientists claim zapping kidneys with a radio beam produces dramatic improvement and could 'revolutionise' treatment

A doctor gauges a patient's blood pressure A doctor gauges a patient's blood pressure: scientists say the new treatment deactivates renal nerves, which play a role in raising blood pressure. Photograph: Joe Raedle/Getty Images

A new technique that lowers blood pressure by zapping the kidneys with a radio beam could "revolutionise" treatment, it was claimed today. The therapy produced a dramatic improvement in patients who had been unable to control their high blood pressure with drugs. Scientists believe it could lead to a completely new approach to managing high blood pressure, a significant risk factor for heart attacks and strokes. The treatment, reported today in an online edition of the Lancet medical journal, deactivates renal nerves, which play a role in raising blood pressure.

Posted via email from moneytalks's posterous

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Thursday, November 11, 2010

San Francisco bans Happy Meals - Los Angeles Times

San Francisco bans Happy Meals

The city's board of supervisors votes to forbid restaurants from giving away toys with meals that have high levels of calories, sugar and fat.

November 02, 2010|By Sharon Bernstein, Los Angeles Times

San Francisco's board of supervisors has voted, by a veto-proof margin, to ban most of McDonald's Happy Meals as they are now served in the restaurants.

The measure will make San Francisco the first major city in the country to forbid restaurants from offering a free toy with meals that contain more than set levels of calories, sugar and fat.

Posted via email from moneytalks's posterous

Monday, November 8, 2010

Aspartame To Be Added To Following Foods (Codex!)

Aspartame To Be Added To
Following Foods (Codex!)

From  Dr. Betty Martini, D.Hum
11-8-10
 
Here is the Confidential Secret Trade Information on aspartame.
 
 
http://www.wnho.net/trade_secret_information_on_aspartame.htm
 
 
Please note that Searle admitted that aspartame could not be used for everything.  Even the FDA mentioned you could not  use it to bake because it breaks down.  Yet they approved it in dry products to begin with and when you put Equal in such things as hot coffee you just heated it.  Then in 1993 they approved it for baking against their own instructions.  In 1996 Dr. David Kessler granted blanket approval for it to be used in everything.  How did they do it?  Dr. Kessler said if the complaints went down they could do it. So the FDA stopped taking complaints and many people called and asked why they would not take the complaint.   But then I couldn't understand how they could reduce the existing complaints even if they didn't add more.  On the report in 1995 they stated they had to change their bookkeeping records and had to throw away hundreds of aspartame complaints.  In Congress it was admitted in 1985 in the Senate that the FDA had so many complaints that they were sending them to the AIDS Hotline.
 
The National Soft Drink Assn wrote a 33 page protest on aspartame because it breaks down and decomposes.  It violates adulteration laws, and therefore interstate commerce laws. http://www.laleva.org/eng/2007/03/open_letter_to_dr_dick_adamson_of_american_
beverage_regarding_protest_of_using_aspartame_in_carbonated_beverages.html
 
Everything is a matter of public record.  Aspartame needs to be banned, period, but also with Codex.
 
Dr. Betty Martini, D.Hum, Founder
Mission Possible International
9270 River Club Parkway
Duluth. Georgia 30097
770 242-2599
www.mpwhi.com, www.dorway.com, www.wnho.net
Aspartame Toxicity Center, www.holisticmed.com/aspartame
 
 
ASPARTAME... list of foods it has been approved for
 
 
Found this on the codex website under "current official standards list" one of the many .pdf listed for our food standards.
 
http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web...ist.do?lang=en
 
 
 
ASPARTAME: It starts on page 74 of a 259 .pdf listing food additives and how much can go into a product. Cheese, bread, veggies, fruits, fish, coffee...... beer
 
 
General Standard for Food Additives
 
http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web...o.jsp?id_sta=4
 
 
 
ASPARTAME
 
INS 951 Aspartame Functional Class: Flavour enhancer, Sweetener
 
 
FoodCatNo... FoodCategory... MaxLevel... Notes... Year Adopted
 
 
01.1.2 Dairy-based drinks, flavoured and/or fermented (e.g., chocolate milk, cocoa, eggnog, drinking yoghurt, wheybased drinks) 600 mg/kg 161 & 191 2007
 
 
01.3.2 Beverage whiteners 6000 mg/kg 161 & 191 2008
 
 
01.4.4 Cream analogues 1000 mg/kg 161 & 191 2008
 
 
01.5.2 Milk and cream powder analogues 2000 mg/kg 161 & 191 2007
 
 
01.6.1 Unripened cheese 1000 mg/kg 161 & 191 2008
 
 
01.6.5 Cheese analogues 1000 mg/kg 161 & 191 2008
 
 
01.7 Dairy-based desserts (e.g., pudding, fruit or flavoured yoghurt) 1000 mg/kg 161 & 191 2007
 
 
02.3 Fat emulsions mainly of type oil-in-water, including mixed and/or flavoured products based on fat emulsions 1000 mg/kg 161 & 191 2008
 
 
02.4 Fat-based desserts excluding dairy-based dessert products of food category 01.7 1000 mg/kg 161 & 191 2007
 
 
03.0 Edible ices, including sherbet and sorbet 1000 mg/kg 161 & 191 2007
 
 
04.1.2.1 Frozen fruit 2000 mg/kg 161 & 191 2008
 
 
04.1.2.2 Dried fruit 2000 mg/kg 161 & 191 2008
 
 
04.1.2.3 Fruit in vinegar, oil, or brine 300 mg/kg 144 & 191 2007
 
 
04.1.2.4 Canned or bottled (pasteurized) fruit 1000 mg/kg 161 & 191 2007
 
 
04.1.2.5 Jams, jellies, marmelades 1000 mg/kg 161 & 191 2007
 
 
04.1.2.6 Fruit-based spreads (e.g., chutney) excluding products of food category 04.1.2.5 1000 mg/kg 161 & 191 2007
 
 
04.1.2.7 Candied fruit 2000 mg/kg 161 & 191 2007
 
 
 
ASPARTAME
 
CODEX STAN 192-1995 75
 
Table One
 
 
FoodCatNo FoodCategory MaxLevel Notes Year Adopted
 
 
04.1.2.8 Fruit preparations, including pulp, purees, fruit toppings and coconut milk 1000 mg/kg 161 & 191 2007
 
 
04.1.2.9 Fruit-based desserts, including fruit-flavoured water-based desserts 1000 mg/kg 161 & 191 2007
 
 
04.1.2.10 Fermented fruit products 1000 mg/kg 161 & 191 2007
 
 
04.1.2.11 Fruit fillings for pastries 1000 mg/kg 161 & 191 2007
 
 
04.1.2.12 Cooked fruit 1000 mg/kg 161 & 191 2007
 
 
04.2.2.1 Frozen vegetables (including mushrooms and fungi, roots and tubers, pulses and legumes, and aloe vera), seaweeds, and nuts and seeds 1000 mg/kg 161 & 191 2008
 
 
04.2.2.2 Dried vegetables (including mushrooms and fungi, roots and tubers, pulses and legumes, and aloe vera), seaweeds, and nuts and seeds 1000 mg/kg 161 & 191 2008
 
 
04.2.2.3 Vegetables (including mushrooms and fungi, roots and tubers, pulses
 
and legumes, and aloe vera), and seaweeds in vinegar, oil, brine, or soybean sauce 300 mg/kg 144 & 191 2007
 
 
04.2.2.4 Canned or bottled (pasteurized) or retort pouch vegetables (including mushrooms and fungi, roots and tubers, pulses and legumes, and aloe vera), and seaweeds 1000 mg/kg 161 & 191 2008
 
 
04.2.2.5 Vegetable (including mushrooms and fungi, roots and tubers, pulses and legumes, and aloe vera), seaweed, and nut and seed purees and spreads (e.g., peanut butter) 1000 mg/kg 161 & 191 2008
 
 
04.2.2.6 Vegetable (including mushrooms and fungi, roots and tubers, pulses and legumes, and aloe vera), seaweed, and nut and seed pulps and preparations (e.g., vegetable desserts and sauces, candied vegetables) other than food
 
category 04.2.2.5 1000 mg/kg 161 & 191 2008
 
 
04.2.2.7 Fermented vegetable (including mushrooms and fungi, roots and tubers, pulses and legumes, and aloe vera) and seaweed products, excluding fermented soybean products of food categories 06.8.6, 06.8.7, 12.9.1, 12.9.2.1 and 12.9.2.3 2500 mg/kg 161 & 191 2008
 
 
04.2.2.8 Cooked or fried vegetables (including mushrooms and fungi, roots and tubers, pulses and legumes, and aloe vera), and seaweeds 1000 mg/kg 161 & 191 2008
 
 
05.1.1 Cocoa mixes (powders) and cocoa mass/cake 3000 mg/kg 97 & 191 2007
 
 
05.1.2 Cocoa mixes (syrups) 1000 mg/kg 161 & 191 2007
 
 
05.1.3 Cocoa-based spreads, including fillings 3000 mg/kg 161 & 191 2008
 
 
05.1.4 Cocoa and chocolate products 3000 mg/kg 161 & 191 2008
 
 
05.1.5 Imitation chocolate, chocolate substitute products 3000 mg/kg 161 & 191 2008
 
 
05.2.1 Hard candy 3000 mg/kg 161 & 148 2008
 
 
05.2.2 Soft candy 3000 mg/kg 161 & 148 2008
 
 
05.2.3 Nougats and marzipans 3000 mg/kg 161 & 191 2008
 
 
05.3 Chewing gum 10000 mg/kg 161 & 191 2007
 
 
05.4 Decorations (e.g., for fine bakery wares), toppings (nonfruit) and sweet sauces 1000 mg/kg 161 & 191 2007
 
 
06.3 Breakfast cereals, including rolled oats 1000 mg/kg 161 & 191 2007
 
 
06.5 Cereal and starch based desserts (e.g., rice pudding, tapioca pudding) 1000 mg/kg 161 & 191 2007
 
 
 
ASPARTAME
 
CODEX STAN 192-1995 76
 
Table One
 
FoodCatNo FoodCategory MaxLevel Notes Year Adopted
 
 
07.1 Bread and ordinary bakery wares 4000 mg/kg 161 & 191 2008
 
 
07.2 Fine bakery wares (sweet, salty, savoury) and mixes 1700 mg/kg 165 & 191 2007
 
 
09.2 Processed fish and fish products, including mollusks, crustaceans, and echinoderms 300 mg/kg 144 & 191 2007
 
 
09.3 Semi-preserved fish and fish products, including mollusks, crustaceans, and echinoderms 300 mg/kg 144 & 191 2007
 
 
09.4 Fully preserved, including canned or fermented fish and fish products, including mollusks, crustaceans, and echinoderms 300 mg/kg 144 & 191 2007
 
 
10.4 Egg-based desserts (e.g., custard) 1000 mg/kg 161 & 191 2007
 
 
11.4 Other sugars and syrups (e.g., xylose, maple syrup, sugar toppings) 3000 mg/kg 159 & 191 2007
 
 
11.6 Table-top sweeteners, including those containing highintensity sweeteners GMP 191 2007
 
 
12.2.2 Seasonings and condiments 2000 mg/kg 161 & 191 2008
 
 
12.3 Vinegars 3000 mg/kg 161 & 191 2008
 
 
12.4 Mustards 350 mg/kg 191 2007
 
 
12.5 Soups and broths 1200 mg/kg 161 & 188 2009
 
 
12.6 Sauces and like products 350 mg/kg 191 2007
 
 
12.7 Salads (e.g., macaroni salad, potato salad) and sandwich spreads excluding cocoa- and nut-based spreads of food categories 04.2.2.5 and 05.1.3 350 mg/kg 161 & 166 2007
 
 
13.3 Dietetic foods intended for special medical purposes (excluding products of food category 13.1) 1000 mg/kg 191 2007
 
 
13.4 Dietetic formulae for slimming purposes and weight reduction 800 mg/kg 191 2007
 
 
13.5 Dietetic foods (e.g., supplementary foods for dietary use) excluding products of food categories 13.1 - 13.4 and 13.6 1000 mg/kg 191 2007
 
 
13.6 Food supplements 5500 mg/kg 191 2007
 
 
14.1.3.1 Fruit nectar 600 mg/kg 191 2005
 
 
14.1.3.2 Vegetable nectar 600 mg/kg 161 & 191 2007
 
 
14.1.3.3 Concentrates for fruit nectar 600 mg/kg 127 & 191 2005
 
 
14.1.3.4 Concentrates for vegetable nectar 600 mg/kg 127 & 161 2007
 
 
14.1.4 Water-based flavoured drinks, including "sport," "energy," or "electrolyte" drinks and particulated drinks 600 mg/kg 161 & 191 2007
 
 
14.1.5 Coffee, coffee substitutes, tea, herbal infusions, and other hot cereal and grain beverages, excluding cocoa 600 mg/kg 160 & 161 2007
 
 
14.2.7 Aromatized alcoholic beverages (e.g., beer, wine and spirituous cooler-type beverages, low alcoholic refreshers) 600 mg/kg 191 2007
 
 
15.0 Ready-to-eat savouries 500 mg/kg 191 2008
 
 
 
ASPARTAME-ACESULFAME SALT
 
INS 962 Aspartame-acesulfame salt Functional Class: Sweetener
 
FoodCatNo FoodCategory MaxLevel Notes Year Adopted
 
 
ASPARTAME-ACESULFAME SALT
 
CODEX STAN 192-1995 77
 
Table One
 
FoodCatNo FoodCategory MaxLevel Notes Year Adopted
 
 
01.1.2 Dairy-based drinks, flavoured and/or fermented (e.g., chocolate milk, cocoa, eggnog, drinking yoghurt, wheybased drinks) 350 mg/kg 113 & 161 2009
 
 
01.7 Dairy-based desserts (e.g., pudding, fruit or flavoured yoghurt) 350 mg/kg 113 & 161 2009
 
 
02.4 Fat-based desserts excluding dairy-based dessert products of food category 01.7 350 mg/kg 113 & 161 2009
 
 
04.1.2.4 Canned or bottled (pasteurized) fruit 350 mg/kg 113 & 161 2009
 
 
04.1.2.5 Jams, jellies, marmelades 1000 mg/kg 119 & 161 2009
 
 
04.1.2.8 Fruit preparations, including pulp, purees, fruit toppings and coconut milk 350 mg/kg 113 & 161 2009
 
 
04.1.2.9 Fruit-based desserts, including fruit-flavoured water-based desserts 350 mg/kg 113 & 161 2009
 
 
04.2.2.3 Vegetables (including mushrooms and fungi, roots and tubers, pulses and legumes, and aloe vera), and seaweeds in vinegar, oil, brine, or soybean sauce 200 mg/kg 113 & 161 2009
 
 
04.2.2.6 Vegetable (including mushrooms and fungi, roots and tubers, pulses and legumes, and aloe vera), seaweed, and nut and seed pulps and preparations (e.g., vegetable desserts and sauces, candied vegetables) other than food category 04.2.2.5 350 mg/kg 113 & 161 2009
 
 
05.1.5 Imitation chocolate, chocolate substitute products 500 mg/kg 113 & 161 2009
 
 
07.2 Fine bakery wares (sweet, salty, savoury) and mixes 1000 mg/kg 77 & 113 2009
 
 
09.3 Semi-preserved fish and fish products, including mollusks, crustaceans, and echinoderms 200 mg/kg 113 2009
 
 
09.4 Fully preserved, including canned or fermented fish and fish products, including mollusks, crustaceans, and echinoderms 200 mg/kg 113 2009
 
 
13.4 Dietetic formulae for slimming purposes and weight reduction 450 mg/kg 113 2009
 
 
13.5 Dietetic foods (e.g., supplementary foods for dietary use) excluding products of food categories 13.1 - 13.4 and 13.6 450 mg/kg 113 2009
 
 
14.2.7 Aromatized alcoholic beverages (e.g., beer, wine and spirituous cooler-type beverages, low alcoholic refreshers) 350 mg/kg 113 2010
 
 
If they don't get this deadly chemical poison off the market soon,
 
who will be left standing?
 
Betty
 
http://www.mpwhi.com, www.dorway.com, http://www.wnho.net
 
Aspartame Toxicity Center, http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartamewww.holisticmed.com/aspartame
 
 
This is unbelievableyou would not even think they would just add Aspartame in high levels to some of these foods!!!
 
 
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?t=372434Aspartame
 
Approved to be Added to Following Foodstuff
 
A few samples of all the many kinds of food products they are with this carcinogen:
 
"Vegetable (including mushrooms and fungi, roots and tubers, pulses and legumes, and aloe vera), seaweed, and nut and seed pulps and preparations (e.g., vegetable desserts and sauces, candied vegetables) other than food category 04.2.2.5 1000 mg/kg 161 & 191 2008
 
04.2.2.7 Fermented vegetable (including mushrooms and fungi, roots and tubers, pulses and legumes, and aloe vera) and seaweed products, excluding fermented soybean products of food categories 06.8.6, 06.8.7, 12.9.1, 12.9.2.1 and 12.9.2.3 2500 mg/kg 161 & 191 2008
 
 
04.2.2.8 Cooked or fried vegetables (including mushrooms and fungi, roots and tubers, pulses and legumes, and aloe vera), and seaweeds 1000 mg/kg 161 & 191 2008
 
 
05.1.1 Cocoa mixes (powders) and cocoa mass/cake 3000 mg/kg 97 & 191 2007"
 
The list gets worse....

Posted via email from moneytalks's posterous