NC bill threatens to criminalize naturopaths, homeopaths, herbalists, midwives, aromatherapists as felons

Ethan A. Huff
Natural News

Alternative health practitioners in North Carolina (NC) and their patients need your help to defeat a stealth bill that flew under the radar of most everyone in the natural health community. Senate Bill 31, which clarifies the penalties for the "unauthorized practice of medicine," essentially criminalizes the practice of unlicensed forms of medicine, which includes the work of many naturopaths, homeopaths, herbalists, aromatherapists, and even some midwives in the state. The bill was adopted by a judiciary committee in early March, and it recently passed the NC Senate. Now, the NC House is set to vote on the bill tonight, and unless NC governor Bev Perdue vetoes it, the practice of natural medicine for many in NC may soon become a more severe criminal offense.

SB 31 states that anyone who practices medicine or surgery without having been first "licensed and registered to do so" will be guilty of a Class I felony. Class I felonies in NC are the least severe kinds of felonies, but they do include things like burning crosses on private or public property, and sexually exploiting children. So if passed, SB 31 will essentially make those who practice alternative medicine without an official, state-sanctioned license and permit, criminals of the likes of sexual predators and cross burners.
You can read the short bill for yourself at the following link:
http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2011/Bills/Senate/PDF/S31v2.pdf

Proponents of the bill say it fixes a loophole in the current law that classifies out-of-state practitioners who practice without a license as Class I felons, while in-state practitioners who practice without a license are only guilty of a Class I misdemeanor. But what the bill actually appears to do is make it even harder for alternative practitioners who literally cannot be licensed in NC because their work is not "approved," to practice at all. After all, who is going to be willing to provide alternative medical services for consenting patients when doing so makes them a felon?

SB 31 is really just another way to target alternative practitioners and reign in the practice of medicine to only that which has been approved by the government overlords. And the timeline for defeating this bill is very short. Alternative practitioners in NC, and those who safely and successfully use their services, need your help now to successfully defeat this bill.

Citizens for Healthcare Freedom (CHF), a nonprofit health freedom organization in NC, says the bill is "not in the interest of the citizens of North Carolina" because it affects many alternative practitioners who will be put out of business if it passes. The vast majority of these practitioners have been practicing for years, and they have helped thousands of patients over the years using methods not officially sanctioned by state medical boards (http://www.ncchf.org/2011/03/29/opposition-to-sb31-action-alert/).

The NC House is set to debate and vote on SB 31 at 7:00 pm tonight. And whether or not you live in NC, this bill contributes to setting a precedent of intolerance for natural and alternative medicine, so it is important to oppose it regardless of whether or not you live in NC.

You can reach the NC House to oppose the bill by calling (919) 733-7928.

You can reach Governor Bev Perdue's Washington DC office to oppose the bill by calling (202) 624-5833.

Remember, when contacting government officials to express your thoughts, always be respectful, but firm in your discourse. Clearly and succinctly express opposition to SB 31 on the grounds that it further erodes health freedom in NC by criminalizing those who practice alternative medicine. Also, urge support for the CHF Consumer Health Freedom Act, which establishes the freedom to practice alternative medicine without criminal penalty (http://www.ncchf.org/2011/03/29/opposition-to-sb31-action-alert/).

Please visit Natural News for more breaking news and tips concerning your health.

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Codex Alimentarius Revised General Standards Allow for Higher Levels of Food Irradiation

Updated excerpt from  
Codex Alimentarius -- The End of Health Freedom

Brandon Turbeville

Activist Post 

Although the questionable means by which the General Standards For Irradiated Food was ratified are enough cause for concern in and of themselves, the revision of Codex’s position presents an even bigger danger to the food supply than the original version.  This revised policy seems to be part of an ongoing disregard by federal agencies who are charged with protecting the public.  Just recently, the EPA modified their Protective Action Guides for radiation exposure to Americans in the wake of the Fukushima disaster. 

The revised General Standard For Irradiated Food is remarkable because of its crafty use of technical wording to allow much higher, even limitless, amounts of irradiation in food. Prior to the change in 2003, the limits were set at 10 kGy, an amount of radiation that is the equivalent of 330 million chest x-rays, a procedure that is dangerous in and of itself when only done once. [1] 

However, even the limit set prior to 2003 is not as strict as the current FDA regulations and the regulations of most other nations. Currently, the FDA sets limits on the amount of food irradiation on a case-by-case basis with some foods allowed to receive more radiation than others.[2] 

Codex, however, makes no such distinction and levels a blanket endorsement of irradiation regardless of the type of food. [3] Nevertheless, most of the upper limits for radiation set by even the FDA (which are themselves intolerable) are lower than those set by Codex.  By FDA standards, only two categories are allowed the pre-2003 Codex 10kGy maximum.

The revised version of the Codex standards moves significantly beyond those of the FDA in terms of allowable doses of radiation. This is achieved mainly by including a semantical loophole in the wording of the standards. In the section titled “Absorbed Dose,” it reads: “The maximum absorbed dose delivered to a food should not exceed 10 kGy, except when necessary to achieve a legitimate technological purpose.”[4] 

While appearing to retain the previous set limit of 10 kGy, the new Codex standards actually weaken if not remove it completely. By adding the latter half of the phrase that states, “except when necessary to achieve a legitimate technological purpose,” Codex effectively produces a loophole through which irradiation can exceed the limit of 10 kGy. [5]

Nowhere in the revised standards is there a definition as to what a “legitimate technological purpose” might be. Therefore, there is the distinct possibility and likelihood that food may be irradiated at virtually any dose for whatever purpose declared to be a legitimate technological usage by the producer or the regulator. Indeed, the Codex Standards do not indicate who would even be responsible for determining what a “legitimate technological purpose” might be and makes no mention of the regulatory bodies that might make that decision.

This may seem remarkable to some, but the regulatory agencies in the United States such as the FDA, USDA, and FTC have largely already become nothing more than enforcement arms for the corporate/government partnership known as the New World Order. They have all but renounced their original purpose of ensuring the safety of the general public. So while it seems likely that Codex might set the standard for what determines a “legitimate technological purpose” and the international regulatory agencies would enforce them, it seems even more probable that the phrase will be left undefined and that various compromised regulatory agencies would decide the outcome of any disputes that may arise. Nevertheless, the window to unfettered use of irradiation is left wide open.

Yet Codex does not stop there. Another manner in which irradiation levels are allowed to reach limitless amounts is through the process of re-irradiation. Codex generally prohibits the re-irradiation of foods that have low moisture content, or those already irradiated in accordance with Codex guidelines. However, this is largely empty language as a loophole similar to the one mentioned above (“except when it is necessary to achieve a legitimate technological purpose”) is provided shortly thereafter.

Codex goes on to say that food is not to be considered as re-irradiated when:

(a) the irradiated food is prepared from materials which have been irradiated at low dose levels for purposes other than food safety, e.g. quarantine control, prevention of sprouting of roots and tubers; (b) the food, containing less than 5% of irradiated ingredient, is irradiated; or when (c) the full dose of ionizing radiation required to achieve the desired effect is applied to the food in more than one increment as part of processing for a specific technological purpose.[6] 

According to this statement, food made up of irradiated ingredients can once again be irradiated so long as the irradiated ingredients have been “treated” for “purposes other than food safety.”[7] However, it will not be considered re-irradiated. Likewise, a food can be re-irradiated (though not considered irradiated) as long as less than 5% of its ingredients are irradiated, or if the irradiation process is fulfilled in more than one increment.

Keep in mind, these standards are not in addition to one another, they are separate. This means that an irradiation facility does not have to meet all of these standards to re-irradiate food. They only have to meet one.

Claiming that re-irradiation is for purposes other than hygiene or safety opens the door for a potentially unlimited amount of radiation into the food supply. So does the process of irradiating food over and over again, which in most circles would be called re-irradiation. However, under the Codex Standards, a facility need only claim that the successive irradiating was part of a single process and the food will not be considered re-irradiated.

While the standards do state that the absorbed dose of radiation should not rise above 10 kGy, there are two escape hatches provided by the language in the statement.  The section reads “The cumulative maximum absorbed dose delivered to a food should not exceed 10 kGy as a result of re-irradiation except when it is necessary to achieve a legitimate technological purpose, and should not compromise consumer safety or wholesomeness of the food.”[8] 

 

First, it should be noted that the amount of radiation in the food is not to exceed 10 kGy “as a result of re-irradiation,” not necessarily the irradiation process as a whole. Second, the same loophole exists here as in the standards for irradiation mentioned earlier as the “except when necessary to achieve a legitimate technological purpose” clause appears in this instance as well. [9] 

Through the standards on food irradiation set by Codex and its subsequent revisions, Codex clearly facilitates and encourages irradiated food to enter the food supply. Indeed, in concert with guidelines and policy set by the FDA, irradiated food will not only enter the food supply, it will become a staple.

Notes:

---

[1] “WTO Codex to Allow Dangerous Levels of Food Irradiation,” Organic Consumers Association. July 10, 2003. http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/071403_wto_irradiation.cfm  Accessed May 24, 2010. 
[2] Morehouse, Kim M., Komolprasert, Vanee. “Irradiation of Food and Packaging: An Overview.” Food and Drug Administration.http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodIngredientsPackaging/IrradiatedFoodPackaging/ucm081050.htm Accessed May 24, 2010. 
[3] General Standard For Irradiated Foods Codex Stan 106-1983, REV.1-2003. http://www.codexalimentarius.net/download/standards/16/CXS_106e.pdf Accessed May 24, 2010.  
[4] Ibid. 
[5] Ibid. 
[6] General Standard For Irradiated Foods Codex Stan 106-1983, REV.1-2003.http://www.codexalimentarius.net/download/standards/16/CXS_106e.pdf Accessed May 24, 2010.
[7] Ibid. 
[8] Ibid. 
[9] Ibid. 

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  and his latest book 7 Real Conspiracies

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

The Codex Alimentarius Irradiated Food Cover-up

Radura symbol - Wiki Image

Updated excerpt from  
Codex Alimentarius -- The End of Health Freedom

Brandon Turbeville

Activist Post 

In the last article, I briefly discussed a proposal made by the FDA which was very similar to one made by Congress five years earlier. This proposal would have allowed production companies to use terms such as “electronically pasteurized” instead of “irradiated” and, going further, simply allow the food to be categorized as “pasteurized” with no indication whatsoever that the food had been subject to radiation.

The proposal made by the FDA in April, 2007 is an interesting one indeed. In the opening summary of the text, the FDA states that one of the purposes of the proposal is to make it so that “only those irradiated foods in which the irradiation causes a material change in the food, or a material change in the consequences that may result from the use of the food, bear the radura logo and the term ‘irradiation,’ or a derivative thereof, in conjunction with explicit language describing the change in the food or its conditions of use.”[1] 

While this may seem like a strengthening of a rule, in reality it is not. This proposal is merely another cover mechanism for the pretense of protecting the consumer with strong regulation, while allowing industry to do just what it wants, i.e. produce high levels of irradiated food to cover up unsanitary manufacturing practices.The FDA acknowledges the fact that irradiation changes the makeup of food when it says in the same proposal that “Irradiation has various effects on foods that may cause changes in the characteristics of the food. Such changes may occur in the food’s organoleptic, nutritional, or functional properties that would not be noticeable at the point of purchase but could be apparent when consumed or cooked.”[2] Of course, the FDA does not go so far as to say that such changes occur at the genetic level causing cancer and a host of other health problems, or even that the changes are dangerous. 

In fact, they say that out of all the food allowed to be irradiated by the FDA regulations, there have been no changes. The proposal states, “Currently, we are not aware of any changes to the nutritional properties of any food FDA has approved for irradiation.”[3]  Though not a direct contradiction, it seems highly suspect that irradiation is known to cause “changes” in food; so well known that the FDA is forced to admit it, yet it is unaware of any changes to the foods which it allows to be irradiated. This shows that the FDA is proposing a position that would allow it to appear as if it were taking a harder stance with tougher rules, while allowing for the continuation of the approval of irradiated food. 

A second rule change, as mentioned earlier, made in the same proposal should also draw much ire. As mentioned above, it allows food producers to discard the “irradiation” label in favor of a more palatable and misleading “pasteurized” designation. As stated in the proposal: 

FDA is also proposing to allow a firm to petition FDA for use of an alternate term to ‘irradiation’ (other than “pasteurized”). In addition, FDA is proposing to permit a firm to use the term ‘pasteurized in lieu of ‘irradiated,’ provided it notifies the agency that the irradiation process being used meets the criteria specified for use of the term ‘pasteurized’ in the Federal Food Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the agency does not object to the notification.[4] 

On an interesting side note, the “alternate term to ‘irradiation (other than ‘pasteurized’)” is not clearly defined here.[5]  It is possible, because of this clause, to not only allow the term “pasteurized” to be used, but another more evasive unrelated term in its place.

Yet the proposal clearly allows the term “pasteurized” to be used -- at least pending the FDA’s approval and the harmonization with the criteria of pasteurization. Even though the FDA admits in the proposal that public comments demonstrated labeling irradiated products as anything but irradiated was misleading, they continue on with this policy.[6] As usual, the feelings and opinions of those whom the FDA claims to protect are virtually meaningless.

Yet with all of these loopholes and outright fabrications by our own FDA, Codex manages to go even further. Using carefully crafted legal loopholes of their own, Codex effectively removes the limit on the dose of irradiation as it has been understood for many years. Previous to the revision of Codex standards in 2003, the limit on the dose of radiation stood at 10kGy.

This in itself is a very dangerous amount of radiation, as 10kGy is the equivalent to 330 million chest x-rays.[7] Such a large quantity of radiation would obviously be a death wish for anyone who received it, yet it has been rationalized to the public (the very few of them that are actually aware of it) that it is safe to be absorbed into food. Nevertheless, this has been the official Codex guidelines on irradiation limits since they were developed in 1983.[8] 

Since Codex classifies irradiation as an additive (not a contaminant), the committee that bears responsibility for its regulation is the Codex Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants (CCFAC). In dealing with irradiation, this committee works closely with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committees on Food Additives (JECFA), and the International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation (ICGFI).[9] All of these organizations are interrelated and have a vested interest in promoting the irradiation of food as well as the harmonization of laws and trade between countries for the purpose of globalization.

For instance, the IAEA is the leading advocate for the expansion of nuclear technology, which was developed by the UN.[10] The ICGFI, another UN facilitated organization created under the FAO and WHO along with the IAEA, serves basically as a propaganda arm and direct advocate for food irradiation. The ICGFI has been active in creating fact sheets promoting the “benefits” of irradiation and helping “inform” the public on its safety. [11] Also, the JECFA(a  globalist agency by its very nature as it is a combination of the FAO and WHO) claims to have “developed principles for the safety assessment of chemicals in food that are consistent with current thinking on risk assessment and take account of recent developments in toxicology and other relevant sciences.”[12]

 
Yet with all of these scientific resources, the agency cannot bring itself to acknowledge toxic radiation as anything but an additive. These three organizations are connected to many more globalist international and UN-based agencies, but suffice to say that true independent science, free from political or ideological preconceptions, is not at work here.

It stands to reason then that Codex began “updating” its guidelines for food irradiation several years ago, in 1999. It appears that most of the relaxation of the guidelines and regulations regarding irradiation were spearheaded by individuals in the United States itself. One such man, who was chairman of the Codex Alimentarius Commission at the time of the ratification of these new guidelines, is Tom Billy[13], the former administrator of the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service.[14]

 
Billy has been credited with playing a major role in the deregulation of the meat and poultry industries during his tenure with the USDA.[15]  Incidentally, he was appointed Chair of Codex on June 29, 1999, around the same time that Codex decided to reevaluate their standards on Irradiation. He remained in this position until the revised standards were ratified by the full Codex Commission.

Notes:

---

[1] Federal Register Proposed Rule – 72 FR 16291 April 4, 2007: Irradiation in the Production, Processing, and Handling of Food p.1  http://www.fda.gov/Food/LabelingNutrition/FoodLabelingGuidanceRegulatoryInformation/RegulationsFederalRegisterDocuments/ucm077977.htm   Accessed May 24, 2010.
[2] Ibid. p. 4
[3] Ibid p.4
[4] Ibid. p.1
[5] Ibid. 
[6] Ibid. 
[7] “WTO Codex to Allow Dangerous Levels of Food Irradiation,” Organic Consumers Association. July 10, 2003 http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/071403_wto_irradiation.cfm  Accessed May 24, 2010. 
[8] Nausoulas, Andrianna. “Codex Alimentarius and the International Politics of Food Irradiation.” Toronto Food Policy Council, July 2003. http://www.publiccitizen.org/documents/codextoronto.pdf Accessed May 24, 2010. 
[9] Ibid p.2
[10] www.IAEA.org <http://www.iaea.org/> 

See Also,

 http://www.iaea.org/About/index.html    Accessed May 24, 2010. 

[11] Tape, N.W. Dr. “International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation: Role, Achievements, and Impacts, 1984-88.” http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull311/31105783538.pdf
[12] Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives. http://www.who.int/ipcs/food/jecfa/en/
[13] Beers, Allison. “Billy Re-elected Chairman of Codex.” Food Chemical News. July 9, 2001.http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-76444795/billy-re-elected-chairman.html   Accessed May 13, 2010.
[14]  “Fact Sheet: History, Background, and Status of Labeling of Irradiated Foods” 8/25/2008.    http://www.organicconsumers.org/irrad/labelingstatus.cfm  Accessed May 24, 2010. 
[15]  Ibid. 

See Also,

“Pus, Sores, Tumors, & Filth: USDA’s Deregulation of the Meat Industry Draws Public Criticism,” The Agribusiness Examiner. Issue # 82, July 27, 2000.http://www.organicconsumers.org/toxic/chixpus.cfm  Cited from Organicconsumers.org website. Accessed May 24, 2010. 

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  

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Codex Alimentarius and Food Irradiation in the U.S.

Food irradiation symbol -- Wiki Commons

Updated excerpt from  
Codex Alimentarius -- The End of Health Freedom

Brandon Turbeville

Activist Post 

I have written several articles dealing with the risk assessment methods used by Codex Alimentarius in order to water down the levels of nutrition available in vitamin and mineral supplements, as well as the potential removal of many supplements from the market entirely. All of this is of vital importance. However, Codex Alimentarius Guidelines are relevant to many more issues than just vitamins and minerals. One of these issues has to do with food irradiation.

Clearly a threat to public health, irradiated foods are not safe for human consumption and contribute to a host of health problems such as cancer and birth defects. Irradiation also causes genetic damage to cells.[1] One of the reasons for this is the fact that irradiated food is exposed to gamma rays of radioactive material or electron beams causing chemical changes in the food. 

Essentially, the food becomes mutated by this exposure, a condition which does not occur in nature, and is the cause for many forms of cancer and genetic modification.[2]  Yet, Codex pushes irradiation as if it were a great tool of disinfection with no adverse side effects at all. 

Indeed, prior to the easing of restrictions on food irradiation by Codex, the United States had been irradiating food at an alarming rate. The process began in 1963 when wheat flour became the first food allowed to be irradiated. In 1964, white potatoes were added to the list and the process continued until the present day. In 2011, almost the entirety of the food supply is eligible for irradiation.

It should be noted that under current US law, organic food cannot be irradiated. However, that is not the case with Codex standards, as there is no categorization of what foods can and cannot be “treated” with radiation.

It should also be mentioned that current US law states that all irradiated food must be labeled with the radura symbol and some amount of text stating its irradiation. However, that labeling only has to be made visible to the “first consumer” and that is generally individuals such as the distributor, not the average grocery store shopper. [3]
 

However, even these labeling requirements are severely inadequate. While these “first consumers” must, by law, be able to see the words and symbol on some products the law does not require the labeling of many others.[4] 

It would seem that the FDA, USDA, NRC (National Regulatory Commission), and the DOT (Department of Transportation), if truly concerned with the health and welfare of consumers, would require clear and appropriate labeling for any and all foods that have been irradiated. Although not irradiating at all would be the best policy, at least allowing the real consumer an opportunity to choose seems like a bare minimum in terms of public health and basic fair business practice.

However, in contrast to their rhetoric and stated objectives, it is also clear that these regulatory agencies have no real interest in protecting the public from any danger or insuring fair business dealings.

The FDA governs most aspects of food irradiation but the USDA, DOT, and NRC regulate some aspects as well. There are some differences in policy, but it should be noted that the latter three agencies only deal with specific aspects of the process. For instance, the USDA deals only with meat/poultry and fresh fruits, while the NRC addresses the safety of the facilities used in irradiation. The DOT regulates the transportation of the materials.

For the most part, the differences between the policies of these agencies are very slight. Most of the differences exist between the FDA and the USDA but deal only with things such as where labels should be posted and what size type and font should be used. For instance, the USDA requirement for multi-ingredient products that contain irradiated meat is that it should be stated to the consumer by the label yet the FDA has no such requirement at all.

But before one mistakenly gets the impression that the USDA is somehow more interested in protecting the consumer than the FDA, consider the fact that the USDA even allows claims touting the “beneficial effects” of irradiation.[5] Ironically, vitamin and mineral supplements such as Vitamin C are highly regulated in the claims that can be made about their health benefits but radiation may be touted as safe and beneficial.

To add to the shady language of the labeling requirements already in existence, in 2002 Congress created a loophole that had been the desire of the meat and poultry industry for some time. With the creation of this new escape hatch, companies can now use terms like “electronically pasteurized” instead of “treated with radiation” or “irradiated” by bypassing the FDA and going straight to the Secretary of Health and Human Services to request permission to use the new semantically gifted term.

The HHS Secretary has the authority to grant them such permission. Indeed, in 2007, the FDA itself proposed a new rule similar to the congressional loophole. This rule would allow irradiated food to be labeled as “pasteurized” as opposed to “irradiated.”[6] The very fact that this rule would even be proposed should worry every American.

Clearly, if the FDA were truly concerned about those individuals they are supposed to be protecting from adulterated foods, they would, at the very least, require that companies label their products honestly. This proposal, however, clearly shows the true intent behind FDA policies and regulations. 

Notes

---

[1]  Krebs, Al. “WTO Codex To Allow Dangerous Levels of Food Irradiation.” Organic Consumers Association. July 10, 2003. http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/071403_wto_irradiation.cfm Accessed May 24, 2010.[2] Nausoulas, Andrianna. “Codex Alimentarius and the International Politics of Food Irradiation.” Toronto Food Policy Council, July 2003. http://www.publiccitizen.org/documents/codextoronto.pdf Accessed May 24, 2010.[3] Ibid.[4] Ibid.[5] Ibid. [6]  Ibid. 

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   

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner