Susanne Posel, Contributor
Activist Post

In 2008, using the toxic industrial chemical melamine in liquid infant formula, 6 babies died while more than 303,000 became deathly ill from exposure in China. At the time, the UN Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) had allowed for the maximum limit of 1 milligram per kilogram of formula. Now the CAC has revised that maximum to 0.15 millgrams per kilogram of formula.

Melamine is a dangerous chemical used in the manufacturing of dishes and kitchen cookware. The Chinese used the chemical in a watered-down solution in infant formula under the guise that it tested positive for protein enrichment. However, using a man-made chemical in consumptive sources does not make sense when nutritional value is a concern.

Chinese rice and wheat gluten also contain melamine and was found in concentrations of dangerous levels when pet food exported from the region was tested in 2007. The cats and dogs that ate the food died from kidney failure, says WHO.

Reports have also concluded that melamine has caused the development of kidney stones and other kidney damage in adults.

The CAC is a UN intergovernmental body made up of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the World Health Organization (WHO), and 170 international governmental representatives including the European Commission. Under the CAC, the UN seeks to take over food prices internationally by controlling food trade and reforming consumer health.

They oversee international food standards and make sure that governments implement them with the influence of non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

Right now, in Rome, Italy, the CAC are having their 35th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission. On their agenda is the Draft Codex Strategic Plan 2014-2019 where the CAC are developing a “science-based and globally applicable international standards for food and promote use of these standards by countries.”

At the meeting, the CAC decided on maximum uses of the toxic chemical ractopamine, an MRLs, which enhances the leanness of livestock meat. Separate permits for beef and pork will be established to “take down any trade barriers caused by an improper ban on the use of ractopamine,” according to US representatives.

Imported beef into the US contains residue of ractopamine.

The CAC is priming themselves to be the “effective, inclusive, and trusted global leader in setting food standards” where they will have complete control over “food safety, quality, and food trade”. In conjunction with WHO and the FAO, the CAC will have exclusive oversight “to track progress toward [the] accomplishment of the goals” of the UN to securitize food globally.

Between 2014 – 2019 the Strategic Plan of the CAC is intended to be fully implemented by international mandate “to meet the needs” of their stakeholders and members. The specifics of the Strategic Plan, adopted by resolution by WHO will be enforced by the UN agency. FAO will be tasked with “[improving] quality and safety for food at all stage of the food chain.”

CAC believes that with population growth, climate change and “the growing demand for food” four strategic goals must be implemented with the global vision reflected by:

• UN standards on food


• Based on science


• Compulsory participation of the international community

The CAC exclusively bases their food standards on scientific developments to protect public health and the global food trade. By exchanging financial support from member states for scientific research and development, they will ensure that food can be created for the consumption of developing nations.

In these developing countries, the CAC demands participation by financial blackmail with monies from the Codex Trust Fund. They promote governmental allowance of UN programs and structures in line with sustainable national funding by the UN.

Earlier this year, President Obama announced that Codex Alimentarius would be the foundation of his new initiative to merge the pharmaceutical corporations and the US government to identify new uses for drugs that have already been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

It was admitted that:

• There may be need for new human trials, putting the general public at a health risk.


• Genetic engineering will be used to discover exclusive pharmaceutical needs for all new and old diseases.


• The vitamin supplement industry will be systematically phased out

Avoiding The Eye - Ships Free Today!

Obama’s executive order Establishing the National Prevention, Health Promotion and Public Health Council in 2010, empowered the CAC to enact their international food standards in the US.

The US Senate gave their approval of this UN takeover of our food, vitamins and medicinal substances with the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, S. 3187. This allows the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to charge “user fees” to drug corporations to create what they call “safety and efficiency reviews”. After the pharmaceutical companies quietly buy their FDA-approved reviews, their drugs are given the green light and introduced into the general public. This financial relationship with the US government and the drug corporations, in conjunction with the UN, is a deception that will lead to declines in health and well-being of the general public.

But, remember, this is what this scheme was designed to do. The global Elite want 90% of the world’s population dead because a small group is easier to control.

Please read Brandon Turbeville’s essential 7-part series about the history of Codex Alimentarius and health tyranny HERE.

Susanne Posel is the Chief Editor of Occupy Corporatism. Our alternative news site is dedicated to reporting the news as it actually happens; not as it is spun by the corporately funded mainstream media. You can find us on our Facebook page.

You can support this information by voting on Reddit HERE

var linkwithin_site_id = 557381;

linkwithin_text=’Related Articles:’

Susanne Posel, Contributor
Activist Post

The US government will assist the pharmaceutical corporations in finding prescription drugs to treat new diseases.

The focus of this collaboration will identify new uses for drugs that have already been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). There may be need for new human trials, putting the general public at a health risk. Engaging in experimental trials to classify specific compounds to be utilized for unintended purposes is highly dangerous.

Genetic engineering has led researchers to discover over 4,500 diseases that need pharmaceutical drugs to combat.

‘We need to speed the pace at which we are turning discoveries into better health outcomes,’ said Dr. Francis Collins, of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). ‘NIH looks forward to working with our partners in industry and academia to tackle an urgent need that is beyond the scope of any one organization or sector.’

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) will begin working with Pfizer Inc, AstraZeneca Plc and Eli Lilly and Co. in agreements to create compounds to be made available for trial use in a planned project.

‘Americans are eagerly awaiting the next generation of cures and treatments to help them live longer and healthier lives,’ Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a statement. ‘To accelerate our nation’s therapeutic development process, it is essential that we forge strong, innovative, and strategic partnerships across government, academia, and industry.’

The pharmaceutical corporations are able to manipulate the FDA because the regulatory agency does not conduct independent studies on trial results. They simply accept the findings of the drug companies on their own trials.

Currently, the vitamin industries, by order of the Codex Alimentarius (CA) are being attacked by the US government to justify the force outlawing of natural medicine use.

The CA is a creation of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The CA seeks to enforce international standards and codes on nations in a securitization of the world’s food supply.

By controlling the means of food production, transportation and distribution, the CA will ensure the standards set forth by the UN are the basis for all national legislation.

Obama signed Executive Order (EO), Establishing the National Prevention, Health Promotion and Public Health Council in 2010.

Through this EO, Obama empowered the CA to enact the UN’s plan for worldwide food standards.

The National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council was created to assist Obama in destroying the alternative health industry.

Congress fought the use of CA policy as the foundation for an attempt by the federal government to remove the American public’s ability to purchase vitamin supplements by deeming those remedies as “unscientific”. Since the FDA have consistently claimed that these alternatives have no medicinal value and decried their daily use a danger to a healthy lifestyle, social stigmas have served to aid Obama in declaring them useless. Obama suggests that their potency be changed to ultra-low levels in compound mixtures.

Secret $1.8 Million Cryptocurrency Script

While the Obama administration seeks to wipe out the natural medicine industry, the US government is pouring money and resources into the genetic engineering of pharmaceuticals to combat disease.

When natural remedies are completely outlawed, the general public will be forced to take drugs rather than heal through diet and vitamins.

The medical agenda is clear.

The relationship between the US government and the drug corporations created by Obama has laid the foundation for medical tyranny.

Susanne Posel is the Chief Editor of Occupy Corporatism. Our alternative news site is dedicated to reporting the news as it actually happens; not as it is spun by the corporately funded mainstream media. You can find us on our Facebook page.

var linkwithin_site_id = 557381;

linkwithin_text=’Related Articles:’

President NHF, Scott Tips discusses NRVs with Malaysian and Benin delegates at CCNFSDU Meeting

Scott C. Tips, Contributor
Activist Post

In a stunning display of nutritional ignorance, three women ram through a Codex standard that leaves many with sub-optimal nutrition

The Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU) just finished meeting all last week (December 3-7) in Bad Soden, a small German city near Frankfurt am Main. Nearly 300 delegates were in attendance, comprised of government functionaries and international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) representatives. So, for one week, the assembled delegates – including the INGO delegation of the National Health Federation (NHF)[1] –met, discussed, and debated a wide number of food and food-supplement issues, including the controversial draft Nutrient Reference Values (NRVs) for vitamins and minerals.

Remember, the food guidelines and standards adopted by this Committee, and approved by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, are important because they are then used domestically by numerous countries worldwide and by virtually all countries in international food trade.

Nutrient Reference Values

Those who have been following the National Health Federation’s efforts at Codex since the mid-1990s will recall that at the Codex Nutrition Committee meeting in Dusseldorf, Germany in 2009, the NHF singlehandedly launched the opposition that stopped the Australian delegation and others from “dumbing down” these Nutrient Reference Values.[2]

Australia and its supporters had wrongly proposed that lower NRVs be adopted for certain important vitamins and minerals, including Vitamin C. For example, the Proposed Draft Additional or Revised NRVs for Labelling Purposes in the Codex Guidelines on Nutrition Labelling suggested reducing the Vitamin A NRV from 800 micrograms down to 550 micrograms, Vitamin C down from an already-abysmally-low 60 milligrams to 45 milligrams, Thiamin down from 1.4 milligrams to 1.2 milligrams, Niacin from 18 milligrams down to 15 milligrams, Magnesium down from 300 milligrams to 240 milligrams, and so forth.[3]

//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || ).push({});

These values are already at subsistence levels, and most consumers need far more than the miserable amounts that Codex would parsimoniously dole out to them in order to enjoy optimal and robust health. Yet Australia and its supporters are so fixated on reducing the values even more that they have blinded themselves to the real science showing the absolute need for more nutrient intake, not less.

Fortunately, thanks to NHF and its key supporters India and Iraq at the 2009 meeting, the Committee wisely chose not to move forward with any of those proposed NRVs and instead held the work back for further review and study. Three years have passed since we first stopped these NRVs from being adopted, and each year of non-adoption has been a victory for NHF, and for you.

The Electronic Working Group

Last year, the Committee created an electronic Working Group (eWG) – chaired by ever-present Australia – to look at the hard numbers for each of the vitamins and minerals under consideration. NHF was a member of that group along with twenty other delegations. Working through e-mails, the Australian-led eWG gradually prepared a report; and the NHF and other delegations submitted comments throughout 2012, to be included in that report.

Unfortunately, the United States seemed to have had more of Australia’s ear than anyone else; and the eWG accordingly submitted to this year’s Committee a Final Report (over NHF’s objections) that essentially split the vitamins and minerals into two groups: One that the “eWG” (read here, Australia and the United States) considered “suitable” for adoption; and a second group that was considered “unsuitable” and would need further work.[4]

Strangely enough, this was exactly the approach pushed by the United States at the 2010 CCNFSDU meeting held in Santiago, Chile, but which NHF, the European Union, and others had opposed and defeated back then. Resurrected from its vampire grave just in time for this 2012 meeting, this plan found support with both Australia and the United States working hard to ensure that, this time, at least half of the dumbed-down nutrient values could be pushed forward towards adoption.

The 2012 Meeting

As planned, the Committee once again took up discussion of the appropriate NRVs for Codex to adopt, using the eWG Report as its starting point. Of course, the Committee covered other topics, such as draft guidelines on the addition of essential nutrients to foods and formulated supplementary foods for older infants and children. The latter was as hotly-debated a topic as the NRVs.

The Chairwoman was once again Dr. Pia Noble, appointed by the German Health Ministry. Co-NHF delegate, Katherine Carroll, spent time during breaks speaking with Dr. Noble to advance NHF, but it is clear that Dr. Noble has little regard for the INGOs, who are just nuisances getting in the way of pushing her agenda forward. Not surprisingly, Dr. Noble is popular with some of the delegates because, as they put it, “she moves things along.”

Well, “moving things along” – like “Fly Me To The Moon” – has become something of a theme song for this Codex Committee. Real nutritional science is trampled into the mud as the Committee rushes pell-mell to adopt guidelines and standards without considering the consequences of what it is doing. Unfortunately only a few delegates realize what is happening, the majority are content to drift along in concert with and at the direction of the few leaders.

On the second day of the meeting, just before the lunch break, the Australian delegate, Janine Lewis, read through her eWG Final Report while we all listened. I knew what was coming because I had spoken with her before the meeting had started, asking her to, at the very least, withhold calcium from her “suitable” list of nutrients that she would advance for adoption.[5] When she asked and heard in response that I had only spoken with her and the U.S. delegate about that, her position visibly hardened and she told me simply, “Let’s see what the Committee does.”

It became obvious soon enough what the Committee would do, as I pushed the button on my microphone to speak when the meeting resumed after the lunch break. As in 2009, I was the second person to speak! This is highly unusual since the Codex procedure is to let all of the country delegations speak first, and only then allow the INGOs to speak. Being second meant that there were few who wanted to speak out on this issue.

Barbara Schneeman, the U.S. delegate, had spoken immediately before me and said the U.S. “liked these [NRV] figures” and thus liked the idea of advancing the “suitable” nutrients[6] to the Commission for adoption. With that, my microphone illuminated red and it was my turn to speak. I told the Committee that, except for calcium (whose value had been increased while magnesium’s had been decreased, the exact opposite of what should happen with these twin minerals), the Australian figures were all too low, that the NRVs were being reduced by anywhere from 15% to 25%, and questioned why Australia was always choosing the lowest values it could find, even lower than what the guidelines would call for. The safety of vitamins and minerals, I argued, was unparalleled, so that there could be no problem with having higher levels of these nutrients. Moreover, lowering the NRVs was inconsistent with Codex’s announced goal of preventing malnutrition.

NHF delegate Kat Carroll conferring with Benin and Malaysian delegates

The International Alliance of Dietary Food Supplements Associations (IADSA) and the International Dairy Federation (IDF) spoke up after NHF, both attacking the proposed values of a specific nutrient – IADSA advocating a higher value for Biotin and IDF a lower value for Calcium (because the higher value would mean that milk could no longer be considered a “rich” source of calcium). The Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN), to the confusion of many, simply said “We would like to stress the scientific underpinnings of these numbers.” Did that mean they supported the values, or opposed them? It sounded more like the former, but we could not tell.

As expected, Australia responded in defense of the dumbed-down NRVs; and NHF then challenged those numbers yet again. But this time, the Malaysian, Iranian, and South African delegates spoke up one right after another in strong support of NHF and in favor of more sensible NRVs. It was heartening to hear these three women speak out for sensible nutrition based upon real science.[7]

NHF and IADSA spoke up again, respectively opposing the adoption of any of these values and, in the case of IADSA, the Biotin value. The European Union (EU) delegate, Basil Mathioudakis, quite sensibly asked the Chairwoman what logic did it make to advance some and not all of the NRVs at the same time. Switzerland disagreed with the EU, but NHF spoke up in support of the EU’s question and suggested that the so-called “suitable” NRVs be held back, or at the very least some of the more questionable ones such as Calcium and Vitamin K. IADSA, in turn, pointed out that the Committee was going against its own guidelines by not selecting the proper value, a higher value, for Biotin.

But the Chairwoman, Pia Noble, was having none of that and insisted that these “suitable” NRVs were going forward despite the substantial opposition. In a last-ditch effort, I asked the Chairwoman to at least move the Vitamin K, Biotin, and Calcium from the “suitable” Table to the “unsuitable” category. Not only was the answer “no,” but Dr. Noble decided that since opposition might grow against these so-called “suitable” NRVs, then they should be advanced along the path of adoption as quickly as possible. So, she unilaterally undertook to advance them along the 8-Step adoption process to Step 5/8, where they now hover on the edge of full adoption by the Commission itself next year.

As an added insult, the following day, the Committee discussed another Agenda Item, that is, revisions to the Codex General Principles for the Addition of Essential Nutrients to Foods, which in small but important part dealt with the question of whether Codex should or could state that nutrients can prevent or reduce the risk of disease. Amazingly enough, many delegations spoke out against such language. Only the U.S. delegation and two INGOs (NHF and GAIN) defended this statement.

Post-Script

The Troika of Pia Noble, Janine Lewis, and Barbara Schneeman succeeded in finally pushing forward eleven of the nineteen vitamins and minerals further along the road to adoption. At the Codex Alimentarius Commission meeting next July there will be a further push to adopt these eleven vitamins and minerals and set their low (except for Calcium) values in stone. Barbara Schneeman, the U.S. delegate, will not be there as her retirement was announced at the CCNFSDU meeting. Fortunately, there is still an opportunity to derail this effort to steam-roller consumers into ill-health and NHF intends to make the most of it.

In addition, the Chairwoman reauthorized the eWG to continue its work on the “unsuitable” nutrient values and the NHF is taking an active part in that working group’s activities. The eWG will report back to the CCNFSDU when it meets again next Fall in Germany.

Legacy

Barbara Schneeman’s legacy at Codex has been an unfortunate one of pushing big corporate interests while thumbing her nose at consumers. Whether it was her obstinate opposition to adopting a guideline for labeling GMO foods (at the Codex Committee on Food Labelling) or her questionable support for dumbing-down NRVs (at CCNFSDU), she has unfortunately been too often on the wrong side of the issues. Perhaps, in the interests of better health for consumers worldwide, her retirement from Codex could have happened a few years earlier. While this might sound uncharitable, inflicting ill-health upon billions of humans is far less charitable still.

Final Thoughts

The Troika has cleverly pushed forward some of the nutrient NRVs in the hope that the others must inevitably follow along. Whatever their agenda might truly be, the sad fact is that consumer health will suffer from their thoughtless and stercoraceous actions.

The problem facing consumers is not vitamin-and-mineral toxicity, it is widespread deficiencies of those nutrients. Too many Codex delegates are stuck in the mindset that human populations only need bare subsistence nutrition; that is, that nutrition that merely keeps them breathing and their feet moving one step at a time. The concept that there is a greater level of nutrition – of optimal nutrition – is as foreign to them as space flight would be to Stone Age people. They fail to comprehend that nutrients at proper levels can actually enable individuals to function at more proficient levels and without those diseases that afflict sub-optimally fed populations.

The disservice done to Humanity by those too lazy to think and then act is so profound as to be disheartening to many others. Many among us question the motivations of those who want to only push a guideline or standard forward to final adoption simply to “get it done and out of the way.” Is their thinking really as shallow as that? Maybe we better hope it is, as that is an easier mindset to deal with than one of active malevolence.

Secret $1.8 Million Cryptocurrency Script

[1] The National Health Federation delegation consisted of Scott Tips and Katherine A. Carroll. The NHF-Germany Executive Director, Petra Weiss, took ill and could not attend this year. Attorney Jeannine Stewart and others helped Scott Tips draft the NHF’s submission paper arguing for higher levels of NRVs. This NHF paper was published by the German Codex Secretariat as Conference Room Document 13 (CRD 13) and made available to all of the CCNFSDU delegates at the meeting and can be found on-line atwww.thenhf.com/codex/. All photographs in this article were taken by Katherine Carroll.

[2] Not to be confused with Maximum Upper Permitted Limits, NRVs are nothing more than souped-up RDAs. These are numerical values assigned to specified nutrients that will supposedly cover 98% of the population’s nutritional needs for that nutrient. By referring to the NRV for a vitamin or mineral, the consumer is supposed to know whether he or she is getting an adequate intake of that nutrient, even if, as in the case of Vitamin C, 100% of the NRV is defined as 45 milligrams! These values are claimed to be set according to rigorous scientific evidence; but, in reality, “science” at Codex levels is often nothing more than a flimsy set of assumptions and erroneous conclusions cobbled together to justify keeping consumers “safe” from “dangerous” vitamins and minerals.

[3] The proposed Codex NRVs are: Vitamin A (dropped from 800 mcg to 550 mcg); Vitamin D (5 mcg or 200 IUs); Vitamin E (8.8 mg); Vitamin K (60 mcg); Vitamin C (dropped from 60 mg to 45 mg); Thiamin (dropped from 1.4 to 1.2 mg); Riboflavin (dropped from 1.6 mg to 1.2 mg); Niacin (dropped from 18 mg to 15 mg); Vitamin B6 (dropped from 2 mg to 1.3 mg); Folate (raised to 400 mcg); Vitamin B12 (2.4 mcg); Pantothenate (5 mg); Biotin (30 mcg); Calcium (raised from 800 mg to 1000 mg); Magnesium (dropped from 300 mg to 240 mg); Iodine (150 mcg); Iron (14.3-43.1 mg depending upon bioavailability); Zinc (dropped from 15 mg to 3.6-11.9, depending upon bioavailability); Selenium (30 mcg); Phosphorus (700 mg); Chloride (2.3 grams); Copper (900 mcg); Fluoride (3.5 mg); Manganese (2.1 mg); Chromium (30 mcg); and Molybdenum (45 mcg).

[4] See CCNFSDU document number CX/NFSDU 12/34/8.

[5] NHF has been opposed to Australia’s desire to raise the Calcium NRV from 800 mg to 1000 mg for several reasons. First of all, it is infantile nutritional science to think that health can be improved by raising Calcium intake while simultaneously lowering Magnesium intake (here, from 300 mg to 240 mg!). Magnesium and Calcium are twin minerals and raising Calcium intake while lowering Magnesium intake is a certain recipe for disaster, as it invites the calcium to settle into the soft tissue like the skin and arteries and not go to where it properly belongs, in the bones and teeth. Secondly, by fixing the NRV for Calcium, the Committee has limited the range in which the Committee may now set the NRV for Magnesium. If the Committee is to follow sound nutritional science, then the Magnesium NRV cannot now be set any lower than 500 mg. That is a great distance from the measly 240 mg value that the Chairwoman and Australia would like to establish.

[6] Vitamin K, Thiamin, Riboflavin, Niacin, Vitamin B6, Folate, Vitamin B12, Pantothenate, Biotin, Calcium, and Iodine.

[7] These three strong-willed delegates are: Fatima Sulong (Malaysia), Atefeh Fooladi Moghaddam (Iran), and Andiswa Ngqaka (South Africa), who resisted the strong urgings of the Chairwoman to simply look the other way and advance the dumbed-down NRVs. The three women took an unpopular stand and are true heroines, and to be much commended for speaking out for health.

RELATED ACTIVIST POST SERIES:
Codex Alimentarius: The History of Health Tyranny

Scott C. Tips is the President of the National Health Federation. You can read more of his work at his site here: http://www.thenhf.com/page.php?id=140

This article first appeared at The Sleuth Journal.

var linkwithin_site_id = 557381;

linkwithin_text=’Related Articles:’

Scott Tips, JD
Activist Post

The hazy, smoggy skies over Beijing during these March days are emblematic of the Codex meetings that the National Health Federation (NHF) has been attending for many days here in China. The Sun only shimmers as a strange, pale orange globe, casting an ethereal, almost futuristic Bladerunner look to the cityscape while city residents glide silently past with white face masks and we Codex delegates and staff work inside overheated rooms on international food-additive standards. Given what has transpired, the setting seems appropriate.

Throughout the week of March 18-22, 2013, the Codex Committee on Food Additives (CCFA) met at the Asia Hotel in Beijing, China, chaired by Dr. Junshi Chen of the China National Center for Food Safety Risk Assessment, to consider hundreds of food additives, some of which are innocuous, even healthful, others of which are most decidedly toxic. The problem is that many of the Codex delegates cannot discern the difference between the two, the haziness of their thinking working in some sort of bizarre parallel to the opaque weather outdoors.

As the only consumer group present at this meeting, and the working group that preceded it, the NHF offered a unique perspective on what its members consider healthful and what it does not. To us, aluminum-containing food additives and aspartame are self-evidently toxic and should be removed from the food supply. However, to the trade organizations here, and their foot servants in too many of the regulatory agencies that sit in as the country-member Codex delegates here, such food additives are simply vehicles of manufacturing convenience and health be damned. In fact, I rather suspect that had these same businesses been manufacturing leaden drinking vessels during the heyday of the Roman Empire, then they would have similarly defended such vessels’ use as vital and indispensable tools of commerce, no matter that the users were slowly being poisoned by the deadly, leaching lead.

Ubiquitous, Dangerous Aluminum

Scientists have known that aluminum is toxic since at least 1911. Even the first commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Dr. Harvey Wiley, admitted, in his 1929 book History of Crime against the Food Laws, that “From the earliest days of food regulation, the use of alum [aluminum sulphate] in foods has been condemned. It is universally acknowledged as a poison in all countries. If the Bureau of Chemistry had been permitted to enforce the law … no food product in the country would have any trace of … any aluminum or saccharin.” Dr. Wiley was the major force behind the first pure food law in the United States, but he resigned in disgust because the laws were not being enforced. To this date, aluminum has never been tested for safety by the FDA.

Aluminum is a known neurotoxin, easily crossing the blood-brain barrier, and it interferes with ATP enzymes, which carry out the important function of energy transfer among brain cells. Aluminum worsens the effects of other toxins, such as pesticides, herbicides, mercury, cadmium, fluoride, lead, and glutamate. It also detaches highly oxidizing iron in the bloodstream from its protective carrier transferrin. This greatly increases the toxicity of iron and is at least one of the mechanisms by which aluminum is toxic to the brain. Warnings about the toxic effects of aluminum could, and do, fill volumes.

Aluminum ammonium sulfate, aluminum silicate, calcium aluminum silicate, sodium aluminum phosphates, and sodium aluminosilicate are the food additives that Codex was reviewing this session. They can be found in practically as many foods as you can imagine: vegetables, soybean paste, crackers, pastas and noodles, bagels, English muffins, pita bread, bread and baking mixes, chewing gum, milk and cream powder, processed cheeses, flours, batters for fish and poultry, dairy-based drinks such as eggnog, beverage whiteners, dried-whey products, salt, seasonings and condiments, soup and broth mixes, and sauces. And do not think that you can always look at labels and see them disclosed there because often the aluminum compound is hidden within a particular product identity.

The Working Group

One of the things you learn early on at Codex meetings is the importance of the various ad-hoc working groups that the Codex Committees form from time to time to deal with specific food topics. These working groups either take the form of “electronic” Working Groups (eWGs) or “physical” Working Groups (pWGs). In the same way that the Codex Committees perform the grunt work for the parent Codex Alimentarius Commission, the working groups perform the dirty work for the Committees. If a delegate wants to have an impact at Codex, it is important to start at the bottom of the food chain and work one’s way upward.

At the Physical Working Group (as opposed to the Electronic Working Group) on the Codex General Standard for Food Additives (GSFA) that met on Friday, March 15-16th, and which was chaired by Mr. Paul Honigfort (a Consumer Safety Officer with the FDA), the NHF and the European Union repeatedly and harshly criticized aluminum-containing food additives and called for their removal. At various times the delegations of Iran, Japan, Brazil, and even China helped us by joining us in that call. But, we were opposed by the usual Codex suspects, the ones whom you would really think knew better – the delegations of Australia, the United States and Canada – and their handlers, those front organizations that masquerade as trade organizations, such as the International Food Additives Council (IFAC). Playing tag-team with IFAC on this issue was the International Council of Grocery Manufacturers Associations (ICGMA), another industry apologist for keeping aluminum in food additives.

In dishing out scorching criticism of aluminum and its proponents, NHF came under return fire from Australia, IFAC, and the Working Group Chairman! The arrogance of Australia was particularly notable since Australia seems to always be on the wrong side of the health issues at all Codex meetings. What’s up with that? Is it ignorance or is Australia simply the point man for the United States on all of these issues? To my memory, Australia has never met an unhealthy Codex standard that it did not love. And “in your face” discussions by Katherine Carroll (a member of the NHF delegation) with Australia only confirmed Australia’s intransigence and lack of interest in health.

As the delegations tangled and argued over the aluminum food additives, the essence of the debate was not over the danger of the additives but over the need of the industry for aluminum in producing its foods and drinks. Supported by Australia, IFAC, along with its sidekick ICGMA, cried out constantly that the “Industry” just could not make its products without aluminum food additives. Their members’ spraying equipment “might overheat and catch fire,” IFAC lamented. When NHF suggested that this was a not a genuine issue and that the industry has enough clever engineers to easily innovate its way out of this “problem” and create non-overheating equipment, NHF was sharply rebuked by the Chairman for suggesting that IFAC might not be telling the truth. Yet, really, in a World full of engineers, how long would it take to fashion a solution to the spraying-equipment fires, if any, that IFAC successfully interjected as a reason to keep some aluminum food additives? Monkeys in a zoo could solve this problem. Or, maybe not – if they had consumed too much aluminum.

At one point, the ICGMA representative stated that the aluminum food additive was the “best” for the job. Speaking immediately next, I started out with the retort that “‘Best’ obviously did not include any consideration of health. It only included consideration of what was best to manufacture the product.” It would seem that for these food-additive companies, whatever is best for them must be best for the rest of us. Which is sort of like saying that if you kick someone enough times for you to feel good, then it must be good for the victim too.

Scott Tips, President of NHF, speaking for the consumer

Still, by the end of the first day and after I had spoken out some two dozen times, the success of the EU and NHF could be tallied by the numerous uses of aluminum food additives that the Working Group would suggest be discontinued to the full Committee meeting. Although there were also many food-additive uses that still remained – no thanks to the interventions of voluble Australia, the U.S., Canada, IFAC, and ICGMA – they were at greatly reduced levels, usually cut in half or more. So, progress was made; and most delegates agreed that Codex’s goal was the eventual elimination of all aluminum food additives.

On the issue of aspartame as a food additive, which was the subject of a Conference Room Document (CRD 12) drafted by the Federation, neither the working group nor the full Committee had the time to debate this additive and the can was kicked down the road, to be considered at next year’s meeting.

With minor adjustments of no real import, the overall recommendations of the working group were accepted by the full Committee and referred up to the Codex Commission.

The Opposition

It seemed self-evident that the main country delegations pushing aluminum additives had received their marching orders from industry. The real key, then, was industry itself, represented as it was at Codex by trade groups that, in some cases, might be more properly called front groups for big players like Monsanto and DuPont. They seemed to be calling the shots, but who is really behind them?

Dr. Joseph Mercola, in particular, recently and very helpfully wrote, “[I]’m making public IFAC’s list of officers and board members as of 2011. It wasn’t easy to find this list, primarily because IFAC isn’t a regular 501(c)(3). In fact, it isn’t a 501(c)(3) at all. Actually, it’s a 501(c)(6) – an IRS classification for nonprofit “commercially oriented” organizations such as football leagues, chambers of commerce and, apparently, groups like IFAC.

Once you know its non-profit classification, you can find its 990 forms – which all non-profits must file, complete with lists of officers and directors. I obtained IFAC’s 990s for the years 2004-2011. And there I learned the truth. Except for two, who I couldn’t find any information at all on, all of IFAC’s officers and directors are linked to processed foods and additives in some way, with at least six of them having direct or business links to Monsanto and/or DuPont. That’s right. Six of IFAC’s governing board members are linked to the largest GMO producers in the world.”

And in looking at the large IFAC delegation, one can see names linked with Solae LLC (which used to be known as DuPont Protein Technologies), Innophos Inc. (leading producer of phosphates), Ashland China (BigAg), and the Kellen company (which manages so many of these front groups). The paw prints of these anti-health companies are all over the industry trade group INGOs at Codex, just as they are over certain Codex delegations. The NHF was the only consumer group present at the CCFA meeting – the David against these Goliaths.

Speech in Moscow

Scott Tips shaking hands with the Chairman after the speeches in Moscow

Still, the National Health Federation has gained enough respect over its many years at Codex, and after so many vocal battles with Chairmen, Chairwomen, and other delegations in arguing for health and health freedom, that while at the CCFA meeting in Beijing, I was asked by the Chairman of the Codex Committee on Contaminants in Food (CCCF) to give a speech for NHF on behalf of all consumers worldwide on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the founding of Codex. The speech was to be given in Moscow, Russia on April 10th during a special session of the meeting. I accepted.

That acceptance, though, meant flying back through California, New Jersey, and France, and then on to Moscow in time for the meeting and speech. Stubborn snow, carefully scooped up off the streets and sidewalks into neat piles, slowly melting in the sun, greeted me as I arrived there. I prepared my speech during the trip and while there in Moscow, and on that clear Wednesday day, presented it.

Secret $1.8 Million Cryptocurrency Script

There were seven speakers in all, four country delegations, the NHF for consumers, and then two industry speakers, in that order. Sitting at the head table before more than 200 delegates, I was right next to the podium, and speakers as they each spoke in turn. I could see them up close and they all spoke well, using PowerPoint, and about their country/industry’s involvement in Codex.

When it was my turn to speak, I spoke instead, without PowerPoint, about my experiences in arguing against melamine at my first CCCF meeting; about the essence of Codex being to protect the consumer by ensuring access to a healthy diet; about consumers being suspicious of Codex and its cozy relationship with industry; about the ease with which regulators can get caught up in “standard making” and forget the human faces and costs behind these rules and standards; about “science based” evidence being nothing more than a word that can be twisted and used in the wrong way as it was once used against Galileo; about “old errors being more popular than new truths”; about us all being consumers with families and lives, and that it is important for us to always remember that there are real people, real human faces, affected by the decisions made at Codex; and about the delegates’ duty to them.

It was not the firebrand, head-clubbing speech that some there had feared I would make (or that others not there had hoped I would make), but it was spoken to win hearts and not smash them. Seemingly, the message was received. Perhaps in time it will even be acted upon.

Scott Tips, JD is a California-licensed attorney, legal columnist and president and general counselor for the National Health Federation. He specializes in food-and-drug law and trademark law, but also engages in business litigation, general business law, and nonprofit organizations, with an international clientele.

This article first appeared at GreenMedInfo.  Please visit to access their vast database of articles and the latest information in natural health.

var linkwithin_site_id = 557381;

linkwithin_text=’Related Articles:’

Scott C. Tips
Activist Post

Sunset pinked the German sky as the Codex delegates sat at their conference-room tables, a long first day already behind them, still debating health standards that will affect billions worldwide. Naturally a day filled with such debates – especially over technical language for draft guidelines for vitamin-and-mineral Nutrient Reference Values (NRVs) as well as draft Principles about adding essential nutrients to foods – would trick the delegates’ sense of time as they crawled through reams of documents, making a long day seem even longer. At such times, natural health is a frequent casualty because overall vision is sacrificed on the altar of hyper-technicality. But not this time. Instead, this first day of the 35th session of the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU) saw health granted a reprieve, however provisional, as the executioners stayed their hands for reasons unknown.

With 263 delegates in attendance – composed of government functionaries and international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) representatives —any public observer would be considered a fool by conventional wisdom to think that such assembled intelligence and focused attention could fail to generate solid, scientifically based food standards and guidelines. Yet all too often that is exactly what happens.

In the nearly twenty years that the National Health Federation (NHF) has been attending Codex meetings, it has seen ridiculously low upper limits set on dietary supplements, GMO food labeling shot down in defeat, the toxic steroid-like animal drug ractopamine approved for use, a melamine exemption for infant formula barely defeated at the ultimate last minute, and some recommended daily intakes for vitamins and minerals set at laughable levels. As a Codex-accredited INGO, NHF participated actively, even aggressively, in all of those battles because the food standards and guidelines adopted by the Codex Alimentarius Commission are then used domestically by numerous countries worldwide and by virtually all countries in international food trade. They are important. So, once again, NHF sent a delegation to this latest Codex meeting in Bad Soden, Germany. [1]

The Word That Scares the Medical World

“Working Groups” are Codex’s way of advancing its various projects more quickly.[2]The Working Group at this CCNFSDU meeting assembled on Saturday, November 2; and it worked all day, creating and revising wording within the “General Principles for the Addition of Essential Nutrients to Foods.” Quite typically for Codex, these Principles are rigid, control-freak guidelines as to when, what, and how much governments will allow companies to do when adding essential nutrients (read, very safe vitamins and minerals) to foods.

This control-freak attitude can lead to such absurdities as an effort by the EU delegation to strike out the phrase “preventing deficiencies of nutrients” because, according to the EU, it implied diseases would be prevented and that would not be proper! The NHF, International Dairy Federation (IDF), Senegal, Togo, the United States, and others promptly spoke up to disagree, with the NHF leading the battle here by insisting that medicine does not have a monopoly on the use of the word “prevention” and that nutrients can and do in fact prevent nutrient deficiencies. Indeed, it would be absurd for Codex to take issue with such a tautological statement as “one of the purposes of adding essential nutrients to food is to prevent deficiencies of those nutrients!”

Even Alcohol is Scrutinized

Keep in mind that these Principles are simply general guidelines for Codex member states to follow for the addition of essential nutrients to foods. There are no specific nutrients named here, nor “hard” numbers designated for nutrients, to be added to foods.

One incident in particular well illustrates the Codex process. In the general session of CCNFSDU that started two days after the Working Group meeting, the Committee debated whether to retain or delete the following sentence: “Essential nutrients should not be added to alcoholic beverages.” The EU delegate correctly asked that this sentence be deleted because there was no definition of alcoholic beverage. Canada supported the EU, but virtually every delegation after Canada espoused their strong support for keeping this sentence in the Principles because they believed that adding nutrients to alcohol would encourage increased consumption of alcohol to supply nutrient needs. The NHF was the only participant to attack the issue directly when it argued that alcohol consumption is fairly inelastic; that is, people are going to consume alcohol whether we want them to or not (just look at America’s failed experiment with Prohibition in the 1920s) and Codex might as well keep such people healthier by allowing nutrient fortification of alcoholic beverages. This suggestion created a stir among the Codex delegates.

Other concepts were enshrined in the Codex General Principles, such as essential nutrients can only be added to foods up to but not exceeding the Upper level of Intake (but where no Upper Level of Intake has been established, then at levels where it is unlikely to result in an adverse health effect). The NHF unsuccessfully fought for substituting the phrase “serious adverse health effect” in place of “adverse health effect” and was even slighted by the Codex Chairwoman who refused to let the Report reflect that discussion, even though she had permitted far less relevant statements to be inserted into the record. So much for transparency at Codex!

On the plus side, Codex made it clear that nutrients may be added to foods to prevent deficiencies, to reduce the risk of inadequate intake, to meet recommended intakes of those nutrients, to maintain or improve health, and/or to maintain or improve the nutritional quality of foods. That covers a broad range; but, as always at Codex and with regulatory agencies, the interpretation of this mandate will determine the success or failure of nutrient additions to foods.

The Working Group Meeting, November 2nd

Nutrient Reference Values

Those who have been following the NHF’s efforts at Codex since the mid-1990s will recall that at the Codex Nutrition Committee meeting in Dusseldorf, Germany in 2009, the NHF singlehandedly launched the opposition that stopped the Australian delegation and others from recklessly lowering these NRVs.[3]

However, the NHF’s multi-year winning streak in blocking these “dumbed down” NRVs came to an end with last year’s Nutrition Committee meeting in December 2012, where three women (the Chairwoman and the Australian and U.S. delegates) decided to split the vitamins and minerals into two groups: One that was considered “suitable” for adoption; and a second group that was considered “unsuitable” and would need further work.[4] The Chairwoman ignored the strong objections of five delegations (Malaysia, Iran, South Africa, the International Dairy Federation, and the NHF) to decide that “consensus” existed and the “suitable” list could go to the Commission for approval.[5] These nutrients are now labeled as “Batch 1” and “Batch 2.”

Unfortunately, at last July’s Codex Alimentarius Commission meeting, the Commission rubber-stamped the Troika’s Batch 1 NRVs and adopted them as final.[6] That left the remaining Batch to be dealt with at this year’s CCNFSDU meeting.

However, NHF’s efforts four years ago at this Committee are still bearing fruit as this Committee struggles to establish the hard numbers for the vitamin-and-mineral NRVs that remain. Now, Australia and the Chairwoman propose that those vitamins and minerals that must still be considered be split into two additional batches. In this way, they hope to win their way through to “ridiculously low” values that would make even the most drug-happy doctors laugh out loud at the feebleness of them.

That seems to be their strategy: Divide the nutrients into smaller, digestible batches and pass them off piecemeal through the Committee and up to the Commission for final adoption. It certainly worked on Batch 1, as Codex delegates failed to notice that the proposed NRVs offered by Australia and the FAO/WHO were, in the most part, aberrant values greatly at variance with those put out by the Institutes of Medicine, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), and other governmental scientific bodies, including those of Australia and New Zealand in some cases! True scientists know that in a batch of data, aberrant data should be greatly distrusted. So, why is Australia always favoring the aberrant data? Something does not smell right and NHF has kept Codex noses pointed in that direction.

At the CCNFSDU meeting just concluded in Bad Soden, Germany, Australia balked at pushing forward its plan to reduce the daily values for Vitamins A, C, D, and E, as well as Magnesium, Selenium, and Zinc. All of a sudden, the big debate on those values has been pushed back to next year’s meeting (and even to the 2015 meeting for Vitamins A, D, E, Phosphorus, Chromium, Magnesium, Copper, and Chloride, the now-designated “Batch 3”). More data will be acquired, particularly from EFSA, and the fight over the NRVs for Vitamin C, Zinc, Iron, Selenium, Manganese, Molybdenum, and Fluoride will occur. Of course, the 2014 meeting will take place in a far corner of the World, Bali, Indonesia. It will remain to be seen if some of the “dumbed down” NRVs key opponents can make that distant trip.

The Players

Despite the EU’s one-off bizarre opposition to Codex including the simple statement that “nutrients prevent nutrient deficiencies” in its General Principles for Nutrient Addition to Foods, the EU head of delegation, Basil Mathioudakis, was consistently hitting the mark throughout the meeting with his many common-sense and beneficial suggestions about the Codex texts. In just one instance alone, he was responsible for deleting wording that would have prohibited “the indiscriminate addition of nutrients to foods.” NHF verbally supported this deletion for obvious reasons, as did a number of other delegations who coalesced around the EU to eliminate this useless wording.

A pleasant surprise at this meeting came in the form of the new head of the U.S. delegation, Paula Trumbo, who also took the floor many times with very pro-health positions. The United States, for example, came out strongly in support of preserving the “nutrients prevent nutrient deficiencies” statement in the Codex General Principles when others were on the verge of eliminating the statement. Ms. Trumbo’s pleasant and open demeanor also contrasted favorably with that of her predecessor in the Committee, giving a softer edge to a country that is all too often seen as nothing more than a bully on the World stage.

Australia’s Janine Lewis was, well, Janine Lewis – myopically focused on hyper-technicalities and oblivious to the flotsam of death and disease that follow in her wake. The NHF’s and others’ recent campaign in Australia to rein in the ardently anti-health agenda of Australia’s Codex Office[7] might have contributed to Australia’s less gung-ho attitude to advance the second round of “ridiculous” vitamin-and-mineral NRVs at this meeting, but we may never know. Still, pressure must be maintained to curb this rogue food agency’s anti-health excesses.

Dr. Pia Noble, the German Codex Chairwoman and the “Thelma” to Ms. Lewis’ “Louise,” must take her marching orders from the same anti-health shadow figures as does Ms. Lewis. One can only imagine; and, yet, it seems strange that both the Chairwoman and the Australian delegate came up with the timetable and “batch” arrangement for the vitamin-and-mineral NRVs ex Imperium and then simply presented them to the Committee as a fait accompli for it to rubber stamp.

Senegal’s Dr. Sall of the University of Dakar was an amazing pillar of strength and clarity, who showed no fear in presenting and standing by his strongly pro-health positions throughout the Codex meeting. Dr. Sall’s calls for optimal health in Codex standards tracked NHF’s own steady emphasis over the years on optimizing health for consumers. In that respect, other delegates such as Iran, Togo, and South Africa also spoke out for better health standards. And the International Dairy Federation continued its tradition of speaking with integrity in considering the health of its customers and the interests of its dairy-farmer members. So, fortunately for the World, Codex is not without its health heroes.

For Now

Fortunately, the ridiculous NRVs were delayed by another year so that they could not slip through the Committee as the previous batch of NRVs had done. Fortunately, too, many members of the Committee are awakening to the fact that the NRVs being pushed by Australia are not in the best interests of consumers, nor will they work to best protect the public health.

Secret $1.8 Million Cryptocurrency Script

The outcry must continue against this push to saddle us all with Codex standards of ill-health. If enough of us challenge this – shall we say it charitably? – nutritional ignorance, then we shall prevail and preserve another patch of health for ourselves and our children.

© 2013 Scott C. Tips
Notes:

[1] The National Health Federation delegation consisted of Scott Tips, Dr. Uwe Alschner, and Katherine A. Carroll. The NHF-Germany Executive Director, Petra Weiss, took ill and could not attend this year. Bill Sardi and Scott Tips drafted the NHF’s submission paper arguing for higher levels of NRVs, while Katherine Carroll, Jonathan Middleton, and Gray Graham drafted the NHF submission paper arguing for the retention in infant formula of the full Vitamin-E complex. These NHF papers were published by the German Codex Secretariat as Conference Room Documents 4 and 18 (CRD 4 & CRD 18), respectively, and made available to all of the CCNFSDU delegates at the meeting. They can be found on-line atwww.thenhf.com/codex. All photos were taken by Katherine Carroll.

[2] The Working Groups meet either electronically (by e-mail exchanges amongst members) and/or physically (in person).

[3] Australia and its supporters had wrongly proposed that lower NRVs be adopted for certain important vitamins and minerals, including vitamin C. For example, the Proposed Draft Additional or Revised NRVs for Labelling Purposes in the Codex Guidelines on Nutrition Labelling suggested reducing the vitamin A NRV from 800 micrograms down to 550 micrograms, vitamin C from an already-abysmally-low 60 milligrams down to 45 milligrams, thiamin from 1.4 milligrams down to 1.2 milligrams, niacin from 18 milligrams down to 15 milligrams, magnesium from 300 milligrams down to 240 milligrams, and so forth.

[4] See CCNFSDU document number CX/NFSDU 12/34/8. The suitable batch included the B vitamins and calcium, with all NRVs reduced except for folate and calcium.

[5] Note that in 2009, CCNFSDU Chairman Grossklaus had found a lack of consensus with only four delegations opposed, as compared with five here.

[6] See Scott Tips’ article “Brave Benin” at http://www.thenhf.com/article.php?id=3653.

[7] See Scott Tips’ article “The Great Australian Health Mystery” at http://www.thenhf.com/article.php?id=3654. See also Eve Hillary’s excellent take-action letter to Ms. Lewis at http://www.sarahs-last-wish.com/Taking-Action.html.

Scott Tips, JD is a California-licensed attorney, legal columnist and president and general counsel for the National Health Federation. He specializes in food-and-drug law and trademark law, but also engages in business litigation, general business law, and nonprofit organizations, with an international clientele.

Heather Callaghan
Activist Post

Like a script from a movie you already know the ending to; each year we can expect a hoax study or attack on anything that is not FDA approved. It is with great hope that the average person will have enough sense to see through the latest propaganda (unlike an elderly woman I talked to last year who stopped getting natural help because the reports last year made it sound like vitamins = poison).

Chances are, you’ve recently been barraged by not-so-subtle headlines attacking multivitamins. The mainstream articles were very loosely and poorly based on three simultaneous and ridiculously flawed studies. If anyone bothers to read the studies, they might find that they are simply a vehicle for an attack – an attack so gratuitous and heavy handed to make one wonder about their MO.

But the real attack on multivitamins stems from a mere editorial cited by a media regurgitating the words “case closed,” “we don’t need multivitamins,” “evidence mounting [against multivitamins],” “enough is enough” and projections like the “vitamin industrial complex.” Oh, so the gavel has been slammed…God forbid someone have their own preference about a consumer product.

But who is actually saying this and by whom are they funded?

Brandon Turbeville writes of one of the three studies:

Interestingly enough, this study was not only funded by the National Institutes of Health but also by DSM Nutritional Products, Pfizer, and BASF. Pfizer and BASF, two multinational pharmaceutical manufacturers are widely known as organizations that are hostile toward the sale and manufacture of nutritional products as well as corporations that would stand to gain by an increase in poor health and medical treatment. DSM Nutritional Products, while lesser known, is a multinational chemical company that also manufactures nutritional supplements of the synthetic variety. DSM is a corporate colleague of Cargill and has worked closely with the UN-based World Food Programme.

The authors of the studies who say “Most supplements do not prevent chronic disease or death, their use is not justified, and they should be avoided” circumnavigated the following: ALL the other studies based on real vitamins/minerals that show profound improvement, like this one about carotenoids and multivitamins on eye healing.

The carrier articles like to claim that the multivitamin industry runs up to $28 billion annually – well, so what? First, that means there’s an interest and consumer demand. Secondly, it sounds like people don’t feel like they’re getting enough nutrition no matter how many times they are told to follow failing, pathetic dietary guidelines. And the Western modern medical complex trumps the multivitamin sales by a whopping $2 trillion annually! So it looks like they would have a vested interest in keeping you there even if pharmaceuticals kill about 100,000 people each year. What harm have wholesome vitamins and minerals done again? When is more nutrition a bad thing?

Furthermore:

• Synthetic vitamins/minerals can be patented whereas earth harvested ones cannot be exclusively owned (Big Pharma profits from its synthetic brands).


• Big Pharma needs natural plant elements so they can chemicalize and commercialize them – so how can they discount what they eagerly use? It appears to be meant for their profit, not your use.


• Synthetic vitamins/minerals are the ones used in these studies, prescribed by doctors, sold over-the-counter and used to “fortify” junk food.


• Synthetic vitamins/minerals ARE rough on the liver, can lead to health problems and most often contain harmful fillers.


• Big Pharma’s synthetic multivitamins took the fall for this slam “study,” in an attempt to bring the whole of natural health down the drain with it.

There are also a few shill-type doctor mouthpieces supporting calls to constantly reduce the perceived amount of nutrients needed – they just keep lowering the levels. I remember going down a maddening rabbit hole two years ago involving a doctor claiming vitamin D was toxic and telling people to take barely noticeable levels – he had ties to Big Pharma and was involved with a pharmaceutical company to create doctor-prescribed synthetic vitamin D.

Hopefully, you have access to highly bioavailable or whole food based supplements – hang on to them. They might go the path of the incandescent light bulbs soon if directives under Codex Alimentarius continue this way in America.

But why say false flag in terms of natural health? Because we’ve been down this road before…

• If raw milk gets legalized in a certain state or the market for it explodes, look for a “special report” on pathogens and for small farms to get blamed for sickness…


• Under Codex Alimentarius, the European Union made sweeping supplement bans (effective 2011).


• In 2010/2011 organic produce was blamed for a sudden rush of food sicknesses and voila! – instantaneously, we got the Food Safety Modernization Act, another clamp down on natural health under Codex.


• The FDA just released a special 200+ page report on how deadly natural spices are…when you look at the numbers, you’ll either laugh or cry. (I feel a ban coming on…)


• If an independent study finds that GMO foods cause tumors on rats, then look for the counter studies to slam it and ones that say there is no difference between organic and conventional.

This hit piece could be more than just a Christmas sale for a medical industrial complex trying to deter people from healthy goals outside of modern treatments. It could be the preparation to sneak more global health rules on a people largely unaware.

It would be interesting to see if the vitamin/supplement industry takes a hit for this media campaign. And which side of it really suffers: the toxic fake Big Pharma vitamins, or real and valuable vitamins/minerals/supplements that are helping people.

Secret $1.8 Million Cryptocurrency Script

On the other hand, our good vitamins and supplements could very well be going straight to the toilet if we aren’t set up to digest them. Stay tuned, I’ll be writing about how to make sure that doesn’t happen!

Also See:
The Case Against Corporate Media & Big Pharma Science Grows Stronger

Heather Callaghan is a natural health blogger and food freedom activist. You can see her work at NaturalBlaze.com and ActivistPost.com. Like at Facebook.

Recent posts by Heather Callaghan:

• 
  That ‘Thing’ Everyone’s Talking About


• 
  Women Laughing Alone With Vaccine Injection Sites


• Cancer Researchers Make Important Brain Discoveries