TOPIC: The international war on vitamins
The international war on vitamins 19 Nov 2014 08:09 #1
The international war on vitamins
by Gary R. Schor
Sections: Health, Science
From: Volume 1, Issue 3
The UN’s Codex Alimentarius seeks to limit access to vitamins
A man walks into a drugstore and looksalong the shelf for the vitamins he usually buys, but all of them are gone. He smiles to the pharmacist and asks, “I’m looking for the vitamin C - do you know where they’ve put it?”
“Do you have a prescription?” the pharmacist replies. “Err, no”, says the man “It’s cold and flu season, and I can’t afford to get sick this year.” “Sorry sir, but you will need to talk to your doctor. That product is only available by prescription.”
This isn’t just a story. This conversation could be taking place all over the United States in a few years if something isn’t done to stop the implementation of CODEX.
“Codex Alimentarius” means “food rules” in Latin, and it’s slated to go into effect in 2009. The organization was established in 1962 when the UN created the Codex Alimentarius Commission as a “trade commission.” It was instituted to regulate (substitute control) virtually every aspect of how food and nutritional supplements are produced and distributed.
CODEX is euphemistically sold to the public under the guise of consumer protection. But, the CODEX brand of protection is more like the kind of “protec t ion” offered by the mafia.
Look at the way CODEX treats vitamins. Long known for their ability to promote health and combat disease, C O D E X reclassifies vitamins, labeling them not as nutrients, but as toxins. CODEX then prohibits these toxins from being included in food or supplements in any doses above what many experts decry as “minuscule.”
CODEX lays the groundwork for an Orwellian future where getting caught with a bottle of vitamins would be like being caught with a gram of heroin. But it doesn’t just stop with outlawing vitamins. CODEX also attacks your first amendment rights to freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Pharmaceutical companies are free topromote potentially dangerous drugs with serious side effects that have only been around for a few years, but information on traditionalremedies and the natural health properties of foods, some tested over millennia, is prohibited.
A 1999 study on cherries showed significant evidence that eating as few as 20 cherries per day could have as powerful an anti-inflammatory effect as some of the more powerful non-steroidal anti-inflammatory pharmaceuticals.
Behaving as if CODEX had already been implemented, the FDA immediately prohibited cherry growers from sharing the truthful health benefits of their product with the public.
High profile class action lawsuits have linked VIOXX and other members of this class of drugs to increased risk of heart attacks, while the more common side effects include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, constipation, decreased appetite, rash, dizziness, headache, and drowsiness. The greatest danger from cherries is usually the pit.
The Declaration of Independence, while not a legal document, speaks out in favor of “Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness”. In order to have life, let alone liberty and happiness, you must first have health.
CODEX and the growing threat of regulatory restrictions that accompany it seek to limit our access to information and supplements that maintain our health. This stands in stark contrast to the basic rights our nation was founded on
User(s) who Liked this post: Lizzy
The international war on vitamins 19 Nov 2014 15:30 #2
This has been happening for some time. You cannot buy large doses of vitamins and minerals etc in some countries.
It is my understanding that you cannot buy certain supplements or doses of supplements in countries like New Zealand (NZ). For example, there is some good evidence to show that large doses of vitamin D can help those with conditions like multiple sclerosis (MS). However I have read that many MS sufferers in NZ have had shipments of vitamin D detained by customs.
I found my MS symptoms mitigated greatly (for a while) with a large single dose of vitamin D, around 100,000 IU. I understand that citizens in countries like NZ would find it difficult to buy this quantity without going to considerable expense.
I am not so sure that the UK will comply with the codex. I might not be the best business analyst in the world, and correct me if I am wrong, but aren't Holland & Barret, Boots, and GNC all owned by the Carlyle Group? Are they not part of the 'elite' like Halliburton and Goldman Sachs et al? Do they not have an interest in selling supplements? Though whether we will also suffer dose deescalation is another matter....
The opprobrium of striving for a future that never comes.
Last Edit: 19 Nov 2014 15:33 by Mr Cappy.
The international war on vitamins 19 Nov 2014 20:08 #3
Artificial-pharmaceutical vitamins are of no use, some in fact are poison.
This is why monsanto is trying to corner the market by saying they are 'buying' patents
The scam is so absurd you could not make it up.
Search for more MONSANTO (English: 'my death') threads on this forum, if you are really interested.
"The truth must be repeated over and over again,
because error is repeatedly preached among us, not
only by individuals, but by the masses. In periodicals
and cyclopaedias, in schools and universities; every-
where, in fact, error prevails, and is quite easy in the
feeling that it has a decided majority on its side."
► Johannes Lang "The Hollow World Theory" Blog ◄
► My Zone by PFIZIPFEI ◄
Last Edit: 19 Nov 2014 20:09 by PFIZIPFEI.
Big Pharma wolf in sheep's clothing. -- The international war on vitamins 20 Nov 2014 01:30 #4
by Francois Lubbe
from Homemade-Natural-Cures Website
When I first saw the headlines, I was pleased and a bit surprised... Let's face it, it's unusual for a study showing the therapeutic benefits of vitamins to receive so much attention by the mainstream media...
Unfortunately, it didn't take much reading between the lines before I smelled something very fishy...
As much as the results of a recent study on the positive effects of B-vitamins for sufferers of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) are very welcome (especially as they offer hope in the fight against Alzheimer's disease), it also appears to be yet another case of Big Pharma wolf in sheep's clothing.
B vitamins prove effective in the fight against Alzheimer's
The recent 'groundbreaking' Oxford study involved 168 volunteers all with brain shrinkage associated with 'mild cognitive impairment' (MCI). Participants were divided into either a treatment group who were given a high dose of B vitamins (folic acid, B6 and B12) or a control group who were given a placebo.
Previous studies have shown that elevated homocysteine concentrations may contribute to MCI and we also know that Alzheimer's patients tend to have especially high levels of this amino acid in their blood.
Results of the Oxford study showed that B vitamins help reduce homocysteine levels and demonstrated that the participants who had the highest homocysteine levels benefited the most from treatment with high doses of B vitamins. In fact, participants in the vitamin B group showed an astounding 53 per cent improvement.
Pharmacologist and fellow researcher of the study Professor David Smith, said the results were immensely promising and added that,
"it is a very simple solution: you give someone some vitamins and you protect the brain".
Bitter sweet B-vitamin controversy
Many of you may now take Prof. Smith on his word and run down to your local natural health food store and buy folic acid, B6 and B12, because this study clearly suggests that simply taking vitamins can achieve the kind of results that the major drugs companies have not been able to achieve with their pharmaceutical drugs...
But wait! There's a snake in the grass...
The researchers warned that the results of the study can only be achieved with 'very high' dosages of the vitamins, which should only be administered under the supervision of a doctor... and that further studies are needed on the safety of B-vitamins...
Okay? But we are talking about vitamins which are found in many foods not man-made pharmaceutical drugs, right?
The researchers were also very clear in saying that the dosages used in the study are not what you would find in a typical health food store or pharmacy...
Hang on... is it just me, or does it sound as if someone is trying to stop us from taking the initiative to purchase B-vitamins in a bid to prevent age-related memory loss?
Enter the 'drug' TrioBe Plus, manufactured by Meda AB/Recip AB, Sweden... which is the 'drug' used in the study consisting of,
"This is a drug, not a vitamin intervention", it all starts to make sense...
The forms of vitamins used in TrioBe Plus are the cheapest ones available, being either less bio-available or less effective (or both) than those in high-end products found in health food stores or sold by nutritional practitioners.
What's worse is that these sub-standard forms are mostly manufactured by pharmaceutical giants like Merck.
There you have it! The motive behind the European Union's (EU) legal restrictions for food supplements, combined with the proposals from the European Commission to restrict dosages, becomes clear as day light...
Vested interests are at play - scaring people away from the vitamins and supplements in health food stores and pushing them towards patented 'drug' versions that can only be taken under the supervision of conventional doctors... This is a cunning game-plan being deployed in Europe, and elsewhere, to take therapeutic use of natural products out of the hands of the consumer and into the hands of pharmaceutical giants and mainstream medicine.
They do this even - as is the case with 'TrioBe Plus' - when there is no risk to the consumer!
The upper level (UL) as recommended by the EU contains large safety margins and the UL's for all three B-vitamins in TrioBe Plus fall well within these margins. Both the folic acid and B6 levels are 20 per cent below the UL, with the super-safe vitamin B12 being a mere 2.5 per cent of the UL.
No wonder this vitamin study enjoyed so much media coverage... Big Pharma have their eyes set on the vitamin and supplement market with their patented vitamin drugs and will do anything to prevent us from getting good products from anywhere else, even if it means that they must team-up with regulators and the media to get their misleading message across...
I wonder what their game-plan is against common sense...
And another thing, each year an estimated 40,000 cases of salmonella and related food-bourne illness are reported in the US alone. Young children, the elderly, and those with compromised immune systems are at the greatest risk of severe infection.
Common symptoms include diarrhea, fever and abdominal cramps that begin 12 to 72 hours after infection and can continue for four to seven days. While most people recover without treatment, some may experience severe diarrhea that requires hospitalization to prevent dehydration and the spread of the infection from the intestines to the bloodstream. Once the bacteria is in the blood, other sites in the body can become infected, which can be fatal without treatment.
If you think you or a family member may have contracted salmonella, contact your doctor or local hospital. It is important for health authorities to know about the case so that they can help identify the source.
@ oiram @
Last Edit: 20 Nov 2014 01:31 by Mario.
The international war on vitamins 20 Nov 2014 19:14 #5
This kind of disgusting and disrespectful behaviour is condoned here
ORANGEAID verbal abuse
''Cinta is a whore.
I don't change one word I've said.''
Last Edit: 20 Nov 2014 19:15 by Cinta.
The international war on vitamins 24 Nov 2014 05:49 #6
EU to outlaw popular vitamins
by JO BUTLER, Daily Mail
Hundreds of vitamins and food supplements taken by millions of people every day are to be banned under new EU rules.
The regulations will outlaw the sale of 250 vitamins and minerals in Britain, many of which are already banned in other EU countries.
High-dose pills of other substances will also be prohibited, forcing manufacturers to supply them in lower concentrations.
They include vitamin B6, often taken by women to counter stress and pre-menstrual tension, and vitamin C, said to help tackle colds.
The move has sparked fury among those who rely on over-the-counter products to boost their vitamin intake and cope with conditions such as arthritis and PMT.
And opposition peers have vowed to fight the planned restrictions when the regulations are put before the House of Lords today.
Conservative health spokesman Earl Howe accused the Government of caving in to EU demands at the expense of British consumers.
He said: "The right of consumers to exercise choice in buying health foods is to be curtailed drastically, all in the cause of European harmonisation."
British consumers spend more than £170million every year on vitamins and supplements, despite growing doubts over their effectiveness.
Recent studies have even suggested some commonly-used products could actually damage health.
Users have been warned to avoid supplements containing vitamin A and betacarotene amid concerns that they could increase the risk of heart disease.
40 per cent of women and 30 per cent of men take a vitamin pill every day, many simply to make sure they are getting all their required nutrients.
But others take specific vitamins to control conditions, sometimes at doses far higher than the recommended daily allowance (RDA) figures on which the EU regulations are based.
The Conservatives argue that the RDA of any supplement is open to debate, and that the figures should not be used to stop people who want to take higher doses from doing so.
In addition, some substances which have been sold and used in the UK for years will be banned simply because they do not appear on the EU list of safe supplements.
Under the regulations, manufacturers wanting to have their products approved will have to put forward evidence that they are safe, even if they have been used without problems for years.
Manufacturers have warned this will be prohibitively expensive and will favour large pharmaceutical companies at the expense of smaller makers of alternative remedies.
Consumer groups that successfully fought off attempts to ban the sale of high- dose vitamin B6 drugs in 1997 are supporting the Lords' challenge to the new directive.
The EU says the change is needed to ensure all supplements on the market are safe and to set common standards across member states
Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-186684/EU-outlaw-popular-vitamins.html#ixzz3JxiuMIAv
User(s) who Liked this post: Exorcist
The international war on vitamins 11 Jan 2015 06:58 #7
FDA’s Sneak Attempt to Ban Another B Vitamin
You can’t live without this vitamin. But the FDA wants to reserve the natural form for monopoly drug companies, leaving only the synthetic form for supplements. Urgent Action Alert!
The FDA has just released a new 109-proposed rule on the revision of nutrition and supplement labels. (You can read more about the implications of the new labeling rules in our other article this week.)
On page 69, the agency slipped in two little paragraphs that could risk the health of millions of people who desperately need folate. It’s a sneak attack so quiet and unobtrusive that few people will even realize it’s there.
According to the guidance, the word “folate” will be banned from the Supplement Fact labels—only the term “folic acid” will be allowed.
Folate is the naturally occurring form of the water-soluble vitamin B9. It is found in foods such as black-eyed peas, chickpeas and other beans, lentils, spinach, turnip greens, asparagus, avocado, and broccoli, but is also available as a supplement.
The human body needs folate to synthesize and repair its DNA. It’s especially important during the kind of rapid cell division and growth seen in infancy and pregnancy. Children and adults both require folate to produce healthy red blood cells and prevent anemia among many other vital functions.
Folic acid, on the other hand, is synthetically produced, and refers to just one member of the folate group: pteroylmonoglutamic acid. While folic acid occurs only rarely in whole foods, it’s extremely stable, which is why it’s widely used in dietary supplements and to fortify processed foods.
The important thing to remember is that folic acid is not itself biologically active, though for most people the liver can convert it to the folate we need. Most, however, does not mean all. It’s estimated that 30% to 40% of the population can’t efficiently convert synthetic folic acid into folate.
In other words, about a third of the human population has two potential problems: a deficiency in folate (because it is hard to get enough from a diet full of processed foods), and possibly even an excess of folic acid (because their body can’t metabolize what could become an overabundance of folic acid present in “fortified” foods):
•According to Dr. Jonathan V. Wright, folate deficiency is one of the most dangerous medical conditions, leading to Alzheimer’s and other brain diseases. If pregnant women are deficient in it, it can also lead to spina bifida and other neural tube birth defects in their children.
•On the other hand, too much unmetabolized folic acid can build up in the blood, which could lead to an increased risk of prostate, lung, and colon cancer, or worsen already present cancerous lesions. This refers to large amounts of folic acid, larger than in current supplements, but more research is needed to account for individual differences.
Note that the FDA is not exactly banning the inclusion of folate and requiring the inclusion of folic acid in supplements. As usual, it is playing a much more subtle insider’s game. It is simply banning supplement producers from using the word folate on their labels and conversely only allowing the word folic acid on their labels. But it would of course be fraudulent to put folic acid on your label and then use something else. The FDA understands that perfectly.
So on what grounds is the agency banning the use of the word folate on the label? Believe it or not, it is arguing that folate can only be found in “conventional” (whole or minimally processed) foods.
Before we examine this absurd claim, we must first explain that limiting a folate claim to food would not prevent drug companies from becoming the only source of folate outside of food. Drug companies don’t care what a chemical is called so long as they can create a high priced monopoly in it. Ironically, the FDA’s position that folate can only be used to describe what is in food would still turn folate over to the drug companies—so long as supplement labels can only use the term folic acid.
So what about the agency’s assertion that “folate” can only be found in food? “Folate” is actually a term for a whole B vitamin group. The term “folate” we see on dietary supplement labels refers to “dietary folates,” members of the folate group that can be naturally found in foods. Folinic acid (5-FTHF), calcium methylfolate, and various other tetrahydrofolates can be found in dietary supplements. Many brands feature dietary folate. It would be completely inaccurate and misleading to refer to these dietary folates as “folic acid.” Legally, it would be fraudulent.
Why did the FDA do this? One can only guess. But it would not be surprising if it eventually turns out to be a blatant attempt to reserve for drug companies the use of dietary folates. After all, B vitamins are not only essential for life. They are also proven therapeutic agents. Drug company research programs have been coming up short for years; new drug therapeutic agents are in very short supply.
Moreover, the drug company Merck already holds patents on Metafolin, which the body recognizes as a bioavailable dietary folate. Metafolin is licensed by dietary supplement companies for some of their products.
If, according to FDA “logic,” dietary supplements can’t contain folate like Metafolin, it would only be available from whole foods…or drugs, and only from drugs in higher doses. Since Merck would have exclusivity for a Metafolin “drug,” our guess is that they would make billions. And other forms of patentable folate could then follow.
Sound unlikely? It’s not—both forms of fish oil and vitamin D have already been turned into patented drugs. Imagine if competition from supplemental forms of fish oil or D could be wiped out at one stroke by saying no supplement label could use the term!
Let’s also keep in mind the case of pyridoxamine, one of the natural forms of vitamin B6, another B vitamin critical to human health. In 2009, Biostratum, the manufacturer of a proposed pyridoxamine-based drug called Pyridorin intended to prevent the progression of diabetic nephropathy (kidney disease), filed a petition with the FDA asking to ban the natural form. The agency agreed to do so. It announced that pyridoxamine dihydrochloride was a “new drug”—which means the FDA effectively prevented any substance containing pyridoxamine from being marketed as a dietary supplement.
Never mind that the fish on your lunch salad and the chicken on your dinner table both contain pyridoxamine, as does brewer’s yeast! Never mind that vitamin B6 in general has been in supplements for decades and therefore ought to be grandfathered under federal supplement legislation. The agency simply stated that because supplement bottles in earlier decades had not distinguished between the particular type of B6 included, they could ban it!
The natural alternative to pyridoxamine, one with similar health and anti-glycation properties, is another B6 compound called pyridoxal-5′-phosphate, or P5P. This is the only form of B6 that can be used directly by the body without conversion. While everyone needs B6 to live, some people have difficulty converting other forms of B6 to P5P.
P5P exists in food, and has been available as a supplement for years. But even P5P has been under threat! The FDA has a petition from Medicure Pharma to ban P5P. Thanks to grassroots activists like you, the FDA hasn’t acted on that petition yet—but if the petition is approved, we will have to wait until we get sick enough to obtain a prescription for the drug. We’ll no longer be able to maintain good health and prevent aging and diseases like cancer by proactively keeping P5P at the optimal level. It would be a complete travesty if P5P disappears from the market as pyridoxamine did.
The attempt to ban folate is being done differently, through a proposed FDA rule, which carries the full force of law. So it’s critical that we stop this now.
All of these attacks on your access to B vitamins are scandalous. Natural vitamins belong in food and supplements. Banning them in order to potentially benefit drug companies is just another egregious example of the crony capitalism that infests the FDA.
Please take immediate, urgent action on this. It may have to go to court. In the meantime, we lay the groundwork for court action by sending our complaints to the FDA. We need a lot of responses on this one to get the agency’s attention.
URGENT Action Alert! The FDA must not be allowed to implement this change in its Supplement Facts rules. It will in effect ban folate and allow supplement producers to use only synthetic folic acid. Consumers who are less able to convert folic acid to the safe and bioavailable folate we need will have no choice. For women of childbearing age, folate is recommended by the CDC, WHO, and most practitioners as an essential tool in preventing neural tube defects—and supplementation with folate is vital, since women may not be able to get enough folate in their diet. Send your message to the FDA today, and tell them not to convert a critical, natural B vitamin from a supplement to a drug through bureaucratic labeling sleight-of-hand!
The international war on vitamins 25 Jan 2015 10:39 #8
Flawed Research Used to Attack Multivitamin Supplements
By Blake Gossard, Kira Schmid, ND, Luke Huber, ND, MBA, Steven V. Joyal, MDwww.lef.org/Featured%20Articles/2013/12/Flawed%20Research%20Used%20to%20Attack%20Multivitamin%20Supplements/Page%2001
Two flawed studies, a rehashed review, and an editorial published in the December 17th issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine have attempted to discredit the value of multivitamin supplements.1-3
Both of the studies were plagued by grievous methodological flaws.
In one of the studies, subjects were given low-quality, low-potency multivitamin supplements. Treatment adherence rates and drop-out rates were horrendous in the studies. Nevertheless, mainstream sources are using these reprehensible studies to undermine dietary supplements.
The first study examined the cognitive effects of low-potency multivitamin supplementation in aging male participants. 2 Not surprisingly, the conclusions in the present analysis question the value of multivitamin benefits for cognition.
In the other study, subjects with a history of heart attack were given a multivitamin supplement or placebo and monitored for about 4.5 years for cardiovascular events.1
Despite succumbing to heinous design flaws, this study actually revealed evidence that multivitamins reduced cardiovascular risk. However, the investigators constructed the study so as to ignore anything short of miraculous cardiovascular risk reduction, so the conclusion drawn questions multivitamin benefits.
These major gaffes in study design and methodology are not being discussed by conventional sources or the media. Instead, these untoward studies are fueling the mainstream effort to undermine high-quality dietary supplements
User(s) who Liked this post: Lizzy
The international war on vitamins 26 Jan 2015 02:39 #9
Codex Alimentarius was related to us several yrs ago - a UN directive. Now they are beginning to be enforced. Big pharma has been buying the smaller manufactures' who make the best and shutting them down - not incorporating them . It's time to find the best and stock up - yes , they have a shelve life but still I am doing this . Also start to grow medical herbs and of course food from heritage seeds ......
It's a war on humanity -
Last Edit: 26 Jan 2015 03:48 by Lizzy.
User(s) who Liked this post: Asva
The international war on vitamins 26 Jan 2015 02:45 #10
by Matthias Rath
from DrRath Website
recovered through WayBackMachine Website
There is an entire industry with an innate economic interest to obstruct, suppress and discredit any information about the eradication of diseases. The pharmaceutical industry makes over one trillion dollars from selling drugs for ongoing diseases. These drugs may relieve symptoms, but they do not cure.
We have to realize that the mission of this industry is to make money from ongoing diseases.
The cure or eradication of a disease leads to the collapse of a multi-billion dollar market of pharmaceuticals.
The natural purpose and driving force of the pharmaceutical industry is to increase sales of pharmaceutical drugs for ongoing diseases and to find new diseases to market existing drugs.
By this very nature, the pharmaceutical industry has no interest in curing diseases. The eradication of any disease inevitably destroys a multi-billion dollar market of prescription drugs as a source of revenues. Therefore, pharmaceutical drugs are primarily developed to relieve symptoms, but not to cure.
If eradication therapies for diseases are discovered and developed, the pharmaceutical industry has an inherent interest to suppress, discredit and obstruct these medical breakthroughs in order to make sure that diseases continue as the very basis for a lucrative prescription drug market.
The economic interest of the pharmaceutical industry itself is the main reason why no medical breakthrough has been made for the control of the most common diseases such as cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure, heart failure, Diabetes, cancer, and osteoporosis, and why these diseases continue like epidemics on a worldwide scale.
For the same economic reasons, the pharmaceutical industry has now formed an international cartel by the code name "Codex Alimentarius" with the aim to outlaw any health information in connection with vitamins and to limit free access to natural therapies on a worldwide scale.
At the same time, the pharmaceutical companies withhold public information about the effects and risks of prescription drugs and life-threatening side effects are omitted or openly denied.
In order to assure the status quo of this deceptive scheme, a legion of pharmaceutical lobbyists is employed to influence legislation, control regulatory agencies (e. g. FDA), and manipulate medical research and education. Expensive advertising campaigns and PR agencies are used to deceive the public.
Millions of people and patients around the world are defrauded twice: A major portion of their income is used up to finance the exploding profits of the pharmaceutical industry. In return, they are offered a medicine that does not even cure.
WHAT IS IT AND HOW DOES IT AFFECT YOU AND YOUR HEALTH?
by Paul Anthony Taylor
from DrRathFoundation Website
Codex is not an easy subject to get to grips with. With over 20 committees meeting on an annual basis, and published reports comprising a total of over 1,400 pages in 2005 alone, most people are blissfully unaware of the extent to which its activities affect their health.
Read on to discover the bigger picture behind the Codex Alimentarius Commission's support for the "business with disease".
What is Codex?
The World Trade Organization uses Codex Guidelines and Standards as the benchmark in the adjudication of international trade disputes involving foods. It's headquarters, above, are located in Geneva, Switzerland.
The Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) is the main global body that makes proposals to, and is consulted by, the Directors-General of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) on all matters pertaining to the implementation of the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme.
Established in 1963, the Commission's main purposes are stated in its Procedural Manual as being:
protecting the health of consumers
ensuring fair practices in the food trade
promoting coordination of all food standards work undertaken by international governmental and non-governmental organizations
Unfortunately however, and as we shall see, its activities do not protect the health of consumers and the international food trade is anything but fair.
At the time of writing, the Commission presides over a total of 27 active subsidiary committees and ad hoc intergovernmental task forces, the main functions of which revolve around the drafting of standards, guidelines and other related texts for foods, including food supplements.
Once completed these texts are presented to the Commission for final approval and adoption as new global standards.
How does Codex affect you and your health?
Codex standards and guidelines now exist for virtually all foods.
Whilst the adoption by countries of the various standards and guidelines developed by Codex is theoretically optional, the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) on 1 January 1995 essentially changed their international status, in that they are now increasingly used by the WTO as the benchmark in the adjudication of international trade disputes involving foods.
As such, the potential threat of becoming involved in - and losing - such a dispute now effectively makes the adoption of Codex guidelines and standards mandatory, in that it leaves WTO member countries little or no option but to comply with them. Given therefore that a total of 149 countries are currently members of the WTO, and also that Codex standards or guidelines now exist for virtually every food one can name, this effectively means that the activities of Codex now directly affect the vast majority of people on the planet.
In addition to dealing with ordinary foods, however, Codex also sets standards and guidelines for, amongst other things: vitamin and mineral food supplements; health claims; organic foods; genetically modified foods; food labeling; advertising; food additives and pesticide residues.
Significantly, therefore, and as we shall see below, in all of these areas the evidence is now inescapable that Codex is increasingly putting economic interests - and particularly those of the pharmaceutical and chemical industries - before human health.
Codex Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements
The Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements were adopted by the Codex Alimentarius Commission as a new global standard at its meeting in Rome, Italy, in July 2005.
The Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements were adopted by the Codex Alimentarius Commission as a new global standard at its meeting in Rome, Italy, in July 2005. Drafted using the European Union's restrictive Food Supplements Directive as a blueprint, the Guidelines mandate the setting of restrictive upper limits on the dosages of vitamins and minerals, and the prohibiting of claims that vitamin and mineral supplements are suitable for use in the prevention, alleviation, treatment or cure of disease.
As a result, and bearing in mind the growing mountain of evidence demonstrating the impressive health improvements that can be achieved via the use of nutritional supplements, it can be seen that far from protecting the health of consumers, the global enforcement of these guidelines would ensure that the sale of curative, preventative, and therapeutic health products remains the exclusive province of the pharmaceutical industry.
The Codex General Guidelines on Claims protects the patent on the pharmaceutical industry's control of our healthcare systems.
There are already several Codex texts in existence that place restrictions upon the health benefits that can be attributed to food products, and perhaps the most significant of these is the Codex General Guidelines on Claims. Adopted in 1979, and revised in 1991, these guidelines are in some senses the very root of the Codex problem - in terms of placing severe restrictions upon natural forms of healthcare - in that they effectively seek to ensure that the only products that can make claims relating to the prevention, alleviation, treatment, and cure of disease are pharmaceutical drugs.
Specifically, and amongst other things, the Codex General Guidelines on Claims prohibit all claims implying that a balanced diet or ordinary foods cannot supply adequate amounts of all nutrients, and all claims that food products are suitable for use in the prevention, alleviation, treatment or cure of diseases.
As such, it can be seen that they essentially protect the patent on the pharmaceutical industry's control of our healthcare systems.
Organic foods have been receiving increased attention from Codex in recent years, and it is now increasingly clear that the Codex Committee on Food Labeling is attempting to water down global organic standards to permit the use of substances such as:
sulphur dioxide, which can cause allergic reactions in some people
sodium nitrite and sodium nitrate, which are potentially carcinogenic, and have been implicated in hyperactivity in children
carrageenan, for which there is evidence that it is associated with the formation of ulcers in the intestines and cancerous tumors in the gut
Worse still, however, the Codex Alimentarius Commission recently gave the go-ahead for work to begin on the inclusion of ethylene in the Codex Guidelines for the Production, Processing, Labeling and Marketing of Organically Produced Foods.
Ethylene is used to artificially induce fruits and vegetables to ripen whilst they are in transit, and as such its approval for use on organic foods would represent a disturbing step towards WTO-enforced acceptance of the same dubious and unnatural agricultural practices that non-organic foods are already subject to.
Why does Codex want to water down organic standards in this way?
On a basic level it is simply because organic foods fetch higher prices than ordinary, non-organic, foods, and that as such the large non-organic food producers see an easy opportunity to break into the market for organic foods and make larger profits. On a deeper level, however, organic foods promote better health than non-organic foods, by virtue of the fact that they contain higher levels of micronutrients.
In addition, of course, organic foods don't contain pesticides, residues of veterinary drugs or genetically-modified organisms either.
Bearing in mind therefore that good health is not in the interests of the "business with disease", this ultimately makes the increasing demand for organic foods a threat to the pharmaceutical and chemical industries; not only because organic foods promote good health, however, but also because they result in a lower demand for pesticides, veterinary drugs and GM foods - and thus in lower profits.
Moreover, and unlike genetically-modified seeds, organic seeds cannot be patented.
As such, given that some of the major players in the pharmaceutical and chemical industry, such as Bayer and BASF, are also major players in the biotech industry, it can easily be seen that the rising popularity of non-patentable organic foods is in fact a serious and growing threat to the profits of the pharmaceutical industry's "business with disease".
The increasing popularity of food supplement, natural health practices and organic food is a serious threat to the pharmaceutical industry's business with disease.
The Codex Alimentarius Commission adopted its first guidelines and principles for genetically-modified (GM) foods in 2003. These texts subsequently became instrumental in the United States, Canada and Argentina launching, and winning, a trade dispute at the WTO against the European Union (EU), where it was argued that the EU had been applying a moratorium on the approval and importation of foods containing GM material.
Further guidelines and standards for GM foods are now in the process of being drafted by Codex. The eventual adoption of these texts will further contribute to making the approval, and importation, of GM foods that comply with them mandatory for all WTO member countries. Crucially, therefore, the United States, Canada and Argentina are also pushing for there to be no requirement for manufacturers or exporters of GM foods to disclose the presence of genetically modified organisms on their product labeling.
This is exactly what the big GM food manufacturers want, of course, as they have long realized that growing numbers of people are opposed to GM food products, and moreover that they will not be able to change public opinion about these products anytime soon.
Unlike the seeds for regular foods, the seeds for GM foods can be patented.
This, essentially, is the real key to why biotech companies are so desperate for these foods to be forced onto world markets, as the potential long-term profits are so colossal as to compare quite favorably with the market in pharmaceutical drugs. Given therefore that some of the major players in the pharmaceutical industry, such as Bayer and BASF, are also major players in the biotech industry, it can be seen that the pharmaceutical industry is once again positioning itself as a key beneficiary at Codex.
As such - so far as the pharmaceutical industry is concerned - the only products that are worth producing are those that are patentable. Because of this, the rise in the popularity of food supplements, natural health practices and even organic food represents a serious threat to the pharmaceutical industry.
The financial interest groups behind the Codex Alimentarius Commission know this only too well, of course, and as such are now engaged in a desperate struggle to maintain their monopoly upon the healthcare industry and expand into GM food production.
A specific Codex committee to deal with food labeling issues, the Codex Committee on Food Labeling (CCFL), has been in existence since 1965.
The issue of food labeling is particularly crucial to the further spreading of life-saving natural health information, as restrictions upon the written content of food labels contribute, along with those on advertising, to preventing nutritional supplement manufacturers from informing people of the proven benefits of dietary supplementation.
Crucially, therefore, CCFL has refused to acknowledge the role of optimum nutrition in the prevention, alleviation, treatment and cure of disease, and, as such, rather than protecting the health of consumers, can be seen to be acting in the interests of the pharmaceutical industry's "business with disease".
Arguments as to how or whether Codex should deal with advertising issues have been going on since at least 1972.
These arguments continued at the May 2006 CCFL meeting in Ottawa, where they centered around whether or not work on a definition for advertising should be initiated, and if it should, where (i.e. within which Codex text) such a definition should be placed. After considerable discussion regarding this issue CCFL decided that work on a definition for advertising should indeed be initiated.
From a natural health perspective, however, the definition proposed is far from satisfactory:
"Advertising: any representation to the public, by any means other than a label, that is intended or is likely to influence and shape attitude, beliefs and behaviors in order to promote directly or indirectly the sale of the food."
The wording of this proposed definition raises several key questions.
For example, as well as its potential to result in the prohibition of advertising legitimate, published, peer-reviewed scientific research papers, might it also inhibit non-profit natural health advocacy organizations from influencing and shaping attitude, beliefs and behaviors regarding the sale of nutritional supplements?
Similarly, could any restrictions on advertising that are based upon this definition be said to contravene the right to freedom of opinion and expression and/or the freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers (both of which are enshrined in Article 19 of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights)?
Regardless however, given that the pharmaceutical industry's "business with disease" depends for its survival upon the restriction of any and all means by which consumers can obtain natural health information, potential restrictions on advertising are clearly now a key issue at Codex.
Codex has a specific committee that deals with the safety of food additives, one of the main functions of which is to establish their maximum permitted levels. In all, the Codex Food Additive Index currently lists a total of around 300 individual additives - both synthetic and natural - that it permits to be used in foods.
However, whilst it may be the case that some artificial additives are essentially safe when consumed in small amounts and in isolation from one another, the reality is that no substantive consideration has been given by Codex to the fact that such chemicals are consumed not in isolation, but in tandem with each other. As such, and to the benefit of their manufacturers, the cumulative long-term effect that the consumption of multiple patented chemicals and artificial additives has on the health of consumers is largely being ignored.
Diseases caused or aggravated by the long-term consumption of pesticides increase the potential market for pharmaceutical drugs.
Revealingly, therefore, many artificial additives are being manufactured by some of the same pharmaceutical and chemical companies that would like to ban vitamin supplements and force GM foods onto our dinner plates.
And, as is similarly the case with pharmaceutical drugs and GM seeds, the main reason why many of these substances exist is because they can be patented - and patents equal higher profits.
The Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues was formed in 1966, and is responsible for setting the maximum limits for pesticide residues in specific food items or in groups of food.
Once again, however, the safety or otherwise of each individual pesticide is generally examined in isolation, and the long-term effect that their collective presence might have upon the body is mostly ignored.
Given therefore that many of these dangerous chemicals are manufactured by pharmaceutical and chemical companies, it is not difficult to imagine that their widespread usage may be seen by these industries as having a dual financial benefit, in that they potentially increase the size of the market for - and hence the profits to be made from - the patented drugs used as treatments for any diseases that their long-term consumption might cause.
Codex is not just about nutritional supplements. In fact, it is the primary political battlefield where the war is being waged about who will regulate and control the global food supply from farm to fork.
This 'war' is being waged by an increasingly tangled web of global authorities, big business and financial interests, and, as such, trade and profit are its prime goals - not human health.
Current indications suggest that the long-term financial winners in the battle to gain control over the world's food supply are likely to be the pharmaceutical and chemical industries; especially so given that the adoption of still further Codex guidelines for foods derived from biotechnology now seems almost inevitable. As a result, our freedom of choice, our future health and the environment itself are all now clearly at risk.
Good nutrition and optimum health threaten the pharmaceutical industry's "business with disease" because they reduce the size of the marketplace for synthetic drugs.
However, food that is free of pesticide residues, artificial additives and other contaminants can, by definition, only come about as a result of a lower global usage, or ideally the entire elimination, of these chemicals. This, of course, would not be in the financial interests of the pharmaceutical and chemical companies that manufacture such substances, as it would clearly result in lower profits, better health for entire populations, and a consequent reduction in the use of synthetic drugs.
In conclusion therefore, whilst it may have been somewhat "out of the limelight" recently, the Codex Alimentarius Commission's support for the "business with disease" has continued unabated, and the wide scope of its activities makes it a significant danger to the future health of all humanity.
Do we want to see a world where our access to safe, nutritious foods and effective dietary supplements is restricted and controlled by pharmaceutical and chemical interests?
If not then we must act now, before it's too late.
Codex Alimentarius Commission 28th Session, FAO Headquarters - Rome, Italy, 4-9 July, 2005 - Official Report
Codex Alimentarius Commission - Report of the thirtieth session - Rome, 2-7 July 2007 - Official Report
Codex Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements
European Union Food Supplements Directive
THE CONTROL AND DENIAL OF SCIENCE
by Paul Anthony Taylor
from DrRathFoundation Website
We don't want to change. Every change is a menace to stability. That's another reason why we're so chary of applying new inventions. Every discovery in pure science is potentially subversive; even science must sometimes be treated as a possible enemy.
– Aldous Huxley
Brave New World.
The 29th session of the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses was held in Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler, Germany, from 12 to 16 November 2007.
A subsidiary body of the FAO/WHO-sponsored Codex Alimentarius Commission, the activities of this Committee are increasingly perceived by natural health advocates as one of the biggest global threats to the future availability of therapeutic vitamin supplements and other micronutrient-based natural health therapies.
The Dr. Rath Health Foundation's External Relations Director, Paul Anthony Taylor, attended the meeting as a delegate of the National Health Federation, the only consumer-orientated pro-natural health organization in the world to have official observer status at Codex meetings.
Paul's eye-witness report, below, describes how Codex continues to deny the health benefits of vitamins, micronutrients and nutrition in the battle against today's most common diseases and explains how its key beneficiaries are the large multinational food, biotech and pharmaceutical corporations.
The blatant dismissal of consumers' concerns regarding genetically modified foods
The Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses,
meeting in Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler, Germany, November 2007.
There can surely be little doubt that consumers are overwhelmingly opposed to eating genetically modified foods.
Time and again, surveys and polls in countries throughout the world have proven this beyond any reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, the fact that genetically modified seeds can be patented - because, unlike regular seeds, they are created in laboratories and do not exist in nature - continues to make them a highly attractive investment proposition to the biotech and pharmaceutical companies that produce them.
Patents on genetically modified seeds, and the multi-billion dollar potential profits and market control that may result from them, are acting as powerful incentives for these manufacturers to find ways of forcing such foods onto consumers' dinner plates, regardless of the possible dangers to human health.
Notably, therefore, this year's meeting of the Committee was attended by Dr. H. Yoshikura, the Chairman of the Codex Intergovernmental Task Force on Foods Derived from Biotechnology, a group that has already produced several global guidelines on genetically modified foods.
The Task Force's creation of these guidelines subsequently became instrumental in the United States, Canada and Argentina launching, and winning, a trade dispute at the World Trade Organization against the European Union (EU), where they successfully argued that the EU had been applying a moratorium on the approval and importation of foods containing genetically modified material and that this was contrary to WTO rules.
Yoshikura had been invited to attend this Codex meeting because the Task Force has recently been working on an annex to a global guideline for foods that have been genetically modified to (supposedly) provide nutritional or health benefits. Because the text of this annex contains references to concepts related to nutrition, the Committee was invited to review the draft annex and to provide comments on it.
Aside from making a few minor comments, however, the Committee decided to endorse the text of the annex without making any changes to it whatsoever.
In response to this, and noting that not one single country had spoken out to defend the interests of consumers regarding this issue, the National Health Federation made the following statement:
Dr. Rolf Grossklaus,
the Chairman of the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses,
claims that consumers do not realize the 'benefits of genetically modified foods'
and that they will in time change their minds about them.
"Mr Chairman, the NHF would like to put on the record that while the issue of risk assessment of foods derived from biotechnology is being discussed, 95% of European consumers and millions of consumers from other parts of the world have continued to indicate their rejection of such foods.
We would like to know therefore how the Task Force aims to balance the need to undertake exposure studies on representative human populations when so many people reject these foods outright?"
In other words, the Federation was asking how the Task Force was planning to carry out human safety studies of genetically modified foods when so few people are prepared to eat them.
The Committee's Chairman, Dr. Rolf Grossklaus, gave a breathtakingly dismissive response to this question and, unwilling to admit that comprehensive human exposure studies would not be carried out before these foods are marketed, he stated that these aspects could not be discussed at this meeting.
Astonishingly, however, he then went on to claim that consumers do not realize the benefits that these foods provide and that he believes consumers will in time change their minds about them.
Later, at the end of the week, during the meeting to adopt the Committee's official report, I requested, on behalf of the National Health Federation, that the report should make mention of the Federation's statement regarding this matter. Dr. Grossklaus refused to allow this however, arguing that the issue was not discussed and that including mention of all issues that were not discussed would make the report too long.
All in all, therefore, this was arguably the most blatant example of the concerns of consumers being dismissed in a Codex meeting that I have ever witnessed.
Recommendations on the scientific basis of health claims - designed for the large multinationals
Another key issue discussed at this year's meeting was a text dealing with Recommendations on the Scientific Basis of Health Claims.
Mr Gert Lindemann,
State Secretary of the Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection, Germany,
addressing the committee at the opening of the meeting.
In recent years, the Committee has given very little time and no substantial debate to this agenda item at its meetings.
However, although a more in-depth discussion did take place at this year's meeting, the general thrust of the debate made it clear that, without a drastic change in direction, the key beneficiaries from these Recommendations will be the large multinational food, biotech and pharmaceutical corporations, who will most easily be able to afford the substantial financial costs of jumping through the various scientific and regulatory hoops that the Committee is erecting.
As a result, therefore, it seems likely that we will increasingly see breakfast cereals, genetically modified foods and pharmaceutically-manufactured RDA vitamin products carrying health claims, for example, whilst supplements produced by small, innovative vitamin manufacturers - assuming that they are not regulated out of existence - will probably not do so.
That said, however, and despite the longer debate time for this agenda item at this year's meeting, only minimal progress was made and several key questions - including defining the necessary level of scientific evidence for the substantiation of health claims - remain outstanding.
If the Committee were to insist on human studies and clinical trials, for example, even some common health claims for foods such as fruits and vegetables would have to be banned on the grounds that they were based on observational studies and epidemiological research, which would clearly be an absurd state of affairs.
With the discussions essentially having reached an impasse, therefore, the Committee agreed that the text should be returned to Step 2 of the 8-Step Codex approvals process, to be rewritten by the delegation of France in light of the discussions that had taken place.
As a result, the Recommendations on Health Claims now seem unlikely to be approved and finalized by the Codex Alimentarius Commission until July 2010, at the earliest.
Nutritional risk analysis - making up the rules as they go along
A further topic that has been given very little discussion time at recent meetings of this Codex Committee is that of nutritional risk analysis.
As regular Codex-watchers will already be aware, this issue has enormous relevance to the future development of the restrictive Codex Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements, as the Guidelines state that the upper safe levels of vitamins and minerals in supplements will be established by scientific risk assessment.
Whilst the pro-pharmaceutical lobby - most especially including the anti-supplement extremists within the European Commission - are desperately trying to reassure everybody that the use of risk assessment will ensure that upper safe levels for vitamins and minerals will be calculated scientifically, the reality is that most current methodologies for assessing the supposed "risk" of consuming nutritional supplements are anything but scientific, and are actually deeply flawed.
Interestingly, therefore, during this year's discussions, the representative from the World Health Organization (WHO) indicated that WHO and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) should be the primary if not only source of scientific advice to the Committee, arguing that international expert groups might not provide independent and unbiased scientific advice.
Setting aside the issue as to whether WHO and FAO themselves can be considered to be independent and unbiased, as the discussions progressed it became increasingly clear that the vast majority of the Committee was not remotely interested in obtaining independent and unbiased scientific advice in this area.
the European Commission's senior representative at the meeting.
Anti-supplement extremists within the European Commission are disingenuously claiming that
the upper safe levels for vitamins and minerals in food supplements will be calculated scientifically.
For example, at one point during the discussions, the National Health Federation specifically requested that a key section of the text should refer to "independent sources of scientific advice" on risk assessment.
Significantly, however, Basil Mathioudakis, of the European Commission, stated that he was opposed to the use of the word "independent" in the text and, as a result, it was not included.
In a further key intervention, the National Health Federation wanted language inserted to recognize the nutrient depletion in soils and foods that has taken place over the past fifty years or so. Upon hearing this, however, the Chairman, Dr. Grossklaus, responded by saying that the institute he works for, the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, has made a statement on this issue to the effect that there is no scientific evidence to support this claim.
In typical fashion, he then attempted to move straight on and did not give the Committee so much as a moment's opportunity for comment.
The National Health Federation then made an additional intervention, asking that its comments be noted in the report and, ideally, considered by the Committee so that the record could be accurate and complete. Dr. Grossklaus declined to allow this however, saying that since the Federation is a non-governmental organization, and that no Member State supported its position, its comments could not go into the report.
Just as he has done in previous years, therefore, Dr. Grossklaus was once again making up the rules as he went along. This is particularly well illustrated by the fact that paragraph 131 of the Committee's official report for this meeting makes mention of another National Health Federation intervention and that this was not supported by any Member State either.
At the close of these discussions, the Committee decided that it had made significant progress and that it should recommend to the Codex Alimentarius Commission that the text (the Proposed Draft Nutritional Risk Analysis Principles and Guidelines for Application to the Work of the Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses) be advanced to Step 5.
As such, only relatively minor changes will now be possible at next year's meeting of the Committee, and it could now potentially be approved and finalized by the Codex Alimentarius Commission in July 2009.
Proposals for nutrient reference values - out of touch with the latest science
Viewed in light of the latest and most up-to-date research in the area of nutrition, it seems safe to predict that the Committee's current approach to the setting of nutrient reference values for labeling purposes may well be judged by future nutritional historians as being almost farcically anachronistic.
For example, the science of genetics has already taught us that we are all genetically unique and we now have convincing evidence that factors such as age, sex, contraceptive use, race, dress code, geographical location, regular blood donation, medicinal drug use, genetic mutations or biochemical individuality can affect a person's nutrient needs and/or status, sometimes dramatically so.
However, rather than protecting the health of consumers, which is after all one of the stated purposes of Codex, the Committee is proposing instead to simply set one single reference value for each vitamin and mineral, and to apply these to the entire world population from the age of three years and upwards. Then, after work on this is complete, a further set of vitamin and mineral reference values, to apply to children aged between six months and three years, would be developed.
As such, it would seem that the Committee's intention is essentially to provide a ringing endorsement of the existing outdated and scientifically invalid recommended daily allowance concept.
Notably, therefore, although the National Health Federation attempted to intervene in this monumentally myopic error, by proposing the establishment of an additional reference value for each vitamin and mineral, to represent the population group with the greatest need for it, the Chairman overruled it, but without giving any valid scientific reason.
Clearly then, whilst the Committee's proposals on nutrient reference values are still admittedly at an early stage, anyone hoping for an outcome that reflects the latest science or that promotes optimum nutrition would currently be well advised not to hold their breath.
Still waiting for the ‘Stunning Victory’ at Codex? You're not alone…
Natural health advocates with good memories may recall the so-called Natural Solutions Foundation, in its report on a meeting of the Codex Committee on Food Labeling that took place in May 2006, claiming that the outcome of discussions regarding the proposed role of Codex in the implementation of the World Health Organization's Global Strategy On Diet, Physical Activity and Health were a "Stunning Victory" for health freedom.
Well, this certainly wasn't true then and it still isn't now, especially if the outcome of discussions at this meeting were anything to go by. Eighteen months after the claimed "Stunning Victory", whilst Codex is still talking about the Global Strategy, there's no sign of any significant action.
For example, although the Chairwoman of the Codex Committee on Food Labeling, Dr. Anne MacKenzie, gave a PowerPoint presentation on the subject of the Global Strategy, asking what mechanisms were available for inter-committee communication and cooperation, and proposing to seek guidance from WHO and FAO, her valiant contribution was relegated to a relatively minor position in the Committee's agenda, under "Other Business and Future Work."
After the somewhat unfocussed and confusing discussion that followed, during which even a representative of the Codex Secretariat, Dr. Jeronimas Maskeliunas, admitted to being "completely confused" as to what the Committee was talking about, it was eventually agreed that a Working Group should meet to discuss the Global Strategy immediately prior to next year's meeting of the Committee and, after its discussions, that it should report back to the Committee.
Yet more talk, in other words, and still no sign of any action.
At this current juncture, therefore, Codex discussions regarding the World Health Organization's Global Strategy On Diet, Physical Activity and Health would appear to be light years away from turning into any sort of victory, let alone a stunning one.
Like the World Controllers in Aldous Huxley's ‘Brave New World’, the Codex Alimentarius Commission doesn't want to change.
From its perspective, change - in the form of a new global healthcare system based on scientific breakthroughs in the areas of vitamin research and cellular health - is a menace to the financial stability of the pharmaceutical industry. As a result, groundbreaking discoveries in nutritional therapeutics are increasingly seen as subversive and treated as an enemy to the ‘business with disease’.
However, the lies and deceit that are necessary to maintain this situation are not sustainable in the long term. Whether Codex likes it or not, change will eventually come and, when it does, consumers will overwhelmingly demand that those who had knowingly tried to prevent their access to therapeutic vitamin supplements and other natural therapies should be called to account for their actions.
In the meantime, however, whilst cardiovascular disease, cancer, AIDS and other common diseases will undoubtedly be largely unknown to future generations, it is our responsibility to ensure that this comes about sooner rather than later.
The treatment of diseases with patented synthetic chemical drugs, when safer and more effective natural treatments are already available, borders on insanity and should no longer be tolerated in any civilized society worthy of the name.
As such, the sooner the pharmaceutical industry's ‘business with disease’ is confined to the dustbins of medical history, where it belongs, the better for all mankind.
The Codex Alimentarius is a threat to the freedom of people to choose natural healing and alternative medicine and nutrition. Ratified by the World Health Organization, and going into Law in the United States in 2009, the threat to health freedom has never been greater.
This is the first part of a series of talks by Dr. Rima Laibow MD, available on DVD from the Natural Solutions Foundation, an non-profit organization dedicated to educating people about how to stop Codex Alimentarius from taking away our right to freely choose nutritional health.
Criminalizing Natural Health, Vitamins, and Herbs
see "Herbal Medicines Banned in Europe as EU Directive Comes Into Force"
The international war on vitamins 28 Jan 2015 09:14 #11
The international war on vitamins 01 Feb 2015 07:21 #12
The international war on vitamins 04 Feb 2015 08:11 #13
Take Action - South African Govt Trying To Have Natural Supplements & Vitamins Banned
If the South African government gets its way, 60-80% of all natural supplements will soon vanish from South African shops. The government is bowing to corporate pressure to get rid of natural supplements by regulating them to the point that only giant pharmaceutical companies control the market.
The giant corporations have massive amounts of money to "lobby" for a change in legislation. As such, the SA government is under huge pressure to put laws in place that will effectively ban natural supplements. The corporate lobbyists nearly got away with it in the USA and the UK, but mass consumer activism stopped them at the last minute.
Don't let them get away with it here in South Africa. Let's start by signing this petition.
By Anthony Rees
Imagine if the vitamin and mineral supplements that you and your family rely on became unavailable overnight, or were suddenly much less effective? This is exactly what could happen, if our Medicines Regulatory Authority (MCC) has its way.
Every day, millions of health conscious South Africans take natural health products, either as part of their long term health and nutrition regimes, or to address specific underlying causes of many ailments.
But recently passed regulations for complementary and alternative medicines (CAMS) threatens to eradicate or weaken over-the-counter supplements by lowering the maximum permitted levels of ingredients.
Not only will these regulations have a damaging effect on the specialist supplements industry, it will significantly undermine consumers’ rights to make informed choices for themselves and undermine the population's overall health. We believe that these regulations threaten to increase the country's disease burden and even health expenditure as people progressively become overfed on macro-nutrients and undernourished by micro-nutrient deficiencies.
The Natural Health Alliance campaign calls on the Government to take urgent action to recall these capricious upper limits based on a false safety rhetoric, so consumers can continue to make informed choices for themselves – free of excessive regulatory interference.
Under the new regulations, many popular nutritional supplements will be at risk of being banned. Many more will be seriously affected by the reduction in the maximum permitted levels of vitamins and minerals, based on no sound scientific rationale. It appears the only reason for this legislation is the Medicines Control Councils' desire to bring South African supplement strengths into line with European countries, where the majority of high potency and health promoting supplements have either been withdrawn from the market, outright banned or scheduled. Scheduling of dietary supplements will force many consumers to first visit a medical practitioner and obtain a prescription to continue their use; not that many medical doctors have been trained to understand the biochemistry and positive effect of micronutrients on the cellular level.
Read more: Natural Health Alliance
Sign The Petition: South African Minister of Health: Stop the Crackdown on Natural Health products
South Africans deserve freedom of choice about the medicine they prefer to take. The new regulations put out by the MCC will mean that 85% of all natural medicines will disappear from the market place, thousands of people will be out of work and the economy will lose millions. We will have the most stringent and highly regulated natural health industry in the world.
This move by the MCC is unconstitutional and denies the South African people the right to freedom of choice and access to natural medicines.
The international war on vitamins 08 Feb 2015 07:46 #14
Go shopping and read the ridiculous amount of products that are
fortified with vitamins, minerals or other substances .
That is a dumbass post. Cinta.Educate yourself befoe posting a pic and making a stupid statement.
The fortification of junk food is not the same as taking vitamins and minerals for specific health issues or deficiencies.
Big Pharma’s War on Supplements- See more at: healthimpactnews.com/2014/big-pharmas-war-on-supplements/#sthash.jnmGWEP0.dpuf
Why are the attacks on supplements becoming so loud?
By now anyone not living in a cave has heard the message loud and clear: don’t use supplements. Either they are a harmless waste of money, or they’re a harmful threat to your health (note that these points are contradictory). This message has been repeated over and over both in journals and in conventional media outlets. It is, with very few exceptions, junk science. Even in the few instances when it is right, it is wrong.
Here’s an example of what we mean by being right and wrong at the same time. Journals and the media keep insisting on calling alpha-tocopherol “vitamin E.” This is incorrect.
Vitamin E is comprised of mixed tocopherols and tocotrienols. Too much alpha-tocopherol can interfere with your body’s use of the arguably more important gamma form. Hence studies that supplement alpha alone and call it vitamin E are both inaccurate and doing something that does not occur in nature. In addition, in most instances the alpha-tocopherol being tested is dl-alpha-tocopherol, which is the fully synthetic form, also not something you will ever find in nature.
Similarly, studies suggesting there is a heart risk associated with supplementing calcium are both right and wrong. They are right because calcium needs some essential co-factors to move into the bones instead of the circulatory system. These include vitamin K2 in particular, along with vitamin D3 and other less important factors. This is one reason (among others) why the World Health Organization’s 2010 proposal to put calcium in the water supply was simply crazy.
Another way to be right and wrong simultaneously is to use a tiny bit of a supplement and say that it had no measurable effect. This is spending a great deal of money in order to state what should have been obvious. There is no point studying supplements if you don’t test meaningful doses. To do this, you have to do what researchers least want to do: actually consult with integrative doctors, the people with clinical experience using supplements.
Not understanding co-factors and proper dosages is perhaps excusable. The other tricks used to make supplements look dangerous are really dubious: the intentional cherry picking of studies, most of them with very questionable data, followed by all kinds of “clever” statistical manipulations, among other underhanded techniques.
For example, if you are allowed to see the underlying data (often not the case) and dig into it deeply enough, you find that people using supplements lived longer. But the researchers then “corrected” for lifestyle habits (e.g., diet), throwing in as many factors as they liked, until they could force the remaining data into a weak statistical result that now seemed to say the supplements actually hurt. Why does the researcher bother to go to all this trouble when he or she clearly had already decided on the answer?
Recently, more and more researchers have been going to more and more trouble to find evidence—any evidence, no matter how weak or falsified—to shore up conclusions they have already reached. Why? And why have reporters more or less done the opposite, going to no trouble at all, just parroting press releases? In the latter case, it can’t just be laziness.
This increasing phenomenon of underhanded attacks amplified mindlessly by the mass press suggests that the natural health idea, based on diet and lifestyle, not just supplements, must be reaching people. This seems to be a campaign of push-back, and it is getting bigger and bigger.
There is the old story about how new ideas emerge. First, they are scoffed at: “What a complete joke!” As the ideas advance, the entrenched interests who benefit from the old ideas lapse into a stony silence: “Shh! Don’t let any more people hear about this!” In phase three, there is a very vocal campaign of push-back from the entrenched interests.
Stage three seems to be where we are at now. Do you know how to tell we have reached the final, fourth stage, the stage in which the new ideas are finally accepted? It is when the former opponents of the new ideas say, “Oh, we knew that all along!”
During our current third stage of vocal attack on natural health, one of the oft-heard arguments against supplements is, “Hey, just eat well. You can get everything you need from food.” That seems reasonable. It at least nods in the direction of natural health ideas, because we do believe that diet is vital. But it is wrong, for a number of reasons.
Studies suggest that Americans are short of many essential nutrients. Dr. Bruce Ames, emeritus professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at the University of California at Berkeley, points out that 60% of Americans get too little magnesium, one of our most important nutrients. Magnesium alone is needed for over 300 biochemical reactions, according to the Life Extension Foundation. Dr. Ames estimates that not getting enough of the right nutrients in general is shortening the average lifespan by eight to ten years.
Partly this is because many of us don’t eat well. But there are numerous other reasons why we might not get sufficient nutrients from food alone. One of them is conventional medical treatment, especially medical mistakes. One of the gravest mistakes of modern medicine appears to be blocking the acid in people’s stomachs in the mistaken belief that this will control acid reflux or stomach pain over the long run.
As we have often pointed out, the evidence has always existed that people lose stomach acid as they age and it is often the lack of acid that contributes both to reflux and stomach pain. Even the FDA has only authorized the use of acid blockers for short periods of time. Yet doctors routinely prescribe them for years.
And what does the lack of stomach acid lead to—in addition to steadily worsening stomach problems for millions of sufferers? Malnutrition, of course (one example of which is vitamin B12 deficiency). How can we properly digest protein and especially minerals without the acid that is supposed to be in our stomachs? And don’t forget pneumonia: lack of acid lets the bugs through and has been shown by creditable researchers to lead to more serious illness and even death. The culprit is often the class of gastric acid-suppressing drugs known as PPIs, or proton pump inhibitors, like Nexium and Prevacid, among the most widely prescribed drugs in the US, with nearly 110 million prescriptions and $13.9 billion in sales in 2010, in addition to over-the-counter sales. In other words, a huge number of Americans are malnourished from PPIs alone.
Think about a doctor who both prescribes acid blockers for years and tells his patient not to take supplements. He or she may be literally starving the patient to death, however many years it takes to play out. Other drugs may also interfere with nutrition in ways that are barely understood, and surgical trauma certainly requires extra nutrients to heal.
The international war on vitamins 11 Mar 2015 07:11 #15
A Minnesota man was released from jail this week after spending close to three months in custody for possession of vitamins.www.prisonplanet.com/man-released-after-months-in-jail-for-possession-of-vitamins.html
The man, 31-year-old Joseph Burrell, was arrested last November after police claimed that a vitamin powder found in his vehicle was actually illegal amphetamines.
Charged with two counts of felony drug possession, Burrell was incarcerated on $250,000 bail while the substance awaited final testing at the state crime lab.
“I told the judge I couldn’t plead guilty to something I knew wasn’t a drug,” Burrell told the Mankato Free Press. “They set my bail at $250,000 for vitamins.”
After spending weeks behind bars, Burrell was quietly released only days before his trial. Man Released after Months in Jail for Possession of Vitamins
“I had been sitting in the jail since November with my bail set at $250,000,” Burrell said. “Then, two days before trial, they dropped the charges and let me go
|Topic subject||Relevance||Date of latest post|
|Vitamins Under Attack Again||8.27||Wednesday, 18 December 2013|
|International Antifa||6.23||Monday, 02 July 2018|
|ISS Hoax - The International Fake Station||6.1||Sunday, 21 March 2021|
|Nurmberg International Military Tribunal||6.1||Sunday, 04 February 2018|
|The International Flag for Planet Earth||6.1||Monday, 01 June 2015|
|Adolf Hitler - The International Clique (New World Order)||5.96||Monday, 04 April 2016|
|Henry Ford - The International Jew: The World's Foremost Problem||5.96||Saturday, 20 October 2018|
|United States Declares War On International Criminal Court.||5.96||Friday, 14 September 2018|
|Israel Launches Initiative to Have Antisemitism Recognized as an International Crime||5.9||Thursday, 21 April 2016|
|American teens' math scores fall on an international test||5.9||Tuesday, 09 October 2018|