Tag Archives: national health federation

NHF Leads In The Future Of Health Freedom

Robot (2)

The Need for Critical Thinking

Michio Kaku, in Physics of the Future, said, “Science is a double-edged sword; it creates as many problems as it solves, but always on a higher level.” When I reviewed his lengthy book[1] in 2012, I noted, “How can we shape our minds to embrace the constant of change and have the discernment ready to sort the profitable and helpful from the controlling, damaging, and destructive? What is the future of health freedom? How much transparency is too much? If ever there was a need for a Constitution for the Race of Mankind, it is now.” That was three years ago. The time has indeed arrived; the future is now.

The health-freedom community must work quickly in the establishment of a safe structure where the flashflood of new technology can be employed without compromise or at least minimizing the latter.

Common Sense and Critical Thinking:

The Information Age has birthed unrestricted innovation in a free-market environment and increasing free trade. While the World’s first health-freedom organization, National Health Federation (NHF), fully supports sensible conduct of these principles, due diligence is essential when Moore’s Law (really an observation) anticipates that data density will double roughly every 18 months. This sets a brisk learning curve accommodating rapid increases in knowledge coupled with increasing complexity. We must apply self-regulation and self-reliance, honed using critical thinking skills in a proactive way, both to educate and incorporate beneficial change.

The new learning model declares that “to learn something once is outdated thinking.” Floods of new information, upgrades, updates, etc. mean we learn and relearn again and again. Instead of turning to professionals or officials for advice and direction, now an elevated analytical response in a fully participatory vein is demanded lest we are swept away in a tsunami of misplaced techno-trust in man or machine.

I Spy From the Inside

In 2012, I alerted the health-freedom community to privacy compromises inherent in emerging technology[2]. Sober evaluation of the threat requires the development, honing, and conveyance to others of critical thinking skills. Formal education can help but is not an endpoint. Educators typically don’t come from the standpoint of teaching critical thinking skills. Conformity and rigidity, adherence to outmoded ideas, and dogmatic formalism can undermine the inherent benefit of higher education. And while the situation has improved since the 17th Century when Commenius called schools “the slaughterhouse of the mind,” we must remain vigilant if we are to rigorously analyze and assess each technology in turn and its potential side-effects as they relate to privacy, security, and the loss of personal sovereignty. The devil is always in the details and however extraordinary the innovation the law of unintended consequences invariably rules the day.

Specifically, we must become efficient in anticipating problems in privacy, data security, and loss of personal sovereignty before adopting and implementing technology in nanobots, wearables, smart technology, nanopackaging, and comprehensive personnel/personal databases. The question remains as to whether “we” in this context is the collective or the individual. NHF engages with global policy makers at Codex challenging both obvious and extenuating ramifications of their decisions, and to varying effect; but the informed individual, operating in concert with others, can affect market forces and effect positive change among technology providers from the grassroots level. An informed citizenry applying critical thinking analysis is therefore crucial.

In this context, earlier this year3 via NHF, I sounded the alarm demanding the need for critical thinking where remote-controlled nanobots delivering medications onsite in the bloodstream are concerned. The technology is advancing quickly and the privacy/sovereignty concerns are not keeping pace. With regenerative and nanomedicine, nanobots coursing through the bloodstream,[3] delivering medicines directly to the site or used in anti-aging therapies[4] with propellers powering them, your body has become a gamer’s dreamscape, the players – medical technicians. Your body is their “wonderland.”

The situation becomes more futuristic and even alarming when considering “Transhumanist” advocacy for cyborgization (human and machine combination), genetic engineering, and synthetic biology, to increase our intelligence, health, and lives so as to transform humanity to a “post-human” stage.[5] This vision holds man transcending the limitations of mere humanity, in this “post-human” World, and not merely the potentiated man by combining with machines.

These are all issues that need further exploration by medical ethicists and the informed citizenry as formerly-fanciful science fiction approaches science fact. To reiterate, the future threshold has been traversed. The demand is for common sense coalesced with critical thinking skills and the ability to adapt to accelerated change in an increasingly complex environment.

The Techno-Tsunami in “Geek-Speak”

When you read the words “techno-tsunami in geek-speak” you realize how fast our world is changing – specifically “wearables.” Language expands to match innovation.

“FRAMINGHAM, Mass. June 18, 2015 – The wearables market maintained its upward trajectory in the first quarter of 2015 as new vendors, including Apple, prepared to enter the market. A new forecast from the International Data Corporation (IDC) Worldwide Quarterly Wearable Device Tracker estimates that 72.1 million wearable devices will be shipped in 2015, up a strong 173.3% from the 26.4 million units shipped in 2014. Shipment volumes are expected to experience a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 42.6% over the five-year forecast period, reaching 155.7 million units shipped in 2019.”[6]

Or consider this quote from an industry executive: “Growth in the smart wearables market points to an emerging battleground among competing platforms,” said Ramon Llamas, research manager, Wearables.[7]

This techno-tsunami with its own “geek-speak” has raced past GMO-laden and other danger-foods entering a raging tech market with cutthroat competition racing for a compatible platform for emerging innovations with the Internet of Things (IoT). To date, machine to machine (M2M) or “smart” communication has dominated the IoT (think electricity smart meters and their poorly assessed high-power RF emissions). Now wearables such as the Apple Watch, Google Glasses, heartrate monitors, activity trackers, and implanted medical devices, fitness bands, smart clothing, etc. are the focal point in our “wired” lifestyle. Wearables provide historical and real-time data, the raw material for in-depth analysis of vital statistics, luring with the siren song promising more knowledge leading to greater health. Add to these wearables, “smart surfaces” wired with sensors that measure data and actors performing a function. This comprises the IoT and ultimately sends information to Big Data, which supports all of the connected constituent devices. Data is analyzed and relayed to the wearer, their family members, medics, or doctor if problems emerge. Identification, security, biometric measurements, and location sensing are the foundations. All part of a profitably-rising sector in an unchecked tech-geyser.

“Wearables in healthcare share many characteristics with the networks of sensors in Internet of Things (IoT) applications. But healthcare adds additional complexities, particularly regarding security. When an individual’s personal health data comes into the mix, more complicated laws, security regulations and privacy concerns start to kick in. However, with this large-scale volume of data, providers must not forget the basics of data management in healthcare. Health data is especially highly sensitive information – both in a legal sense (health information is categorised as ‘sensitive’ under EU data protection law) but also in the sense of everyday consumer trust (people feel that information about their health is private).”[8]

The critical thinker demands to review studies correlating the connection between ill-health and exposure to wireless technology worn on the body. Will the trade-offs be worth the risks? And in the absence of studies from emerging technology, common sense reigns. Or not …. What about security breaches and the posting, even on social media, of one’s private medical records and the sale of the same? This knowledge comes at a high potential price-risk. The choice to be visibly monitored by others is yours; life in a fishbowl or privacy?

In the IoT world, unique identifiers are assigned to people, animals, and objects allowing the ability to transfer data over the network without requiring human-to-computer or human-to-human interaction; sensors, biochip transponders, medical implants such as heart monitors, or anything which could receive an Internet Protocol (IP) address are the “things” in the IoT. This sets the stage for breaches in cyber-security, privacy, and data sovereignty with the potential increase in “smart nodes” and the data generated from them.

Technology is not to be feared but embraced. However the foundation of the tech-innovation deluge does not provide gains without attendant concerns and risks to health and health freedom primarily in the realm of data sovereignty, data security, privacy, and electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure. NHF promotes the true free market and individual freedom. Welcoming innovation like wearable tech, we still caution “buyer beware” now more than ever before. Reference the science on exposure to near-continual EMFs and potential or proven health risks. Until the problems admittedly inherent in the IoT and Big Data are solved the tech-embrace must come with research, discretion, and self-protection.

2014: The Year of the Security Breach

2014 is officially “The Year of the Security Breach”[9] Where medical fraud is concerned, it is clearly not possible to rely on security of new-to-market technology and equipment where vulnerabilities may be embedded. Hospitals are infamous for outdated systems and lax security. Cyber- attacks and stolen records are on the rise. Medical records are worth more than credit card numbers on the black market. “[T]he FBI warned healthcare providers to guard against cyber-attacks after one of the largest U.S. hospital operators, Community Health Systems Inc. said Chinese hackers had broken into its computer network and stolen the personal information of 4.5 million patients.”[10]

In May 2015, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management reported that government cyber-vulnerability compromised the data of 22.1 million people.[11] Stolen records of Federal employees and those undergoing background and security checks extended to compromise family and friends as well. “OPM has determined that the types of information in these records include identification details such as Social Security Numbers; residency and educational history; employment history; information about immediate family and other personal and business acquaintances; health, criminal and financial history; and other details.  Some records also include findings from interviews conducted by background investigators and fingerprints. Usernames and passwords that background investigation applicants used to fill out their background investigation forms were also stolen.”[12]

The National Health Care (NHS), which provides health care for all UK citizens, reported its own data breaches as well, “Big Brother Watch discovered cases of private data being stolen, accidentally sent by post or fax as well as inappropriate posting on social media. In total, there were 7,255 recorded incidents between April 2011 and April 2014. The organisation said the mistakes were ‘unacceptable.’ Yet the majority of cases resulted in no disciplinary action and were made ‘by mistakes.’”[13]

Whether shared on social media, lost or stolen, shared with a third party, shared by email, letter, or fax, accidentally published online, we should determine in advance of the need the establishment of our own personal privacy boundaries where medical record keeping is concerned, to the extent that that boundary is not established by government fiat for us first.

The Ménage a Trois: IoT, Big Data, and You

Questions need to be answered. We are streaking like a meteor toward an increased pervasive unleashing of intelligence about our daily lives. Information and the convenience of being connected to your environment comes at a high price. There are so many variables to consider with Moore’s Law, increasing complexity, and globalization marking this era. Some places to start:

  • Employ the Mediterranean diet to reduce chance by 50% of employing therapy in the first place[14]
  • Discipline time-management to include study, research, and exposure to emerging tech in personal IoT devices, healthcare, and personal data collection.
  • Increase critical thinking skills to evaluate options – a responsibility for all citizenry
  • Keep investing at the global level to shape global politics at Codex through NHF
  • Craft a “Bill of Rights” or a “Constitution for the Race of Mankind” for AI and the IoT.[15]


[1] Katherine A. Carroll, “Book Review, Physics of the Future,” Globalfoodfighter, 2011, at

[2] Katherine A. Carroll, “I Spy From the Inside,” Globalfoodfighter, 2015,at

[3] Edwin Kee, “Nanobot Micromotors Can Deliver Payload in Living Creatures,” Ubergizmo, 1/21/2015, at

[4] Alexandra Grunberg, “From Cyborgs to Nanobots: 5 Ways Scientists Hope to Achieve Immortality for Humanity,” Outer Places, July 20, 2015, at

[5] Ibid.

[6] Press Release, “Worldwide Wearables Market Forecast to Grow 173.3% in 2015 with 72.1 Million Units to be Shipped, According to IDC,” IDC, Global Market Intelligence Firm, June 18, 2015 at


[8]Mark Gamble, “Wearables, Big Data and Analytics in Healthcare,” The Information Daily, July 17, 2015, at

[9] Robert Richardson, “Information Security 2014: Shifts ahead after a watershed year,” Reuters, September 24, 2014, at

[10] Caroline Humer and Jim Finkle, “Your medical record is worth more to hackers than your credit card,” Reuters, September 24, 2014, at

[11] News Release, Office of Communications, “OPM Announces Steps to Protect Federal Workers and Others From Cyber Threats,” Office of Personnel Management, July 9, 2015, at

[12] Ibid.

[13] BBC News, “NHS has repeated data breaches,” BBC News, November 14, 2014, at

[14] Knoops KT1, de Groot LC, Kromhout D, Perrin AE, Moreiras-Varela O, Menotti A, van Staveren WA., “Mediterranean diet, lifestyle factors, and 10-year mortality in elderly European men and women: the HALE project,” JAMA, 2004 Sep 22;292(12):1433-9, at

[15] Andy Meek, “Connecting artificial intelligence with the internet of things,” The Guardian, July 24, 2015, at

© 2015 Katherine A. Carroll

Kat Carroll is Associate Editor of the National Health Federation’s magazine, Health Freedom News, Editor of the NHF e-newsletter, and is on the Board of Directors of the National Health Federation Canada and the Advisory Board for GreenMedInfo. Kat received the 2014 Health Freedom Hero award, She also writes for several blogs, is frequent contributor to several publications, and is currently compiling a book on Codex Alimentarius based on first-hand experience attending International Codex meetings. Kat maintains a private practice as a Nutritional Therapy Practitioner, certified in First Line Therapy, and is a member of the Nutritional Therapy Association and the Ocular Nutrition Society. Kat is also Clinic Administrator at her and her husband’s two Optometry clinics. Additionally, Kat enjoys hosting guests at Adytum Sanctuary, their Pacific Northwest retreat. Contacts: email – [email protected] and phone – 1.360.790.2011 | Websites,,

Codex Alimentarius Latest Strategy: Divide And Conquer


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.

codex meeting

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.

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

[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 at  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

[7] See Scott Tips’ article “The Great Australian Health Mystery” at See also Eve Hillary’s excellent take-action letter to Ms. Lewis at

Scott C. Tips is President of the National Health Federation. Scott is a California-licensed attorney, specializing in food-and-drug law and trademark law, but also engages in business litigation, general business law, and nonprofit organizations, with an international clientele. Since 1989, Scott has been the General Counsel for the National Health Federation, the World’s oldest health-freedom organization for consumers, as well as the Editor In Chief of its magazine, Health Freedom News. In 2007, he became NHF President, and has been a frequent speaker for the organization and for health freedom on several continents. As legal columnist, Scott writes a monthly column for Whole Foods Magazine called “Legal Tips,” a column he started many years ago. Currently, he is primarily occupied with health-freedom issues arising from national governments’ and such international organizations as the Codex Alimentarius Commission’s attempts to limit individual freedom of choice in health matters. In that capacity, he has compiled, edited, and published a book on the subject entitled Codex Alimentarius – Global Food Imperialism. He also attends Codex meetings worldwide and has attended more Codex meetings than any other health-freedom activist.

The National Health Federation: Global Watchdog – Taking The Bite Out Of Medicated Meat While The U.S. Position Betrays The World


scott tips

Scott Tips speaking at CCRVDF Working Group meeting

If Americans were relying on the U.S. government delegate to represent them at Codex, then they have been betrayed once again.

Minneapolis turned up the heat for the National Health Federation’s (NHF) arrival for Codex Alimentarius’ 21st session on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods (CCVRDF) during the week of August 24-30, 2013. Held in searing Minnesota with tropical humidity and 90-95 degrees Fahrenheit daily, locals admitted that they’d never experienced such a Summer. Schools cancelled and sidewalk cafes were closed “due to extreme heat,” a timely illustration for the hot topic of veterinary drug residues and their metabolites in food. NHF, your consistent, truthful Voice for health and health freedom at Codex Alimentarius helped expose the U.S.’ pathetic argument repeatedly as pointless regarding their insistence on retaining the widest possible options for veterinary-drug residues in foods. Speaking consistently for health, NHF opposed each of the ten veterinary drugs and recommended a Global ban on their use in animals.

Among other things, the veterinary drugs being reviewed for use or discontinuance of use were Chloramphenicol (a carcinogen potentially leading to aplastic anemia, a precursor to leukemia), Malachite green (a carcinogen that acts genotoxically), Carbadox (growth promoter and antimicrobial agent, another carcinogen that acts genotoxically), Furazolidone, Nitrofural (causes tumors and testicular degeneration via an endocrine-mediated mechanism), Chlorpromazine (Thorazine, tranquilizer and reproductive-system disrupter), Stilbenes (e.g., diethylstilbestrol), Olaquindox, and the Nitroimidazoles (antimicrobial and antiprotozoal agents such as Dimetridazole, Ipronidazole, Metronidazole, and Ronidazole).

Unfortunately, world-trade-prompted greed at the expense of health is rampant at Codex. NHF President Scott Tips had the foresight to move up as early in the decision-making process as we could get by participating in the Physical Working Group (PWG) before the plenary Committee session. He spoke out vehemently, passionately defending our right dozens of times to have access to meat free of residues of drugs designed for animals. NHF demanded a moribund class of veterinary antibiotics and other drugs for Global ban as they are associated with cancer, tumors, leukemia, aplastic anemia, and more, and do little to actually aid the animals who receive them.  Even in the United States, all but one of the above-mentioned vet drugs (Carbadox) are banned; however, illogically, the U.S. accepts residue tainted meat as imports.

The outcome of this Codex meeting was unexpectedly positive as the majority of the World reached consensus upon two things:

  1.  There is not enough current data to make an intelligent decision assuring us that these vet drugs will not result in residues of toxicological health concern. Drug manufacturers are not coming forth with fresh studies but are instead withholding current research to maintain the status quo.
  2. The determination was made that there are no safe levels of antibiotic vet drug residues because maximum residue levels cannot be established due to lack of current data so they are recommended to be banned, erring on the side of safety.

True to form, the U.S. delegation opposed consensus, parroting their impotent argument repeatedly that because there were scientific data gaps (current studies) on these drugs, no one could really say that they were harmful to humans (forget the animals, as only NHF discussed animal welfare here). By attacking the method of decision-making instead of the facts (i.e., considering the residue’s toxicity and lack of recent studies), the U.S. merely succeeded in slowing consensus at Codex against these vet drugs while at the same time strangely ignoring the United States’ own laws against the drugs.

One of the vet drugs debated, Carbadox (which is employed in pigs), is still in use. While the Codex Committee largely opted for discontinuance of Carbadox, the U.S. disagreed, contending that “a 2003 report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) meeting confirmed it as a carcinogen in tissues but couldn’t determine the level that it wouldn’t be carcinogenic.

Studies report, though, that “Carbadox may induce adverse effects on the adrenal in growing pigs at therapeutic (100 to 150 ppm) and feed-additive doses (50 ppm). Even at lower doses (25 ppm), mild lesions were found. The grade of lesions was positively correlated with the duration of exposure to this growth promoter.”  (See

Perhaps opening up the potential huge profits by getting dangerous vet drugs back into the U.S. meat supply, in which 9 of its 10 drugs have been discontinued for some time, is a consideration, as the United States once again demonstrated the exact same kind of greed-induced intent that led last year to its and its allies’ shoving the dangerous steroid-like vet drug Ractopamine down the rest of the World’s throats just so farmers could make $3-$4 more per porcine head. “Wealth over health” seems to be the U.S. mantra every time. They argued everything but the real issue: whether vet drug residues and their metabolites are harming us.  Ah, but there’s the money to be made . . . .

Brazil wisely noted, with NHF agreement, No risk management measures should be recommended for substances without sufficient information to conclude whether there is a specific human health risk associated.”  This kind of recommendation leaves no other alternative than the best one: a complete Global ban on these dangerous drugs in food-producing animals.

When the issue of Concern Forms (a procedure for Codex members to express their concerns about Vet Drugs) arose, Scott Tips’ perspective as a food-and-drug law specialist attorney fostered a unique critique of the limiting wording proposed for inclusion in the official Codex Procedural Manual.  He successfully argued – and had to repeatedly argue so as to preserve its inclusion – particular wording that would ensure that Codex members had more flexibility in raising concerns over vet drugs.

Zilpaterol’s proposed addition to the priority list of veterinary drugs for evaluation by JECFA was strongly opposed by the European Union, the NHF, and a number of other delegations. But, in the end, the anticipated debate on a standard for Zilpaterol (marketed as Zilmax) – the most controversial steroid-like vet drug (along with Ractopamine) – was pushed to the next CCRVDF meeting in 2015. Remember, in the United States, doped meat is marketed as “Natural,” so beware. It is FDA and USDA deception at its finest. As with the Ractopamine issue before, the Federation will fight strongly to remove these toxic, steroid-like vet drugs from the Global food supply.

Overall, Chairman Steven Vaughn was a fair and positive force keeping the Committee moving forward to resolution without rancor. Despite a Pharisaical debate literally over every “jot and tittle,” the Global food regulators reached consensus on recommending that the Risk Management Recommendations (RMRs) for the above-mentioned drugs be generally worded as follows (example given for Chloramphenicol):

In view of the JECFA conclusions on the available scientific information, there is no safe level of residues of chloramphenicol or its metabolites in food that represents an acceptable risk to consumers. For this reason, competent authorities should prevent residues of chloramphenicol in food. This can be accomplished by not using chloramphenicol in food producing animals.”

This is strong wording.  Unfortunately, at the insistence of the United States and New Zealand, and over the objections of the European Union and NHF, exceptions to the above wording were made with watered down language about “insufficient data” for the vet drugs Nitrofural, Chlorpromazine, Olaquindox, and the Nitroimidazoles, sending them all on to Step 5/8 out of 8 in the Codex process for approval at the higher-level Commission meeting next year.

In the meantime, if you are a meat eater, NHF recommends consuming only organic meat. Probably for the rest of your life – if you value your health.

Kat Carroll is Associate Editor of the National Health Federation’s magazine, Health Freedom News, and is on the Board of Directors of the National Health Federation Canada. She also writes for several blogs, magazines, and is currently compiling a book on Codex Alimentarius based on first-hand experience attending International Codex meetings. Kat is a Nutritional Therapy Practitioner and Clinic Administrator at her and her husband’s Optometry clinics. Additionally, Kat enjoys hosting guests at Adytum Sanctuary, their Pacific Northwest retreat. [email protected].

Do You Believe in Offit?

dr. paul offit

The pharmaceutical industry and the American Medical Association (AMA) are running scared – very scared.  In fact, jackrabbits have more courage right now than they do.  After having created a near-monopoly in medical care that has endured one hundred years since the Flexner Report came out in 1910 with its hatchet job against competitive health treatments such as homeopathy, naturopathy, osteopathy, chiropractic, and herbal medicine, this drug and medical mafia has kept a jealous and vigilant watch over its monopolistic commercial privileges.

A Coercive Monopoly

These privileges, mind you, would not and could not exist without the very active participation of government enforcers who ensure that any serious competitors will be regulated out of existence or into insignificance.  And if, by chance, any of these competitors should pose a serious threat to the medical mafia, then heavy fines, incarceration, and public humiliation will be their fate.

Yet, despite government thugs’ relentless and best efforts to suppress these challenges to the medical monopoly, we have all seen a phenomenal growth in alternative healthcare and throughout the dietary-supplement business, proving once again that government is hopelessly incompetent at waging war against anything, whether it’s the War on Cancer, the War on Drugs, the War on Terror, or, yes, the War on True Healthcare.

That the medical mafia is truly scared can be seen in its scooping up large chunks of the supplement business, some of them made into “Pharma Lite” companies that will not threaten drug-industry profits but instead simply silently support the status-quo medical system that sees hundreds of thousands of Americans and Canadians die each and every year.

Their fear can also be seen in their repeated – and now stepped up – media campaign to demonize supplements and alternative medicine.  From the April 2010 Reader’s Digest cover story screaming “The Vitamin Scam” to the equally biased USA Today front-page story by Liz Szabo (June 19, 2013) on the dangers of alternative medicine, the push is on once again to convince consumers everywhere that supplements and alternative medicine are dangers to be avoided at all costs. Conspicuously absent from any such “exposés,” though, is any comparison of the health risks between highly regulated drugs and doctors, on the one hand, and “loosely regulated” supplements and alternative healthcare, on the other.  All except the naïve know that supplements and alternative healthcare are not even in the same league as deadly conventional medicine.

The Medical “Hit Man”

Enter the medical mafia’s latest boy wonder talking head – Dr. Paul Offit, or should we say “Dr. Profit”?  Looking as if he were sent straight out of Central Casting, Dr. Offit has put his name on a book that I would bet was actually written, or at least heavily researched, by a medical-mafia marketing team and given the cutesy title “Do You Believe in Magic? The Sense and Nonsense of Alternative Medicine.” Presumably, Dr. Offit would know the answer to that question, as he himself has proved to be a fervent believer in the magic of over-vaccinating children as well as the magic of drugging Americans at every opportunity despite a yearly body count that would make ancient despots proud.

Remember, Ibuprofen alone kills some 17,000 Americans a year.  And how many thousands of Americans are killed annually by vitamin-and-mineral supplements? A big, fat zero. So, if anyone believes in magic, it is the pathetic talking head Dr. Offit.

Still, in a back-handed compliment to the National Health Federation that recognizes its importance, Dr. Offit’s hatchet job begins with an attack on the Federation, claiming it “represents the financial interests of the alternative-medicine industry” and even had a hand in the death of a child whose parents were led astray from conventional medicine.  Serious, but false, accusations – which ignore, once again, the hundreds of thousands of deaths every year at the hands of properly licensed doctors and hospitals and because of FDA-approved drugs.  It is also predictable that Dr. Profit, who most assuredly represents the financial interests of the drug industry, should try to tar the Federation with the same familiar brush that tars him. Even if true, which they are not, Offit’s claims are nothing more than those of a Drug Lord complaining to the police or public that someone had trespassed across a corner of his property.

Back in the 1960s and 1970s, the AMA similarly unintentionally complimented the Federation by spying on its conventions.  The medical mafia guards its monopoly jealously.

The Offits of the World come and go.  Next year’s drug peddler might still be Offit or it might very well be someone else, someone fresh and unexposed for what he or she really is – nothing but a slick talking head for the drug industry.  But, in the meantime, how many deaths, lessened quality of life, shortened lifespans, and lives filled with pain, misery and tears will be on Offit’s hands because he scared consumers and patients away from healthful supplements and into unnecessary surgeries, harmful vaccines, and killer drugs?  Offit’s soulless repetition of drug-industry platitudes will convince the unthinking and naïve; but in doing so, they carry very real consequences for many millions of lives.  Is this not also another form of the “banality of evil” of which Hannah Arendt once wrote?


David Stouder, a health-food store owner in Redwood City, California and radio personality, coined the term “Nutriphobia” in describing a condition where otherwise sensible people think that drugs are safe and nutritional supplements are dangerous.  As he puts it, “Nutriphobia is not a joke. It causes untold misery and poor health and even leads to fatalities. It is rarely diagnosed before considerable damage has been done and is commonly spread by doctors to their patients. Nutriphobia can cause a person to turn away from natural substances (vitamins, minerals, herbs, amino acids, phytonutrients, etc.) that can truly build and maintain health. Nutriphobia enhances the illusion that consuming synthetic pharmaceuticals (which, when prescribed and taken properly, kill well over 100,000 Americans each year) is the ‘scientific’ way to good health.”

Dr. Offit clearly suffers from Nutriphobia; and, unfortunately, the condition is highly contagious.  Some, such as well-known health researcher and writer Bill Sardi, have methodically deconstructed Offit’s specious arguments against supplements and alternative healthcare. (See “Why the Latest Study On Vitamin Supplements May Not Be Instructive To You” by Bill Sardi, at  Marc Brush, in his short but well-done article “Supplements in the Crosshairs, Again,” solicits comments from several industry and other leaders in response to Offit. (See  These, and more, are all worth reading so as to inoculate oneself against Nutriphobia, a contagion every bit as dangerous as many diseases.

Offit Is Also A Symptom

Dr. Offit may be a well-credentialed and degreed professional; but, seriously, Offit knows less about nutrition than most of the individuals reading this article. His degrees and credentials might impress, but the parchment upon which they are printed are nothing more than certificates of ignorance.  In a hundred years, if not sooner, Offit will be forgotten, except to those social and medical historians studying the follies of an obsolescent and fading 21st-Century health industry, who, I suspect, will easily hold Offit up to the same ridicule and disdain as Stalin’s Lysenko is today.

Clearly, Offit suffers from the nutriphobic condition defined by Mr. Stouder; but Offit is also a symptom – a symptom of the fear that pervades today’s Disease-Care industry. Fear of alternative medicine and supplements, fear of change, fear of loss of market share – ultimately fear of you and me.  That failing industry will resort, as it has for a hundred years, to employing the tools of government coercion and media disinformation to persuade its customers to remain enslaved by a never-ending cycle of disease and ill-health until death.  John F. Kennedy’s warning that “a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people” must be heeded.

That fear illuminates our strengths.  We need merely to continue pressing resolutely forward, confident in the genuine science supporting our various ways of maintaining health and forestalling disease.  We must not delude ourselves that we somehow have all of the answers or that we ourselves are flawless.  No system is perfect; we can only hope to minimize the imperfections and failures.  And through the free flow of truthful health information, absent from government coercion and suppression, we can minimize the deaths and ill health that so badly plague our current outmoded system of disease care that pretends to be healthcare.

By Scott C. Tips, President of the National Health Federation

Scott is A California-licensed attorney, he has specialized in food-and-drug law and trademark law, but also engages in business litigation, general business law, and nonprofit organizations, with an international clientele.  Since 1989, Scott has been the General Counsel for the National Health Federation, the World’s oldest health-freedom organization for consumers, as well as the Editor In Chief of its magazine, Health Freedom News.  In 2007, he became NHF President, and has been a frequent speaker for the organization and for health freedom on several continents.   As legal columnist, Scott writes a monthly column for Whole Foods Magazine called “Legal Tips,” a column he started many years ago.  Currently, he is primarily occupied with health-freedom issues arising from national governments’ and such international organizations as the Codex Alimentarius Commission’s attempts to limit individual freedom of choice in health matters.  In that capacity, he has compiled, edited, and published a book on the subject entitled Codex Alimentarius – Global Food Imperialism. He also attends Codex meetings worldwide and has attended more Codex meetings than any other health-freedom activist.

Who Needs Healthy Food When We Can Eat Cash?

eat money 

Industry Insensitivity to Health Drives Codex Agenda

 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 apt.

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.

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 is 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.

scott tips

Scott Tips, President of The National Health Federation

Speech 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.

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.

By Scott C. Tips, President of the National Health Federation

 Scott is A California-licensed attorney, he has specialized in food-and-drug law and trademark law, but also engages in business litigation, general business law, and nonprofit organizations, with an international clientele.  Since 1989, Scott has been the General Counsel for the National Health Federation, the World’s oldest health-freedom organization for consumers, as well as the Editor In Chief of its magazine, Health Freedom News.  In 2007, he became NHF President, and has been a frequent speaker for the organization and for health freedom on several continents.   As legal columnist, Scott writes a monthly column for Whole Foods Magazine called “Legal Tips,” a column he started many years ago.  Currently, he is primarily occupied with health-freedom issues arising from national governments’ and such international organizations as the Codex Alimentarius Commission’s attempts to limit individual freedom of choice in health matters.  In that capacity, he has compiled, edited, and published a book on the subject entitled Codex Alimentarius – Global Food Imperialism. He also attends Codex meetings worldwide and has attended more Codex meetings than any other health-freedom activist.

Codex Nutrition Committee Chooses Malnutrition

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

national health federation

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

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]

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

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.

scott tips

Scott Tips and Benin delegate Zinsou discuss the NRVs


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.


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.

[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 at 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.


By Scott C. Tips – President of The National Health Federation

Also see related article by Kat Carroll, NTP, Associate Editor, Health Freedom News, National Health Federation

UPDATE: Results of Codex Alimentarius Meetings 2012, In Frankfurt, Germany

codex alimentariusCodex Alimentarius is One Big Football Game

Codex Alimentarius is a UN-sponsored concept and organization, which – under the auspices of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) – creates food standards and guidelines used in international trade. In 1994, the World Trade Organization (WTO) replaced the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) with actual trade-sanction power to enforce Codex and other standards and guidelines. Not surprisingly, Codex took on an entirely new importance.

Now nearly 300 of us – Country delegates and International Non-governmental Organizations (INGOs – were involved in Germany this December in a playoff where inches of dry but crucial script would gain the yardage of victory or bitter defeat. This was the 34th session of the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU), alias “Malnutrition Meeting,” in frigid Bad Soden, Germany the first week of December 2012, where the National Health Federation sought to make its own gains and preserve our health freedoms.

In this innocuous meeting room at the Ramada Inn, play by play, line by line, either the “ball” is moving forward, backward, or it’s being passed or kicked into oblivion without regard to any real goal in a last-ditch effort to get rid of it before being tackled. In this case, for the majority of the represented World, ‘tackled’ was a voluntary fumble, “When is it break time? Let’s just agree with the provided wording and get a cup of coffee.” You have to realize the World doesn’t often enjoy what the United States takes completely for granted, in this case, safe, high-quality supplements in abundance.

In a worst case scenario, Codex is rigged and we merely delay the inevitable passage of their ultimate will. It takes a skillful operator – in this case Dr. Pia Noble (what a misnomer…) – who can lead the room and in clearly balanced opposition somehow convince or cow the country delegates into believing there is actually consensus. That’s how Codex operates: by consensus. We don’t vote unless pushed. The World must agree, must cooperate…however, what I witnessed at this session of the CCNFSDU was clearly, in legal terms, “leading” and manipulating the room to the wishes of three strong forces: the U.S., Australia, and, of course, Chairwoman Dr. Pia (anything but) Noble.

At Codex Alimentarius (Latin for “Food Code”), the plays are read, line by line, and debated on by a World that doesn’t necessarily even accept certain principles in their daily life – like taking supplements. As a Nutritional Therapist, this was my meeting. I had to be there. Thankfully a few staunch supporters made sure that happened.

In the case of this particular Codex meeting held in Bad Soden, the ball was in jeopardy of being punted into oblivion when we hit the discussion of Nutrient Reference Values (NRVs). Was there anyone out of the nearly 300 delegates who really cared at all about the issues that will impact you when you go to the health-food store this coming year? This was my second Codex meeting and I could see clearly that the paragraphs dedicated to the discussion of our NRVs were in danger of being accepted as written and set into stone around the World, all in favor of just getting to the coffee break, and I mean that literally.

You have to understand, United States citizens enjoy unprecedented access to supplements with values that actually have the power to prevent disease or heal ill health – the rest of the World either does not use supplements, believing they are toxic – like drugs – or the nutrient reference values (RDAs) are so low that multiple bottles would have to be purchased at great expense to create the impact that one good U.S. bottle creates, or they simply don’t have them because no one could afford them when their healthcare system provides “free” drugs as an alternative.

I saw the low reference values firsthand in Germany. We went into a health-food store and I could hardly find the vitamin/mineral section. I had to ask. When I did find the one small shelf, the highest values for Vitamin D3 were 400 IUs. I take 25,000 IUs daily…talk about breaking the bank. No wonder the World, represented in the form of country delegates, was anxious to get to the free coffee, sweet rolls, etc. at the break. Their countries cannot afford what seems to them to be nonsense, so they mentally have moved on and disregarded any pro-vitamin/mineral argument. This is not their World. In fact, if the National Health Federation were not present at this crucial meeting on setting Nutrient Reference Values, I can guarantee you that your World would never be the same again. Once lowered, do you really think NRVs would ever stand the chance of somehow going through Codex’s 8-step process to rise again?

From a Nutritional Therapist’s standpoint, several of the nutrients that were placed on Codex’s sacrificial altar were methylation factors. B6, B12, Folic Acid…If we don’t methylate well, we can develop opportunistic diseases. Cancer…heart attack that occurs when Homocysteine elevates…Some, like calcium, which Codex wished to elevate out of proportion to stabilizing magnesium, and when taken out of balance, creates disease as well by mineralizing in soft tissue like blood vessels instead of the bone and teeth. So, at this point I’m thinking, “Is Codex out to kill us?

So many of the final decisions made by Codex equal ill health for the World. It means both Big Pharma and the so-called “health” care system profits, while we grow ill and die. It is no secret that depopulation is one aspect of the World’s agenda. “Dr. Henry Kissinger himself wrote: “Depopulation should be the highest priority of U.S. foreign policy towards the Third World.” Apparently America is the new ‘third World.’

If you ever needed an advocate for your health and your health freedom, it is now. Now is the time to have your wishes and your Voice represented at Codex. Is it any wonder that Codex is not letting any more health-freedom organizations into the elite representation? The National Health Federation (NHF) is the ONLY health-freedom organization that has the power to speak out and, believe me, we do and we have – frequently. We have also submitted comments to the Electronic Working Groups that often meet in cyberspace before the meetings, and we also have the power to propose correction of the final report. Do you know how many delegates stick around for the tedious, line-by-line reading of the final report? Many are long gone, mistakenly trusting that the work they performed for the World will actually be represented accurately in the final report. NHF stays … to the bitter end. Hours of rehashing what we have spent the week working toward, defending our documented statements, defending the truth that too-often gets somehow skewed, omitted, or somehow rendered opaque.

NHF came to this meeting to promote and defend healthier Nutrient Reference Values. The attack by Australia and others on these particular NRVs, from my professional standpoint, is designed to take out a large number of the population at least in the U.S. where we have access to supplements with values that are currently at least approaching sufficiency and where we have the incomes generally to support their purchase.

What was so incredibly ironic about this meeting was the emphasis on malnutrition in the World. It actually sparked a growing interest in me about the integrity of infant formulas. They are including transfats and contaminants in infant formula! When we learn that in France, for example, breast feeding is neither popular nor widely practiced, it pays to defend the integrity of infant formulas! But the trajectory of the morning – 3 hours before NRVs were even approached – was on ‘growing up milk,’ which Elizabeth Streken (an INGO representative of the International Baby Formula Action Network) said was a market ploy to get mothers to feel guilty if they didn’t keep bottle feeding babies way past time… At any rate, the discrepancy and complete disconnect in regards to the NRVs was that supposedly Codex was there to prevent malnutrition in the World, yet here they were, the very last ones in favor of optimal nutrition for infants.  Instead, Codex was lowering our already malnutrition-promoting, low NRVs, which are set to prevent the very last-ditch disease processes before death instead of promoting optimum nutrition and vibrant, disease-resistant health.

So, these two themes predominated:  (1) Get through the tedious drivel and get me to the coffee and donut cart; and (2) The incongruous ‘Yes, we are all for stopping malnutrition … let’s lower the values in the supplements, shall we?”  And then let us not forget the overarching theme by Mme. Chair – “not so terribly Noble, Pia”— “What I Decide, Will Be.”

The National Health Federation has been in existence long before any other health-freedom organization was even a ‘gleam in the father’s eye.’ We are the granddaddy of them all. We’ve employed a lobbyist in Washington, D.C. for more than 50 years. We alone hold the distinction of being the only health-freedom organization able to speak at Codex. So, do you see now how important this ability is? Not only can we speak; but, as mentioned above, we can submit written comments and arguments – and we did, three times – on the NRV issue alone prior to the meeting in Germany (twice as part of the electronic working group hosted by the ultimate opposition: Australia, and once directly to the Committee).

Do I feel fortunate to be on the team of the most powerful health-freedom organization at Codex? I feel incredibly humbled. For one who had little political interest or influence in the past, I am now thrust into the heart of the action where policy is set for the World. It is not only quite humbling but it carries an enormous responsibility to carry the wishes and desires of those whom NHF speaks for and represents to the seat of power. And we do so faithfully time and again.

The lives that are impacted are not only our own but those of our children and grandchildren. Our family’s health is at stake. In the final analysis, if we lose our health, we have lost. It is all we have besides the faith that sustains us and keeps us seeking the path of Light in the growing darkness of the World. The Codex meeting on nutrition was anything but. It was about some elite marketers seeking to manipulate the World – guilting them into keeping children on formulas when they needed to embrace a solid diet – real ‘growing up’ food. It was about government regulators lowering key nutrients and raising others that would ensure that our health would deteriorate. It masqueraded in the guise of compassion and the oft-said mantra “consumer protection,” yet all the while was undermining our health by chipping away at the very foundations in the name of control and ill health.

We at NHF spoke for you. At the end of the day, I approached the dais where Dr. Pia Noble held court. I asked her for 5 minutes at the next meeting to explain the science behind our commitment to NRVs. She grimaced, rolled her eyes, disregarded me completely in the most disrespectful way possible for one woman to address another, and then deferred to the Secretariat. The answer was – you guessed it – NO. “It might create further discussion….”   Codex is a body that is supposed to elevate your health, not suppress it.  But who speaks for you there? The National Health Federation. That’s the real WHO.


By Kat Carroll, NTP,

Associate Editor, Health Freedom News, National Health Federation

To access NHF President Scott Tips’ article summarizing the Codex meeting, visit the website at or this direct link: or  While you’re there, we invite you to join our efforts to protect the health of the World by becoming a member or helping to underwrite expenses to future Codex Alimentarius meetings like the one upcoming in March 2013 in Beijing where the topic of ‘contaminants’ will be reviewed. My personal passion is focusing on contaminants in infant formulas, as well as aspartame and aluminum in our food supply. We really cannot fight this fight without every one of you pitching in and doing your part. Believe me, it’s so satisfying to know we really ARE making an impact on this World for the benefit of future generations.