Tag Archives: world trade organization

Sad Leaves


The Flattening Forces of Globalization Continue to Advance.

My first trip to Europe was when I was a young boy and Kennedy was still president. Everything seemed so different there, from the public restrooms at the Brussels airport where the men’s and women’s entrances led into the exact same room to the frothy, thick, hot milk in an almost-too-big tasse that I happily slurped in a small Parisian café, leaving a warm, white smear on my face and in my throat. There were no McDonald’s, Starbucks, or ubiquitous American sitcoms like Friends. Life, European life, was an alien bustle and blur that never quite lost its seductive grip on my soul.

Kennedy is long gone now, many times more distant to us now than was the end of the Second World War to me during that first of many trips to Europe. So, too, is that Europe of those distant days, as is even that United States from which I traveled so long ago. In their place is the Shiny New World of Tomorrow as it is slowly being pieced together out of the dreams – or nightmares – of those who rule us from the shadows.

Now, in 2014, a year that that long-gone boy could only imagine as an astonishingly unreachable future crafted by writers such as Robert Heinlein, there are Starbucks on nearly every corner of Paris, Burger Kings amidst the United Kingdom, and McDonald’s feeding German hordes. There are no starships to Mars, Alpha Centauri, or human moon bases; in that, my Heinlein juvenile science fiction novels utterly failed me. 

Trade Agreements and Globalization

Instead, we have trade agreements and international organizations stitching the world together into that shiny new place that exalts the material over the essential. From the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) to the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement (TBT) and just-born Trade in Services Agreement (TISA)1 not to even mention the World Trade Organization (WTO), these trade agreements, both bilateral and multilateral, abound. Paris, Berlin, Moscow, Beijing, San Francisco, Houston, and New York are all converging on a common, harmonized future.

It all began well before my first European vacation. In the aftermath of World War II, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trades (GATT) was created to facilitate international trade. GATT trundled along for decades, growing incrementally until the “Uruguay Round” of trade negotiations in 1986–1994. These negotiations resulted in GATT’s replacement by a more-powerful trade forum called the WTO. The WTO was qualitatively different than its predecessor organization. GATT dealt with tariffs and import barriers and had no real enforcement powers. The WTO – essentially GATT with steroids now coursing through its veins – became an expanded forum for reducing even non-tariff barriers that interfered with international trade. And the WTO, through its newly created dispute-settlement mechanism, could levy trade sanctions against offending member states that thwarted international trade.

But dissatisfied with the WTO, the European Union (EU) began adopting a strategy of pushing through bilateral agreements to create an international network of trade agreements that would essentially substitute for the WTO and cover all sectors involved in trade. Negotiations sprouted up like weeds leading to, among other things, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations between the United States and the EU as well as the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA)2 negotiations between Canada and the EU. 

TTIP Basics

The TTIP alone will cover over 50% of the World’s Gross Domestic Product and over 600 million of the richest consumers. It is concerned with two major topics: tariffs and regulations. And of the regulations, these principally concern health, safety, the environment, and financial security.

I have previously written about the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), which is a misnamed “free trade” agreement described by many as nothing more than “NAFTA on steroids.” (See NewsWithViews, September 2012, at Well, consider the TTIP as the TPP’s Atlantic twin brother. Coupled with the global TISA, the TPP and the TTIP will define and fix international trade in goods and services, creating a common, tariff-free market for them, for a very long time and for more than a billion people. These three trade agreements alone will reshape our World in ways that we may not see for a decade or more.

The brainchild of the Transatlantic Business Dialogue, the TTIP was first conceived of in the 1990s. But it wasn’t until the Transatlantic Economic Council was established in 2007 that the push for TTIP really took solid shape.

The TTIP is intended as an all-encompassing, very broadly reaching agreement that will permeate all areas of international trade, covering goods and services as well as intellectual property. However, since there are practically no tariffs between Europe and the United States at present, there is nothing to be gained by TTIP. That means that TTIP is really concerned with eliminating the regulatory obstacles to trade, such as national rules and regulations that exact other costs and erect other barriers to trade, than the simple imposition of a protective tariff to block goods or increase their prices to noncompetitive levels.

Currently in its sixth round of negotiations, the EU–U.S. trade talks on TTIP will be hosted by the European Commission in Brussels from July 14 to 18, 2014 (just after press time for this article). A stakeholder meeting for industry and consumer groups to air their views will be held on July 16th; but don’t be fooled, as many corporations already have insider seats at the negotiating table and have no need for this dog-and-pony show. (See

Like TPP, TTIP Negotiations are Secret

Yet, we really know very little about the true aims and goals of the corporate and government negotiators and lobbyists who swarm the TTIP negotiating meetings. They are so secretive that even most lawmakers do not know TTIP’s negotiating terms.

These secret negotiations, ironically enough, transgress TTIP’s own mandate calling for greater transparency. Interestingly, however, “transparency” in the TTIP world means something different than you and I might think; it simply means that before any TTIP rules may be changed, the proponents of the changes must first disclose all materials to the corporate interests behind TTIP. TTIP proponents argue that, of course, negotiations must be conducted in private, but they overlook the fact that both the WTO and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) conduct their negotiations in the open. There is no reason that TTIP and TISA cannot be developed in transparency, particularly since they concern so many public interests.

Leaked documents give us what little information we really know, although the EU is now acting to dispel growing opposition based upon TTIP’s lack of transparency by disclosing some details of TTIP through its Web site.3 In a press release issued from Berlin on July 3, 2014, European Trade Commissioner Karel de Gucht argues that the TTIP has been made transparent on at least the EU side of the bargaining table, that it is not about lowering standards, and that “TTIP will not result in any [much-feared] privatization of public services.” (See Many disagree with this characterization, although they commend the EU for being more transparent than the US has been. Opponents are able to parlay this fear of the unknown into support for their anti-TTIP movements.

In an attempt to play catch-up, the U.S. trade delegation posts its own “readouts” about what has happened at each Round of TTIP negotiations (see, but reading those and trying to gain any understanding as to what has really transpired is like trying to dance ballet in a deep-diving suit. It is just not going to happen.

TTIP vs. National Legislation

The vast majority of any trade issues between the EU and the United States/Canada involve food. The divide between the two continents is vast and deep in this respect. The North Americans are big on bovine growth hormone for cattle, GMO foods, ractopamine for pigs and the use of other such food toxins, all of which are given euphemisms that misdirect consumers and others into thinking they are consuming safe foods when they are not. The Europeans, on the other hand, tend to consider public-health issues as co-equal to the business trade interests promoted by the North Americans. These EU interests even include regulations governing animal-welfare and chemicals in the environment, which are largely missing in America. In particular, one enormous question is whether TTIP would permit broader fracking within the European Union.

In the financial and banking sector, though, the roles are curiously reversed. The Americans and Canadians are the ones with the tighter regulatory regime while the British and some other Europeans are trying to dilute any TTIP regulations that might restrict the bankers’ activities. Do not be misled, however, into thinking that tighter banking regulations equate with better government control over the banking industry. In the system that exists virtually worldwide and has been exalted to its highest form in North America, bankers are themselves the regulators, so that tighter regulations simply mean that the bankers in control have more political power to enforce their banking monopoly and exclude any potential competition or changes to that system.

So, on many fronts, preservation of national legislation in the face of a TTIP agreement can be a touchy subject, especially for European consumers. An article written by Baskut Tuncak, the chemicals program attorney for the Center for International Environmental Law, drives this point home:

It might come as a shock to EU voters to learn exactly how weak US laws are when it comes to toxic chemicals, especially when the US’s chief negotiator for the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) has been claiming otherwise. This unprecedented ‘trade’ agreement is primarily about regulation, and threatens to create new and additional avenues for industry and government to use their influence to stall necessary action on toxic chemicals, climate change, and other critical issues that must be addressed by the EU and global community to protect human health and the environment.

“How weak are US laws for toxic chemicals? Only eleven ingredients are restricted from cosmetics in the US, versus over 1300 in the EU. Under a law dating back to 1976, US regulators have only been able to restrict the use of merely five of over 60,000 industrial chemicals that were presumed safe when the law was adopted, including asbestos. Under this law, and despite over a century of substantial evidence of serious adverse effects, US regulators were unable demonstrate sufficient “risk” to justify a ban on the use of asbestos, unlike EU counterparts. Moving ahead of the US, the EU has started to implement legislation that has the potential to systematically substitute over 1000 toxic chemicals—including those linked to cancer, interference with hormone systems, reproductive harms, and other serious adverse health effects—with safer alternatives in a wide range of everyday products. The US has no such law.

These are the consumer issues that trouble most ordinary, thinking citizens in both countries, who feel that they have no real say in the monumental economic changes that are being crafted without their input. 

TTIP Dispute Panels

The widespread fear that TTIP will suppress national legislation protecting consumers is bolstered by equal concern over the TTIP’s “Investor State Dispute Settlement” mechanism. Because any investor company would have TTIP status equivalent to any member country, even if they do not have a direct contractual stake in a dispute, the company can take a member country to court. In other words, a public policy can be held to ransom by private business interests.

If, as anticipated, these panels operate as they have under NAFTA, then they will be manned by three persons, some of whom would be “former” corporate lobbyists or attorneys and the panels would adjudicate trade disputes with the power to strike down any public-interest legislation that offends TTIP.

Still, as reported by the BBC, European Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht demurs, “Fears that a transatlantic trade deal between Europe and the U.S. could see offshore arbitration panels used to strike down national laws are unfounded.” (BBC News Northern Ireland, June 25, 2014, at

Opponents are concerned that corporations will use the investor–state dispute settlement procedure to arbitrate lost profits resulting from governmental actions if those corporations believe they have been treated wrongfully by a government in a way that breaches the TTIP. This fear is not unfounded since that is exactly what has happened under NAFTA. Recently, a corporation, using NAFTA, sued the government of Quebec for interfering with its profits when that government banned fracking within the Province. 

TTIP Economic Reboot?

When confronted with the above problems of corporate over-influence, unfair dispute panels, suppression of national legislation, and lack of transparency, TTIP proponents pull out what they think is their trump card: The claim that TTIP will reboot the Atlantic economies and lead us to the Promised Land of somewhere between 1.25 and 2 million extra jobs. We should recall that similar claims were made for the United States prior to the passage of NAFTA; yet, here we are years later with at least a 700,000 job deficit due to that agreement.

Most likely, the roots of this employment problem lay in the reality that TTIP is “managed” trade and not true free trade. Corporate-welfare benefits are the illegitimate offspring of these types of trade agreements, which is exactly why leftists and rightists often unite in opposition to such rampant corporatism and favoritism. But most of all, history is already showing that managed trade agreements have done for the economy what panty hose have done for foreplay. As they say, time will tell. 

They Said It Best

There is still a tribe in the Brazilian Amazon that has largely kept its integrity in the face of all of the onslaughts that the Western World has thrown its way. Called the Kayapo, these truly proud people’s encounters with Brazilian pioneers and traders led to their first exposure to Brazilian banknotes. The Kayapo had to create a new word for this money and the most appropriate seemed to be pe-o caprin, which translates into English as “sad leaves.”

As forest clear-cutting, oil drilling, and cattle ranching increasingly change the Kayapo domains, the Kayapo are learning the tough lesson that the sad leaves they are accumulating are a poor replacement for the world they grew up in. Like that young boy in Paris a lifetime ago, they had envisioned a different future – a future that did not include an obsession with sad leaves.

End Notes

  1. The Australian government’s TISA page tells us that: “The TiSA negotiations will cover all services sectors. In addition to improved market access commitments, the negotiations also provide an opportunity to develop new disciplines (or trade rules) in areas where there has been significant developments since the WTO Uruguay Round negotiations. There negotiations will cover financial services; ICT services (including telecommunications and e-commerce); professional services; maritime transport services; air transport services, competitive delivery services; energy services; temporary entry of business persons; government procurement; and new rules on domestic regulation to ensure regulatory settings do not operate as a barrier to trade in services.” See also Carey L. Biron, “Wikileaks: Leaked TISA Text Shows US, EU Aggressively Rolling Back Regulations,” Mint Press, June 30, 2014, at
  2. From the European Commission’s website, we learn that “[o]n 18 October 2013, EU and Canada have reached a political agreement on the key elements of a trade agreement (CETA). The agreement will remove over 99% of tariffs between the two economies and create sizeable new market access opportunities in services and investment. At a later stage, the agreement will need to be approved by the Council and the European Parliament. Negotiations were launched in May 2009 and the content of the CETA and its general modalities were agreed in June 2009.”
  3. For online TTIP updates from an independent source, go to TTIP Updates—The Glyn Moody Blogs, at

© Scott C. Tips 2014

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.

Nixon, Rockefeller, IG Farben, And Global Control


To learn why Richard Nixon was really blown out of the White House, you could begin with the infamous Nazi chemical/pharmaceutical cartel, IG Farben. The cartel that pushed Hitler over the top into power in Germany.

One of its lasting legacies is the multinational corporation expanded to titanic proportions. Farben didn’t just buy smaller companies, it forged favorable agreements with huge corporations all over the world: Standard Oil (Rockefeller); Rhone-Poulenc; Imperial Chemical Industries; Du Pont; Dow.

During World War 2, Josiah Du Bois, representing the US federal government, was sent on a fact-finding mission to Guatemala. His comment: “As far as I can tell the country is a wholly owned subsidiary of Farben.”

What Farben stood for was an attempt to remake the planet in terms of power.

Farben held important cards. It employed brilliant chemists who, in some ways, were far ahead of its competitors. Farben was all about synthetics. Rubber, oil, dyes, pharmaceuticals.

Farben saw itself as a modern version of the old alchemists. Transforming one substance into another. It came to believe that, with enough time, it would be able to make anything from anything. It envisioned labs in which basic chemical facts would be changed so that, in practice, elements would be virtually interchangeable.

This paralleled the Nazi obsession to discover the lost secrets of the mythical Aryan race and then reconstitute it with selective breeding, genetic engineering, and of course the mass murder of “lesser peoples.”

On one level, there was the idea of chemical transformations, and on another level, the transformation of the human species.

Farben had prisoners shipped from Auschwitz to its nearby facility, where horrendous medical/pharmaceutical experiments were carried out on them.

At the end of World War 2, the Farben executives were put on trial and, despite the efforts of Telford Taylor, the chief US prosecutor, the sentences handed out were light.

There was a reason for this. A new world was coming into being, and mega-corporations and cartels were at the heart of it. They would be the engines driving the global economy and pillaging the natural resources of the planet. It was colonialism with a different face, the East India company running on technology and industry and a planetary reach beyond anything ever attempted.

So the Farben moguls, and those like them, were seen by many as designers of the new “peace.”

Consider the total volume of international trade of goods today—the largest 300 corporations in the world are responsible for an unbelievable percentage of it…as high as 25%.

So now you see the reason why these treaties like GATT and NAFTA and CAFTA have been launched. Mega-corporations want to roam free. They want to be able to inject money into any entity in the world and suddenly remove it at will. They certainly want to be able to ship goods from one nation to another without paying tariffs, which otherwise would cost them an extraordinary amount of money. For these corporations, nations and borders don’t really exist anymore—they are inconvenient fictions. These corporations don’t want any restrictions on their plundering of the Global Village.

Farben envisioned and planned for this kind of licentious freedom. It saw itself as more than a German cartel. It was already international, and it was moving toward domination.

It is in the arena of pharmaceutical domination that one of Farben’s goals has endured. Two of its original components, Bayer and Hoechst, have survived and prospered. And many other drug companies have copied the basic model.

For a number of years, I’ve researched and published on this subject: death, maiming, destruction, poisoning—the overall effects of drug-based medicine. Judging solely by these effects, one could say that war by other means has continued after 1945. And the waves of devastation have spread.

On the mega-corporate front, the plan for world control remains the Rockefeller template. “Free trade.” This plan was advanced, ceaselessly, for 40 years until, on January 1, 1995, the World Trade Organization was fully formed and took charge of the criminal rules of global commerce: the crowning moment.

However, back in the early 1970s, the whole operation developed a kink. One man, a crook, a president, a liar, an insecure parody of a head of state, Richard Nixon, went off script. He REALLY went off script.

In an effort to bolster US companies and protect them from foreign competition inside the United States, Nixon began erecting tariffs on a range of goods imported into the US.

If this Nixon economic plan spread to other countries, the entire global program to install “free trade” and mega-corporate emperors on their thrones for a thousand years could crash and burn.

Nixon was a Rockefeller man. He was owned by them. He’d been rescued from financial ruin by The Family, and now he was in the White House sticking pins in their greatest dream. You can’t overstate the degree of the betrayal, from the Rockefeller point of view. You simply can’t.

Something had to be done. The president had to go. This was the real motivation behind Watergate. This was the real op. Yes, there were sub-motives and smaller contexts, as in any major op, but the prime mover was: get Free Trade back on track: get suitable revenge on the puppet in the White House who went off the script.

Whether the Watergate break-in was planned to serve the higher goal or was pounced upon, after the fact, as the grand opportunity, is beside the point. It was there, and it was used. It became the starting point for the Washington Post, its publisher, veteran editor, and two cub reporters to break Richard Nixon into pieces.

And if the Rockefeller people needed an inside man to report on the deteriorating mental state of the president as he heated up in the pressure cooker, they had Henry Kissinger, who was another Rockefeller operative.

The Washington Post was owned by Katharine Graham, who was herself a very close friend of the Rockefeller Family. Years later, she would be awarded a medal of honor by the University of Chicago, an institution founded by John D. Rockefeller. On her death, a paid heartfelt obituary was inserted in the NY Times by the trustees, faculty, and staff of Rockefeller University, where she had served on the University Council.

And she and Nixon already hated each other by the early 1970s.

The managing editor of the Washington Post, Ben Bradlee, was an old hand at writing promotional material, having worked in Europe crafting releases for a CIA front group. A former Naval intelligence man, he liked one of his cub reporters, Bob Woodward, who had also worked for the Navy in intelligence.

When Woodward came to Bradlee with a story about a man in a parking garage who was passing secrets from the White House/FBI about Watergate, we are supposed to believe that Bradlee naturally responded by giving the green light to a major investigation. Woodward and Carl Bernstein, another cub, would undertake it—with nothing more than Bradlee’s reputation and the future survival of the Post and Katharine Graham’s empire on the line if the cubs got it wrong.

We are supposed to believe Bradlee gave the green light, without knowing who the man in the garage was, without knowing whether Woodward could be trusted, without even getting permission from Graham to move ahead.

Bradlee, a grizzled veteran of Washington, understanding exactly what Washington could do to people who told secrets out of school, just said to Woodward and Bernstein, “You’d better be damned sure you’re right, because otherwise we’re all in trouble.”

Two untested cub reporters set loose in a cage with tigers.

The odds of that happening were nil.

Bradlee had to know a great deal from the beginning, and he had to have Katharine Graham’s signal to move. The series of breaking stories would be spoon-fed to the two unsuspecting young reporters. They would be consumed by their ambition to advance their careers. Bradlee was confident because he had the essentials of the scandal in hand—all the way up to Nixon, the target—well in advance of his two reporters.

To have proceeded otherwise—Bradlee was simply not that kind of fool. Whatever Deep Throat, the man in the garage, was dishing out to Woodward, Bradlee already had it in his pocket. Deep Throat was merely a contrivance to allow the story to expand and grow by steps, and to permit Woodward and Bernstein to believe they were peeling layers from an onion.

The man behind the curtain was David Rockefeller.

After the whole scandal had been exposed and Nixon had flown away, in disgrace, from the White House for the last time, Rockefeller addressed a meeting of the Chamber of Commerce of the European Community (October, 1975). He was there to allay their fears about Nixon’s betrayal of the new economic world order. There was really very little he needed to say. David had already created (1973) the free-trade Trilateral Commission. And a new puppet, Gerald Ford was in the White House, and Ford had appointed David’s brother, Nelson Rockefeller, as his vice president.

David told the European attendees, “Fortunately, there are no signs that these anti-[free] trade measures [of Nixon] are supported by the [Ford] Administration.”

And that was that. The global mega-corporate colossus was back on track.

The temporary rip in the Matrix had been repaired.

On a far lower level of power politics, everyone and his brother was consumed with the contrails of the scandal that had driven away Nixon and his colleagues. People were congratulating each other on the expunging of a corrupt conspiracy from public life.

The real players, of course, were still in place, more powerful than ever. David Rockefeller and his aides were preparing for an even greater coup. They had chosen an obscure man with zero name recognition to be the next president of the United States. Jimmy Carter. Carter would function to forward the goals of the Trilateral Commission in bold view of anyone who knew the score.

And every president since Carter, regardless of party affiliation, has supported and extended those Globalist-corporate goals. No questions asked. Obama, who fatuously remarked during his 2008 election campaign that NAFTA “needs to be revisited,” has taken his cues like any other puppet.

When, from this perspective, you examine the global takeover of land and resources by GMO agribusiness, the destruction of small family farms, the plundering of natural resources in the Third World, the use of “peacekeepers” and “humanitarian groups” and intelligence agencies to create a wedge, for corporations, into these areas, you see the hand of the Rockefeller plan.

When you see the destruction of currencies and the escalation of insupportable debt, you see the plan.

You can see that the trashing of Nixon, who like every president since, was put in place to serve his masters, was a Globalist piece of “highway repair.”


Article was originally published at

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at


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.

Russia Throws Poisonous Meat Back To US

U.S. meat supplies to Russia have been banned. The Russian Federation and the United States differ in the assessment of the causes of the situation. Russia claims that the reason for the ban was the presence of ractopamine drug in US meat. America insists that Russia’s actions were a response to the adoption of the Magnitsky Act by the Senate and accuses Russia of violating WTO rules.

On December 7, 2012 Russia’s Federal Agency for Agricultural Control, Rosselhohznadzor, banned the imports of meat containing ractopamine. This is a food additive that allows to reduce the content of fat in beef and pork. The drug is added to food so that animals grow the muscle mass instead of fat. According to researchers, ractopamine affects the human cardiovascular system, and in some cases can cause food poisoning. This drug is banned for use in 160 countries, including China and Russia. It is allowed in 24 countries, including Canada and the United States. Codex Alimentarius of the World Health Organization, adopted in July 2012 in Rome by representatives of 186 countries, allows the contents of ractopamine in meat.

Formally, Russia does not prohibit the delivery of pork and beef from the United States. It only notified a number of countries, including the US of A, of the need to provide documents saying that animals had not been fed ractopamine – the drug that is banned in Russia. However, the warned countries (in addition to the U.S. the list includes Canada, Brazil and Mexico and excludes 20 countries where the drug is used) do not have the appropriate expertise, because there was no need to have it before. Rosselkhoznadzor promised to introduce a transitional period for those countries, until about the end of January 2013. However, specific implementation mechanisms remain unclear.

As for foreign countries, the move of the Russian Agency for Agricultural Control will hit the United States most. Russia is the fourth largest importer of U.S. meat and spends about $500 million a year on it. The Russian market consumes 0.6 percent of all beef and 1.4 percent of pork produced in the United States. More than 200 containers of meat products worth about $20 million are currently on their way to Russia from the United States.

However, the lack of U.S. meat on the Russian market will affect the Russian economy. The pork from the United States comes fourth on the volume of shipments to Russia. In total, the share of imported meat in the Russian market makes up not less than a third.

The United States regards the ban of meat imports as a political move. According to American analysts, Russia has reacted so to the recent adoption of the Magnitsky Act by the U.S. Congress. On December 6, the U.S. Senate almost unanimously (92 votes “for” and 4 – “against”) approved the bill that imposed visa and financial sanctions against Russian officials involved, according to Washington, in the death of Sergei Magnitsky, a lawyer of Hermitage investment fund. The first three parts of this document are devoted to the interaction of Russia and the U.S. in the WTO. In particular, the bill abolishes the Jackson-Vanik amendment for Russia and Moldova, which was adopted in 1974. It is expected that U.S. President Barack Obama will sign the bill in the near future.

“This seems to be in retaliation to the Senate’s passage of the trade bill with Russia … there is certainly no doubt about it,” Rich Nelson, chief strategist at research and brokerage company Allendale Inc, said.

Russian officials were surprised to know that US analysts associated the ban on meat imports with the Magnitsky Act.

“One can speculate about whether it was done in retaliation or not, but the measure was based on the content of some additives in meat that are contrary to Russian sanitary standards,” deputy director of the Institute of the USA and Canada, Victor Supyan told Pravda.Ru.

Previously, the Russian side promised to take comprehensive, multidimensional and extremely strong measures should the Magnitsky Act be adopted in the USA. Presently, the United States accuses Russia of violating WTO rules. “All WTO members break these rules. This is normal,” Deputy Prime Minister Arkady Dvorkovich said in response to similar accusations in November of this year in an interview with the Kommersant newspaper. However, on Saturday, U.S. officials said they were expecting actions from Russia to change the situation. The U.S. side expressed a hope that in the near future Russia would remove the ban on the imports of meat, thus fulfilling its obligations as a WTO member. Russia, in turn, does not see any violations in its actions.

Anastasia Garina


Codex Alimentarius and Health/Food Freedom (VIDEOS)

The Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC),based in Rome, Italy, is an international organization jointly created by the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) of the United Nations.  The Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Use (CCNFSDU) is responsible for Dietary Supplements and Medical Foods and is one of some 27 separate Codex committees.  The CCNFSDU meets once yearly in Berlin, Germany (its host country) and the National Health Federation is a Codex-recognized organization with the right to attend and speak out at these meetings.

The purpose of Codex is to provide a forum to facilitate global trade in foods and promote consumer food “safety” by developing science based standards and guidelines for use by member countries.  Codex guidelines and standards are automatically implemented by the General Agreement on Trade & Tariffs (GATT) of the WHO and become binding for all international trade among GATT signatory countries.  The CAC process calls for proposed committee standards and guidelines to be forwarded and approved by the Codex Alimentarius Commission’s Executive Committee.  When the proposals reach final approval (after an eight-step process), they then become binding on all GATT signatories, including the United States.  Thereafter, no GATT-signatory country may use as a trade barrier any standard or guideline that disagrees with a Codex guideline or standard.  According to some, it does not mean that all GATT countries must adopt Codex standards for their own domestic use.  According to the NHF, Codex guidelines and standards will inevitably supersede domestic laws, including the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994.

History has shown that the safest food products do not come from a top-down driven, controlled-market economy where an elitist select few decide what is “best” for all of us.  Rather, the safest and healthiest individuals are those who are free to choose for themselves what is best for their health. Recent history has shown centralized, planned economies to be among the unhealthiest for their citizens.  And the more that free-market economies themselves are seduced into allowing health-care decisions to be made by elitist planners, the more health and health freedom will suffer.

Codex members wrongly believe that consumer health will be enhanced by:  (1) denying that dietary supplements can benefit normal, healthy people; (2) incorrectly defining dietary supplements as only those vitamins and minerals that the body cannot manufacture itself; (3) restricting the upper-limit amounts of vitamins and minerals, particularly by referring to currently-crude and archaic medical beliefs about nutrients; (4) restricting any physiological benefit information for consumers; (5) restricting the lower-limit amounts of vitamins and minerals that may be consumed by individuals; and (6) creating “positive” and “negative” lists of dietary supplements.

The direction of Codex is off course and is unfortunately driven by a statist and elitist mentality that thinks it knows what is best for consumer health and protection. Unfortunately, such a mindset comes from the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s kind of “brave new world” thinking that elevated central planners into a form of “God on Earth.”  That kind of out-dated thinking has caused more misery, death and disease than can possibly be imagined.  A free-market system of choice and knowledge will avoid the errors of central planning that sets standards into stone. With the doubling time of knowledge constantly accelerating, mankind cannot afford the “luxury” of getting stuck in health standards established in the 20th Century while new health knowledge and products are discovered almost daily. The best way to ensure such progress and advancing health is to keep the planners and bureaucrats from straitjacketing dietary supplements with medievalist thinking and restrictions.

Below is a very important video. Wake up to Monsanto, Codex Alimentarius and the depopulation agenda, by reducing vitamin intake and genetically modifying our food so they have no nutritional value or don’t get absorbed properly due to the genetic mutation.

The National Health Federation

• The world’s oldest health-freedom organization

• The only one with a seat at the Codex Table

• International, with members in 20 countries

• Working hard to protect your health rights

View speech from Dr. Reba Laibow: