Bauman College Community Forum

Open Forum => Nutrition News & Research => Topic started by: Marlina E on February 07, 2008, 09:34:46 AM

Title: Codex
Post by: Marlina E on February 07, 2008, 09:34:46 AM
Have you heard of Codex?  It is something that you will want to be aware of, if you value freedom to purchase vitamins (such as vitamin C), and want to ensure a clean, unadulterated food system (ex. be able to purchase meat that has not been irradiated). 

The Codex Alimentarius Commission was created in 1963 by FAO and WHO to develop food standards, guidelines and related texts such as codes of practice under the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme. The main purposes of this Programme are protecting health of the consumers and ensuring fair trade practices in the food trade, and promoting coordination of all food standards work undertaken by international governmental and non-governmental organizations.

The problem with this is that currently the supplement industry as we know it is under attack.  The worldwide food and supplement standards are currently being created by big industry who want to standardize the delivery of nutrients around the globe.  In their vision, there will no longer be a choice by an individual to ingest increased amounts of nutrients. The standards for nutrient delivery by Codex measures is frighteningly low.  They are set at a level similar to the RDA level of vitamins, which for vitamin C, for example, is ridiculously low.   

I know it can seem a bit daunting. There is so much information that is coming through. But the fact of the matter is that 80% of natural supplements have already been wiped off the shelves in Australia.  In Canada, a proposal in June 2008 proposes to abolish access to Vitamin C.  Read about that Here (  This is no light matter.  Imagine what your life would be like without access to vitamin C, olive leaf extract, zinc, and all of the other tools you are using to keep your health up to date, not to mention specialized remedies and formulas.  The future scenario that may loom, is a prescription for Centrum from your primary care practitioner...if you can convince them that you need it.

Also, the whole thing is tied to global trade agreements. So if your country doesn't "play the game", they are penalized.

There is so much to say about what Codex is.  Health Freedom is doing an excellent job distilling the info and travelling around the globe to be vigilant in the effort to make sure that Codex evolves, leaving our health priorities intact.  So read about it from the folks who are on the front line:

Visit the Natural Solutions Foundation, for all things Codex.  On the homepage, you will also find action steps:

Check out the "Codex Crash Course" link on the left of the homepage to get up-to-date, if you still haven't heard of this.

Here is the blog site from Rima Laibow, she is on the fore front literally of the fight against Codex and pending regulations that will limit access to not only supplements and herbs, but also unadulterated food sources:

You can also donate to these folks who are on the front line in working to protect your access to supplements.

See attached for a good Codex Handout, courtesy of the National Health Federation.

Title: Re: The Codex Blog
Post by: NattaliaC on March 31, 2008, 10:00:25 PM
This was a good site.  I am so glad there are people out there fighting for our rights.  I signed the Petition myself and signed up for the newsletter.  After reading this article and watching the video "The Future of Food" recently,  I have become so much more concerned about what is happening to the food in this country.  It is startling how much most people, that aren't in the nutrition field, don't know about what's going on.  They don't have the information or the truth.  I can get so worked up about this.  I know something has to be done.  For now, I'll do my part by telling everyone I know.
Title: Re: The Codex Blog
Post by: Marlina E on April 01, 2008, 12:03:24 PM
Watch the YouTube video of Rima explaining Codex:

It is five parts, be sure to watch them all.  This was a talk that was recorded at the NANP yearly event, a few years ago.

It is scary....but Rima is DOING it, really has made this her issue and focus. I encourage anyone who is interested to support her cause.  She is truly a warrior on our behalf.
Title: Re: The Codex Blog
Post by: NattaliaC on April 01, 2008, 09:58:27 PM
Thank you Marlina for telling me about Dr. Rima Laibow's talk about Codex.  It was very informative.  I listened to all five of the blogs (if that's what you call them).  It's enough to make your stomach turn.  She is a fantastic speaker who really knows that she is talking about.  I immediately went to her webside: and signed the Petition and I will be telling everyone I know about it.  And in my current business as cosmetologist I see alot of people.  I'm sure that most of them know nothing about what is happening. So, I will definitely be giving out the above mentioned website to everyone I come in contact with.   I hope that the students of Bauman College get on the website and do the same thing.  It seems we don't have much time, only until 12/31/09, to take action.  I hope that lots more people get on board with this.  I do not want to see organic food become extinct.
Title: Re: The Codex Blog
Post by: Marlina E on June 19, 2008, 11:00:37 AM
I just noticed that the original link from this thread goes to the one blog entry that I originally posted.  You can read other blog content from Rima by linking from the right of the page.

In addition, there is good and brief Codex info at the following link from Dr. Mercola:
Title: Re: Codex
Post by: Marlina E on July 01, 2008, 10:04:41 AM
July 1, 2008


Our intrepid trustees are the Health Freedom Public Observers at the annual Codex Commission meeting.

See Dr. Laibow's 18 minute report on the opening session...

Hear her expose the "Bigs" agenda, from the balcony overlooking the "hall of power."

You need to see these two short videos to understand how the US FDA uses Codex to further its control agenda here in the United States, and throughout the world.

The Videos are here:

Is Codex changing its rules to attempt to counteract the successes of the Natural Solutions Foundation Codex 2 Step?
Title: Re: Codex
Post by: LindaN on July 01, 2008, 04:58:42 PM
Marlina, thank you so much for all of the valuable information you have provided on this extremely important topic.  Here is a sample letter that can be modified and sent to a local newspaper expressing opposition to enactment of the Codex standards. 

Tri-Valley Herald
4770 Willow Road
Pleasanton, CA

Dear Editor,

   I am writing to express my concern over upcoming global implementation of the Codex Alimentarius food standards, and to ask that you publish this letter to warn consumers of the adverse effect these standards have on our health and well-being.

   Although the Codex standards are promoted as “consumer protection”, in reality they take away our right to choose health options such as therapeutically effective dietary supplements, unadulterated foods with low pesticide and toxic residue, and other natural treatments.   

By using a risk assessment that classifies nutrients as toxins, the Codex standards can ban high potency and clinically effective vitamins and minerals.  ( “About Codex Alimentarius:  the 5-Minute Tour”.  Natural Solutions Foundation 2008.)  The Codex standards also mandate use of synthetic growth hormones and antibiotics to treat food animals, allows unlabeled use of Genetically Modified Organisms in our food, degrades organic standards, and raises permissible levels for pesticides and other toxins in farming. (http//  “CODEX Will Destroy Our Nutritional Supplements And Organic Foods!” Laibow, Rima, M.D.)

The Codex standards are designed to protect the Big Pharmacy interests by eliminating natural health products and treatments.  This will negatively impact the Wellness Industry and take away the consumer’s freedom to choose health products and natural medicine treatments.  People will be forced to turn to physicians and pharmaceuticals for treatment rather than natural health care practitioners and nutritional consultants who promote treatment and prevention of disease by the use of safe nutritional medicine.

I urge everyone to contact their local politicians to express their opposition to the global implementation of the Codex standards and allege their support for the nutritional wellness industry and nutritional medicine.  Our health depends on it. 
Title: Re: Codex
Post by: Marlina E on January 26, 2009, 09:46:44 AM
The latest on Codex from Rima Laibow:

So, is Codex Still a Threat to Dietary Supplements?
We get letters every day asking if again if the UN agency, Codex Alimentarius (the world food code), ever was really a threat to dietary supplements, it is a threat now and is there as deadline after which Codex would prevent us from buying supplements? Short answer, "YES! Despite what disinformation agents and the uninformed have to say about the topic.  Longer answer, read what Ralph Fucetola, our Council and Trustee, has to say:

...if you look up the Vitamin and Mineral Guideline, adopted by Codex in 2005, it begins, "Most people who have access to a balanced diet can usually obtain all the nutrients they require from their normal diet. Because foods contain many substances that promote health, people should therefore be encouraged to select a balanced diet from food before considering any vitamin and mineral supplement"

The VMG is at:

When you read the VMG carefully, the prejudices against supplements stated in the very first sentence above are reinforced by a general attitude that treats food supplements as though they were industrial toxins (while elsewhere Codex allows all sorts of real industrial toxins in the food supply).

Codex guidelines are not "law" but they are "presumptive evidence" in WTO disputes. So it is the World Trade Organization that enforces Codex. For Codex to have domestic impact, local law has to be amended to meet the Codex guidelines. In the US, DSHEA still protects us from the full impact of Codex, though the new administration seems to be moving in the direction of "HARMonizing" our laws with Codex, which as long been FDA policy.

I've discussed how countries can opt out of Codex in a YouTube video called the "Codex Two Step" - see:

In connection with the "Codex Two Step" Natural Solutions Foundation sponsored our own "nutrient friendly" version of the VMG for countries to adopt, which would not restrict supplementation:
If you'd like more information on the Codex Two Step Process, designed to allow countries to deviate toward health and away from Codex, order the Codex eBook here(

So while at present there is no specific deadline date when Codex will take away our right to access high quality, high potency nutrition, the inexorable pressure continues through Codex, through the North American Union cooperation agreements among US, Mexico and Canada, and through a number of other threats. In Europe, the Codex compliant European Food Supplements Directive (EFSD) will end its derogations, or exceptions, on December 31, 2009.  At that time, it is very doubtful that a single over the counter, high potency supplement will remain legally available in Europe.  While not Codex per se, this is what Codex compliance with the VMG will bring.
The US FDA stated in the Federal Register on October 11, 1994 that it would comply with International food standards [Codex].
The Threat Marches On
At the end of 2006 the threat was the FDA's anti-CAM draft guidance document that Dr. Ron Paul called "an abuse of FDA power..." We beat this back (it has still not been finalized by FDA) with hundreds of thousands of comments posted on the FDA site before it crashed.

In 2007 the threat was Sen. Kennedy's FDA enabling act, to which was added a "savings clause" protecting DSHEA (dietary supplement) products; we worked to keep that savings language in the final act, when it looked like it might be lost in the congressional conference committee.

Last year, 2008, FDA asked for "comments" on whether that savings clause really restricted their enhanced authority to ban interstate shipments of nutrients, proving the wisdom of persevering -- had we not fought hard to keep the language in the Act, FDA would be moving even faster against nutrition.
During the same year other FDA initiatives threatened further "HARMonization" while the EPA moved toward banning Nano Silver products.
Title: Re: Codex
Post by: Marlina E on February 23, 2009, 12:34:13 PM
Read the latest student post on Codex here:,5523.0/topicseen.html

Title: Re: Codex
Post by: Tim Frederick on March 17, 2009, 02:14:33 PM
Hi All,

This is a very important radio interview I came across on Codex.  The interview is with Scott Tips of the National Health Federation.  They are the oldest HEALTH FREEDOM organization.

Tim F

Radio Interview:

National Health Federation Website:
Title: Re: Codex
Post by: Marlina E on March 30, 2009, 02:05:10 PM
This is fascinating (in a horrific kind of way). 



By Scott C. Tips, NHF President

March 30, 2009
             The 3rd Session of the Codex Committee on Contaminants in Foods (CCCF) began its week-long meeting at the Beurs - World Trade Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands on Monday morning, March 23, 2009. Although the weather was despicable, with rain and heavy winds, the National Health Federation (NHF) delegate, Scott Tips, was able to easily attend this meeting chaired by first-time Chairman Mr. Martijn Weijtens (of the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality).  This particular meeting was important because “acceptable” levels of contaminants of acrylamide, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), aflatoxins, and melamine, among others, were being discussed and developed.

             The NHF is the only Codex-accredited health-freedom organization with the right to attend Codex committee meetings such as this one. In fact, although the NHF has for years been attending many other Codex committee and commission meetings - in Germany, Canada, France, Italy, Switzerland, Norway, China, Thailand, and most recently South Africa - this CCCF meeting was the first for us.

             As with the other Codex committees, the CCCF attendees consisted of various member-country delegations and a dozen INGOs (International Non-Governmental Organizations).  The NHF was the only consumer organization in attendance, with all of the other INGOs representing special trade interests. The rest of the room was filled with government officials and bureaucratic functionaries.  This Committee, a relatively recent split off from the former combined Committee on Contaminants and Food Additives, was the smallest of the committees attended by the NHF.

    Acrylamide, PAH, and Aflatoxins

             In contrast with certain other committees that breed harsh dispute, this Committee was as tame and well-mannered as a pack of Cub Scouts drugged to the teeth on IV-dripped Prozac.  Both of the two separate standards being set for acrylamide and PAH in foods sailed smoothly through the Committee, which agreed to forward them to the Codex Alimentarius Commission for adoption at the final Step 8.

             The CCCF’s review and discussion of the standard for aflatoxins was a little more lively and included some actual back-and-forth discussion of the topic.  In the end, the Committee accepted Brazil’s proposal to return the Proposed Draft Maximum Levels to Step 2/3 for redrafting.  But even this standard is not a controversial one.


             The drama did not really begin until the Canadian delegate read his country’s report on establishing maximum levels for melamine in food and feed.  The Committee document drafted by Canada proposed maximum levels of melamine in food and feed of 2.5 parts per million (ppm) and in infant formula of 1 ppm.

             Melamine is a chemical compound that is used industrially in the production of, among other things, laminates, glues, dinnerware, adhesives, molding compounds, coatings, and flame retardants.  There are no approved direct food uses for melamine, but melamine is illegally added to artificially increase the protein content of food products.  Because it is high in nitrogen and cheap, melamine is a low-cost way to artificially bump up the “protein” content for standard commercial tests.  Other contamination comes from indirect sources, such a food contact with melamine-containing packaging.

             In 2007, melamine was found in pet feed exported from China to the United States, which feed unfortunately caused the death of a large number of dogs and cats due to kidney failure.  Following this incident in 2007, several food agencies and authorities began performing preliminary risk assessments of melamine.

             Then, with nearly 40,000 cases of kidney stones in infants (with three deaths and nearly 13,000 hospitalized) from consumption of melamine-contaminated powdered infant formula in China alone as late as September 2008, and with other melamine contamination having been found in liquid milk, frozen yogurt desserts, and coffee drinks, the alarm was raised – melamine is dangerous and to be avoided.

             As a result, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published an interim safety/risk assessment on melamine and structural analogues, setting a tolerable daily intake (TDI) of 0.63 mg per kg of body weight per day for melamine.  At almost the same time, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) published a provisional statement and recommended to apply a TDI of 0.5 mg per kg of body weight per day as tolerable intake value for melamine.  Under Commission Decision 2008/757/EC, member States of the European Union are required to ensure that all composite products containing at least 15 % of milk product, originating from China, are systematically tested before import into the Community and that all such products which are shown to contain melamine in excess of 2.5 mg/kg are immediately destroyed.  (See

             The Canadian food-and-drug agency, Health Canada, declared an even stricter limit of 0.35 mg.  Not to be outdone, the World Health Organization’s Food Safety Director estimated that the amount of melamine a person could stand per day without incurring a bigger health risk, the "tolerable daily intake" (TDI), was 0.2 mg per kg of body mass.  (See Lara Endreszl, 10 December 2008, "Safe Melamine Levels Named by World Health Organization", Health News; see also B Puschner, and PA Pesavento, “Assessment of melamine and cyanuric acid toxicity in Cats,” J. Vet. Diagnostic Investigation, Vol. 19, No. 6, 616-624 (2007) at

    Back to CCCF

             So it was that with these issues in mind, the NHF raised its nameplate at the CCCF meeting to speak out and oppose the 2.5 ppm upper limit on melamine contamination proposed by the Codex draft paper.  At the very least the limit should be no more than 1 ppm, we argued before the Committee.  And, preferably, there should be no detectable amounts at all.

             Yet when the CCCF Report was prepared and then reviewed for approval by the Committee on Friday, the last day of this session’s meeting, no sign could be seen of the NHF’s comment in the Report.  Of course, NHF asked that its comments be reflected in the Report as a simple, one-sentence statement; only to then set off – surprisingly – the most contentious exchange of the entire meeting!

             The European Commission strongly opposed showing NHF’s comments in the Report, stating there was no need for the sentence.  Canada and Japan both joined in the censorship move – much to their countries’ discredit and dishonor – and argued that NHF could submit written comments later.  The NHF shot back, asking the Committee and its delegations what it was afraid of and pointing out that the Report should reflect what happened at the meeting.  This caused another stir, with much consultation amongst persons at the head table and negative head-shaking by Codex Secretariat Verna Carolissen-Mackay.  In the end, the Chairman politely but firmly refused to allow NHF’s remarks to be noted in the record, but promised that the next session would allow those comments to be recorded (if once again made).

    Typical Non-Transparency and Double-Standards

             Perhaps unused to controversy or contradiction, the CCCF reacted in knee-jerk fashion to NHF’s comments and, alarmingly, even to the mere mention of them.  It is apparent that this Committee – like so many of the other Codex committees – plans to implement as Codex standards those standards already adopted by the European Union.  Lap dogs were never this obedient.

             The National Health Federation plans to oppose these ironically high limits on melamine contaminants.  It is ironic because while touting consumer “safety” as its reason for imposing strict maximum upper levels on natural and healthy dietary food supplements in one Codex committee, the European Commission conveniently looks the other way when consumer safety is at risk by a man-made contaminant such as melamine.  Unfortunately, though, it is an irony that kills.  And until the European Union/European Commission begins to truly represent the interests of its member countries and citizens, many more will suffer and die.

    For further information on Codex, please visit the NHF website (Codex):
Title: Re: Codex
Post by: Marlina E on May 08, 2009, 10:52:47 AM


May 7, 2009


             The 37th Session of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling (CCFL) just today finished its work considering various food-labeling issues, including the most contentious one – the Labeling of Foods and Food Ingredients Obtained through Certain Techniques of Genetic Modification / Genetic Engineering. Meeting in Calgary, Canada this week, and with the Committee Report still to be prepared on Friday, the Committee sailed through most of its Agenda items with hardly a harsh word or divide – until it came to the GM labeling issue.

             The new Chairman, Mr. Paul Mayers, has replaced the former CCFL Chairwoman of many years, Dr. Anne MacKenzie, and has used his diplomacy and melodic voice to soothe the feelings of various delegations. Yet, the lines between the two camps were too entrenched for even his skills to resolve. As Agenda Item No. 6, the GM labeling issue arose for discussion near the end of this morning’s Wednesday session and, after a lunch break, continued on for nearly four hours of see-saw argument, often tinged with emotion and repeated requests for the floor.

             Once again, the food-exporting countries of Canada, the United States, Argentina, New Zealand, and Australia comprised the “consumer is too stupid to understand” camp that wishes to see the GM-food labeling disappear into a black hole. Driven completely by commercial concerns, the U.S. and its sidekicks argued that many years have seen a lack of consensus within the Committee, so the work on GM-food labeling should be discarded and the Committee should focus instead on the WHO Global Strategy, another CCFL concern. Of course, the lack of consensus was caused entirely by these countries’ delegations, especially the United States and Canada, blithely disregarding the clear-cut wishes of its own citizens for GM ingredients to be declared on food labels.

             In the other camp, arguing in favor of GM-food labeling so that the consumer can make an informed choice, were and are the European Union, Brazil, the African countries, Saint Lucia, and all of the International NonGovernmental Organizations (INGOs) representing consumers (such as the National Health Federation, Consumers International, Infant Baby Formula Action Network, the International Association of Consumer Food Organizations, and the 49th Parallel International Consortium). The only INGOs not supporting such labeling were two industry trade groups with clear interests in GM foods.

             The focus of the Committee swirled around existing language that would have leaned towards GM labeling, with an alternate that was meek in comparison. After it became clear that the Committee would not agree on the wording, Brazil directed CCFL to its written compromise proposal, which drew most countries support – except for the recalcitrant “the consumer is too stupid” camp.

             Incredibly, the United States argued in its written submission that labeling food as GM derived would be in violation of Codex Guidelines that state “foods shall not be described or presented in a manner that is false, misleading or deceptive, or is likely to create an erroneous impression regarding its character in any respect.” It offered its own version of the wording, which said, “This document is not intended to suggest or imply that GM/GE foods are in any way different from other foods simply due to their method of production.”

             Although this wording was strongly opposed by the pro-labeling camp and more preference was expressed for the Brazilian proposal, somehow the Chairman ditched the Brazilian proposal and allowed this specific U.S. wording to make its way into the document being reviewed. The Canadian delegation used this opportunity once again to encourage CCFL to discontinue its work on this matter, saying “Leave this to the free market.”

             The National Health Federation (NHF) hotly challenged this action. Taking the floor nine times during the course of the debate, the NHF’s delegate, Scott Tips, told the Committee during one such intervention that, “Consumers want this labeling of GM foods. Let’s be honest, the food exporting countries – mostly in the Western Hemisphere – want to push their own commercial interests by selling their GM crops. They know that they cannot sell these GM crops unless they keep consumers ignorant. Let the consumers make the choice in a free market, but give them the information so that they can decide. Canada has said ‘leave this to the free market’ and yet Health Canada has attacked those companies in Canada that try to sell products labeled ‘GM Free”! Our Canadian members are upset over this. In fact, there will be a consumer-led campaign to force the American and Canadian delegations to conform their positions to their citizens’ wishes. There will be consensus in the near future as a result.”


             The representative from the 49th Parallel INGO supported the NHF’s comments and added that, “If, as the United States has claimed, there is no difference between GM foods and non-GM foods, then why do companies rush to the Patent Office to patent their special GM foods?”

             With the Committee still considering the U.S.-slanted wording, though, the Chairman hatched the idea to discard all extra wording and add in two small words. The EC and the NHF spoke out against this idea, with the NHF particularly opposing it as a violation of the rules of the Codex Procedural Manual that require Recommendations and Guidelines to have a stated Purpose and Scope. This caused a stall in the proceedings as the Codex Secretariat and Chairman searched through the Manual and consulted with one another for a response. The Secretariat then took the floor to say that this would not be a hindrance. Nevertheless, the Chairman’s idea quickly lost steam and fizzled out.

             Yet, the Committee still worked on the U.S.-slanted wording, adding in various words and phrases with much discussion. Just before the afternoon break, the NHF delegate challenged the Committee to discard that wording and return to the original wording or at least the Brazilian proposal favored by more delegations. During the break, the NHF delegate discussed with various delegations NHF’s disappointment with the trend towards accepting this GM-friendly language.

             When the Committee reconvened, Ireland proposed wording saying “Any information or pictorial device may be displayed in GM/GE labeling provided that it is not in conflict with Codex requirements on labeling nor would mislead or deceive the consumer in any way whatsoever in respect of the labeling of foods derived from GM/GE.” This position was supported by the European Community.

             Both Canada and Argentina opposed this wording, with Argentina pointing out that foods labeled under Codex Guidelines already were forbidden from misleading or deceiving the consumer. The NHF leaped upon this comment to get the Committee to agree to delete the last part of the Irish proposal beginning with “nor would mislead or deceive . . . .” NHF argued that some delegations, such as the United States, already felt that GM labeling was inherently misleading, as evidenced by the U.S.’s own written comments. (See sixth paragraph of this release, above.) This deletion was challenged later by some delegations such as the United States, but the Chairman upheld the deletion.

             After even further discussion, though, the Chairman launched a missile into the meeting when he ab initio proposed that since there was no consensus on the wording, the Committee take a pause of three sessions (i.e., three years) to consider alternatives and then resume discussing the matter in three-years’ time. The delegations of Austria and Saint Lucia immediately challenged this idea, but it seemed as if it might take hold, with the Canadian delegate gushingly stating, “You are so wise to do this.”

             Fortunately, firm and well-stated opposition by member-country delegations such as Kenya, Denmark, and the European Community caused the Chairman to drop his suggestion. (The Chairman could not even get to the NHF’s and other INGOs’ opposition given the strong country-member response.) So, despite last-minute efforts by the United States and New Zealand to revive the “pause” idea, it died a quick death, although its suggestion by the Chairman held the Committee in suspense for what seemed like a long time.

             In the end, the Chairman stated that the work on this matter was important and must be continued. He returned this Draft Recommendation on GM-food labeling back to Step 3 for further comments and discussions at next year’s CCFL meeting, which is to be held in Quebec City, Canada on a date to be determined.

    For further information on Codex, please visit the NHF website (Codex):
Title: Re: Codex
Post by: Marlina E on July 07, 2009, 10:38:33 AM
Reports from 32nd Codex Alimentarius Commission, Rome, Italy

#1 - Pig in a Poke and Poking the Pig

#2 - We're Here for Your Health Freedom so They Attack Us

#3 - Bureaucrats and Lobbyists Feast in Rome

#4 - Dupes, Demons and Dogs in the Manger
Title: Re: Codex
Post by: Tim Frederick on May 09, 2010, 08:52:30 AM


By Scott Tips
Codex Delegate for the National Health Federation

May 6, 2010



Quebec City Convention Centre
CCFL Meeting held here May 3-7, 2010


         While you may be hearing “woe is me” information about the recent Codex Committee on Food Labelling (CCFL) meeting being held at the Quebec City Convention Centre here in Quebec City, Canada this week, the truth is actually quite different.  Far from being a situation where the anti-genetically-modified (GM) food labeling forces (i.e., pro-GM foods) are advancing, they are in headlong retreat!

         And if we may say so, we should know because the National Health Federation has been in the thick of the fight on this issue, even in the special, closed Codex meetings, which we can attend due to our special accredited status with Codex.  Our outspoken, strong stance that GM foods should be labeled as such so that the consumer can make an informed purchase must be hitting some raw nerves since I had a number of delegates scream at me during yesterday’s breakout session.

         But bottom-line: We are winning.  It may seem glacially slow, even imperceptible to an outside observer; but NHF can tell you that the movement is steadily in our favor and direction.  Just consider this:

         1.  The Other Side is Falling Apart.  The coalition of forces wanting to hide the fact that they are selling GM foods is in disarray and falling apart.  The Codex delegations of Australia and New Zealand – quite vocal at past Committee meetings in opposing GM-food labeling – were completely quiet at this week’s session of CCFL, with one exception:  Australia actually spoke out briefly but clearly in favor of a “modern biotechnology” definition that the pro-GM food-labeling forces favored!  That was a switch.

         And, Canada, which in the past had been joined at the hip with the United States and Mexico, in opposing GM-food labeling, is now starting to drift apart and chart its own separate path on the issue.  In fact, the coalition of the unwilling could not even properly coordinate and orchestrate their formerly-strong opposition, as they had so carefully done in the past.

         Next year, the coalition of the unwilling will be even further disunited, especially after we re-double our efforts to rein in the American and Canadian delegates from disregarding the will of their own citizens, who are solidly in favor of GM-food disclosure.

         2.  They Did Not Succeed In Stopping Consideration of the GM Label.  The anti-GM label forces have wanted this Committee to stop all consideration of this agenda item.  Yet, this week, the pro-GM-food labeling forces beat back the latest (and weakest) attempt to stop the consideration process and also stopped the anti-GM label force’s effort to insert misleading language about the “safety” of GM foods into the GM-food labeling disclosure.  While the GM-food labeling did not advance, the wording sought by the pro-label forces was substantially preserved, intact, to be revisited at next year’s meeting.  This may not seem significant, but when you consider that the GM-food proponents have been trying to kill this provision for years, it is a victory to survive so that when the moment is right (as we feel it will be next year), we can then take the matter forward along the road to completion.

         3.  The Players.  The “good guys” are those who want the consumer to be informed, that is, to have the choice when shopping to know when he or she is buying GM foods.  These good guys are the European Union (which has taken a consistently strong stand in favor of GM labeling under the capable direction of Jerome Lepeintre), Brazil, France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Switzerland, Morocco, Kenya, Cameroun, Ghana, Mali, the Republic of Korea, supported by the INGO delegations of Consumers International (Dr. Michael Hansen), International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) (Elisabeth Sterken), and of course the National Health Federation.

On the other hand, speaking against the rights of the consumer to be informed were the delegations of the United States (led by Dr. Barbara Schneeman), Canada, Mexico, Argentina, Costa Rica, and two industry INGOs known as the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) and the International Council of Grocery Manufacturers (ICGMA).  To their credit, Australia and New Zealand were AWOL from this coalition.  South Africa made one intervention on the subject matter but no one we spoke with could tell whether it was for or against labeling as it was not well presented.


         Not counting the private session where we spoke out often, the NHF took the floor to speak to the full Committee some 7 to 8 times on this topic, at one point even telling the Committee that “it was a curious situation when the delegate for the European Union spoke more on behalf of American and Canadian consumers than either the American or the Canadian delegates who had no authority to speak on behalf of their citizens since opinion polls showed a vast majority of Americans and Canadians supported the labeling of GM foods.”

         And near the end, NHF was able to help stiffen the resolve of several country delegations to reject the false “compromises” offered by the anti-GM labeling forces.

         So, while the battle continues, make no mistake, the momentum is in our favor.  Believe not the naysayers.


Please send this e-mail to everyone on your list so that they may know the truth about Codex events.
Title: Re: Codex
Post by: Marlina E on June 10, 2010, 01:50:18 PM
Ummmm, melamine in food??
Title: Re: Codex
Post by: Marlina E on October 26, 2010, 01:06:38 PM
The newest on Codex from the NHF:


October 16, 2010

            (Los Angeles) In his latest film, international award-winning filmmaker Kevin P. Miller (The Promised Land, Generation RX) examines the possibilities of a future where international government bureaucracies like the WTO and Codex Alimentarius — working in league with multinational corporations, control the food and medicine supply worldwide.

           “SHADOWS OF THE FUTURE was produced to help consumers understand the threat Codex standards and ‘guidelines’ present to them,” Mr. Miller explained.  "People need to know how 'Free Trade' deals with the WTO have tied us into a strange bureaucratic alliance, and how it imposes restrictions on our lives and freedoms."

          In this 10-minute film, Miller outlines why the Codex Alimentarius Commission, working under the auspices of the United Nations and the Food and Agricultural Organization, has become such a dangerous and bureaucratic nightmare, and why consumers need to educate themselves pabout what will happen if Codex standards are adopted worldwide. But he also states that people need to know that there is something they can do to fight this international movement — and that there is an organization they can trust to fight on their behalf. “By supporting the vital work being performed by the National Health Federation at the actual Codex meetings, consumers can aid the NHF as they truly do speak to power. NHF is the only health-freedom organization at Codex that is promoting medical freedom of choice, all the while they combat the deceitful agendas that Big Food and Big Pharma are pursuing through Codex Alimentarius.  And they are doing so in clear public view before the World.”

          Founded in 1955, the NHF is the World's first and oldest health-freedom organization.  They are the only health-freedom group to be accredited and allowed to speak and present evidence at Codex meetings.  Since Codex is where the political and economic battles are being waged for the future of the food and medicine supply, NHF is playing an increasingly vital role in fighting for those who demand access to safe water, non-GMO foods, dietary supplements, and inevitably alternative medicines of all kinds.

          "I felt it was important to produce this update about Codex and feature NHF’s role in fighting for millions of consumers because it's important for people to know that we have a powerful, true voice standing against the international bureaucracies and their multinational corporate partners that want to usurp our freedoms.  More people need to be aware of the threats – and realize that if they pitch in and support the NHF’s work at Codex meetings, it will benefit all of us — now and for decades into the future."

         You can learn more about their ongoing efforts and achievements at  The film can be seen online at



National Health Federation: Established in 1955, the National Health Federation is a consumer-education, health-freedom organization working to protect individuals' rights to choose to consume healthy food, take supplements and use alternative therapies without unnecessary government restrictions. The NHF is the only such organization with recognized observer-delegate status at Codex meetings.
Title: Re: Codex
Post by: Marlina E on October 26, 2010, 01:08:08 PM
Newest from Dr. Mercola:
Title: Re: Codex
Post by: blujay on December 02, 2010, 01:50:57 AM
What happened to this issue, it just seemed to drop off the radar...I heard that Obama signed it into what?!
Title: Re: Codex
Post by: Marlina E on December 06, 2010, 02:59:58 PM
If you mean Codex, no that was not signed into law, that was an internet rumor. Codex proceedings are ongoing though....
Title: Re: Codex
Post by: Marlina E on April 18, 2011, 03:55:00 PM
Some recent reports from the National Health Federation (NHF) attending two recent Codex Committee meetings:

The National Health Federation (NHF) attended two recent Codex Committee meetings on opposite sides of the planet.  The Codex Committee on Food Additives (CCFA) met in Xiamen, China from March 14-18, 2011, and debated, among other things, aspartame and aluminum food-additive maximum levels.  The following week the Codex Committee on Contaminants in Food (CCCF) met in The Hague, the Netherlands, from March 21-25, 2011, to debate melamine and other contaminant permissible limits.  The NHF was at both meetings to speak out for the individual consumer’s interests.

     The Chinese Codex meeting saw both victory and defeat on the two main issues there.  Still hopelessly enamored with the artificial sweeteners acesulfame potassium, aspartame, and sucralose, the CCFA unfortunately endorsed Acceptable Daily Intakes for these three substances at high and unhealthy levels.  These endorsements ignored the arguments and evidence presented by NHF to the Committee that the levels – if they were to be allowed at all – should be almost 40 times lower!

     In sharp contrast, CCFA awoke to the health risks of aluminum-containing food additives.  In 2008, only the CCFA Chairman and NHF had any negative words to say about aluminum.  This year it was a whole different ball game, in large part due to the JECFA re-evaluation of the risks of these food additives: sodium aluminum phosphates, aluminum ammonium sulfate, sodium aluminum silicate, calcium aluminum silicate, and aluminum silicate.  The Provisional Tolerable Weekly Intake (PTWI) for aluminum was dramatically reduced downwards from 7 mg/kg to 1 mg/kg bodyweight.  The European Union and other delegations argued forcefully against aluminum in food, welcome support for NHF’s previously lone arguments on this issue.  Eventually, NHF predicts we will see aluminum eliminated as a food additive.

     The Dutch Codex meeting saw melamine, a dangerous food contaminant that has already killed and injured many, recognized for the menace it is.  As Scott Tips, the NHF’s delegate at these meetings, said, “Here the issue was very specific: what should be the maximum levels set for melamine in liquid infant formulas?  The existing limit was 1.0 mg/kg of bodyweight, with the Canadian delegation saying that this should be cut in half to 0.5 mg/kg.  While this Canadian position was an improvement over the existing level, delegations such as Costa Rica, the EU, Kenya, Peru, Nicaragua, Tanzania, Cameroun, the Philippines, the International Dairy Federation, and the NHF were all arguing that it should be lowered to 0.125 mg/kg of bodyweight. The NHF actually argued that the level should be set at zero, but recognizing that the mood of the Committee would not accept a zero-tolerance level, supported the lowest possible level of 0.125 mg/kg.”

     In the end, the lowest level for melamine contamination prevailed, although with a twist: the CCCF Chairman decided to “round up” the number to 0.15 mg/kg.  NHF argued to the Committee that, if anything, the number should be rounded down.  The Chairman stuck to his 0.15 level; but, far worse, the Committee accepted an exemption that made a mockery of even this lowered level.  The exemption does not even count any melamine contamination that comes from packaging materials!  So, infants drinking liquid formula can be poisoned with melamine at far greater levels.  Typical for this Committee, establish a limit on a contaminant and then at the same time create an exemption that you can drive a truck through.

Read a full write-up here:
Title: Re: Codex
Post by: Marlina E on May 31, 2011, 04:51:25 PM

Labeling of GMO Foods Moves Forward at Codex Level

After some eighteen years and seemingly interminable debates between two sharply divided camps, the Codex Committee on Food Labelling (CCFL), at its 39th session held in Quebec City, Canada, the week of May 9-13, 2011, finally reached a consensus on a watered-down labeling guideline for GMO foods.  No thanks to the blocking efforts of the United States, Canada, Mexico, Argentina, Costa Rica, and Australia, this Guideline does not require mandatory labeling of GMO foods.  However, what it does accomplish is to provide protection from the World Trade Organization (WTO) for those countries that require genetically modified organism (GMO) foods to be labeled as such.  In that sense, it is a huge victory.

     Or, it will be.  First, the Guideline – which is currently called the “Proposed Draft Compilation of Codex Texts Relevant to Labelling of Foods Derived from Modern Biotechnology” – must first be adopted by the Codex Alimentarius Commission at its meeting in Geneva this coming July.  NHF will be in attendance there.  While it is likely that the Guideline will be adopted at that meeting, it is also entirely possible that it could be sent back to CCFL for further review.  Nothing is assured.

Read the whole article:
Title: Re: Codex
Post by: Marlina E on July 15, 2011, 09:37:51 AM
Ractopamine Almost Shoved Down the Throats of 70% of World’s Pork Consumers Who Don’t Want It

     At the Codex Alimentarius Commission’s 34th session in Geneva, Switzerland this last week of July 4-9, 2011, the Commission met and debated many standards.  But the most hotly debated standard of all was the one in which the Western Hemispheric countries wanted to force virtually the entire rest of the World to accept its ractopamine-tainted meat.

    Ractopamine is a beta-agonist drug given to pigs and cattle to promote protein and weight gain before slaughter.  There is no “wash-out” period so drug residues remain in the meat that is then sold to market.  The United States, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, and Australia all contend that this ractopamine residue is safe for human consumption; yet studies and reviews conducted in other countries and regions, such as the European Union, China, Taiwan, and Russia, reveal significant health concerns about its use in both animals and humans.  For this important reason some 160 countries do not allow ractopamine-doped meat to be imported into their jurisdictions.

    Scott Tips, president of the National Health Federation (a Codex-accredited INGO) and present and arguing throughout this meeting, reports:

    “The United States, Canadian, and Brazilian delegations were so confident of victory that they pushed the Commission into the rarely seen position of having to vote on whether or not to vote on adoption of the ractopamine standards.  A victory by the pro-ractopamine-doping countries would have allowed them to almost literally shove this toxic residue down the unwilling throats of  more than 70% of the World’s pork consumers!

    As usual, the NHF argued strenuously against adoption of this standard, which would permit billions of people to be exposed to a toxic veterinary drug in the meat they consumed.  We pointed out in particular that the science relied upon in creating this standard was highly flawed and should not be used.  NHF urged discontinuance of any work on this standard.

    Fortunately the pro-ractopamine forces lost, albeit barely.  Five votes either way would have swung the decision.  And with another outcome, Codex itself could have easily imploded as its credibility as being representative of all countries would have been severely damaged.

    After this meeting, the ractopamine standard balances delicately on the precipice of adoption, at Codex’s final Step 8.  Next year’s meeting in Rome, Italy will reveal whether the junk science of the pro-ractopamine-doping countries can continue to fool those Codex delegations sitting on the fence.”

Read More:
Title: Re: Codex
Post by: Marlina E on July 18, 2011, 10:10:19 AM
July 16, 2011

      As our members and followers already know, at the Codex Alimentarius Commission’s 34th session in Geneva, Switzerland this last week of July 4-9, 2011, the Commission met and debated many standards, including that of ractopamine.  But another standard that came up for debate was the one concerning the toxic contaminant Melamine, a man-made chemical used in tableware, food equipment, packaging, and a few pesticides that has poisoned and killed infants and pets alike in the past and which continues to plague all of us as one of many low-level background contaminants.

    This Codex standard was the “Proposed Draft Maximum Levels for Melamine in Liquid Infant Formula.”  As reported previously,[1] the Codex Committee on Contaminants in Food (CCCF) had approved sending up this draft Standard for approval by the Codex Alimentarius Commission.  Unfortunately, CCCF had done this over the strong objections of the National Health Federation (NHF) as well as the delegations of Costa Rica, Peru, and Nicaragua.  The main sticking point in our minds had been (and still is) that although the Maximum Levels for Melamine contamination had been lowered to 0.15 mg/kg at the last CCCF meeting, an exemption with no limit had been created for Melamine migration from food packaging material into the formula itself!  As NHF argued then, and once again at the Commission meeting last week, this was an exemption with a hole big enough to drive a truck through!

Read more:
Title: Re: Codex
Post by: Marlina E on December 01, 2011, 09:26:36 AM
Codex Decision on Vitamins and Minerals Put Off Again

The Conspiracy of Silence is not just limited to the political arena.  For those in the know, it is as obvious as the nose on one’s face that the Mainstream Media ignores top American presidential candidate Ron Paul in favor of their corrupt list of controlled talking-head candidates.  A recently leaked internal memo from CBS News revealed a deliberate policy of sharply restricting Ron Paul’s airtime during the last Republican presidential candidate debate.  Out of 90 minutes of debate, Ron Paul was given 89 seconds to talk!
     So, too, with Codex evidently.  At the 33rd session of the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU), which just ended its week-long meeting on Friday, November 18th, its new Chairwoman, Pia Noble, has a definite problem in allowing the International NonGovernmental Organizations (INGOs) such as the National Health Federation (NHF) to speak.
Kindred Spirits
     Coming from the German Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection (BMLEV), Dr. Noble, who succeeded to her Codex position upon the retirement of Dr. Rolf Grossklaus two years ago, finds kindred spirits in her fellow government bureaucratic delegates.  Members of the same club, they share the same secret handshake of delight in crafting people controls.  But INGOs?  Well, those bozos are just gumming up the works and slowing down the adoption of Codex guidelines and standards.  Nuisances, they are, really.  Okay, they can fill up the bleachers at the meetings because it looks good; but they absolutely must behave themselves.  Oh, Dr. Noble’s mind is so easy to read.  After all, actions speak louder than smiling words.
     Dr. Grossklaus, whom NHF had criticized over the long years, actually did the World a favor when he held back the Nutrient Reference Value (NRV) standard at the 2009 CCNFSDU meeting, at the instance of NHF, India, and Iraq.  That was the standard that was to have dumbed down vitamin-and-mineral NRVs to absurdly low levels.  Grossklaus could have allowed those standards to advance, over our stubborn objections; but he didn’t, and he is to be thanked for that.  He also had no problem generally in recognizing all of the INGOs to take the floor and speak.  In that respect, he was not much different than most of the other Committee chairmen and -women.  He might have squabbled with the NHF delegate, but at least its view was often allowed to be expressed.  Not so with Pia Noble.
The Threat
     NHF has already shown itself to be a threat at these Codex meetings.  Acknowledged as being rather outspoken, NHF started off its participation in the meeting on Monday, November 14th, with a bang, speaking out at every turn in favor of broadening the Terms of Reference (i.e., mandate) given to the Electronic Working Group (subcommittee) for establishing NRV standards for nutrients so as to include science other than just FAO/WHO scientific findings.  Most delegates – still uncritically genuflecting at the altar of FAO/WHO pseudo-science – defer to their science in adopting numbers to insert into such standards.  Forgotten is the great World of Science that beckons beyond the narrow cultish confines of FAO/WHO science.  NHF’s view is that when Codex considers adopting any standards, it should look far and wide at all pertinent science, whether it comes from FAO/WHO or not.
     Amazingly, after all, NHF’s near solitary and obstinate opposition to the vitamin-and-mineral NRVs back in 2009 had killed their momentum on the path towards adoption.  But for that opposition, they would, by now, have been well along the 8-step track to adoption by Codex.  The 2010 Committee meeting in Santiago, Chile saw even more opposition and a request by the Committee for FAO/WHO to come up with a report on NRVs, which they did just in time for this November 2011 Committee meeting.
     So, as I sat there on Monday and leafed through the rather impressive 39-page FAO/WHO report, and listened while the WHO representative presented the report and the Committee then discussed it, I suddenly realized that we were all here, spending time on this, because I had reacted so strongly and persistently two years ago.  NHF had caused this.  It felt good.
     The CCNFSDU created an Electronic Working Group charged with reporting to the Committee at next year’s meeting with its recommendations for NRVs for vitamins and minerals.  The NHF will be part of this eWG.  This means that – for a third year in a row – no dumbed-down vitamin-and-mineral NRVs were adopted at Codex.[1]
So Silence the Threat
     Later, the Committee took up the issue of NRVs for Saturated Fatty Acids.[2]  Adhering to the outdated views first espoused by the makers of Crisco in 1911, when they wanted to shove butter and lard off grocery-store shelves in favor of their new-fangled invention, Crisco (a shortened name form for “Crystallized Cottonseed Oil”), most Codex delegates still think that saturated fats are the cause of heart attacks.  That is why the Committee wanted to establish an NRV of no more than 10 percent of daily energy intake for this fat[3] and push consumers towards a higher intake of the “safe” polyunsaturated fatty acids.
     Such nonsense is often what passes for “science” at Codex these days, with no correlation to current research that anyone could pull off of Pub-Med within two minutes.  The delegation of Malaysia, though, cannot be tarred with this tattered brush.  Malaysia clearly and unequivocally stated its views that saturated fats had a role in the diet and were not correlated with the risk of coronary heart disease.  The International Dairy Federation (IDF) supported this view and provided its own defense of saturated fats in a healthy diet.
     NHF was given the floor to speak immediately after IDF.  As I told the Committee during this one and only time that I was allowed to speak at the meeting on this issue, and in specific response to the Thai delegate’s mistaken remark that saturated fats were the cause of heart disease, “Actually, NHF disagrees.  There is no convincing evidence that replacing Saturated Fatty Acids with Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids results in fewer heart attacks or less coronary heart disease.  Does it show that cholesterol is lowered?  Yes.  But what it does not do is show that CHD is reduced.  That is a myth and saturated fats have been unfairly demonized.  There are any number of other factors that are more closely correlated with heart disease than cholesterol, factors such as homocysteine and C-Reactive protein levels.”
     I continued, “By pushing consumers into using dietary PUFAs instead of Saturated Fats, more harm to health has resulted.  PUFAs are notoriously unstable and go rancid very easily, generating free-radical damage to the body.  NHF has researched this issue off and on for 50 years and I could provide at least 1,147 references showing that polyunsaturated fats are a major cause of the epidemic of obesity, type-2 diabetes, heart disease, stroke, cancer, and various mental problems. On the other hand, saturated fats fulfill many important biological roles, and, not surprisingly, make up 54% of mother’s milk, while polyunsaturated fats are only a very-small 3%.  So, to limit saturated-fat NRVs to 10% of energy intake is wrong.”
     The WHO representative then took the floor to defend the cholesterol-causes-heart-attacks position, citing 30,900 years (!) of research on this subject proving the saturated fat-heart disease risk connection.   Yes, I’m sure Copernicus was confronted with similar mounds of “evidence” to refute his position that the Earth was not the center of the Universe. In the case of the WHO evidence, these kinds of defenses are illogical through their insistence that since saturated fats “cause” high cholesterol levels, ergo, they must cause coronary heart disease.  Such arguments – because that’s all they really are – invariably fail to account for the fact that calcification of the arteries, oxidized cholesterol versus cholesterol itself, and other health factors are the real culprits.
     But I never got the chance to address this issue.  I pushed my microphone button down and it started flashing, indicating that I had asked for the floor to speak and should have been in line to be recognized.  I waited . . . and waited . . . and waited.
     Meanwhile, the other delegates were all recognized to speak.  Impressively enough, the Canadian delegate, Ms. Nora Lee, must have been moved somewhat by what was said about the risks of polyunsaturated fats.  Showing her open-mindedness, she suggested the Committee look into PUFAs, perhaps even establishing an NRV for them.  No one really spoke out in support of this sensible Canadian position (except perhaps for a favorable but different and equally sensible comment by the U.S. delegate).  I was eager to support Canada; and as the issue was hanging in the balance, there was yet a chance to influence the outcome.  But the Chairwoman still ignored NHF.  I looked down at NHF’s microphone button, which continued to flash incessantly, as I slowly twisted in the wind.
     Finally, the Chairwoman peremptorily announced to the Committee at large that NHF was asking to be recognized but that she was not going to do it!  She then moved on and stated that the Committee had adopted by consensus the NRV for Saturated Fatty Acids at 10% of daily energy intake.  I knew, then and there, how Ron Paul must have felt during those many presidential-candidacy debates when he was passed over and ignored.
The Solution
     This has happened before, and I’ve found the best approach is the direct one.  Speak with the Chairman or Chairwoman, and that’s what I did here, telling her that NHF deserved and expected to be recognized to speak.  We were both polite, and I acknowledged that NHF had spoken at length before but still insisted that we had had additional matters to bring before the Committee and should have been allowed to do so.  She said she understood.  One member of our four-person NHF delegation, Caroline Knight, was there with me as a witness.[4]
     The following day was better. NHF was again recognized; but the moment, of course, had passed.  The Saturated Fatty Acid NRV will come up for debate at the next meeting of the Codex Alimentarius Commission meeting in Rome, Italy, next July, and everyone can be sure that it will again be pounced upon there.  So, this matter is hardly finished.
     On a more positive and important note, the general, dumbed-down NRVs for vitamins and minerals was put off for yet another year as the FAO/WHO Report is considered by an electronic Working Group of which NHF will be part.  This means that the next meeting of the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses, to be held in Germany in early December 2012, will be pivotal and perhaps witness the climactic battle on this issue.  Two weeks later, the ancient Mayan calendar stops, which some say means the end of the World.  Maybe the Mayans were just predicting the result of the Codex meeting . . . but we'll see about that.
1 Remember, these proposed, dumbed-down NRVs would have reduced the suggested daily intake of Vitamin C from an already low 60 milligrams per day down to 45 milligrams per day, Magnesium down from 300 milligrams per day to 240 milligrams, and virtually all of the B vitamins (except for folate) down an equal or near-equal percentage.
2 These are actually the Nutrient Reference Values for those Nutrients – such as Saturated Fatty Acids – Associated with the Risk of Diet-Related Noncommunicable Diseases for the General Population, or in Codex parlance, NRVs-NCD.
3 Ten percent energy from saturated fatty acids as a basis for an NRV equates to 20-22 grams based upon the reference daily intake of 8370kJ/2000 kcal.
4 The NHF delegation at this Codex meeting comprised NHF members Petra Weiss, Gudrun Weiss, and Caroline Knight, in addition to me.
Title: Re: Codex
Post by: Marlina E on March 29, 2012, 09:57:39 AM

 At the first day’s meeting of the 6th Session of the Codex Committee on Contaminants in Food (CCCF) yesterday in Maastricht, the Netherlands, the Committee unanimously agreed to cancel the blank check previously written to the food-packaging industry that would have allowed them to contaminate liquid infant formula with melamine-based packaging without any limits imposed upon such contamination.

          Melamine is a man-made, cumulative toxin used in food equipment and packaging, as well as in an herbicide, which has killed thousands of pets and babies in years past and still continues to be a pervasive background contaminant.  At previous Committee meetings, the food-packaging industry had won an “open skies” exemption from the Maximum Permitted Upper Level of melamine contamination of liquid infant formulas.  (Read about it at

          Scott Tips, NHF president and its Codex delegate, noted after yesterday’s victory,

          “It has been a long journey - not in terms of time as much as in terms of support - to arrive at this result, and amazingly enough with no opposition at the end.  Three years ago, when the National Health Federation (NHF) first began speaking out at CCCF against melamine contamination of our foods, NHF was the absolute lone voice at this Committee.  I was looked at as if I were from the Moon.  In 2010, NHF was again alone – not another delegation supported us.  But by the 2011 CCCF meeting several important and outspoken delegations, such as Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and Peru, had joined NHF in opposing melamine contamination.  Over our most-vocal objections, though, the Committee adopted the standard, with the dangerous “sky’s the limit” exemption, and sent it to the Commission for final approval.  Fortunately, a groundswell of opposition had coalesced by that point - some three months later - to cause the Codex Commission Chairwoman to send the melamine standard back down to the CCCF for reconsideration.”

          At this week’s Committee meeting, the groundswell became unanimous as the handwriting was clearly on the wall that numerous delegations were going to fight hard to eliminate the melamine exemption.  First, the powerful EU delegation privately agreed that the exemption had to go.  The United States then joined in publicly, and even New Zealand - formerly a strong supporter of the food-packaging exemption - actually asked the Committee to remove the exemption.  Costa Rica, Ghana, Korea, the Philippines, Nigeria, India, Kenya, Cameroon, Columbia, and of course the NHF all spoke out strongly in favor of removing the exemption, and it was, without dissent.

          The standard now goes to the Commission meeting to be held in Rome this coming July, where it will almost certainly be adopted without the exemption.  But for the NHF’s strong and determined stand all by itself in 2009 and 2010, this exemption would have passed unhindered and would have resulted in a huge loophole for food producers to poison infants with melamine from food packaging.
          For those who claim that a difference cannot be made at Codex meetings, here is yet more proof that positive change has been made, and validation for NHF’s continuing efforts there as your voice for health freedom.

Read more here:
Title: Re: Codex
Post by: Marlina E on December 14, 2012, 11:18:15 AM

In a stunning display of nutritional ignorance, Codex rams through a standard that
leaves many with sub-optimal nutrition
December 14, 2012

          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. 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) –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.
          Those of you familiar with the Codex Alimentarius Commission already know that it is an international body created under the auspices of the World Health Organization and the Food and Agricultural Organization, and is charged with the task of creating global guidelines and standards for food and food supplements.  With some two dozen Committees hosted by various member countries, the CCNFSDU is just one such committee, but a very important one specifically dealing with food nutrition.  Its delegates meet each and every year in order to establish guidelines and standards that will affect the foods that you eat and the supplements you take.
          And 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 (which are essentially Recommended Daily Allowances).
          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.  Each of these new values would represent 100% of the daily intake for consumers for those vitamins and minerals.
          Fortunately, because of 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.
          Unfortunately, this year’s meeting in Bad Soden saw mixed results, with approximately half of the vitamin and mineral NRVs with lower-than-optimal daily values being advanced forward for review by the parent-body Commission.  The other half has been held back for further review and evaluation by the Committee itself, and for further discussion at next year’s meeting.

Click here to read the full story. (
For further information on Codex, please visit the NHF website (Codex): (

NHF Codex Book - ( (
NHF Codex Overview
May be used as an article or printed as a handout to educate on Codex) - ( (
NHF-UK Codex Overview
May be used as an article or printed as a handout to educate on Codex) - ( (
NHF-Dutch Codex Overview
May be used as an article or printed as a handout to educate on Codex) - ( (
Title: Re: Codex
Post by: Marlina E on November 11, 2013, 03:41:34 PM
DIVIDE AND CONQUER – The Latest Strategy at Codex
 By Scott C. Tips      
 November 08, 2013
From The National Health Federation:

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.
 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 twoadditional 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 (
Title: Re: Codex
Post by: nancybirang on November 11, 2013, 06:09:04 PM
yes, we need to stay diligent about codex; thanks for the post
Title: Re: Codex
Post by: Marlina E on March 07, 2014, 04:53:05 PM
[/size]Aluminum Eliminated as a Food Additive for Fish[/i]

[/size]By Scott C. Tips, NHF President

March 7, 2014[/font]   

Despite Winter’s frosty embrace, the Sun and the Norwegians conspired to overwhelm the cold and provide a warm reception for the nearly 180 Codex delegates gathered here in Bergen, Norway in mid-February 2014 for the Thirty-third meeting of the Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Products (CCFFP).
            Chairman Bjorn Knudtsen – a tall drink of water but one who never seemed to look down at others – ran the CCFFP meeting very professionally and with friendliness but little slack.  Although the National Health Federation (NHF) has been attending Codex meetings for nearly 20 years now, this was the first CCFFP meeting that NHF attended, primarily because it has been typically of only marginal importance to us.  (We had bigger fish to fry, so to speak.)
            This year, however, NHF saw an opportunity to build upon its success at the March 2013 Codex Food Additives Committee meeting in Beijing by swooping in to this Norwegian meeting and ensuring that sodium aluminum phosphate was eliminated as a food additive from fish and fish batters. NHF’s delegation – local NHF-Norway leader Ilse Van de Wiele and I – succeeded in that task and at a cheap cost, so attending the meeting was worth the $750 it cost us.
            It is important to remember that the European Union (EU) is also to be thanked for the elimination of aluminum food additives from our global food standards.  The NHF has worked with the EU to ensure aluminum’s removal at every opportunity and the EU delegation has been adamant that this dangerous food additive must be removed.
Radisson Blu Hotel, Codex Meeting location
Animals Should be Treated Humanely
            Codex is blind to the humane treatment of animals.  It is not in the Codex mandate to even consider whether fish and other animals are treated humanely prior to slaughter.  As the U.S. argued in its written submission, “Codex has a mandate to protect the health of consumers and promote fair trade practices. Animal welfare is not part of the Codex mandate (it is within the purview of the World Organization for Animal Health), so there is no rationale for including consideration of the ethics of fish slaughter in a Codex document.”
            While this is technically and superficially correct, NHF argued in its own written submission that this is short-sighted thinking and a mis-application of the Codex mandate to ethical animal slaughter for the following reasons: “(1) Animals (including fish), in anticipation of imminent slaughter, will produce elevated cortisol (stress hormone) levels that spike and are then absorbed into the animal tissue; (2) Humans then will consume this cortisol, which has been shown to be detrimental to human health; and (3) Therefore, it is clearly within the Codex mandate of protecting the health of consumers that animals be slaughtered in as humane a way as possible so as to minimize cortisol and other dangerous stress compounds in animal tissue that is then consumed by consumers. Perhaps most ironically, then, the ethical treatment of animals inevitably leads to better health for those humans. Therefore, there is most definitely a rationale for including consideration of the ethics of fish slaughter in this Codex document."
            The NHF’s written submission was the only written document arguing for the “humane” handling and slaughter of animals for food.  In essence, NHF argued that humane treatment of animals was in humanity's own best interest. This paper was read by the delegates and we received some very positive feedback on it.
Ilse Van De Wiele
            Carrageenan is a sulfated polysaccharide food additive derived from red seaweed and commonly used in processed foods.  In its degraded form, however, it has been shown to be dangerous to human health, and is implicated in cancer.  In the U.S.-chaired Working Group meeting that week, NHF also strongly argued for the elimination of carrageenan and received an open-minded reception from the WG chairman as well as others; but, in the end, we were referred to the Food Additives Committee since the CCFFP takes its direction on carrageenan from that Committee.  NHF intends to address this issue there.
Other Issues
            The “hot topic” issue at the meeting, however, was not aluminum but rather scallops and the development of a Code of Practice for scallop products.  Much debated by the delegates, this agenda item consumed an appreciable portion of the Committee’s time and energy.
[/size]            Biotoxin assays were equally at play here, and the United States delegation led the way for a compromise that will see a Codex standard for detecting biotoxins in shellfish adopted by the Codex Alimentarius Commission at its next meeting.
            All in all, the trip was a very cost-effective success for NHF.  The Committee plans to conduct electronic Working Groups to continue work on additives, histamine, and other issues in preparation for the next CCFFP session; and NHF will continue to monitor the topics that concern its members.
Title: Re: Codex
Post by: Marlina E on April 21, 2014, 01:19:18 PM
Codex Alimentarius’ Greed-Based “Health”
[/size]The National Health Federation at Codex Committee on Food Additives in Hong Kong
By Katherine A. Carroll, Associate Editor
April 18, 2014

The National Health Federation (NHF) returned again to Asia in mid-March 2014, to attend the Codex Committee on Food Additives (CCFA) Forty-Sixth Session in Hong Kong, China.  ( Last year’s CCFA meeting, held amidst the death-smog of Beijing, yielded a great victory as NHF helped persuade the Committee to reduce neurotoxic aluminum by 50% in many food products and completely eliminate it in others.             NHF’s goal was the same this year: To eliminate more aluminum, and aspartame too, particularly based on a plethora of new studies on this killer-sweetener, some of which called for “urgent re-evaluation of aspartame[ii] ( by international regulatory agencies (such as the Codex Alimentarius Commission) and to consider re-evaluation an urgent matter of public health.   So when the Codex Chairman parroted the party line ad nauseam, We have full acceptance of aspartame by JECFA[iii] ( This meeting is not about safety. Aspartame’s safety is a Global standard in a Global marketplace,” it was nearly difficult to endure this bureaucratic ignorance.
          Later, in a side admission to me by a country delegate, NHF learned that one person was threatened with having his office “torched” if he spoke out against aspartame at this CCFA meeting! Regardless of whether this would have happened or not, NHF takes its share of risks in representing you. In a room of hundreds of country and industry delegates, NHF is oftentimes your only Voice for health and health freedom – literally.
           At this meeting, you were well represented against International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs) such as the Calorie Control Council (aspartame group), the International Sweeteners Association (ISA)(another aspartame front group), the International Food Additives Council (aluminum industry), and others.
             Unfortunately, the CCFA meeting was again marked by greed fueling industries’ bottom line while World trade remained unfettered as most country delegates joined in a “Wall Street Wolf” frenetic elevation of commerce over health, despite Codex’s stated goal of protecting the consumer via food safety.
           Codex Alimentarius (Latin for “Food Code”) opted to continue approving its Member States’ (and, importantly, their industries’) export of health-killing goods like aspartame- and aluminum-laden products, among other additives.  Even additives to food additives – all at the expense of your health.
           The bustling Hong Kong harbor is the quintessential image of trade and the nicer aspect of what CCFA’s unspoken but clearly evident goal is: greed-based exports, much of it unfit for human consumption, with World Trade remaining open to neatly “harmonized” countries, which, in a nutshell, means loss of national sovereignty.
           CCFA’s hot debate swirled around the infamous Note 161, a footnote to the aspartame food-additive standards, guaranteeing every country’s right to decide whether to permit the sale of toxic aspartame and at what levels.  Those industries and their country supporters (U.S., Canada, Australia) who love aspartame view Note 161 as a barrier to their Nazi-like plans for world-market conquest.  “Get rid of Note 161 and the World is ours, ours,” you can just hear them cackling.  Since NHF supports the right of countries to choose, we opposed these cacklers.
           Unfortunately, Note 161 was destined for oblivion as the European Union agreed to a compromise permitting world-wide sales of aspartame-laden products under certain, prescribed circumstances (for energy-reduced foods and foods with no added sugar only).  Even those limits were too much for greedy U.S., Australia, Canada, and its aspartame-industry concubines, who demanded no restrictions whatsoever.  The debate over Note 161 continues.
           The delegates were only allowed to comment on the technical necessity of food additives – not their safety. Why is aspartame technically necessary when a safe substitute could be employed? NHF President Scott Tips argued that “it’s about health and safety, not World trade,” to which Physical Working Group (pWG) Chairman Honigfort replied, We have full acceptance of aspartame by JECFA. This meeting is not about safety. Aspartame’s safety is a Global standard in a Global marketplace.
            Time and again Scott Tips argued, “We can use alternative sweeteners like stevia.” But Note 161 was the key issue and the aspartame proponents were adamant that each country not have the right to decide on the sweetener issue but that we reach agreement harmonizing aspartame’s use globally.
           Since Codex has considered aspartame “safe” based upon JECFA’s ignorant, outdated assessment, NHF changed tactics fighting to lower the maximum allowable level of aspartame.  Despite repeated challenges by Scott Tips, the toxin’s defenders prevailed, relying upon JECFA’s “safety” assessment as their shield.  NHF has argued at nearly every meeting that unbiased science from panels other than JECFA must be admitted to the Codex process. Even plenary-session Chairman Dr. Junshi Chen admitted that JECFA needs help getting more up-to-date studies to base their decisions upon.
           ISA argued that we “need to find consensus to move forward as we have had international trade problems over this …. The bigger issue [disregarding health notwithstanding] is not moving forward.” When Scott Tips brought up the fact that we cannot just rubber stamp these standards for the sake of expediency, “moving forward,” and keeping World trade open at the expense of health, this wisdom was sacrificed in the wake of commerce chugging along to the next port with its deadly cargo.
            The bold truth is that there are untapped markets and populations to consume these poisonous additives first and then pay into the medical system later with their loss of health, even their lives.
              CCFA also discussed acceptance of a “tentative” group of food additives like Advantame.  As the debate went on, JECFA admitted, “We have a real need to receive updated data on these substances.” NHF joined an electronic working group that will meet throughout this year to discuss sweeteners like just-mentioned Advantame, Sweetmyx, and others, and to further debate the successor to Note 161.  Sweetmyx, which was recently approved for use in food and beverages, is an artificial sweetener to which PepsiCo holds the exclusive rights. Watch for variations on the theme as aspartame is now simply being rebranded as AminoSweet and other attractive names.  In the largest study of its kind, new research from Iowa State reveals aspartame’s implication in increased heart-attack and stroke rates among women, occurring with two or more diet drinks daily in normally healthy, postmenopausal women. [iv] ( 
           NHF was successful again this year in reducing and eliminating another aluminum food additive, finishing the work begun in Norway, and not selling out under pressure but firmly holding a steady course for health and health freedom – for you! Isn’t it time you deepened the level of your commitment to your health and health freedom? Join us at ( and help to underwrite research, education, and our important Codex attendance by your donation at ( It is your chance to make a difference to billions in the World.
To read more click here (

   ( The NHF delegation consisted of Scott C. Tips, as the Head of Delegation and spokesman for NHF, and Katherine A. Carroll. For the writing of this Release, Scott C. Tips provided the Note 161 and INGO written portions.  He also wrote and submitted to CCFA the NHF’s latest Conference Room Document (CRD) on aspartame based upon the research of Dr. Betty Martini, NHF’s in-house aspartame expert.  Other important research was provided by NHF Advisory Board Member Sayer Ji (of Green Med Info) and Jonathan Middleton (UK researcher).
   [ii] ( Morando S, Padovani M, Tibaldi E, Falcioni L, Manservisi F,  Belpoggi F, “The Carcinogenic Effects of Aspartame: The Urgent Need for Regulatory Re-Evaluation,” American Journal Of Industrial Medicine 57:383–397 (2014).
   [iii] ( The Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Food Additives
   [iv] (  Vyas A, et al., "Diet drink consumption and the risk of cardiovascular events: A report from the Women's Health Initiative," American College of Cardiology 2014.
   Join NHF Now & Support Your Health Freedom (