" Look Into It - Articles

welcome

(THE ARTICLES)

Codex Alimentarius

Government and corporate control of our food supply

What is Codex Alimentarius?

The Codex Alimentarius Commission, Latin for 'food code', is an inter-governmental body that sets guidelines and standards to ensure 'fair trade practices' and consumer protection in relation to the global trade of food. It was established for this purpose in 1963 so has more than 40 years’ experience controlling food in an ever-more globalized world. It has over 170 member countries within the framework of the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme established by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO).

Codex will control:
1. Vitamins, minerals and nutrients,
2. Genetically modified organisms,
3. Toxic residues,
4. Antibiotics, drugs, growth stimulants, and other hormones in food animals,
5. Organic foods, and
6. Irradiation of food.

Overview
Will it or Won’t it affect your Vitamins?
Background of Codex
European Union
U.S. Policy
Codex Alimentarius Q
Documents and Links of Interest

Overview

Codex dietary supplement standards are expected to mirror those currently being built into European guidelines, where the maximum limit for beta carotene would be the amount found in half a large carrot, while that for selenium would be no more than what is typically available in one third of a Brazil nut! How will Codex affect your vitamins?

As Europe escalates integration of Codex-like guidelines severely restricting access to supplements, it’s appropriate to ask, what will happen here in the United States? Will we continue to enjoy access to high quality, therapeutic doses of nutrients? This article will analyze Codex Alimentarius (Codex) to determine the potential implications, if any, on our domestic supply of higher-dose dietary supplements that contain vitamins and minerals.

Codex, the system used by governments and major corporations to develop global guidelines and standards, deals with virtually all aspects of the food supply. Presently only one guideline relates to vitamins and minerals, and although the guideline was ratified in 2005, full implementation by governments as a template for national laws is expected in 2012-13. The once outstanding elements such as which methods to use to determine risk of high dose supplements have now been agreed.

The present analysis is two pronged:

is there a relationship between Codex and the U.S. domestic policy on dietary supplements; and
if yes, then what might the effect on U.S. domestic policy be (i.e., is Codex more restrictive or more liberal than current U.S. domestic policy)?

Will it or Won’t it affect your Vitamins?

Back to top »

Short Answer:

Codex will very likely not affect U.S. domestic policy today or tomorrow; however, there is legitimate concern for the long-term effects, which could be detrimental to the freedom U.S. citizens currently enjoy in accessing high-quality, higher dose dietary supplements.

The ANH, through its US and European offices, is a proactive organization whose efforts are aimed at ensuring consumers will have continued access to effective and safe dietary supplements. By being proactive and with great foresight, ANH takes every precautionary step to protect the right to access, such as monitoring foreign policy and international bodies that may impact existing domestic policy.

Background of Codex: Back to top »

Founded in 1963 by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the World Health Organization, Codex Alimentarius was established to remove trade barriers and develop food standards and guidelines. The primary objectives are given as:

1) to protect the health of the consumers;

2) ensure fair trade practices in the food trade; and

3) promote coordination of all food standards work undertaken by international governmental and non-governmental organizations.

Codex has 180 governments as member organizations, including the U.S. and the European Community, and as a result of Codex’ work, hundreds of standards and guidelines have been created in areas ranging from hygiene, additives, and contaminants, to permissible levels of pesticide residues.

In the early 1990s, Codex broached the subject of creating guidelines for vitamins and mineral supplements and in 2005, the Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements (Codex Guidelines), CAC/GL 55-2005, were adopted. The adoption of the Codex Guidelines triggered immense concern from the natural health community due to statements made in the preamble that essentially discount the benefits from dietary supplements, and the fact that the scope of the Codex Guidelines includes developing minimum and maximum levels of vitamins and minerals.

This is a direct carbon copy of what is currently happening in Europe [LINK TO ANH-EUROPE] except that Europe is mandating the levels into law. Although the process is still underway, indications are that the maximum levels will be highly restrictive and could effectively eliminate all therapeutic high-dose supplementation. ‘Maximum levels’ are anticipated to be set in Codex around 2012-13.

At issue is how Codex will determine the ‘maximum permitted levels.’ As is true within any governmental body, the key stakeholders at the table will set the tone for any policy issued and in this case, Codex is heavily influenced by the EU due to the large number of developed countries within the EU.

European Union:

Currently, member countries of the European Union (EU) operate under individual national regulatory frameworks with, for example, Germany and France being on the restrictive end of the spectrum and the United Kingdom, Holland and Sweden being on the more liberal end. In 2002, a Directive (2002/46/EC) was established to harmonize legislation amongst the EU member countries in regards to food supplements.

As a result of this Directive, a narrow ‘positive list’ of allowed vitamins and mineral forms becomes mandatory EU-wide as of December 1, 2010. Any vitamin and mineral not complying with the ‘positive list’ will be banned. The revised ‘positive list’ contains only about 180 discrete forms of vitamins and minerals, compared with the over 500 that have been on sale for many years in liberal countries such as the UK. Omitted from the list are such commonly used food supplement ingredients as silver, sulphur, and vanadium.

In addition to the release of the ‘positive list,’ by early Spring of 2010, the EU will propose minimum and maximum permitted levels for vitamins and minerals following much debate, industry discussion and even strong opposition from some quarters. Central to the approach used will be the view of the controversial European Food Safety Authority, based in Parma, Italy. At issue with the EU setting maximum permitted levels is the risk assessment and management methods being implemented to develop the guidelines.

ANH-USA’s European office, ANH-Europe, has been at the forefront of exposing the flaws in the methodologies under consideration for a number of years. The methods being used originate from methods that were originally intended for use with environmental toxins, which of course have no beneficial role in health. Nutrients are quite distinct, and as such, require a completely different approach. The approaches presently under consideration would compromises consumer choice and unnecessarily restrict approaches aimed at using nutrients for the all-important purpose of disease risk reduction.

Briefly, to point out two flaws, the analysis fails to consider diverse population sub-groups. Age, dietary patterns, health status, physiological need, and geographic location are key factors in determining risk benefit analysis. Additionally, the analysis fails to break down a nutrient group and sets a maximum level based on the most hazardous member of a given nutrient group such as Vitamin A (retinol / natural b-carotene), or Iron (iron sulphate / ferrous bisglycinate).

The EU and Codex are so intertwined that an inherent influence over one is inevitable. Due to the heavy influence of the EU over Codex, many believe Codex will utilize EU’s ‘maximum permitted levels’ as a template in setting minimum and maximum levels.

U.S. Policy: Back to top »

The Dietary Supplement Health & Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA) regulates the dietary supplement industry and is implemented by the Food & Drug Administration (FDA). Government agencies and some individuals argue that Codex has no bearing on DSHEA and Codex will not jeopardize our existing domestic regulatory framework because Codex provides guidelines for international trade.

Current U.S. policy includes three safe guards from international influence over dietary supplements: DSHEA, anti-harmonization legislation under the FDA Modernization Act of 1997 (21 U.S.C. 383), and the Proxmire Amendment of 1976.

The anti-harmonization legislation, specifically exempts dietary supplements from the mandate that the U.S. government must harmonize regulatory requirements. Not exempted are “drugs, biological products, devices, foods, food additives, and color additives … and good manufacturing practices.” This legislation was intended to streamline standards amongst countries and fortunately, dietary supplements were explicitly exempted.

The Proxmire Amendment expressly prohibits FDA from establishing “maximum limits on the potency of any synthetic or natural vitamin or mineral” and from classifying a supplement as a drug “solely because it exceeds the level of potency” the Secretary determines is useful. The amendment was in response to FDA’s overzealous attempts to regulate supplements as drugs if their potency was 150% or more of the recommended daily allowance.

Additionally, before FDA can adopt any Codex standard, technically the FDA must review the standard and issue a ruling of, “accepted without change, accepted with change, or not accepted.” The review process can be instigated by any interested person, on FDA’s own initiative, or by publishing the Codex standards in the Federal Register. Once posted, a public comment period would open to enable consumers and industry to make a statement. (21 CFR 130).

However, even with these safeguards in place, noting what has transpired in Canada over the past several years (a banning of all vitamins and minerals and now bringing back one by one), Germany’s excessively low ‘maximum levels,’ and the troublesome EU Directive, U.S. consumers are justified in being concerned and highly protective of current domestic policy. A few examples of the extreme differences between current U.S. policy on vitamin and mineral levels and Germany’s proposed maximum levels are:

Vitamin B12: Germany = 9 mcg U.S. = 1000 mcg

Vitamin C: Germany = 225 mg U.S. = 2000 mg

Vitamin D:Germany = 5 mg U.S. = 50 mg

Iron: Germany = 0 mg U.S. = 45 mg

Vanadium: Germany = 0 mg U.S. = 1.8 mg

Germany wants these very low limits as the maximum limits for food supplements, so that any supplement selling at higher levels would need to be licensed as a drug. As most people know, this is prohibitively expensive for most supplement companies and this is the final link in analyzing Codex. The never-ending, always present industry influence which is alive and well within U.S. government agencies, exists just as strong, or even more strongly, abroad. The pharmaceutical industry has great hold on food supplement policy—globally. The pharmaceutical industry has great financial gains to reap from implementing restrictive maximum levels—increased synthetic product opportunities and higher volume of sales.

If Codex adopts excessively low maximum levels, this is highly persuasive material for pharma to use in the U.S. to ultimately convince the government to conform, which will open trade opportunities.

The EU, and specifically Germany—the country that hosts the key Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses and that is responsible for the vitamin and mineral guideline—have great influence over Codex; therefore, with restrictive levels currently being set in the EU, and the extensive influence the EU has over Codex, coupled with industry’s strong-hold over the FDA in the U.S., current Codex activity and guidelines should be of concern to those Americans who have long enjoyed considerable freedom over the use dietary supplements as part of their personal health care regime and lifestyle.

Conclusion:

The threat of Codex adversely impacting U.S. domestic policy regarding food and dietary supplements is real. One has to look beyond the stated purpose of Codex—as being an intergovernmental body to develop standards for international trade purposes—to understand the ripple effects from the Codex ‘Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements.’ Once an international borderline between vitamins and minerals as foods, and vitamins and minerals as drugs, it is quite possible that the U.S. will ‘cave’ to international pressure because the limits will have been set as a result of international consensus on the grounds of public safety.

One last thought: if the U.S. government delegation is opposed to the European model, why has it not objected strenuously to its incorporation into the Codex guideline? Actually the reverse has been true. The U.S. has been working very closely with the EU, ensuring the highly restrictive European approach is built firmly into the international Codex guideline at every step! Perhaps this makes a statement about the FDA-led, U.S. government delegation’s true colors?

http://www.anh-usa.org/

Supplements Still in Peril

July 13, 2010

iStock_000008931495XSmall Over the past year, we fought four different Congressional bills that would have affected your access to supplements. In ourAction Alert, we need your help to educate our lawmakers, most of whom know little or nothing about existing supplement regulation or why supplements are not drugs.

As successful as you have been in defending supplements on Capitol Hill this year, anti-supplement members of Congress are still playing on the offense. As Congressman Henry Waxman, one of the leaders of the group trying to turn supplements into drugs, once said that nothing is ever “settled for good” in Washington.

Of the four pieces of legislation below, only the Food Safety Bill is still an immediate threat and so far it keeps being delayed. But even the bad ideas you have defeated could easily come back.

Senator McCain’s Dietary Supplement Safety Act (S. 3002) is no longer supported by McCain himself, but cannot be formally withdrawn and so remains for this session.
The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009 (H.R. 4173), which passed the House in late 2009, included a buried provision written in impossible-to-follow legalese that would have drastically expanded the powers of the Federal Trade Commission, powers that would have been used against supplements. Although you stopped it in the Senate and in conference committee, it could still be added to another bill.
The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (S. 510). You succeeded in getting language added that would protect us from sliding down a slippery slope toward harmonizing US standards for supplements with the irrationally restrictive European standards—under rules set by the global Codex Alimentarius. Other provisions of the bill we still oppose, but it has been sitting on the Senate calendar for ten months with no activity. One possibility is that it will emerge and be reconciled with the House bill in the very dangerous lame duck session after the fall elections, when defeated or retired legislators can take positions without worry about voter reaction.
The Food Safety Enhancement Act (H.R. 2749). This is a terrible bill. It has passed the House, so the last chance to stop its toxic provisions is in the House–Senate Conference when it eventually comes.Among the worst provisions, it includes jail time—up to 10 years—for “misbranding” or “adulterating” supplements. And the definitions are very broad: “adulteration” includes recordkeeping violations, while “misbranding” includes citing peer-reviewed science about the benefits of a dietary supplement. This new threat of sanctions (only in the House bill, not the Senate’s) would give the FDA a hammer with which to threaten and coerce companies engaging in completely legal activities.

In the case of all the bills above, we have been successful so far. But we have been fighting in a defensive mode. If we stay only on the defense, we will eventually lose. It is clear that we need to take action—to be proactive—and educate Congress on the supplement regulation issue. In order to prevent new legislative efforts to implement duplicative, unnecessary, and expensive regulations that could drastically reduce your access to health-giving supplements, we need your help to tell Congress that dietary supplements are already regulated!

That’s right: contrary to what the media has been saying (and many members of Congress believe), dietary supplements are indeed fully regulated. The FDA has complete authority to regulate supplements in three important ways:

It can take any supplement off the the market that is unsafe, mislabeled, misbranded, adulterated, or makes false or misleading claims. (The FTC also has the power to stop any fraudulent advertising.)
It is charged with enforcing the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA), which holds supplement manufacturers to “good manufacturing practices” (industry standards for product quality) as defined by the FDA itself.
It collects and takes any necessary action based on “adverse event reports,” that is, any reported negative reactions to dietary supplements.

Please let your senators and your representative know that supplements are not drugs. It is nonsensical to treat them as drugs. Importantly, supplements are natural substances; therefore they cannot be patented; therefore to subject them to the vast cost of FDA approval would simply drive supplement producers out of business, leaving drug companies with a complete monopoly. Moreover, although they are not drugs, supplements are already fully regulated. More legislation is not needed. Please help deliver this message where it is needed. Please TAKE ACTIONnow.

http://www.anh-usa.org/

The History of Health Tyranny: Codex Alimentarius, part 1

Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post
November 17, 2010

Excerpt from Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom




	The globalists plans of a one-world state built upon eugenics were not born with Adolph Hitler and they certainly did not die with him.

Contrary to popular belief Codex Alimentarius is neither a law nor a policy. It is in fact a functioning body, a Commission, created by the Food and Agricultural Organization and the World Health Organization under the direction of the United Nations. The confusion in this regard is largely due to statements made by many critics referring to the “implementation” of Codex Alimentarius as if it were legislation waiting to come into effect. A more accurate phrase would be the “implementation of Codex Alimentarius guidelines,” as it would more adequately describe the situation.

Codex is merely another tool in the chest of an elite group of individuals whose goal is to create a one world government in which they wield complete control. Power over the food supply is essential in order to achieve this. As will be discussed later, Codex Alimentarius will be “implemented” whenever guidelines are established and national governments begin to arrange their domestic laws in accordance with the standards set by the organization.

The existence of Codex Alimentarius as a policy-making body has roots going back over a hundred years. The name itself, Codex Alimentarius, is Latin for “food code”[1] and directly descended from the Codex Alimentarius Austriacus, a set of standards and descriptions of a variety of foods in the Austria-Hungarian Empire between 1897 and 1911.[2] This set of standards was the brainchild of both the food industry and academia and was used by the courts in order to determine food identity in a legal fashion.

Even as far back as 1897, nations were being pushed toward harmonization of national laws into an international set of standards that would reduce the “barriers to trade” created by differences in national laws.[3] As the Codex Alimentarius Austriacus gained steam in its localized area, the idea of having a single set of standards for all of Europe began to pick up steam as well. From 1954-1958, Austria successfully pursued the creation of the Codex Alimentarius Europaeus (the European Codex Alimentarius). Almost immediately the UN directed FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization) sprang into action when the FAO Regional Conference for Europe expressed the desire for a global international set of standards for food. The FAO Regional Conference then sent a proposal up the chain of command to the FAO itself with the suggestion to create a joint FAO/WHO programme dealing with food standards.

The very next year, the Codex Alimentarius Europeaus adopted a resolution that its work on food standards be taken over by the FAO. In 1961, it was decided by the WHO, Codex Alimentarius Europaeus, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and the FAO Conference to create an international food standards programme known as the Codex Alimentarius.[4] In 1963, as a result of the resolutions passed by these organizations two years earlier, Codex Alimentarius was officially created.[5]

Although created under the auspices of the FAO and the WHO, there is some controversy regarding individuals who may or may not have participated in the establishment of Codex. Many anti-Codex organizations have asserted that Nazi war criminals, Fritz Ter Meer[6] and Hermann Schmitz[7] in particular, were principal architects of the organization. Because many of these claims are made with only indirect evidence, or no evidence at all, one might be tempted to disregard them at first glance. However, as the allegations gain more and more adherents, Codex has attempted to refute them. In its Frequently Asked Questions section, Codex answers the question, “Is it true that Codex was created by a former war criminal to control the world food supply?”[8] It then goes on to answer the charges by stating:

No. It is a false claim. You just need to type the words “Codex Alimentarius” in any search engine and you will find lots of these rumors about Codex. Usually the people spreading them will give no proof but will ask you to send donations or to sign petitions against Codex.

Truthful information about Codex is found on the Internet - there is nothing to hide from our side – we are a public institution working in public for the public – we are happy if people want to know more about our work and ask questions. There is an official Codex Contact Point in each member country who will be pleased to answer your questions on Codex.[9]

But, as one can see from the statement above, Codex’s response does very little to answer this question beyond simply disagreeing with it. While it is true that many individuals who make this claim provide little evidence for it, the presentation of the information does not necessarily negate its truthfulness. In fact, Codex offers its own website as a source for accurate information about the organization; yet, beyond the FAQ section, there is nothing to be found that is relevant to the “war criminal” allegations. Furthermore, the codexalimentarius.net website is virtually indecipherable, almost to the point of being completely useless. In the end, this response raises more questions than it answers. This is because Codex, if it wanted, could put these rumors to rest by simply posting a list of the individuals and organizations that funded or played an integral role in its creation. However, it does nothing of the sort. Beyond mentioning the FAO and the WHO, we are completely unaware of who or how many other individuals and organizations participated in the creation of Codex Alimentarius.

The “war criminal” claims center around the chemical conglomerate known as I.G. Farben. I.G. Farben was made up of several German chemical firms including, BASF, Bayer, Hoechst and AGFA,[10] that merged together. It was essentially the manufacturing wing of the Third Reich and was the engine behind the Nazi war machine. The company provided the vast majority of explosives and synthetic gasoline used for the military conquest and murder of millions. It also manufactured the now infamous Zyklon-B gas used in the gas chambers. Not only that, but it was influential in the conducting of experiments on concentration camp victims. Indeed, camp victims were often purchased outright at the behest of the company for the express purposes of testing by several different branches of the company, particularly Bayer and Hoechst.

Without I.G. Farben, the German wars simply could not have been sustained. During the Nuremberg war trials, the tribunal convicted 24 board members and executives of the company and dissolved it into several different daughter companies. Namely, BASF, Hoechst (later to be known as Aventis), and Bayer. By 1951, virtually all 24 of these executives were released, including Fritz Ter Meer and Hermann Schmitz. Ter Meer had been a member of the I.G. Farben executive committee from 1926-1945 and also a member of the working committee and the technical committee as well as a director of the infamous Section II. He was also the ambassador to Italy given full power by the Reich Minister for armaments and war production and was the industrialist most responsible for Auschwitz. Schmitz was also a member of the I.G. Farben executive committee from 1926-1935, and was chairman of the board and “head of finances” from 1935-1945. He was also head of military economics and a member of the Nazi party. Both men were found guilty by the Nuremberg war tribunal in 1948, yet Schmitz was released in 1950 and Ter Meer in 1952.[11]

After all this, Schmitz was appointed board member of the German bank of Berlin West in 1952 and in 1956, the honorary chairman of the board of Rheinish steel plants. Ter Meer, however, was even more successful. Upon his release, he was appointed board member of Bayer in 1955 and, in 1956 was appointed chairman. In the years following, he would take on many additional roles such as chairman of the board of Theodore Goldschmidt AG, deputy chairman of the board of Commerzbank and Bank-Association AG, as well as a board member of the Waggonfabrik Uerdingen, Duesseldorger Waggonfabrik AG, the bank association of West Germany, and United Industrial Enterprises AG.[12] These are documented connections for both of these men. Indeed, Ter Meer’s’ connections to the pharmaceutical firm Bayer earned him a foundation named in his honor, the Fritz Ter-Meer Foundation.[13] Through all of this however, this writer could not confirm that either Ter Meer or Schmitz had direct connections to the creation of Codex Alimentarius.

However, Codex does nothing to dispel the allegations besides simply disagreeing with them and the connections are not at all implausible. Codex is very secretive about its beginnings, as evidenced on its website where it only states that it was created at the behest of the FAO and the WHO. It is highly unlikely that such an organization would be created without the assistance, input, and even funding of privately owned international corporations. Thanks to both the anti-Codex community and Codex Alimentarius itself, there is no evidence (again at least to this author) that documents which individuals or corporations were involved in its establishment. However, there are other ties that lend more credence to the belief that war criminals played a role in the creation of Codex.

The Health Tyrants: Codex Alimentarius, part2

Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post
November 22, 2010

Excerpt from Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom

The health commission of Codex Alimentarius, and the subsequent legislation to come from it, has provable roots to Nazism, Communism, eugenics, and one-world government initiatives. Let’s put forth a few of the names and philosophies of the tyrants responsible for this proposed global health tyranny.




	The globalists plans of a one-world state built upon eugenics were not born with Adolph Hitler and they certainly did not die with him.

I.G. Farben was not isolated to Germany. Not only were they a conglomerate of Bayer, Hoechst, BASF and other companies, I.G. Farben was also welded to Shell Oil of Britain and Standard Oil and DuPont of the United States by 1929. This occurred after I.G. Farben discovered how to make petroleum out of coal. Subsequently, there was an agreement for I.G. Farben to stay out of the petroleum market if Standard Oil would stay out of the chemical market.[1]

Hermann Schmitz, who was chairman of the board for I.G. Farben, as mentioned above, had a large amount of stock in Standard Oil New Jersey, while the Rockefeller Foundation likewise owned a substantial amount of stock in I.G. Farben.[2] So much stock that when I.G. Farben’s holdings were completely sold off in 1962, the Rockefellers were the dominant holders involved in the transactions.[3] This is significant because the Rockefeller Foundation and the Rockefeller family in general were major supporters not just of the Nazi regime and eugenics, but the creation of the United Nations.[4]

Indeed, the connections between the Rockefellers and the atrocities of Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, and Communist China are so plentiful as to preclude them from being dealt with in much detail in this article. This evidence is readily available to anyone who wishes to investigate and is made much easier because, in large part, the Rockefellers do not deny it. In addition to open support for eugenics, the Rockefellers are also committed globalists, again a philosophy which is readily admitted. The Rockefeller connections to globalist organizations such as the United Nations,[5] the Council on Foreign Relations,[6] and the Trilateral Commission[7] to name a few are widely documented and discussed. Indeed, it was John D. Rockefeller that donated the land on which the United Nations headquarters was built.[8]

As one digs deeper and deeper into the history of the United Nations and even the concept of globalization itself, one encounters more and more of the Rockefeller family tree along the way. It eventually becomes obvious that the Rockefellers, along with other elite families, had a vested interest in the creation of an international governing body as well as a powerful hand in its creation through organizations such as those mentioned above, specifically the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg Group, and the Royal Institute of International Affairs.[9] All of these groups and organizations exist for the stated purpose of world government, with the UN in particular being a vital piece of the infrastructure used to facilitate it. Indeed, much evidence has shown definite links between these organizations and the creation of the United Nations.[10]

But eliciting perhaps even more concern, especially since the Rockefeller family has as much control as it does, is their obsession with eugenics. It seems that the Rockefeller family has been involved in the eugenics movement since the inception of its more modern form. To be clear, eugenics is the pseudo-scientific theory that some humans are hereditarily more fit than others and that those deemed unfit should be eradicated through various means. Its contemporary form originated with Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution and natural selection, but gained more steam when Sir Francis Galton (a cousin of Darwin’s) began to push these theories with increased vigor. Galton also claimed that if fit or talented human beings would only marry other fit or talented human beings then the end result would be much more fit and talented offspring. At the same time Darwin and Galton’s theories were being considered, the idea of heredity was being given more attention as well. Yet, in just a few years, what were mainly just bizarre theories came to be not only accepted but turned into a mass movement of eugenics that resulted in forced sterilizations, abortions, euthanasia and even infanticide in the United States. This was years before these practices were introduced and intensified in Germany. In fact, it was the United States that Hitler took as a model for his own plan to eliminate “unfits.” These practices blossomed in the years before World War II due to large scale acceptance of eugenics in academia and the media as well as massive funding from hereditary elite families such as the Rockefellers and Carnegies.[11]

Though certainly not the only proponents of eugenics, these families played an immensely important role in its expansion. The Rockefeller Foundation alone funded the American Eugenics Society to the point where its own eugenics foundation, the Rockefeller Population Council, was virtually indistinguishable from it. The Foundation funded the Eugenics Society, which eventually changed its name to the Society for the Study of Social Biology, the name that it currently holds. Rockefeller also helped to create and subsequently fund the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatry and the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Eugenics, and Human Heredity.[12]

The latter was directly responsible for the coordination, funding, and implementation of the program in which Josef Mengele worked prior to his infamous experiments at Auschwitz.[13] Indeed, many of the experiments themselves were funded by the Rockefeller Foundation via the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Eugenics, and Human Heredity.[14] Through the Bureau of Social Hygiene, another Rockefeller eugenics foundation, John D. Rockefeller also anonymously funded the notorious racist, eugenicist, and abortion pioneer Margaret Sanger’s American Birth Control League, Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau, and Planned Parenthood of America.[15]

Sanger was the initiator of The Negro Project, a concerted effort to eliminate the black race. In a 1939 letter to Clarence Gamble she wrote, “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to their more rebellious members.”[16] In 1939, Sanger renamed her Clinical Research Bureau to the Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau, both integral institutions to the Negro Project, which became the Planned Parenthood Federation of America in 1942, its current name as it exists today.[17]

Considering the many connections of the Rockefellers to the United Nations and their role in its creation, it would seem logical that the two would share ideals. Indeed, population control and reduction is one of the main concerns of the UN as they fund and operate a variety of different organizations under the UN umbrella to serve just that purpose; most notably the United Nations Population Fund.[18] Sven Burmester, a representative of the latter organization, even stated publicly his support for the barbaric practices of China’s population control programs. He said, “China has had the most successful family planning policy in the history of mankind in terms of quantity and with that, China has done mankind a favor.”[19]

This is only one example of the ideology that is pervasive among those intricately involved in the United Nations and, unfortunately, much of the scientific community. Although little more will be said about the elite and UN ideologies here, the evidence is readily available and it should be researched in order to gain a clearer picture of the direction this system of global governance is moving. When one has a basic understanding of the connections between the Rockefellers and the UN, as well as the common belief system of eugenics and population reduction, it is not such a stretch to see traces of these elitists in the architecture of Codex Alimentarius. Codex, after all, is an organization created under the FAO and WHO, which are both under the jurisdiction of the UN. The connections between the Rockefellers and the pharmaceutical industry and medical establishments also serve as a motive for the destruction of the natural healthcare industry and natural supplement access.[20]

However, this evidence is not presented in order to pin the goal of global tyranny and mass population reduction on the backs of the Rockefeller family alone. The Rockefellers are not the only elite hereditary ruling class family with this ideology, nor are they necessarily at the top of the heap when it comes to the pecking order of those that are. The Rockefellers themselves are only agents of individuals in even higher places, but who manage to remain unseen. Nevertheless, the Rockefeller connection to Codex should not be ignored because in this case, as in many others, history predicts the future. The globalists plans of a one-world state built upon eugenics were not born with Adolph Hitler and they certainly did not die with him. It is as alive today as it ever was.

NOTES:

1 NOTES:

[1] Tips, Scott C. “Codex Alimentarius: Global Food Imperialism.” FHR. 2007. P. ii.

[2] “Opening Statement by Dr. B.P. Dutia Assistant Director-General Economic and Social Policy Department, FAO to the Nineteenth Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission.” Food and Agricultural Organization. July 1, 1991. http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/005/t0490e/T0490E04.htm