Latest / UK Column Radio / Giving Consumers a Health Voice | UK Column Interviews

Transcript

Giving Consumers a Health Voice | UK Column Interviews · UK Column Radio

0:07
Speaker 1: Hello, I'm Mark Anderson, U.S.-based U.K. column correspondent. Welcome to
0:12
Speaker 1: another one of my interviews in ongoing probes into how
0:16
Speaker 1: to make our world a better place. And today I'm
0:20
Speaker 1: really happy to have Scott Tips as my U.K. column interviewee.
0:27
Speaker 1: This is really important stuff that we're going to be
0:29
Speaker 1: discussing today. And I'll take a note, take note of
0:35
Speaker 1: Scott's background. He is a University of California, Berkeley Law
0:44
Speaker 1: School graduate and a longtime California licensed attorney. He was
0:48
Speaker 1: one of the first two food and drug lawyers west
0:51
Speaker 1: of the Mississippi with international clientele. Scott Tips also has
0:58
Speaker 1: engaged in business litigation, general business law, and nonprofit organizational law.
1:03
Speaker 1: Since 1989, it's been a while now, he has been
1:06
Speaker 1: the general counsel for the National Health Federation, the world's
1:10
Speaker 1: oldest health freedom organization for consumers, as well as editor-in-chief
1:15
Speaker 1: of its journal, and I've read it for many years,
1:17
Speaker 1: Health Freedom News. In January 07, he became the National
1:22
Speaker 1: Health Federation president. a position he's held continuously since then,
1:27
Speaker 1: and Mr. Tips is a frequent speaker for the Federation
1:30
Speaker 1: and for health freedom itself on several continents. He writes
1:34
Speaker 1: a bimonthly column for Whole Foods magazine, that noted health
1:39
Speaker 1: food store, and that's called Legal Tips. He started that
1:43
Speaker 1: back all the way in 1984. He compiled, edited, and
1:46
Speaker 1: published two books, and this is really important, about the
1:49
Speaker 1: global organization Codex Alimentarius, that commissions attempts to limit individual
1:55
Speaker 1: freedom of choice in health matters, and his books are
1:59
Speaker 1: entitled Codex Elementarius Global Food Imperialism Volumes 1 and 2.
2:05
Speaker 1: These books are based upon many of his own personal
2:08
Speaker 1: observations and experiences participating in Codex meetings worldwide, which currently
2:14
Speaker 1: has been for 26 years, that is, for more meetings
2:18
Speaker 1: in years than all other health freedom activists combined. Those
2:23
Speaker 1: two decades of Codex meetings have seen, among other things, Mr.
2:26
Speaker 1: Tips eliminating various toxins in our foods, fighting alone against
2:31
Speaker 1: the use of glyphosate and other toxic herbicides in agriculture,
2:35
Speaker 1: opposing the atrocious reductions of standard levels in vitamins and minerals,
2:40
Speaker 1: as well as the global use of ractopamine and zolpaterol,
2:44
Speaker 1: intended only to pump up big ag profits at the
2:47
Speaker 1: expense of animal and consumer health. Really important, pivotal stuff.
2:53
Speaker 1: On the national level, Scott has resisted strongly the FDA's
2:56
Speaker 1: regulatory efforts to cripple supplements in favor of the agency's
3:01
Speaker 1: drug clients.
3:02
Speaker 2: We've all heard about that. CDC, too.
3:06
Speaker 1: Having studied and lived in Europe for many years and
3:08
Speaker 1: having traveled internationally his entire life, Mr. Scott Tips brings, indeed,
3:12
Speaker 1: a unique global perspective to his work and writing. Without
3:16
Speaker 1: further ado, welcome, Scott, to UK Column.
3:21
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mark. It's always a pleasure.
3:25
Speaker 1: I've known you, Scott, excuse me, for a number of years,
3:27
Speaker 1: since probably 2011 or so. And 2012, I had the
3:32
Speaker 1: pleasure of meeting you and an associate in Ottawa, Canada.
3:36
Speaker 1: And I went to a Codex, kind of a subcommittee,
3:40
Speaker 1: I believe, but it was an element of the Codex Commission.
3:44
Speaker 1: And I felt like I was at a mini UN meeting.
3:48
Speaker 1: And as I remember reading the materials and listening very
3:51
Speaker 1: intently and getting the feel of the whole thing, it
3:53
Speaker 1: was a unique experience for me and my wife, Angie.
3:57
Speaker 1: And I soon picked up on what you were telling
4:00
Speaker 1: me at that time. And we'll start here with Codex
4:03
Speaker 1: because that's been such a central core thing to your work,
4:06
Speaker 1: among other things. But what I picked up on was
4:09
Speaker 1: this global management mentality to reduce the effectiveness of and
4:16
Speaker 1: the efficacy of supplements, which in my mind at the
4:19
Speaker 1: time would give big pharma and big medicine even more
4:23
Speaker 1: of an advantage because the alternatives would become less and
4:26
Speaker 1: less effective. And so go ahead and take it from there.
4:30
Speaker 1: That was my impression. That memory still is really strong
4:33
Speaker 1: in my mind. And I remember your participation always for
4:37
Speaker 1: health freedom, always very effective, always to the point, looking
4:41
Speaker 1: out for people. so we don't get swallowed up by
4:43
Speaker 1: big pharma and big medicine. So take it from there
4:46
Speaker 1: about Codex.
4:48
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mark, for that observation about Codex, which is
4:52
Speaker 3: really accurate. I mean, it is a special and unique institution,
4:59
Speaker 3: unique in many ways, because it tries very hard and
5:04
Speaker 3: usually succeeds in operating on consensus, but it's a consensus
5:09
Speaker 3: of mainstream science, unquestioned science, the same kind of science
5:15
Speaker 3: that got us into trouble with COVID-19 and its vaccines
5:18
Speaker 3: or clot shots. And so it really takes some special
5:26
Speaker 3: people to understand how it operates and to be absorbed
5:31
Speaker 3: within it without getting it adopting its way of thinking,
5:36
Speaker 3: the group thinking, the hive mentality that I've observed there.
5:41
Speaker 3: So perhaps I should just explain something at the start.
5:46
Speaker 3: Codex Alimentarius is only about food. It's not about medicine.
5:52
Speaker 3: It's not about electromagnetic treatments. It's not about anything else
5:57
Speaker 3: but food and drink. That's the name, Codex Alimentarius, food
6:02
Speaker 3: code in Latin. So that's all we deal with. And
6:08
Speaker 3: my first meeting was in June 2000, and I went
6:12
Speaker 3: to the committee meeting, which was the Codex Committee on
6:15
Speaker 3: Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses. The acronym they
6:20
Speaker 3: give is CCNFSDU. The one you went to, Mark, where
6:25
Speaker 3: you said that observation was the Codex Committee on Food Labeling,
6:30
Speaker 3: which is hosted by the French, sorry, Sorry to say
6:34
Speaker 3: the Quebec, French speaking Quebec government, but it's the Canadian government.
6:40
Speaker 3: And it's a very important committee. They set the standards
6:46
Speaker 3: worldwide for international trade, for food labeling. And we've been
6:52
Speaker 3: to many of those meetings, although not for the last
6:56
Speaker 3: couple or three years, but before that for quite a while.
7:01
Speaker 3: And we fought the battle to get GMO products labeled
7:05
Speaker 3: and we almost won. We came within a hair of
7:09
Speaker 3: winning that one, but in the end it didn't work
7:13
Speaker 3: out for us. So GMO foods are not labeled at
7:18
Speaker 3: all anywhere in the world that I'm aware of, except
7:21
Speaker 3: maybe in the EU. So that was that, but more
7:26
Speaker 3: recently we've been fixated on the pesticide issue. on bacteriophages,
7:32
Speaker 3: on all the interventions that Codex wants to make into
7:37
Speaker 3: agriculture and to allow. And we have a lot of
7:42
Speaker 3: pharmaceutical and pesticide companies that are pushing and big ag
7:49
Speaker 3: companies that are pushing their agenda and they tend to
7:52
Speaker 3: get it. And the National Health Federation is an accredited
7:59
Speaker 3: INGO at these meetings, and a lot of times we
8:03
Speaker 3: are the only ones speak up. Now, occasionally we get
8:07
Speaker 3: a country delegate to speak up on our behalf, on
8:11
Speaker 3: our side, as an ally. And the funny thing is
8:16
Speaker 3: that of all the countries in the world and all
8:20
Speaker 3: the regions in the world that agree with us on
8:24
Speaker 3: overuse of pesticides, saying no to xylpaterol and bractopamine, which
8:32
Speaker 3: are given in pig food and beef and turkey food
8:37
Speaker 3: to just bulk them up sort of Arnold Schwarzenegger style.
8:41
Speaker 3: So the farmers and ranchers get more money selling that
8:45
Speaker 3: product because it's more lean beef or lean pork than
8:51
Speaker 3: they would have normally. But in the meantime, you get
8:54
Speaker 3: these downer pigs who fall and crash and burn, and
8:59
Speaker 3: you have the hooves falling off of cattle, and it's
9:03
Speaker 3: very unwelcome in the animal world, but who cares about
9:09
Speaker 3: that at Codex? You know, they repeatedly say the Codex
9:12
Speaker 3: mandate is about human health, and NHF has to speak
9:18
Speaker 3: up at those points and say, look, if you don't
9:21
Speaker 3: have healthy animals, you aren't going to have healthy humans,
9:24
Speaker 3: and besides, The humane thing to do is to follow
9:28
Speaker 3: the principle of the European Union, which says that if
9:32
Speaker 3: it's a non-therapeutic drug, you can't give it to animals.
9:37
Speaker 3: If you're just giving it to them to bulk them
9:39
Speaker 3: up so you can make more money, then it's not
9:42
Speaker 3: allowed within the confines of the European Union. But Canada, Australia,
9:49
Speaker 3: New Zealand, the United States, they could care less about
9:54
Speaker 3: any of that. In fact, the whole Western Hemisphere, if
9:58
Speaker 3: you want to know whom to... to not follow at Codex,
10:02
Speaker 3: any country in the Western Hemisphere is pretty much bad
10:07
Speaker 3: at Codex. Few exceptions, depends on the issue, depends on
10:12
Speaker 3: the food standard. But in all, on the main issues,
10:17
Speaker 3: Western Hemisphere, really doesn't care. The other ones who care
10:23
Speaker 3: are the EU.
10:26
Speaker 2: A quick question. How about the UK?
10:28
Speaker 1: Is the UK more like the EU in that regard,
10:30
Speaker 1: or is it going along with the US and Canada
10:34
Speaker 1: with regard to.
10:35
Speaker 2: What you just said?
10:37
Speaker 3: I was getting there, but you're right to want to
10:39
Speaker 3: skip ahead to it because we have that audience. But
10:43
Speaker 3: the UK, when it was, I hate to say this
10:46
Speaker 3: because I was a big Brexit fan, but When the
10:49
Speaker 3: UK was part of the EU, of course, they towed
10:52
Speaker 3: the EU party line. But since Brexit, they've had their
10:56
Speaker 3: own position, which frankly has been a bit more neutral.
11:01
Speaker 3: Sometimes they go against the EU line. Sometimes they go
11:04
Speaker 3: against the US line, US-Canadian line. But generally, the Anglo-Saxon countries, Australia,
11:12
Speaker 3: New Zealand, United States, Canada, UK, pretty bad actors at Codex.
11:18
Speaker 3: In fact, the worst are the Australians. If you just
11:23
Speaker 3: stumbled into a Codex meeting, didn't know the first thing
11:26
Speaker 3: about what was going on, all you'd have to do
11:28
Speaker 3: is listen to the Australian delegate talking and just adopt
11:32
Speaker 3: a position 180 degrees opposite to that he or she took,
11:37
Speaker 3: and you'd be in pretty good territory. That's how bad
11:42
Speaker 3: they are. They're like the point men for the empire,
11:45
Speaker 3: and they don't They've never met an unhealthy Codex standard
11:49
Speaker 3: they didn't support, ever, that I can imagine. We'd need
11:55
Speaker 3: about five hours to go through all of this, but
11:59
Speaker 3: they're trying to keep it short and straight and simple
12:02
Speaker 3: to the point. What Codex does is it develops these
12:05
Speaker 3: food standards. These food standards fall under the principle of harmonization.
12:11
Speaker 3: So all the member states for Codex I think it's 188,
12:17
Speaker 3: but it could be 198. No, it's 188 or so
12:22
Speaker 3: member states. They have committed to harmonize to these food
12:27
Speaker 3: standards unless they reserve their rights at the Codex meeting
12:31
Speaker 3: to follow a different trail. And usually the ones who
12:35
Speaker 3: do that are the EU, which has its precautionary principle,
12:39
Speaker 3: which is very helpful. And it's prohibition against non-therapeutic use
12:44
Speaker 3: of drugs. And often we've stumbled into the same rifle
12:49
Speaker 3: pit with the EU and fighting off the Americans and
12:54
Speaker 3: the others on these codex standards. So the other countries
13:01
Speaker 3: that we've been allied with in the past have been
13:04
Speaker 3: Russia and believe it or not, Iran and Sometimes China,
13:12
Speaker 3: but not always. They've kind of started to go to
13:15
Speaker 3: the dark side on the pest side issue. And whom else? India.
13:22
Speaker 3: And then occasionally a smattering of African countries who go
13:27
Speaker 3: like Cape Verde Islands, which went up against Codex on
13:33
Speaker 3: the last meeting at the commission meeting and held in Geneva.
13:37
Speaker 3: They went up against the exemption that the industry was
13:41
Speaker 3: seeking for medical emergencies on food labeling. And they were
13:47
Speaker 3: the only ones brave enough to stand up of the
13:50
Speaker 3: countries and speak out. Of course, NHF joined them and
13:55
Speaker 3: spoke out against this medical emergency exemption. You know, that's
13:59
Speaker 3: the trick they use at Codex and elsewhere. Even country
14:04
Speaker 3: member states use it domestically. That's where the They declare
14:09
Speaker 3: something an emergency like they did with COVID-19. And then
14:13
Speaker 3: it allows him to sweep in and sweep away all
14:16
Speaker 3: your freedoms, your protections, consumer protections, and the like. And
14:21
Speaker 3: that's what they were proposing at Codex. They said, oh,
14:25
Speaker 3: under medical emergencies, we don't have to print all the
14:29
Speaker 3: warning labels, all the warnings on the labels that we have.
14:34
Speaker 3: So we get to print labels without the warnings. And
14:39
Speaker 3: we spoke up, NHF spoke up and said, look, if
14:43
Speaker 3: you have time to print a whole new label to
14:45
Speaker 3: slap on a product and then send to an area
14:48
Speaker 3: that has medical emergency, then it's not a medical emergency.
14:53
Speaker 3: You don't have to, but you're going to, oh, there's
14:55
Speaker 3: an emergency. Let's get a new label out before we
15:00
Speaker 3: ship the actual product that could help them. You know,
15:05
Speaker 3: the foods or the, medicines or whatever it might be.
15:09
Speaker 3: Of course, at Codex, they're just talking about foods, not medicines,
15:14
Speaker 3: but the same principle applies. So these people just invoke
15:19
Speaker 3: the term medical emergency, and suddenly we're all supposed to
15:23
Speaker 3: genuflect to this altar of some synthetic god and proclaim,
15:31
Speaker 3: oh sure, we'll ditch all the consumer protections we've argued
15:34
Speaker 3: for and the last 20 years just so, because you've
15:39
Speaker 3: declared it a medical emergency. So this sort of mindset
15:43
Speaker 3: we have to deal with.
15:45
Speaker 1: Let me ask you a very general question, especially for
15:48
Speaker 1: those not real familiar or well-grounded in Codex. Is Codex literally,
15:53
Speaker 1: by its very creation, the tool of big ag and
15:59
Speaker 1: the large corporate interests that want to get their way
16:02
Speaker 1: and tend to hold sway over governments? Or is it
16:04
Speaker 1: more of a neutral body and its position is dependent
16:07
Speaker 1: on which way its member states go? I get the
16:12
Speaker 1: impression it's the former, that it was created by and
16:16
Speaker 1: for those powerful interests.
16:17
Speaker 2: But maybe I'm wrong.
16:18
Speaker 1: Maybe it's something that's malleable and could become a good
16:22
Speaker 1: thing if enough of the people on the light side,
16:25
Speaker 1: not the dark side, were to take control. If more
16:28
Speaker 1: member states and more people like you were involved. What
16:31
Speaker 1: is the nature of Codex? Just a quick question on that.
16:36
Speaker 3: Well, Codex was created through a series of resolutions by
16:40
Speaker 3: the WHO, you know, the World Health Organization, and the
16:44
Speaker 3: Food and Agriculture Organization, the FAO, in the period 1961
16:49
Speaker 3: to 1963, and it came into being in 1963. So
16:53
Speaker 3: it's a little younger than our organization, the National Health Federation,
16:59
Speaker 3: but Nevertheless, it's been around for over 63 years. And
17:05
Speaker 3: I think it's an excellent question you asked, Mark. I
17:09
Speaker 3: think originally it was more neutral, and maybe it was
17:13
Speaker 3: created for the interests of the parties. You know, they're
17:18
Speaker 3: parties we don't agree with, shall I say. But, you know,
17:23
Speaker 3: they're very long-term thinkers, these adversaries of ours, the ones
17:28
Speaker 3: who want to control us and make us ill, and
17:31
Speaker 3: send us to the hospital, and in many cases just
17:34
Speaker 3: wipe us off the planet because we're useless eaters to them.
17:40
Speaker 3: But they're long-term thinkers, so it could be that they
17:44
Speaker 3: inaugurated Codex Alimentarius and its commission and committees as a
17:51
Speaker 3: stepping stone to their ultimate plan. But where it really
17:55
Speaker 3: took a turn was in 1994 with the Uruguay round
18:00
Speaker 3: of treaty negotiations for GATT, you know, which generally governed
18:05
Speaker 3: international trade. Keep in mind, Codex ostensibly is only about
18:10
Speaker 3: international trade standards in food. It's not supposed to be
18:16
Speaker 3: applied domestically. And that's the way it was up until
18:20
Speaker 3: I was at the meeting where it kind of changed
18:22
Speaker 3: at the General Principles Committee meeting in Paris. but I
18:27
Speaker 3: can't recall the year that was, but it was at
18:29
Speaker 3: least 10 years ago. And what they did is they
18:33
Speaker 3: took out the right for it to be voluntary or
18:36
Speaker 3: mandatory for the various member states to adopt these standards,
18:42
Speaker 3: and they leaned very heavily on harmonization. Even the U.S.
18:46
Speaker 3: FDA says it will harmonize its rules and regulations, food
18:52
Speaker 3: rules and regulations, to those states. adopted by Codex. So
19:00
Speaker 3: that's the key. So in 1994, why did it change then?
19:04
Speaker 3: What was so special about that year? Well, what happened
19:08
Speaker 3: in that year is the GATT became the WTO, the
19:12
Speaker 3: World Trade Organization. And before, it was a rather toothless,
19:17
Speaker 3: gummy enforcement provision that they had, which was basically nothing.
19:22
Speaker 3: They could do nothing. If a country said, oh, to
19:25
Speaker 3: heck with you, then they could say to heck with you.
19:30
Speaker 3: But with the World Trade Organization, it created arbitration panels.
19:40
Speaker 3: So say the European Union didn't want genetically modified foods
19:46
Speaker 3: sent into the EU region, they would block it, which
19:50
Speaker 3: they did for years. But then, under the WTO trade
19:56
Speaker 3: rules and regulations, what would happen is the US or
20:02
Speaker 3: Brazil or Canada or all three could go to the
20:06
Speaker 3: WTO and say, look, this is an unfair trade practice.
20:11
Speaker 3: And what's the first thing the WTO would do? If
20:15
Speaker 3: it involves food, it'll go, ah, question number one, is
20:19
Speaker 3: there a food standard that applies to this food? And
20:24
Speaker 3: if the answer is yes, they would turn to that
20:26
Speaker 3: food standard at Codex and say, what is it? And
20:31
Speaker 3: if the country trying to get its food product into
20:34
Speaker 3: another country's borders was okay under that food standard, in
20:41
Speaker 3: other words, say the glyphosate level wasn't above a certain
20:46
Speaker 3: part per million, then it was declared that the receiving
20:52
Speaker 3: country or European Union region was at fault and had
20:56
Speaker 3: to pay a penalty either through an equal trade block
21:01
Speaker 3: against some product of theirs like champagne or cork or, or,
21:06
Speaker 3: you know, something like that. And until they met the, the, um,
21:14
Speaker 3: the amount set by the WTO arbitrators. So it then
21:18
Speaker 3: had some teeth to it. And suddenly you found Codex meetings,
21:23
Speaker 3: which adhered to them for been kind of small attendance.
21:29
Speaker 3: They became big attendants, like 300 delegates. A lot of
21:34
Speaker 3: trade front groups like Monsanto with its nicely called Crop
21:40
Speaker 3: Life Front Group, an INGO, in the same vein that
21:45
Speaker 3: we're an INGO, except we represent consumers. You know, most
21:49
Speaker 3: of the INGOs, international non-governmental organizations, going to these meetings, they...
21:57
Speaker 3: are just front groups for industry. The aspartame has the
22:02
Speaker 3: calorie control council. There's the very nicely but inaccurately named
22:12
Speaker 3: health for animals group. I call it the drugs for
22:15
Speaker 3: animals group because they never met a drug they didn't
22:17
Speaker 3: like for animals. Same way that as Howard Lieger, one
22:22
Speaker 3: of our NHF speakers and advisors has said the EPA
22:28
Speaker 3: in the U.S., Environmental Protection Agency, really means every pesticide approved.
22:35
Speaker 3: Because getting back to your point that you originally raised, Mark,
22:40
Speaker 3: in your question, what happens is when you give more
22:45
Speaker 3: power to government, you think, oh, great, they're going to
22:48
Speaker 3: squash the corporations. No, absolutely not. It does not work
22:53
Speaker 3: that way. It's never worked that way. And you're just
22:56
Speaker 3: a naive, person if you think it's going to work
23:01
Speaker 3: that way. What happens is you make the flame of
23:04
Speaker 3: power bigger. And what does that do? That attracts all
23:08
Speaker 3: the sociopaths and psychopaths, the power-hungry people to it. And
23:13
Speaker 3: they kick out people like you and me. And they
23:17
Speaker 3: install themselves there because that's where the power is. Then
23:21
Speaker 3: they can use that to control the marketplace through their
23:25
Speaker 3: synthetic rules and all of that. You know, you think
23:28
Speaker 3: about it, and the free market is really the only
23:32
Speaker 3: way to go. It's organic. You know, there are billions
23:35
Speaker 3: of decisions that are made daily, trillions actually, on what
23:39
Speaker 3: to buy, what not to buy. Do I buy the
23:43
Speaker 3: brown shoes today or the blue shoes today? You know,
23:47
Speaker 3: every consumer is making a choice, and they're directing the
23:51
Speaker 3: market where to go. When you start having the government
23:55
Speaker 3: enter into that very fragile environment organic mechanism. There's no amount,
24:01
Speaker 3: there's no number of Einsteins you can put on any
24:04
Speaker 3: committee that can replicate the decisions that are done by pricing.
24:10
Speaker 3: That's why you have to have a free market to
24:13
Speaker 3: allocate items more accurately and more economically and not have
24:21
Speaker 3: as much wastage of scarce or economic resources or to
24:25
Speaker 3: ruin the environment. You know, Back in 19... Did you
24:29
Speaker 3: want to ask something? Back in 1988, I had a
24:34
Speaker 3: debate with the Queen of England's homeopathic physician, Davies, Ron Davies?
24:42
Speaker 3: I can't remember his first name. He and I had
24:44
Speaker 3: a big argument. Keep in mind at this time, 1988,
24:47
Speaker 3: early 1989, the Iron Curtain hadn't fallen. The Soviet Union
24:55
Speaker 3: hadn't fallen yet. And he was convinced that once it fell,
24:59
Speaker 3: because it was on the verge of happening, that it'd
25:02
Speaker 3: show an eco-paradise in those countries. I said, no, they'll
25:09
Speaker 3: have far worse pollution than the Western countries, the so-called
25:13
Speaker 3: capitalist countries do. And you know what? Lo and behold,
25:17
Speaker 3: once the walls fell a year later or less, it
25:21
Speaker 3: was exactly like I predicted. The pollution in The Soviet
25:25
Speaker 3: bloc countries was atrocious. It was horrible. Why? Because everything
25:30
Speaker 3: is a public commodity. Who takes care of their property
25:34
Speaker 3: better than people owning their own property for the most part?
25:38
Speaker 3: I mean, nothing's perfect. There are always exceptions. There always
25:42
Speaker 3: will be no matter what system you have in place.
25:45
Speaker 3: But in the air and the sea and the land
25:47
Speaker 3: that's not publicly owned, people dump their trash there. They
25:52
Speaker 3: do it all the time and they'll keep doing it.
25:56
Speaker 1: One of the things you said that really caught my
25:59
Speaker 1: interest is, and this plays into what you're talking about,
26:02
Speaker 1: it seems like, and not everyone that watches UK Column,
26:05
Speaker 1: of course, is a big fan of the EU in general,
26:08
Speaker 1: but it seems like compared to the Anglo countries you mentioned,
26:11
Speaker 1: that the EU got the amount of government intervention or
26:16
Speaker 1: the amount of government regulation approximately correct, that they did
26:21
Speaker 1: it right. in not wanting any drugs put into the
26:24
Speaker 1: animals other than what was therapeutic. It seemed like the
26:28
Speaker 1: EU got that part right. And then what you described
26:31
Speaker 1: going back to the roots of Codex, it's clear that
26:35
Speaker 1: at first it had at least the potential of being
26:37
Speaker 1: more democratic and more productive in a positive way. But
26:41
Speaker 1: the big interests, to the extent they maybe had a
26:45
Speaker 1: role in creating Codex, at least took it over and
26:48
Speaker 1: began to commandeer it quite soon. So it seems like
26:52
Speaker 1: that national sovereignty took a big hit in the sense
26:56
Speaker 1: that if the countries involved in this were harmonizing their
27:00
Speaker 1: laws to Codex and ultimately back to the WHO, that
27:05
Speaker 1: meant that national decision-making took a back seat in as
27:09
Speaker 1: much as maybe the EU got a little bit of
27:13
Speaker 1: intervention in the affairs just about right. So it seems
27:17
Speaker 1: like there's a lot of dynamics at play, but national
27:20
Speaker 1: sovereignty definitely took a big hit. And it seems like
27:24
Speaker 1: if anybody got the market intervention right, it's maybe the
27:28
Speaker 1: EU in terms of animal drugging. And those standards, does
27:33
Speaker 1: the EU still exercise those standards to where it limits
27:38
Speaker 1: animal food such as meat? It limits the drugging, that is,
27:43
Speaker 1: to only the therapeutic drugging. Is that still intact?
27:47
Speaker 3: Yeah, they reserve their rights so they don't have to
27:50
Speaker 3: adopt the Codex standards.
27:53
Speaker 2: Yeah, another thing I've noticed on that issue.
27:56
Speaker 1: In recent years is that when Donald Trump, some UK
28:00
Speaker 1: column viewers think he's maybe okay, others don't like him
28:04
Speaker 1: too much. It's a real mixed bag. It seems like
28:07
Speaker 1: in a lot of the trade deals, and this goes
28:10
Speaker 1: back before Trump, it's not just him, there's these non-tariff
28:13
Speaker 1: barriers that And the U.S. would negotiate with these countries
28:17
Speaker 1: and try and get them to relax those regulations. You're
28:20
Speaker 1: putting up a barrier, you know, talking to the EU
28:23
Speaker 1: or some other recipient of American goods. You've put up
28:26
Speaker 1: a barrier. It's not a tariff. It's a regulation. We,
28:29
Speaker 1: the U.S., don't like that regulation. We want that non-tariff
28:33
Speaker 1: barrier taken down. And that might be some sort of
28:36
Speaker 1: food-related regulation. Does that come up at all, even indirectly,
28:41
Speaker 1: at the meetings you've been at?
28:45
Speaker 3: What, the EU stance come up at all?
28:48
Speaker 1: A non-tariff barrier where there's trade negotiations and non-tariff barriers.
28:53
Speaker 3: Are brought up? No, the tariffs don't come up at
28:58
Speaker 3: the meetings at all. But let me clarify something. I'm
29:01
Speaker 3: not an EU super state fan. All it is is
29:04
Speaker 3: the Soviet Union's version of the Politburo making very undemocratic decisions.
29:12
Speaker 3: Not that I'm a fan of democracy either because It
29:15
Speaker 3: could really, you can have tyranny by democracy as easily
29:19
Speaker 3: as you do by aristocracy. But the EU is good
29:24
Speaker 3: on certain issues at Codex meetings, and I've been allied
29:29
Speaker 3: with them. I've even attended their EU meetings, you know,
29:33
Speaker 3: outside of Codex to set, well, just meetings on food
29:40
Speaker 3: standards and the like. But they are good on certain things.
29:46
Speaker 3: One of them is the application of the precautionary principle
29:50
Speaker 3: and very keen on anything of food additives and food contaminants.
29:58
Speaker 3: and the pesticide issue, Ractopamine issue, Zilpadryl issue. The EU
30:06
Speaker 3: and the NHF were like this on those issues and
30:09
Speaker 3: they were our staunch allies. My only complaint against the
30:13
Speaker 3: EU in those circumstances is he tended to be a
30:17
Speaker 3: little too weak in fighting against the US and Australia
30:22
Speaker 3: and New Zealand and Canada, the Western hemisphere in general.
30:29
Speaker 3: they weren't strong enough and they could have taken a
30:32
Speaker 3: substantial stand against certain things. But that's one of the
30:36
Speaker 3: problems at Codex is that too many countries take the
30:41
Speaker 3: easy route out and they just say, I reserve my
30:44
Speaker 3: rights against this standard for my country. When in fact
30:54
Speaker 3: they really should say, We have sustained opposition to this
30:58
Speaker 3: standard even being adopted. That's the distinction. Because it has
31:02
Speaker 3: to go up an eight-step process to final adoption. Sometimes
31:07
Speaker 3: they shorten it and they do three or four steps.
31:11
Speaker 3: And a lot of times they do it, actually, these days.
31:13
Speaker 3: But in the old days, they wouldn't do that too often.
31:17
Speaker 3: It had to go up all eight steps. And so
31:20
Speaker 3: what the trick is, is the chairman will tell the
31:24
Speaker 3: The delegate, especially a naive new delegate, because there's constant
31:27
Speaker 3: turnover in delegations, and members of those delegations will say, oh,
31:34
Speaker 3: you're opposed to this standard. Don't you mean you want
31:37
Speaker 3: to reserve your rights to it? And that's the easy
31:41
Speaker 3: path because everyone's kind of, you can feel the energy
31:44
Speaker 3: in the room. Say yes, say yes, say yes. And
31:47
Speaker 3: so they say yes. And all that means is now
31:50
Speaker 3: the path is clear. They've been sidelined. and the path
31:55
Speaker 3: is clear for it being adopted at step eight by
31:58
Speaker 3: the whole thing, and then it becomes the standard for
32:02
Speaker 3: the world. So what they need to do, this one
32:07
Speaker 3: of the eight traps and codex I've found, but what
32:11
Speaker 3: they need to do is fight it to the end. Say, no,
32:15
Speaker 3: we have sustained opposition, because they operate on consensus, and
32:21
Speaker 3: if no one if there's substantial opposition to the consensus
32:27
Speaker 3: by enough delegations, which can be a few depending on
32:30
Speaker 3: their size, you know, India carries more weight than the
32:34
Speaker 3: Cape Verde Islands, but they're still both member states. And
32:39
Speaker 3: if you're vocal enough, then there's enough sustained opposition created
32:44
Speaker 3: that the standard has to stop. And so the thing
32:49
Speaker 3: that these naive countries need to do is not say,
32:53
Speaker 3: at step four, yeah, I reserve our rights, but say
32:56
Speaker 3: sustained opposition. Then if it arrives at step eight and
33:00
Speaker 3: all is lost, they can say, yes, I reserve my rights.
33:04
Speaker 3: That's the time to do it. Not early on in
33:07
Speaker 3: the game, because then that just clears the highway to adoption.
33:12
Speaker 3: So we try to educate people this way. And the
33:15
Speaker 3: funny thing is, and this is very important, Mark. So
33:19
Speaker 3: in the general noise of delegation speaking. Of course, we're
33:24
Speaker 3: an INGO. We are in a country, so in a sense,
33:28
Speaker 3: our voice is only at best advisory. We can't weigh in,
33:33
Speaker 3: and the chairmen aren't supposed to consider us as anything
33:39
Speaker 3: other than advisory. We don't weigh in on how many
33:44
Speaker 3: are in favor, how many are against. But I'll tell
33:47
Speaker 3: you as a practical matter, in the general noise of
33:50
Speaker 3: delegation speaking, we do matter because we add into the weight.
33:55
Speaker 3: And then sometimes what we say will trigger a country
33:59
Speaker 3: to speak up and agree with us or to come back. But,
34:05
Speaker 3: you know, the sick way that they do the sick codex,
34:07
Speaker 3: although I understand it and it does have a reason
34:10
Speaker 3: behind it, is they only let the country speak first
34:15
Speaker 3: two minutes each time. And then after they're through, and
34:20
Speaker 3: only after they're through do the INGOs get a chance
34:24
Speaker 3: to speak up, again, for two minutes only. So what
34:29
Speaker 3: we do a lot of times is we submit written
34:31
Speaker 3: documents called CRDs, conference room documents. They're put into the record,
34:36
Speaker 3: and we refer people to that. But it's an uphill
34:39
Speaker 3: battle at Codex to win these days. They've really rigged
34:43
Speaker 3: the game well, where the science behind it is not
34:49
Speaker 3: really good science it's usually industry studies behind these studies
34:54
Speaker 3: like in the case of aspartame you know aspartame at
34:58
Speaker 3: 40 was it gosh i'm forgetting 40 um 40 grams
35:05
Speaker 3: per liter or something like that milligrams per liter of
35:09
Speaker 3: aspartame were allowed in the food supply in the drinks
35:13
Speaker 3: and stuff like that as And it was approved by
35:16
Speaker 3: a JEGFA committee, the Joint Expert Committee for Food Additives.
35:22
Speaker 3: But half the members of the committee were associated with
35:25
Speaker 3: the front group for the aspartame manufacturers. So they're relying
35:31
Speaker 3: on industry studies a large part of the time. Oh,
35:35
Speaker 3: and if you dare attack that like I did at
35:38
Speaker 3: the Codex meeting where it came up a couple of
35:41
Speaker 3: years ago, then I'm attacked by the chairmen for having
35:45
Speaker 3: dared to say something bad about another delegation, Codex delegation. So, anyway,
35:56
Speaker 3: that's the way it works there. One, you know, a
35:59
Speaker 3: funny thing, this is kind of funny, because for years
36:02
Speaker 3: the EU and the NHF stopped zilpaterol from advancing to
36:11
Speaker 3: final adoption. And Drugs for Animals, you know, it's really
36:16
Speaker 3: supposed to be called Health for Animals, the Merck front
36:20
Speaker 3: group that makes the drug, they saw on our Facebook page,
36:29
Speaker 3: the NHF's Facebook page, someone, not me, someone else had posted,
36:34
Speaker 3: Jagfa Science is junk science. And I was out at
36:39
Speaker 3: lunch when they the Merck people went to the science
36:45
Speaker 3: officer and said, look, look what they're saying about you
36:50
Speaker 3: on Facebook. It's horrible. And so I came back from
36:54
Speaker 3: lunch at that meeting in Chicago, Illinois, 2018. Came back
37:00
Speaker 3: from that meeting and to see every, I was a
37:04
Speaker 3: little bit late because I'd taken a phone call, but
37:07
Speaker 3: to see everyone standing and applauding the JEGFA scientists as
37:11
Speaker 3: he was announcing, JEGFA science is not junk science. And
37:16
Speaker 3: they were all looking at me like I was the evil,
37:19
Speaker 3: you know, evil monster in the room because I had
37:22
Speaker 3: challenged the idol, the false idol of JEGFA science, that
37:27
Speaker 3: it was perfect. And that's the problem at Codex. They
37:33
Speaker 3: genuflect at the altar of JEGFA science. If the JEGFA
37:39
Speaker 3: science officer says something is or a food standard is good.
37:45
Speaker 3: That's the end of the discussion at Codex insofar as,
37:48
Speaker 3: I'd say, two-thirds or three-quarters of the delegates are concerned. Oh,
37:53
Speaker 3: my God, we'll look horrible if we say anything against JEGFA.
37:59
Speaker 3: And I point out to them time after time, I say, look,
38:07
Speaker 3: Codex is a risk manager. It's not the risk assessor.
38:11
Speaker 3: The risk assessor for a risk of a food or
38:15
Speaker 3: a food additive or food contaminant is JEGFA, sure. And
38:18
Speaker 3: we should listen to what they have to say. But
38:21
Speaker 3: that doesn't mean we have to accept it because we're
38:24
Speaker 3: the managers. We can decide to reject it or accept
38:28
Speaker 3: it or ask for more evidence. And that's what we
38:31
Speaker 3: should be doing as JEGFA, as, sorry, codex managers, risk managers.
38:36
Speaker 3: But people don't see it that way. They think our
38:39
Speaker 3: job is to pull out the rubber stamp, and when
38:43
Speaker 3: JEGFA says it's okay, we rubber stamp that, and on
38:47
Speaker 3: it goes to adoption by all the member states into story.
38:54
Speaker 2: Real quick, what is JEGFA exactly? Is that an acronym?
39:00
Speaker 3: Yeah, I said the acronym, but I'll say it again.
39:03
Speaker 3: I left out one small part just for economy's sake,
39:07
Speaker 3: but it's a joint FAO slash WHO expert consultation on
39:13
Speaker 3: food additives. They leave out the FAO and WHO part,
39:18
Speaker 3: and they call it JEGFA.
39:20
Speaker 1: Okay, just a point of clarity so people can look
39:23
Speaker 1: that up. I appreciate that, Scott. Yeah, you really went
39:26
Speaker 1: into the lion's den there. That's a tough situation. Yeah.
39:30
Speaker 1: when you're the bad guy, when in fact you're trying
39:32
Speaker 1: to expose the bad guys and get things right. But
39:36
Speaker 1: one of the things we talked about off the air,
39:40
Speaker 1: we talked about pesticides a little, but you wanted to
39:42
Speaker 1: talk a little about lab-grown meat going to fast food
39:46
Speaker 1: restaurants and which sounds like a United States food special
39:50
Speaker 1: more than any other country. Let's talk about that a little,
39:54
Speaker 1: and then we're going to kind of wrap up with
39:57
Speaker 1: an announcement on an important Nuremberg, Germany meeting that's coming up,
40:01
Speaker 1: and we'll make sure we get sufficient detail on that.
40:04
Speaker 1: Some of that will be rooted in what we've already
40:07
Speaker 1: talked about, predicated on some of that. But just for
40:10
Speaker 1: a little while, what's going on with lab-grown meat?
40:13
Speaker 3: Oh, God, it's a nightmare. at least in the United States,
40:18
Speaker 3: maybe Canada as well. I don't know about the UK.
40:22
Speaker 3: If they use it, they don't have to label it.
40:25
Speaker 3: You don't even know. If you go to restaurants now
40:27
Speaker 3: in the US, you need to ask, is this lab-grown
40:31
Speaker 3: meat or not? Because, and hope to God they tell
40:36
Speaker 3: you the truth, because it doesn't need to be labeled.
40:40
Speaker 3: But it's increasingly there. I gave a speech recently in
40:44
Speaker 3: Santa Monica, California earlier this month on the subject. And
40:50
Speaker 3: there are a number of companies that are doing this
40:55
Speaker 3: for chicken, mainly chicken, also salmon, and they're selling it
41:01
Speaker 3: into the restaurants. It hasn't hit the grocery store shelves
41:05
Speaker 3: yet or the supermarket shelves yet that I'm aware of.
41:09
Speaker 3: Maybe it has, but it's being used in restaurants so
41:14
Speaker 3: you need to ask in the restaurants and why should
41:16
Speaker 3: you ask why do you even care they do this
41:19
Speaker 3: because they use immortalized cells to keep growing this it's
41:24
Speaker 3: basically a cancer cell that's growing so you're eating something
41:28
Speaker 3: that's been grown that could be carcinogenic for you it's
41:32
Speaker 3: not been proven yet one way or the other but
41:35
Speaker 3: that's you know part of the devil is in the
41:38
Speaker 3: details we don't know yet so do you really want
41:41
Speaker 3: to be a guinea pig You know, after all the
41:45
Speaker 3: bad things that have happened over the last 30, 40
41:47
Speaker 3: years with food, 50 years really, with food and food
41:53
Speaker 3: additives and pesticides and all that, do you really trust
41:57
Speaker 3: any authority or expert with their opinion on whether it's
42:03
Speaker 3: safe for you to eat or not? The best thing
42:05
Speaker 3: for you to do is eat organically, homegrown, or from
42:10
Speaker 3: a farm or neighbor near you whom you know hasn't
42:14
Speaker 3: sprayed it to death with pesticides or other herbicides or
42:20
Speaker 3: other problems.
42:22
Speaker 1: That explains why I tend to eat less meat. Just
42:26
Speaker 1: a quick personal note, because of those questions, I tend
42:29
Speaker 1: to eat a more broad range of protein, whether it's legumes,
42:32
Speaker 1: you know, like lentil, across the board, some cheeses, whatnot, nuts, etc.
42:39
Speaker 1: And very carefully selected meat, therefore I eat significantly less
42:44
Speaker 1: meat than your average American, but I'm not vegan or
42:46
Speaker 1: vegetarian either. That's an approach I think a lot of
42:49
Speaker 1: people are taking because precisely for what you said, it's
42:53
Speaker 1: so hard to know. And will the employee at that restaurant,
42:57
Speaker 1: will they know? And if they do know, will they
43:00
Speaker 1: tell you the truth? Because they might be naive of
43:02
Speaker 1: the whole thing to begin with. But yeah, it's a
43:05
Speaker 1: very disturbing trend. We won't get into how they grow
43:08
Speaker 1: lab-grown meat That's rather perplexing in my mind. I have
43:12
Speaker 1: not taken the time to investigate or learn exactly how
43:16
Speaker 1: that's done. But I'm sure it would be far worse
43:19
Speaker 1: even than watching sausage being made, the metaphor often attributed
43:23
Speaker 1: to watching legislation being made. But all that being said,
43:29
Speaker 1: I'll just mention very quickly that pesticides also and this
43:35
Speaker 1: is just a footnote for today's show, it's not my forte,
43:39
Speaker 1: and I understand it's not necessarily yours, but we have
43:42
Speaker 1: a health system, a food system, foods, food additives, the
43:47
Speaker 1: things that Kodak deals with, and we're looking at something
43:50
Speaker 1: that if the corporations get their way, it's literally a
43:55
Speaker 1: nutritional or lack thereof war on the people. You know,
43:59
Speaker 1: you have the debt-based money system, economic war on the people,
44:03
Speaker 1: you have the mainstream media, the mass media cartel, an
44:06
Speaker 1: information war on the people. And those media outlets carry
44:11
Speaker 1: wrongful or misleading information about food and medicine, wrongful and
44:16
Speaker 1: misleading information about the economic and monetary system. So now
44:20
Speaker 1: you've got this kind of juggernaut here where pesticides are
44:25
Speaker 1: another element. You mentioned glyphosate, the Monsanto product.
44:30
Speaker 2: I think it's the active ingredient in Roundup. And so it's.
44:34
Speaker 1: Insinuating its way into our food supply. Not only are
44:39
Speaker 1: agricultural workers, many of whom are migrants, exposed in the fields,
44:43
Speaker 1: planting and harvesting, especially the planting and upkeep of the crops,
44:49
Speaker 1: but also it gets into our oats and grains and
44:53
Speaker 1: staple items in our food supply. So right alongside your
44:57
Speaker 1: lab-grown meat, you might have a vegetable or a grain
45:01
Speaker 1: that has pesticide residue in it possibly too high of
45:06
Speaker 1: a concentration so um it's getting to where we really
45:11
Speaker 1: need a a rebirth a a renaissance of local uh
45:16
Speaker 1: farming farmers markets uh even home gardening raised bed gardens
45:21
Speaker 1: for example uh the decentralization of agriculture in my mind
45:26
Speaker 1: would be the answer but just how prevalent uh is
45:31
Speaker 1: the uh pesticides in our foods. I mean, does that
45:35
Speaker 1: come up as a side issue at Codex meetings? Maybe
45:39
Speaker 1: off the cuff or off the record discussions or what
45:44
Speaker 1: have you covered that in your Health Freedom News magazine?
45:47
Speaker 1: Maybe you've covered pesticides a bit there, but what's a
45:50
Speaker 1: quick snapshot of the status of that issue?
45:55
Speaker 3: Well, in the fall issue of our last year's magazine,
46:01
Speaker 3: we talked not only about frankenfoods, but we talked about
46:05
Speaker 3: the Codex Alimentarius Commission thinking that 8,157 million pounds of
46:14
Speaker 3: pesticides applied annually on farms is not enough. And as
46:19
Speaker 3: much as I'm not a fan of the EU, it
46:23
Speaker 3: did take a strong position against a lot of the
46:27
Speaker 3: pesticides that were being adopt standards that were being adopted
46:32
Speaker 3: at Codex, as did NHF, the National Health Federation. Again,
46:38
Speaker 3: on the UK position, I think they were more neutral,
46:42
Speaker 3: which doesn't help UK citizens at all or subjects at all.
46:49
Speaker 3: But what they're doing is they're looking at the maximum
46:53
Speaker 3: residue level for pesticides, and they're allowing it to be
46:57
Speaker 3: very high. And so the EU is blocking a lot
47:02
Speaker 3: of that internally, but if you eat food coming into
47:06
Speaker 3: the EU from outside, then you've got to question the
47:13
Speaker 3: healthiness of that food. And in fact, there's been studies
47:17
Speaker 3: that have shown a direct link, or at least a
47:20
Speaker 3: circumstantial link, highly circumstantial link, to the increase in Parkinson's disease.
47:29
Speaker 3: and a lot of problems that come from that. You know,
47:32
Speaker 3: even polio really isn't a thing. It's a pesticide and
47:38
Speaker 3: herbicide poisoning that caused polio. It wasn't really a polio
47:43
Speaker 3: virus that went around. I'm sure I'll be crucified for
47:46
Speaker 3: saying this, but if you look back into the history
47:50
Speaker 3: like FDR, that dictator who ruled the United States for
47:54
Speaker 3: a while during World War II, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Well,
47:59
Speaker 3: he was in a wheelchair because he consumed a lot,
48:02
Speaker 3: not because he had polio, but because he was in
48:07
Speaker 3: Martha's Vineyard in that part of New York and Massachusetts
48:13
Speaker 3: where they were spraying lead on plants, on grapes and
48:18
Speaker 3: other things as an herbicide. Or was it a pesticide?
48:22
Speaker 3: It doesn't matter, but it was being sprayed on the plants.
48:26
Speaker 3: And that lead to a lot of the polio increase,
48:29
Speaker 3: both in the U.S. and elsewhere, during those years in
48:33
Speaker 3: the 50s. You know, I grew up in those years.
48:37
Speaker 3: And I remember having to get the polio vaccine. I
48:41
Speaker 3: hope it didn't harm me, but it's one of the
48:44
Speaker 3: three vaccines I got when I was growing up. Now
48:48
Speaker 3: it's like 70. And so what they're trying to do
48:52
Speaker 3: is by reducing the nutritional density of the food, increasing
48:57
Speaker 3: the toxicity of our foods at the same time. I
49:00
Speaker 3: think it's really resulting in a lot more customers for
49:03
Speaker 3: big pharma. It's a real nice thing and a nice
49:07
Speaker 3: way to reduce the population as well. You know, I
49:10
Speaker 3: have to admit, Mark, for the longest time, I wasn't
49:14
Speaker 3: one of those people who thought they were trying to
49:16
Speaker 3: depopulate the planet. I just thought they were trying to
49:19
Speaker 3: reduce the fertility rate, because it all seemed to point
49:23
Speaker 3: to that. 10, 15 years ago, that's what I said
49:27
Speaker 3: at meetings. You know, I used to travel through the
49:31
Speaker 3: western part of England, giving speeches with Ian Crane And
49:36
Speaker 3: we would speak in Birmingham. We'd speak in Manchester and
49:39
Speaker 3: Gloucestershire and Devon, uh, all those places, even in the
49:45
Speaker 3: former capital of the UK, London, which is now, you know,
49:49
Speaker 3: the capital of the Caliphate. But anyway, we even spoke
49:54
Speaker 3: in London and I would speak on those topics. And, um, uh,
50:01
Speaker 3: it was, uh, It was a shame because there are
50:05
Speaker 3: a lot of interested people there and we've just gone
50:07
Speaker 3: further and further down the wrong road, the wrong path.
50:11
Speaker 3: And here we are fighting a last ditch stand against
50:14
Speaker 3: all of this.
50:17
Speaker 2: Absolutely fascinating.
50:18
Speaker 1: I'm glad you shared that, that you were with Ian
50:21
Speaker 1: Crane and you went through Devon where UK Column happens
50:24
Speaker 1: to be based in Plymouth there. So thanks for sharing that.
50:28
Speaker 1: That really brings things home.
50:30
Speaker 2: And yeah, the The.
50:32
Speaker 1: Situation is quite clear that except for the EU being
50:36
Speaker 1: sort of the unlikely hero here, even though you don't
50:38
Speaker 1: like the EU super state overall, few of us do,
50:42
Speaker 1: the EU being pretty much the lone gunman here or
50:45
Speaker 1: the lone hero or advocate for the people, if that
50:50
Speaker 1: was its motivation, to not have a situation where pesticide
50:56
Speaker 1: levels are allowed to be uncomfortably and dangerously high.
51:00
Speaker 2: In various food items and staple foods.
51:04
Speaker 1: That just figures that the U.S., I'm sure, is among
51:07
Speaker 1: those that allow the highest possible concentrations and the attendant
51:12
Speaker 1: rise in so many chronic diseases. I don't mind mentioning
51:15
Speaker 1: my wife Angie happens to suffer from Parkinson's disease, and
51:19
Speaker 1: it is a very serious thing. And Parkinson's, as I
51:23
Speaker 1: understand it, is popping up more and more often in
51:27
Speaker 1: younger and younger populations. the ultimate outcome of that could
51:31
Speaker 1: be utterly disastrous. And not to mention ALS, Lou Gehrig's disease,
51:37
Speaker 1: that is. And I can't help but mention, before we
51:40
Speaker 1: get into Nuremberg for just a couple of minutes, your
51:43
Speaker 1: statement on polio.
51:44
Speaker 2: I've wondered that very same thing. Was that really viral?
51:48
Speaker 1: And we'll just say that that's your view, and we'll
51:51
Speaker 1: let the chips fall where they may on that, but
51:53
Speaker 1: that's very intriguing.
51:55
Speaker 2: That would make the vaccine.
51:58
Speaker 1: For all intents and purposes, the polio vaccine is completely
52:01
Speaker 1: off-target and unnecessary.
52:04
Speaker 2: If polio is non-viral.
52:08
Speaker 3: Exactly.
52:09
Speaker 1: A very interesting thing to consider. Now, we cannot ignore
52:13
Speaker 1: a very important upcoming meeting. This interview will be posted
52:17
Speaker 1: sufficiently ahead of time before this meeting. November 2-6, coming up,
52:22
Speaker 1: the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary
52:25
Speaker 1: Uses will meet in Nuremberg, Germany. And the National Health
52:30
Speaker 1: Federation is the only health freedom organization with an official
52:34
Speaker 1: seat at Codex. And the meeting is going to be
52:39
Speaker 1: very important. The battles we must fight this November, you
52:44
Speaker 1: sent me a very important list.
52:46
Speaker 2: One, the NRVs, the.
52:48
Speaker 1: Nutrient reference values for children 6 through 36 months.
52:55
Speaker 2: The committee.
52:56
Speaker 1: that's going to meet there in Germany, November 2 through 6,
52:59
Speaker 1: will finalize the remaining nutrient reference values, NRVs. They'll finalize
53:07
Speaker 1: those standards, those estimations. If the lowest proposed numbers prevail,
53:12
Speaker 1: children worldwide will be left with official reference values that
53:18
Speaker 1: fail to support optimal growth, fail to support immune function
53:23
Speaker 1: and neurological development. National Health Federation that you're the president
53:27
Speaker 1: of is submitting a formal conference room document demanding the
53:32
Speaker 1: highest scientifically defensible values in this area, values that cover
53:37
Speaker 1: the full population, including those who need more.
53:41
Speaker 2: That was number one.
53:42
Speaker 1: Number two, guidelines for vitamin and mineral food supplements. They're
53:46
Speaker 1: going to be covered. Number three on the list you
53:49
Speaker 1: sent me, foods for older infants and young children. You're
53:53
Speaker 1: looking at a draft standard there And you want the
53:56
Speaker 1: standards to be as high as they can be, of course.
53:59
Speaker 1: But give us a good sense of what's coming up here.
54:05
Speaker 1: This looks like a very pivotal meeting, very important stuff
54:09
Speaker 1: regarding the NRVs, vitamin and mineral food supplements, covering children especially.
54:15
Speaker 2: So what are we looking at here? What's at stake?
54:20
Speaker 3: Well, I think the health of our children are at
54:23
Speaker 3: stake worldwide, actually. because what typically happens at these meetings
54:29
Speaker 3: when it comes to nutrient reference values, the nutrient reference
54:34
Speaker 3: values are very similar to our dietary daily intake values
54:39
Speaker 3: in the U.S. So they're very important because a lot
54:43
Speaker 3: of people go by what the NRV percentage is. They
54:47
Speaker 3: don't look at the amount. The amount could be one milligram.
54:51
Speaker 3: It could be 100 milligrams, but if it says That's
54:54
Speaker 3: 100% of the NRVs. A lot of people, they grab
54:58
Speaker 3: their drink or bottle and they go, wow, I've gotten
55:02
Speaker 3: all I need. I don't need to trouble myself any further.
55:05
Speaker 3: So that's why they're so important. And we fought this
55:09
Speaker 3: battle for adults about 17 years ago in Germany, also
55:19
Speaker 3: in Germany, in Dusseldorf, where we won. We got The
55:25
Speaker 3: nutrient preference values for adults bumped up in many cases,
55:29
Speaker 3: not in all cases. But this is one situation where
55:36
Speaker 3: the EU is not on our side. They aren't our
55:39
Speaker 3: allies because they think vitamins and minerals should be regulated
55:46
Speaker 3: like drugs, just like the U.S. FDA does, just like
55:51
Speaker 3: most countries do. So it's NHF fighting alone on this front,
55:59
Speaker 3: pretty much against everyone else, even the other consumer groups.
56:03
Speaker 3: There will probably be about three or five other consumer
56:08
Speaker 3: groups there, and they are very strictly focused on infant-baby formulas,
56:14
Speaker 3: you know, infant-baby formulas. In fact, one of the organizations
56:18
Speaker 3: is called IBFAN, International Baby Food Action Network, or is
56:25
Speaker 3: it Formula Action Network? Anyway, Food Action Network. They'll be
56:30
Speaker 3: very vocal there. They're based in either Canada or the UK,
56:34
Speaker 3: but it doesn't matter. Their people will be there, and
56:38
Speaker 3: they think vitamins and minerals are dangerous also and should
56:43
Speaker 3: be regulated like drugs. So we'll have that against us.
56:46
Speaker 3: It'll really just be NHF in whatever countries we can
56:50
Speaker 3: persuade speaking up in favor of a higher NRV level
56:56
Speaker 3: for all vitamins and minerals.
56:59
Speaker 1: Let me ask you real quick, Scott. Help me see
57:02
Speaker 1: through the deception. If they say so-and-so supplement or so-and-so
57:06
Speaker 1: item is 100% of the such-and-such values, why is that misleading?
57:15
Speaker 3: It's misleading because the amount that they're designating as 100% is.
57:21
Speaker 3: Nonsense. It's ridiculous. It's not based on science. For example,
57:26
Speaker 3: when we fought on the adult NRVs, and by we
57:32
Speaker 3: I mean NHL, they were trying to reduce the daily
57:37
Speaker 3: vitamin C intake from ridiculous 60 milligrams a day, about
57:43
Speaker 3: the amount you'd get if you ate an orange, to
57:46
Speaker 3: 45 milligrams a day. They wanted to reduce it. And
57:50
Speaker 3: we argued this is nonsense. It'll make us the laughingstock
57:54
Speaker 3: of the world to adopt something ridiculous like this. And
57:59
Speaker 3: on that issue, we won. We didn't win completely. I
58:02
Speaker 3: would like to have seen 500 milligrams a day as
58:05
Speaker 3: the minimum. We got it reversed. The momentum was reversed.
58:10
Speaker 3: And instead of 45, it went up to 100 milligrams
58:14
Speaker 3: a day. So we won on that issue. And that
58:16
Speaker 3: was because of NHF. And India, India deserves, and believe
58:21
Speaker 3: it or not, Iraq. Iraq, India, and NHF were the
58:26
Speaker 3: only ones to speak out in favor of higher NRV settings.
58:32
Speaker 3: And we won on that issue.
58:36
Speaker 1: It's very interesting, Iran, Iraq, China, countries like that tend
58:41
Speaker 1: to come down more for health freedom.
58:43
Speaker 2: The ones that are labeled are ever more.
58:47
Speaker 1: Everlasting adversaries, or at least very suspicious to keep an
58:51
Speaker 1: eye on. That's just an interesting side note that countries
58:54
Speaker 1: like that tend to be.
58:57
Speaker 1: Yeah.
58:58
Speaker 3: Yeah, and don't forget Russia, Mark. Russia hasn't been perfect,
59:03
Speaker 3: but they've actually jumped in and defended us at Codex
59:07
Speaker 3: when we've made a point or two.
59:10
Speaker 1: That's just very interesting as a footnote. Well, certainly a
59:16
Speaker 1: lot is at stake with that. It sounds to me
59:19
Speaker 1: that they set a standard like 45 milligrams of vitamin C,
59:23
Speaker 1: and then they'll say, well, you'll get 100 percent of
59:26
Speaker 1: this vitamin, or 100% of this needed nutrient, but 100%
59:32
Speaker 1: of a standard that's too low?
59:36
Speaker 3: Oh, no, they don't say 100% is too low. No,
59:40
Speaker 3: they don't say 100% is too low. We might say
59:44
Speaker 3: that by saying, look, 45 milligrams of vitamin C cannot constitute,
59:50
Speaker 3: in any wild imagination, cannot constitute 100% of the nutrient
59:57
Speaker 3: reference value. It needs to be higher to be 100%.
59:59
Speaker 3: So we're the ones saying that. What they're saying is
1:00:04
Speaker 3: you have this 100% figure or number. Let's attach the
1:00:10
Speaker 3: lowest possible milligram or microgram amount, or in some cases
1:00:16
Speaker 3: gram amount, to that 100%. And that's very misleading.
1:00:21
Speaker 2: That's what I meant.
1:00:22
Speaker 3: Because it misleads the consumer.
1:00:24
Speaker 2: Yes.
1:00:24
Speaker 3: Yeah, most consumers are not like you and me. I
1:00:27
Speaker 3: look at a bottle. I wish I had a bottle
1:00:29
Speaker 3: to imitate it. But I look at a bottle and
1:00:34
Speaker 3: I don't look at the 100%. I look at the amount.
1:00:38
Speaker 3: But most people, most consumers don't do that. They look at,
1:00:43
Speaker 3: if at all, they look at the 100%. They say, oh,
1:00:48
Speaker 3: I'm getting enough. even though Codex or EFSA or the
1:00:56
Speaker 3: UK equivalent of EFSA, MHRA, might say otherwise. They might say, oh,
1:01:04
Speaker 3: 45 milligrams is correct. You know, the EU is horrible
1:01:08
Speaker 3: on the vitamin issue because, like I said earlier, they
1:01:12
Speaker 3: think it should be regulated as a drug anyway, and
1:01:15
Speaker 3: they don't allow the wide array of different nutrients and
1:01:20
Speaker 3: dietary supplements that we do in the U.S. or that's
1:01:24
Speaker 3: allowed in South Africa. So, you know.
1:01:30
Speaker 1: Okay, so I was basically correct. Yeah, they'll say 100%
1:01:34
Speaker 1: of a milligram that's too low. So when you see 100%,
1:01:38
Speaker 1: you think you're getting enough, but in fact, the standard's
1:01:40
Speaker 1: too low. So yeah, we were reading off the same page,
1:01:43
Speaker 1: just coming at it from slightly different directions. Well, Scott Tips,
1:01:47
Speaker 1: I certainly wish you the best. I wish you the
1:01:50
Speaker 1: best at the upcoming November 2 through 6 Codex meeting
1:01:54
Speaker 1: on nutrition and foods for special dietary uses in Nuremberg, Germany.
1:02:00
Speaker 2: Is there anything else you'd like to add?
1:02:02
Speaker 1: I mean, we've covered frankenfoods, lab-grown meats getting into our
1:02:06
Speaker 1: restaurants and whatnot.
1:02:07
Speaker 2: We've touched on pesticides.
1:02:09
Speaker 1: We've grounded the viewers pretty well in what Codex is
1:02:12
Speaker 1: and where it came from. Now we're talking about this
1:02:15
Speaker 1: upcoming meeting. We're talking about some of the deceptive ways
1:02:18
Speaker 1: things are labeled. We've talked about the EU being sometimes
1:02:22
Speaker 1: an unlikely hero, even though it's still a mega state,
1:02:25
Speaker 1: European super state that ultimately came out of the bowels
1:02:28
Speaker 1: of Bilderberg in some respects. But is there anything else
1:02:31
Speaker 1: you'd like to add or any observations you'd like to make?
1:02:36
Speaker 3: Well, just, you know, support UK column. It's an important
1:02:41
Speaker 3: organization that deserves our support. And also, if you would,
1:02:47
Speaker 3: support the National Health Federation. If I may, we're at www.thenhf.com.
1:02:58
Speaker 3: And you can follow our progress at these meetings and elsewhere.
1:03:03
Speaker 3: But anyway, I very much appreciate you, Mark, and UK
1:03:09
Speaker 3: Column for putting this message forward so people can hear it.
1:03:13
Speaker 3: It's been going on for a long time. I've been
1:03:16
Speaker 3: going to these meetings for 26 years. Probably if you
1:03:19
Speaker 3: go into any Codex meeting now, I've been there longer
1:03:22
Speaker 3: than anyone else in that room. But there we are.
1:03:28
Speaker 3: I mean, people change, numbers change, people get married, retire, die.
1:03:33
Speaker 3: So I can convince one person they're one year and
1:03:37
Speaker 3: next year it's a new face and I have to
1:03:39
Speaker 3: start from ground zero all over again. But the most
1:03:46
Speaker 3: important thing I can say is be persistent, because that's
1:03:50
Speaker 3: what we were on the NRV issue. It took us
1:03:53
Speaker 3: nine years, and it finally paid off.
1:03:59
Speaker 1: Nutrient reference values, yes. Thanks, Scott Tips. Yeah, that's thenhf.com, right?
1:04:08
Speaker 3: Yes. And don't forget support. Yeah, not.
1:04:11
Speaker 1: Org.. org.
1:04:13
Speaker 3: As well.
1:04:14
Speaker 1: UKcolumn.org and then thenhfnationalhealthfederation.com. Okay, thanks, Scott Tips, for this
1:04:21
Speaker 1: all-important and very informative UK Column interview. Thanks for listening,
1:04:26
Speaker 1: ladies and gentlemen, and I'm Mark Anderson for UK Column.
1:04:29
Speaker 2: We'll see you next time.