The REAL White Devil

The REAL White Devil Sugar

“The Real White Devil” is a mini-documentary about the evolution of the American diet, particularly focusing on the last fifty years, detailing the rise of added sugars and processed foods, the correlation between the introduction and widespread use of high fructose corn syrup alongside rising rates of obesity, the dangers of too much fructose in the diet, and finally, asking the question: who is benefitting from the obesity epidemic? Sugar: The Bitter Truth is a fantastic lecture by Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology, in which he explores the damage caused by sugary foods. I definitely recommend you watch it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnni…

Why is Bill Gates Accelerating a Toxic Food System under the umbrella of a Green Project?

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the largest charitable foundation in the world, with a trust endowment valued at $43.5 billion and yearly grant payments in excess of $3 billion annually
  • The Gates Foundation agricultural agenda supports agrochemicals, patented seeds and corporate control — interests that undermine regenerative, sustainable, small-scale farming
  • The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), which has received about $420 million from the Gates Foundation, is essentially a Gates Foundation subsidiary; most of its goals are centered on promoting biotechnology and chemical fertilizers
  • In addition to funding GE research, the Gates Foundation has funded public relations activities that support the widespread adoption of GMOs, including influencing national regulations that favor GE technologies
  • In Africa, more than 80% of the seed supply comes from small farmers recycling, saving and exchanging seeds each year, but AGRA is pushing patented seeds that would allow a few large corporations to control the seed supply, production and distribution
  • One of the best ways to fight back against the multinational corporations and industry-controlled front groups angling to control agriculture and the food supply is to support farmers who are using regenerative farming techniques
  • Read full story Here

MONEY corrupted SCIENCE | IPCC Global warming & Agenda 21/30 | Club of Rome – UN Globalism

The problem was created by the club of Rome..the club of crisis creators.All they needed was a crisis/problem that will unite the world…so they created global warming! now a one world government is around the corner!

How Corporations Ruined Food (Food Industry Documentary) | Real Stories

Listen to our podcast episode on the mysterious case behind our Real Stories Original: Vanished: The Surrey Schoolgirl with journalist Martin Bright here: http://bit.ly/VanishedE6

When we walk into a supermarket, we assume that we have the widest possible choice of healthy foods. But in fact, over the course of the 20th century, our food system was co-opted by corporate forces whose interests do not lie in providing the public with fresh, healthy, sustainably-produced food.

Fortunately for America, an alternative emerged from the counter-culture of California in the late 1960s and early 1970s, where a group of political anti-corporate protesters–led by Alice Waters–voiced their dissent by creating a food chain outside of the conventional system. The unintended result was the birth of a vital local-sustainable-organic food movement which has brought back taste and variety to our tables.

FOOD FIGHT is a fascinating look at how American agricultural policy and food culture developed in the 20th century, and how the California food movement has created a counter-revolution against big agribusiness.

GMO Foods Will Soon Be Mislabeled As Biofortified Foods

By Scott C. Tips

Editor’s Note from Whole Foods Magazine: This article is intended for information purposes only. Because state and municipal laws vary greatly, as do the circumstances of individual cases, readers are advised to contact an attorney for specific legal advice. © Scott C. Tips 2019

If you have ever been to Berlin, Germany in the late fall, you know how miserably wet, cold, and windy it can be. The only real refuge from those elements is to be found indoors. But even then there can be events that drive you right back outdoors and into the elements. Such was the case with the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU), which was holding its 40th session during the week of November 26-30, 2018, in that city.

As most of you already know, the Codex Alimentarius Commission and its various committees spread throughout the World establish food standards and guidelines after an eight-step process of consideration and debate that are then usually adopted by the Codex member states. The Codex Nutrition Committee is just one of the many committees that develop these food standards and guidelines. It is also one of the committees with the most controversial issues.

Biofortification

Biofortification is a method of increasing certain vitamin and mineral content of basic food crops by the time-honored, conventional way of cross-breeding, and not through genetic engineering. Harvest Plus, the company behind biofortification, will for example increase the vitamin or iron content of sweet potatoes so that malnourished populations in developing nations will receive better nutrition. This is a very admirable goal, although I have argued at these meetings that perhaps it’s an unnecessary one if farmers would simply employ the proper farming techniques to prevent soil depletion and along with it the vitamin and mineral content of the foods grown in that soil.

For the last several years, the Codex Nutrition Committee has been crafting a definition for Biofortification. That definition would then be used uniformly around the World to apply to those foods conventionally fortified with higher levels of nutrients and everyone would be on the same page whenever the term “biofortified” was used. Indeed, the National Health Federation (NHF), a health-freedom organization accredited by Codex to participate in its meetings and the one whose delegation I led there, was an early supporter at Codex of this definition.

We have already gone through the sordid history, in detail, of how the draft definition of Biofortification had been infused with the disease of GMOs.1 I won’t repeat that history here. Just know that, now, the term Biofortification will have huge ramifications for the entire world. If the pro-GMO forces can succeed in continuing to hide their genetic-engineered foods within the definition of Biofortification and in using its appealing, natural-sounding name to sell their GMO foods, then consumers will be deceived on a worldwide scale.

The term “Biofortification,” at least within European countries, risks consumer confusion as to whether they are purchasing organic products or something else entirely. If Codex were to allow “any method of production” and “any source” to be part of the Biofortification definition, then Codex would be promoting marketing deception of the worst sort. Most consumers want GM foods labelled. In fact, consumer polls across the World have shown this to be true. In the United States alone, some 90% of consumers want such labeling and yet, here, the current, proposed definition will disguise GM foods under the term Biofortification. That is dishonest, disgraceful, and makes a mockery of Codex and its pretensions to credibility and transparency.

With the past and present Chairwomen’s help, the pro-GMO forces have so far been successful in manipulating the biofortification definition. And we are still living in the crater of that explosion that converted something good into something deliberately deceptive.

“The term ‘Biofortification,’ at least within European countries, risks consumer confusion as to whether they are purchasing organic products or something else entirely.”

Scott C. Tips

New Leader, Same Story

So, as the Nutrition Committee was to edit once again the definition of Biofortification at this meeting, it was led by a new Chairwoman, Dr. Anja Brönstrup, a Policy Officer at the German Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMEL). Replacing Dr. Pia Noble, who had chaired last year’s meeting, Dr. Brönstrup had been the former head of the German Codex delegation. So, with such experience, we all had high hopes that she would be a more just and equitable chairwoman than the previous one, who had pretty much conducted her Codex meetings as if they were her own private fiefdom and without even a whiff of regard for whether she was following the Codex Procedural Manual.

She was aided greatly in her dictatorial approach by those country delegates who very desperately wanted to be sure that the “Biofortification” definition could serve as cover for GMO foods so that consumers could be tricked into eating them in blissful ignorance. Australia and New Zealand of course, as nearly always, led the pro-GMO pack, egged on by their corporate masters. Brazil, Nigeria, Costa Rica, Uganda, Ghana, Thailand, the Philippines, China, and the United States supported marketing deception as well.

On the other hand, doughty Nepal opposed the definition, calling it, among other things, exactly what it is: marketing deception. Revealing her own biases, the Chairwoman then quickly scrambled to do damage control, dismissing Nepal’s strong comments by claiming that a footnote allowing countries to include GMOs or not would address Nepal’s concerns. That made as much sense as claiming that because only some consumers would be deceived, we could still mislabel foods.

The European Union, Norway, Switzerland, Chile, Argentina, and India all opposed the GMO-inclusive definition, as did Russia, which sensibly stated its main concern was that if each member state could decide whether to include GMO foods within the definition, then this lack of a harmonized approach would lead to market confusion. Unfortunately, the very vocal Bangladesh delegate Dr. S.K. Roy had already left the meeting for the day or else he would have lambasted the definition as well. All in all, there was significant opposition to the proposed definition.

Yet, Dr. Brönstrup ran the meeting with cool but soulless German efficiency, which in her case meant dispensing with, or else dismissing, the airing of any viewpoints that might in any possible way slow down her sprint to the finish line for each agenda item. With her allotting only 40 minutes for the delegates to discuss the Biofortification definition, this also meant that she did not call upon any of the INGOs that had signaled her that they wanted to speak. Only the sponsoring INGO, the International Food Policy Research Institute, which strangely enough opened the discussion on this topic, was able to speak out on the definition, and at length. Fortunately, NHF had submitted written comments stating its position against the proposed definition.2

“I am referring this definition back to the Codex Committee on Food Labelling,” the Chairwoman suddenly proclaimed at the end of the day, without giving NHF and other consumer organizations any chance to speak. With this peremptory proclamation that the GMO-inclusive definition would be sent to CCFL for its review and approval, I was furious (as were evidently the other ignored INGOs). But I was the only one to storm to the front table and condemn the Chairwoman face-to-face for having not only ignored NHF but the Codex Procedural Manual as well. It was not a pretty exchange. But I did make my point.

Delegates met in Berlin to debate the definition of Biofortification at the 40th Session of the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses.

On to Ottawa!

So, the battleground for this definition shifts to Ottawa, Canada, where during the second full week of May 2019, the CCFL delegates will fight this renewed battle. Fortunately, the Final Report of the Nutrition Committee meeting, upon which the CCFL will necessarily rely, will not have the misleading impression that there was “broad support” for the GMO-inclusive definition.

Recall that the last day of every Codex meeting is reserved for the “reading” of the draft Report, which is invariably sterile, terse, and lacking in detail but constitutes the official minutes of what happened at that meeting. The Report’s sparse wording is therefore magnified in importance with almost every syllable fought over by delegates. Sadly enough, it often takes a full day to wade through the wording so that a Final Report can be generated.

This time, among other things, the Report had misleadingly mentioned that there was “broad support” for the Biofortification definition despite the fact that more countries had actually spoken out in opposition to the definition than had supported it! The European Union had doggedly but unsuccessfully attempted to remove that wording from the Report as the Chairwoman reinserted it over the EU’s objections. Finally, I was allowed to speak and pointed out to the Committee that there were 23 countries opposed to the definition (the EU counted for 17 countries at this meeting) and that it would therefore be absolutely dishonest and misleading to characterize the support as “broad” in the face of such opposition. After I spoke, the misleading phrase was stricken. The Final Report will now accurately reflect to the other Committee (CCFL) that there was great division among the delegates and not “broad support.” Wording is more important than it might seem.

Other Issues

The Nutrition Committee of course considered many other issues than just the Biofortification definition, including Follow-up Formula for older infants, Trans-Fatty-Acid-free claims, Nutrient Reference Values (NRVs) for older infants and young children, an NRV for EPA and DHA long-chain fatty acids, and a proposed harmonized Guideline for probiotic use in foods and dietary supplements. These, too, were all important topics and I spoke out on most of these issues as well.

The week-long debates over all of these issues revealed the ready biases and heavy-handed nature of the new Codex Chairwoman, which hopefully the more-seasoned and even-handed Codex Secretariat can somehow eliminate. We shall all see whether the Secretariat is successful before the next Nutrition Committee meeting later this year during the Thanksgiving week in Düsseldorf, Germany. Until then, auf wiedersehen!

Endnotes

  1. Scott Tips, “Monsanto Wants To Disguise Its Genetically Engineered Foods As ‘Biofortified,’” Whole Foods Magazine, January 2018, at https://wholefoodsmagazine.com/columns/legal-tips/monsanto-wants-disguise-genetically-engineered-foods-biofortified/
  2. National Health Federation, “Comments on Proposed Draft Definition of Biofortification,” NHF, November 2018, at https://thenhf.com/codex/our-work-at-codex/nhfs-comments-to-codex-ccnfsdu-2018-on-biofortification/

This article was sourced from Whole Foods Magazine.

A graduate of the University of California at Berkeley Law School, Scott C. Tips currently practices internationally, emphasizing Food-and-Drug law, business law and business litigation, trade practice, and international corporate formation and management. He has been involved in the nutrition field for more than three decades and may be reached at (415) 244-1813 or by e-mail at [email protected]

Glyphosate- Dr. Mercola Interviews Dr. Seneff at TACA 2019

Dr. Mercola discusses with Dr. Seneff her latest research on glyphosate.

• Stephanie Seneff, a senior research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), has been studying glyphosate for years and has become hooked on determining what makes this ubiquitous chemical so toxic

• One of the ways glyphosate may be harmful is via disruption of glycine homeostasis; glycine is a very common amino acid your body uses to make proteins

• Glyphosate also inhibits the shikimate pathway, which is involved in the synthesis of the essential aromatic amino acids phenylalanine, tyrosine and tryptophan

• Glyphosate also causes sulfate deficiency and impairs the heme pathway

• Eating organic, consuming organic, unpasteurized apple cider vinegar, eating garlic and cruciferous vegetables, and glycine supplementation (or consuming organic bone broth) can help protect you from glyphosate toxicity

How Dangerous Are GM Foods?

How Dangerous Are GM Foods?

Are GM Foods Killing Us? Genetically Modified foods are disturbingly commonplace – and we don’t always know when we’re eating them. With so many dangerous side effects observed in GM foods, and with insufficient testing of the long-term impact of these artificial foods, can we be sure that GM foods are safe?

Dragon Fruit: The Little Known Benefits of This Delicious Treat

Dragon fruits have a surprising number of health benefits, from a strengthened immune system and faster healing of bruises and wounds to fewer respiratory problems. Watch this video or visit Mercola.com to know more about this amazing fruit.

Agenda 21 or Agenda 2030 The Plan To Kill You – David Icke – The United Nations Depopulation Plan The global cabal of U.N. Agenda 21 is behind global warming, regionalism, zoning, land and water use control, wealth redistribution, weakening and eventual replacement of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency, global warming, cap and trade, Smart Grid, Smart Meters, carbon taxes, high gasoline prices, global citizens, IB World Schools, Common Core nationalized education standards, biofuels, Marxist advancement across the globe, food control, water access control via the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), gun control, health control, the Arab Spring/Winter, unchecked illegal immigration, and they are unstoppable.’