The Grinch Who Stole Christmas—Farm and Food Safety Controls, Codex, and ‘New Dietary Ingredients’

Before the story behind the story, another farm fresh raw milk bust yesterday morning about 9 A.M. when a farmer was apprehended and detained while driving a truck. He was delivering a variety of foods to multiple drop off sites, to be delivered to private members that paid in advance for the foods.  This has deprived them of their food they depend on to feed their families.

The Grinch that Stole Christmas Dinner has appeared again as in other pre-dawn raids with gun toting folks. I received a message from the coordinator of Hartmann Farms Host Sites in Minnesota. Minnesota should be the target state before the Intl Raw Milk Conference in St. Paul occurs. Join the Minnesota ARMi and surrounding states. Get the word out– short link to this post is .This is the third such bust in as many months in Minnesota alone. Here was the message this morning:

As I write this, the Department of Agriculture officials have intercepted Roger in the delivery truck at the Minnetonka site ~ they have placed the foods under embargo ~ they are attempting to take possession of the truck and all its contents ~ Roger is not willingly giving that up. A court order to force that issue is being sought.

Another thing you can do is call anyone and everyone you know who has a vested interest, which we all do, to go there from wherever they are. If you cannot go, then please make phone calls.


I will update this story as it unfolds, but I will do this by linking you to those who will be covering it, since I am involved in other matters. It is time for a class action suit with a model case whereby consumers, shareholders and others who purchase foods direct from the farm or delivered from a farm will claim the state is causing documented health problems and preventing disease by stopping the flow of healthy farm fresh foods. (As all should know, for many people, if they cannot drink raw goats milk for a few days, their symptoms begin to reappear. ) But it may also be time to organize peaceful demonstrations and rallies in the public square with news coverage.

I have just received the video feed at 10:30 Wednesday — Augie

————————————————————->see the new iShop for eBooks — help support all of our works, too.


The story behind the story is below and it came to my attention through Rady Ananda of Food Freedom.

Food Safety Controls, Codex, and ‘New Dietary Ingredients’

By Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post

Section 113 of S.510 gives the Dept. of Health and Human Services and the Food and Drug Administration the responsibility of creating a mechanism to identify acceptable dietary ingredients from the unacceptable ones, a key concept of Codex Alimentarius, writes Brandon Turberville.

S.510, the Food Safety Modernization Act, has Codex Alimentarius written all over it. By now, this much should be apparent. Besides the cumbersome regulations accompanied with traceability provisions which are merely a cover for surveillance to prevent small or local farmers from providing food outside of the corporate system, the bill gives unprecedented power over food production to FDA, HHS, and DHS.

Overbearing regulations aimed at small food producers that provide larger facilities with an unfair advantage are a hallmark of Codex guidelines. Likewise, the ability of the FDA, HHS, and DHS to implement various standards independently, or as a result of executive decrees, signals the coming Codex principles to the American food supply. This much has been well documented in recent publications.

However, there is yet another aspect of S.510 that has yet to be discussed, which also relates to Codex guidelines. Section 113 , titled “New Dietary Ingredients.” It is unfortunately as much of a Codex wish list as the previous provisions. This section alone gives a great deal more discretionary power to the Secretary of the HHS and FDA regarding dietary supplements. Under the guise of an attempt to reduce the access to and usage of anabolic steroids, the result of section 113 would give the Secretary the authority to ban any “new” dietary supplement that he/she sees fit.

This is not the first time that this has been attempted. In early 2010, John McCain and Byron Dorgan introduced the Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2010, which would have done essentially the same thing. This is a true signal that there is a higher force at work here. In fact, the DSSA of 2010 was submitted under the guise of preventing anabolic steroid use as well. This bill would have given the FDA the authority to establish a list of acceptable dietary supplements, without grandfathering in supplements from pre-1994 (the enactment of the famous Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act), and subsequently remove those supplements if it saw fit in the future.

While not a carbon copy of the DSSA, the intent remains the same in section 113 of S.510. The bill states:

“If the Secretary determines that the information in a new dietary ingredient notification submitted under this section for an article purported to be a new dietary ingredient is inadequate to establish that a dietary supplement containing such article will reasonably be expected to be safe because the article may, or may contain, an anabolic steroid, the Secretary shall notify the Drug Enforcement Administration of such determination.”

Although the language of the bill at first seems to be specifically aimed at anabolic steroids, subsequent statements cloud the focus of the section and leave it more open to interpretation. This is because this section cleverly gives the HHS and FDA the responsibility of creating a mechanism to identify acceptable dietary ingredients from the unacceptable ones.

Although nowhere in S.510 are “positive and negative lists” discussed in those specific terms, it is nonetheless mandated in this section. Common sense mandates that this be the case since regulatory agencies would necessarily need some sort of standard to reference in future policy considerations and decisions. That being the case, the bill states:

“Not later than 180 days after date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall publish guidance that clarifies when a dietary supplement ingredient is a new dietary supplement ingredient, when the manufacturer or a distributor of a dietary ingredient or dietary supplement should provide the Secretary with information as described in section 413(a)(2) of the Federal, Food and Cosmetic Act, the evidence needed to document the safety of new dietary ingredients, and appropriate methods for establishing the identity of a new dietary ingredient.”

There should be little doubt that the guidance specified here will eventually come in the form of a positive and negative list of vitamin and mineral supplements. Such a list would likely begin in the same manner as the positive and negative supplement lists currently existing in Europe with the passage of the European Union Food Supplements Directive.[1]  Of course, the EU Food Supplements Directive was merely the beginning of the implementation of Codex Alimentarius guidelines in Europe, specifically those dealing with vitamins and minerals. The EU Food Supplements Directive has and will continue to cause serious damage to the natural supplement industry as well as the health of millions of Europeans since its passage.

Codex has proven to be much more successful with their attack on vitamin and mineral supplements in Europe than in the United States. Likewise, it has been more successful in promoting the proliferation of genetically modified foods in the United States than in Europe. Because of this, it often appears that the Codex fight is isolated to one country, yet this idea is far from the truth. We are witnessing the implementation of Codex Alimentarius guidelines by stealth on a worldwide scale. It is a fact that whenever the same laws and policies are being enacted in very different places at the same time that there is another more hidden agenda behind the laws than the one being presented to the public.

Codex Alimentarius is a hydra with many different heads and it is important to view much of the domestic food- and supplement-related legislation with this in mind. Unfortunately, Codex is merely a symptom of the greater problem of an emerging world government and total domination of the individual through every means available – especially food.


[1] Directive 2002/46/EC Of The European Parliament And Of The Council Of 10 June 2002 of the approximation of the laws of the member states relating to food supplements. “Codex Alimentarius: Global Food Imperialism.” Ed. Scott Tips. FHR. 2007. Pp. 237-243.

Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Mullins, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor’s Degree from Francis Marion University where he earned the Pee Dee Electric Scholar’s Award as an undergraduate. He has had numerous articles published dealing with a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, and civil liberties. He also the author of Codex Alimentarius – The End of Health Freedom

————————————————————->see the new iShop for eBooks — help support all of our works, too.

One response to “The Grinch Who Stole Christmas—Farm and Food Safety Controls, Codex, and ‘New Dietary Ingredients’

  1. with any legislation, have we lost our minds?
    First, what is the purpose? State the mission, the vision, the goals of getting together to propose NEW legislation. WHAT is the meaning?

    Than, watch carefully to see that everything brought to the table and included fits that purpose. Every word is important, or leave it out.

    Stay specific, to the point.

    If they are not, there are other motives.

    Fire them, throw them out.
    They are NOT doing their job.

    Mission, Goals, vision. Purpose.

    Can we hold them, around the world, to these simple standards.

    s510, what were they trying to accomplish? Writing new law for the sake of spending their time? What were tho goals?

    If it was to stop all food long-term, economy disturbing, big guy slanted subsidies, and replace them with short term assistance to convert poisoned land to water purifying, healthy food producing, flood preventing, environmentally vital land…….let’s see it.

    If it is to ensure that Big conventional food systems do no longer kill, maim and destroy our health, and that THEY are shuddered, embargoed, confiscated, and financially ruined when they are dirty, contaminated, and ruining the land, air and water, the very health of all surrounding lands—then let them discuss it and clearly state solutions.

    WHAT was the stated point of making new legislation?

    Hold their feet to the fire!

    Thanks for posting, Augie!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s