Codex Alimentarius


Codex Alimentarius is the Communist United Nations / European Union plan to destroy organic farming and to eradicate the complementary and natural health care industry which is obviously a threat to the health, welfare and profits of Big Food and Big Pharma.

There would appear to be an almost total lack of awareness (or even interest) with regard to the implications of this pernicious global Commission, particularly amongst those most affected by the excesses of this restrictive legislation. In the words of the National Health Federation, the aims and objectives of Codex Alimentarius are to…

  • Allow only low-potency supplements that will do nothing positive for one’s health.
  • Allow all or most foods to be genetically-modified.
  • Make beneficial supplements unavailable or sold by prescription only.

For many people, this agenda is so outrageous, they cannot believe such goals are achievable; yet this may well very soon be reality, if the Codex Alimentarius Commission continues to disregard input from those who offer a counter perspective to the combined forces of Big Food and Big Pharma.  For the past five years the European challenge to Codex has been led by Dr. Robert Vererk, Executive Director of the Alliance for Natural Health and Scientific Advisor to the National Health Federation. Yet despite the efforts of the ANH, the NHF and the Dr. Rath Foundation the Codex agenda lumbers ever closer to the EU statute books. In April of 2005, the ANH mounted a legal challenge to the Codex Commission; Justice Leendert A Geelhoed, the European Union Advocate General, referred to the arbitrary powers of the Codex-supporting EU legislation as being “about as transparent as a black box”.   The subsequent 12th July 2005 ruling of the International Court of Justice in Luxembourg followed the July 4th Rome meeting of Codex when the 85 countries present ratified the restrictive guidelines for dietary supplements. Six days after London was awarded the 2012 Olympics and just five days after the London Bombings, there was little mention of the ICJ ruling in the British media.Amongst the most disturbing component contained within Article 6 of the EU Directive, is that it strictly prohibits information about diseases being treatable by nutrients and calls for future supplement dosage restrictions. Such is the power and influence of Big Pharma!

Today the EU pays an annual fine of $150 million to maintain its ban on the US hormone-fed beef. Clear evidence that WTO rules put free-trade interests of agribusiness above national health concerns. Meanwhile, a flood of new GMO products are surreptitiously being introduced into EU agriculture. Monsanto, Syngenta and other GMO multinationals have already taken advantage of lax national rules in new EU member countries such as Poland to get the GMO ‘foot-in-the door.’ Pro-GMO governments, such as that of Angela Merkel in Germany, abdicate any responsibility by claiming they are only following WTO ‘orders’, which is exactly the line taken by the FSA and strangely reminiscent of another organisation in history coincidentally from the same part of the world, whose followers used exactly the same defence.Powerful agribusiness multinationals such as Monsanto, Dow Chemicals and DuPont are working through the WTO-backed Codex Alimentarius Commission in their determination to overrun national or regional efforts to halt the march of GMO.

NHF & ANH resistance to Codex will potentially be little more than an inconvenience to the prime movers behind this pernicious global agenda … unless and until such time as there is a wider realisation that the organic farming and natural health industries may soon be little more than a memory. Meanwhile, Big Pharma and Big Food have a very well prepared strategy to ensure the success of the Codex agenda. But our challenge is to demonstrate that no corporate strategy can be effective against the universal desire to retain the basic human right to food and health freedom. Contrary to popular belief Codex Alimentarius is neither a law nor a policy.  It is in fact a functioning body, a Commission, created by the Food and Agricultural Organization and the World Health Organisation under the direction of the United Nations. The confusion in this regard is largely due to statements made by many critics referring to the ‘implementation’ of Codex Alimentarius as if it were legislation waiting to come into effect.  A more accurate phrase would be the ‘implementation of Codex Alimentarius guidelines,’ as it would more adequately describe the situation.

Codex is merely another tool in the chest of the Elite whose goal is to create a one world government in which they wield complete control. Power over the food supply is essential in order to achieve this. As will be discussed later, Codex Alimentarius will be ‘implemented’ whenever guidelines are established and national governments begin to arrange their domestic laws in accordance with the standards set by the organisation.The existence of Codex Alimentarius as a policy-making body has roots going back over a hundred years. The name itself, Codex Alimentarius, is simply Latin for ‘food code’ and directly descended from the Codex Alimentarius Austriacus, a set of standards and descriptions of a variety of foods in the Austria-Hungarian Empire between 1897 and 1911.  This set of standards was the brainchild of both the food industry and academia and was used by the courts in order to determine food identity in a legal fashion.Even as far back as 1897, nations were being pushed toward harmonisation of national laws into an international set of standards that would reduce the barriers to trade created by differences in national laws.

As the Codex Alimentarius Austriacus gained steam in its localised area, the idea of having a single set of standards for all of Europe began to pick up support too. From 1954-1958, Austria successfully pursued the creation of the Codex Alimentarius Europaeus (the European Codex Alimentarius) and almost immediately the UN directed FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization) sprang into action when the FAO Regional Conference for Europe expressed the desire for a global international set of standards for food. The FAO Regional Conference then sent a proposal up the chain of command to the FAO itself with the suggestion to create a joint FAO/WHO programme dealing with food standards.   Truthful information about Codex  is found on the Internet – there is nothing to hide from our side – we are a public institution working in public for the public – we are happy if people want to know more about our work and ask questions.There is an official Codex Contact Point> in each member country who will be pleased to answer your questions on Codex.

But, as one can see from the statement above, Codex’s response does very little to answer this question beyond simply disagreeing with it. While it is true that many individuals who make this claim provide little evidence for it, the presentation of the information does not necessarily negate its truthfulness. In fact, Codex offers its own website as a source for accurate information about the organisation; yet, beyond the FAQ section, there is nothing to be found that is relevant to the “war criminal” allegations; furthermore the website is virtually in-decipherable, almost to the point of being completely useless. In the end, this response raises more questions than it answers. This is because Codex, if it wished to do so, could put these rumours to rest by simply posting a list of the individuals and organisations that funded or played an integral role in its creation.

However, it does nothing of the sort. Beyond mentioning the FAO and the WHO, we are completely unaware of who or how many other individuals and organisations participated in the creation of Codex Alimentarius.The ‘war criminal’ claims centre around the chemical conglomerate known as I.G. Farben which was made up of several German chemical firms including, BASF, Bayer, Hoechst and AGFA, that merged together. It was essentially the manufacturing wing of the Third Reich and was the engine behind the Nazi war machine. The company provided the vast majority of explosives and synthetic gasoline used for the military conquest and murder of millions. It also manufactured the now infamous Zyklon-B gas used in the gas chambers.  Not only that, but it was influential in the conducting of experiments on concentration camp victims. Indeed, camp victims were often purchased outright at the behest of the company for the express purposes of testing by several different branches of the company, particularly Bayer and Hoechst.

Without I.G. Farben, the German war efforts simply could not have been sustained. During the Nuremberg war trials, the tribunal convicted 24 board members and executives of the company and dissolved it into several different daughter companies. Namely, BASF, Hoechst (later to be known as Aventis), and Bayer. By 1951, virtually all 24 of these executives were released, including Fritz ter Meer and Hermann Schmitz. Ter Meer had been a member of the I.G. Farben executive committee from 1926-1945 and also a member of the working committee and the technical committee as well as a director of the infamous Section II. He was also the ambassador to Italy given full power by the Reich Minister for armaments and war production and was the industrialist most responsible for Auschwitz. Schmitz was also a member of the I.G. Farben executive committee from 1926-1935, and was chairman of the board and ‘head of finances’ from 1935-1945. He was also head of military economics and a member of the Nazi party. Both men were found guilty by the Nuremberg war tribunal in 1948, yet Schmitz was released in 1950 and Ter Meer in 1952.After all this, Schmitz was appointed board member of the German bank of Berlin West in 1952 and in 1956, the honorary chairman of the board of Rheinish steel plants.

Ter Meer, however, was even more successful. Upon his release, he was appointed board member of Bayer in 1955 and, in 1956 was appointed chairman. In the years following, he would take on many additional roles such as chairman of the board of Theodore Goldschmidt AG, deputy chairman of the board of Commerzbank and Bank-Association AG, as well as a board member of the Waggonfabrik Uerdingen, Duesseldorger Waggonfabrik AG, the bank association of West Germany and United Industrial Enterprises AG.  These are documented connections for both of these men. Indeed, Ter Meer’s’ connections to the pharmaceutical firm Bayer earned him a foundation named in his honour, the Fritz Ter-Meer Foundation.  Through all of this however, this writer could not confirm that either Ter Meer or Schmitz had direct connections to the creation of Codex Alimentarius.However, Codex does nothing to dispel the allegations besides simply disagreeing with them and the connections are not at all implausible. Codex is very secretive about its beginnings, as evidenced on its website where it only states that it was created at the behest of the FAO and the WHO.

It is highly unlikely that such an organisation would be created without the assistance, input, and even funding of privately owned international corporations. Thanks to both the anti-Codex community and Codex Alimentarius itself, there is no evidence that documents which individuals or corporations were involved in its establishment. However, there are other ties that lend more credence to the belief that war criminals played a role in the creation of Codex.“No. It is a false claim. You just need to type the words ‘Codex Alimentarius’ in any search engine and you will find lots of these rumours about Codex. Usually the people spreading them will give no proof but will ask you to send donations or to sign petitions against Codex.

Although created under the auspices of the FAO and the WHO, there is some controversy regarding individuals who may or may not have participated in the establishment of Codex. Some anti-Codex organisations have asserted that Nazi war criminals, Fritz ter Meer and Hermann Schmitz in particular, were the principal architects of the organisation. Because many of these claims are made with only indirect evidence or no evidence at all, one might be tempted to disregard them at first glance. However, as the allegations gain more and more adherents, Codex has attempted to refute them. In the Frequently Asked Questions section of its website, the question, ‘Is it true that Codex was created by a former war criminal to control the world food supply?’  Is answered by stating;

The very next year, the Codex Alimentarius Europaeus adopted a resolution that its work on food standards be taken over by the FAO. Then in 1961, it was decided by the WHO, Codex Alimentarius Europaeus, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and the FAO Conference to create an international food standards programme known as the Codex Alimentarius.

Then in 1963, as a result of the resolutions passed by these organisations two years earlier, Codex Alimentarius was officially created.