• Leading in the fight for the future of health freedom!
  • Our Mission - I

    Providing expert and positive representation in all matters relating to health and health freedom at international Codex Alimentarius meetings as the only health-freedom organization actively shaping global policy to protect food, beverages, nutritional supplements, and our general health
  • Our Mission - II

    Protecting the health rights and freedom of individuals and healthcare practitioners, including access to safe foods, beverages, and nutritional supplements in therapeutic values for optimal health as well as freedom of choice in healthcare practitioner and therapy
  • Our Mission - III

    Educating consumers, producers, healthcare professionals, and government and other leaders about health and healing modalities and how to secure and preserve health freedom
  • Your Voice For Health Freedom™
  • "The NHF is unique among health-freedom groups in having an opportunity to positively and directly affect the health and lives of some 7 billion individuals worldwide." —A.S.
  • "Thank you for being the voice of the consumer, the voice of reason and the voice for human rights. Your advocacy is greatly appreciated. Keep up this vital work." —B.W.

What is the NHF?

The National Health Federation is the World's first health-freedom organization—and the ONLY one able to speak, submit scientific research, and actively shape global policy at international meetings of Codex Alimentarius, which means “food code” in Latin. NHF protects the health and health freedom of 7 billion people on the Planet.

Become a Member

Your membership in NHF will impact 7 billion lives on our Planet.

Join Us

Support NHF’s Work!

Please consider making a gift today to support the NHF’s work.

Donate

Complimentary e-List

Get the latest updates impacting your health and health freedom!

Subscribe

The National Health Federation leads in the fight for the future of health freedom!

NHF's Mission

The NHF is an international consumer-education, health-freedom organization working to protect individuals’ rights to consume healthy food, take supplements and the choice to use alternative therapies without unnecessary government restrictions.

NHF's Vision

NHF envisions a World free of any and all artificial impediments to securing and retaining excellent, abundant health and health freedom. Individuals should be free to choose for themselves their own means of maintaining and regaining optimal health.

NHF's Promise

NHF, together with health-freedom friends and colleagues throughout the World, vows to change and save lives through our uniquely leveraged position on the international political stage impacting food, nutritional supplements, and healing.

QUESTION 1

Will we focus on vitamins and minerals primarily?

Whilst the National Health Federation agrees that consumers should be protected from misleading nutritional information (and would argue that even some governments are by no means innocent when it comes to the dissemination of disingenuous advice in this area), we believe that the growing prevalence of obesity around the world represents a far greater potential threat to consusmers’ health than do problems supposedly posed by labelling issues related to vitamins and minerals.

As such, unless Codex can agree that its prime purpose in setting NRVs should be to establish those nutrient levels that are necessary to achieve and maintain optimum health, we do not believe that it would be in consumers’ best interests for Codex to focus exclusively on NRVs for vitamins and minerals if this would be done at the expense of establishing NRVs for macronutrients. Moreover, therefore, considering the many millions of lives that could potentially be saved by prioritizing work on NRVs for macronutrients, we very strongly believe that work on NRVs for vitamins and minerals should now be set aside until such time as the far more important work on NRVs for macronutrients has been completed.

What is your view to add NRVs of macro-nutrients?

Work on NRVs for macronutrients should become the Committee’s first priority, as described above.

What is your view on establishing NRVs of other nutrients associate with increased and decreased risk of non communicable diseases?

Work on establishing NRVs for other nutrients should not even be considered until such time as the far more important work on NRVs for macronutrients has been completed.

QUESTION 2

If the discussion for NRVs should be focused on vitamins and minerals, there are two options for the basis of the values in relation to the nutrient requirements of a population.

Option 1:

Values that meet the requirements of 50 percent of an apparently healthy population

Option 2:

Values that meet the requirements of majority (97 to 98 percent) of an apparent healthy population

In case where above two values have not been established for certain vitamins and minerals, what can be used as another reference value for nutrient requirement?

As we described above in our answer to question 1, the National Health Federation does not agree that the discussions on NRVs should be focused on vitamins and minerals.

However, if the Committee decides to ignore the dangers posed by the growing worldwide incidence of obesity – by proceeding to work only on NRVs for vitamins and minerals – then the values set should reflect the very latest scientific findings showing that levels of intake above conventional RDA-based values can substantially reduce the risk of developing chronic disease. In our opinion, to assume that consumers are healthy merely because they don’t suffer from classical nutritional deficiency diseases such as scurvy, rickets, beri-beri or pellagra is both highly irrational and scientifically untenable.

QUESTION 3:

After the values in relation to the nutrient requirement for establishing NRVs for labelling purposes are chosen, values that meet the requirement of either 50% or majority, the next consideration is the basis of selecting the values in relation to the requirement of nutrient in the whole of the population.

The options most often considered are:

Option 1:

The highest values from the different age-gender groups (such as pre-menopausal adult females for iron)

Option 2:

‘A population-weighted average of the values-usually adult males and females equally weighed (EC)’ or ‘adult males and females equally weighted (USA)’

USA noted that the values for pregnant and lactating women should be excluded in establishing the NRVs for the general population aged [ ] and the values should also take into account science-based values for upper levels of intake.

USA also noted that a population weighed average using census data from one or more countries would be most applicable to establishing food label reference values at the national (or potentially regional) level.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of each option?

The National Health Federation believes that none of these options are useful, as they do not take sufficient account of key factors such as age, sex, bodyweight, race, geographical location, individual health status, or biochemical individuality.

Are there any other options to choose the values for establishing NRVs?

The NRVs should reflect the very latest scientific findings showing that levels of intake above conventional RDA-based values can substantially reduce the risk of developing chronic and degenerative diseases. Given the already substantial body of evidence documenting the remarkable safety record of vitamin-and-mineral food supplements, the primary aim in establishing such values should be to protect the health of consumers by ensuring their optmum nutrition.

QUESTION 4:

Are the recent reference values from authoritative scientific bodies acceptable for establishing NRVs? Or is there a need to stick to the FAO/WHO reference values?

Broadly speaking, the National Health Federation considers virtually all recently established reference values to be unacceptable, as they do not take sufficient account of key factors such as age, sex, bodyweight, race, geographical location, individual health status, or biochemical individuality – including the needs of particularly health-challenged individuals, who should not be discriminated against.

QUESTION 5:

Whether it is necessary to have reference values for different population groups?

It is most definitely necessary to have reference values for different population groups.

Are there any life stages other than ‘general population’ and ‘infants and young children’ to be considered for establishing revised NRVs?

The most scientifically rational solution would be for Codex to set NRVs for the following population groups:

Infants 0-6 months

Infants 7-12 months

Children 1-3 years

Children 4-8 years

Males 9-13 years

Males 14-18 years

Males 19-70 years

Males > 70 years

Females 9-13 years

Females 14-18 years

Females 19-70 years

Females > 70 years

Pregnancy

Lactation

In addition, Codex should draw up NRVs for special medical purposes and make additional recommendations that take into account factors such as race, geographical location, and biochemical individuality.

Some of the things people are saying about the NHF

"Thank you for being the voice of the consumer, the voice of reason and the voice for human rights. Your advocacy is greatly appreciated. Keep up this vital work and I hope your voice continues to be heard."
—Bridget W.
"Very few want to stand up and fight for our health. They can't believe our country and all these big money companies don't have our best interests at heart. We have to be responsible for our (own) health… to learn, study and research… whatever it takes! Thanks for what you do!"
—Debbie B.
"You could possibly not imagine how much at home it feels to see an organization that's so sincere… something that the bullies have not been able to buy… my most humble gratitude and much respect."
—Chandan M.
"Thank you for being the voice of the consumer, the voice of reason and the voice for human rights. Your advocacy is greatly appreciated. Keep up this vital work and I hope your voice continues to be heard."
—Bridget W.
"Very few want to stand up and fight for our health. They can't believe our country and all these big money companies don't have our best interests at heart. We have to be responsible for our (own) health… to learn, study and research… whatever it takes! Thanks for what you do!"
—Debbie B.
"You could possibly not imagine how much at home it feels to see an organization that's so sincere… something that the bullies have not been able to buy… my most humble gratitude and much respect."
—Chandan M.

What do YOU think about the work of the National Health Federation? Send Your Testimonial Today!

NHF US Twitter

NHF on Faceboook

NHF Worldwide Twitter


Other National Health Federation Branches

NHF - Canada

logo image for NHF - Canada

NHF - Sweden

NHF - United Kingdom

logo link to the website for NHF - United Kingdom

Our Sister Organization

logo link to the website for our sister organization, the Foundation for Health Research