Google Brings EU Products Ban to America

Nuegreen – July 13, 2012

It was just four days ago at lunch, I was discussing with a close friend about writing a blog on how Google just flicked a switch and shut down all my vitamin sales. But it wasn’t just us. You can no longer search – Vitamin B12 or any vitamin – in Google Shopping and find a list of products and competitive pricing.  As the owner of an advertising agency he was in shock and in disbelief, until I showed him on my Android phone.   At first we thought it was Google changing Shopping to a Pay Per Click service, which in itself is a horrible idea.  It limits choice by driving out smaller companies and has already driven the price up 25%, if you can find it at all.

I noticed visits to were down 50% since July 1. It felt like Google was forcing everyone’s hand to start paying up for ads. So, I reached out to a Google AdWords Specialist for assistance with setting up an ad campaign and was then told that they could not help me because I sold vitamins, herbs and supplements.  I was told that if I had questions I could email Big surprise, no response.  This was now sounding crazy to me. How could Google just ban whatever they like, whenever they like. Boy what a blog this would be: Google – Greedy Monsters or Monster Idiots.  After doing a little research it now appears like the Monster is just scared of the exposure  to potential sanctions by the European Union if certain product are sold though Google Checkout.

In my very first search: Google Bans Vitamins, I found: EU Set to BanEU Bans Vitamins and Herbs in effect on April 2011. Wow! Really! Then I found this went back to 2005. The people of Great Brittan did not want to go along with Brussels and how Tony Blair caved.   Read: And Guess Who’s Going to Benefit? by Geoffrey Lean Daily Mail, 13th July 2005 & Brussels Gives a Healthy Boost to Pharma Giants by Christopher Booker; The Sunday Telegraph, 17th July 2005.

This is interesting, but as I read more and more articles of how and why, I started to notice: Germany, Codex Alimentarius, UN, World Trade Orangization, 1996.  Whaaaat???  Believe it. This goes all the way back to German Pharmaceutical companies angered by their government taking control of Heath Care and price controls.

This story is way bigger than just Google.  It is about a long and systematic plan which really dates back all the way to 1963.  It is about big Agra and big pharma forcing individuals to buy their patented formulas and preventing access to what nature has already provided us. I will stop short of where else this argument heads. Only that many see this as individuals losing freedom and sometime in the near future, you will be required to obtain permits to grow your own food at home.

Codex Alimentarius: Big Brother’s Plan to Control Health Supplements  January 15, 2009

When you start to look, Europe has been trying to warn the US for years.                                                                                                                                                                                     May 9, 2009:            May 13, 2009: 28, 2010:                                                              Learn about Indigo Herbs attempt to defend Google’s ban on cooking herb Sage. May 18, 2011.

Is Google at fault?  I say No.  Is Google choosing sides? You know it.  Does Google stick to its’ Mission Statement of, “Do no harm”?  Yes, if you are big business.  Do you think the Freedom of choice is a Liberty worth keeping?  Then do something about it!  Here are some easy suggestion, just forward this blog to: Dr. Oz / / Steven Colbert / The White House or Twitter it to any group with an audience who may care. Like it Share it or Pin it, just make others aware.

Rather than reading the entire Codex Alimentarius , here are some Wikipedia highlights.____

The  Codex Alimentarius Austriacus.[1] (Latin for “Book of Food”) is a collection of internationally recognized standards, codes of practice, guidelines and other recommendations relating to foods, food production and food safety.

Its texts are developed and maintained by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, a body that was established in 1963 by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). The Commission’s main aims are stated as being to protect the health of consumers and ensure fair practices in the international food trade. The Codex Alimentarius is recognized by the World Trade Organization as an international reference point for the resolution of disputes concerning food safety and consumer protection.[2][3]


The Codex Alimentarius officially covers all foods, whether processed, semi-processed or raw, but far more attention has been given to foods that are marketed directly to consumers.[citation needed] In addition to standards for specific foods, the Codex Alimentarius contains general standards covering matters such as food labeling, food hygienefood additives and pesticide residues, and procedures for assessing the safety of foods derived from modern biotechnology. It also contains guidelines for the management of official (i.e., governmental) import and export inspection and certification systems for foods.


According to the Manifesto on the Future of Food, the Codex Alimentarius has “codified policies designed to serve the interest of global agribusiness above all others, while actively undermining the rights of farmers and consumers”.[11]  The controversy has been expressed by proponents of ecologically and socially sustainable agriculture and food systems, such as the Slow Food movement,[10] who view the Codex Alimentarius as antithetical to this goal.

Additional controversy over the Codex Alimentarius relates to a perception that it is a mandatory standard for the safety of food, including vitamin and mineral supplements. Supporters of the Codex Alimentarius say that it is a voluntary reference standard for food and that there is no obligation on countries to adopt Codex standards as a member of either Codex or any other International Trade Organization. From the point of view of its opponents, however, one of the main causes of concern is that the Codex Alimentarius is recognized by the World Trade Organization as an international reference standard for the resolution of disputes concerning food safety and consumer protection.[2][3] Proponents argue that the use of Codex Alimentarius during international disputes does not exclude the use of other references or scientific studies as evidence of food safety and consumer protection.[citation needed]

It is reported that in 1996 the German delegation put forward a proposal that no herb, vitamin or mineral should be sold for preventive or therapeutic reasons, and that supplements should be reclassified as drugs.[4] The proposal was agreed, but protests halted its implementation.[4] The 28th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission was subsequently held July 4–9, 2005.[5] Among the many issues discussed were the “Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements“,[6] which were adopted during the meeting as new global safety guidelines.[7]   This text has been the subject of considerable controversy among proponents of dietary supplements, because many countries regulate such substances as therapeutic goods or pharmaceuticals or by some other category, without requiring them to be shown to be medically useful. The text does not seek to ban supplements, but subjects them to labeling and packaging requirements, sets criteria for the setting of maximum and minimum dosage levels, and requires that safety and efficacy are considered when determining ingredient sources. The United Nations‘ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and World Health Organization (WHO) have stated that the guidelines are “to stop consumers overdosing on vitamin and mineral food supplements.” The Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) has said that the guidelines call “for labelling that contains information on maximum consumption levels of vitamin and mineral food supplements.” The WHO has also said that the Guidelines “ensure that consumers receive beneficial health effects from vitamins and minerals.” [8]

Similarities have been noted between the EU’s Food Supplements Directive and the Codex Alimentarius Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Supplements.[9]


  1. ^ Codex Alimentarius: how it all began  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations website. Accessed 1 January 2009.
  2. a b Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  World Trade Organization. Accessed 3 September 2008.
  3. a b Understanding the Codex Alimentarius  Preface. Third Edition. Published in 2006 by the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture  Organization of the United Nations. Accessed 3 September 2008.
  4. a b ‘Health supplements: R.I.P.’. The Guardian newspaper, UK.  Published 14 September 2002. Accessed 2 August 2008
  5. ^ Codex Alimentarius Commission 28th Session, FAO Headquarters, Rome, Italy, 4-9 July, 2005. Official report.
  6. ^ Codex Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements
  7. ^ UN commission adopts safety guidelines for vitamin and food supplements  United Nations News Centre. Published 11 July 2005. Accessed 1 January 2009
  8. ^ UN commission adopts safety guidelines for vitamin and food supplements  United Nations News Centre. Published 11 July 2005. Accessed 26 March 2009
  9. ^ Nil by mouth. The Observer newspaper, UK.  Published 29 February 2004. Accessed 1 January 2009
  10. ^ Our campaigns ,
  11. ^ The International Commission on the Future of Food and Agriculture (July 15, 2003). “Manifesto on the Future of Food” .

See how Great Brittan heard the news. BBC Vidoeo Coverage:

The EU is so worried about peoples’ health that they don’t want them hurting their bodies with Heath Supplements, yet they still allow Cigarettes, Alcohol and Compounds like Sodium Fluoride, (a pest killer) and Caustic Soda, (used to clean drains),  on the permitted list. Meanwhile, sulphur, (important for the skin), and boron, (valuable for healthy teeth and bones), are banned.  The truth is that they have made it so expensive to have each product approved, it makes it impossible for small companies to compete.  Without that competition big pharma wins. They can raises prices and limit selection.  ◊

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.