Monday, August 31, 2026

P

 

Who Actually Makes Your Supplements?

Worse on Purpose: “…Supplements never had that golden age. No one has ever been able to judge the quality of a capsule by inspecting it. Even so, the category has grown even more challenging for consumers to navigate over time. Our regulations are where this story starts. Since 1994, no supplement maker has been required to demonstrate to the FDA that its claims about its products are true, or even that they contain what the label claims, before selling them. US lawsplace the burden of proof entirely on the government itself. The statute reads: “the United States shall bear the burden of proof on each element to show that a dietary supplement is adulterated”….Given how quickly names change hands in this market, it’s not easy for me to give you an unqualified recommendation to buy from any particular company. What I can share are the small handful of companies that stood out for good reason during the course of this research. Only three of the forty-eight supplement brands now in the Ledger got the Approved rating. They all have one thing in common: they maintain strict control over their manufacturing process.

  • Standard Process grows its own ingredients on a certified organic farm in Palmyra, Wisconsin, and makes the supplements 1.4 miles from the fields. Its organic certifier, not its marketing department, states that at least 75% of the raw plant material starts on that farm. It carries no third-party seal of any kind.
  • Nature Made owns four plants in California and Alabama, and holds nearly two thirds of the products in USP’s verified directory. It belongs to Otsuka, a Japanese pharmaceutical company.
  • NOW Foods owns its plants in Illinois and Nevada and runs its own analytical labs inside them. In January it became roughly 30% employee-owned. It also buys competitors’ products at retail and publishes the results, which is where the vitamin C testing above came from.
  • You will notice that nothing is rated Avoid in the Ledger for now. To rate a brand Avoid I need a documented act by a named company. This industry makes that standard nearly impossible to uphold. When the FDA shut down seven years of production in Edgewood, the recall named ABH Nature’s Products; a company no consumer has ever bought from. I could not find a clean list of the brands affected anywhere.

Every brand named here is on The Brand Ledger. When one changes hands, or quietly drops a verification mark, that is where I’ll record it…”

Posted by at

Venomous Views: The airline tickets, Sydney hotels and false tax deductions: ICAC’s day of awkward evidence




The airline tickets, Sydney hotels and false tax deductions: ICAC’s day of awkward evidence

August 28, 2026

A husband-and-wife duo claimed false tax deductions for flights and hotels while conducting an elaborate scheme to pocket $660,000 in kickbacks from a property developer, a major corruption inquiry has heard. 

Anita Perrottet, the sister-in-law of former premier Dominic Perrottet, was on Friday shown a string of tax expenses listed by her company, Macquarie Consulting, over several months, only for her explanations to fall apart when presented with evidence that her husband, Charles Perrottet, had actually undertaken the regular travel to Sydney while she stayed at home in Melbourne.
Anita Perrottet leaves the inquiry on Friday.  LOUIE DOUVIS
The Independent Commission Against Corruption will in coming days present evidence that Charles Perrottet, a younger brother of the former premier and “muscle” of the NSW Liberal Party’s hard-right faction, made the trips to meet Sydney property developer Jean Nassif, who has since fled the country. 
The corruption watchdog has alleged Charles Perrottet, along with two other Liberal operatives, shared in a $2 million bribe from the disgraced Toplace apartment developer in exchange for advancing his business interests.
Perrottet began his evidence before the ICAC late on Friday afternoon. He and Anita Perrottet are thought to be the first husband-and-wife duo to provide evidence to the ICAC on the same day.
In one of the most damaging days yet for a witness in the ICAC’s Operation Rosny, Anita Perrottet squirmed on Friday when repeatedly pressed on her tax records and huge payments made to her business despite no evidence of any work being done.
Charles Perrottet outside the ICAC on Friday.SAM MOOY
She was the sole shareholder of her company, raising the prospect that the deductions could be the subject of an audit by tax officials following her disastrous evidence.
Perrottet was shown a spreadsheet of business expenses that included several nights at The Darling, a five-star hotel in Pyrmont, and a hotel in Chatswood.


She was then shown a text exchange with her husband Charles on October 28, 2021, which showed he was at the airport.
“So how do you explain, then, why you were claiming for work expenses that you say you incurred in Sydney when you were at home in Melbourne?” Dwyer asked.
“I’m not sure,” Anita Perrottet replied. “It could be an error. I’m not sure.”
Counsel assisting the commission Dr Peggy Dwyer, SC, said the ICAC had phone records and evidence placing Charles Perrottet in Sydney and he had met with Nassif.
The hearing was told of several other examples of flights, hotels and travel expenses in Sydney registered against Anita Perrottet’s company even though she wasn’t there.
Anita Perrottet said she couldn’t remember specific work trips but insisted she would have been meeting with lobbyist Jeremy Greenwood.
Two firms owned by Greenwood ultimately paid $660,000 to Perrottet’s company despite no record of any written work. She has claimed her work was for “verbal advice” and she was paid so handsomely because Greenwood “liked the work I was doing”.
The ICAC believes the payments to her company were a way of washing money given by Nassif to her husband.
Her company was paid $313,500 between July 2020 and December 2021, and $347,499 between January 2022 and December 2022, totalling $660,999. That figure is almost exactly one-third of the $2 million bribe Nassif is alleged to have agreed to pay Charles Perrottet and two other Liberal operatives.
“That’s an enormous amount of money to be paid for circumstances where you cannot produce a scrap of evidence in relation to work done,” Dwyer said. “Do you agree?”
She said she did not. “I believe I was paid what I’m worth. Jeremy believed I was a huge value-add.”
Charles Perrottet, a senior BP executive for more than a decade, was the “muscle” of the Right faction of the NSW Liberal Party and a behind-the-scenes negotiator on factional deals and agendas.
Asked whether his wife had ever claimed any expenses for work he actually did, he responded: “I didn’t do the finances, so I couldn’t be certain.”
The ICAC alleges Charles Perrottet was involved in multiple schemes that may have breached electoral laws or constituted corrupt conduct.
This included sharing in the $2 million bribe from Nassif to stack Liberal Party branches and damage the careers of two fierce opponents, cabinet minister David Elliott and building commissioner David Chandler. 
The ICAC heard of a text message Charles Perrottet sent to his wife in which he said he planned to “execute” Elliott, whom he called a “prick”.
David Elliott, who is not accused of any wrongdoing, arrives at the ICAC on Friday.PETER RAE
Nassif fled Australia in 2022 and police have since zeroed in on him for serious fraud allegations relating to loans he secured to prop up his failing company Toplace. Nassif will give evidence via video link next week.
Charles Perrottet told the ICAC he had met Nassif in person up to 12 times.
He said Nassif would often complain about what he regarded as unfair treatment for his construction projects and was particularly angry about Elliott’s objection to various developments.
Elliott was also a factional opponent of Charles Perrottet.
Perrottet on Friday conceded he “may have” told Nassif he was “working on” getting rid of Elliott.
“I can’t remember specifics about saying that but I probably had that conversation,” he said.
The inquiry continues.

Read more from Sydney’s best coverage of ICAC’s Operation Rosny


It might be niche programming, but ICAC After Dark delivers. When the Independent Commission Against Corruption sits long past its usual hours of 4pm, they are driving towards a point.

On Friday, the commission sat past 5pm when counsel assisting Dr Peggy Dwyer, SC, asked Charles Perrottet about one of the key allegations: that branch-stacking among the Liberals in The Hills Shire Council was done to further the interests of property developer Jean Nassif, who is now a wanted man.

The ICAC’s Operation Rosny is examining sections of the NSW Liberal Party, Catholic Schools NSW and business figures in Sydney. Alexandra Smith explains what we learnt in week five.

Five weeks into the blockbuster inquiry and the revelations keep coming. Here are five things we learnt this week.

Spence had a dim view of Whitelaw

Two of the witnesses worked in the office of former planning minister Anthony Roberts, but their evidence was not exactly flattering of each other. Chris Spence, who was chief of staff to Roberts, has denied pushing for David Chandler’s removal from the role of NSW Building Commissioner.

Christopher Spence leaves the ICAC during a break on Monday during the Operation Rosny inquiry. JANIE BARRETT

But he had some choice words for Dylan Whitelaw, who was also in Roberts’ office and a member of the Reformers right-wing sub-faction. Whitelaw had told the ICAC Spence wanted then-fair trading minister Eleni Petinos to do something with a supposedly damaging video of David Chandler, but came into his office one day and said words to the effect of “Eleni f---ed it up”.

Spence said that evidence was not correct, and pointed out he worked in Parliament House while Whitelaw worked at 52 Martin Place.


“Dylan Whitelaw was not in a position that every time I walked into the office, I would just disclose things like that and rant and rave. He is delusional. It did not happen.”

RELATED ARTICLE

Public flock to best show in town, where witness suffers from ICAC-induced amnesia

Money for jam

Anita Perrottet did a lot of her work verbally, she told the inquiry. She denied lying under oath to cover for her husband Charles, who is a person of interest to the inquiry.

The ICAC is investigating whether invoices paid to her company were not for genuine work, but as a way to hide payment made by Jean Nassif to her husband. She denies this.


And there was the curious matter of Charles Perrottet attending a lunch at Jean Nassif’s home, to which he brought the children, but Anita Perrottet said she was not aware of this.

The ICAC heard evidence she received significant lump sum payments, which included more than $250,000 in a three-month period for her advice. Perrottet insisted this was for genuine work.

Dwyer suggested Perrottet was being paid “money for jam”, referring to the $10,000 a month she invoiced for “starting conversations about greyhounds”. Perrottet replied: “I was working, yes.”

Hell on Earth

Chandler’s appearance was interesting because he is the alleged victim of Nassif’s plot to remove him from office. He told the inquiry Nassif threatened him while he was investigating one of Nassif’s buildings.


Chandler told the commission about the first time he met developer Nassif in person, at a site inspection of a Toplace development in Botany. Nassif became angry and “really laid it into me well and truly”, Chandler told the corruption inquiry.

Former NSW builder commissioner David Chandler speaks outside the ICAC about builder Toplace.

    Chandler also served as a reminder that the victims were those who bought into Nassif’s Toplace developments.

    “It was hell on Earth and I just felt it was appropriate … to remind everybody that while this is all about people who were on the ascension to heaven and political purpose, at the back end of this there was a whole bunch of their constituents that were hurting, and they were in a world of pain,” he said outside the commission.

    You can dial in to give evidence

    Christian Ellis has so far declined to take up the opportunity to appear at the inquiry, even though the ICAC has said he could appear via video link. Presiding commissioner Fabian Gleeson, SC, has even made a pointed plea to Ellis, “if you’re listening”, to take the opportunity.

    One man who has apparently seized the invitation is Nassif, who is slated to appear next Friday.

    Jean Nassif is a person of interest in this inquiry.INSTAGRAM

    The property developer fled Australia in December 2022 to hide in a small village in northern Lebanon. As he is overseas, the ICAC does not have the power to compel him to appear; however, as with all persons of interest, he was invited to give evidence.

    Perrottet v Elliott

    Charles Perrottet has told the ICAC he wanted his brother Dominic to dump David Elliott from cabinet when he became premier.

    His wife, Anita Perrottet, asked Charles: “Did Dom confirm that he isn’t going to give Elliott a ministry?”

    Charles Perrottet approaches the ICAC on Friday.SAM MOOY

    In reply, Charles Perrottet wrote: “We execute the prick as soon as the party room is over.”


    Perrottet told the corruption inquiry he wanted Elliott gone because “I was pretty annoyed at the time of the way David handled himself”.

    He earlier told the commission Elliott had run an “anyone but Dom” campaign against his brother.

    More to come

    Next week we’re due to hear from Charles Perrottet again on Monday and Tuesday, before Jeremy Greenwood is recalled on Thursday and Friday. All eyes, however, are expected to be on Nassif’s appearance later on Friday.

    Read more from Sydney’s best coverage of ICAC’s Operation Rosny



    One Justice, $3 Million, Zero Consequences

    Uncensored Objection: “Sixteen justices brought a bag of chips to the party. One brought a catered banquet, a private jet, and a superyacht, and here is why nobody can do a thing. 

    The Numbers – A watchdog group called Fix the Court keeps a running tally of every gift and free perk handed to the people who sit on the Supreme Court, and the newest version of that tally counts 515 gifts and complimentary benefits worth an estimated $3.62 million from 2004 forward, pieced together from the justices’ own financial disclosure forms, investigative reporting, public records requests and a Senate investigation. 

    Stretch the count across every year the database touches, including older records that are patchy and incomplete, and the total climbs to 735 gifts worth roughly $4.69 million. That figure covers 17 people. Nine of them are the justices deciding cases right now. Eight are recent former justices who have left the bench. 

    That distinction is the single most important thing on this page, and I will show you why in about sixty seconds. Now get this. One justice accounts for almost all of it – Clarence Thomas alone accounts for roughly $3.064 million of the $3.616 million total. Do the division. That comes to 84.7 percent of everything the group tallied for all seventeen justices across more than twenty years. 

    Narrow the lens to the nine justices on the bench today and the picture gets sharper still. Their tally since 2004 is 307 gifts worth about $3.231 million, and Thomas accounts for roughly 94.8 percent of that dollar figure, which means that if you set one man aside, the entire gift controversy at the current Supreme Court shrinks down to something around $166,412 spread across his eight colleagues over two decades. Every other justice in the database, sitting and retired, adds up to about $551,425 combined…”

    See also Fix the Court: “We’re the only group in the nation working to open up the most powerful, least accountable part of government – the Supreme Court – by advocating for a few simple “fixes.”


    Federal court clears Arkansas law potentially criminalizing librarians

    An Arkansas law that could put librarians behind bars for the books on their shelves is moving forward after a federal appeals court cleared the way for its implementation. 

    Act 372, which was passed by the Arkansas Legislature in 2023, had been tied up in federal court challenges for nearly three years. However, a federal appeals court recently ruled that the state can now enforce the law, leaving librarians criminally liable for providing materials deemed harmful to minors. 

    Under Section 1 of Act 372, library staff could face up to a year in jail for knowingly making available content that a prosecutor or jury determines is harmful or obscene for children. “Obscenity laws have been on the books in Arkansas for a long time,” said Ashley Burris, Director of the Lawrence County Library. “What’s new in Act 372 is criminalizing librarians.”

    Posted by at
    Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)