Wednesday, January 5, 2011
The All Powerful Monsanto
The DemocracyNow news clip (see below) is but another example demonstrating the power that Monsanto yields over the worlds' food supply.
This reminds me of how Monsanto, along with the U.S., was able to garner support from the World Trade Organization (WTO) in order to retaliate against the EU ban on Monsanto’s rbGH infested beef and milk products:
"The European Union instituted a ban on the importation of beef injected with bovine growth hormones. These hormoneare manufactured in the United States by Monsanto Corp. . .The hormone was approved in 1993 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. . .The United States, on behalf of Monsanto, claimed to the WTO that the ban amounted to an unfair barrier to U.S. beef exports. The WTO ruled in favor of the United States and allowed the U.S. government to impose a 100 percent tariff on $116.8 million worth of European imports. . . Thus, the WTO can rule that a country’s food, environmental, or work laws constitute an “unfair barrier to trade,” and penalize a country that does not remove them." (Robbins, Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism, 2005).
The EU could (at the time) afford to absorb these tariffs in order to maintain their food integrity. However, not all countries are financially able to stand up against Monsanto.
You can see the news clip here, WikiLeaks Cables Reveal U.S. Sought to Retaliate Against Europe over Monsanto GM Crops:
This reminds me of how Monsanto, along with the U.S., was able to garner support from the World Trade Organization (WTO) in order to retaliate against the EU ban on Monsanto’s rbGH infested beef and milk products:
"The European Union instituted a ban on the importation of beef injected with bovine growth hormones. These hormoneare manufactured in the United States by Monsanto Corp. . .The hormone was approved in 1993 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. . .The United States, on behalf of Monsanto, claimed to the WTO that the ban amounted to an unfair barrier to U.S. beef exports. The WTO ruled in favor of the United States and allowed the U.S. government to impose a 100 percent tariff on $116.8 million worth of European imports. . . Thus, the WTO can rule that a country’s food, environmental, or work laws constitute an “unfair barrier to trade,” and penalize a country that does not remove them." (Robbins, Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism, 2005).
The EU could (at the time) afford to absorb these tariffs in order to maintain their food integrity. However, not all countries are financially able to stand up against Monsanto.
You can see the news clip here, WikiLeaks Cables Reveal U.S. Sought to Retaliate Against Europe over Monsanto GM Crops:
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Senate Bill S510 Makes it illegal to Grow, Share, Trade or Sell Homegrown Food
Senate Bill S510 Makes it illegal to Grow, Share, Trade or Sell Homegrown Food
News - U.S. News
By Steve Green
http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com
S 510, the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2010, may be the most dangerous bill in the history of the US. It is to our food what the bailout was to our economy, only we can live without money.
“If accepted [S 510] would preclude the public’s right to grow, own, trade, transport, share, feed and eat each and every food that nature makes. It will become the most offensive authority against the cultivation, trade and consumption of food and agricultural products of one’s choice. It will be unconstitutional and contrary to natural law or, if you like, the will of God.” ~Dr. Shiv Chopra, Canada Health whistleblower
It is similar to what India faced with imposition of the salt tax during British rule, only S 510 extends control over all food in the US, violating the fundamental human right to food.
Monsanto says it has no interest in the bill and would not benefit from it, but Monsanto’s Michael Taylor who gave us rBGH and unregulated genetically modified (GM) organisms, appears to have designed it and is waiting as an appointed Food Czar to the FDA (a position unapproved by Congress) to administer the agency it would create — without judicial review — if it passes. S 510 would give Monsanto unlimited power over all US seed, food supplements, food and farming.
History
In the 1990s, Bill Clinton introduced HACCP (Hazardous Analysis Critical Control Points) purportedly to deal with contamination in the meat industry. Clinton’s HACCP delighted the offending corporate (World Trade Organization “WTO”) meat packers since it allowed them to inspect themselves, eliminated thousands of local food processors (with no history of contamination), and centralized meat into their control. Monsanto promoted HACCP.
In 2008, Hillary Clinton, urged a powerful centralized food safety agency as part of her campaign for president. Her advisor was Mark Penn, CEO of Burson Marsteller*, a giant PR firm representing Monsanto. Clinton lost, but Clinton friends such as Rosa DeLauro, whose husband’s firm lists Monsanto as a progressive client and globalization as an area of expertise, introduced early versions of S 510.
S 510 fails on moral, social, economic, political, constitutional, and human survival grounds.
1. It puts all US food and all US farms under Homeland Security and the Department of Defense, in the event of contamination or an ill-defined emergency. It resembles the Kissinger Plan.
2. It would end US sovereignty over its own food supply by insisting on compliance with the WTO, thus threatening national security. It would end the Uruguay Round Agreement Act of 1994, which put US sovereignty and US law under perfect protection. Instead, S 510 says:
COMPLIANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS.
Nothing in this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) shall be construed in a manner inconsistent with the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization or any other treaty or international agreement to which the United States is a party.
3. It would allow the government, under Maritime Law, to define the introduction of any food into commerce (even direct sales between individuals) as smuggling into “the United States.” Since under that law, the US is a corporate entity and not a location, “entry of food into the US” covers food produced anywhere within the land mass of this country and “entering into” it by virtue of being produced.
4. It imposes Codex Alimentarius on the US, a global system of control over food. It allows the United Nations (UN), World Health Organization (WHO), UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and the WTO to take control of every food on earth and remove access to natural food supplements. Its bizarre history and its expected impact in limiting access to adequate nutrition (while mandating GM food, GM animals, pesticides, hormones, irradiation of food, etc.) threatens all safe and organic food and health itself, since the world knows now it needs vitamins to survive, not just to treat illnesses.
5. It would remove the right to clean, store and thus own seed in the US, putting control of seeds in the hands of Monsanto and other multinationals, threatening US security. See Seeds – How to criminalize them, for more details.
6. It includes NAIS, an animal traceability program that threatens all small farmers and ranchers raising animals. The UN is participating through the WHO, FAO, WTO, and World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) in allowing mass slaughter of even heritage breeds of animals and without proof of disease. Biodiversity in farm animals is being wiped out to substitute genetically engineered animals on which corporations hold patents. Animal diseases can be falsely declared.
S 510 includes the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), despite its corrupt involvement in the H1N1 scandal, which is now said to have been concocted by the corporations.
7. It extends a failed and destructive HACCP to all food, thus threatening to do to all local food production and farming what HACCP did to meat production – put it in corporate hands and worsen food safety.
8. It deconstructs what is left of the American economy. It takes agriculture and food, which are the cornerstone of all economies, out of the hands of the citizenry, and puts them under the total control of multinational corporations influencing the UN, WHO, FAO and WTO, with HHS, and CDC, acting as agents, with Homeland Security as the enforcer. The chance to rebuild the economy based on farming, ranching, gardens, food production, natural health, and all the jobs, tools and connected occupations would be eliminated.
9. It would allow the government to mandate antibiotics, hormones, slaughterhouse waste, pesticides and GMOs. This would industrialize every farm in the US, eliminate local organic farming, greatly increase global warming from increased use of oil-based products and long-distance delivery of foods, and make food even more unsafe. The five items listed — the Five Pillars of Food Safety — are precisely the items in the food supply which are the primary source of its danger.
10. It uses food crimes as the entry into police state power and control. The bill postpones defining all the regulations to be imposed; postpones defining crimes to be punished, postpones defining penalties to be applied. It removes fundamental constitutional protections from all citizens in the country, making them subject to a corporate tribunal with unlimited power and penalties, and without judicial review. It is (similar to C-6 in Canada) the end of Rule of Law in the US.
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/marketfarming/2010-August/000229.html
News - U.S. News
By Steve Green
http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com
S 510, the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2010, may be the most dangerous bill in the history of the US. It is to our food what the bailout was to our economy, only we can live without money.
“If accepted [S 510] would preclude the public’s right to grow, own, trade, transport, share, feed and eat each and every food that nature makes. It will become the most offensive authority against the cultivation, trade and consumption of food and agricultural products of one’s choice. It will be unconstitutional and contrary to natural law or, if you like, the will of God.” ~Dr. Shiv Chopra, Canada Health whistleblower
It is similar to what India faced with imposition of the salt tax during British rule, only S 510 extends control over all food in the US, violating the fundamental human right to food.
Monsanto says it has no interest in the bill and would not benefit from it, but Monsanto’s Michael Taylor who gave us rBGH and unregulated genetically modified (GM) organisms, appears to have designed it and is waiting as an appointed Food Czar to the FDA (a position unapproved by Congress) to administer the agency it would create — without judicial review — if it passes. S 510 would give Monsanto unlimited power over all US seed, food supplements, food and farming.
History
In the 1990s, Bill Clinton introduced HACCP (Hazardous Analysis Critical Control Points) purportedly to deal with contamination in the meat industry. Clinton’s HACCP delighted the offending corporate (World Trade Organization “WTO”) meat packers since it allowed them to inspect themselves, eliminated thousands of local food processors (with no history of contamination), and centralized meat into their control. Monsanto promoted HACCP.
In 2008, Hillary Clinton, urged a powerful centralized food safety agency as part of her campaign for president. Her advisor was Mark Penn, CEO of Burson Marsteller*, a giant PR firm representing Monsanto. Clinton lost, but Clinton friends such as Rosa DeLauro, whose husband’s firm lists Monsanto as a progressive client and globalization as an area of expertise, introduced early versions of S 510.
S 510 fails on moral, social, economic, political, constitutional, and human survival grounds.
1. It puts all US food and all US farms under Homeland Security and the Department of Defense, in the event of contamination or an ill-defined emergency. It resembles the Kissinger Plan.
2. It would end US sovereignty over its own food supply by insisting on compliance with the WTO, thus threatening national security. It would end the Uruguay Round Agreement Act of 1994, which put US sovereignty and US law under perfect protection. Instead, S 510 says:
COMPLIANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS.
Nothing in this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) shall be construed in a manner inconsistent with the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization or any other treaty or international agreement to which the United States is a party.
3. It would allow the government, under Maritime Law, to define the introduction of any food into commerce (even direct sales between individuals) as smuggling into “the United States.” Since under that law, the US is a corporate entity and not a location, “entry of food into the US” covers food produced anywhere within the land mass of this country and “entering into” it by virtue of being produced.
4. It imposes Codex Alimentarius on the US, a global system of control over food. It allows the United Nations (UN), World Health Organization (WHO), UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and the WTO to take control of every food on earth and remove access to natural food supplements. Its bizarre history and its expected impact in limiting access to adequate nutrition (while mandating GM food, GM animals, pesticides, hormones, irradiation of food, etc.) threatens all safe and organic food and health itself, since the world knows now it needs vitamins to survive, not just to treat illnesses.
5. It would remove the right to clean, store and thus own seed in the US, putting control of seeds in the hands of Monsanto and other multinationals, threatening US security. See Seeds – How to criminalize them, for more details.
6. It includes NAIS, an animal traceability program that threatens all small farmers and ranchers raising animals. The UN is participating through the WHO, FAO, WTO, and World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) in allowing mass slaughter of even heritage breeds of animals and without proof of disease. Biodiversity in farm animals is being wiped out to substitute genetically engineered animals on which corporations hold patents. Animal diseases can be falsely declared.
S 510 includes the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), despite its corrupt involvement in the H1N1 scandal, which is now said to have been concocted by the corporations.
7. It extends a failed and destructive HACCP to all food, thus threatening to do to all local food production and farming what HACCP did to meat production – put it in corporate hands and worsen food safety.
8. It deconstructs what is left of the American economy. It takes agriculture and food, which are the cornerstone of all economies, out of the hands of the citizenry, and puts them under the total control of multinational corporations influencing the UN, WHO, FAO and WTO, with HHS, and CDC, acting as agents, with Homeland Security as the enforcer. The chance to rebuild the economy based on farming, ranching, gardens, food production, natural health, and all the jobs, tools and connected occupations would be eliminated.
9. It would allow the government to mandate antibiotics, hormones, slaughterhouse waste, pesticides and GMOs. This would industrialize every farm in the US, eliminate local organic farming, greatly increase global warming from increased use of oil-based products and long-distance delivery of foods, and make food even more unsafe. The five items listed — the Five Pillars of Food Safety — are precisely the items in the food supply which are the primary source of its danger.
10. It uses food crimes as the entry into police state power and control. The bill postpones defining all the regulations to be imposed; postpones defining crimes to be punished, postpones defining penalties to be applied. It removes fundamental constitutional protections from all citizens in the country, making them subject to a corporate tribunal with unlimited power and penalties, and without judicial review. It is (similar to C-6 in Canada) the end of Rule of Law in the US.
http://lists.ibiblio.org/
Will Food Bill S510 stop you from growing your own garden?
This article explains who will oversee this future government agency of "food safety" (former Monsanto attorney, Michael Taylor), what will be the "new" food standard for food safety (industrialized practices, GMO, hormones, antibiotics, etc) and how the new program will overwhelm small-scale, sustainble farmers with fees and strict mandates:
Will Food Bill S510 stop you from growing your own garden?
by Nancy Piscatello
NY Healthy Food Examiner
December 1st, 2010 11:43 am ET.
Food Bill S510 certainly has made a lot of people very nervous. Blogs and websites abound with a kind of hysteria unprecedented by a food bill. This one comes with good reason, folks: S510 gives a future government agency (not yet created, but to be overseen by former attorney for Monsanto, Michael Taylor, who implemented rBGH and unregulated genetically modified organisms) unlimited control and power over all US seed, food supplements, food and farming.
This new agency, under the rule of the Homeland Security Agency, will impose strict mandates for all farms to be industrialized, implementing GMO's, antibiotics, hormones, pesticides and the like to become the standard of operation. This goes against the safe and healthful practices of small, organic farmers, who do not use any of those substances.
NAIS, an animal traceability program, threatens small farmers and ranchers raising heritage breeds of animals and plants. The government would now have the power to simply wipe out entire fields or herds due to "rumors" of disease, with no need for proof. The elimination of biodiversity, for both plant and animal, benefits companies like Monsanto, that hold patents for genetically engineered substitutes. This practice has devastating potential for our food supply, but the monetary interests seem to overrule commonsense on this issue.
The Tester-Hagan Amendment gives hope to some that it will protect the small farmer from this bill; however, loopholes, rules and massive paperwork threaten to overwhelm small farmers. Without adequate funds to support a workforce, designated for the sole purpose of dealing with these new details, small farmers simply will not be able to compete.
So does S510 affect your right to farm at home; sell or trade to your neighbor; or buy at the *farmer's market? The bill, as written, gives the power to do just that. Time will tell how this issue will evolve. Perhaps a better question may be: has this kind of intervention ever proven positive before?
*Our farmer's markets in both Riverhead and Greenport could become a thing of the past, if this bill passes. Co ops that bring raw milk, pastured meats and eggs to consumers would be shut down. Healthy foods would become illegal contraband and citizens would be robbed of their right to health. Contact your senators opposing this bill. There's still time. For now.
http://www.examiner.com/healthy-food-in-new-york/will-food-bill-s510-stop-you-from-growing-your-own-garden
Will Food Bill S510 stop you from growing your own garden?
by Nancy Piscatello
NY Healthy Food Examiner
December 1st, 2010 11:43 am ET.
Food Bill S510 certainly has made a lot of people very nervous. Blogs and websites abound with a kind of hysteria unprecedented by a food bill. This one comes with good reason, folks: S510 gives a future government agency (not yet created, but to be overseen by former attorney for Monsanto, Michael Taylor, who implemented rBGH and unregulated genetically modified organisms) unlimited control and power over all US seed, food supplements, food and farming.
This new agency, under the rule of the Homeland Security Agency, will impose strict mandates for all farms to be industrialized, implementing GMO's, antibiotics, hormones, pesticides and the like to become the standard of operation. This goes against the safe and healthful practices of small, organic farmers, who do not use any of those substances.
NAIS, an animal traceability program, threatens small farmers and ranchers raising heritage breeds of animals and plants. The government would now have the power to simply wipe out entire fields or herds due to "rumors" of disease, with no need for proof. The elimination of biodiversity, for both plant and animal, benefits companies like Monsanto, that hold patents for genetically engineered substitutes. This practice has devastating potential for our food supply, but the monetary interests seem to overrule commonsense on this issue.
The Tester-Hagan Amendment gives hope to some that it will protect the small farmer from this bill; however, loopholes, rules and massive paperwork threaten to overwhelm small farmers. Without adequate funds to support a workforce, designated for the sole purpose of dealing with these new details, small farmers simply will not be able to compete.
So does S510 affect your right to farm at home; sell or trade to your neighbor; or buy at the *farmer's market? The bill, as written, gives the power to do just that. Time will tell how this issue will evolve. Perhaps a better question may be: has this kind of intervention ever proven positive before?
*Our farmer's markets in both Riverhead and Greenport could become a thing of the past, if this bill passes. Co ops that bring raw milk, pastured meats and eggs to consumers would be shut down. Healthy foods would become illegal contraband and citizens would be robbed of their right to health. Contact your senators opposing this bill. There's still time. For now.
http://www.examiner.com/healthy-food-in-new-york/will-food-bill-s510-stop-you-from-growing-your-own-garden
Senate Bill S510: Food Safety or Food Fascism?
Senate Bill S510: Food Safety or Food Fascism?
Posted On: August 22 2010
From Just Means
Of all the many facets of sustainable food, food safety is probably on the top of the list. After all, what good is it, if it's not safe to eat? Out of the perils of systematic pesticide and herbicide use, sloppy factory conditions and general negligence in the factory food sector, we find ourselves in a situation where a number of elected officials are looking to make food safety a priority in the United States. At its core, I respect the desire to make the food supply safer, but as Senate Bill S510 has taken a number of liberties against food independence, I wonder who's backing the bill and why? Certainly, it's not solely about food safety.
Senate Bill S510 is summarized to "A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to the safety of the food supply" except it has a number of dangerously fascist ideas nestled within its outlined text. Because a small farmer is now equated to the industrial farm, the mistakes of the industrial farm are laid onto the small farm. So now small farms, who have little to no recalls or health issues will be susceptible to being nickle-and-dimed by fees until they can no longer run their businesses without breaking the law. That's some scary business.
Let's look at who supports the bill. According to maplight.org, (sidenote: this site is straight-up awesome) huge corporations like General Mills, Kraft Foods North America, National Association of Manufacturers and 25 more organizations support this bill. In opposition: American Grassfed Association, Family Farm Defenders, Small Farms Conservancy 93 others in an open letter to address the Senate Bill S510.
The letter is to the point: the regulations that the government would like to enforce don't actually apply to small operations, specifically organic farms. The disease-laden corporate industry is infected within the large-scale operations where pushing product over quality is more important and safety can sometimes be overlooked. The Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) publishes an extremely up-to-date recall list proving this point effectively. Over the last three years of my purchasing local, responsibly-raised food, I have never once encountered a recall of any sort.
On Govtrack.us, where you can read the bill in its entirety, an anonymous answer to the question of redundancy within the Food Science Experts that work for the FDA was quite clear in its support of knowing the land from which food grows:
"Although one may try to argue that one incident is too many, it appears that the majority of the incidents actually occur in large producers who are "in it" for the money. To strangle the small farmer with regulations and taxations harms not just the industry, but the future of the next generation of farmers who would gain their skills of growing healthful food from this generation."
That's not to say family farms go without issue, but the small farms are able to catch issues quicker, track their product faster, contact their customer base personally and are held to a local reputation that means far more than any corporate marketing could ever buy.
Urge your senator to oppose this bill as it is written; it can severely impede the right of food independence, instill unjust laws upon sovereign tribal nations and turn our neighbors into criminals for taking their personal gastrointestinal safety into their own hands by using accountable, knowledgeable farmers to raise it. It is our own responsibility to ensure the food we eat is raised ethically with cleanliness and the utmost focus on food safety in the United States.
http://www.justmeans.com/Senate-Bill-S510-Food-Safety-or-Food-Fascism/27723.html
Posted On: August 22 2010
From Just Means
Of all the many facets of sustainable food, food safety is probably on the top of the list. After all, what good is it, if it's not safe to eat? Out of the perils of systematic pesticide and herbicide use, sloppy factory conditions and general negligence in the factory food sector, we find ourselves in a situation where a number of elected officials are looking to make food safety a priority in the United States. At its core, I respect the desire to make the food supply safer, but as Senate Bill S510 has taken a number of liberties against food independence, I wonder who's backing the bill and why? Certainly, it's not solely about food safety.
Senate Bill S510 is summarized to "A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to the safety of the food supply" except it has a number of dangerously fascist ideas nestled within its outlined text. Because a small farmer is now equated to the industrial farm, the mistakes of the industrial farm are laid onto the small farm. So now small farms, who have little to no recalls or health issues will be susceptible to being nickle-and-dimed by fees until they can no longer run their businesses without breaking the law. That's some scary business.
Let's look at who supports the bill. According to maplight.org, (sidenote: this site is straight-up awesome) huge corporations like General Mills, Kraft Foods North America, National Association of Manufacturers and 25 more organizations support this bill. In opposition: American Grassfed Association, Family Farm Defenders, Small Farms Conservancy 93 others in an open letter to address the Senate Bill S510.
The letter is to the point: the regulations that the government would like to enforce don't actually apply to small operations, specifically organic farms. The disease-laden corporate industry is infected within the large-scale operations where pushing product over quality is more important and safety can sometimes be overlooked. The Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) publishes an extremely up-to-date recall list proving this point effectively. Over the last three years of my purchasing local, responsibly-raised food, I have never once encountered a recall of any sort.
On Govtrack.us, where you can read the bill in its entirety, an anonymous answer to the question of redundancy within the Food Science Experts that work for the FDA was quite clear in its support of knowing the land from which food grows:
"Although one may try to argue that one incident is too many, it appears that the majority of the incidents actually occur in large producers who are "in it" for the money. To strangle the small farmer with regulations and taxations harms not just the industry, but the future of the next generation of farmers who would gain their skills of growing healthful food from this generation."
That's not to say family farms go without issue, but the small farms are able to catch issues quicker, track their product faster, contact their customer base personally and are held to a local reputation that means far more than any corporate marketing could ever buy.
Urge your senator to oppose this bill as it is written; it can severely impede the right of food independence, instill unjust laws upon sovereign tribal nations and turn our neighbors into criminals for taking their personal gastrointestinal safety into their own hands by using accountable, knowledgeable farmers to raise it. It is our own responsibility to ensure the food we eat is raised ethically with cleanliness and the utmost focus on food safety in the United States.
http://www.justmeans.com/Senate-Bill-S510-Food-Safety-or-Food-Fascism/27723.html
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)