MONSANTO and Global Food Dominance

Monsanto, the TPP, and Global Food Dominance
By Ellen Brown
November 26, 2013

“Control oil and you control nations,” said US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in the 1970s. “Control food and you control the people.”

Global food control has nearly been achieved, by reducing seed diversity with GMO (genetically modified) seeds that are distributed by only a few transnational corporations. But this agenda has been implemented at grave cost to our health; and if the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) passes, control over not just our food but our health, our environment and our financial system will be in the hands of transnational corporations.

Profits Before Populations
Genetic engineering has made proprietary control possible over the seeds on which the world’s food supply depends. “Terminator” genes enable the production of sterile seeds, using a synthetic chemical catalyst appropriately called “Traitor” to induce seed sterility. Farmers must therefore buy seeds from their patent owners year after year. To cover these costs, food prices are raised; but the harm is far greater than to our pocketbooks.

According to an Acres USA interview of plant pathologist Don Huber, Professor Emeritus at Purdue University, two modified traits account for practically all of the genetically modified crops grown in the world today. One involves insect resistance. The other, more disturbing modification involves insensitivity to glyphosate-based herbicides (plant-killing chemicals). Often known as Roundup after the best-selling Monsanto product of that name, glyphosate poisons everything in its path except plants genetically modified to resist it.

Glyphosate-based herbicides are now the most commonly used herbicides in the world. Glyphosate is an essential partner to the GMOs that are the principal business of the burgeoning biotech industry. Glyphosate is a “broad-spectrum” herbicide that destroys indiscriminately, not by killing unwanted plants directly but by tying up access to critical nutrients.

Because of the insidious way in which it works, it has been sold as a relatively benign replacement for the devastating earlier dioxin-based herbicides. But a barrage of experimental data has now shown glyphosate and the GMO foods incorporating it to pose serious dangers to health. Compounding the risk is the toxicity of “inert” ingredients used to make glyphosate more potent. Researchers have found, for example, that the surfactant POEA can kill human cells, particularly embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells. But these risks have been conveniently ignored.

The widespread use of GMO foods and glyphosate herbicides helps explain the anomaly that the US spends over twice as much per capita on healthcare as the average developed country, yet it is rated far down the scale of the world’s healthiest populations. The World Health Organization has ranked the US LAST out of 17 developed nations for overall health.

Sixty to seventy percent of the foods in US supermarkets are now genetically modified. By contrast, in at least 26 other countries — including Switzerland, Australia, Austria, China, India, France, Germany, Hungary, Luxembourg, Greece, Bulgaria, Poland, Italy, Mexico and Russia — GMOs are totally or partially banned; and significant restrictions on GMOs exist in about sixty other countries.

A ban on GMO and glyphosate use might go far toward improving the health of Americans. But the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a global trade agreement for which the Obama Administration has sought Fast Track status, would block that sort of cause-focused approach to the healthcare crisis.

CONTINUE: http://www.globalresearch.ca/monsanto-the-tpp-and-global-food-dominance/5359491

Genetically Modified Politicians: Their Battle to Persuade the Public to Accept GM Food
By Lesley Docksey
November 27, 2013

The official UK government policy on genetically modified (GM) crops is “precautionary, evidence-based and sensitive to public concerns”. Who are they kidding?

My heart always sinks when, listening to the BBC’s Today programme, someone from the Department for International Development starts talking about the “international food crisis”, and the starving people in all those poor undeveloped countries (the ones we helped to pauper with our empire building). I know for sure that in the next day or two, in the top political slot on Today, I’ll be listening to Environment Minister Owen Paterson telling us that we must embrace GM technology if we want to feed the world. It normally coincides with his giving a speech or two about the wonders of GM crops and food, full of outrageous and unscientific statements. Prime Minister David Cameron chips in with a comment to the media about how Britain is losing the scientific race to feed the world.

It happens with depressing regularity, and it never goes as smoothly as they hope. Although Monsanto has, for now, withdrawn from Europe, the lobbying of politicians is relentless. Last year the GM companies, having met with British ministers at a little-publicised ‘ Growing for Growth’ conference, started another push to promote GM. They were immediately backed up by Owen Paterson insisting that GM food will sort our problems – no worries. He was followed in July by David Cameron saying Europe was “being left behind” even though the previous month it had been disclosed that GM food is banned from all the restaurants and cafes in the Palace of Westminster, and he himself was refusing to say whether he’d feed GM food to his family.

Chivvied by the biotech people, Patersonmade a further push later last year but the campaign was spoilt in January by a report stating that almost 50% of the world’s food is wasted. The hunger is a result of how we manage the world, not the earth’s inability to feed us.

Perhaps the biotech companies were encouraged by a survey published in March last year, showing that more people were now “unconcerned” about GM crops and food. The trouble with surveys like this is that you can point to the bit that supports your opinion and, if you are the Environment Secretary, Prime Minister or perhaps a biotech CEO, happily ignore the rest. So while both ministers and media trumpeted the news that more people (25%) were now unconcerned about GM food (up from 17% in 2003), they ignored the other 75%, especially the 46% that remain concerned about the technology and its risks.

However, according to Farmers Weekly, those who took part were also asked which crops they would be happy to see grown – in the UK. Having obviously listened to Paterson’s intemperate and inaccurate statements about Golden Rice, 64% said they would “theoretically” support rice with added vitamin A. It would seem the respondents have little knowledge of our climate (rice grows in hot climates and though some high-altitude strains exist, they need levels of sunshine we can’t provide); agriculture (some people have succeeded in growing rice in UK greenhouses, which hardly compares with fields of wheat, maize and canola/rape); biology (carrots, spinach, kale, cabbage, pumpkins, winter squash etc. are all high in beta-carotene/vitamin A. No need to add it to rice, just eat a balanced diet); and geography (the last time I looked, the UK was not part of the Philippines which is where Golden Rice is being developed, and where 1.7 million Filipino children suffer from vitamin A deficiency).

CONTINUE: http://www.globalresearch.ca/genetically-modified-politicians-their-battle-to-persuade-the-public-to-accept-gm-food/5359610

Monsanto behind Journal’s retraction of GMO rat-cancer link
Rady Ananda
Saturday, November 30, 2013
Activist Post

After a 2012 study linking cancer with Monsanto’s genetically modified corn, the scientific journal that published the study is now retracting it, after hiring a former Monsanto employee to fill a new editorial position reviewing biotechnology papers.

In September 2012, the scientific journal, Food and Chemical Toxicology(FCT), published the study of Gilles-Eric Séralini, et al. which reviewed the toxicological effects of Monsanto’s NK603, and its requisite Round-Up pesticide.

They found “severe toxic effects (including liver congestions, necrosis and kidney nephropathies), increased tumor rates and higher mortality in rats fed Monsanto’s genetically modified NK603 maize and/or the associated herbicide Roundup.”

In February of 2013, the FCT hired Monsanto’s former employee, Richard E. Goodman, for a new position reviewing biotechnology papers. On November 19, the FCT reported its decision to retract the published paper stating the study’s results were inconclusive because there weren’t enough rats used in the study, and the strain of rat used was not acceptable.

CONTINUE: http://www.activistpost.com/2013/11/monsanto-behind-journals-retraction-of.html

Tossers

GMO, Additives, Contaminants and Pesticides. European “Food Safety” on Behalf of the Food and Drink Conglomerates
By Colin Todhunter
Global Research, December 04, 2013

Our food in their hands: Whose interests does the European Food Safety Authority serve?
According to the website of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), it is the keystone of European Union (EU) risk assessment regarding food and feed safety. The website also states that the EFSA provides independent scientific advice and clear communication on existing and emerging risks and that it is an independent European agency funded by the EU budget. The authority operates separately from the European Commission, European Parliament and EU Member States.

Nice sounding words, but over half of the 209 scientists sitting on the agency’s various panels have direct or indirect ties with the industries they are meant to regulate. Indeed, according to a recent independent screening performed by Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) and freelance journalist Stéphane Horel, almost 60% of experts sitting on EFSA panels have direct or indirect links with industries regulated by the agency.

The report ‘Unhappy Meal. The European Food Safety Authority’s independence problem’ identifies major loopholes in EFSA’s independence policy and finds that EFSA’s new rules for assessing its experts, implemented in 2012 after several conflicts of interest scandals, have failed to improve the situation (1).

The authors warn that this situation casts a severe doubt on the credibility of the scientific output of the key body responsible for food safety at the EU, with the agency issuing recommendations and risk assessments on crucial public health issues such as food additives, packaging, GMOs, contaminants and pesticides.

According to the report, the EFSA’s new rules for assessing its experts’ interests enable dozens of experts with multiple commercial interests (consultancy contracts, research funding, etc) to still be granted full membership of EFSA panels, including a majority of panel chairs and vice-chairs.

Main author Stéphane Horel said: “We were shocked by our findings. Even without checking for undeclared interests, the number of conflicts of interest in this agency is very worrying. Experts with conflicts of interest dominate all panels but one. We found that the bulk of conflicts are from research funding and private consultancy contracts, but certain crucial institutions for scientists (scientific societies, journals) are also targeted by industry lobbying, and EFSA seems to ignore this”.

The report also shows that EFSA failed to properly implement its own new rules in several instances and that there is no visible difference between panels assembled under the new policy and those composed using the old policy.

CONTINUE: http://www.globalresearch.ca/gmo-additives-contaminants-and-pesticides-european-food-safety-on-behalf-of-food-and-drink-conglomerates/5360206

The Toxic Impacts of GMO Maize: Scientific Journal Bows to Monsanto, Retracts anti-Monsanto Study
By F. William Engdahl
Global Research, December 06, 2013

There exist rigid criteria for a serious scientific journal to accept a peer-reviewed paper and to publish it. As well there are strict criteria by which such an article can be withdrawn after publication.

The once-respected Elsevier Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology has apparently decided to violate those procedures and has announced it is retracting a long-term study on the toxic effects of Monsanto Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) — GMO Maize – it published a year ago.

The bizarre announcement comes only six months after Elsevier created a special new position, Associate Editor for Biotechnology (i.e. GMO), and fills it with a former Monsanto employee who worked for Monsanto’s front-organization — the International Life Sciences Institute — which develops industry-friendly risk assessment methods for GM foods and chemical food contaminants and inserts them into government regulations. Sound like something wrong with this picture?

Some Background
In its November, 2012 issue, The Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology published a paper titled, “Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize.” by Gilles-Eric Séralini and his team of researchers at France’s Caen University. [1] It was a highly important study as it was the first and, astonishingly, still the only long-term study under controlled conditions of possible effects of a diet of GMO Maize treated with Monsanto Roundup herbicide.

Seralini submitted his study results to the respected journal following a rigorous four month review by scientific peers regarding methodology and such. Seralini’s group tested more than 200 rats of a diet of GMO corn over a period of a full two years at a cost of €3 million. The study was done in absolute secrecy to avoid industry pressure.

The publication created an atomic blast rocking the entire edifice of the GMO industry. Pictures of test rats with grotesque cancer tumors appeared in newspapers around the world.

CONTINUE: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-toxic-impacts-of-gmo-maize-scientific-journal-bows-to-monsanto-retracts-anti-monsanto-study/5360394

Biotechnology, GMO and Scientific Analysis: The Powers of Corporate Manipulation
Retracting Seralini’s Study
By Colin Todhunter
Global Research, December 06, 2013

The biotech sector often yells for “peer review” when the anti-GMO movement refers to analyses or research-based findings to state its case. Despite Professor Seralini publishing his research findings (rats fed on GMOs) that were critical of the health impacts of GMOs in an internationally renowned peer-reviewed journal in 2012, his methodology and findings were nevertheless subjected to sustained attacks by the sector. Personal smears came his way too (1). Now he finds that his paper has been retracted by the journal.

Peer review or no peer review, it seems to matter little to the biotech sector when research findings have the potential to damage its interests. In any case, peer review is only for the sector’s critics. It doesn’t seem to apply much to it. For instance, in the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) scientists had continually warned regulators that GM crops could create unpredictable and hard to detect side effects, including allergies, toxin production, nutritional problems, and new diseases. They recommended that long-term studies were needed to fully assess the effect of GM foods on other crops, the ecosystem, and animal and human health, but these warnings were ignored (2).

Commercial interest, political strategy and lobbying, not science, is what really counts for this industry. Much of the research it uses to back up its claims is after all carried out by itself and is not fully open to outside scrutiny. Certain negative findings that would be detrimental to its interests are suppressed. According to Open Earth Source in a 2011 article in Huffington Post, this is certainly the case where glysophate (Round Up) has been concerned (3). It is therefore disconcerting that policy makers willingly accept the industry’s claims and facilitate its aims, not least in the UK.    

GeneWatch UK has revealed how Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer, and BASF (all biotech companies) under the guise of the ‘Agricultural Biotechnology Council’ held a meeting in June 2012 with government ministers and academics to formulate a ‘strategy’ to promote GMO in schools, to ‘educate’ the public and to ‘improve’ the regulatory framework favouring GMOs, while encouraging farmers to change their farming methods to fully accommodate the GMO products the companies produce.

CONTINUE: http://www.globalresearch.ca/biotechnology-gmo-and-scientific-analysis-the-powers-of-corporate-manipulation/5360493

WIDESPREAD GMO CONTAMINATION: Did Monsanto Plant GMOs Before USDA Approval?
By Cassandra Anderson and Anthony Gucciardi
May 04, 2012

Did Monsanto actually plant genetically modified alfalfa before it was deregulated by the USDA?
There is some shocking evidence that, until recently, was withheld from the public showing that Monsanto’s genetically altered alfalfa may have been set free in 2003 — a full two years or more before it was deregulated in 2005. In a letter, obtained by NaturalSociety with permission to post for public viewing, it becomes clear that the USDA may have turned a blind eye to the entire situation, allowing widespread GMO contamination of GMO-free crops.

Amazingly, the letter actually suggests that the USDA was fully aware of the situation. In order to fully understand the intricate details of this event, it is first important to understand a few key factors regarding alfalfa and its connection to the entire food supply.

Alfalfa is a perennial plant that grows for more than 2 years and may not need to be replanted each year like annuals. Because it is a perennial plant, it is exceptionally vulnerable to contamination. Interestingly, the modified alfalfa — created by Monsanto in partner with a group known as Forage Genetics — was the first perennial plant to be deregulated for open planting by the USDA. But did Monsanto unleash the plant before this occurred?

This is very serious because it is only a matter of time before alfalfa across America could be corrupted with Monsanto’s patented genetically modified trait. Organic meat and dairy could be tainted when animals are fed the modified alfalfa as well, threatening the very integrity of the organic food supply. What’s more, the contamination of natural alfalfa could be nearly impossible — if not entirely impossible — to remedy, so it could actually fracture the genetic stability of the entire crop on a global scale.

CONTINUE: http://www.globalresearch.ca/widespread-gmo-contamination-did-monsanto-plant-gmos-before-usda-approval

Oh yeah!



Monsanto seed plant construction halted in Argentina


Published time: January 09, 2014 03:58
Get short URL



Photo by ECOS Cordoba
Photo by ECOS Cordoba










Share on tumblr







Tags
Court, Ecology, Food, GMO, Health, Law, Monsanto, South America
A labor appeals court in north-central Argentina ruled that the construction of a Monsanto plant is unconstitutional, halting work on the site.

The three judge court ruled 2-1 in favor of the activists who filed a legal appeal against Monsanto’s GMO seed plant on environmental protection grounds in the municipality of Malvinas Argentinas, located in central Cordoba Province.

“We have filed a criminal complaint to inform the prosecutor of certain irregularities in violation of environmental law that have occurred in the heart of the Ministry of the Environment which is involved with authorizations of projects,” attorney Raúl Montenegro told Revolution News.

The construction at the site has been suspended until an environmental assessment is completed to determine the plant’s future impact on the area.

Local newspaper La Voz reported that the environmental study could be completed as soon as early February.

The multinational company said it will appeal the decision. “We consider our right to build legitimate since we have complied with all legal requirements and have obtained authorization to build according to the regulations,” said Monsanto’s statement.

The company stated that it already conducted an environmental assessment, which is currently under the review by the provincial Secretary of the Environment.

Activists had been blockading the construction site for 113 days, preventing workers from completing work on the plant.

Monsanto countered in a statement that “for over three months Monsanto employees and contractors had not been able to exercise their right to work, due to the action of extremists who blocked the site, incited violence and systematically ignored judicial decisions."

In October a new report revealed that pesticides sold by Monsanto are linked to health problems ranging from birth defects to elevated rates of cancer in Argentina. A lack of regulations has led to widespread misuse of Monsanto’s products in the Latin American nation.

An Associated Press investigation pointed to a clear link between the use of pesticides sold by Monsanto and worsening health problems in Argentina. The AP documented a number of occasions when toxic pesticides were used close to populated areas and consequently contaminated the water supply and caused health problems.

The multinational company is facing global criticism elsewhere as well. In October thousands took to streets across the world’s cities to protest the use of GMO products, with Monsanto a common target. Over 50 countries have been taking part in the march for world food day, and across 47 different US states.

The demonstrators have been calling for the permanent boycott of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and “other harmful agro-chemicals,” according to March Against Monsanto’s official webpage.

A previous anti-Monsanto protest was held in May. It started as a small event, but turned into a global campaign with over 2 million people in 436 cities, across 52 countries, joining the rallies.

Monsanto saw its shares surge by more than 2 percent on Wednesday morning after announcing better-than-expected first quarter earnings earlier that day. The company said that for the quarter ending November 30, 2013 it earned $368 million, or 69 cents per share. One year earlier, the company earned only $339 million during that period, the Associated Press reported.

bobhardee wrote: Oh yeah!

Right!

And keep in mind all the other companies Monsanto has bought up worldwide to get a finger into every kind of porridge you can think of.

If they cant shove their poisoned GMO up our throats one way, than surely in another.

  

For you lovers of pig and bacon this should "tweek" your stomachs...

GMO feed turns pig stomachs to mush! Shocking photos reveal severe damage caused by GM soy and corn

(NaturalNews) If you have stomach problems or gastrointestinal problems, a new study led by Dr. Judy Carman may help explain why: pigs fed a diet of genetically engineered soy and corn showed a 267% increase in severe stomach inflammation compared to those fed non-GMO diets. In males, the difference was even more pronounced: a 400% increase. (For the record, most autistic children are males, and nearly all of them have severe intestinal inflammation.)

The study was conducted on 168 young pigs on an authentic farm environment and was carried out over a 23-week period by eight researchers across Australia and the USA. The lead researcher, Dr. Judy Carman, is from the Institute of Health and Environmental Research in Kensington Park, Australia. The study has now been published in the Journal of Organic Systems, a peer-reviewed science journal.

The study is the first to show what appears to be a direct connection between the ingestion of GMO animal feed and measurable damage to the stomachs of those animals. Tests also showed abnormally high uterine weights of animals fed the GMO diets, raising further questions about the possibility of GMOs causing reproductive organ damage.

Proponents of corporate-dominated GMO plant science quickly attacked the study, announcing that in their own minds, there is no such thing as any evidence linking GMOs to biological harm in any animals whatsoever. And they are determined to continue to believe that, even if it means selectively ignoring the increasingly profound and undeniable tidal wave of scientific studies that repeatedly show GMOs to be linked with severe organ damage, cancer tumors and premature death.

See complete article & video Truth About GMO's at:
http://www.naturalnews.com/040727_GMO_feed_severe_inflammation_pig_stomachs.html#

________________________________________________
As it is below; so it is above

Federal Law Would Make GMO Labeling Voluntary, Preempt State Laws
Melissa Melton
Monday, January 13, 2014
Activist Post

Claiming they are merely seeking a “national solution,” mega food corporations are pushing a federal GMO labeling law.

The problem is, the law would be voluntary and it would preempt every state in this country from passing legislation that isn’t, according to a draft obtained by Politico.

But the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which represents such food and beverage leaders as ConAgra, PepsiCo and Kraft, isn’t exactly joining the anti-GMO movement. It’s advocating for an industry-friendly, law with a voluntary federal standard — a move that food activists see as a power grab by an industry that has tried to kill GMO labeling initiatives every step of the way.

GMA is looking for a federal solution to GMO labeling that would require the FDA to set up a voluntary labeling standard for foods that do not contain GMOs and determine the safety of GMO products. A section-by-section summary of the food industry’s legislation reveals it would preclude states from adopting any laws that are not identical to the federal requirements and create a legal framework so that FDA can take a more active role in regulating GMO-labeling claims. [emphasis added]

While the draft also says the GMO industry must submit to further FDA oversight, that “oversight” apparently involves GMO food makers turning in their own safety determination reports for review — just like Big Agra giants such as Monsanto already do for their GMO crops now. So, really it would just be more business as usual.

CONTINUE: http://www.activistpost.com/2014/01/federal-law-would-make-gmo-labeling.html

US 'superweeds' epidemic shines spotlight on GMOs
By Veronique Dupont
13-01-'14

The United States is facing an epidemic of herbicide-resistant "superweeds" that some activists and researchers are blaming on GMOs, an accusation rejected by industry giants.

According to a recent study, the situation is such that American farmers are "heading for a crisis."

Many scientists blame overuse of herbicides, prompted by seeds genetically modified to resist them.

"In parts of the country, weeds resistant to the world's most popular herbicide, glyphosate, now grow in the vast majority of soybean, cotton, and corn fields," many of which were planted with seeds resistant to the weedkiller, said the study published in the journal Science in September.

Earlier this month, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced it was considering the release of new genetically-engineered seeds that are resistant to multiple herbicides.

But "weeds that can shrug off multiple other herbicides are also on the rise," the study said.

Nearly half (49 percent) of all US farmers said they had "glyphosate resistant weeds" on their farms in 2012, according to the most recent review from agri-business market research firm Stratus.

CONTINUE: http://news.yahoo.com/us-39-superweeds-39-epidemic-shines-spotlight-gmos-021125425.html

Supreme Court Hands Monsanto Victory Over Farmers on GMO Seed Patents and Ability to Sue
By RT
Global Research, January 14, 2014
RT 13 January 2014

The US Supreme Court upheld biotech giant Monsanto’s claims on genetically-engineered seed patents and the company’s ability to sue farmers whose fields are inadvertently contaminated with Monsanto materials.

The high court left intact Monday a federal appeals court decision that threw out a 2011 lawsuit from the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association and over 80 other plaintiffs against Monsanto that sought to challenge the agrochemical company’s aggressive claims on patents of genetically-modified seeds. The suit also aimed to curb Monsanto from suing anyone whose field is contaminated by such seeds.

The group of plaintiffs, which included many individual American and Canadian family farmers, independent seed companies and agricultural organizations, were seeking preemptive protections against Monsanto’s patents. The biotech leviathan has filed over 140 lawsuits against farmers for planting the company’s genetically-engineered seeds without permission, while settling around 700 other cases without suing.

None of the plaintiffs are customers of Monsanto and none have licensing agreements with the company. The group argued that they do not want Monsanto’s genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) and want legal protection in case of inadvertent contact with the company’s products.

The appeals court decision was based on Monsanto’s supposed promise not to sue farmers whose crops – including corn, soybeans, cotton, canola and others – contained traces of the company’s biotechnology products.

In a June 2013 ruling, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, DC said it was inevitable, as the farmers’ argued, that contamination from Monsanto’s products would occur. Yet the appeals panel also said the plaintiffs do not have standing to prohibit Monsanto from suing them should the company’s genetic traits end up on their holdings “because Monsanto has made binding assurances that it will not ‘take legal action against growers whose crops might inadvertently contain traces of Monsanto biotech genes (because, for example, some transgenic seed or pollen blew onto the grower’s land).’”

CONTINUE: http://www.globalresearch.ca/supreme-court-hands-monsanto-victory-over-farmers-on-gmo-seed-patents-and-ability-to-sue/5364782

GMOs VS BRICS: AN UPDATE
By Joseph P. Farrell
January 17, 2014

One of the stories I’ve tried to stay abreast of here is the growing geopolitical implication of GMOs and the backlash against them, and the geopolitical implication of that backlash. As Dr. Scott deHart and I pointed out in Transhumanism: A Grimoire of Alchemical Agendas, and as other researchers have also observed (notably F. William Engdahl), the genesis of GMOs has its origins in studies undertaken and sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation and other business interests during the 1950s, studies that had as a goal the corporatizing, and hence control of, the world’s food supply.

In short, GMOs can be patented, and royalties charged for them. Heirloom seeds, while they can be sold, cannot be patented and hence controlled.

But with the growing worldwide scrutiny and oppositions to GMOs, from India to Europe and Russia, I have made the prediction that one will eventually see the BRICSA nations making anti-GMO attitudes and policies part of their geopolitical agenda, to the point that they were eventually enter direct competition against the USA and its big agribusiness companies like Mon(ster)santo by selling heirloom seeds on the world market, and eventually, they will attempt to do so in the American market itself.

In that context, I blogged recently about the Chinese government rejecting a a shipment of American GMO corn because it did not meet Chinese regulatory standards.

CONTINUE: http://gizadeathstar.com/2014/01/gmos-vs-brics-update/

Operation: Monsanto Stock Plunge and Panic


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovCrpTcfF3M


Are You Investing in Monsanto’s Toxic Legacy Without Realizing It? Mutual Funds and Monsanto Stocks
By Brandon Baker
April 11, 2014

Monsanto didn’t achieve $11.8 billion in sales and 404 facilities in 66 countries all on its own.

The company is valued at $60 billion in the marketplace with 525 million shares outstanding, but the three largest mutual fund shareholders, Vanguard, Fidelity and State Street, own nearly 16 percent of Monsanto stock. By comparison, the seed giant’s CEO Hugh Grant owns less than 1 percent.

This all means there’s a solid chance that the toxic law manipulator may be nestled somewhere in your mutual fund or 401(k) plan. Those findings are part of a six-month investigation by Food Democracy Now! that results in the launch of a global divestment campaign against Monsanto.

CONTINUE: http://www.globalresearch.ca/are-you-investing-in-monsantos-toxic-legacy-without-realizing-it-mutual-funds-and-monsanto-stocks/5377520

French Parliament Moves Beyond Monsanto, Bans GMO Corn
By Brandon Baker
April 17, 2014

A decision Tuesday in France prevents the immediate cultivation of GMO corn. Photo courtesy of Shutterstock

France moved beyond Monsanto Tuesday, approving a law with far-reaching applicability for genetically modified (GM)corn.

France’s lower house of Parliament banned GM corn in a sweeping fashion, Reuters reported. Now, no variety of GM corn can be cultivated because of its toxic threats to the soil, insects and human health.

Just a month ago France prohibited the sale, use and cultivation of Monsanto’s MON 810, the only GM crop that had been authorized in the European Union (EU).

“It is essential today to renew a widely shared desire to maintain the French ban,” Jean-Marie Le Guen, the minister in charge of Parliament relations told the National Assembly. “This bill strengthens the decree passed last March by preventing the immediate cultivation of GMO and extending their reach to all transgenic maize varieties.”

That means that future strains will be banned even if the EU approves them. That includes Pioneer 1507, a crop developed by DuPont and Dow Chemical that is still on the table for EU states and could be approved later this year.

The ban now heads back to the Senate, which rejected a similar one two months ago, calling it unconstitutional.

CONTINUE: http://www.globalresearch.ca/french-parliament-moves-beyond-monsanto-bans-gmo-corn/5378149

Activist Vandanda Shiva calls for ‘Satyagraha’ against Canadian Federal Bill C-18

April 12, 2014

Renowned environmental and agricultural activist Vandana Shiva on Friday called on Canadians to fight the federal government’s Bill C-18, which she says will rob farmers of the right to save and exchange seed, and further corporatize the country’s food system.

“We’re calling on people around the world to not cooperate with – and declare a satyagraha against – laws like C-18,” Shiva said, referring to the strategy of non-violent civil disobedience pioneered by the late Indian activist Mohandas Gandhi.

“It’s part of a global movement to reclaim seed as a commons. To reclaim seed freedom, which for me is three things: the freedom of the seed itself, as a living being, in its diversity, integrity and evolutionary potential; the freedom of the farmer to save and exchange seed, and to have their contribution to breeding recognized; and the freedom of the eater to get good food, because without good seed, there is no good food.

“One of the curses of our time is bad food. So how can we reward the people who are ruining our food system with monopolies?”

Shiva, a key figure in the international anti-globalization movement, spoke Friday in Edmonton in a keynote address to a conference hosted by Public Interest Alberta, a left-leaning Alberta advocacy group.

Bill C-18, the Agricultural Growth Act, was introduced by federal agricultural minister Gerry Ritz in December. Ritz said at the time the bill will give seed companies additional control over the crops they develop and encourage them to invest in the production of new domestic grain varieties.

“Our proposed changes will encourage increased plant breeding investment here in Canada and encourage foreign breeders to sell their varieties to our farmers,” Mr. Ritz said in Winnipeg. “Farmers will benefit from improved access to innovative new varieties.”

If passed, the bill would adopt the 1991 convention of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, an intergovernmental organization known as UPOV. Canada currently abides by the 1978 version of the UPOV plant breeders’ rights convention.

In part, the updated plant breeders’ rights law would allow seed companies to charge royalties based on farmers’ production, and hold authority over the storage and cleaning of seed that farmers expect to reuse.

The bill is strongly supported by the Canadian Seed Trade Association, whose members include Richardson International Limited, Monsanto and Syngenta, among others.

The National Farmers Union (NFU) opposes the bill. The union says it will restrict farmers’ ability to save seed for replanting and allow seed companies to collect royalties based on harvests.

“Farmers will lose the right to save seeds and use that seed for next years crop, without having to pay a royalty to the plant breeder’s rights holder,” said Jan Slomp, a Rimbey, Alberta dairy farmer and president of the National Farmer’s Union, who attended Shiva’s talk Friday.

He said farmers already pay royalties when they buy certified seed and should be free to do what they wish with it thereafter. Changing the system will reduce the quality of breeding, leading to less disease resistance and produce fewer of the qualities that people – as opposed to corporations – need from food crops. Costs for farmers will inevitably go up, Slomp said.

“Why should people care about that? Either the farmer will go broke, or the food will get more expensive for people who eat,” he said.

See Link: http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/2014/04/12/activist-vandanda-shiva-calls-for-satyagraha-against-federal-bill-c-18/

_____________________________________________________
As it is below; so it is above

The GMO Biotech Sector’s Contempt For Democracy: Don’t Be Fooled By The Propaganda
By Colin Todhunter
May 06, 2014

The majority of the British public who hold a view on genetically modified (GM) crops are against them (1). Yet the push to get them into the country and onto plates is in full swing. Strategically placed politicians like Secretary of State for Rural and Environmental Affairs Owen Paterson and scientists such as Professor Jim Dunwell and Sir David Baulcombe are conveying the message that GM food is both safe and necessary.

Although such politicians and scientists have links to the GM sector (2), which highlights serious conflicts of interest, certain news outlets report their views uncritically (3). And it doesn’t help matters that part of the pro-GM public relations assault on the British public is also being facilitated under the guise of ‘objectivity’ by the Science Media Centre (SMC). As with politicians and scientists who give the impression of being independent, the SMC veneer of independence serves to mask where its real interests lie.

The PRWatch website provides some interesting details about the SMC. It was conceived in 2002 and enjoys close links with the British government. It is now based at the Wellcome Trust, one of the world’s largest non-profit foundations. The Trust was founded on the fortune of American-born pharmaceutical magnate Sir Henry Wellcome, whose drug company has since evolved to become GlaxoSmithKline. The Wellcome Trust gives the SMC more than the five percent of annual income at which other institutional funding is capped.

PRWatch goes on to state that the SMC received 34 percent of its nearly £600,000 in funding from corporations and trade groups for the fiscal year that ended March 2013. These figures are based on information provided the SMC’s own website. Its current funders include BASF, Bayer, and Syngenta, three of the world’s biggest pesticide and GMO corporations, as well as a number of agrichemical trade groups like CropLife International.

Given these powerful backers, should we be surprised that the SMC spearheaded attacks on French scientist Gilles-Éric Séralini in 2012 after his research team found serious health problems in rats fed Roundup Ready Monsanto GM corn, as well as in rats fed low doses of the herbicide Roundup itself without the GMO corn (4)? His findings struck at the heart of the GM sector.

CONTINUE: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-gmo-biotech-sectors-contempt-for-democracy-dont-be-fooled-by-the-propaganda/5380677

Monsanto, Syngenta and Bayer CropScience: The GMO Biotech Sector can’t win the Scientific Debate. Co-optation, Deception and Collusion
By Colin Todhunter
May 11, 2014

British Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary Owen Paterson is a staunch supporter of the GM sector (1). Despite criticisms of him being an industry puppet (2) and content to ignore the devastating, deleterious health, environmental, social and agricultural impacts of GMOs (3), both he and other officials like the EU’s chief science advisor Anne Glover (4) have been more than happy to act as mouthpieces for the GM sector by making false statements and claims about the benefits and safety of GMOs that fly in the face of scientific findings.

Paterson’s support for GMOs is being carried out in partnership with a number of institutions, including the Agricultural Biotechnology Council (ABC), which is backed by GM companies such as Monsanto, Syngenta and Bayer CropScience (5).

Evidence recently emerged of meetings and briefings involving ministers and the ABC and its industry backers, despite no such meetings with groups worried about the impact of GM on human health and the countryside. In response, GeneWatch UK made a Freedom of Information request to find out what was said at the briefings. Paterson’s department refused to give details. GeneWatch lodged a formal complaint with the Information Commissioner in the hope that ministers will be forced to admit how GM companies are driving government policy. The evidence strongly suggested that the Government is colluding with the GM industry to manipulate the media and plot the return of GM crops to Britain.

Paterson’s department refused to provide details of a telephone conference between the department and the ABC on June 10 last year. Ten days later, Paterson made a speech calling for opposition to be dropped and claiming GM crops and food were ‘probably safer’ than the conventional equivalent. It also refused to release a “message on media suggestions” sent by the ABC to the ministry last April, or details of discussions between Monsanto and the ministry two months before. In addition, his ministry would not provide details of a meeting and emails between former environment minister David Heath and the ABC.

However, details of certain emails have now been made public. They reveal what the veil of secrecy is trying to hide and what many strongly suspected: collusion between the government and the GM sector is rife.

CONTINUE: http://www.globalresearch.ca/monsanto-syngenta-and-bayer-cropscience-the-gmo-biotech-sector-cant-win-the-scientific-debate-the-options-are-co-option-deception-and-collusion/5381725

THE GMO SCRAPBOOK: NEW REPORT FUNDED BY EU COMMISSION QUESTIONS GMO UTILITY
by Joseph P. Farrell
May 5, 2014

This was was sent by Ms. M.W., and it’s quite lengthy (eleven pages), but worth sharing nonetheless.
http://www.foei.org/en/what-we-do/food-sovereignty/latest-news/who-benefits-from-gm-crops-2014

The summary of the article’s five main points is worth reproducing:

Who benefits from GM Crops? 2014

- The report reveals that 90 per cent of GM crops are grown in just six countries and by less than one per cent of the world farming population. An analysis of industry figures shows the claimed increase in GM planting in 2013 remains confined to these six countries.

- The number of countries cultivating genetically modified (GM) crops is in decline, with Poland and Egypt the latest countries to suspend GM crop production.

- There is also little evidence that new GM varieties are the best way to improve nutrition or increase our capacity to adapt to climate change. Ninety nine per cent of available GM crops on the market have been modified to resist pesticides or produce their own, resulting in spiraling pesticide use.

- Countries such as Mexico, Kenya, Egypt and Poland have recently suspended cultivation of certain GM crops. Around the world, experts are calling for a shift to agro-ecological farming methods to tackle hunger and malnutrition. These methods have been shown to double yields in Africa and effectively tackle pests.

- Countries such as the USA, Argentina and Brazil, some of the world’s top producers of GM crops, are seeing an upward trend in the use of chemical pesticides as a result of their long-term adoption of GM crops.

- In Africa GM crops are grown only in three countries, South Africa, Burkina Faso and Sudan. However, extreme pressure from biotech companies threatens to open up the continent to GM crops. A recent Kenyan decision to ban GM crops came under fire from lobbyists.

But now, go to the pdf link itself, and you find this interesting admission from the main article.

CONTINUE: http://gizadeathstar.com/2014/05/gmo-scrapbook-new-report-funded-eu-commission-questions-gmo-utility/

Barack Obama and the Monsanto betrayal
Jon Rappoport
Saturday, May 10, 2014
Activist Post

Under the selective radar of mainstream media, Barack Obama has been carving out a whole new level of support for Monsanto and other destructive biotech giants.

“At the G8 Summit held two weeks ago at Camp David, President Obama met with private industry and African heads of state to launch the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition, a euphemism for monocultured, genetically modified crops and toxic agrochemicals aimed at making poor farmers debt slaves to corporations, while destroying the ecosphere for profit.

“But African civil society wants no part of this latest Monsanto aligned ‘public private partnership.’ Whatever will the progressives do now that their flawless hero has teamed up with their most hated nemesis [Monsanto] to exploit an entire continent like they did to India not that long ago?…

“With a commitment of $3 billion, Obama plans to ‘partner up’ with mega-multinationals like Monsanto, Diageo, Dupont, Cargill, Vodafone, Walmart, Pepsico, Prudential, Syngenta International, and Swiss Re because, as one USAID representative says ‘There are things that only companies can do, like building silos for storage and developing seeds and fertilizers.’

“Of course, that’s an outrageous lie. Private citizens have been building their own silos for centuries. But it’s true that only the biowreck engineers will foist patented seeds and toxic chemicals on Africa.”
- Scott Creighton, “Obama Pitches India Model of GM Genocide to Africa”

Under the guise of replacing the “donor-recipient model” of charity with “smart business development that’s a win-win for everybody,” a new level of corporate-government colonialism is aimed at the continent of Africa. The new and improved strategy means bigger profits for the few and greater suffering and displacement for the many.

Support self-sufficiency for the small farmer? Expand the number of small farms growing nutritious and non-toxic food? Never heard of it. Not on the agenda — except in false propaganda statements and promises.

CONTINUE: http://www.activistpost.com/2014/05/barack-obama-and-monsanto-betrayal.html

Monsanto Double Standards and the Crumbling “Scientific Myths” of the GMO Biotech Sector
By Colin Todhunter
May 19, 2014

The GMO biotech sector is involved in a multi-pronged campaign to influence governments and the public about the benefits of its products. It uses various means.

It sets up or infiltrates institutions and co-opts prominent political and scientific figures to do its bidding (1).

It hijacks regulatory and policy making bodies (2,3). With help from the US Government, it assumes strategic importance in international trade negotiations and is then able to set a policy and research agenda, as has been the case in India with the Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture and the funding of agricultural research within the country (4,5).

It is shaping ‘free’ trade agreements to its own advantage (6). It mounts personal attacks on and tries to discredit key scientists who question its claims (7). And it arguably regards contamination as a means of trying to eventually render the whole debate about GMOS meaningless (9).

With its huge financial resources and the full backing of the US State Department (10), the sector is a formidable force.

However, despite all its wealth and influence, it is turning out to be a bad week for the GMO biotech industry.

When is good science bad science and bad science good science? When the industry says so

In 2012, a study led by Professor Gilles Seralini called into question the safety of GMOs and Round Up herbicide. The paper that conveyed the results was last year retracted by a prestigious scientific journal (11). The publisher of Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT), Elsevier, has now compelled the journal editor A. Wallace Hayes to publish a right of reply by the Séralini team.

According to the Séralini team, the editor of FCT uses double standards when it comes to publishing in favour of the industry. Hayes retracted the study despite the fact that he found neither fraud nor conscious misinterpretation. In a new article published in FCT, the scientists explain why they do not accept his conclusion. They denounce the lack of scientific validity of the reasons given for the retraction, explain why the Sprague-Dawley rat strain used is appropriate and describe the statistical results in depth concerning the blood and urine parameters affected, proving that the liver and kidney pathologies and the mammary tumours are solidly based.

Hayes justified his retraction by arguing that it is impossible to conclude a link between GMO and cancer, even though the word cancer was never used in the paper. Not all the tumours were cancers but they nevertheless brought death through internal hemorrhages and compressions of vital organs. Hayes also argued that ten rats per group, of the Sprague-Dawley strain, did not allow the level of statistical strength to conclude about the toxicity of the GMO and Roundup. But FCT has published two studies (Hammond & al., 2004; and Zhang & al., 2014) measuring the same number of rats of the same strain, without calling into question the strength of the statistics, let alone their conclusion – that the GMOs tested were safe.

CONTINUE: http://www.globalresearch.ca/monsanto-double-standards-and-the-crumbling-scientific-myths-of-the-gmo-biotech-sector/5382894

Genetically Modified Foods Unsafe? GM Foods and Allergies
By Jeffery M. Smith
May 19, 2014

Genetically modified (GM) foods are inherently unsafe, and current safety assessments are not competent to protect us from or even identify most dangers. Overwhelming evidence to support this conclusion is now compiled in the book Genetic Roulette: The documented health risks of genetically engineered foods, which presents an abundance of adverse findings and theoretical risks associated with GM foods. (1)

The book documents lab animals with damage to virtually every system studied; thousands of sick, sterile, or dead livestock; and people around the world who have traced toxic or allergic reactions to eating GM products, breathing GM pollen, or touching GM crops at harvest. It also exposes many incorrect assumptions that were used to support GM approvals. This article, excerpted from my book, summarizes some of the findings related to allergic and immune responses.

GM Soy and Allergies
Soy allergies jumped 50% in the U.K. just after GM soy was introduced. (2) If GM soy was the cause, it may be due to several things. The GM protein that makes Roundup Ready Soy resistant to the herbicide does not have a history of safe use in humans and may be an allergen. In fact, sections of its amino acid sequence are identical to known allergens. (3)

A portion of the transgene from ingested GM soybeans, along with the promoter that switches it on, transfers into human gut bacteria during ingestion. (4) The fact that the transformed bacteria survives applications of Roundup’s active ingredient, glyphosate, suggests that the transgene continues to produce the Roundup Ready protein. If true, then long after people stop eating GM soy they may be constantly exposed to its potentially allergenic protein, which is being created within their gut. (This protein may be made more allergenic due to misfolding, attached molecular chains, or rearrangement of unstable transgenes, but there is insufficient data to support or rule out these possibilities. (1))

Studies suggest that the GM transformation process may have increased natural allergens in soybeans. The level of one known allergen, trypsin inhibitor, was 27% higher in raw GM soy varieties. More worrisome, it was as much as sevenfold higher in cooked GM soy compared to cooked non-GM soy. (5) Not only is this higher amount potentially harmful, the finding also suggests that the trypsin inhibitor in GM soy might be more heat stable and, therefore, even more allergenic than the natural variety. (6)

It is also possible that changes in GM soy DNA may produce new allergens. Although there has never been an exhaustive analysis of the proteins or natural products in GM soy, unpredicted changes in the DNA were discovered. A mutated section of soy DNA was found near the transgene, which may contribute to some unpredicted effects. Moreover, between this scrambled DNA and the transgene is an extra transgene fragment, not discovered until years after soy was on the market. (7) The RNA produced is completely unexpected. It combines material from all three sections: the full-length transgene, the transgene fragment, and the mutated DNA sequence. This RNA is then further processed into four different variations, which might lead to the production of some unknown allergen.

Another study verified that GM soybeans contain an IgE-binding allergenic protein not found in nonGM soy controls, and that one of eight subjects who showed a skin-Xxxxx allergic reaction to GM soy had no reaction to nonGM soy. (9) Although the sample size is small, the implication that certain people react only to GM soy is huge.

CONTINUE: http://www.globalresearch.ca/genetically-modified-foods-unsafe-evidence-that-links-gm-foods-to-allergic-responses-mounts/7277