Genetically Manipulated Food News

New York Times article that I missed on how companies like Monsanto are preventing agricultural researchers from using their GM seed for research.

And here is an article about a BBC program that was aired in Australia last week that was extremely pro-GM food:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9183

GM's charm offensive
By Greg Revell - posted Friday, 17 July 2009

Am I really helping to starve Africans?

I feel really bad. I've just seen the documentary "Can GM save the world?" shown on SBS TV recently. As a critic of genetically modified (GM) foods, I was left wondering if I'm morally a bad person for contributing to the starvation of millions in Africa by opposing GM crops - at least that's what this documentary would have you believe.

But am I morally bankrupt for advocating clean, green food production systems rather than corporate controlled biotech seeds, pesticides and other industrial agrichemicals? If so, then that makes me, along with many scientists, environmental groups and most consumers, complicitous in a massive Mao-like genocide.

Maybe it's not me. Perhaps the documentary wanted me to think that. If you thought that the documentary sounded like a paid advertisement for the biotechnology industry, then you'd be forgiven for thinking so. The biotech industry has long recognised that their aggressive, and some say arrogant, style has sullied the impact that any direct advertising could possibly have. Far better to work with TV and radio researchers to promote your message using celebrities and the noble scientist as a proxy - preferably both at the same time. And the documentary's host, Jimmy Doherty is the perfect foil. His boffin appeal and pin-up boy good looks plays straight out of the Jamie Oliver school of geezer charm. Surround him with a slew of pro-GM scientists and create an air of impartiality by offering Jimmy as a self-styled poster child for sustainable farming and you've got a winning formula. A stroke of directorial genius I would have thought.

But charm offensive aside, the documentary's main conclusions were clear: GM was "so simple", "so natural" that it would be morally corrupt to be critical of a technology that "was amazing" and "offered hope" to millions in the developing world. Sure, there were nominal offerings by two GM critics, but quite apart from the fact that each had less than a minute of air time, they were both book-ended by rebuttals from GM scientists, ensuring that they served as little more than a linking device for the main pro-GM thrust.

The "GM will feed the world" myth is a deviously clever piece of PR. The need has arisen because GM food has not enjoyed the worldwide acceptance that their biotech inventors had hoped for. On the contrary, GM crops have engendered massive consumer resistance with environmental and consumer groups rallying together to create a powerful global "no GMO" voice. Reeling from this unexpected rejection and devoid of any saleable consumer benefits, the biotech industry needed a distraction. Their target was the emotional heart-strings of western consumers. And the vehicle? The hungry in the third world. Without their consent, the plight of the third world has been thrust into the service of biotech operatives.

The myth is powerful because who wants to be seen as opposing a technology that will feed hungry mouths? But can it? Before we slavishly succumb to its emotional pull, does the assertion stand up to scrutiny?

The framing of the "can GM feed the world?" question assumes a priori that there isn't enough food already being produced. This is demonstrably false. Critics point to a 2006 UN FAO report that acknowledges that world agriculture today produces 17 per cent more calories per person than it did 30 years ago despite a 70 per cent population increase, yet the gap between the fed and the underfed is greater than ever.

We now have the perverse situation where there are more obese people in the west than there are malnourished in the third-world. The real reason people go hungry is because they don't have the money to buy food, the arable land to grow it or because of war and conflict. The distorted global food trading system that favours large agribusiness interests at the expense of the subsistence farmer also plays its part.

Asking if GM can feed the world suggests that GM is the only solution. Omitted from consideration are truly environmentally, economically and culturally sustainable food production systems such as organics and biodynamics that place people and soils at the centre of their food security. New genetically modified magic beans that are subject to intellectual property rights are clearly not a solution donated to the world community for their attendant use.

To feed the hungry, GM crops need to be accessible to those who need them, yet 95 per cent of all GM crops are grown in just four countries: The US, Argentina, Canada and Brazil most of which are fed to animals, ostensibly to fatten up livestock for fast-food hamburgers and for use in other highly processed foods - no third world lives saved there.

But maybe GM crops have something special that will increase yields? With only two commercial GM traits available; one being herbicide resistance, the other that allows the plant to create it's own insect toxin, the current suite of GM crops are more about ensuring continued sales of pesticides more than feeding the hungry. There is simply no such thing as a commercially available GM crop to increase yield or exhibit drought tolerance. Such falsehoods are the flights of PR fancy but are required to sustain the "feed the world" myth.

As a society, we need to ask: Who is telling us that GM can solve world hunger? Not surprisingly, it's those who stand to benefit financially.

But surely we don't believe that Monsanto, the company that gave the world PCBs, Agent Orange, dioxins and GM crops, is now a benevolent philanthropist out to save needy people? If GM crops were truly about feeding the hungry, then why does Monsanto so aggressively assert their intellectual property rights by suing farmers for the simple act of saving seeds from their crops? Third world farmers simply cannot afford this legal risk, much less the royalty fees, expensive seeds and chemicals that GM agriculture mandates.

In response, we are starting to see a seismic change in people's attitudes when it comes to food. People are connecting the dots between a genetically modified, industrialised, global farming model and the impact to human health, the environment and global food security. Truly sustainable farming systems that nurture people, their soils and communities through a harmonic resonance with natural systems are experiencing a renaissance across the world as witnessed by the phenomenal growth of the organics sector and the proliferation of farmers markets in every city, town and village across the globe.

Most importantly the renaissance is helping to feed people where it's needed most - in the third world. In stark contrast, the only thing that GM crops are feeding is corporate profits.

Letter to Sydney Morning Herald On GM "Science"

Some readers, like Mr. Colin Jeffrey, think that genetically manipulated food is the product of good science and nothing to be afraid of. Well, thalidomide, DDT, and releasing the cane toad in Australia were all considered to be good science in their day. Just because someone wears a white coat and works in a clean, shiny laboratory does not make them a good scientist.

We know enough now about how unlabeled GM was inserted into our diets to be a bit skeptical of governmental reassurances. Politicians are always seeking funding for reelection, and thus they make sure that GM is given a green light with lax safety regulation. The safety testing involved lasts about three weeks to three months on lab rats, and if the rats don't die, then we get to eat the stuff. To hurry the "patented food" to market, there is no multi-generational tests done, and no inspection of the effects on reproduction.. All testing is done in corporate labs, with governmental labs simply rubber stamping the results.

Why is Fluoride in our Drinking Water?

I copied the following directly from the net, as I feel it is so important to know this information. Both Stalin and Hitler medicated the inmates of their gulags and concentration camps with this stuff, and for many years it has been in 60 percent of American drinking water, and is now being pushed in Australia too.

"Controversial fluoride is one of the basic ingredients
in both PROZAC (FLUoxetene Hydrochloride) and Sarin
nerve gas (Isopropyl-Methyl-Phosphoryl FLUoride).

Sodium fluoride, a hazardous-waste by-product from
the manufacture of aluminum, is a common ingredient
in rat and cockroach poisons, anesthetics, hypnotics,
psychiatric drugs, and military nerve gas. It's
historically been quite expensive to properly dispose
of, until some aluminum industries with an overabundance
of the stuff sold the public on the terrifically insane
but highly profitable idea of buying it at a 20,000%
markup, injecting it into our water supplies, and then
DRINKING it. Yes, a 20,000% markup: Fluoride--
intended only for human consumption by people
under 14 years of age--is injected into our drinking
water supply at approx. 1 part-per-million (ppm), but
since we only drink 1/2 of one percent of the total
water supply, the rest literally goes down the drain
as a free hazardous-waste disposal for the chemical
industry, where we PAY them so that we can flush their
expensive hazardous waste down our toilets. How many
salesmen dream of such a deal? (Follow the money!)"

Obscene Drug Mark Ups (U.S.A.)

The women who wrote this email and signed below are Federal Budget Analysts in Washington, DC :
Did you ever wonder how much it costs a drug company for the active ingredient in prescription medications? Some people think it must cost a lot, since many drugs sell for more than $2.00 per tablet. We did a search of offshore chemical synthesizers that supply the active ingredients found in drugs approved by the FDA. The chart below speaks for itself.

Celebrex 100 mg Consumer price (100 tablets): $130.27 Cost of general active ingredients: $0.60 Percen t markup: 21,712%

Claritin 10 mg Consumer Price (100 tablets): $215.17 Cost of general active ingredients: $0.71 Percent markup: 30,306%

Lipitor 20 mg Consumer Price (100 tablets): $272.37 Cost of general active ingredients: $5.80 Percent markup: 4,696%

Norvasec 10 mg Consumer price (100 tablets): $188.29 Cost of general active ingredients: $0.14 Percent markup: 134,493%

Paxil 20 mg Consumer price (100 tablets): $220.27 Cost of general active ingredients: $7.60 Percent markup: 2,898%

Prozac 20 mg Consumer price (100 tablets): $247.47 Cost of general active ingredients: $0.11 Percent markup: 224,973%

Xanax 1 mg Consumer price (100 tablets) : $136.79 Cost of general active ingredients: $0.024 Percent markup: 569,958%

Zithromax 600 mg Consumer price (100 tablets): $1,482.19 Cost of general active ingredients: $18.78 Percent markup: 7,892%

Zoloft 50 mg Consumer price: $206.87 Cost of general active ingredients: $1.75 Percent markup: 11 ,821%

So often, we blame the drug companies for the high cost of drugs, and usually rightfully so. But in this case, the fault clearly lies with the pharmacies themselves. For example, if you had to buy a prescription drug, and bought the name brand, you might pay $100 for 100 pills. The pharmacist might tell you that if you get the generic equivalent, they would only cost $80, making you think you are "saving" $20. What the pharmacist is not telling you is that those 100 generic pills may have only cost him $10! At the end of the report, one of the anchors asked Mr. Wilson whether or not there were any pharmacies that did not adhere to this practice, and he said that Costco, Sam's Club and other discount volume stores consistently charged little over their cost for the generic drugs. I would like to mention, that although these are a "membership" type store, you do NOT have to be a member to buy prescriptions there, as it is a federally regulated substance. You just tell them at the door that you wish to use the pharmacy, and they will let you in.

Sharon L. Davis, Budget Analyst, US Department of Commerce Room 6839 Office Fax: 202-482-5480 Email Address: sdavis@docgov

Mary Palmer, Budget Analyst, Bureau of Economic Analysis Office of Budget & Finance

My New York Times Comments on an Article by Pico Iyer

In response to Mr. Pico Iyer's article called "The Joy of Less"

(My comments follow)

As an American who has lived in several parts of the world, including Kyoto for a year, I couldn’t wait to learn to speak Japanese, and did so within six months of arriving there in 1966. I believe Mr. Iyer has chosen not to learn the language in order to maintain his sense of serenity. Learning a foreign language and also living in that country almost automatically mires one in its institutionalized problems. My observations now of Japan, having lived there a total of eight years, is that the modern culture is very frenetic, but is kept in a precarious balance of sanity, due to its traditional values and Zen-like qualities built into the language itself.

Having lived in Kyoto in the 60s however, I can hardly see any beauty in Kyoto these days, with its modern tall buildings obliterating the sky that used to be dominated by temples. Also, the levels of electromagnetic smog in the whole of Japan are beyond anything I can tolerate.

No, I currently reside in the Blue Mountains west of Sydney, Australia, where I write books, occasionally watch a DVD, cuddle my rabbit, and grow organic vegetables. I do worry about the state of America and the world though, as I don’t feel at all isolated from what looks like a growing worldwide political consolidation, when I would much prefer a return to an era like that of the ancient Greek city states.

NPR Allows Monsanto Greenwashing to Air

I cannot believe that a company like Monsanto is allowed to exist in this
world, let alone be supported by a public broadcasting station. Monsanto
is as evil as the tobacco industry was in covering up the harm that
tobacco has done to the world's citizenry. I personally will tell my
friends to stop sending in money to NPR if you continue to allow Monsanto
to be spewing its lies on the airwaves.

I am outraged by the 12 second ad that Monsanto has been running that
says, "Marketplace [an NPR program] is supported by Monsanto, committed to sustainable
agriculture, creating hybrid and biotech seeds designed to increase crop
yields and conserve natural resources. Learn more at ProduceMoreConserveMore.com"

The only agricultural practice proven to sustainably increase crop yields
while improving the soil's water-holding capacity is organic.

Major General Smedley Butler on his service to the U.S.A.

Here are the words of the most highly decorated military man in U.S history:

"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."[

Genetic Engineering Swine Flu

It is very likely that some mad scientists in America, or in another Western country, reversed engineered this current swine flu from the 1918 flu virus which they have resurrected from a body found in the arctic tundra. WHO is part of a Rockefeller-funded scheme to eliminate most of the people on this planet, and this is the first volley (or maybe the second volley, since bird flu may have been their first attempt} in their aim to kill most of us. I suggest that people avoid any flu vaccines these evil people create, and just stay alert.

Trading in Birth Certificates (Double Entendre)

I only found out a few months ago that the governments of the Commonwealth nations and the U.S., use our whole life's labor, individually valued at many millions of dollars, as collateral (earning interest!) against their national debt. It is a system that has been in place for at least 70 + years, since the Great Depression, when the U.S., and presumably other Western countries, became debtor nations. And it starts with your birth certificate.

There was a trust created in your name when you were registered as a baby, and there is an actual bond tracking number on your birth certificate. I looked up my own birth certificate and found the bond for it at fidelity.com. Commonwealth nation citizens, as well as U.S. citizens, can find their birth certificate bond on this same website.This bond can be used for the purposes of setting-off debt, and actually aids your country in reducing the national debt. This method has been successfully used by quite a few people who know about it, and obviously does not have mainstream coverage as it has been hidden for a long time.

To see this for yourself, follow the instructions below:

go to www.fidelity.com
Click on Research
Click on Quote
Click on Symbol Look Up
Enter Birth Certificate No (usually your year of birth first, i.e. 1967/then the number) (your birthday certificate number is either in a box top right hand corner or somewhere in the document usually on the top line.)
Make sure the top two areas in the drop down boxes say MUTUAL FUND and FUND NUMBER before doing the search to find out who is trading on the FUND for the birth Certificate.
Next click on Initialed Trading Company name under SYMBOL (usually in blue color i.e. FFNBX or something like that)

Click on chart to see the activity in the last few years.

This will give you all the trading info about who is trading on the fund that the birth certificate is a part of. Commercial laws allow you to cancel and rescind this 'simple contract 'UCC3-203' and to make a claim in recoupment (Reparations) for fraud committed upon you when you were an infant (see UCC 3 - 305)

If you Google "Uniform Commercial Code 2-305" you will see something like this link:
http://uniweb.legislature.ne.gov/laws/ucc.php?code=2-305
In this Nebraskan Code, you will see the common language that shows that since the government did not tell you about the contractual arrangement made at your birth. Therefore, you have a right to revoke the contract.

Quote from a book by Canadian author Mary Croft (She has a Kindle book on Amazon):
"The amount of credit the feds earned from investing in securities the credit borrowed from us via the registration of our births has pre-paid anything you might ever want or need. We are the creditors, and the federal mafia is the debtor. They owe us interest for using our credit, yet, since they (the Public) are bankrupt, there is no 'substance money' so we, as creditors, will have to get paid by taking equity, in the form of our houses and cars, as the 'set-off' - the balancing of the account. They owe us interest on our credit which they are using to pay for the manufacturing of all the goods and services we are buying. We have already paid for the product before we buy it. We are still the principals of the securities because said investment was never disclosed to us. The feds are hoping we won't request the profits of our investments, however, if and when we do, it is substantial enough that we would never have to work again. We could never spend it all.
WE DO NOT NEED, NOR WERE WE EVER MEANT, TO 'WORK FOR A LIVING'

The government floated a bond against our future earnings by using our birth registrations as the collateral for our 'promise to pay'. Income tax is just their having 'educated' you to pay the interest on the loan YOU lent THEM. When we access our Direct Treasury Accounts, those held at the BC/ FRB under our SINs/ SSNs, we will no longer 'have to' work. Meanwhile, we will continue to:
1. slave-labour for entities which do not exist except for the purpose of
profit,
2. do something other than what we were designed to do, and
3. believe that we (extensions of our Creator) are worthless enough to have to pay for our existence.

For some background material from Canada click here: http://www.thinkfree.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=40&Itemid=59


Here is a video from England that will help you understand a bit more. http://www.bbc5.tv/eyeplayer/article...s-its-illusion

My Comment on Financial Mess - Posted on NY Times site

When are we going to attack the real cause of the financial collapse? It has been completely orchestrated by the private owners of the Federal Reserve system, which is just a private bank that has the U.S. government serving it, rather than the other way around. It’s no more “Federal” than Federal Express is. Please people don’t be deluded by the games being played by these bankers. They are making us all slaves, foreign and domestic, for centuries to come with their shenanigans.

Monsanto's Hold on the World's Seed Supplies

Monsanto as Gestapo.

Discussion of 9/11 and Obama

From another blog, I just found an interesting discussion of why Obama is unlikely to investigate 9/11.
I certainly wish he would, but maybe he will let others unravel it, although I doubt that because the left-wing media is completely controlled by corporate interests, or COINTELPRO.

My Take on Obama's Election

I lived in Obama's Honolulu neighborhood starting when he was four years old until he was about seven, because I was living on campus at the University of Hawaii's East-West Center. I fell in love with Hawaii while I was there, and got a taste of its special culture. During the presidential campaign, I kept thinking how the media was missing the aloha spirit that shaped Obama from birth, and continues to shape him to this day.

Considering the mess that he has inherited, I have been telling my friends for months now, that I hope he can pull a "Gorbie", my term for Obama going against the grain of the way things are done in America. I hope he is a blend of Gorbachev and Mandela.

Put this on Obama's Citizen's Briefing Book Website

I have read extensively on this subject, and I feel especially sorry for the American public, because when GMO's were introduced into their food chain, there was no thought to giving Americans a chance to say 'no'. It was simply a question of scientists itching to begin experimentation on a whole new realm of study, and they were more than willing to have agricorporations give them huge research grants, and also bribe politicians with campaign funds to allow for lax oversight. If you want the historical details, please read: Edging Towards BioUtopia: A New Politics of Reordering Life & the Democratic Challenge, by Richard Hindmarsh (2008).

http://www.amazon.com/Edging-Towards-BioUtopia-Reordering-Democratic/dp/0980296587/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232166698&sr=1-1

Regarding the naturalness of inserting genes into a plant, the corporations use a gene gun that blasts a "gene cassette" into the plant. The gene cassette usually consists of four genes, a promoter gene, the transgene, which actually contains the targetted effect, an anti-biotic marker gene, and a gene to stop the process. What the targetted plant does with these new genes is relatively unknown. If the transgene works as promised, then the company typically does a three-week test on lab rats, to see if they don't die, and if they survive, the new plant in put on the market. The FDA's protocol is simply to trust the company's internal study on the new plant. In terms of the company's bottom-line profits, considering that these plants have a patented expiry date, the quicker they can be sold, the more the company can make from their patent. Thus they are using the public as guinea pigs.