November 23, 2016
No mother ever knowingly risks her child’s health. Hear what these mothers have to say about their experience with genetically modified foods.
November 23, 2016
No mother ever knowingly risks her child’s health. Hear what these mothers have to say about their experience with genetically modified foods.
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
September 19, 2016
This is a story to put a scowl on your face, for the “deal” I blogged about a few weeks ago about the “merger” of Mon(ster)santo and the big German chemical firm of Bayer, which along with Hoechst and BASF was a component company to the old IG Farben cartel. Well, to be truthful, it wasn’t so old, for as I pointed out in The Nazi INternational the cartel was only finally completely liquidated in 2003. As we know, the component companies live on, and one of them, Bayer, is up to its old tricks, targeting the notorious American GMO Mons(ster)santo for a merger. Well, that deal is now inked, and we’re watching the birth of a new creature: Monster-IG Farbensanto. So many people noticed this story that it would be impossible to thank them all, but here’s the stories:
Now, as the previous article notes, the legal firm assisting with this largest cash buyout in history – yes, Bayer had that much money on hand – was Sullivan and Cromwell.
There’s also this little tidbit(shared by Ms. C.M.):
Ok, so now Bayer, a founding corporate member of the old IG Farben cartel, has bought Mon(ster)santo, which in turn had bought the Blackwater mercenary group, and which helped the USA drop tons of Agent Orange on Vietnam – and oh, by the way, for those of you who haven’t read Hidden Finance, Rogue Networks, and Secret Sorcery, the Carl Duisberg Society helped sponsor Mohammad Atta to Germany. Who’s Carl Duisberg? He was the former head of Bayer during and after World War One who helped found the IG Farben cartel. And… one more thing, let’s not forget under all these new “free trade” agreements, it will be virtually impossible for anyone to sue a company for just about anything, and virtually impossible for anyone to write anything without violating their twisted understanding of copyright.
Bayer, Mon(ster)santo, Blackwater mercenaries.
What could possibly go wrong?
There’s a pattern here that disturbs (well, actually, several patterns), not the least of which is Bayer’s position not only as a major pharmaceutical firm, but also as a major agribusiness company, now acquiring yet another notorious company, with notorious methods for dealing with farmers, and which owns a notorious mercenary “security” firm. This is a corporate move to consolidate control of medicine, pharmaceuticals, and agribusiness in one big happy Reich… er, one big happy cartel. Then we have the 1942 IG Farben-sponsored plan for a postwar European federation which…
Continue Reading at: GizaDeathStar.com
September 13, 2016
German pharmaceutical giant Bayer AG seems to know no limits in its quest to acquire the world’s most notorious agricultural company. The drug manufacturer has recently pushed its offer for procuring Monsanto up to a whopping $65 billion.
Bayer has confirmed that the two corporations are currently engaged in “advanced negotiations,” though it seems less like negotiating and more like Monsanto trying to take Bayer for everything they have. The original offer from Bayer averaged out to $122 per share, or $62 billion. Their new $65 billion offer averages out to about $127.50 per share. Bayer would also assume Monsanto’s $9 billion in debt, which pushes their offer up by an additional 2 percent. However, Monsanto is apparently seeking a jaw-dropping $130 per share, at least according to Bloomberg.
The attempted wooing of Monsanto is just one of many consolidations that have occurred lately in the agricultural industry. Bloomberg reports, “China National Chemical Corp. agreed in February to acquire Syngenta AG, while DuPont Co. and Dow Chemical Co. plan to merge and then carve out a new crop-science unit.” These kinds of deals in the crop and seed industry threaten to leave just a few oversized global giants in the Big Ag industrial complex.
If Bayer and Monsanto were to merge, they would create what would be one of the world’s largest agricultural suppliers. Monsanto is presently the world’s largest seed manufacturer, and Bayer currently offers their own “crop-protection” products (if you can really call them that). Between the two, they will make for a nearly-untouchable conglomerate. Monsanto has announced that it is considering Bayer’s offer, but the company is not the GMO giant’s only suitor; several other companies are seeking to acquire Monsanto as well.
In spite of their tremendous offer, Monsanto reportedly feels that their company is somehow being undervalued, but is still “open” to negotiation. Clearly, Monsanto is blind to the growing aversion to its name and products.
While the apparent ego of the company is worrisome, there are many more things to be concerned about, especially if this deal were to come to fruition. If two massive companies tied to the agricultural industry join forces, it could spell disaster for farmers and food prices. Their consolidation would lead to fewer choices for farmers, and you know what happens when there is a monopoly: prices skyrocket. With farmer bargaining power limited, it’s natural to expect seed prices to increase. And that means that the price of produce in supermarkets will increase along with them.
Robert Lawrence, a professor from Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and the founding director of the Center for a Liveable Future, told Market Watch, “The consolidation and driving out of smaller competitors, and controlling the marketplace and raising prices of seeds and pesticides for farmers worldwide is going to be a real shock to the food system.”
The merger could also mean fewer options for consumers, and may even effect the availability of organic crops and crops grown with fewer pesticides. Given the size of the two companies, the potential for them to further reduce farmers’ options is very real.
You would think that with the growing demand for organic, pesticide-free produce, Bayer would not be so interested in Monsanto; after all, that name has become something of a dirty word.
However, Bayer reportedly took Monsanto’s poor image into account, but made their offer to acquire the company anyway. This isn’t surprising though; anytime two large companies such as these merge together, the net result will always be more power. Even if people don’t like them, the increase in market share will still inevitably yield more economic power. And with economic power comes political power. As if Monsanto doesn’t already have their claws deep enough into our political system, merging with Bayer would surely grant them invincibility.
The most frightening thing about this acquisition is its potential to make Monsanto a stronger force in the agricultural industry, and consequently, further reduce the availability of non-GMO foods.
Read More At: NaturalNews.com
July 17, 2016
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is the final stop for a controversial bill recently passed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate, that would scrap state laws like those of Vermont that mandate package labeling for foods that contain genetically-modified organisms (GMOs). And more than 250,000 advocates for truth-in-labeling are now petitioning Barack Obama to veto the legislation immediately, and honor the will of the people rather than corporations in this important matter.
S.764, also known as the “DARK” (Deny Americans the Right to Know) Act, is one of the latest efforts by the chemical food industry to keep Americans literally in the dark about what they’re purchasing and feeding to their families every time they go to the grocery store. It was also offered up as a federal solution to the problem of patchwork GMO labeling laws already enacted at the state level, but what it actually threatens to do is un-label GMOs, and make it more difficult for the average consumer to identify them.
On Friday, July 15, at 1 p.m., signatures collected at WhiteHouse.gov, ThePetitionSite.org, MoveOn.org and many other websites were hand-delivered to the White House demanding redress. Helping to spearhead the effort were the advocacy groups Organic Consumers Association, Center for Food Safety, Citizens for GMO Labeling, Consumers Union, Cornucopia Institute, Food Babe, Food Democracy Now, Food & Water Watch, Friends of the Earth, GMO Free USA, GMO Inside, Label GMOs, March Against Monsanto, Moms Across America, Occupy Monsanto, National Organic Coalition, Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association and Vermont Right to Know GMOs.
This coalition of 286 advocacy groups wrote a letter to Obama asking him to veto S.764 on the grounds that it won’t advance the cause of GMO labeling. S.764 is also overtly unconstitutional, as it overrides existing state laws that mandate GMO labeling on food packaging. Another major point of contention are the GMO exemptions in S.764, which account for as many as 99 percent of all GMOs currently used in food.
“The FDA argues that the bill may not lead to a single label, because of the inadequate definition adopted by the Senate,” the letter explains. “Even if the rules and regulations can be developed, S. 764 allows companies to conceal genetically engineered ingredient information behind QR Codes, websites or 800 numbers which would require consumers to have internet access and a smartphone to determine what’s in their food. This is confusing and discriminatory.”
For a president who’s constantly nagging the country over issues of equality, it only seems reasonable that Obama would want to nullify S.764 and urge Congress to come up with a real GMO labeling bill that, I don’t know, involves actually labeling GMOs on food product packaging. S.764 is a Trojan Horse bill devised by the chemical lobby to further conceal GMOs in the American food supply, and it’s particularly offensive to poor people and minorities who lack the technological infrastructure necessary to identify GMOs under the mandates of S.764.
Remember, Obama promised on the campaign trail that his administration would “let folks know if their food has been genetically modified because Americans should know what they are buying.” All it would take for this to happen is a simple piece of legislation outlining what constitutes a bio-engineered ingredient, and how that ingredient is to be labeled. As is already the case in most other developed countries throughout the world, a simple package label stating “produced with genetic engineering” would suffice.
To learn more about how to grow your own GMO-free food at home, be sure to check out the amazing Vertical Garden Tower.
The idea that food is globally incredibly cheap right now doesn’t compute in the mainstream narrative.
Charles Hugh Smith
July 14, 2016
In the consensus view, agriculture is only profitable on a mega-farm corporate scale, and tool-making has been offshored because it’s unprofitable to manufacture stuff in the U.S. But what if both of these “obvious” consensus opinions are flat-out wrong? What if small-scale farming and toolmaking are both potentially profitable?
Perhaps we should be asking: what if the highest future profits will belong to small-scale agriculture and manufacturing, not Wall Street or Silicon Valley? This idea is so far out of the mainstream that it is widely considered “impossible:” nothing could be more profitable than politically sacrosanct “too big to fail” Wall Street banks or quasi-monopoly tech giants.
All of these presumed “truths” may be melting into air if small-scale machine tools and software technologies enable highly efficient and productive small-scale agriculture:
Drew Sample and I discuss these nascent but potentially revolutionary trends in a new podcast, Small Scale Farming, Small Scale Manufacturing (1:08 hrs).
Critics will quickly point out that large-scale production of grains such as corn and wheat and crops such as soy beans cannot be profitably grown in small plots. While that’s currently a financial reality, that does not imply it’s a permanent truth: large-scale agriculture consumes vast quantities of fossil fuels (currently cheap, but maybe not cheap forever) and huge quantities of minerals such as potash that are non-renewable.
Should essential non-renewables skyrocket in price, large-scale agriculture becomes a lot more costly to operate.
There’s also the question of sustainability. Typical large-scale practices such as tilling cause soil loss that cannot be “fixed” with conventional methods. Then there’s the decline of water tables as aquifers are drained by conventional agricultural practices.
In typical Wall Street fashion, the perspective on what’s sustainable currently extends about one quarter (three months). Few observers ask what will be sustainable in 20 years.
Continue Reading At: OfTwoMinds.com
July 11, 2016
A watered-down GMO labeling bill, which critics say was largely constructed by the GMO industry itself, and is likely to undermine existing labeling legislation at the state level, has just passed the Senate and is also expected to pass in the House of Representatives.
The bill will require food manufacturers to use one of three types of labels to alert consumers to the presence of GMO ingredients in food products. The three label types include a written statement on the package, a link to a website or a phone number, or a quick response (QR) code that can be scanned by a smartphone.
The labeling options are one of the main aspects of the bill that opponents find unacceptable. The use of the QR code will limit access to ingredient information to those who own smartphones, and critics say that is exactly the reason for its inclusion in the bill.
Opponents to the bill argue that only clear text labels are appropriate, and that the other labeling options are only included to make it difficult for consumers to gain information.
The bill will effectively undermine GMO labeling laws that have been passed in states such as Vermont and many municipalities which require clear text labeling on products containing GMOs.
Another issue with the bill is the fact that it leaves loopholes for certain foods to escape being labeled as containing GMOs.
From The New York Times:
“Proponents of labeling insisted that nothing short of text on packages would do. Some, including Senator Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont and erstwhile presidential candidate, also raised concerns over the definition in the bill for determining which foods would require labels, a sign that if the bill becomes law, legal challenges will almost certainly follow.”
Under the wording of the bill, many foods containing GMOs may be exempted from labeling. For instance, foods containing oils from GMO soybeans may not require labeling.
No one yet seems to be clear exactly what foods the labeling bill will cover, adding to the confusion and increasing the skepticism regarding its effectiveness.
One thing is clear: the passing of the bill in the Senate is a victory for the GMO foods industry, which spent approximately $100 million in 2015 alone in its efforts to oppose GMO labeling, but which also managed to have the labeling bill drafted in its favor.
The labeling bill is so watered-down and GMO industry favorable, that it has been dubbed an “anti-labeling” bill.
In fact, there will be no penalties or fines imposed for non-compliance, which essentially means that the legislation not only favors the GMO industry, but also has no teeth at all to begin with.
The bill is a “fraud,” according to Mike Adams, the Health Ranger. “It would not require any sort of GMO labeling that’s readable by human beings, and it would destroy the only existing labeling law that requires real, honest labeling (the Vermont law).”
It’s becoming increasingly obvious that the government and its regulatory agencies cannot be trusted to protect the public. The vast majority – more than 90 percent – of Americans say that they want GMO labeling, but the government has failed to acknowledge this fact and act effectively to meet their demands.
The best approach to protecting your family against GMO food consumption is to buy only local, organic products, and to grow as much of your own healthy, organic food as possible.
Growing organic food at home is easy and practical, even if you have limited space to work with. Raising your own food crops in a small area can be accomplished through incorporating vertical gardening techniques, for example.
Ethan A. Huff
July 9, 2016
Under the cover of darkness, just hours after Hillary Clinton was handed a get-out-of-jail-free card by the FBI for committing felony crimes, the Senate quietly voted 63–30 to preempt state law in direct violation of the Tenth Amendment, prohibiting individual states like Vermont from enacting mandatory GMO labeling laws passed by voters. And at least one senator (from Oregon) is absolutely outraged.
Senator Jeff Merkley wasn’t afraid to call a spade a spade in the aftermath of the treasonous vote, which was further buried in the news cycle by Obama’s latest attempt at race-baiting in order to abolish the Second Amendment. Merkley told the media that the so-called Roberts-Stabenow Bill, also known as the Monsanto DARK Act 2.0, is a farce, and will do nothing to protect consumers who want to know what they’re eating.
As we’ve been reporting, S.764 would exempt most GMOs currently in use from having to be indicated on product packaging, which is the whole point of GMO labeling in the first place. The only way consumers would gain access to truth in labeling for those GMOs that aren’t exempted is to scan the “smart” codes on certain products with their smartphones, but not everyone has a smartphone or even data coverage, especially in poorer and rural areas.
All the way round, the DARK Act 2.0 is a disaster for truth in labeling, though it’s being touted by industry supporters as the labeling bill “we need” – of course, because it isn’t actually a labeling bill at all, but rather an un-labeling bill that protects chemical and agriculture corporations from having to properly disclose their hidden additives to consumers.
“How can you have a so-called ‘mandatory GMO labeling bill’ that doesn’t require on-package labels, doesn’t cover the most common GMO products, and doesn’t mandate a single consequence for companies that don’t comply?” Sen. Merkley asked. “The answer is you can’t.”
After conducting an independent review, even the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) took issue with the contents of the DARK Act 2.0. The legislation’s narrow and ambiguous definition of “bioengineering,” the agency found, is completely unacceptable because it “will likely mean that many foods from GE [genetically-engineered] sources will not be subject to this bill.”
An example of this is oil made from genetically-modified soybeans, which would not have to be labeled because it supposedly contains no genetic materials. Similarly, starches, purified proteins and other common ingredients derived from GM sources would be exempt from labeling. According to the FDA, it “may be difficult” for any GMO food to qualify for labeling under this appalling bill.
“The FDA critique makes it very clear that this is really a non-labeling bill disguised as a labeling bill,” stated Center for Food Safety executive director, Andrew Kimbrell. “Preempting the democratically decided upon laws of five states based on this poorly written, discriminatory and ineffective legislation would be a travesty.”
To learn how you can grow your own food at home and avoid GMOs completely, check out the latest in urban gardening technology with the vertical Garden Tower.
The senators who voted yes on the bill in betrayal of the American people are as follows: