Security Perimeter and the Political Consolidation of North America

by Dana Gabriel
Global Research
September 21, 2011

The U.S. and Canada are very close to unveiling a North American perimeter security deal that would promote greater integration between both countries. This includes expanding collaboration in areas of law enforcement and intelligence sharing which could dramatically affect sovereignty and privacy rights. While there is a need for more public scrutiny, incrementalism has been used to advance North American integration. In many ways this has kept the agenda under the radar. Much like NAFTA and the Security and Prosperity Partnership, a U.S.-Canada perimeter security agreement would represent another step in the consolidation of North America.

During his speech at a recent meeting of northern border states, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder told participants that the U.S. and Canada are set to launch a pilot project next year which will allow law enforcement officers to operate on both sides of the border. Holder explained that, “the creation of ‘NextGen’ teams of cross-designated officers would allow us to more effectively identify, assess, and interdict persons and organizations involved in transnational crime.” He went on to say, “In conjunction with the other provisions included in the Beyond the Border Initiative, such a move would enhance our cross-border efforts and advance our information-sharing abilities.” The declaration, Beyond the Border: Shared Vision for Perimeter Security and Economic Competitiveness issued by President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Stephen Harper last February, identified joint law enforcement operations and information sharing as a high priority. There are already examples of what we could expect from a security perimeter as some Canadians have been denied entry into the U.S. after their records of mental illness were shared with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

While further details of the new joint law enforcement project are not yet available, Stuart Trew of the Council of Canadians pointed out that the plans are well advanced. This prompted him to question, “why is Harper consulting with Canadians on a done deal? We haven’t had a chance to yea or nay the perimeter agreement which is expected to be released as an ‘action plan’ within weeks. But a pilot project that legalizes and normalizes US policing activities in Canada is already set to begin next year.” He added that this confirms, “the Harper government will use its limited public consultations earlier this year to move ahead quickly with whatever new cross-border policing and information sharing commitments it wants, regardless of privacy and other concerns.” Last month, the Canadian government released two reports which summarized public input received concerning regulatory cooperation, as well as security and trade across the border. While improving the movement of goods and people was the priority for business groups, many individuals expressed concerns over the loss of sovereignty, along with the protection of personal information.

On top of announcing plans to create teams of cross-designated officers, Attorney General Eric Holder took time to praise bilateral relations between the two countries, but acknowledged, “there are areas in which the U.S. and Canada can enhance cooperation in criminal investigations and prosecutions. And I believe we must consider how extradition, and mutual legal assistance, processes could be streamlined.” He also stated, “As Canada’s national government considers various anti-crime policies and approaches, we will continue working to implement a comprehensive anti-crime framework.” Does this mean that as part of a security perimeter, Canada would have to change its legal system to better reflect U.S. laws? As the fall session of Parliament gets underway, the Harper government is set to table tough new criminal reform legislation.

In the report entitled Shared Vision or Myopia: The Politics of Perimeter Security and Economic Competitiveness, former Foreign Service officer Gar Pardy warns that a perimeter security deal with the U.S. could sacrifice Canadians privacy while doing nothing to improve the flow of trade across the border. In his report, Pardy reveals that “The concessions the Americans want is the transfer of enormous amounts of information about Canadians and others about whom Canada collects information. It is evident that to meet such expectations Canadian privacy laws will need to be ignored, violated or weakened.” He also stated that, “The Shared Vision approach essentially promotes the idea that in order to restore the status quo ante implicit in the free trade agreements there have to be large political concessions by Canada that will satisfy American security concerns.” This could explain the Conservative government’s announcement that it will reintroduce anti-terrorism measures which have expired and are on par with sections of the liberty-stripping U.S. Patriot Act. The move is tied to plans for a security perimeter and is aimed more at satisfying U.S. fears.

In his report released by the Rideau Institute, Gar Pardy also warns that, “when Canada–United States privacy protection principles are under bilateral discussion, privacy protection will not be increased. A more likely result is that existing Canadian privacy laws, as flawed as they are, will erode to meet the demands of the United States.” As part of his report, he recommended measures that would better protect privacy rights and encourage transparency. This included all new agreements with the U.S. affecting the privacy rights of Canadians, be reviewed by the Privacy Commissioner. Pardy called for the creation of a single authority to oversee all federal police and security organizations participating in information transfers between both countries. He also recommended a separate treaty that would protect personal information transferred to the U.S. for national security purposes. With regards to a perimeter security deal, Pardy concluded that, “If Canadian concessions on security and privacy rules do result in the lessening of American border restrictions and controls then such results would always be hostage to future events over which Canada has no control.”

It is important to keep in mind that the move towards a North American security perimeter is being done without congressional or parliamentary approval. There is no reason to trust that our governments will strike any kind of balance between security and freedom. That is why it is imperative that we demand more transparency and input. With a joint action plan expected to be released soon, it is my hope that Canadians and Americans will reject any perimeter security deal that reduces privacy rights and further puts our sovereignty at risk.

Agribusiness: Food Safety’s Greatest Enemy

By Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
May 11, 2011

Misinformed people enjoy calling population growth the menace of the 21st century, especially when it is related to food availability. Although access to food is one of the most important issues that humanity faces today, the “food problem” has everything to do with its safety and nothing to do with the lack of it due to planetary overpopulation. The world has changed in many ways in the last fifty years and many of those changes have been for good, but many important ones for very bad. In the past, most countries produced their own food, and people were food independent. Today, a handful of corporations control the whole process of seed and food production and distribution. When it comes to food supply, perhaps there is a worse consequence than monopolistic practices and policies. Food, which is supposed to provide us with nutrition is actually making us sick and in many cases killing us.

In the United Kingdom, a bacteria called Campylobacter found in chickens causes diarrhea, fever, abdominal pain and cramping. Often times, it worsens and produces chronic, life-threaten­ing, conditions. It is estimated that 85% of the chickens in the UK are infected. Meanwhile, in the United States, the Norovirus, which is transmitted through manipulation of food with dirty hands, as well as Salmonella, that infects people who ingest food with feces, cause vomiting and diarrhea, fever and cramps. These are only two examples of poor food management in what we call the “developed world”. But it gets worse in third world countries, where rules for food safety are less clear or simply ignored by the food industry.

In China, for example, a 2008 case of food contamination with melamine caused the death of six babies and made 300,000 others ill. The contamination occurred when melamine, and industrial chemical got into the milk supply. Back in the “developed world”, Germany had its own case of massive food poisoning with dioxin in some 4,000 farms around the country. A German company sold 200,000 tones of animal feed contaminated with dioxins and this feed was given to thousands of animals. Dioxins are poisons that cause cancer.

Although there is not a formal process to record food poisoning cases and other health threats carried around by tainted food, the data made available shows that food contamination is a common affair in most nations. Even countries that manage to have their own system to keep food clean from chemicals and natural born bacteria and viruses cannot avoid massive cases of poisoning among its citizens. In Singapore, 3 million people die every year as a result of food poisoning.

Unsafe to Eat

A recent assessment issued by GRAIN, an international non-profit organisation that reports on food safety issues around the world and whether a crop is suitable to eat or not, described a series of reasons to consider when determining food safety. “Bad practices (poor hygiene, animal abuse, reliance on antibiotics and pesticides), unproven or risky technologies (ge­netic modification, nanotechnology, irradiation, cloning), deliberate contamination (such as tampering), or just poor supervision” are just a few of the reasons why food arrives contaminated to your table. That is why a relevant matter with food safety has to do with the size of the corporations that produce the things we all eat. It is a fact that the industrialized food scheme that governs food production and distribution is the main cause of today’s food pollution. It all comes to size. If a small producer of meat or vegetables provides contaminated food, the impact is small, but if a large company that produces and distributes food all around the world manages its processes badly, the result is more often than not, thousands of people ill and many others dying as a consequence of tainted food.

Big scale production and distribution is one of the main causes of massive food poisoning. Not only are standards more difficult to enforce when a company produces large amounts of packed meat or grains, but also it is likely those companies are not as concerned with enforcing practices that guarantee good hygiene and work security, for example. The quantity of product that enters and exits a meat packing plant or a grain processing facility makes it almost impossible to keep an eye on every single item that circulates in and out. The policies that govern large producing units are to receive, pack and send out as much of the product as possible.

Where are the regulators?

In one sentence, government regulators are usually in bed with Big Corp. It is not realistic to believe that bureaucrats who oversee food safety are simply unaware of problems with the production and distribution of food, although that is usually the excuse given by them and the government to justify their inaction. There is plenty of proof that both government agencies and corporations are continuously colluding to avoid enforcing the laws that protect consumers. Almost every new law passed regarding food safety opens a new door for the food industry to untie a regulation and produce food their own way. Take for example the case of raw milk. Milk is processed through pasteurization and homogenization literally everywhere. Countries that have not banned the sale and consumption of raw milk are currently working on legislation to do it. Milk processing is needed, governments and corporations say, to avoid the ingestion of bacteria that may exist in the milk when it is raw. However, it is also true that milk pasteurization and homogenization simply kills all nutrients that natural raw milk has. Did anyone say calcium deficiency pandemic? Osteoporosis? There is a pill to solve those problems of course.

Raw milk is one of the most important sources of nutrition for poor folks around the world. It is one of a few affordable sources of nutrition and it can be easily boiled at home to guarantee its safety. So why are governments enforcing laws or regulations that ban raw milk? They are effectively creating and imposing regulations sent to them by the World Trade Organization, an institution that works for the international food cartel that controls most of the production and distribution of food. Other reasons commonly given to justify banning the sale of raw milk is the idea that it will help modernize the dairy industry, which in turn will bring benefits because the companies will be able to compete with others that import and export milk and other products. None of this is true. The real reason is that countries affiliated to the WTO are mandated to adhere to its regulations if they want to have a chance to participate in so called Free Trade Agreements. Free Trade Agreements are tools used by the corporations to amass control over most if not all productive activities. Truly, food safety policies have little to do with public health and everything to do with complete control of market, monopolies, profits and dominance.

Free Trade Agreements are the materialization of monopolistic controls executed by multilateral organizations on behalf of Big Corp. The negotiation rounds that are held often within a country or at the WTO’s headquarters regarding food production, are dealt with as matters of commerce and not as issues related to science or food accessibility. Around the world, corporations dictate more and more what is allowed as a practice for food production and manipulation and what isn’t. GRAIN cites the cases of companies that feed cows with animal parts as a way to provide protein to them. This practice in many cases leads to Mad Cow Disease, but it is still permitted in countries like the Unites States and Japan. Another case is that of ractopamine, a substance given to pigs to promote their growth. This element is added to their feed. In a rare siding with food safety, even countries like China and whole regions like the European Union, that together produce around 70 percent of the world’s supply of pork, banned its use in meat. Other countries like the U.S. continue to use ractopamine in the feed given to pigs, turkeys, chickens and cows. The U.S. government not only allows its use but often times defends the producer of ractopamine, Eli Lilly and its meat exports from being banned in countries with whom it has trade agreements. Not only are American consumers being contaminated with this chemical, but also every person in every country that accepts American pork, beef, turkey and chickens.

Free Trade Agreements as Tools to Impose Corporate Regulations

In the last 3 decades, Free Trade Agreements have become the default tool used by Big Corp and enabled by the World Trade Organization and the World Health Organization to enforce their rules and carry out their game. It all began back in the 80’s with negotiations known as GATT. Later came the free trade agreements between Europe and Latin American countries and others between North America and Latin American countries such as ALCA, CAFTA and NAFTA. Contained in those agreements are all kinds of tricks written by the corporations to definitely manipulate and control markets. This is so, because there are few restrictions as related to what can be commercialized. The goal that all the previous negotiations had in common was that they promoted the exchange of the cheapest goods at the lowest prices. This would be positive if it wasn’t because cheap goods mean contaminated food, endless abuses to labor laws and laborers and the conquest of global markets by a few corporations that now decide what is produced, sold, bought, tariffed, quotaed, and who want to “protect” everything, including what is not theirs, against “theft” by using absurd intellectual property laws that are attached to all trade agreements.

Free Trade Agreements have nothing to do with free trade, benefiting consumers or enabling the growth of small or mid-size farmers. What the corporations that control governments around the world want is a free pass to invade all markets and produce everything we eat and use, so everyone else but them is dependent on products made across the world for their survival. As GRAIN cites it, free trade agreements are mechanisms to create backdoors used to limit market access. These agreements do nothing to promote or guarantee food safety or public health, but to assure the corporations unlimited growth and gigantic profit margins. Companies achieve market monopolies by creating policies that although inexplicably ridiculous, are accepted as the standard around the world. These policies are adapted to limit fair competition in every country in a way that only those countries where the big corporations run or have an interest in, are allowed to actually exchange anything.

The European Union banned Indian fish imports because the producers did not comply with European rules such as that fish processing facilities had to be sanitized with potable water, even though India lacks the infrastructure to provide clean water to most of its population. In Tanzania, fishermen had the same experience. They used to get 80 percent of their income from Europe, but after the E.U. banned their product, the fishermen had no market for it. Uganda also suffered a similar outcome. The Ugandan case cost the country $40 million in loses. So how did Europe manage to eat fish? Corporations such as Pescanova moved into Africa and began to serve the european market. Once it installed itself in the continent, the company acquired the whole production and distribution business.

The Case for Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO)

What could be more unsafe to eat than genetically modified organisms that have been proven, time after time, to be harmful to humans and animals. Regardless of conclusive evidence that GMO’s are dangerous to our health, government agencies around the world continue to authorize the use of genetically modified ingredients in the food supply. Not only that, they also refuse to label the products that contain GMO’s alleging it is unfair to the companies that manufacture them and that it may actually be confusing for consumers. In the case of GMO salmon, for example, the pro GMO industry says salmon should not be labeled because their product is identical to the wild salmon. The same is true for other products such as corn, soy, milk and vegetables. The thought that a well informed consumer is the best tool for strong businesses just doesn’t do it anymore for Big Corp. As far as they are concerned, a pool of consumers with the least information possible, is the best scenario to carry out their business practices. A diplomatic cable revealed by Wikileaks details how the Bush administration pressured the government of France to ease their concerns about genetically modified organisms. The cable read:

“we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this [acceptance of GMOs] is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits “. The list should be measured rather than vicious and must be sustainable over the long term, since we should not expect an early victory”.

This push to impose the use of genetically modified organisms is a clear example of how Big Corp exercises its control of governments so giants like Monsanto, DuPont, ConAgra, Cargill and other biotechnology corpo­rations have no interruptions in countries that may want to ban GM seeds or foods, or require labels that inform consum­ers. Along with France, the corporations that control the United States government also mine the sovereignty of third world countries that have no say over the safety practices utilized in the production, import and export of food crops in their own land. As it happens in developed countries, third world nations are also ordered to “relax” their opposition to GMO’s and to eliminate any “exageration” of the risks that come with the use and consumption of GMO’s. With the creation and implementation of Codex Alimentarius, Big Corp has been strengthened even more. The set of regulations contained in the Codex Alimentarius documents make it clear that neither the corporations nor the transnational agencies that govern food safety and global health are interested in healthy humans or safe food. In fact, it is through Codex Alimentarius that the corporations intend to control the natural foods and supplement markets, by banning natural food production and commercialization and substituting it with laboratory created pharmaceutical products labeled as “natural supplements”.

Codex Alimentarius is the United Nations and World Health Organization’s FrankenScience to push Restrictions on what you are allowed to eat. Since the 1960´s there is a concerted effort not only to limit the choices we as consumers and human beings have in order to take care of our health, but also to restrict the access to food itself as we know it. Codex Alimentarius (Codex for short) means “Food Code.” This world food code is a United Nations agency, jointly sponsored by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). It has existed for nearly 50 years and its international statute gives it a joint mission: protecting food safety and promoting world food trade. It is supposed to do so by adopting voluntary guidelines and standards (defining foods in international trade) and its decisions are enforced through the World Trade Organization (WTO) which considers its guidelines and standards as presumptive evidence in WTO trade disputes. It has become a creature of the Bigs – Big Govt, Big Agra, Big Pharma… etc.

In order to understand what Codex Alimentarius is, one needs to know it has nothing to do with consumer protection as its charter says. Such statement is just a catchy phrase to have the people and the nations approve its implementation. “Codex Alimentarius” means “food rules” in Latin. The plan was born in 1962 when the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) was founded by the U.N. to supposedly facilitate trade relations. In reality, it was created to regulate and control the way in which food and nutrition are guided and how products are sold to people. It is indeed all about the profits of multi-national corporations. The relation is very simple: the more natural products people use, the less profits the pharmaceutical corporations make. Codex Alimentarius was created to protect Big Pharma´s profits through the elimination of natural health products and treatments. What is more alarming at this point is that Codex was approved on December 31st, 2009. After this plan was signed, it was mandated on all member countries through its approval by Congresses around the world; a lot like the Copenhagen Treaty.

Superbugs within Big Corp

Superbugs are bacteria that developed an ability to fight antibiotics. Examples of superbugs first appeared in Europe in the 60’s and since then they spread freely around the world. In the United States, deaths from the MRSA superbug infections reached 17,000 in 2005. A survey conducted in 2007 found that ST398, a new version of MRSA, was present in 39% of pigs and 81% of local piggeries in the Netherlands. Further research has found that MRSA is in at least two thirds of the farms located in E.U. member countries. In studies conducted around Europe, researchers found that Spain and Germany were two of the countries with the highest incidence of MRSA in their farms; with over 40% of pigs testing positive for MRSA. That is why it does not come as a surprise that the Europeans send most of their pork meat overseas. According to the University of Guelph, a study of pigs in Ontario, Canada, showed that ST398 was present in a quarter of local pigs, and one-fifth of the pig farmers that were tested.

A Superbug’s ability to resist antibiotics, as it happens with humans, occurs due to the heavy use of this product in animals. According to the Union for Concerned Scientists, livestock in the United States consume about 80 percent of the antibiotics that are sold in that country. Meanwhile, in China the number ascends to 50 percent of the animals. A report from February 2011 on the Sydney Morning Herald reveals that in Germany, livestock are given three times more antibiotics than the amount humans consume. The existence and spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria in the so called factory farms is the main cause of food poisoning cases, which are spurred by the use of antibiotics that are fed to animals.

The Walmartization of Food

If Monsanto, ConAgra, Cargill and other bio-tech giants are known for their desire to conquer the seed and food market, Walmart may be seen as their equivalent when it comes to the supermarket fad. Food that is delivered to most places today goes directly through and depends on the connections made by big chain supermarkets. Long gone are the days when the producer himself went out to sell his apples, bananas, pineapples or carrots. Today, transnational companies like Walmart and Carrefour control the supply of food to most areas of the planet. This corporations not only transport and distribute the food we eat, but also decide what is produced and what is not, where the products go, when they are shipped and what prices they will have when you grab them from your local supermarket shelf. Large supermarket chains indeed control global food markets.

Walmart’s annual sales reach $405 billion, which is more than the gross domestic product of nations like Argentina, Norway, Greece and Denmark. The corporate success that this number represents has prompted more supermarket chains to put their eyes in regions of the world they can exploit either as a production spot, usually by monopolizing the production and distribution of food, or by securing the purchase of food that is produced cheaply and under their own guidelines. Big retailers like Tesco, Walmart, Carrefour and Lotte are currently acquiring or negotiating their operations in India, China, Brazil and Indonesia. These and other third world nations that still rely on the traditional door to door, street fair sale of food staples, co-ops and local or regional wholesalers for the nutrition of their population. What the big chain supermarkets want to do is go in and cheaply buy their way into those markets by signing contracts with producers, distributors and local supermarkets so they can control the food production and distribution. Once they manage to absorb the markets, Big Corp chains impose their own models and establish the same standards and rules they mandated everywhere else. The direct and immediate consequence of this practice is the start of a new line of dependent consumers who will no longer be able to plant, pick or sell their food. Dependence is the name of the game.

As if one hungry supermarket chain wasn’t bad enough for the consumer, these large corporations also work as a cartel. They meet and define what the standards for the industry will be so that they continue to be what they are and continue to control it all. As Barry Harper puts it in his book “Breaking the chain: the antitrust case against Wal-Mart”, the power and size of the corporations are two of the many weapons they have to influence the global food system. Imagine what they can accomplish when working together against a country, a local supermarket in a third world nation or a small farmer. These companies simply have the power and ability to tell suppliers, farmers and food processors what the rules of the game are going to be. The power that food corporations have is so significant that governments are capable of putting their profit making scheme first, and the health of the people second, when it comes to food safety. An example of this is the ban the United States imposed on Mexican cantaloupes due to contamination with Salmonella in 2002. After a round of negotiations between the governments of both countries, which of course counted with the participation of Big Corp, the ban was lifted after a new “program” attached to a new bureaucracy was created. The creation of this new set of rules did nothing to guarantee the safety of the cantaloupes, because the farmers did not provide toilet facilities or water analyses as the new program requested. In fact 94 percent of the farms did not have portable toilets and 88 percent of them used water from rivers to supply their plantations.

Doing away with the local farmer

The agro-colonization of the world by a handful of corporations seems to have the same common denominator everywhere: the disappearance of the farmer. Supermarket giants have many ways to force themselves into new markets, or to increase their share of those markets. The invasion of Big Corp supermarkets in the southern hemisphere converted developing countries in sources of food for the rest of the world and in many cases made those very same regions dependent on big chain supermarket’s capacity and willingness to supply food to them. Because large supermarket chains have the prerogative to decide how much they pay for the food they buy, the standards producers must follow, the delivery timetables, the distribution procedures and so on, it is easy for them to manipulate local, regional and national markets. But when they don’t get their way, supermarkets are capable of importing fruit and vegetables from across the planet in order to drive small or mid-size competitors off the market. Many times, large supermarket chains use false advertising in order to maintain or increase the flow of customers to their shops. For example, when Walmart invaded Central America by purchasing local food chains, the company decided to maintain their original names due to the fact Walmart was already known in those places for its bad reputation abroad.

What this kind of falsehood allows is to keep controlling the demand and supply of food using different names. This practice gives large chains enough time to settle down and absorb more customers until they decide to reveal themselves. But controlling food markets is not only about window dressing. Large supermarket chains don’t even have to establish themselves in a country in order to control the food supply. So called partnerships with producers and distributors can be established from abroad so the food business is monopolized from within. A whole city or country may experience lack of rice or beans, for example, not because they aren’t available, but because they are stored in large supermarket bodegas where they await to be shipped overseas to whomever pays the price the supermarkets want. How does this practice affect farmers? Although the price farmers receive for their grains, fruit or vegetables may be considered fair at some point, in many cases those same farmers could have obtained better yields if they had sold them to local buyers instead of selling to the large supermarkets. The artificial scarcity that food corporations cause by storing food until someone decides to pay what they want is what causes price speculation, which in turn makes it more difficult for more people to feed themselves and their families. In addition, some farmers are held hostage to promises of future purchases while they wait to receive payment for current or older sales to the big chain supermarkets.

In many countries of Asia and Latin America, farmers do not have the cash to start a new planting season because the payment they received does not meet the new costs; and if it does, there is little money left as profit. When the large supermarket chains are not the ones exploiting local farmers, the local supermarket chains take on that role. The tough competition national or regional chains get when fighting against transnational corporations for a share of the market, turns local, regional and national supermarkets into the predators. Competition is such that the national companies that were business partners in the past, suddenly adopt Big Corp’s model and transform the farmers in a group of agro-colonized workers. This is the case with ShopRite of South Africa and DMA in Brazil.

In China, where supermarkets are expanding at a furious pace, these trends are biting hard. The major supermarket chains, both foreign and domestic, are working hand-in-glove with suppliers and local governments to develop farms to supply fruit and vegetables. As part of a drive to im­prove food safety and integrate its 700 million small-scale farmers into “high value food chains” with “scientific methods of farming”, the Chinese government has been pursuing the establishment of fruit- and vegetable-growing bases in partnership with the private sector. In each of these des­ignated production zones, local authorities negotiate deals with private companies whereby the company comes in, leases an area of land from the farmers currently occupying it, or acquires their land use rights, and then sets up large-scale production, hiring the displaced farmers as la­bourers or in contract production arrangements.- Food Safety Briefing

We don’t have to eat the way Big Corp says

The movement to firmly reject the current food safety policies and the corporate business model that is imposed on consumers is a reason for hope. United States produced meat is not accepted by people in Taiwan, Australia, Japan or South Ko­rea. The melamine intoxication in China woke up thousands of others in that country and millions outside the chinese land to reject melamine contaminated milk. In all of Latin America, Europe and some parts of the United States there are growing loud voices that ques­tion the current industrial system used to produce, distribute and sell food. The cases of food poisoning with Salmonella, mad cow disease, superbugs and genetically modified organisms spurred the creation and growth of grassroots groups that are becoming the guardians of food safety and that call for better agricultural practices that replace the current agro-colonial policies created by Big Corp and enabled by corrupt governments and international organizations. In Korea, the people’s resistance towards U.S. Beef resulted in massive questioning of their supposed representative democracy. In Oceania, Australians campaign to regain control of their food system as more people find out more and more consumers share their desire to manage their lifestyle, which of course includes their food supply. As for GMO, the number of citizen groups around the world are as numerous and diverse as the cultures they represent.

One, however, seems to be the common goal of most of these groups: overcoming the social, economic, health and environmental challenges that the industrial food system model has brought upon the populations. More co-ops of organic, locally grown food are appearing even in developed countries, where Big Corp has a strong handle on the food market. Local groups continue to organize campaigns to expose the dangers of genetically modified organisms, industrially produced pork, beef and turkey. Supermarkets that adopt a more environmentally friendly approach to agriculture, farms and farmers are attracting more customers. But perhaps more important than all of this is the fact that more people now understand that food independence is one of the main goals anyone should pursue. New educational campaigns are launched explaining the concept of food sovereignty and the right of the people to healthy food. One of the keys to food independence and safe environmental practices is to avoid agricultural models that promote the plantation and commercialization of one single crop, such as soy, corn, sugar and others. Food diversity in naturally fertilized soils is what proves to be the most effective model to guarantee that there will be food available for anyone who needs it. The creation and promotion of local associations or cooperatives that employ local workers for the cultivation and harvest of locally grown fruits, vegetables and meat continue to yield the best results for people around the world. Local food production is the only way to guarantee safety, fair prices and food availability that has the potential to end with hunger anywhere and everywhere.

For detailed information about food safety visit the following links:

 Institute for Responsible Technology

 Navdanya International


 Food Safety for Whom

 En Español

 Folleto Riesgos a la Salud

 Guía de Compras No-OMG

Alimentos y despoblación: Engaños y Soluciones

Por Cassandra Anderson
Traducción Luis R. Miranda
Julio 10, 2010

Alimentos y despoblación es una serie de artículos se ha escrito para las personas que piensan que las conspiraciones son meras

Greenpeace es una de las más grandes Organizaciones no Gubernamentales que engañan a sus seguidores con campañas aparentemente "pro-ambiente."

teorías, que el gobierno está trabajando en nuestro mejor interés y que las Naciones Unidas es benevolente. Nada podría estar más lejos de la verdad, la prueba irrefutable de esto se explica en los últimos tres artículos. Compartir la verdad sobre la comida es una manera excepcionalmente eficaz para despertar a la gente, porque todas las personas tienen una relación personal con los alimentos todos los días. Éstos son los puntos importantes para recordar:

El Departamento de Agricultura de EE.UU. tiene la patente sobre el “gen Terminator” (la semilla va morir después de la primera cosecha), y tiene el potencial para destruir toda la vida vegetal en el planeta. Esta patente es co-propiedad de Monsanto.

2. La Corte Suprema de los EE.UU. ha evitado tratar los casos anti-OGM, a pesar de los peligros obvios para la salud a las personas y la contaminación de las plantaciones agrarias mediante la polinización cruzada. El 21 de junio de 2010, la Corte Suprema levantó la prohibición en todo el país de alfalfa OMG debido a su potencial para contaminar otras plantaciones, a la espera un Estudio de Impacto Ambiental (EIA) realizado por el Departamento de Agricultura de EE.UU.. Predijimos hace 2 semanas que los magistrados de la Suprema Corte fallarian a favor de Monsanto pues reciben sus cheques del gobierno federal. Si hubiera prevalecido la cordura y la prohibición de los OGM hubiese sido confirmada, el resultado habría puesto la patente del USDA sobre el gen Terminator en peligro, un sinnúmero de casos judiciales tendrían lugar y una avalancha de nuevas demandas contra Monsanto pudo haber quebrado a la empresa. El gobierno federal y Monsanto están tan profundamente entrelazados que esperamos que el EIS del USDA, que se espera termine la próxima primavera, permitirá la siembra de la alfalfa OGM.

El Tribunal Supremo se negó a oír los hechos sobre los peligros y los antecedentes de contaminación; el único disidente fue el Juez Stevens y dijo que, “la corte del distrito no abusó de su discreción cuando, tras examinar el expediente voluminoso y de las comprobaciones anteriores, ha emitido la orden ante nosotros.” En otras palabras, Stevens señala que la prohibición del tribunal de distrito menor de alfalfa OGM se puso en marcha debido al voluminoso registro de contaminación a otras granjas, pero esto no fue tomado en cuenta por el Tribunal Supremo. El Tribunal Supremo considera que la prohibición de alfalfa OGM a nivel nacional fue “demasiado amplia, sin examinar los efectos nocivos de la contaminación. Esto era una decisión engañosa, porque si hubiera considerado los efectos devastadores de los OGM, le habría sido imposible argumentar que son seguros. Y los corruptos de la USDA publicarán su EIS para determinar la seguridad. La ventaja potencial de este mando a distancia es que la jurisdicción se encuentra ahora en los tribunales inferiores, que pueden ser más razonables, pero eso significa más demandas y más dinero (1).

3. Las Naciones Unidas es corrupta hasta la médula y sus programas están diseñados para la despoblación, el control total y la ganancia. La Agenda 21 de Naciones Unidas es el plan general para la despoblación y el control total, con el medio ambiente y el desarrollo sostenible, como excusa para sus políticas.

4. La familia Rockefeller ha estado persiguiendo el control de los alimentos durante décadas, con los monopolios y las estructuras gubernamentales que son financiadas por los contribuyentes a través de sistemas complejos que han creado para lograr este objetivo.


El World Wildlife Fund es otra ONG que se viste de blanco pero que tiene los oscuros intereses de la ONU como objetivos principales.

ONG (Organizaciones No Gubernamentales), en la definición moderna, surgen de las Naciones Unidas y actuan como “consultores” de la ONU, ningún representante del gobierno puede ser miembro. Sin embargo, las ONG no son independientes ya que la mayoría de ellas son financiadas por los gobiernos. En otras palabras, nuestros impuestos están pagando por nuestra propia desaparición. Así es como funciona la estafa:

crear declaraciones de política a ser adoptada por la ONU que se convierten en política internacional.A continuación, las ONG reciben dinero de la ONU.

• Las políticas de las Naciones Unidas son a continuación empujadas a los gobiernos nacionales los que luego financian los programas globalistas con el dinero de los impuestos.

• Las organizaciones no gubernamentales a continuación, presionan a los gobiernos y el público para ejecutar los programas, utilizando la presión pública equivocada que crean el engaño para que la gente crea que las políticas de las Naciones Unidas benefician a la población (como los gobiernos locales aceptan los reglamentos del calentamiento global. Estos se basan en mentiras vendidas a público por medio del alarmismo sobre la catástrofe ambiental). Ellos son expedidos en las comunidades con programas específicos dirigidos. Los contratos de los gobiernos locales con organizaciones como el Consejo Internacional de Iniciativas Ambientales Locales (ICLEI) aseguran la implementación local de estos objetivos globalistas.

• Comités Asesores del gobierno se componen de organizaciones y empresas no gubernamentales allegadas a las Naciones Unidas, y no representan los intereses de los ciudadanos.

• Organizaciones no gubernamentales acreditadas por las Naciones Unidas tratan de desacreditar a las organizaciones populistas que se oponen a ellas. Las ONG’s de las Naciones Unidas se iniciaron cuando afiliados eugenistas como Julian Huxley creó la UICN (Unión Internacional para la Conservación de la Naturaleza), que creó un engaño más público, la WWF (World Wildlife Federation) y una tercera llamada WRI (World Resources Institute, las que es un grupo de de “intelligencia dentro del grupo ambientalista). Estas tres organizaciones no gubernamentales son el motor y ayudan a aumentar la influencia de las ONG de todo el mundo. Para más información, puedes leer el excelente análisis de Ables Maryetta (2).

Las ONG’s son traicioneras y mienten. Mientras que una mano puede tomar una acción correcta, la otra agarra su libertad mediante la asignación de sus vastos recursos para avanzar la agenda de la ONU. Por ejemplo, la UICN, el centro de todas las ONG de la ONU, afirma en su página web que tienen una moratoria de una mayor liberación de OGM, lo que los hace parecer como que están en contra de los OGM. Pero los OGM ya han contaminado gran parte del mundo, por lo que una moratoria sobre nuevas liberaciones de los OGM es un débil intento de librar al mundo de los OGM y las ONG pretenden hacernos creer que no tienen poder, cuando es lo contrario, y más regulaciones se crean para impulsar el programa de las Naciones Unidas (3).

En lugar de tomar medidas serias para combatir los OGM, la UICN asigna sus recursos hacia la promoción de ‘biodiversidad’, (el robo de la propiedad privada por medio de la Ley de Especies en Peligro) y el calentamiento global, que ha perdido toda credibilidad (4).

El WWF mantiene un bajo perfil en su página web sobre los OGM, pero está totalmente de acuerdo con los el uso de estos productos(5).

Greenpeace es una ONG acreditada ante la ONU, y como todos los afiliados de las Naciones Unidas la ONG Greenpeace se dedica a las políticas del Programa de las Naciones Unidas como Agenda 21 y el Desarrollo Sostenible. Con el fin de parecer que están trabajando en el interés del público, se oponen a los OGM y han tomado algunas pequeñas acciones, como dar a conocer los peligros de los OGM y presionar a las tiendas Trader Joe’s de alimentos para que rechace los alimentos genéticamente modificados para su marca propia. Sin embargo, su oposición a los OGM, de acuerdo con Michael Shaw, de, es un ejemplo como encubren sus intenciones como un grupo de interés público para esconder sus verdadero objetivo, la implementación de la Agenda 21. En su sitio web la organización aprueba las mentiras del calentamiento global y las restricciones al uso de energía que ayudan a consolidar el poder globalista.

Si bien su sitio web afirma que no “recibe” contribuciones de gobiernos o corporaciones, existen pruebas de que han recibido subvenciones de la Fundación Tides (la cual es en parte financiada por los Rockefeller), BP Oil y Exxon, pero estos donantes no figuran en su página web. En otras palabras, Greenpeace, junto con muchas otras ONG’s, reciben “donaciones” de los globalistas y envian dinero a otras organizaciones no gubernamentales afines y “sin fines de lucro” para llevar a cabo la Agenda 21 (6).


Las organizaciones y fundaciones “sin ánimo de lucro” son cualquier cosa pero no “sin fines de lucro!” Una definición más exacta es que son exentos de impuestos. ¿Qué es lo que no quieren que sepas? Muchos, si no la mayoría son financiados por los gobiernos, las ONG’s y “fundaciones filantrópicas”. Organizaciones exentas de impuestos o sin fines de lucro deben a los contribuyentes la divulgación clara y pública de quiénes son sus donantes porque ellos se benefician del no pago de impuestos, pero es raro encontrar esta información en sus sitios web o en Internet.

Michael Shaw señaló que las organizaciones exentas de impuestos están aumentando de manera exponencial con el fin de aprovechar el financiamiento del gobierno, sin embargo, esto hace que organizaciones exentas de impuestos queden en deuda con el gobierno. Alianzas público-privadas, o el acoplamiento entre el gobierno y la empresa privada es la base del fascismo. Las organizaciones sin fines de lucro a menudo entran en la definición político-económica de Asociaciones Público-Privadas.

Fundaciones “Filantrópicas” exentas de impuestos han estado trabajando para la destrucción de América por muchas décadas. En la

La Fundación Carnegie, fundada con dinero del magnate Andrew Carnegie, junto con otras como Rockefeller y Gates son pro Eugenesia y depoblación.

década de 1950 una investigación del Congreso en las fundaciones Rockefeller, Ford y Carnegie reveló resultados escandalosos, por lo que la información fue suprimida. Sin embargo, G. Edward Griffin fue capaz de obtener una entrevista con el senador Norman Dodd, uno de los investigadores principales, en video y en una transcripción escrita disponible en la nota al pie (7).

Algunos organizaciones “sin fines de lucro” y exentas de impuestos han participado movimientos de “oposición controlada”. Por ejemplo, el Centro de Seguridad Alimentaria (CSA) representa a los agricultores en contra de Monsanto en el caso de la Corte Suprema de alfalfa OGM y en muchos otros casos anti-OGM. Aunque no tenemos manera de saber si Andrew Kimbrell, el Director Ejecutivo de la CSA y su hermano George (abogados) realizaron trabajo sólido en la oposición a Monsanto, hay informes de que el SFC y su sociedad matriz han obtenido 1,75 millones de dólares del Fondo de John Merck, que tiene vínculos con el Fondo de la Familia Rockefeller. Andrew Kimbrell del CFS presentó una petición ante la EPA para prohibir la plata coloidal que es un agente antibiótico natural con muchos beneficios que compite directamente con fármacos de Merck. Esta organización tiene la apariencia de trabajar en el interés del público, pero en una acción separada, ha operado en contra de beneficio público (8).

Andrew Kimbrell informó del logró “en el fallo de la Corte Suprema en el caso de la alfalfa OGM. Dijo que es todavía ilegal plantar la alfalfa OGM. Si bien esto es cierto hoy en día, el USDA aún tiene que completar su Estudio de Impacto Ambiental con el fin de aprobar las semillas (9).

Cómo comprobar que los sitios web de las ONG’s, las organizaciones sin fines de lucro y las fundaciones están a favor de la corrupción?

• Dé una ojeada en las acciones que apoyan. Si ellos defienden el engaño del calentamiento global, entonces es probable que estén comprometidas • Compruebe si la organización tiene ligamen con el Consejo de Administración de las Naciones Unidas y/o los Rockefeller • Busque ciertas palabras de moda relacionadas con la Agenda 21 (10)

Tenga cuidado, ya que casi todos los grupos ambientalistas más importantes buscan la consecución de los objetivos de la Agenda 21, incluso cuando se oponen a los OGM. Es importante hacer un poco de investigación para determinar sus motivos y para no ser engañado.


He aquí algunas sugerencias para comer alimentos sanos, acabar con los gigantes corporativos y crear la autosuficiencia:

Mira este video sorprendente de una familia que convirtió su patio en una granja y ganan dinero vendiendo productos a los restaurantes:

Coma alimentos cultivados orgánicamente y no OGM.

Compre y almacene semillas orgánicas.

Las semillas naturales son escasas y podrían ser una buena inversión o forma de trueque. El número de empresas de semillas se ha reducido de aproximadamente 300 a 100 a causa de adquisiciones corporativas (100 principalmente por Monsanto).

Apoye los mercados de los agricultores y los agricultores locales. Evite las importaciones para impedir la dependencia alimentaria. Cada país es rico en recursos y no hay excusa para volverse dependientes. Además, esto limita el poder de la Organización Mundial del Comércio.

Plante su propio jardín orgánico. Usted puede usar tierras diatomeas en lugar de los plaguicidas y las redes para mantener las plagas fuera del jardín.

Si usted no tiene un patio, encuentre a un vecino que tiene un jardín y creen un proyecto juntos. Luego pueden compartir la comida.

Únase o crie un grupo ARC (Agricultura Respaldada por la Comunidad) que ofrezca productos frescos a su ciudad, hay muchos anuncios de estos en Internet. Esta es una buena idea porque si hay una escasez de alimentos, los agricultores estarán más dispuestos a ayudar a alguien que los apoyaron.

Vea este video de Shelby Roche de Ella reporta como el movimiento anti-OGM está creciendo cada vezz más.

Una carta al editor de Off the Grid News de alguien que vive en Tasmania describe cómo sobrellevó la lucha contra el Codex Alimentarius, y los informes de que Australia fue el conejillo de indias para este programa de la ONU que comenzó hace 6 años. Los suplementos no son permitidos ($ 60.000 desanción si se usan) y la comida es limitada, por lo que la persona decidió plantar su propia cominda en tanques de agua de lluvia para mantener los animales lejos. El utiliza estiércol de vaca para fertilizar. Él dice que él consigue una recompensa increíble. Esta carta vale la pena leer porque afirma que los alimentos cultivados en Australia se exportan y se sustituye por importaciones baratas procedentes de China, además de que los alimentos son destruidos para mantener los precios altos (12).

Le recomendamos que obtenga información de las personas como Consejos Scott y Jeffrey Smith, sobre la verdad de los OGM (13).

Es de suma importancia que los agricultores tomen conciencia de la trampa de un acuerdo de licencia de Monsanto, es crucial que sean plenamente conscientes de que una vez que planta las semillas OGM, será esclavo por el pago de derechos de patente, incluso si no utiliza los productos con OGM Los agricultores deben comprender cómo opera Monsanto con el fin de evitar el pago de regalías infinitas; si compran las semillas de Monsanto baratas ahora, van a pagar muy caro más tarde. Por favor, comparta estos artículos con ellos.


La mala ciencia debe ser expuesta. “Climategate” tuvo mucho éxito revelando las mentiras del calentamiento global y sus motivos. Toda la ciencia adjuntada a la política debe ser examinada minuciosamente. El Estudio de Impracto Ambiental de la USDA debe salir en breve, y debe ser investigado ya que no hay manera de que los OGM sean aprobados a menos que el EIS se base en ciencia fraudulenta.

Recuerde que los monopolios son dependientes de las regulaciones gubernamentales, por lo que la manera de romper el monopolio es eliminar las regulaciones que permiten su existencia y mantener aquellas que protegen a los consumidores.

Tenga cuidado con todas las ONG y los llamados “sin fines de lucro”. Si quieren su apoyo, deben proporcionar información financiera que se puede investigar fácilmente. Los fraudes en secreto y verdaderos motivos deben ser expuestos.

Con cada elección se tiene una oportunidad de elegir a los funcionarios del gobierno que con prudencia evitan ser engañados por el paradigma de la derecha y la izquierda.

Los gobiernos estatales y locales son muy poderosos y usted tiene más influencia sobre ellos. Puede buscar y apoyar a los candidatos que respalden la libertad, autonomía y los valores constitucionales y que se opongan a los OGM, la Agenda 21, las Naciones Unidas y la consolidación del poder globalista.

Comparta esta información con todos sus conocidos y crie una coalición electoral que incluya a ciudadanos y empresas, especialmente a nivel estatal y local. Mercadeo de boca-a-boca es la más eficaz forma de divulgar estos asuntos (incluso más que la TV), así que por favor comparta esta información, en especial con los candidatos que pueden no estar conscientes de la Agenda 21.

Inicie a nivel local y amplie el esfuerzo hacia afuera para obtener y mantener la libertad. El gobierno central es difícil de contactar, pero los funcionarios estatales y locales son más accesibles.  Apoye y/o funde propuestas por la soberanía de su ciudad, estado o provincia y otras que prohíban la plantación de árboles o cultivos OGM en su área.

Puede visitar la página de Michael Shaw en para obtener más información sobre cómo asegurar la libertad en el ámbito local y para la comprensión de los tentáculos de la Agenda 21, el fraude del Desarrollo Sostenible y otros. Su sitio es un gran lugar para encontrar la manera de actuar.

Por favor visite los sitios web y para encontrar artículos anteriores sobre “Alimentación y Despoblación y futuros artículos acerca de las soluciones.

Materiales Consultados:














Alimentos y despoblación: Las Naciones Unidas

Por Cassandra Anderson
Traducción Luis R. Miranda

La mayoría de la gente piensa que las Naciones Unidas es una noble empresa y no entienden la historia y el carácter maligno de la ONU. Christina Aguilera, Drew Barrymore y Sean Penn son probablemente inconscientes, a pesar de que son embajadores de la ONU para

¿Cuál es el plan de las Naciones Unidas? Clique en la imagen y aprenda más.

el Programa Mundial de Alimentos (PMA), que el propósito de las Naciones Unidas es implementar un gobierno mundial (ver vídeos abajo). El PMA de la ONU, que se extiende a los Organismos Genéticamente Modificados (OGM) en los países pobres, es sólo una herramienta utilizada para promover los objetivos de la Agenda 21, plan general para la despoblación y el control total.

La ONU surgió de la Sociedad de Naciones, que se marchitó después de que Woodrow Wilson (marioneta de Edward House), no logró convencer al Congreso que los tratados internacionales y las alianzas eran buenos para Estados Unidos. Más tarde, Rockefeller fue capaz de promover la causa de los globalistas “e incluso donó 18 acres de terreno para el edificio de la ONU, con sede en Nueva York. Los Rockefeller han concebido y financiado la mayor parte de los destructivos programas de las Naciones Unidas.

El origen del monopolio de los alimentos comenzó con la dinastía Rockefeller, incluso antes de que financió la investigación biotecnológica y la industria (1). Las empresas de semillas OMG grandes, como Monsanto, DuPont, Dow, etc con base en Estados Unidos y las leyes de patentes que protegen su monopolio son estadounidenses. (2) Por lo tanto, no debe ser una sorpresa que las fuerzas detrás de los OMG tóxicos son promovidos internacionalmente a través de las Naciones Unidas, utilizando dólares de impuestos de los contribuyentes norteamericanos.


USAID (Agencia para el Desarrollo Internacional) es una agencia federal independiente que uno tiene que trata con el crecimiento económico y promueve la política exterior de EE.UU. y los intereses, bajo la Secretaría de Estado, Hillary Clinton. El organismo se financia con el dinero de los contribuyentes. Estos intereses suelen ser empresas privadas, como Monsanto, que es el campeón de “ayuda humanitaria” en nombre del pueblo estadounidense, utilizando el dinero de los impuestos. los esfuerzos humanitarios de la USAID incluyen imponer semillas transgénicas a las naciones pobres, a través de métodos complejos que eluden las legislaciones de los países pobres. (3) Los países pobres raramente se levantan contra el gobierno de EE.UU. y están bajo presión constante, por miedo de perder los beneficios financieros de EE.UU.. Así, estos países pobres y en transición venden sus propios agricultores y la población sufre porque los cultivos OMG no son saludables, los rendimientos de los cultivos OMG son más bajos y promueven los monopolios, lo que resulta en más dependencia.

La USAID financia muchas ONG (Organizaciones No Gubernamentales) que llevan a cabo los objetivos -en el caso de la USAID es una lista de casi 200 páginas- que son fundadas por los contribuyentes. (4). Es interesante observar cómo muchas de estas ONG’s se ocupan de ‘derechos reproductivos’, que es un término de lujo para la eugenesia (programas de cría selectiva, a menudo la esterilización forzada y el genocidio). Además, la USAID celebraron una asociación público-privada con la Fundación Rockefeller, con la ayuda de Bill Clinton, con el fin de utilizar las inversiones para “abordar” los problemas sociales y ambientales, bajo el amparo de un impuesto sobre la libre organización. (5) Esto significa que la organización -libre de impuestos- será capaz manipular inversiones de “impacto” para diseñar los programas sociales y ambientales. En otras palabras, estará observando a los grandes inversionistas utilizando su influencia, infraestructuras, servicios públicos, sistemas de alcantarillado, fuentes de agua, etc, lo que probablemente conducirá a la privatización de las empresas, y el control total en la consecución de los objetivos finales de la Agenda 21.

Programa de Alimentación Mundial de la ONU

El PMA de las Naciones Unidas (Programa Mundial de Alimentos) recibe la mayor parte de sus fondos de USAID.

El PMA es corrupto hasta la médula, como lo demuestra un documento de la ONU sobre Somalia, que se filtró y expuso que la mayor parte de la ayuda va a los trabajadores de la ONU, los militantes islámicos y los contratistas. (6) Otro ejemplo se encuentra en Etiopía, donde sólo el 12% de la ayuda alimentaria fue entregada al área afectada por la pobreza. Además, hay más ejemplos de la corrupción con gastos de envío y transporte inflados hasta un 300% sobre el costo. Por supuesto, las ONG están profundamente envueltas en esta red internacional de robo e incompetencia con cero rendición de cuentas.

Por otra parte, el Director de USAID, Rajiv Shah quien trabajaba para la Fundación Bill & Melinda Gates y el USDA, es también el director de una Revolución Verde en África (que Bill Gates y Rockefeller financiaron). De hecho, la semana pasada, Shah dijo que el PMA de la ONU es la creación de sistemas de alimentos que eliminen “ayuda humanitaria” a través del tiempo; o sea un plan de despoblación, la consolidación de los monopolios y / o la privatización de todos los recursos. Shah también quiere implicar al sector privado, lo que significa establecer más las APP (asociaciones público-privadas) que es el mecanismo moderna de fascismo. (7) (5)

Colectivistas de las Naciones Unidas, tratando de coaccionar a los gobiernos para que adopten los transgénicos, usan urgentes llamadas por la hambruna para amenazar a los países pobres y para convencer a las masas que los transgénicos son beneficiosos, cuando la verdad es que tienen un menor rendimiento de los cultivos. El PMA, empujando los OGM, han explotado el problema de África ofreciendo semillas OMG, la única ayuda que se ofrece, en un ultimátum “OGM o la muerte” (8).


La OMC de la ONU (Organización Mundial del Comercio) influye en las tarifas y puede imponer multas (de cientos de millones de dólares) en los países cuando estps comercian internacionalmente. Mientras que promueven la frase “libre comercio”, es cualquier cosa menos un mercado libre, debido a los impuestos arancelarios favorables o desfavorables que establece la OMC. Se fomentan los monopolios a gran escala. Se prohíbe la competencia y el capitalismo de libre mercado real.

F. William Engdahl, autor de “Seeds of Destruction”, explica con detalle cómo el Protocolo de Bioseguridad, una política que exigiría pruebas a los productos OGM, se vio socavado. Esto se hizo al forzar que una cláusula en el Protocolo de Bioseguridad subordinara sus normas a la OMC de la ONU, con el argumento de que la prohibición de los OMG es un obstáculo al comercio, conforme a las normas de la OMC, porque la preocupación por la seguridad era “no probada”. Por lo tanto, el pedido de pruebas para la seguridad de los OGM de Monsanto se retiró y los otros fabricantes, lo que perjudica a los consumidores, los agricultores independientes y cualquier otra persona que quiera probar la seguridad de los OMG; pues es una tarea costosa de probar, científicamente y en las cortes.

En una decisión de la ONU relacionadas con la OMC, se prohibió a los países miembros el uso de sus propias normas nacionales para las pruebas, sus propias leyes de seguridad alimentaria y sus propios estándares de producción, alegando que establecerían una “barrera injusta al comercio”. Por lo tanto, el gobierno de EE.UU. puede amenazar a cualquier gobierno que prohíbe los OGM de la ONU pues según ellos violan el llamado “libre comercio” de la OMC. La OMC resuelve los litigios comerciales internacionales en secreto. Por favor, lea el excelente artículo de Engdahl sobre la OMC para obtener más información sobre las políticas de manipulación (9). Por cierto, el Director de la OMC Rufus Yerxa, es ex empleado del gobierno de los EE.UU. y Monsanto.

Vandana Shiva explica cómo la OMC impuso restricciones al comercio de la India limitando las exportaciones y las importaciones, paralizando el mercado y la creciente dependencia alimentaria. Los cultivos OGM también mostraron menores rendimientos debido a que la semilla fue importada y no adaptada a las condiciones rurales de la India, lo que dio lugar a los suicidios de indígenas y más de 200.000 agricultores, a menudo por beber herbicida Round Up Ready. (Tenga en cuenta que no estamos de acuerdo con la evaluación de Shiva del calentamiento global).

Vea todos los detalles sobre el objetivo final de los globalistas en el documental El Objetivo Final: El Plan para la Esclavitud Global abajo.

Las Leyes NAFTA de la ONU

El TLC de las Naciones Unidas (Tratado de Libre Comercio) y otros acuerdos de la OMC se firmaron e introdujeron como “acuerdos”, en lugar de tratados. Bajo una legislación especial, los TLC fueron aprobados como ley después que los Congresos autorizaron la firma de acuerdos arancelarios y se saltaron el proceso habitual para hacer un tratado de una ley (que requieren dos tercios de aprobación del mismo Congreso).

El TLC de las Américas ha afectado negativamente tanto a los EE.UU. y México como a países de Centroamérica y América Latina, ya que fomenta prácticas agrícolas pro GMO en México, la contaminación de sus cultivos de maíz, que es un alimento de primera necesidad. Grano de EE.UU. y los subsidios de alimentos se utilizan para bajar los precios de los alimentos, lo que inundó los mercados de México, causando estragos en ellos. Los subsidios fueron financiados por los incautos contribuyentes de EE.UU.. México alguna vez fue auto suficiente desde el punto de vista alimentario, pero ahora se gasta el 78% de sus exportaciones de petróleo para comprar alimentos en los EE.UU.. las exportaciones de EE.UU. de los alimentos han disminuido como resultado del TLC, porque algunos países educados rechazan los OMG (11).


El FMI Naciones Unidas (Fondo Monetario Internacional) y las Naciones Unidas del Banco Mundial son los organismos hermanos que imponen duras condiciones y sanciones a los préstamos hechos a los gobiernos, lo que resulta en austeridad y privatización. De hecho, Joseph Stiglitz, ganador del Premio Nobel en 2001, ex economista jefe del Banco Mundial y anteriormente uno de los economistas del presidente Clinton, expuso la corrupción del FMI de las Naciones Unidas y la práctica del Banco Mundial de mantener los países en desarrollo en el tapiz rodante a través del reembolso de préstamos, que pueden dar lugar a medidas duras cuando los países no logran pagar el préstamo, en lugar de permitir que un país vaya a la quiebra y luego comenzar de nuevo. En 2003, el FMI admitió que efectivamente sus políticas han fracasado a menudo por más de 60 años (12).

El FMI y el Banco Mundial, en estrecha colaboración con la OMC, ofrecen ayuda financiera y las garantías a las empresas multinacionales para privatizar en los países pobres. Peor aún, el FMI y el Banco Mundial presionan a los países, que se muestra paralizados por la deuda, la privatización de los servicios públicos y otros recursos, especialmente agua. Recuerde, el agua es un recurso que afecta a la producción de alimentos. La ONU deriva mucho poder de los países endeudados y, a continuación es capaz de hacer demandas absurdas a los países deudores, que luego benefician a las corporaciones y los individuos como Bill Gates (13).


Codex Alimentarius, el programa de las Naciones Unidas para el control de alimentos y productos de salud a nivel internacional con el objetivo de armonizar los alimentos, significa que las plantas, semillas, ganado, la agricultura y cómo se procesa toda la comida debe llegar a ser “uniforme”. Por supuesto, los alimentos transgénicos es un componente importante de este sistema. El Codex Alimentarius es un programa para codificar los alimentos en todo el mundo, y que por ahora no funciona totalmente porque hay una falta de consideración a las condiciones locales (clima local, las condiciones del suelo, disponibilidad de agua, etc.) Esto parece ser simplemente estúpido hasta que uno se da cuenta de sus verdaderas intenciones: la despoblación. Codex Alimentarius opera bajo dos agencias de la ONU: la OMS (Organización Mundial de la Salud), notorio por empujar las vacunas para la gripe H1N1 y se ocupa de información privilegiada con las empresas farmaceuticas, y los corruptos de la FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). Por cierto, hay una excelente película de Kevin Miller “Nos Volvemos Silenciosos” o “We Become Silent”. Se recomienda para más detalles. (14)

Hay varios proyectos no muy populares sobre “seguridad alimetaria” actualmente en estudio. Por la simple lectura de este breve resumen de la medida SB 510 S, es evidente que el proyecto no está diseñado para la seguridad alimentaria, pero para la expansión de Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos, la EPA y el CDC, el control y la ganancia monetaria. Hay sólo unos pocos representantes en Washington que están interesados en la seguridad alimentaria verdadera y una solución real, lo que implicará la supresión de los OMG, o por lo menos el etiquetado de alimentos transgénicos, por lo que los consumidores puedan hacer una elección informada. Barack Obama emitió una orden ejecutiva el 10 de junio de 2010 que abre la puerta al Codex Alimentarius (15).

En conclusión, es evidente que los países miembros que no quieran quedar en la telaraña de la ONU deben abandonar su membresía. Esta acción daría lugar a la extinción de las Naciones Unidas, ya que se financia principalmente con los impuestos de los países miembros. Los pueblos deben entender que le dinero que ellos generan a través de su trabajo está siendo utilizado para envenenar y quebrarnos, y el resto del mundo. La educación de las masas es la clave, y debemos ejercer nuestro poder y la soberanía, sobre todo usando nuestras voces y acciones.

Por favor comparta esta información

Para más información sobre la Agenda 21 y como detenerla visite:
















Mexican President: Disarm Everyone. Obama Nods Yes

Mexican President Felipe Calderón called upon the United States Congress to re-enact the assault weapons ban in a bid to disarm the American people as they are integrated into theNorth American Union system. Further, he placed blame for fueling drug cartels and gang violence squarely on the United States and their supply of firearms.

Calderón made these outrageous and anti-American remarks from the floor of the U.S. Congress during an official visit, and also renewed attacks on the immigration legislation passed by Arizona.

President Obama joined in his cause, making the startling declaration that “We are not defined by our borders” during a press conference welcoming Calderón on the White House lawn. Such a statement with immigration AND “weapons” problems on the border? Whatever happened to the Robert Frost adage ‘Good fences make good neighbors‘?

Calderón told the United States that it must “regulate the sale of these weapons in the right way.” He continued:

“Many of these guns are not going to honest American hands. Instead, thousands are ending up in the hands of criminals.”

Calderón’s Call to Disarmament is particularly inappropriate before Congress, who are Constitutionally barred from making any law which would violate any part of the Bill of Rights– secured to the people and several states in balance against the power given to the Federal Government. Further, Calderón’s plan holds the same fallacy as other attempts at gun control. If carried out, banning “assault” weapons would empower– rather than restrict– narcotrafficking gangs and leave “good” people helpless. It would not, as he naively intends, curb cartel violence or dry out the tools of their intimidation.

Yet his proposals have long been advanced and supported by the likes of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, among others. President Obama voiced general support for a renewed ban last year, but acknowledged that it would be difficult to achieve politically. Moreover, Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder has also expressed support for re-enacting a gun ban, but has shied away from it while the White House has kept it quiet purposely to avoid political damage to other parts of President Obama’s already wildly-radical agenda. Last year, Newsweek scolded Eric Holder for “backing away” from the ban issue and failing to support an issue ‘important to Mexican officials.’


President Calderón also used the opportunity to amplify his criticism of Arizona’s immigration laws, a position which is hypocritical on several points. First, why would he have a voice among Mexican people who fled at all costs from the failing and violent narco-state which he heads? Furthermore, how can the Mexican President decry the efforts of Arizona to control its borders and maintain stability, when Mexico has considerably more severe laws against illegal immigration than that recently introduced by the under-pressure border state.

Though Calderón issued a tongue-in-cheek travel advisory to ‘visiting’ Mexican citizens warning them to be wary of the strict new attitude in Arizona, it is his own country which has grown wild with corruption, violence, drug cartels, authoritarian police and the unsustainable blow of mass exodus which has turned Mexico into a vacuum and failed state. While the United States has attempted to progress on issues of discrimination, Mexico continues to openly oppress its minority groups and stifle attempts at resistance. Despite this distinction, many sanctuary cities across the United States have joined with Calderón and proposed bans on Arizona of their own.


Most of all, the two heads of state, Calderón and Obama, have demonstrated a reckless and uncaring attitude towards curbing illegal immigration– which threatens to wreck both countries. Yet they have pushed hard for amnesty and other provisions to legalize workers and prevented any attempts to impede the open flow of goods and people across the border.

They have both worked furiously to fast-track North American regional integration. They met in Guadalajara in August 2009alongside Canadian PM Stephen Harper to continue– largely in secret — the agenda announced under the Bush-era Security and Prosperity Partnership for North America agreement (talks included the hot-button issue of “illegal southbound flow of American guns and cash that helps fuel this extraordinary violence”).

President Obama– for someone who claimed ignorance about the North American Union during his 2008 campaign [video]– certainly has gone a long way in supporting the total destruction of United States sovereignty, all while embracing cheap globalist clichés, obliterating the economy and opening-up the floodgates to labor replacement from Mexico and other Latin American countries.

Politicians– through NAFTA, WTO, CAFTA and SPP agreements, among others– are ushering in a corporatist-controlled North American Union, alongside a longer-term global merger. Robert Pastor and other key architects from the Council on Foreign Relations clearly designed the North American Union to circumvent the confines of the U.S. Constitution, and such a system is unlikely (once in power) to allow or accept the resistance of an armed population.