USDA Committee wants farmers to insure themselves against GMO crop contamination

Members of the committee refused to assign responsibility to GMO producers for contamination of organic and conventional crops.

By CAREY GILLAM | REUTERS | NOVEMBER 21, 2012

Organic growers and food safety advocates on Tuesday condemned an advisory report to the Agriculture Department claiming its recommendations would be costly for farmers who want to protect their conventional crops from being contaminated by genetically modified (GMO), also known as genetically engineered (GE), varieties.

The groups were responding to a report submitted Monday afternoon to the U.S. Department of Agriculture by a committee assigned by USDA with studying how best biotech agriculture could “co-exist” with organic and conventional agriculture.

“Of particular concern in the report is the recommendation that organic and non-GE conventional farmers pay to self-insure themselves against unwanted GE contamination,” said a statement by the National Organic Coalition.

“This proposal allows USDA and the agricultural biotechnology industry to abdicate responsibility for preventing GE contamination while making the victims of GE pollution pay for damages resulting from transgenic contamination,” it said.

Since their introduction in 1996, genetically engineered crops have become popular with U.S. farmers and now make up the majority of corn and soybeans produced in the United States. But there are a range of environmental and health concerns tied to biotech crops, and many farmers prefer not to grow them and many markets, both domestic and international, pay a premium for non-GMO crops and other products.

In its report, the advisory committee, known as the AC21, said all American farmers have the right to make the best choices for their own farms, including the choice to grow genetically engineered crops, or to grow organic or conventional crops.

“It is important that every American farmer is encouraged to show respect for their neighbor’s ability to make different choices,” the report said.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said USDA would review the report and consider the recommendations. He said USDA supports “all segments of agriculture.”

“The report is the culmination of a great deal of hard work and complex discussion and review,” said Vilsack in a statement. “I understand that required compromises to find common ground.”

COMPENSATION ISSUE UNRESOLVED

USDA had asked the advisory committee to analyze what types of compensation mechanisms, if any, would be appropriate to address economic losses by farmers due to contamination by GE crops. And while there was some dissent, a majority of AC21 members did not agree on any type of compensation mechanism.

The committee said its members could not agree about the extent to which a systemic problem exists and whether there is enough data to warrant a compensation mechanism to address it. While the committee acknowledged there are unintended GE materials found in commercial products, they differed in their assessment of the significance of the unintended presence.

The committee recommended that the USDA evaluate data to better understand actual economic losses by farmers tied to GE contamination. If a compensation program is needed, the committee said it should be modeled on existing crop insurance. Co-existence agreements between neighboring farmers should be developed, the committee said.

“This issue will only increase as new biotech products come to market so it is essential that the federal government step up now and establish strong policies that ensure coexistence measures are carried out by farmers, seed companies, and others who move food from the farm to the consumer’s table,” said Greg Jaffe, a committee member and director of the Biotechnology Project at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a Washington-based non-profit.

Jaffe said he supported the report’s recommendations.

The committee was comprised of 23 individuals from 16 states and the District of Columbia, representing academia, the American Farm Bureau, corn, wheat and soybean industry organizations, the organic industry, grain companies and others.

The committee also recommended that USDA should set up and fund a comprehensive education and outreach initiative to “strengthen understanding of coexistence between diverse agricultural production systems.”

And the committee said the USDA should fund and research improved techniques for mitigating contamination and gather data from seed companies on contamination. It also recommended that USDA evaluate on an ongoing basis the pool of commercially available non-GMO seed and ensure that the seed supply remains diverse.

In criticizing the report, the organic growers said the committee “failed to make a single recommendation holding the patent holders of genetic engineering technologies responsible and liable for damages” caused by biotech seed use.

“We urgently need meaningful regulatory change that institutionalizes mandatory GE contamination prevention practices,” the National Organic Coalition said. “USDA needs to stop dragging its heels, get serious and focus on making this happen.”

Did USDA Deregulate All New GMO Crops?

by Tom Philpott
Mother Jones
July 8, 2011

It’s a hoary bureaucratic trick, making a controversial announcement on the Friday afternoon before a long weekend, when most people are daydreaming about what beer to buy on the way home from work, or are checking movie times online. But that’s precisely what the US Department of Agriculture pulled last Friday.

In an innocuous-sounding press release titled “USDA Responds to Regulation Requests Regarding Kentucky Bluegrass,” agency officials announced their decision not to regulate a “Roundup Ready” strain of Kentucky bluegrass—that is, a strain genetically engineered to withstand glyphosate, Monsanto’s widely used herbicide, which we know as Roundup. The maker of the novel grass seed, Scotts Miracle Gro, is now free to sell it far and wide. So you’ll no doubt be seeing Roundup Ready bluegrass blanketing lawns and golf courses near you—and watching anal neighbors and groundskeepers literally dousing the grass in weed killer without fear of harming a single precious blade.

Which is worrisome enough. But even more worrisome is the way this particular product was approved. According to Doug Gurian-Sherman, senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Food and Environment Program, the documents released by the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) along with the announcement portend a major change in how the feds will deal with genetically modified crops.

Notably, given the already-lax regulatory regime governing GMOs (genetically modified organisms, click here for a primer), APHIS seems to be ramping down oversight to the point where it is essentially meaningless. The new regime corresponding with the bluegrass announcement would “drastically weaken USDA’s regulation,” Gurian-Sherman told me. “This is perhaps the most serious change in US regs for [genetically modified] crops for many years.”

Understanding why requires a brief history of the US government’s twisted attempts to regulate GMOs. Since the Reagan days, federal regulatory efforts have been governed by what’s known as the Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology. Despite its name, the Coordinated Framework amounts to a porous hodgepodge of regulations based on the idea that overseeing GMOs required no new laws—that the novel technology could be effectively regulated under already-existing code.

Long story short, it means that the USDA theoretically regulates new GMO crops the same way it would regulate, say, a backyard gardener’s new crossbred squash variety. Which is to say, it really doesn’t. But that’s absurd. GM crops pose different environmental threats than their nonmodified counterparts. The most famous example involves the rapid rise of Roundup Ready corn, soy, and cotton, which were introduced in the mid-late 1990s and now blanket tens of millions of acres of US farmland. Spraying all of that acreage every year with a single herbicide has given rise to a plague of Roundup-resistant “superweeds,” forcing farmers to apply more and more Roundup and also resort to other, far-more-toxic products. Crops that aren’t engineered to withstand an herbicide could never have created such a vexation.

From the start, in a tacit acknowledgement that modified crops really are different, the USDA has resorted to a fiction that allows it to at least nominally regulate GMOs, Gurian-Sherman told me. A ’50s-era law called the Plant Pest Act gave the USDA power to restrict the introduction of organisms that might, well, harm plants. Genetically modified crops technically qualified as “plant pests” because industry scientists used DNA “promoters” derived from natural plant pathogens, most notably cauliflower mosaic virus, to amplify the genetic traits they introduced into new crops. “These promoters ensure that the desired trait is always ‘on,’ that is, expressed,” Gurian-Sherman explains.

The promoters—short stretches of DNA—are not themselves expressed by the engineered plant. In other words, the cauliflower mosaic virus used to bolster, say, Roundup Ready soybeans, poses no threat to actual cauliflower plants. In addition to promoters, GMO developers also use plant-pest substances at other points in the genetic-modification process—but again, they don’t express themselves in the finished project. “The Plant Pest Act was always just a regulatory hook to give the USDA authority to regulate engineered crops,” notes Gurian-Sherman. “Everyone—the industry, industry watchdogs, the USDA—always knew it was a fiction.”

Yet the fiction has endured. The industry accepted it, Gurian-Sherman says, because cursory oversight gave companies from a “fig leaf…They could say that their crops are regulated and have been deemed ‘safe’ by the USDA.” GMO foes accepted it as well, he adds, because without the plant-pest fiction, the USDA would have no authority to regulate genetically modified crops. Indeed, this plant-pest business has given activists important tools to force better oversight. For instance, the USDA is required by the National Environmental Policy Act to assess the environmental impact of the novel crops it regulates, and by the Endangered Species Act to gauge potential impact of GM crops on endangered species. Well, in recent years, the Center for Food Safety has successfully sued the agency for failing to conduct proper environmental-impact statements and endangered-species analyses for crops it removed from its plant-pest list.

Then, in 2000, Congress passed the Plant Protection Act, which broadened the Plant Pest Act slightly, adding one more regulatory hook (Gurian-Sherman’s words) to the USDA’s sparse GMO-regulation toolkit. That was the “noxious weed” status—any engineered crop that threatens to go rogue in the field and become a hard-to-control weed may be regulated.

That, roughly speaking, is where things stood. Until last Friday.

Obviously, a regulatory regime based on a lie was never really durable. Gurian-Sherman says the plant-pest schtick has been wearing thin for years now, because the industry has begun using nonpest material to develop novel crops. “If the companies don’t use plant pests, then the USDA ostensibly doesn’t have a legal hook to regulate the crops,” he says. To compensate, Gurian-Sherman says, the agency has resorted to tacitly acknowledging that it has no jurisdiction, but doing so quietly to avoid exposing the fiction.

But the agency’s decision on Scotts Miracle Gro’s Roundup Ready bluegrass may have changed all that. Scotts essentially shattered the code of silence in a Sept. 13, 2010 letter (PDF) to the USDA, which the agency released Friday. The company declared:

Because Kentucky bluegrass itself is not a plant pest, no plant pest components will be involved in the transformation, and the native plant genomes that will be used are fully classified, there is no scientifically valid basis for concluding that transgenic Kentucky bluegrass is or will become a plant pest within the meaning of the Plant Protection Act.

Based on that impeccable logic, the company went in the for the kill: “Scotts requests that [USDA] confirm that Kentucky bluegrass modified
without plant pest components…is not a regulated article within the meaning of the current regulations.”

In its July 1 response, the USDA agreed: “[N]one of the organisms used in generating this genetically engineered (GE) glyophosphate tolerant Kentucky bluegrass…are considered to be plant pests,” so Roundup Ready bluegrass “does not meet the definition of a ‘regulated article’ and is not subject” to the Plant Protection Act. In other words, go forth and multiply.

Read Full Article…

Obama Deregulates GMO Alfalfa and Sugar Beets

Alfalfa reaches our tables within milk, cream, butter, and meat, as it is commonly used to feed dairy cows.

By Robbie Hanna Anderman
Axis of Logic
June 4, 2011

Early this spring, while the world was distracted by Egypt’s uprising, President Barack Obama pushed the Secretary of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to deregulate genetically engineered alfalfa and sugar beets in the United States. The USDA came through as he directed, totally deregulating these Monsanto-patented genes in early February.

About 93 percent of soy, 86 percent of corn, 93 percent of cotton, and 93 percent of canola seed planted in the United States in 2010 were genetically engineered.

In so doing, Obama and the USDA have chosen to override and ignore decisions and injunctions made by the U.S. Supreme Court that banned planting of genetically engineered alfalfa and sugar beets without consideration of the Environmental Impact Assessments, which showed high risks to organic and conventional (chemical) farmers.

So how does this affect you and me? Neither of us remembers seeing alfalfa or sugar beets on our breakfast table or even on our Seder table. Or do we?

Sugar beets provide over 50 percent of the sugar Americans use in their coffee, cereals, and desserts. For the moment, let’s not focus on the fact that sugar beets can cross-pollinate with red beets and make our borscht genetically modified.

Alfalfa reaches our tables within milk, cream, butter, and meat, as it is used as a major animal feed in the dairy industry. It is also used to enrich soils in organic farming.

At this time, no genetically engineered crops are permitted for sale in the European Union (though WikiLeaks has revealed that the U.S. government is exerting strong pressure on the EU to allow them). Thus this new deregulation will potentially close off present markets for organic farmers’ crops.

Obama’s push for deregulation potentially also means the end of the organic meat and organic dairy industries as we presently know them. Essentially, he is choosing to favor the profits of big agribusiness over the survival of America’s family farmers, and especially America’s organic farmers.

Our democracy has to work for farmers and consumers and not just for multinational biotech corporations. It makes absolutely no sense that the economic risks to farmers are not considered before genetically engineered crops are put on the market. It is farmers who pay the costs of genetic contamination, not the biotech companies.

How else does this affect you and me? I’ll defer to Canadian geneticist David Suzuki on this.

In an interview with the True Food Foundation, Suzuki said anyone who claims genetically engineered food is perfectly safe is “either unbelievably stupid, or deliberately lying,” adding: “The reality is, we don’t know. The experiments simply haven’t been done, and now we have become the guinea pigs…. I am most definitely not in favor of release of GMOs in the food stream and given that it’s too late, I favor complete labeling of GMO products.”

In “More Science Needed on Effects of Genetically Modifying Food Crops,” a September 2009 article for the Vancouver news site Straight.com, Suzuki wrote:

Some have argued that we’ve been eating GM foods for years with few observable negative consequences but as we’ve seen with things like trans fats, it often takes a while for us to recognize the health impacts. With GM foods, concerns have been raised about possible effects on stomach bacteria and resistance to antibiotics, as well as their role in allergic reactions. We also need to understand more about their impact on other plants and animals.

And in “Experimenting With Life,” an article inYes!magazine, he wrote:
We have learned from painful experience that anyone entering an experiment should give informed consent. That means at the very least food should be labeled if it contains GMOs so we each can make that choice.

Like Dr. Suzuki, I think it’s worthwhile to acknowledge that we are also guinea pigs in another big experiment. Ours is the first generation to ever eat food that has been intentionally sprayed with poison before being eaten. While it may be argued that we need greater quantities to “feed the world,” the truth is that we’ve lost quality, we’ve lost fertility in humans and in the soil, and our health care budgets are indicative of the effects of this path.

Busy schedule? Click here to keep up with Truthout with free email updates.

Maria Rodale’s book, Organic Manifesto cites shocking studies that make a strong case against chemical farming, while at the same time highlighting the positive nutritional and environmental benefits of organic farming. And according to a 2009 report from the UN Environmental Program, organic farming may be the only way we can solve the growing problem of hunger in the developing countries. Yes, organic farms can feed the world, and do it sustainably.

So why is Obama favoring Monsanto? This is the company responsible for more than fifty uncontrolled or abandoned places where hazardous waste is located (“Superfund sites” according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Superfund sites). We also have Monsanto to thank for Agent Orange, PCBs, DDT, and more.

Monsanto’s genetically modified seeds already dominate the entire U.S. corn, soy, canola, and cotton crops. About 93 percent of soy, 86 percent of corn, 93 percent of cotton, and 93 percent of canola seed planted in the United States in 2010 were genetically engineered. Phil Angell, Monsanto’s director of corporate communications, explained the company’s regulatory philosophy thus: “Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is FDA’s job.”

To assure the Food and Drug Administration and USDA do not regulate genetically engineered crops, biotech has spent more than half a billion dollars lobbying Congress since 1999.

If we follow the “historical” pattern of genetically engineered corn, soy, cotton, and canola, we will likely soon see engineered alfalfa and sugar beets, with their wind- and bee-carried pollen, completely taking over the entire seed industry for those crops. This contamination would disallow farmers’ ancient practice of keeping and breeding seeds from year to year, and drive up expenses for all farmers. This is nothing new from the American government, which has historically supported policies favoring the consolidation of U.S. seed ownership in the hands of a few major corporations.

So let us remind our children that we were “slaves unto Pharaoh in Egypt.” For surely having one corporation control the seeds gives it unprecedented control. The state of affairs reminds me of how Pharaoh, at Joseph’s urging, took control of the grain supplies of Egypt, causing Jacob’s family to go down into Egypt and eventually become enslaved. Not worried yet? Chew on this: it’s been said that most U.S. cities do not have three days of food supplies on their shelves.

Extremes of weather in recent years have shown us how vulnerable this situation is. Meanwhile, the National Farmers Unions in the United States and Canada have advocated support for local family farmers and the implementation of local and national programs to ensure food security and food sovereignty — programs that fail to interest corporate-controlled politicians.

The fact that the executive wing of government has chosen to override a recent major decision by the Supreme Court to stop all dissemination of genetically engineered alfalfa until the completion on an environmental assessment of its danger is certainly cause for questioning.

What’s going on here? Did Obama betray us? Did Obama, a man, a charismatic politician, betray the people who voted for him, whose spirits were raised high with the slogan “Yes, we can”?

Perhaps. Yet I am reminded that to run a presidential campaign requires a great deal of money. And since the Supreme CourtCitizens Uniteddecision — supported by Clarence Thomas, a former attorney for Monsanto — to allow corporations the unlimited ability to anonymously fund political campaigns, it is becoming obvious that Obama owes something to many rich people.

U.S. corporations have gained inordinate power over all our politicians by manipulating the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. The amendment was adopted in 1868 to protect the rights of newly freed Blacks, yet by 1886 the Supreme Court had begun recognizing it as a protection of the rights of the “persons” called corporations — persons which do not breathe, do not have consciences, and are mandated to make a profit for their shareholders.

Which group would you betray? Your funders or your fans?

When Obama cried, “Yes, we can!” he obviously was speaking for a different “we” than those who voted for him imagined.

Monsanto’s seeds are genetically engineered for use with the company’s chemical herbicide RoundUp. Last year we learned that weeds are growing resistant to RoundUp. Monsanto’s profits and stock prices began dropping.

A failed technology is now getting another chance to dance and prop up a failing corporation. Oddly, alfalfa (Arabic for “king of herbs”) does not need herbicides for more than 93 percent of its common applications. Farmers have been growing it for many centuries and know how to do so without herbicides. The push for genetically engineered alfalfa is just a game move toward controlling the food supply.

After all, what will we eat when America’s family farmers are all driven off their farms and into our cities? We would then be dependent on corporate factory farms, whose managers are far from the soil and lack experience in dealing with the whims of nature and weather. We would also be dependent on oil and the prices of oil to supply us with imported food. WikiLeaks has just revealed dispatches from Saudi Arabia to the United States from 2007–9 stating that Peak Oil is happening now: reports of oil in the ground were exaggerated by 40 percent. Thus shipping prices, and agrichemicals prices are soon to rise even further.

In the 1970s, the richest 1 percent of American families took in 9 percent of the nation’s total income. Today, the top 1 percent take in 23.5 percent of total income. With median workers earning less than they did thirty years ago, who will be able to afford food, let alone nourishing food?

Even in the face of these dire circumstances, however, the consciousness of humans is rising. People are increasingly demanding to know where their food comes from. People are supporting organic production even in the face of recession. People are taking up gardening and shopping at farmers markets.

Obama taught us not to look for a charismatic messiah, while also teaching us those magic words, “yes, we can!” The coalitions that came together to elect Obama can be revived, as can the networks, and the social media to keep alive the connections.

The Center for Food Safety has already filed a legal brief to halt the actual dissemination of these genetically engineered seeds, and Canadian Organic Growers and several other organizations have joined in on the lawsuit. This struggle needs our support. We all eat; it goes beyond all differences. In addition to supporting the legal struggle for food safety, we can also make our voices heard by refusing to invest in big genetic engineering companies such as Monsanto and Bayer.

We can do it. We can craft food security and food sovereignty for the people of America and beyond.

Monsanto’s Roundup Triggers Over 40 Plant Diseases

New Diseases Endanger Human and Animal Health

By Jeffrey Smith
January 19, 2011

While visiting a seed corn dealer’s demonstration plots in Iowa last fall, Dr. Don Huber walked passed a soybean field and noticed a distinct line separating severely diseased yellowing soybeans on the right from healthy green plants on the left (see photo). The yellow section was suffering from Sudden Death Syndrome (SDS), a serious plant disease that ravaged the Midwest in 2009 and ’10, driving down yields and profits. Something had caused that area of soybeans to be highly susceptible and Don had a good idea what it was.

The diseased field on the right had glyphosate applied the previous season. Photo by Don Huber

Don Huber spent 35 years as a plant pathologist at Purdue University and knows a lot about what causes green plants to turn yellow and die prematurely. He asked the seed dealer why the SDS was so severe in the one area of the field and not the other. “Did you plant something there last year that wasn’t planted in the rest of the field?” he asked. Sure enough, precisely where the severe SDS was, the dealer had grown alfalfa, which he later killed off at the end of the season by spraying a glyphosate-based herbicide (such as Roundup). The healthy part of the field, on the other hand, had been planted to sweet corn and hadn’t received glyphosate.

This was yet another confirmation that Roundup was triggering SDS. In many fields, the evidence is even more obvious. The disease was most severe at the ends of rows where the herbicide applicator looped back to make another pass (see photo). That’s where extra Roundup was applied.

Don’s a scientist; it takes more than a few photos for him to draw conclusions. But Don’s got more—lots more. For over 20 years, Don studied Roundup’s active ingredient glyphosate. He’s one of the world’s experts. And he can rattle off study after study that eliminate any doubt that glyphosate is contributing not only to the huge increase in SDS, but to the outbreak of numerous other diseases. (See selected reading list.)

Roundup: The perfect storm for plant disease

Sudden Death Syndrome is more severe at the ends of rows, where Roundup dose is strongest. Photo by Amy Bandy.

More than 30% of all herbicides sprayed anywhere contain glyphosate—the world’s bestselling weed killer. It was patented by Monsanto for use in their Roundup brand, which became more popular when they introduced “Roundup Ready” crops starting in 1996. These genetically modified (GM) plants, which now include soy, corn, cotton, canola, and sugar beets, have inserted genetic material from viruses and bacteria that allows the crops to withstand applications of normally deadly Roundup.

(Monsanto requires farmers who buy Roundup Ready seeds to only use the company’s Roundup brand of glyphosate. This has extended the company’s grip on the glyphosate market, even after its patent expired in 2000.)

The herbicide doesn’t destroy plants directly. It rather cooks up a unique perfect storm of conditions that revs up disease-causing organisms in the soil, and at the same time wipes out plant defenses against those diseases. The mechanisms are well-documented but rarely cited.

  • The glyphosate molecule grabs vital nutrients and doesn’t let them go. This process is called chelation and was actually the original property for which glyphosate was patented in 1964. It was only 10 years later that it was patented as an herbicide. When applied to crops, it deprives them of vital minerals necessary for healthy plant function—especially for resisting serious soilborne diseases. The importance of minerals for protecting against disease is well established. In fact, mineral availability was the single most important measurement used by several famous plant breeders to identify disease-resistant varieties.
  • Glyphosate annihilates beneficial soil organisms, such as Pseudomonas and Bacillus bacteria that live around the roots. Since they facilitate the uptake of plant nutrients and suppress disease-causing organisms, their untimely deaths means the plant gets even weaker and the pathogens even stronger.
  • The herbicide can interfere with photosynthesis, reduce water use efficiency, lower lignin , damage and shorten root systems, cause plants to release important sugars, and change soil pH—all of which can negatively affect crop health.
  • Glyphosate itself is slightly toxic to plants. It also breaks down slowly in soil to form another chemical called AMPA (aminomethylphosphonic acid) which is also toxic. But even the combined toxic effects of glyphosate and AMPA are not sufficient on their own to kill plants. It has been demonstrated numerous times since 1984
  • The actual plant assassins, according to Purdue weed scientists and others, are severe disease-causing organisms present in almost all soils. Glyphosate dramatically promotes these, which in turn overrun the weakened crops with deadly infections.

    Glyphosate with sterile soil (A) only stunts plant growth. In normal soil (B), pathogens kill the plant. Control (C) shows normal growth.

“This is the herbicidal mode of action of glyphosate,” says Don. “It increases susceptibility to disease, suppresses natural disease controls such as beneficial organisms, and promotes virulence of soilborne pathogens at the same time.” In fact, he points out that “If you apply certain fungicides to weeds, it destroys the herbicidal activity of glyphosate!”

By weakening plants and promoting disease, glyphosate opens the door for lots of problems in the field. According to Don, “There are more than 40 diseases of crop plants that are reported to increase with the use of glyphosate, and that number keeps growing as people recognize the association between glyphosate and disease.”

Roundup promotes human and animal toxins

Photo by Robert Kremer

Some of the fungi promoted by glyphosate produce dangerous toxins that can end up in food and feed. Sudden Death Syndrome, for example, is caused by the Fusarium fungus. USDA scientist Robert Kremer found a 500% increase in Fusarium root infection of Roundup Ready soybeans when glyphosate is applied (see photos and chart). Corn, wheat, and many other plants can also suffer from serious Fusarium-based diseases.

But Fusarium’s wrath is not limited to plants. According to a report by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, toxins from Fusarium on various types of food crops have been associated with disease outbreaks throughout history. They’ve “been linked to the plague epidemics” of medieval Europe, “large-scale human toxicosis in Eastern Europe,” oesophageal cancer in southern Africa and parts of China, joint diseases in Asia and southern Africa, and a blood disorder in Russia. Fusarium toxins have also been shown to cause animal diseases and induce infertility.

As Roundup use rises, plant disease skyrockets

When Roundup Ready crops were introduced in 1996, Monsanto boldly claimed that herbicide use would drop as a result. It did—slightly—for three years. But over the next 10 years, it grew considerably. Total herbicide use in the US jumped by a whopping 383 million pounds in the 13 years after GMOs came on the scene. The greatest contributor is Roundup.

Over time, many types of weeds that would once keel over with just a tiny dose of Roundup now require heavier and heavier applications. Some are nearly invincible. In reality, these super-weeds are resistant not to the glyphosate itself, but to the soilborne pathogens that normally do the killing in Roundup sprayed fields.

Having hundreds of thousands of acres infested with weeds that resist plant disease and weed killer has been devastating to many US farmers, whose first response is to pour on more and more Roundup. Its use is now accelerating. Nearly half of the huge 13-year increase in herbicide use took place in just the last 2 years. This has serious implications.

As US farmers drench more than 135 million acres of Roundup Ready crops with Roundup, plant diseases are enjoying an unprecedented explosion across America’s most productive crop lands. Don rattles off a lengthy list of diseases that were once under effective management and control, but are now creating severe hardship. (The list includes SDS and Corynespora root rot of soybeans, citrus variegated chlorosis (CVC), Fusarium wilt of cotton, Verticillium wilt of potato, take-all root, crown, and stem blight of cereals, Fusarium root and crown rot, Fusarium head blight, Pythium root rot and damping off, Goss’ wilt of corn, and many more.)

In Brazil, the new “Mad Soy Disease” is ravaging huge tracts of soybean acreage. Although scientists have not yet determined its cause, Don points out that various symptoms resemble a rice disease (bakanae) which is caused by Fusarium.

Corn dies young

In recent years, corn plants and entire fields in the Midwest have been dying earlier and earlier due to various diseases. Seasoned and observant farmers say they’re never seen anything like it.

“A decade ago, corn plants remained green and healthy well into September,” says Bob Streit, an agronomist in Iowa. “But over the last three years, diseases have turned the plants yellow, then brown, about 8 to 10 days earlier each season. In 2010, yellowing started around July 7th and yield losses were devastating for many growers.”

Bob and other crop experts believe that the increased use of glyphosate is the primary contributor to this disease trend. It has already reduced corn yields significantly. “If the corn dies much earlier,” says Bob, “it might collapse the corn harvest in the US, and threaten the food chain that it supports.”

A question of bugs

In addition to promoting plant diseases, which is well-established, spraying Roundup might also promote insects. That’s because many bugs seek sick plants. Scientists point out that healthy plants produce nutrients in a form that many insects cannot assimilate. Thus, farmers around the world report less insect problems among high quality, nutrient-dense crops. Weaker plants, on the other hand, create insect smorgasbords. This suggests that plants ravaged with diseases promoted by glyphosate may also attract more insects, which in turn will increase the use of toxic pesticides. More study is needed to confirm this.

Roundup persists in the environment

Monsanto used to boast that Roundup is biodegradable, claiming that it breaks down quickly in the soil. But courts in the US and Europe disagreed and found them guilty of false advertising. In fact, Monsanto’s own test data revealed that only 2% of the product broke down after 28 days.

Whether glyphosate degrades in weeks, months, or years varies widely due to factors in the soil, including pH, clay , types of minerals, residues from Roundup Ready crops, and the presence of the specialized enzymes needed to break down the herbicide molecule. In some conditions, glyphosate can grab hold of soil nutrients and remain stable for long periods. One study showed that it took up to 22 years for glyphosate to degrade only half its volume! So much for trusting Monsanto’s product claims.

Glyphosate can attack from above and below. It can drift over from a neighbors farm and wreak havoc. And it can even be released from dying weeds, travel through the soil, and then be taken up by healthy crops.

The amount of glyphosate that can cause damage is tiny. European scientists demonstrated that less than half an ounce per acre inhibits the ability of plants to take up and transport essential micronutrients (see chart).

As a result, more and more farmers are finding that crops planted in years after Roundup is applied suffer from weakened defenses and increased soilborne diseases. The situation is getting worse for many reasons.

  • The glyphosate concentration in the soil builds up season after season with each subsequent application.
  • Glyphosate can also accumulate for 6-8 years inside perennial plants like alfalfa, which get sprayed over and over.
  • Glyphosate residues in the soil that become bound and immobilized can be reactivated by the application of phosphate fertilizers or through other methods. Potato growers in the West and Midwest, for example, have experienced severe losses from glyphosate that has been reactivated.
  • Glyphosate can find its way onto farmland accidentally, through drifting spray, in contaminated water, and even through chicken manure!

    Wheat affected after 10 years of glyphosate field applications.

Imagine the shock of farmers who spread chicken manure in their fields to add nutrients, but instead found that the glyphosate in the manure tied up nutrients in the soil, promoted plant disease, and killed off weeds or crops. Test results of the manure showed glyphosate/AMPA concentrations at a whopping 0.36-0.75 parts per million (ppm). The normal herbicidal rate of glyphosate is about 0.5 ppm/acre.

Manure from other animals may also be spreading the herbicide, since US livestock consume copious amounts of glyphosate—which accumulates in corn kernels and soybeans. If it isn’t found in livestock manure (or urine), that may be even worse. If glyphosate is not exiting the animal, it must be accumulating with every meal, ending up in our meat and possibly milk.

Add this threat to the already high glyphosate residues inside our own diets due to corn and soybeans, and we have yet another serious problem threatening our health. Glyphosate has been linked to sterility, hormone disruption, abnormal and lower sperm counts, miscarriages, placental cell death, birth defects, and cancer, to name a few. (See resource list on glyphosate health effects.)

Nutrient loss in humans and animals

The same nutrients that glyphosate chelates and deprives plants are also vital for human and animal health. These include iron, zinc, copper, manganese, magnesium, calcium, boron, and others. Deficiencies of these elements in our diets, alone or in combination, are known to interfere with vital enzyme systems and cause a long list of disorders and diseases.

Alzheimer’s, for example, is linked with reduced copper and magnesium. Don Huber points out that this disease has jumped 9000% since 1990.

Manganese, zinc, and copper are also vital for proper functioning of the SOD (superoxide dismustase) cycle. This is key for stemming inflammation and is an important component in detoxifying unwanted chemical compounds in humans and animals.

Glyphosate-induced mineral deficiencies can easily go unidentified and untreated. Even when laboratory tests are done, they can sometimes detect adequate mineral levels, but miss the fact that glyphosate has already rendered them unusable.

Glyphosate can tie up minerals for years and years, essentially removing them from the pool of nutrients available for plants, animals, and humans. If we combine the more than 135 million pounds of glyphosate-based herbicides applied in the US in 2010 with total applications over the past 30 years, we may have already eliminated millions of pounds of nutrients from our food supply.

This loss is something we simply can’t afford. We’re already suffering from progressive nutrient deprivation even without Roundup. In a UK study, for example, they found between 16-76% less nutrients in 1991, compared to levels in the same foods in 1940.

Livestock disease and mineral deficiency

Roundup Ready crops dominate US livestock feed. Soy and corn are most prevalent—93% of US soy and nearly 70% of corn are Roundup Ready. Animals are also fed derivatives of the other three Roundup Ready crops: canola, sugar beets, and cottonseed. Nutrient loss from glyphosate can therefore be severe.

This is especially true for manganese (Mn), which is not only chelated by glyphosate, but also reduced in Roundup Ready plants (see photo). One veterinarian finds low manganese in every livestock liver he measures. Another vet sent the liver of a stillborn calf out for testing. The lab report stated: No Detectible Levels of Manganese—in spite of the fact that the mineral was in adequate concentrations in his region. When that vet started adding manganese to the feed of a herd, disease rates dropped from a staggering 20% to less than ½%.

Veterinarians who started their practice after GMOs were introduced in 1996 might assume that many chronic or acute animal disorders are common and to be expected. But several older vets have stated flat out that animals have gotten much sicker since GMOs came on the scene. And when they switch livestock from GMO to non-GMO feed, the improvement in health is dramatic. Unfortunately, no one is tracking this, nor is anyone looking at the impacts of consuming milk and meat from GM-fed animals.

Alfalfa madness, brought to you by Monsanto and the USDA

As we continue to drench our fields with Roundup, the perfect storm gets bigger and bigger. Don asks the sobering question: “How much of the hundreds of millions of pounds of glyphosate that have been applied to our most productive farm soils over the past 30 years is still available to damage subsequent crops through its effects on nutrient availability, increased disease, or reduced nutrient of our food and feed?”

Instead of taking urgent steps to protect our land and food, the USDA just made plans to make things worse. In December they released their Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on Roundup Ready alfalfa, which Monsanto hopes to reintroduce to the market.

Alfalfa is the fourth largest crop in the US, grown on 22 million acres. It is used primarily as a high protein source to feed dairy cattle and other ruminant animals. At present, weeds are not a big deal for alfalfa. Only 7% of alfalfa acreage is ever sprayed with an herbicide of any kind. If Roundup Ready alfalfa is approved, however, herbicide use would jump to unprecedented levels, and the weed killer of choice would of course be Roundup.

Even without the application of glyphosate, the nutritional quality of Roundup Ready alfalfa will be less, since Roundup Ready crops, by their nature, have reduced mineral . When glyphosate is applied, nutrient quality suffers even more (see chart).

The chance that Roundup would increase soilborne diseases in alfalfa fields is a near certainty. In fact, Alfalfa may suffer more than other Roundup Ready crops. As a perennial, it can accumulate Roundup year after year. It is a deep-rooted plant, and glyphosate leaches into sub soils. And “Fusarium is a very serious pathogen of alfalfa,” says Don. “So too are Phytophthora and Pythium,” both of which are promoted by glyphosate. “Why would you even consider jeopardizing the productivity and nutrient quality of the third most valuable crop in the US?” he asks in frustration, “especially since we have no way of removing the gene once it is spread throughout the alfalfa gene pool.”

It’s already spreading. Monsanto had marketed Roundup Ready alfalfa for a year, until a federal court declared its approval to be illegal in 2007. They demanded that the USDA produce an EIS in order to account for possible environmental damage. But even with the seeds taken off the market, the RR alfalfa that had already been planted has been contaminating non-GMO varieties. Cal/West Seeds, for example, discovered that more than 12% of their seed lots tested positive for contamination in 2009, up from 3% in 2008.

In their EIS, the USDA does acknowledge that genetically modified alfalfa can contaminate organic and non-GMO alfalfa, and that this could create economic hardship. They are even considering the unprecedented step of placing restrictions on RR alfalfa seed fields, requiring isolation distances. Experience suggests that this will slow down, but not eliminate GMO contamination. Furthermore, studies confirm that genes do transfer from GM crops into soil and soil organisms, and can jump into fungus through cuts on the surface of GM plants. But the EIS does not adequately address these threats and their implications.

Instead, the USDA largely marches lock-step with the biotech industry and turns a blind eye to the widespread harm that Roundup is already inflicting. If they decide to approve Monsanto’s alfalfa, the USDA may ultimately be blamed for a catastrophe of epic proportions.

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 ENGAÑO DE LAS ONG:

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 http://www.FreedomAdvocates.org, 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).

EL ENGAÑO DE LOS “SIN FINES DE LUCRO”:

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.

SOLUCIONES ALIMENTICIAS:

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 ByteStyle.tv. 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.

SOLUCIONES POLITICAS:

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 http://www.FreedomAdvocates.org 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 www.real-agenda.com y www.MorphCity.com para encontrar artículos anteriores sobre “Alimentación y Despoblación y futuros artículos acerca de las soluciones.

Materiales Consultados:

1. http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/06/21/…

2. http://www.freedomadvocates.org/articles/…

3. http://www.iucn.org/about/work/initiatives/biotechnology/gmos/

4. http://www.morphcity.com/agenda-21/environment/esahttp://www.morphcity.com/…

5. http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php…

6. http://www.westernjournalism.com/exclusive-investigative-reports…http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/…http://www.policestateplanning.com/id52.htm

7. http://www.realityzone.com/hiddenagenda2.html

8. http://www.naturalnews.com/027186_silver_Merck_colloidal_silver.htmlhttp://www.zimbio.com/Administrator+Stephen+Johnson…http://www.undueinfluence.com/rockefeller_family_fund.htmhttp://activistcash.com/foundation.cfm/did/138

9. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-kimbrell…

10. http://www.morphcity.com/agenda-21/definitions

11. https://myorganicacres.com/

12. http://offthegridnews.com/letter-to-the-editor-june-7/

13. http://www.thenhf.com/health_freedom_news_12.htmhttp://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/Home/index.cfm