Archive for the ‘food’ Category

Ishtarmuz’s Rebuttal to: People will starve to death because of anti-GM zealotry

Ishtarmuz’s Rebuttal to: People will starve to death because of anti-GM zealotry as seen the on 23 May 2012

The father of the Green Revolution would have supported the GM wheat scientists at Rothamsted, argues Prof Malcolm Elliot.

Genetically modified crops have the potential to save lives around the world

Genetically modified crops have the potential to save lives around the world Photo: ALAMY

Original article posted by Prof Malcolm Elliot 12:24PM BST 23 May 2012. He writes:

In 1968 Paul Ehrlich wrote in his book The Population Bomb that “mass starvation” due to “burgeoning population growth” was inevitable. “It is now too late to take action” to avoid hundreds of millions of deaths in developing countries, he declared, more than 40 years ago. Nothing could be done to stop all those people dying from hunger, because there were simply too many mouths to feed. It was already game over.

Indeed Ehlich used a flawed model to make his prediction.  Unfortunately, he did not use the ubiquitous logistic curve which held true. Population should peak and level off as population density peaks and resources remained constant or decline. Everything else equal, this would have been true with no intervention.  In fact, it might be argued that any intervention that caused the population to continue upward instead of leveling off, like a green revolution, is responsible for the current population issues and has killed more than it has saved.

That Ehrlich was wrong, both morally and factually, was largely down to the efforts of one man. Norman Borlaug was as concerned about population growth as Ehrlich, but instead of making doom-laden prophecies about mass death, he decided that the best course of action to stop people starving would be to help them produce more food. Now famous as the father of the Green Revolution, he toiled for years to breed high-yielding cereal crops and other innovations which enabled poor countries to dramatically increase agricultural productivity.

Some might be interested in this podcast:  Exposing the Green Revolution: Myths, Realities, and Community Responses. 

The task of feeding the world is only going to get harder in years to come. By 2050 the world’s population will approach 10 billion, and combined environmental crises mean we must produce much more food on less land with less water, fewer agrochemicals and less fossil fuel, while still maintaining biodiversity. At the same time, farming must adapt to changing climate zones and weather patterns. To do all this we must heed Borlaug’s plea to deploy the full range of cutting-edge techniques to produce higher yielding, higher quality, lower input, lower environmental impact crops. As founding director of the Norman Borlaug Institute for Global Food Security, I can testify to the urgency of this challenge.

I see the same fallacious argument here that was originally argued against.  The only difference here between a doomsayer and a doomsayer with a solution that puts money and control of food in fewer and fewer hands, is that the inevitable doom predicted by the former is replaced by the inevitable doom hidden by the latter.  I can forgive the former of blindness, the latter is unforgivable.

Among the techniques that Borlaug highlighted were gene manipulation approaches that promise to deliver results faster and more precisely than the classical crop breeding techniques. Dr Clive James, Borlaug’s deputy director at his wheat and maize research centre in Mexico during the 1970s and 1980s, today reports that the 94-fold increase from 4.2 million acres in 1996 to 395 million acres in 2011 makes GM crops the fastest-adopted crop technology in recent history. During the period from 1996 to 2011, millions of farmers in 29 countries worldwide chose to plant and replant an accumulated acreage of 5.9 billion acres – a testimony to the fact that such crops deliver sustainable and substantial socioeconomic and environmental benefits.

Yet this progress has not been smooth. Norman Borlaug was forced to spend his dying years campaigning to protect agricultural innovations like GM from being derailed by activists who opposed all genetic engineering for ideological reasons, or were simply against modern biotechnology on principle. As Borlaug warned in 2004, success for the anti-GM lobby could be catastrophic: “If the naysayers do manage to stop agricultural biotechnology, they might actually precipitate the famines and the crisis of global biodiversity they have been predicting for nearly 40 years.”

The idea that scientists invested in the idea of patenting corporate scientific technology lack any ideological bias would be laughable if it was not so sad and dangerous. His line of argument boarders on propaganda.

This warning seems particularly prescient right now, as anti-GM activists threaten to destroy publicly funded research on wheat at the Rothamsted Institute here in the UK. A group called “Take the Flour Back” has pledged to destroy the entire trial site next Sunday, while on Sunday a lone activist broke into the experimental plots and caused damage before being arrested by police. The threatened “decontamination” by anti-GM zealots is supposedly in response to the danger of pollen from the wheat spreading to neighbouring fields – the activists seem to be labouring under the misunderstanding that wheat is wind pollinated, whereas in fact it is self-pollinating, so little if any pollen ever leaves the plant. This sadly testifies to the extent of their understanding of agriculture.

Except you can read in GMO Compass this:

Normally, self-pollination occurs, which means wheat plants fertilize themselves with their own pollen before flowers even open. Nevertheless – depending on genotype and climatic conditions – cross-pollination with other wheat plants is possible. It usually occurs at a rate of approximately one to two percent. The rate can increase up to 9.7 percent when weather conditions are dry and warm.

Unlike, yes, but possible.

It is also important to understand what the scientists at Rothamsted are trying to do. Their experiments test the important ecological concept that natural behaviour-modifying pheromones – which repel sap-sucking insect pests called aphids – can be used to protect crops in the same way as they protect wild plants. The project is publicly funded and, if it is successful, the results will not be patented. Indeed, if successful the trial runs counter to the interests of the agrochemical industry because it may point the way to another type of plant protection which reduces insecticide use and the effects on non-target insects, and thereby benefit both biodiversity and productivity at the same time.However, the activists seem impervious to scientific reasoning, and have rejected an offer by the Rothamsted team for a public debate in front of an audience. Still, constant attacks by a tiny, ideologically motivated minority on work which could benefit the whole of humanity raise serious questions. Can a small, thuggish “action group” take a unilateral decision to suppress the advance of knowledge which might benefit everyone? If so, they will continue wilfully to deprive British farmers of the benefits of a technology that is already cherished by millions of producers worldwide, and limit the response of distinguished British scientists to the needs of the billion people who are already starving.
It is truly unfortunate that a small group of thuggish scientists can decide to steer research in a direction which is more driven by profit than people and that it can be marketed as free and open research that is to the serve man and knowledge. I suppose it could be a cookbook.

This attack on both scientists and the scientific method cannot go unopposed. It is incumbent upon everyone who values science and reason to stand up to vandalism and the destruction of legitimate scientific experiments. The attack on Rothamsted’s experimental plot must not go ahead.

Indeed we cannot stand for this attack on science. This attack on science by a handful of scientists with the hubris to push dogmatic, reductionist scientific advances in technology as representing the syne qua non of science is not acceptable. That something can be done, does not mean it should be done. Unintended consequences are more than just a small possibility.

Professor Malcolm Elliott is the founding director of the Norman Borlaug Institute for Global Food Security

Enough Said.
 Repost of original article and image under fair use provisions of local copyright law.

Has the FDA sold itself to the international pharmaceutical industry?

Has the FDA sold itself to the international pharmaceutical industry?.

We need to stop this outrage.

A Perfect Storm of GMOs, Chemicals and Cancer

A Perfect Storm of GMOs, Chemicals and Cancer.

A Perfect Storm of GMOs, Chemicals and Cancer

By Rady Ananda in Food Freedom

Several books, including Seeds of Destruction and Corrupt to the Core,along with the film, The Idiot Cycle, lay out the framework for and evidence of a concerted effort to sicken and then treat humanity, while earning obscene profits. When we factor in other recent actions taken by transnational corporations and lawmakers, the conspiracy adopts a more ominous tone.

Authors William Engdahl and Shiv Chopra appear in Emmanuelle Schick Garcia’s powerful film, The Idiot Cycle: What you aren’t being told about cancer. Both writers provide detailed evidence of a corporate-government conspiracy to adulterate the food and water supply with dangerous substances linked to a host of illnesses. The Case Against Fluoride, a book using hundreds of peer-reviewed studies, provides more evidence. In David Gumpert’s Raw Milk Revolution, we get a peek at the US government’s war on the natural dairy industry.

Looking at six companies, Dow ChemicalBASFBayerDupontAstrazeneca(Syngenta), and MonsantoIdiot Cycle exposes corporate-government collusion in the release of carcinogenic chemicals, but also reveals how some of the same chemical companies then profit from treating cancer. It’s a cycle only an idiot would tolerate. Going further, much of the film then addresses genetically modified food and its potentially disastrous effect on health and the environment.

… snip…

Arpad Pusztai is no doubt the most famous scientist in the film. He first blew the whistle in 1998 on the hazards of GM crops, costing him his job at Rowett Research Institute in Scotland. Having studied biotechnology for 35 years, Pusztai had well earned the title as the world’s leading expert in this highly specialized field. In 1995, he won a three-year, $1.5 million contract from the UK government to establish a testing methodology for regulators when assessing the safety of GM crops.


The next most famous scientist in the GM debate, arguably, is Eric-Gilles Seralini, whose groundbreaking studies we covered here. Seralini has also beenvilified by the biotech community. In The Idiot Cycle, he describes the battle that he endured to publicize Monsanto’s blood test results of rats that had eaten GM corn for three months. Once the information was made public, independent scientists could then review Monsanto’s “safe” finding.

… snip…

Canada Health whistleblower Shiv Chopra, who authored Corrupt to the Core: Memoirs of a Health Canada Whistleblower, explains the genesis of the misanthropic aims of these chemical companies and their government protectors. Beginning 50-60 years ago, he says in the film, chemicals began playing a major part in agriculture. “On the one hand, they’re contaminating people’s food, and they do damage. Then they come back with chemicals to treat them.”


Though not in the film, another globally recognized scientist in the biotech world is Andres Carrasco. He and his team from Argentina and Paraguay found that Monsanto’s Roundup causes birth defects in frogs and chickens. “The findings in the lab are compatible with malformations observed in humans exposed to glyphosate during pregnancy,” he told GMWatch. In 2009, he wasthreatened at his lab, and in 2010 physically attacked by local police and the hired hands of a wealthy GM rice grower.


So when is the world going to start listening? Clearly, many of the pro-GMO backers can be grouped with the climate change deniers. They have no healthy skepticism of their own results, only of those as noted in above article.  

The crop scientists funded by the biotech industry have lots of data and results, but it appears that results only satifice the limited questions they are willing (allowed?) to ask. It appears that they are not falsifying any of the well framed questions being asked by those questioning their methodologies.  Their positive results appear to match well with the political, economic and cultural aims of those that can profit from the use of GMOs. Reality rarely leans right or left, only in the minds of those asking the questions does it do that.  

Is it any wonder that the we are starting to see a different picture emerge than the one presented over the last thirty years? Epigenetics works that way.  It is always a higher order pattern seen over generations. Those that looked beyond their test tubes thirty years ago would have been well aware of this potential result.  Will they be held liable?

Ishtarmuz’s: Why Monsanto, An Ex-Chemical Company, Now A BioTech Company, Is Evil #FYW

The reasoning involved in the nature of the evil of an “ex-chemical company” like Monsanto is not rocket science.  We only have to consider a few basic principles.  Once they are accepted as true, the rest follows.  The first principle is that life processes and systems are complex. They are the most complex systems known.  This makes all developing life sciences, especially those involved with the dysfunction and repair of life processes, as much an art as a science.  Those that would  create a product must also be able to maintain and repair it, not only the product, but also any consequence of its use. So the practice of  ’making’  or modifying of  life must equate to the healing of life in its methods in order for it to be a moral enterprise. Those that would improve life must be able to heal it when things go awry. To confuse a practicing art with an applied science is to engage in fraud and quackery of the most unethical and dangerous sort.

via Ishtarmuz’s: Why Monsanto, An Ex-Chemical Company, Now A BioTech Company, Is Evil #FYW.

The Monsanto Story

What a business plan.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

The Monsanto Story – 2 of 2

Vodpod videos no longer available.

1st collector for The Monsanto Story – 2 of 2
Follow my videos on vodpod

Why Monsanto, An Ex-Chemical Company, Now A BioTech Company, Is Evil

by Ishtarmuz

The reasoning involved in the nature of the evil of a chemical company like Monsanto is not rocket science.  We only have to consider a few basic principles.  Once they are accepted as true, the rest follows.  The first principle is that life processes and systems are complex. They are the most complex systems known.  This makes all developing life sciences, especially those involved with the dysfunction and repair of life processes, as much an art as a science.  Those that would  create a product must also be able to maintain and repair it, not only the product, but also any consequence of its use. So the practice of  ’making’  or modifying of  life must equate to the healing of life in its methods in order for it to be a moral enterprise. Those that would improve life must be able to heal it when things go awry. To confuse a practicing art with an applied science is to engage in fraud and quackery of the most unethical and dangerous sort. [more]

Poisoned Horses Excerpts and More #fluoride #phosphate #monsanto #FYW

Poisoned Horses Excerpts #fluoride

Vodpod videos no longer available.

1st collector for Poisoned Horses Excerpts #fluoride
Follow my videos on vodpod

Poisoned Horses with Cathy Justus 1 of 3 #fluoride

Vodpod videos no longer available.

1st collector for Poisoned Horses with Cathy Justus 1 of 3 #fluoride
Follow my videos on vodpod

Poisoned Horses with Cathy Justus 2 of 3 #fluoride

Vodpod videos no longer available.

1st collector for Poisoned Horses with Cathy Justus 2 of 3 #fluoride
Follow my videos on vodpod

Poisoned Horses with Cathy Justus 3 of 3 #fluoride

Vodpod videos no longer available.

1st collector for Poisoned Horses with Cathy Justus 3 of 3 #fluoride
Follow my videos on vodpod

The phosphate/uranium mines and processing plants expose the environment to the most reactive substance known, namely, fluoride.  What can be done with this hard to dispose of toxic by-product? Monsanto’s (and Dupont, Dow and Bayer’s) answer was to put it in the water and have a huge public health campaign to promote it.  Later they will help develop pharmaceuticals to put it in. All is for the best in the best of all possible corporatist worlds.  Have the government sell your waste as a health product. But, never mind, that is just another questionable conspiracy theory  promoted by those fuzzy headed thinkers exposed to such neurotoxins. Isn’t plausible deniability great?

The Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: An Environmental Overview

Fluoride and the Phosphate Connection 

The Fluoride Deception exposes the truth about water fluoridation and the phosphate mining industry 


Vodpod videos no longer available.

1st collector for FLUORIDE TRUTH hits the TV in AUSTRALIA
Follow my videos on vodpod

Fluoride Deception Mini-Documentary water fluoridation and the phosphate mining industry

Vodpod videos no longer available.

A “New” Approach to Health

A “New” Approach to Health #food
Vodpod videos no longer available.

1st collector for A “New” Approach to Health
Follow my videos on vodpod

Let thy Food be thy Medicine and thy Medicine be thy Food – Hippocrates

The Future of Food – The Dangers of GMOs

Get Involved:

From the website:

The Future of Food has been a key tool in the American and international anti-GMO grassroots activist movements and played widely in the environmental and activist circuits since its release in 2004. The film is widely acknowledged for its role in educating voters and the subsequent success of passing Measure H in Mendocino County, California, one of the first local initiatives in the country to ban the planting of GMO crops. Indicative of its popularity, the Future of Food showed to a sold out audience of 1,500 at the Castro Theatre in San Francisco in 2004, a benefit for Slow Food, where it was introduced by Alice Waters.

In September 2005, The Future of Food made a highly acclaimed national theatrical premiere at Film Forum in New York, followed by a tour of more than a dozen major American cities in the fall. Applauded by technology writers, food policy experts and environmental activists, the film has been shown around the world—from a plaza in Oaxaca, Mexico to the Jerusalem Cinematheque, and in citizen screenings all over the world—from India, Kenya, and Bulgaria to Brazil and Indonesia. It screened at a wide variety of professional gatherings, including the Midwestern Organic Farmers Convention, the Organic Trade Association 2005 trade show and conference in Chicago, and the American Dietetic Association convention. Columbia and New York Universities showed it to their students.

Throughout 2006, the film continued to be shown globally – to the public and at conferences, such as The Soil Association Convention in London and the Japanese Organic Farmer’s Convention. Garcia was the keynote speaker at the Nutrition and Health – State of the Science Conference put on by Dr. Andrew Weil and Columbia Medical School in New York City. The film had sold out premiers in Paris, Amsterdam and London and was screened in Turin, Italy for Slow Food’s “Terra Madre 2006,” a gathering of 5,000 farmers and food producers from around the world; and at the Conference on Women and Food Solidarity in Dehra Dun, India.

Since 2004 The Future of Food has been featured at numerous film festivals including The Margaret Mead Film Festival, The American Film Institute/ Discovery Channel SILVERDOCS Festival, The Slow Food Film Festival, and the New Zealand Film Festival. The film has won awards for “Best Doc” at deadCENTER Film Festival; audience awards at both the Ann Arbor Film Festival and the Ashland Independent Film Festival; and the “Human Rights Award” at the Taos Film Festival. It was chosen by the Oscar screening committee of the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences as one of the best documentaries of 2004. To date, The Future of Food has been translated into Spanish, French, Portuguese, Dutch, Italian and Japanese. An Educational Edition of The Future of Food with a year-long, university level curriculum by Professor Joshua Muldavin was released in Fall 2007….In 2009, The Future of Food continues to be shown throughout the world at film festivals, in classrooms, and as part of environmental, farming and cultural events. The film continues to enjoy the support of a wide range of organizations—from the Organic Consumers Association, to the Soil Association of Britain, to Slow Food….Genetic engineering of food crops is as controversial today as ever, as many of the large agro corporations that use this technology position themselves as the answer to the world food crisis and further consolidate the seed supply. The Future of Food continues to be a key tool used by activists and educators who call for increased attention to this issue.

© 2009 Lily Films

lBuy the DVDs. Give to friends. Get Involved. Support the cause. No GMOs.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

The Beatles – Revolution (Live) or GMO Dead? #FYW

‘You Say You Want A Revolution?’ … Go Non-GMO

as posted in Natural Products MARKETPLACE:

by Jeffrey M. Smith

Concern about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in our food supply is attracting a lot of attention these days: FDA’s attempt to fast-track approval of genetically engineered salmon has resulted in unprecedented media coverage; “GMO-Free” was the fastest growing claim for store brands in 2009; it’s now the fifth fastest overall health and wellness claim; and Supermarket News predicted 2010 would see an unprecedented upsurge in consumer concern about GMOs.

While it would be great if awareness spurred action to regulate GMOs, don’t hold your breath. FDA doesn’t require GMO labeling and this is unlikely to change soon.

Consumers Can Kick Out GMOs

The good news is when it comes to making changes in our food supply, consumers are in control. Since GMOs don’t offer a single consumer benefit, if even a small percentage of shoppers stopped purchasing products containing them, they’d be dropped by food companies.

This is what happened in Europe. In 1999, the biotech industry was projecting GMO seeds would replace 95 percent of commercial seeds within five years. But when a gag order was lifted on a top scientist who discovered GMO health dangers, a media firestorm ensued. Ten weeks and 750 articles later, most European food companies had committed to stop using GM ingredients.

In the United States, consumers forced GM bovine growth hormone (rbGH) out of most dairy products and dairy cases, including Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Dannon and Yoplait.

Starting a Revolution in Natural Products Stores

Although medical organizations, such as the American Public Health Association and American Nurses Association routinely condemn rbGH, the backlash didn’t begin with them. The tipping point was the reaction of health-conscious shoppers, especially parents, who shop at natural products stores.

This same demographic can push out GMOs. Experts estimate only about 5 percent of non-GMO shoppers are needed in the United States to achieve the tipping point. Already 28 million Americans, or 9.3 percent, buy organic products regularly. That’s more than we need.

Although most of these folks say they would avoid GMOs if they could, many aren’t sure which products are genetically modified, and how dangerous they can be. Retailers can provide this information and empower this trend-setting force to launch the non-GMO tidal wave. Here’s how.

Identifying GMOs and How to Avoid Them

The majority of soy (91 percent), corn (85 percent), cottonseed (87 percent, used for oil), canola (85 percent) and sugar beets (95 percent) are GMOs. Their derivatives are found in more than 70 percent of foods in the supermarket. All five crops have varieties that are spliced with bacterial genes to allow them to withstand deadly weed killers like Roundup.

Most Hawaiian papaya is genetically engineered to resist a virus, as are some zucchini and yellow crook neck squash. There’s also milk from cows treated with rbGH, and dairy and meat from animals fed GM feed. Aspartame is made from a GM micro-organism, and there are GM enzymes used in food production that aren’t even on the label.

Organic products don’t allow the use of GMOs, and plenty of other products are labeled as non-GMO. Although organic products have been a safe harbor for consumers who want to avoid GMOs, they don’t require testing for at-risk ingredients. And generic non-GMO labels don’t guarantee testing either.

The Non-GMO Project Third-Party Verified Non-GMO Claim

Fortunately, a nonprofit organization called the Non-GMO Project has sparked a shift in non-GMO claims by offering the nation’s first uniform standard, requiring testing of at-risk ingredients, as well as third-party verification. This program was started by leaders in the natural and organic industry, and now includes participation from retailers, manufacturers, distributors and consumers.

Thousands of products are enrolled, from startups to category-leading brands such as Silk soymilk. Enrollment doesn’t mean companies are just starting to test for GMOs. Silk, for example, has been testing its soybeans all along, but now the system they use will be third-party verified, with a common standard others are using as well.

Retailers and manufacturers working with the Non-GMO Project have organized October as Non-GMO Month and 10-10-10 (Oct. 10, 2010) as Non-GMO Day. Retailers are educating consumers about GMOs, while promoting Non-GMO Project verified products through shelf-talkers, prominent placement and a UNFI circular.

Our Institute’s Campaign for Healthier Eating in America, which produces a pocket Non-GMO Shopping Guide, just changed the criteria for listings. From now on, only products enrolled in the Non-GMO Project qualify.

Why Avoid GMOs?

Although most natural products shoppers say they would avoid GMOs if given a choice, it helps to give them compelling reasons to switch brands. That’s easy. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine cites animal feeding studies linking GMOs to reproductive, immune, gastrointestinal, organ and aging disorders. They are urging all doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets.

To help retailers educate shoppers, our Institute offers GMO Health Risk Brochures that summarize the risks. These, as well as Shopping Guides, books and DVDs, are part of our Non-GMO Education Centers, designed by and for retailers.

There’s no better place to accelerate the coming non-GMO tidal wave than the stores where health-conscious shoppers make their choices. In the revolution that will sweep GMOs out of our food supply, natural products retailers have an opportunity to be the heroes.

Jeffrey M. Smith is a consumer advocate for promoting healthier non-GMO eating. His first book, “Seeds of Deception,” is the world’s bestselling and number-one rated book on the subject. His second book, “Genetic Roulette,” documents 65 health risks of the GM crops Americans eat every day. Smith has spoken in more than 30 countries, and has been quoted in hundreds of media outlets, including The New York TimesWall Street Journal andTime magazine. He is the executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology and the Campaign for Healthier Eating in America, which produces the Non-GMO Shopping Guide, Health Risk Brochures, Non-GMO Education Centers, and other consumer education tools. He lives with his wife in Iowa, surrounded by genetically modified corn and soybeans.

Revolution – The Beatles

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Ishtarmuz’s: Why Monsanto, An Ex-Chemical Company, Now A BioTech Company, Is Evil #FYW

Why Monsanto, An Ex-Chemical Company, Now A BioTech Company, Is Evil

by Ishtarmuz

The reasoning involved in the nature of the evil of an “ex-chemical company” like Monsanto is not rocket science.  We only have to consider a few basic principles.  Once they are accepted as true, the rest follows.  The first principle is that life processes and systems are complex. They are the most complex systems known.  This makes all developing life sciences, especially those involved with the dysfunction and repair of life processes, as much an art as a science.  Those that would  create a product must also be able to maintain and repair it, not only the product, but also any consequence of its use. So the practice of  ’making’  or modifying of  life must equate to the healing of life in its methods in order for it to be a moral enterprise. Those that would improve life must be able to heal it when things go awry. To confuse a practicing art with an applied science is to engage in fraud and quackery of the most unethical and dangerous sort.

Before the chemical companies like Monsanto became biotechnology companies they only dealt with chemicals that interacted with life processes.  Repeatedly chemical companies like Monsanto produced new chemicals (thousands daily now)  that  they had no way of knowing what the full long term effects would be on living systems.  They were released without sufficient study. I know this because the needed pre-release experiments would have involved the study of such long term high level multivariate interactions that it would have been impossible to do these experiments in principle (though some have theorized it was possible albeit too costly to perform such experiments in practice).  In actual practice the environment itself was the testing ground, and the lawyers and the public relations propagandists delayed the inevitable lawsuits until a profit could be turned, a subsidiary company divested and the inevitable move to another product accomplished.  This is the model set by Monsanto over its hundred year history. Just think asbestos, saccharin, PCBs, DDT,  Agent Orange (dioxin), BGH, aspartamefluoride, mercuryGMOs, monocultureNazis, nuclear waste & News Corporation when you consider Monsanto.  You might add morgellons syndrome and mass bee death to that list, but that seems premature without more evidence. Yet the evidence mounts, for the bees, for the morgellons, and for the cover-up. In some real sense this all appears to be a final Solutia scenario for mankind and an awesome business plan.

Let us not forget the biggest piece to this warped pattern of corporate amorality, that of government contracts and mandates. The growth and cover of these corporate giants was through government contracts. Wars and  rumors  of war provide unlimited funding for research and development and also unlimited cover from equitable prosecution under sovereign immunity. They did it because the government asked them to do it and the  government had to do it because they were at war.  This is the real secret behind the congressional military industrial complex.

This brings us to yet another startling piece of the puzzle.  When you are at war you also have the patriotic duty to work for less under less safe conditions and companies don’t have time to worry about the consequences of this to their workers, let alone the general population.  Pollution standards can be lowered in the name of patriotism with the added benefit that your product can be freely marketed through government propaganda.

It is one thing when these companies are given a hand up by providing materials for war; it is yet another thing when these chemical products are changed to civilian uses, but retain the same standards and agreements as were used for the military at war. This was root of the old style fascism, and its more modern guise of corporatism.

It was bad enough when it was just harmful chemicals disbursed by Monsanto, now permanently lodged in every living thing on earth, that were the product of chemical reactions, but now they want to exponentiate the level of their catastrophic failure to the level of biological reactions.  Monsanto wants you to believe that they are both competent and moral enough to patent life and license its product in combination with the same subsidiary chemicals that they released to the detriment of billions around the globe. If they couldn’t consider the interaction of molecules, in principle, then even the lowest forms of life must still be beyond their reach. When further understanding of epigenetics reveals subtle negative effects, none of the crop scientists will be able to hide behind ignorance, given the warnings of the clear and present danger. So they need hide the facts as long as possible and hope no own notices until they turn a profit. Can competition regulate such abuses? Like Spain during colonial exploration, if you can’t kill the natives, marry them.  The model works so well everyone has copied it.

The truth of this will not be easy to harvest given that it is first mowed, then raked and then key Monsanto figures are baled and placed in the government barn later to be fed to the company herd and their seeds used to replant the Monsanto fields, all using huge lobbying machines. It makes me shudder to consider the human impact and the impact on higher order systems of this agro-political business growth model. Consider such a company having complete control over the world food supply, or having a monopoly on life itself.  Also consider the faux science needed to convince people that GMOs are safe compared with Monsanto’s history of lies. God forbid that the next tool of war becomes food. Maybe war will become obsolete given that corporations can rape and pillage the world with impunity as they brainwash the remaining vestiges of the domesticated (mute) populis. Perhaps this is a bit overstated. I wouldn’t want anyone to dismiss this as just another conspiracy theory. Every aficionado of the subject knows that there is always just one conspiracy and everything ties into it. However, you might want to see how a real conspiracy theory against Monsanto would look by clicking here.

The only morality a corporation like Monsanto has is its profit.  Death is the golden skeleton that is the cost of such companies doing business.  Such is the nature of evil. I am not saying profit is evil, but those that profit from death are manifesting evil incarnate.

The linkage I make of biotech with medicine is no shallow metaphor.  The ethical credo of these companies must have in it a ‘do no harm‘ provision. The researchers in these companies also must follow the tripartite role model of the physician as a clinician, public health expert and scientist. To date all we have seen is Doctor Josef Mengele when it comes to Monsanto and its ilk. The even scarier part of all this that they have formed their own triangle of trade by becoming Biotech companies by way of pharmaceutical companies.  So they get to treat the very illnesses they have created, but no one is going to believe this until the myths of their pseudoscience are debunked.

The governments around the world are considering going after Monsanto based on antitrust laws.  If this effort were real, then they would be going after companies like Monsanto under RICO-like statutes.  By doing so they would not just be forcing them to APPEAR to break up the monopolies by divesting into interlocking directorates, but they would be empowered to place direct government oversight over the corporations continually engaging in illegal and immoral activity.

One of my readers of my original post on this subject had a point. I was painting with too broad a brush and I had no plan or alternative. I just have a hard time believing that any of the Chemical Companies were or are in any way moral. However, since I had only collected history on Monsanto, I rewrote this article as Monsanto specific. Yet, I don’t see them as the only creators of Frankenstein. They are just a major player.

He wrote:

Posted by productionengineer on January 5, 2010 at 11:16 pm

Now that you’ve defined the problem, two questions emerge: a)What do you propose be done from here forward? and b)What alternative would you have preferred in the past?

You posit that that “chemical companies” produced all sorts of new chemicals without sufficient study, since truly sufficient study would be impossible. Are you suggesting then that none of these developments should have been allowed in the first place? If so, where are you drawing the line between “chemical companies” and “manufacturing companies (non-chemical)”? No, the line is NOT obvious. Polytetrafluoroethylene, computer chips, Gatorade, Cheerios, sewage treatment – which is on the “good” or “bad” side of the line.

Have some companies performed unconscionably? I’d be a fool to deny that. Do blanket statements across all industries do much outside of the talk show circuit? Not really.

My issue here is mostly not that they do damage, the issue is that they lie about it, cover it up and set it up to do it again and again and again. Risk is essential, yes, otherwise we never get anywhere. The problem is that we need to be informed participants in the risk, not guinea pigs.

The other lesson here is that you can be too big. Once you are big enough to control governments, then governments instituted for, by and of the people  must control you. There is little choice here. Either corporations submit to ethical control or we all remain slaves to the corporation.

As for the obvious solutions, well the dirty fucking hippies had it right all along. Small systems with self sustaining technology would work. This is exactly what the giant monopolies are fighting tooth and nail to debunk. Hopefully in the last forty years we have learned enough to not let the bastards grind us down this time. Illegitimi non carborundum or more correctly operor retineo non forensis liberi attero vos.

If you think these ideas are hyperbole and that their exists peer reviewed research that contradicts what I am saying, then you have not read the Bruce Stutz article on why such true peer reviewed research has yet to be done.

For a concise history of Monsanto, check out the idiot cycle and maybe some of you might want to crawl through a hole in the fence and learn how to avoid GMO foods.

You also might like: After Monsanto’s GM Meltdown in the USA or look at the next mad cow disease.

If you think that Monsanto might just be an isolated case, look at its mirror Dupont and how they are working in concert with Monsanto and the government.

If you feel helpless in the face of all this, then consider bolo’bolo or a more artistic approach.

For some more history look here and here and here and here and here.

The Death Merchants
Vodpod videos no longer available.

The World According to Monsanto – Full Documentary
Follow my videos on vodpod

O Mundo Segundo a Monsanto #ogm #gmo

Vodpod videos no longer available.

1st collector for O Mundo Segundo a Monsanto
Follow my videos on vodpod

Le Monde Selon Monsanto. #gmo #ogm

Vodpod videos no longer available.

1st collector for Le Monde Selon Monsanto. #gmo #ogm
Follow my videos on vodpod

You Don’t Fool Mother Nature

Vodpod videos no longer available.
%d bloggers like this: