Archive for December 2014

LEAKED: Secret Negotiations to Let Big Brother Go Global

Have you heard of TISA? I hadn’t until this article. The Totalitarian Tiptoe, as David Icke calls it, is becoming a raging gallop. I quote:

Much has been written, at least in the alternative media, about the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), two multilateral trade treaties being negotiated between the representatives of dozens of national governments and armies of corporate lawyers and lobbyists (on which you can read more here, here and here). However, much less is known about the decidedly more secretive Trade in Services Act (TiSA), which involves more countries than either of the other two.

At least until now, that is. Thanks to a leaked document jointly published by the Associated Whistleblowing Press and Filtrala, the potential ramifications of the treaty being hashed out behind hermetically sealed doors in Geneva are finally seeping out into the public arena.

If signed, the treaty would affect all services ranging from electronic transactions and data flow, to veterinary and architecture services. It would almost certainly open the floodgates to the final wave of privatization of public services, including the provision of healthcare, education and water. Meanwhile, already privatized companies would be prevented from a re-transfer to the public sector by a so-called barring “ratchet clause” – even if the privatization failed.

More worrisome still, the proposal stipulates that no participating state can stop the use, storage and exchange of personal data relating to their territorial base. Here’s more from Rosa Pavanelli, general secretary of Public Services International (PSI):

The leaked documents confirm our worst fears that TiSA is being used to further the interests of some of the largest corporations on earth (…) Negotiation of unrestricted data movement, internet neutrality and how electronic signatures can be used strike at the heart of individuals’ rights. Governments must come clean about what they are negotiating in these secret trade deals.

Fat chance of that, especially in light of the fact that the text is designed to be almost impossible to repeal, and is to be “considered confidential” for five years after being signed. What that effectively means is that the U.S. approach to data protection (read: virtually non-existent) could very soon become the norm across 50 countries spanning the breadth and depth of the industrial world.

You can read the rest here.

The secret GMO war: double agents, betrayal, greed?

I’m going to share with you this entire post by Jon Rappoport, since it is such a wonderful illustration of how American business, in particular, works. We fail to understand the game at our peril.

 

The secret GMO war: double agents, betrayal, greed?

by Jon Rappoport

December 26, 2014

NoMoreFakeNews.com

I’ll start at an odd place, a seemingly innocuous place. Bear with me:

We need to understand the distinction between two kinds of labeling.

Voluntary labeling=“I own this health-food store, and I’m doing my best to sell you non-GMO products. All such products will carry a seal that says ‘Non-GMO’.”

Mandatory labeling=“Vermont has decided that all food products sold in the state which contain GMOs must be labeled as such—‘this product contains GMOs’.”

Two very different types of labels. They contain different information.

Also, one type is voluntary, and the other becomes mandatory after passage of a vote, in a legislature or through a ballot measure.

So what?

Well, let me put it to you this way. What would happen to Whole Foods’ program of voluntary GMO labeling if there were mandatory labeling across America, or in any state where Whole Foods does business?

Can you guess?

I’ll break it down. Whole Foods has pledged to put “non-GMO” labels on their products by 2018. They’ll do everything they can to sell as many non-GMO products as possible. The products that don’t carry the non-GMO seal will obviously be GMO, and customers can avoid them if they want to.

On the other hand, if suddenly, out of the blue, mandatory labeling became law, the whole voluntary non-GMO label enterprise would be obsolete. Why voluntarily put that label on products when mandatory labeling handles the whole issue?

“We put non-GMO labels on our food. Aren’t we wonderful?”

“Not really. The mandatory labels tell me everything that’s GMO. All the other products are non-GMO. Thanks, but no thanks.”

Does that show you something? Does it suggest that Whole Foods doesn’t really want mandatory labeling?

In fact, if mandatory labeling never passes anywhere in the US, this is a boon for Whole Foods, because they become the only big food chain that allows customers to know they’re choosing lots and lots of non-GMO food products.

There’s more.

Think about an outfit called the Non-GMO Project. They do certifications of food products, and allow their now-famous butterfly seal to be applied:

“Yes, sir, your energy bar has passed our rigid standards of testing, and it is non-GMO. Congratulations.”

Whole Foods is spending millions of dollars at the Non-GMO Project to get their products lab-tested and certified as “non-GMO.”

If there were mandatory labeling, that would all go away, too. Poof. The Non-GMO Project would shrink to the size of a button, and the testing labs the Project uses would take huge hits.

For example, a lab called Genetic ID in Iowa would suffer enormous consequences.

We’re not done yet.

There is a bill in the US Congress presently wending its through Committee. It was introduced by Kansas Congressman Mike Pompeo. It’s called “The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2014.”

If it passes, mandatory labeling of GMO foods will be outlawed at both state and federal levels. No more ballot initiatives. No more state bills.

So…in this topsy-turvy scene where things aren’t what they seem to be, who would want to see the Pompeo bill enacted into law? Who would look forward to a permanent ban on mandatory GMO labeling? Who would make a great deal of money if that bill passes—despite any public statements they might make to the contrary?

Two weeks ago, a Congressional Committee hearing was held on the pending Pompeo bill. A man named Scott Faber testified.

Who is Scott Faber?

He’s the executive director of Just Label It, the pre-eminent organization dedicated to mandatory labeling of GMO foods. He’s also the VP of Governmental Affairs for the powerful Environmental Working Group.

In his testimony, Faber said all the right things about wanting mandatory labeling of GMO foods. Therefore, he opposes passage of the Pompeo bill, right?

However, Faber also offered this stunning statement to the Committee. Buckle up: “We do not oppose genetically modified food ingredients. We think there are many promising applications of genetically modified food ingredients. I am optimistic that the promises that were made by the providers of this technology will ultimately be realized…that we will have traits that produce more nutritious food that will see significant yield.”

And oh yes. In his former job, Scott Faber was, get this, the vice-president for government affairs, of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the GMA. Ring a bell? This is the organization that donated millions to DEFEAT mandatory GMO labeling in several Western states.

And now he is Executive Director of Just Label It, the core group pushing FOR mandatory GMO labeling.

How far down the rabbit hole does all this go? Does Just Label It really want mandatory labeling? Was it created as some kind of distraction? A distraction from the far more serious business of trying to BAN GMOs? Was it a way to guide millions of well-meaning people down a false trail to a dead-end, where there is no mandatory labeling and no banning, and the expansion of GMOs and toxic herbicides continues unabated? Where the only stop-gap against Monsanto is a voluntary system of labeling, controlled by a relatively small number of retailers who profit enormously from inventing a tier of elite food products bearing the “non-GMO” seal?

Gary Hirshberg was a founding partner of Just Label It. He is the CEO of Stonyfield Farms, the famous yogurt company.

Of all the leaders in the labeling movement, Hirshberg is the most overtly political. Let’s look at his strange track record:

During the 2008 presidential campaign season, his home in New Hampshire was a mandatory stop for candidates. Hirshberg’s first choice for the Democratic nomination was the execrable Tom Vilsack until he dropped out of the race.

Hirshberg hosted gatherings for John Edwards and Barack Obama, and eventually decided to support Obama.

Obama, despite his nods and winks, was, from the beginning, Monsanto’s man in Washington, allowing an unprecedented parade of new GMO crops to enter growing fields and the marketplace, and appointing staunch biotech allies to key posts in his administration.

Vilsack, Gary Hirshberg’s first choice for President, became the Secretary of Agriculture under Obama. Vilsack is an avid supporter of GMO food. During his term as governor of Iowa, Vilsack was given a Governor of the Year award by the Biotechnology Industry Organization.

Hirshberg serves as a co-chairman of an organization called AGree. Its objective is to “build consensus around solutions” to “critical issues facing the food and agriculture system.” As researcher Nick Brannigan has pointed out, AGree includes, among its foundation partners, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the Rockefeller Foundation.

It would be hard to find foundations more friendly to, and supportive of, big corporate agriculture and GMOs.

Hirshberg is the author of Stirring It Up: How to Make Money and Save the World. He advocates revolution-by-the-consumer as an exceedingly powerful force.

It may be pretty to think so, but giving American consumers a clear choice about whether to buy GMO or non-GMO food, through labeling, isn’t going to push Monsanto up against the wall.

***It isn’t going to stop Monsanto gene drift into non-GMO crops. It isn’t going to stop the aerial attack of toxic Roundup all over the planet.

But if mandatory labeling of GMOs fails, and all that’s left is voluntary labeling, Hirshberg could help launch Stonyfield Farms and other commercial ventures into new realms of profitability, by applying that “non-GMO” seal.

Let’s widen our inquiry. There is an organization called the Natural Products Association. It’s the largest trade and lobbying group in North America for natural nutritional-supplement companies. You’d think this group would be squarely in the camp of the anti-GMO movement, if the word “natural” means anything at all.

Well, the executive director of the Natural Products Association is Daniel Fabricant.

Pop quiz: what federal agency gave the original blanket approval, based on no science, for GMO crops, allowing them to enter the US food supply in the 1990s? Which agency has, for decades, consistently fought to whittle down the power and scope of the natural nutritional-supplement industry?

The FDA.

What was Daniel Fabricant’s job before he became executive director of the Natural Products Association?

Fabricant was director of the Division of Dietary Supplement Programs at the FDA.

In December of this year, the Natural Products Association held a webinar. As reported in the Food Navigator (12/19), one of its speakers was Greg Jaffe.

A lawyer, Jaffe has logged stints with the EPA, FDA, DOJ, and World Bank—all groups that, in one way or another, have vigorously supported GMOs.

Jaffe proceeded to make a case for GMOs, “dispelling the myths” prevalent in the anti-GMO community.

So you have the leading trade group for the natural products industry giving a heavy wink and nod to GMO foods.

According to the Food Navigator article, Jaffe explained that the process of using bacteria to carry foreign genes into a food plant is really quite natural. Which is like saying that a glass eye is natural.

Then Jaffe presents the tired generality: “Evidence is overwhelming that there is no harm from foods made from current GE [genetic engineered] foods.” As “evidence,” he cites the FDA approval of biotech crops. The FDA—which has basically stated that Monsanto, Dow, and the other mega-giants are basically responsible for assuring the safety of GMOs.

All this cover for GMOs is being presented in a trade magazine vis-a-vis a trade group for the natural food products industry.

Is the war against Monsanto and GMOs and toxic herbicides rigged to fail?

Citing betrayal within the anti-GMO anti-Monsanto movement, an astute observer with large knowledge of the scene recently gave me his appraisal of what amounts to a covert op against the millions of people who want a healthier non-GMO future. Here’s how he succinctly described the men taking us down the wrong road:

“Gary Hirshberg is the pied piper, John Mackey [CEO of Whole Foods] is the money man, and Daniel Fabricant is the enforcer.”

Jon Rappoport

IMF policies blamed for aggravating spread of Ebola

The contribution of the IMF to the ongoing Ebola spread via its policies is entirely to be expected, if you understand the game. The IMF is owned and directed by the same forces who want to eliminate most of the people from the planet, beginning with the poor Africans, etc. Interestingly, Christine LaGarde mentions the contribution of the World Bank, which is another child of the same dark, manipulative forces. To this you can add the WHO and many others, presenting themselves as organisations with the interests of the public at heart, when quite the opposite is true.

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com
Follow Me
Get every new post delivered to your inbox
Join lots of other followers
Powered By WPFruits.com