Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 91

Thread: Monsanto in US Foreign Policy

  1. #1

    Agribusiness & U.S. Foreign Policy



    Biotech Ambassadors: How the U.S. State Department Promotes the Seed Industry’s Global Agenda


    Agricultural development is essential for the developing world to foster sustainable economies, enhance food security to combat global hunger and increase resiliency to climate change. Addressing these challenges will require diverse strategies that emphasize sustainable, productive approaches that are directed by countries in the developing world.

    But in the past decade, the United States has aggressively pursued foreign policies in food and agriculture that benefit the largest seed companies. The U.S. State Department has launched a concerted strategy to promote agricultural biotechnology, often over the opposition of the public and governments, to the near exclusion of other more sustainable, more appropriate agricultural policy alternatives.

    The U.S. State Department has also lobbied foreign governments to adopt pro-agricultural biotechnology policies and laws, operated a rigorous public relations campaign to improve the image of biotechnology and challenged commonsense biotechnology safeguards and rules — even including opposing laws requiring the labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods.

    Food & Water Watch closely examined five years of State Department diplomatic cables from 2005 to 2009 to provide the first comprehensive analysis of the strategy, tactics and U.S. foreign policy objectives to foist pro-agricultural biotechnology policies worldwide. Read the full report to learn more.

    The report raises some real concerns about the intersection of U.S. foreign policy and U.S. commercial interests. While the two have always been closely related, there seems to be an increasing amount of overlap.

    Read the Full Report

    Interestingly, the State Department’s initiative went beyond the usual “charm offensive” to promote agricultural biotechnology in general. It also included specific efforts to promote commercial interests.

    After US diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks showed that the State Department was lobbying worldwide for Monsanto and other similar corporations, a new report based on the cables shows Washington's shilling for the biotech industry in distinct detail.

    The August 2011 WikiLeaks revelations showed that American diplomats had requested funding to send lobbyists for the biotech industry to hold talks with politicians and agricultural officials in "target countries" in areas like Africa and Latin America, where genetically-modified crops were not yet a mainstay, as well as some European countries that have resisted the controversial agricultural practice.

    After a concerted effort to "closely examine five years of State Department diplomatic cables from 2005 to 2009 to provide the first comprehensive analysis of the strategy, tactics and U.S. foreign policy objectives to foist pro-agricultural biotechnology policies worldwide," nonprofit consumer protection group Food& Water Watch published on Tuesday a report showing in plain detail the depth of the partnership between the federal government and a number of controversial biotech companies that have slowly but surely pushed their GMO products on a number of new countries in recent years.

    At center stage in the report is Monsanto, the St. Louis, Missouri-based makers of genetically-modified crops and genetically-engineered seeds that has continuously generatedcriticism as of late over its practices both on the growing field and in a court of law.

    Monsanto is among the most valuable corporations in the US, yet has relentlessly sued small-time farmers across the world over alleged patent violations, often forcing independent agriculturists to go out of business. Legislation signed into law last month provided litigation immunity to GMO companies including Monsanto, and on Monday the Supreme Court sided with the corporation when ruling on a landmark patent infringement case.

    The US Department of State is selling seeds instead of democracy,” Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter told reporters. “This report provides a chilling snapshot of how a handful of giant biotechnology companies are unduly influencing US foreign policy and undermining our diplomatic efforts to promote security, international development and transparency worldwide.

    This report is a call to action for Americans because public policy should not be for sale to the highest bidder
    .”

    Food & Water Watch published their findings this week after combing through the roughly 260,000 State Department cables that the whistleblower website first began publishing in 2010, but notes that their statistics specifically come from memos not classified as 'secret' or higher.

    For the most part, wrote the nonprofit, “The State Department strategy sought to foist pro-biotech policies on foreign governments” using a four-prong approach: promote biotech business interests; lobby foreign governments to weaken biotech rules; protect US biotech exports and press developing world to adopt biotech crops.

    As the cables are analyzed, though, the efforts the State Department undertook to advocate for Monsanto demonstrate a willingness to put a US-based company’s profits about the interests and health of those residing in foreign nations.

    In a cable sent from the Slovakian consulate in 2005, the State Department is told that the local post “will continue its efforts to dispel myths about GMOs and advocate on behalf of Monsanto.” In 2009, a cable out of Madrid, Spain announced that Monsanto had made “urgent requests” to fight off an anti-GMO opposition campaign that posed problems to the biotech industry. Other revelations show pro-GMO efforts waged by the US on behalf of the biotech industry in Hong Kong, the European Union, Egypt and elsewhere.

    However, activists in the areas in question and elsewhere are taking note of Monsanto's dangerous and growing influence, withanti-Monsanto demonstrations planned in 36 cities on six continents for spring and summer 2013.

    The State Department’s efforts impose the policy objectives of the largest biotech seed companies on often skeptical or resistant governments and public, and exemplifies thinly veiled corporate diplomacy,” alleged Food & Water Watch.

    When Food & Water Watch scoured those cables, they concluded that the State Department was conducting off-the-radar negotiations that didn’t seem to advance democracy or American ideals — instead, rather, it found evidence of lobbying used to advance the agenda of thriving US companies that have already purchased the approval of much of Washington.

    It’s not surprising that Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta, Bayer and Dow want to maintain and expand their control of the $15 billion global biotech seed market, but it’s appalling that the State Department is complicit in supporting their goals despite public and government opposition in several countries,” Ronnie Cummins, executive director of Organic Consumers Association, said in the press release accompanying the report. “American taxpayer’s money should not be spent advancing the goals of a few giant biotech companies.”

    Of the 926 State Department cables analyzed by Food & Water Watch, the group found Monsanto appeared in more than 6 percent of the memos, shining light on how a federal agency “worked especially hard to promote the interests” of an outside company.

    When reached for comment by Reuters, Monsanto spokesman Tom Helscher said, "We remain committed to sharing information so that individuals can better understand our business and our commitments to support farmers throughout the world as they work to meet the agriculture demands of our world's growing population.” The State Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

    As RT reported previously, that so-called “Monsanto Protection Act” signed into law last month was co-authored by a senator that has received thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from the company — a revelation that didn’t surprise many given that another important figure in Washington, Justice Clarence Thomas, served as an attorney for the corporation before he was nominated to the high court only to eventually preside over a case involving his former employer. But according to Food & Water Watch, the relationship between Monsanto and the government extends beyond Congress and the Supreme Court.

    In a statement published on Tuesday to accompany their report, Food & Water Watch wrote that the cables detail “how the US State Department lobbies foreign governments to adopt pro-agricultural biotechnology policies and laws, operates a rigorous public relations campaign to improve the image of biotechnology and challenges commonsense biotechnology safeguards and rules — including opposing genetically engineered (GE) food labeling laws.”

    This week’s report comes just one day after Justice Thomas and the Supreme Court sided with Monsanto in reaching a decision in alandmark patent suit. In the case, the high court said that an Indiana farmer infringed on Monsanto’s patent rights by using specially-made seeds he obtained second-hand without signing a contract with the company. That ruling, however, came just days after the company was hit with comparably bad news: on Friday, the US Department of Agriculture ordered an extra round of tests for new GMO breeds being developed by Monsanto and Dow, putting on hold plans to release to the public laboratory-made crops that can withstand heavy dousing of dangerous pesticides. Both companies want to make available crops that are resistant to the chemicals 2,4-D and dicamba, a move that environmentalists fear will prompt farmers to use more of these toxins.

    "The danger that 2,4-D and dicamba pose is a real threat to crops…nearly every food crop," Steve Smith, director of agriculture at Red Gold, told Reuters last year.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 04-18-2014 at 03:57 AM.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

  4. #3

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by kcchiefs6465 View Post
    ^ Colombia ^
    Funny you should post that, I just applied to two jobs at Monsanto in Colombia

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Debbie Downer View Post
    Funny you should post that, I just applied to two jobs at Monsanto in Colombia
    That plane is spraying herbicides to kill off coca plants. The locals get sprayed with it and it poisons their water. Probably not so much Monsanto's fault as much as our government's policies but Monsanto is who produces the herbicide.

    I never knew Monsanto had any offices in Colombia.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by kcchiefs6465 View Post
    That plane is spraying herbicides to kill off coca plants. The locals get sprayed with it and it poisons their water. Probably not so much Monsanto's fault as much as our government's policies but Monsanto is who produces the herbicide.

    I never knew Monsanto had any offices in Colombia.
    The locals should get a water filter. You can get them really cheap on amazon.

    And yes, Monsanto has offices in Colombia. They sell quite a bit of Round Up and seeds there and are aggressively expanding across Latin America.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Debbie Downer View Post
    The locals should get a water filter. You can get them really cheap on amazon.

    And yes, Monsanto has offices in Colombia. They sell quite a bit of Round Up and seeds there and are aggressively expanding across Latin America.
    Perhaps they should get umbrellas too.

    Some of the birth defects are pretty bad. The insulting thing about your post is that I am sure you are aware of how poor the farmers I'm referring to truly are. Poverty in America doesn't mean $#@! compared to that. 'Water filters from Amazon'..... that's good.

    With regards to "aggressively expanding" I'd imagine some of the billions in aid given to Colombia got funnelled back through Monsanto. The however many hundreds of thousands of gallons of Round Up sprayed probably cost US taxpayers a pretty penny. Indeed, I imagine 'business' is good.

  9. #8
    This is an interesting paper.

    Danger of Biological Warfare Made Worse by Genetically Modified Foods

    In December of 2011, Hillary Clinton delivered a policy statement at a UN Biological Weapons Convention, stating that biological warfare not only remains a significant threat in the world today, but that the danger from terrorists obtaining and abusing the technology is a growing threat that shouldn’t be ignored. Clinton made it clear that the U.S. was aware of activities on the part of terrorist organizations to actively obtain and utilize biological warfare technologies against Western countries and citizens.

    She reported intelligence that showed Al Qaeda leadership wanted, “brothers with degrees in microbiology or chemistry…to develop a weapon of mass destruction.”

    The irony of the statement was especially poignant when Clinton stated, “…the emerging gene synthesis industry is making genetic material more widely available. This obviously has benefits for research but could also potentially be used to assemble the components of a deadly organism.”

    The irony comes from the fact that U.S. producers of genetically modified foods are already creating an environmental scenario where the interactions between GM plants and nature itself may produce such deadly organisms – without the need for terrorist instigators.


    Creating an Accidental Biological Weapon

    While Clinton reported that the ease with which genetic modification is becoming possible, creating the potential for terrorists to obtain the technology more easily, an even greater danger comes from the use of the technology from major corporations.

    A paper titled, "Analysis of the Threat of Genetically Modified Organism for Biological Warfare" published by National Defense University researchers in May of 2011 reveals just how unpredictable the technology can be, even in a well-funded laboratory.


    "From the point of view of the potential perpetrator, the challenge is to reliably predict the overall effects of the changes. For example, the intent of the Australian researchers in modifying mouse pox was to produce a contraceptive effect, and the subsequent lethality of the modified virus was an unintended side effect. Conversely, a sequence of genetic material that codes for expression of a particular toxic protein may inadvertently suppress other functions essential to the reproduction or survivability of the microorganisms."


    What this statement reveals is that even in the hands of well-trained scientists employed by the producers of genetically modified foods, the intended effects of those genetic modifications could potentially have very serious and negative adverse, albeit unintended, side-effects.

    And if those side effects involve the accidental modification of pathogens that naturally occur in the environment around those plants, the results could be a pathogen far worse than anything that a biological terrorist could conjure up.

    The authors conclude that due to the ease with which this biotechnology can negatively affect animals, plants and the entire ecosphere itself, the technology represents a serious threat.

    We conclude that, broadly state, peaceful scientific advances, global statistics and demographics of GMOs suggest that the potential for corruption of biotechnology to catastrophic malevolent use is considerable."


    A paper published by The Ecologist agrees with this assessment, and applied it to the food industry and the pharmaceutical industry, stating that there is a significant danger posed by the cross-use of the biotechnology.

    In one case, a U.S. firm accidentally contaminated food intended for human consumption with a genetically engineered variety intended to create a vaccine.


    Last year in Texas 500,000 bushels of soya destined for human consumption were contaminated with genes from maize genetically modified by the US firm Prodigene so as to create a vaccine for a stomach disease afflicting pigs. A major concern is that GM firms are using commodity food crops for pharmaceutical production."


    Producing Virus Tolerant Crops May Alter Viruses Themselves

    One of the "intended" effects of much of the genetic engineering of food crops is to make the plant resistant to disease, pests and viruses that typically cause crop losses.

    While the intent seems innocent enough on the surface, the unintended ecological ramifications of tampering with nature could lead to disaster.

    An article published by the Union of Concerned Scientists titled "Risks of Genetic Engineering" covers these dangers in great detail, including how introducing a genetic tolerance to certain viruses could produce a more virulent strain of that virus.



    One of the most common applications of genetic engineering is the production of virus-tolerant crops. Such crops are produced by engineering components of viruses into the plant genomes. For reasons not well understood, plants producing viral components on their own are resistant to subsequent infection by those viruses. Such plants, however, pose other risks of creating new or worse viruses through two mechanisms: recombination and transcapsidation.


    The writers explain that either the recombination of plant produced viral genes with the genes of incoming viruses, or the encapsulation of genetic material of the virus by the plant's viral proteins, can ultimately produce viruses that are far more dangerous than the parent virus was - hybrid viruses that never would have existed if there had been no genetically altered plant.

    Some researchers actually question whether the "unintended" side-effects - stronger diseases or weeds that require ever-changing genetic modifications in the plants, or stronger herbicides to kill the hybrid weeds - might actually be an intended side-effect by profit-hungry GM industrial giants like Monsanto, the producer of both genetically modified plants as well as weed-killer products.



    Likewise, if spraying of herbicides becomes more regular due to cultivars, surrounding weeds could develop a resistance to the herbicide tolerant by the crop. This would cause an increase in herbicide dose or change in herbicide, as well as an increase in the amount and types of herbicides on crop plants. Ironically, chemical companies that sell weed killers are a driving force behind this research.

    Effect on Human Health Still Unknown

    Last but most importantly, science still has not proven conclusively whether or not genetically modified foods have negative side-effects on the human body.

    As with many scientific unknowns, there is evidence on both sides to suggest in some cases that the foods are safe, while there is evidence on the other side that shows the foods are harmful. Both sides attack studies conducted by the other.

    For example, a 2010 study published by the researchers at the University of Athens showed clear animal toxicity with certain modified foods.



    The results of most studies with GM foods indicate that they may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects and may alter the hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters. However, many years of research with animals and clinical trials are required for this assessment. The use of recombinant GH or its expression in animals should be re-examined since it has been shown that it increases IGF-1 which may promote cancer.

    The researchers that published this paper acknowledged that more research is required, but say there is clear evidence that GM foods may have an affect on animal biology, and therefore just as likely human biology. Yet, GM industries are free to infiltrate the U.S. food supply with modified foods, and are not required to label those foods as such.

    This, combined with Prince Charles stating quite publicly that multi-national companies were "were conducting an experiment with nature which had gone seriously wrong", might explain why many citizens and local leaders in the UK reject GM foods.

    In one case, a 2009 study published in the International Journal of Biological Sciences reported that rats fed GM corn developed kidney and liver problems. Monsanto countered the study, claiming that there were methodological flaws with the study.

    However, despite the fact that science has yet to conclude one way or the other on the safety of GM foods, those foods are being approved and stocked in U.S. supermarkets - again, without any labels revealing that they are GM foods.



    "Today the vast majority of foods in supermarkets contain genetically modified substances whose effects on our health are unknown. As a medical doctor, I can assure you that no one in the medical profession would attempt to perform experiments on human subjects without their consent. Such conduct is illegal and unethical. Yet manufacturers of genetically altered foods are exposing us to one of the largest uncontrolled experiments in modern history."--Dr. Martha R. Herbert, pediatric neurologist

    No matter your position on the safety of genetically modified foods, there are two core principles that for some reason those in charge of protecting U.S. consumers from harm seem to ignore. The first is that the FDA appears to be siding with the GM food companies rather than using caution for the sake of consumer safety.

    The second is that companies like Monsanto appear to have free reign to introduce dangerous lab-produced creations into nature with no consideration given to the impact that careless activity will have on future generations.


    National Post - Hillary Clinton Speech
    CBS News - Hillary Clinton Speech
    National Defense University Paper on Threat of GMO for Bio Warfare
    SFSU.edu - 5 Reasons to Keep Britain [and the rest of the world] GM-free
    UCSUSA.org
    NYU.edu
    PubMed.gov
    Telegraph Herbert, Martha. "Genetically Altered Foods: We Are Being Exposed To One Of The Largest Uncontrolled Experiments In History," Chicago Tribune, Sept 3, 2000.
    Cornell Daily Sun

    Ryan Dube is editor-in-chief of TSW and an electrical engineer in the automation industry
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 04-18-2014 at 04:34 AM.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Control over food is at stake with Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)

    Like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which displaced millions of Mexican corn farmers, the TPP is expected to flood markets with cheap products, increasing pressures on small farmers to grow cash crops, rather than traditional food crops. And, like NAFTA, TPP will force small farmers off the land forcing them to migrate to cities, and cross borders hoping to survive. FTAs have undercut the right of local producers to receive a fair, locally determined price for their products by forcing farmers to compete in the global food market.

    As a result of FTAs, agricultural production has increased the use of fossil fuels for production and transportation, thereby increasing pollution; increased the use of chemical inputs; expanded the health and environmental risks associated with genetically modified material; and reduced biodiversity by favoring mono-cropping.
    Many environmental, farm and fair trade groups are concerned about the negative impact the TPP could have on where and how dairy products are produced and processed. The U.S. dairy industry generates $140 billion in economic activity and employs an estimated 900,000 workers, while providing nourishment to millions more. The nation cannot afford to compete with dairy imports produced under unfair conditions.

  12. #10
    I'm bumping this thread because it's an important aspect of future discussion.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 12-27-2013 at 11:32 AM.

  13. #11
    EU-U.S. Transatlantic Trade Partnership Will Force GMO Products into Europe


    2015 target date for EU-US trade deal (TTIP)
    http://euobserver.com/economic/119066
    ===



    The EU-U.S. Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership


    Speaker: Karel De Gucht, European Commissioner for Trade
    Presider: William Drozdiak, President, American Council on Germany


    Council on Foreign Relations
    May 21, 2013

    ...
    DROZDIAK: Well, the fact that there is such strong political will on both sides to conclude this agreement is one of the biggest factors it has going for it. Certainly Europe needs a new impulse for growth, and I think many governments in the European Union are looking for it.

    But nonetheless, you're negotiating on behalf of 27 governments. Countries like France and even Germany have expressed concerns about certain aspects -- agriculture trade, for example, GMOs, hormone-treated beef. American farmers say -- or American senators who represent the farming constituency say they will not accept any kind of agreement unless this is accepted. And then you have the very -- unless it is accepted, that you allow your markets to open up to GMO products.
    ...



    ====






    Stop the Free Trade Agenda

    STOP FREE TRADE AGENDA is a major new action project of The John Birch Society with the purpose of preserving our personal freedoms and national independence by stopping congressional approval of any new multilateral free trade agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). A vote to approve the TPP agreement is expected in late 2013; a vote on the TTIP agreement is expected in 2015. The global power elites view multilateral free trade agreements as one of their main vehicles for establishing, step by step, socialistic regional governments controlled by themselves as steppingstones toward a socialistic global government under the United Nations.




    How the Free Trade Agenda Is Knocking Down America -- The New American (PDF) Special Report
    http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedo...cialReport.pdf


    September 2, 2013


    The Special Report includes the following articles:

    - The "Free Trade" Agenda Threatens Our Rights
    - Global Merger: Piece by Piece
    - The EU: Regionalization Trumps Sovereignty
    - Trade Promises... and Trade Reality
    - North American Union: From NAFTA to the NAU
    - Fast-track: Enabler of the "Free Trade" Agenda
    - Regional Scheme for the Pacific Rim
    - EU/U.S. — Transatlantic Convergence
    - Preserve Your Rights: Stop the "Free Trade" Agenda


    Tools to STOP the "Free Trade" Agenda - Pamphlet, Reprints, CDs, TNA Special Issues
    https://www.jbs.org/shop-jbs/stop-the-free-trade-agenda


    Facebook:

    Choose Freedom - STOP the Free Trade Agenda
    ----

    Ron Paul Forum's Mission Statement:

    Inspired by US Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, this site is dedicated to facilitating grassroots initiatives that aim to restore a sovereign limited constitutional Republic based on the rule of law, states' rights and individual rights. We seek to enshrine the original intent of our Founders to foster respect for private property, seek justice, provide opportunity, and to secure individual liberty for ourselves and our posterity.

  14. #12

    EU ministers link GM crops approval to future elections

    Leading EU agricultural nations remain steadfast in their battle against GM crops. Dozen national European ministers warn against approving GM maize and forebode protest voting during the next EU parliamentary elections in May.

    Once Brussels announced it would approve the cultivation of US-developed genetically modified maize in Europe despite opposition of the majority of the EU member states, 12 ministers of national governments wrote a letter to European Health Commissioner Tonio Borg, demanding that approval be blocked of GM maize grown for human consumption in Europe.

    At a meeting in Brussels earlier this week, 19 out of 28 EU member states refused to give a green light to the insect-resistant Pioneer 1507 corn developed by DuPon and Dow Chemical. Four countries, including agricultural giant Germany, abstained in the voting.
    But under EU rules, the Commission is empowered to approve GM for cultivation.

    The letter, signed by foreign and European affairs ministers from Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, France, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland and Slovenia, is dated February 12.

    The ministers gave Brussels a warning that citizens of EU member states are likely to express their generally negative attitude towards GM crops at the European Parliament elections in May.

    “Those who believe in the value of the EU to its citizens are rightly concerned how this will play out in the upcoming European elections,” the letter says.
    The stand-off may eventually lead to a situation when GM crops would be allowed in the EU in general, with all countries reserving the right to ban GM nationwide, Reuters reported.

    Five EU countries, Estonia, Finland, Sweden, and in particular Spain and UK, are advocating GM crops, pointing out it would be tough for their farmers to compete with rivals from those nations where growing GM crops is legal.
    European agricultural producers generally do not approve of genetically modified crops, which are widely cultivated in both Americas and Asia, due to health and ecological concerns. Yet one GM modification of maize, MON 810 made by US-based biotechnology giant Monsanto, is grown in the EU. According to the European Commission, MON 810 maize occupies only 1.35 percent of the EU's total maize-growing area, mostly in Spain, with 116,306 hectares.
    http://rt.com/news/eu-rethinks-gm-maize-875/



    Aside... EU to approve new GM crop, ignoring majority members’ opposition

    The European Commission is set to authorize the growing of genetically modified maize on European soil, despite 19 member states voting against the move, highlighting the “absurd” rules of weighted votes in the EU.

    In a debate on Tuesday, 19 EU member states indicated that they would vote against the authorization of genetically modified maize because of health and environmental concerns and opposition in the European Parliament.

    But because of the so-called comitology rules of the EU, their votes will be insufficient to overturn the decision of bigger member states that support the introduction of insect resistant Pioneer 1507.

    The UK and Spain are both in favor of GM crops, while Germany abstained and France is staunchly against their introduction.

    European health Commissioner Tonio Borg said on Tuesday that the commission is now legally bound to approve the crop. Borg insisted that extensive research since 2001 had shown the crop was safe.

    Britain has argued that without GM crops, Europe risks becoming “the museum of world farming,” and that there is a clear scientific case for GM, while Spain has said that its farmers need to be able to compete with non-EU nations that can grow GM produce.

    DuPont, which jointly developed Pioneer 1507 with Dow Chemical, said in statement that the EU has a “legal obligation to itself, to its farmers and scientists and to its trade partners” to support the approval of new agricultural advances.

  15. #13
    Hurrah for science, rolling over Luddites one nation at a time.

    Dow and Dupont are far bigger chemical companies, but I guess they must donate to liberal causes.

  16. #14
    THis seems like a good place to leave this:

    Monsanto’s Roundup & Glyphosate Poisoning Continues

    http://covvha.net/monsantos-roundup-...ing-continues/

    As if we need more evidence that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s flagship weed-killer, is dangerous to both people and the environment, a new study suggests it could be at least partially to blame for the declining coral reefs around the world. According to GreenMedInfo, the Great Barrier Reef is “the world’s biggest single structure made by living organisms. It can even be seen from space. But, since 1985, the reef has lost more than half its coral cover—more than half! Scientists blame the degradation of the Great Barrier Reef and other coral reefs on a variety of causes including climate change, increased predator species, and pollution. But a new study published in Marine Pollution Bulletin indicates glyphosate may need to be added to the list.” Glyphosate persistence in seawater” looks at the impact of the agro-chemical on sea life. The researchers found that glyphosate is particularly persistent and dangerous in sea water. It’s half-life, or the rate at which it breaks down, is dramatically longer in the ocean.
    The study says, “the half-life for glyphosate at 25°C in low-light was 47 days, extending to 267 days in the dark at 25°C and 315 days in the dark at 31°C, which is the longest persistence reported for this herbicide.” But, in the soil, the chemical’s half-life is as quick as 5 days; in bog or fresh water, it’s 49 days.
    View The Study: Glyphosate Persistence in Seawater

  17. #15

    The Looting Of Ukraine Has Begun

    This is rather lengthy so I'll add a snippet while it's on my mind. Now, you're going to have to put yer thinking cap on here. Especially considering the fact that some of our elected ones are running with the mainstream narrative and countering the ruse regarding Ukraine with language that actually supports such things as the Trans Pacific Partnership agreement and the looting happening there and whatnot. I don't know why they think we're stupid and they actively participate in the malfeasance of it all. If not then they are incompetent to discuss such things as foreign policy. But I think they fully know and demonstrate who they are running interference for by going along with romper room.


    According to a report in Kommersant-Ukraine, the finance ministry of Washington’s stooges in Kiev who are pretending to be a government has prepared an economic austerity plan that will cut Ukrainian pensions from $160 to $80 so that Western bankers who lent money to Ukraine can be repaid at the expense of Ukraine’s poor. http://www.kommersant.ua/doc/2424454 It is Greece all over again.

    Before anything approaching stability and legitimacy has been obtained for the puppet government put in power by the Washington orchestrated coup against the legitimate, elected Ukraine government, the Western looters are already at work. Naive protesters who believed the propaganda that EU membership offered a better life are due to lose half of their pension by April. But this is only the beginning.
    The corrupt Western media describes loans as “aid.” However, the 11 billion euros that the EU is offering Kiev is not aid. It is a loan. Moreover, it comes with many strings, including Kiev’s acceptance of an IMF austerity plan.

    Remember now, gullible Ukrainians participated in the protests that were used to overthrow their elected government, because they believed the lies told to them by Washington-financed NGOs that once they joined the EU they would have streets paved with gold. Instead they are getting cuts in their pensions and an IMF austerity plan.

    The austerity plan will cut social services, funds for education, layoff government workers, devalue the currency, thus raising the prices of imports which include Russian gas, thus electricity, and open Ukrainian assets to takeover by Western corporations.

    Ukraine’s agriculture lands will pass into the hands of American agribusiness.
    http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014...ukraine-begun/

    Also...while we have our thinking caps on... Putin ‘wants to rebuild USSR with Ukraine’ – Brzezinski

    And... Did Ukraine Just Airlift Its Entire Gold Hoard To The U.S. Fed?

    Remember that Germany asked for their gold to be repatriated. This is an important tid bit if it turns out to be true and I think that it is. Perhaps someone needs to replenish the Federal Reserve in order to keep a good standing with Germany? Maybe Putin knows this? Of course he does.

    Anyhow...back to agribusiness, TPP and silver tongued politicians...

    China seems to be aligning with Russia's RT in exposing westerm corporate media's spin on what is happening and as this continues expect BRICSA nations such as India and others who are becomingactive competitors in world agriculture markets by challenging American agribusiness and their GMOs with the sale of non GMO seeds and crops. Place that into perspective with the issue of human rights and these nations would have contrbute to what is already a very powerful propaganda tool on the stage of world opinion that we are seeing from China, Russia and others.

    There are some other things that could be discussed but I suppose this is quite a bit to unravel itself.

    The whole discussion about Foreign Policy over in the Rand Paul thread really kind of aggravated me because these folks just don't touch Foreign Policy in it's truest and most relevant form with a ten foot pole. They know whjat's going on. And so do a growing majority of Americans and foreign nations.



    Relevant reading - TPP Uncovered: WikiLeaks releases draft of highly-secretive multi-national trade deal....

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=Trans+pacific
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 03-29-2014 at 12:24 AM.

  18. #16
    This is why US farmers are closely monitoring Ukrainian conflict


    Ukraine’s rise in corn and wheat production – as well as Brazil’s – has coincided with a decline in growth in the United States, leading many to think it would become one of the US’ chief competitors. Previously, analysts predicted corn acreage in the US would continue to fall, but Ukraine’s recent instability may cause farmers to rethink that outcome and plant more corn.

    If the ongoing conflict continues or escalates, it could result in higher grain and corn prices across the globe. As noted by the Wall Street Journal earlier this week, wheat prices rose three percent to their highest level in two weeks on Monday, and have risen 12 percent since the start of 2014.
    It seems to me that either someone is purposefully dumbing this down or just doesn't understand or perhaps cannot see the issue through the more relevant lens.

    The paper doesn't specify any company by name but anyone who is even remotely informed on the subsject should be able to see who they are referencing in regard to corn and wheat when they talk about western agriculture in particular.

    And the thing with the ruble is a bit of very shallow insight as we consider Russia, China and a growing list of BRICSA nations Competitive non-GMO nations, btw) who seem to be performing a reconfig on their in house finance clearing and moving toward an international model for finance clearing. One that is independent of western economic infrastructure. Or the dollar, to be clear.

    Very shallow, even misleading, article here but one that contains just a bit of very, very important insight. And so then we almost want to backtrack a bit to remind ourselves that agribusiness was at the very heart of the initial conflict over there in Ukraine. And there was a thread on that specifically around here that is dated around that time but I just can't find it. Search is almost useless when you really need to fill in the dots on these timelines and information that is relevant to a great deal of things just happens to be fragmented when such things come up.

    I think we're starting to see a (GM industry driven) push for growing, not more, but only GM products here in the states, and even abroad, by the industries, lobbies and some politicians. The thing with the legislation to void states and citizens rights to know what consumers are eating that is being introduced by Congressman Mike Pompeo on behalf of Koch network and Monsanto is a step in this direction to bring about the planting of only GM crops and a mercantilism model in order to shield themselves from the free market model. And, of course, the recent farm bill ensures that subsidies for GMO farmers. Remember also that the largest beneficiaries of that bill happened to be the very same representatives who are the owners of some of the largest farming companies and although some claim to oppose the nanny state, we see that they aren't very true to their so called position. I'd suspect that we'll see a lot of money funneled into the pockets of these representatives and their respective states as a result of that bill. Again, Congressman Mike Pompeo is a perfect example here and look at the treason he's committing by introducing that industry backed bill to void the citizens and states right to know what they are putting into their bodies in order to be able to make an educated/informed choice on whether they want to or not.

    This is going to be a big deal down the short road. And there is a lot more to it but was just adding this here for the read. And this is just Ukraine that we're talking about here and the phenomenon extends far beyond them but it's just newsworthy now since western agribusiness wasn't able to sneak in there during the initial coup like they did with the other nations who had already suffered the same coups by the economic hitmen and then, of course, the sanctions on Russia by some knee jerk politicians elevated the matter that we have now ten fold. Although it's remains under the radar in the general political arena.

    This is the part where we'll see some non-GMO BRICSA nations start to ride the coat tails/run abreast of the other aspect of this issue which is the oil/gas and that whole thing with Russia and China pipeline and reconfiguration of finance clearing so will see who can wear the big britches when it comes to foreign policy in relevance to these current events as far as political representatives go in the coming months. Should be able to tell who knows what and who is bullshitting whom just by what they say and the political narrative with which they choose to run. And the spying thing is very important here too. That's huge in all of this so remain mindful of mergers in space programs and, of course, our own rush to spend more on "cyber-security" just because of the international clearing thing with these nations that we are seeing happen. They're going to want to move away from western dependence and expect some folks to want to keep an eye on that upstairs (space...because accruing the most reserve currency is no longer premised upon who has the strongest naval fleet...those days are gone).

    Should be interesting to watch and see if other nations start to be sanctioned and if they do then the gig is pretty much up and the rest of the gag is predictable. It's interesting that the paper specifically mentions Brazil because we had discussed this scenario elswhere here (although good luck finding it because everything is so scattered around) whereas they were one to watch to be included in future sanctions.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 04-18-2014 at 04:19 AM.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    I linked to this thread from another thread.

    Obama Issues Threats To Russia And NATO

    Relevance... BRICSA natons initiate independent international financial clearing model.

    “Over the last few decades, global interdependence has translated more into emerging economies being dependent on Western systems. It goes without say that an IMF bailout of an emerging economy will come with far more strict conditions than one that bails out a Western economy. The BRICS just do not have enough of a say in the way the Bretton Woods institutions function. It’s unfortunate that an idea like the BRICS bank, which should have come into fruition by now, is still stuck and is likely to become a reality only by 2019.

    “A growing numbers of countries in Asia, Africa and South America are frustrated with the bullying that is a part and parcel of the Western-dominated institutions. The BRICS are seen as a counterweight and inspiration in the quest for a new world order. The upcoming summit of the grouping in Brazil should have a single-minded focus to set up the kind of infrastructure that creates a firewall against economic sanctions.”


    “India’s interests lie in the strengthening of BRICS both as an economic and a political grouping. Russia could not get isolated internationally after the Crimean reunification largely because the BRICS rallied and came out in support of the country. Given the fact that the West has rarely been sympathetic or taken India’s side in any international dispute, the day may not be far when the country may face the wrath of sanctions on some flimsy grounds.”
    These are the largest NON-GMO competitors to the western GM agribusiness oligarchy, for what it's worth, and they're also moving toward an independent form of currency/finance clearing similar to what we are seeing from Russia and China in the oil and gas department.

    Getting jiggy now...

  21. #18
    This is going to be a huge deal on the international level. HUGE...

    Monsanto’s Love Affair with Synthetic Biology: A Match Made in Agricultural Hell



    “Synthetic Genomics Inc. specializes in an extreme form of genetic engineering called synthetic biology. Instead of transferring genetic material from one species to another, synthetic bioengineering places new, synthetically created genetic material into microorganisms. SGI plans on using its franken-microbes for all sorts of applications including biofuels, renewable chemicals, vaccines and coal bed methane recovery. This technology is even newer than traditional genetic engineering, so it is still unclear how it would be proven safe and regulated. Today’s transgenic crops are at least permitted and commercialized through a three-agency regulatory process, albeit flawed. But these organisms would be tossed into a quagmire of federal regulatory programs involving at least seven agencies including the USDA, FDA, EPA, DOT, NIH, CDC and even the FBI due to biosecurity risks; making it more likely to fall through the bureaucratic cracks.

    “What could this mean for the future of agricultural biotechnology? R&D from this agreement will likely fall under Monsanto’s agricultural biological platform BioDirect, which means Monsanto could be developing new, microbial pesticides that could be approved and sprayed on crops to fight weeds, insects and viruses. With further investment in and research with SGI, Monsanto will soon have the means to incorporate synthetic biology into its microbial pesticides without a defined regulatory pathway to check its development along the way.

    “The attempt to disguise the use of synthetic biology in agriculture as “sustainable” is an egregious abuse of the word. Releasing microbes with novel traits and functions into the wild and onto our food crops could have devastating effects on the safety of our food and the quality of our environment.”

    Most American's may not understand or even care about this and I'd go so far as to say that you'd be lucky to find even a couple of elected ones who are anywhere near competent enough to comprehend the relevance/repercussion here. The rest of the world isn't going to accept this and it comes at a very delicate time when Non-GMO BRICSA nations are already maneuvering in the agricultural field as well as the economics of it (which, btw, may very well be ridding themselves of western dependence in the wonderful world of international finance clearing - Recall recent sanctions on Russia and what they are doing in that area). Monsanto is currently manipulating the American political system with the Koch network and Congressman Mike Pompeo to remove the right of the people to know what is in their food as well as any right to ever ask and now we're getting into synthetics. Given the relevance of the seldom discussed Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement in which American corporations like these position themselves to sue away the sovereignty of entire nations if they think that the laws of those countries have the potential of disrupting their profit, this strongarming of the American people is simply the first step in order for the industry to plant it's feet internationally. As it is, the U.S. is the only country in the world where these corporations possess the gift of constitution and enjoy the gift of representation above that of the people. Pompeo has so far been the recipient of more money from the Koch network than any other representative at around $190,000 or so. What we see here is not the free market in any way. It's mercantilism. What they are doing is protecting themselves from the free market while maneuvering into a position to dictate foreign policy in the field of agriculture. What this means is that we should expect a squabble at the international level regarding who gets to set the standard in the field of agriculture once the matter of synthetics becomes an issue (or noticed).

    Remember this? http://www.jfklibrary.org/JFK/JFK-in...an-Treaty.aspx

    If so, then look for the same kind of thing to happen in the area of GMO's at the international level. Again, there's no way that the rest of the world are going to respond to the issue in the manner that boobus has here in the states. No way. Uh-uh. Ain't happening.

    So while foreign policy in whole continues to be both minimized and sensationalized at the same time through mainstream media and our elected ones, do consider that there is far more to it than what we see or hear from them. And, unfortunately, we're the only ones who aren't paying attention, I think. Again, chalk it up to corporate media and political malfeasance on the part of our elected ones. We ask, you decide kind of thing...except they arent asking. Probably won't either.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 04-22-2014 at 12:47 PM.

  22. #19
    Russian parliament: GMO producers should be punished as terrorists

    A draft law submitted to the Russian parliament seeks to impose punishment up to criminal prosecution to producers of genetically-modified organisms harmful to health or the environment.

    The draft legislation submitted on Wednesday amends Russia's law regulating GMOs and some other laws and provides for disciplinary action against individuals and firms, which produce or distribute harmful biotech products and government officials who fail to properly control them.

    At worst, a criminal case may be launched against a company involved in introducing unsafe GMOs into Russia. Sponsors of the bill say that the punishment for such deeds should be comparable to the punishment allotted to terrorists, if the perpetrators act knowingly and hurt many people.
    “When a terrorist act is committed, only several people are usually hurt. But GMOs may hurt dozens and hundreds. The consequences are much worse. And punishment should be proportionate to the crime,” co-author Kirill Cherkasov, member of the State Duma Agriculture Committee told RT.
    Russian criminal code allows for a punishment starting with 15 years in jail and up to a life sentence for terrorism.

    Less severe misdeeds related to GMOs would be punishable by fines. For instance the administrative code would provide for up to 20,000 rubles (US$560) in fines for failure to report an incident of environmental pollution, which would also cover harmful GMO contamination, if sponsors of the bill have their way.

    Russia gave the green light to import of GMOs and planting of bioengineered seeds as part of its accession to the WTO, but the Russian government remains skeptical of GMOs. In April, Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev announced that his cabinet will postpone the beginning of certification of GMO plants for growth in Russia due to lack of proper infrastructure needed to test their safety.

    The government also opposes imports of GMO food, saying the country has enough farmlands to provide enough regular food to feed itself.
    Continued - GMO producers should be punished as terrorists, Russian MPs say
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 05-15-2014 at 01:02 PM.

  23. #20
    World needs UN GMO watchdog – Russia




    Valentina Matvienko (RIA Novosti / Maksim Blinov)

    Russian lawmakers advocate creation of an international UN agency not only to strictly control the turnover of GMO products worldwide, but with a top priority mission to scrutinize how consuming GMO foods would affect human health in the long run.

    Aggressive distribution of GMO worldwide is raising huge concerns for human health, said Russian Federation Council speaker Valentina Matvienko.
    The speaker urged the executive branch to make a request to the UN General Assembly to initiate the creation of an international GMO watchdog.

    “It’s absolutely clear that the GMO problem is a global issue,” Valentina Matvienko said.

    Russian authorities are taking measures to contain uncontrollable spread of GMO foods against the background of regular worldwide mass rallies over the distribution of GMO products created by transnational corporations, such as Monsanto.

    In the US, where agricultural producers are not obliged to mark their products if they contain GMO-originated ingredients, people stage large protests, claiming that from 80 to 95 percent of the American population would want to have GMO foods labeled.

    A draft law submitted to the Russian parliament seeks to impose punishment up to criminal prosecution to producers of genetically-modified organisms harmful to health or the environment.

    On Thursday, the Federal Service for Consumer Rights and Human Welfare Protection presented a draft bill that would fine producers and resellers of food products containing GMO if they fail to mark it properly with ‘GMO inside’ mark.

    Russian citizens do no welcome the products containing GMO either.

    According to the All-Russian Public Opinion Research Center, a survey taken on May 24-25 in 42 regions of the Russian Federation found that 54 percent of respondents would not buy food marked with a “GMO inside” label.

    A majority of Russian citizens would prefer organic food to its genetically modified counterpart, even if that one is considerably cheaper (74 percent), packed in a more attractive manner (76 percent) or has a longer expiry date (78 percent).

    Russian citizens also distrust artificial additives to food, such as preservatives (50 percent), food coloring (40 percent), flavor enhancer (33 percent) and antioxidants (31 percent).

    Continued - World needs UN GMO watchdog – Russia

  24. #21
    US pressures El Salvador to buy Monsanto's GMO seeds...

    As one of the preconditions to authorizing close to $300 million in aid, the United States is pressuring El Salvador to purchase genetically modified seeds from Monsanto instead of non-GM seeds from local farmers.

    According to Sustainable Pulse, a website covering developments related to genetically modified organisms and sustainable agriculture, the US will reportedly withhold $277 million in aid through the Millennium Challenge Compact if El Salvador refuses to purchase GM seeds from the biotech company Monsanto.

    The website states that the stalled aid package was originally put on hold in late 2013, when it was revealed that Millennium Challenge Corporation would not deliver funds to the country unless “specific” economic and environmental reforms were made. Apparently, one of those is related to the purchase of GMO seeds.

    “I would like to tell the U.S. Ambassador to stop pressuring the Government (of El Salvador) to buy ‘improved’ GM seeds,”CESTA president Ricardo Navarro said, adding that the move would hurt the local economy and only benefit US companies.

    Navarro specifically singled out Monsanto for criticism as well, saying, “There is a harmful corporation on the planet called Monsanto … it is truly disturbing that the U.S. is trying to promote them.”

    In Europe, too, Monsanto’s GM seeds have garnered criticism. In March, France banned the growth and sale of the company’s insect-repelling maize seed MON 810, just a few days before it was revealed that insects in the US were developing resistance to the crop.

    The comments from Navarro also arrive as Monsanto is under fire in several South American countries, including El Salvador and Brazil. As RT reported previously, El Salvador passed legislation in September 2013 banning glyphosate, used in Monsanto’s Roundup pesticides, as well as dozens of other agricultural chemicals.

    Similar proposals are being considered in Brazil, where the country’s prosecutor general recently urged the National Health Surveillance Agency to “reevaluate the toxicity of eight active ingredients suspected of causing damage to human health and the environment,” including glyphosate and seven other chemicals.

    As for why glyphosate is coming under such heavy scrutiny, new research has indicated that while the chemical is not as dangerous on its own, it becomes extremely toxic to humans once it mixes with natural metals found in soil.

    Meanwhile, other reports have linked glyphosate to the outburst of a fatal kidney disease that has killed thousands of people in El Salvador and Sri Lanka, and could also help explain similar situations in Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and India.
    Continued - US pressures El Salvador to buy Monsanto's GMO seeds


    Relevant reading - WikiLeaks releases draft of highly-secretive multi-national trade deal
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 06-10-2014 at 07:05 PM.

  25. #22
    GM floodgate to open? EU ministers back deal to let nations decide fate of crops...
    European Union governments have decided to let member states go their own way when it comes to genetically modified organisms (GMOs), allowing EU nations to either ban the crops or grow them as they see fit. The move ends years of legislative deadlock.

    At a meeting in Luxembourg, EU environment ministers from 26 out of 28 member states put their weight behind a 2010 proposal to give national governments an opt out from rules, making the 28-member bloc a single market for GMOs. Only Belgium and Luxembourg voted against it, although the final decision rests with the European Parliament, which is expected to endorse the plan, Bloomberg Businessweek reports.

    A political split in Europe between countries in favor of GMOs, such as Britain and Spain, and those firmly against them, including France, has delayed EU-wide permission to grow them.

    This has prompted complaints from trading partners – such as the US, where GMOs are legal – which are seeking to expand the global bio seed market, which is valued at almost US$16 billion a year.

    The law will accelerate EU level endorsements for requests from US companies like Monsanto to plant genetically altered crops, which have been cleared as safe by scientists working for the European Commission.

    He also said that many Europeans are wary of American companies importing genetically modified food into Europe, which could potentially pass off GM foods without having let the Europeans know about it.
    Continued - GM floodgate to open? EU ministers back deal to let nations decide fate of crops

  26. #23
    China Rejecting U.S. Corn as First Shipment From Ukraine Arrives...

    China continued to reject corn cargoes from the U.S. that contained an unapproved genetically modified variety while accepting a first bulk-carrier shipment of the grain from Ukraine.

    Genetically modified corn and corn-derived products totaling 601,000 metric tons were rejected in 2013, the official Xinhua News Agency reported today, citing the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine. A Panamax-sized shipment of non-genetically modified corn from Ukraine entered the country on Dec. 6, according to a statement dated Dec. 25 on the website of state-owned China National Complete Engineering Corp.

    The quarantine agency’s newest figure cited by Xinhua was 56,000 tons more than it announced on Dec. 19, showing the government’s continued screening of U.S. corn and and dried distillers’ grains, or DDGS, for the unapproved insect resistanr MIR 162 gene. Net corn sales to China from the U.S. in the seven days through Dec. 26 dropped by 116,000 tons from the previous week, according to a report on the website of U.S. Department of Agriculture.
    Continued - http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...kraine-arrives
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 06-14-2014 at 07:50 PM.

  27. #24
    Paraguay and the Trans-Pacific plot to split South America...


    Paraguay experienced a radical pivot after the one-day constitutional coup of 2012 overthrew the left-leaning Fernando Lugo and replaced him with someone right-wing and pro-business. Pepe Escobar felt that this was directed from outside by a couple of actors. He wrote that Monsanto and the Brazilian landowners had a stake in regime change, as did the US, which was getting uncomfortable with Lugo’s leftwards tilt and suspiciousness of the US military. To put matters in context, the US had previously supported coup attempts in Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia. After the coup, Paraguay was suspended from both Unasur and Mercosur. It wasn’t invited back until it had presidential elections in 2013, during which Horacio Cartes, a pro-business tycoon representing the historic right-wing party, came to power. It was in this aftermath that Paraguay’s polices changed and it became the South American pivot.

    If Paraguay entered the Pacific Alliance, it would have a backdoor to the TPP through its free trade agreement with Chile. It could use this to sell its soybeans further afield in East Asia, raising the profits of Monsanto, the large Brazilian landowners, and the political business elite. It may even make it easier for President Energy to import the necessary oil-extracting devices and related equipment into the country, among other things. Paraguay in the Pacific Alliance would also place Mercosur in a conundrum, since the country would literally be an economic island surrounded by the organization, but one must remember the setup that Bolivia got itself into, likely unwittingly. By being in both the Andean Community and Mercosur, it has free trade with Peru, which is negotiating with the TPP. This is the backdoor for TPP and Pacific Alliance goods to transit through Bolivia to Paraguay, creating a lifeline with its future partner.

    The Pacific Alliance takes the opposite approach in most regards. It was formally created just a few years ago in 2011 and brings together Mexico, Colombia, Peru, and Chile, with Costa Rica having started the integration process earlier this year. The Pacific Alliance is fiercely neo-liberal, with John Kerry even calling it “the most open trading bloc in the hemisphere” during his visit to Panama on 1 July. Continuing to show that it is the mirror opposite of Mercosur, instead of looking towards the EU, most of the Pacific Alliance’s members are in negotiations to join the US-led Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
    Continued - Paraguay and the Trans-Pacific plot to split South America



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Corruption/Corporatism/FASCISM...

    SO... The US government is using Americans tax dollars as Foreign Aid, forcing small and weak nations/governments into buying US Multinational Corporations products. Of course these are the same multinationals that that buy the US government politicians with huge campaign and party donations.


    If these poor little countries don't buy, the US government will send in the "Jackals" to assassinate the government and install puppets. WASH-RINSE-REPEAT


    No doubt, Sociopaths and Psychotics run the federal government
    The American Dream, Wake Up People, This is our country! <===click

    "All eyes are opened, or opening to the rights of man, let the annual return of this day(July 4th), forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them."
    Thomas Jefferson
    June 1826



    Rock The World!
    USAF Veteran

  30. #26
    For some reason this other thread has been left to die in the General Politics section. It is in no way whatsoever general politics and is perhaps the most critical geo-political event that relates to U.S. foreign policy (in several areas) at the moment so I'm linking it here for later relevance.

    Sanctions: Russia strikes back - bans all US food, EU fruit and veg
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 08-08-2014 at 08:39 PM.

  31. #27
    A very good and detailed analysis of Russian agricultural sanctions...

    You wanna be Uncle Sam's bitch? Pay the price!
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 08-08-2014 at 08:40 PM.

  32. #28
    Given the notion that Russia and China are using Western sanctions as somewhat of an opportunity to establish a BRICS agricultural trade zone and perhaps a means to establish an agricultural "standard" within BRIC nations one could flirt with the idea that a broader form of policy is in the works.

    Anyhoo...there is this...

    India: Selling Out To Monsanto. GMOs and the Bigger Picture

    "In the meantime, Monsanto and the GM biotech sector forward the myth that GM food is necessary to feed the world’s burgeoning population. They are not. Aside from the review by GRAIN, the World Bank funded International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge and Science for Development Report stated that smallholder, traditional farming (not GMOs) can deliver food security in low-income countries through sustainable agri-ecological systems [5].

    “The Standing Committee on Agriculture in Parliament unequivocally concluded that GM seeds and foods are dangerous to human, animal and environmental health and directed the former Government of Manmohan Singh to ban GMOs [6]. Despite such evidence and the recommendations to put a hold on open field GM trials by the Supreme Court-appointed Technical Expert Committee, the push is on within official circles to give such trials the green light.”

    “In India, there is a drive to remove small/family farms, which are capable of ensuring the nation’s food security, and eventually replace them with larger biotech-controlled monoculture farms with GM crops for Western styled processed-food supermarkets and export [20]. It is no surprise that the likes of Syngenta, Monsanto and Walmart had a direct hand in drawing up the Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture, which was in turn linked to the US sanctioning the opening up of India’s nuclear power sector.

    “Despite India not being a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, US corporations are now actively involved in helping India develop its civil nuclear capabilities. Payback appears to come in the form of handing over the control of India’s agricultural land and food system to the US via that country’s biotech companies.”

    Relevant reading...

    GMOs and environmental destruction – Pope Francis urges humanity to respect nature

    “Andrews said the U.S. has “repeatedly” pushed the Holy See to endorse GMO seeds “as a moral obligation,” but that the “policy of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace has been to resist officially adopting GMOs.
    Essentially, the industry is looking for some sort of moral sanction here. (Could be said that western leaders and industry are fully aware of the geo-political course that BRICS nations are taking with regard to GMO and an agricultural standard and so this would be an expected move).

    Of course, the Pope isn't having any of it as GMOs are not relative to any aspect of Roman Catholic doctrine.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 08-18-2014 at 02:29 PM.

  33. #29
    The American Dream, Wake Up People, This is our country! <===click

    "All eyes are opened, or opening to the rights of man, let the annual return of this day(July 4th), forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them."
    Thomas Jefferson
    June 1826



    Rock The World!
    USAF Veteran

  34. #30
    Get ready, boys. Moving faster now. Given Russia's actions of late what we'd do well to recall would be scattered news and discussion relative to an agricultural test ban treaty that exists here on the forum. I made sure of it. This, of course, would set the international standard.

    Someone is building a BRIC wall. And with the quickness...

    Govt approves fines for improper GMO labeling...


    The Russian cabinet has approved the bill introducing heavy fines for businessmen who violate the rules on obligatory marking of foodstuffs containing genetically-modified products.

    The bill has been drafted by the state consumer rights agency Rospotrebnadzor and concerns all food and beverage products containing genetically-modified organisms or their parts, or which are made using such organisms. Entrepreneurs who fail to put markings on the products they sell or distort the information will be fined between 20,000 and 150,000 rubles (US$555 - $4150). Control bodies can also confiscate the improperly marked stock.

    The current Russian law orders clearly visible indication on all goods that contain 0.9 percent of genetically-modified organisms by weight. There are no limitations on the turnover or production of GMO-containing foodstuffs.

    Russian legislators and officials from the Agriculture Ministry have previously complained that the regulations concerning the turnover of GMO products lacked proper enforcement and suggested a temporary ban on all genetically-altered products in the country.

    Other government agencies, including Rospotrebnadzor argued that since Russia joined the WTO in 2012, trade restrictions can be imposed only after the hazardous effects of the banned goods are scientifically proven. They also quoted the statistics reading that the share of GMO in Russian food industry had declined from 12 percent to just 0.01 percent over the past 10 years and currently there are just 57 registered food products containing GMO in the country.

    Nevertheless, most of the Russian lawmakers are pushing for changing the existing law On Safety and Quality of Alimentary Products by introducing a norm set for the maximum allowed content of transgenic and genetically modified components. The motion’s initiators want to make this norm zero for all foodstuffs produced in Russia.

    In February this year, Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev held a government session dedicated to the problem in which he said that Russia will create its own research base for genetically-modified organisms that would provide the authorities with expert information and allow for further legislative movements and executive decisions.

    Medvedev also warned against perceiving the GMO products as “absolute evil,” but noted that the government did not support their use in the food industry.
    Govt approves fines for improper GMO labeling



    Relevant reading...

    Nationalists seek import ban on ex-Soviet nations associating with EU...

    A nationalist party MP is suggesting the Russian government introduce more restrictions on food imports, covering nations that have an association agreement with the EU, including Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia.

    Roman Khudyakov of the Liberal Democratic Party caucus of the State Duma has said that, since the association agreement with the European Union prepares the conditions for a free trade zone with the bloc, countries that have signed the document would soon be flooded with European goods, including foodstuffs banned in Russia.

    We must completely ban imports from Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine. We have to protect our markets from cheap, low-quality European goods that are now massively entering these countries. They have made their choice and will have to solve the demand problems for their products by themselves as well,” Khudyakov said in an interview with popular Russian daily Izvestia.

    He added that Russian state control agencies had repeatedly registered and rejected goods of unacceptable quality coming from the three countries.

    Ukraine Moldova and Georgia signed association agreements with the EU in June this year at the union’s summit in Brussels. Russia has repeatedly warned that the move would lead to restrictions on trade with the former Soviet Republics, as markets there would soon be flooded with cheap European imports and local producers would attempt to on-sell their low quality goods to Russian consumers.

    Last year’s warnings from Russia made then-Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich suspend the signing of the EU association agreement, which caused a surge in street protests in Kiev and eventually led to Yanukovich’s demise and the installation of the current EU-friendly regime in Ukraine.

    The European Union, United States and several of their allies have imposed economic sanctions on senior Russian officials and some larger companies over Russia’s alleged role in the current crisis in the east and southeast of Ukraine. Last week Russia took some reciprocal steps, with Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev signing a one-year ban on imports of meat, fish, cheese, milk, vegetables and fruit from Australia, Canada, the EU, the US and Norway.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 08-20-2014 at 12:47 AM.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Monsanto in US Foreign Policy
    By Natural Citizen in forum World News & Affairs
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 01-20-2015, 08:25 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-08-2012, 08:17 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-08-2011, 02:06 AM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-06-2011, 10:04 PM
  5. Noam Chomsky: US foreign policy 'US foreign policy is straight
    By bobbyw24 in forum World News & Affairs
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 11-10-2009, 01:44 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •