Saturday, March 16, 2013


wholefoodsWhole Foods Market, Inc. (WFM): What’s Behind The Decision To Label GMOs In Their Stores?

March 11th, 2013

Jon Rappoport: Whole Foods Market, Inc. (NASDAQ:WFM) has announced that, by 2018, it will label all products in its stores that contain genetically-modified ingredients.
Mike Adams, at, has written an excellent article covering this development. You should read it.
Whole Foods cites customers’ concerns as a major reason for its change in policy. One picture of the future: by overwhelming popular acclaim, non-GMO products at Whole Foods stores will squeeze out GMO products.

The other picture? At some point, customers will lose interest in the new labeling program and buy whatever they want to eat, regardless of whether it contains GMOs.
Monsanto views labeling as less than ideal, but far better than outright county-by-county bans on growing GMO crops. Several counties in California, for example, have already enacted such bans. That’s the real threat to the Monsanto crime empire.
Monsanto, with its very deep pockets, can sustain an endless propaganda campaign aimed at convincing consumers that GMO food is equivalent, in all ways, to non-GMO. So far, this PR blitz has won over most politicians, as well as a major sector of the technologically-educated class.
So what will happen, up the road, as Whole Foods customers move beyond their initial excitement at being able to tell whether they’re buying GMOs? Will they continue to care? Or will the labels evoke about as much interest as fat and carb content do now?
If Whole Foods’ buying public falls into apathy on the GMO issue, presumably the stores will continue to offer GMO products in profusion, because the cash registers keep ringing.
As Whole Foods bosses calculate their strategies, there is another obvious point that must be hammered home. Again. GMO food is nutritionally polluted, deficient, and, in the case of the Roundup Ready crops, drenched with far more toxic chemicals than would ordinarily be present.
Farmers across America, who have locked themselves into contracts with Monsanto, are now facing disaster, because superweeds that don’t fold up and die under assault from the Roundup herbicide are taking over their growing fields.
So the farmers are doing what are called burndowns. Not once, but several times a year, they’re saturating their land with chemicals stronger than Roundup, like Paraquat, which has been banned in 32 countries. The burndowns are undertaken to kill the march of the superweeds. This means more toxicity in the soil and in the food crops.
To present customers with the choice of buying GMO or non-GMO food in stores isn’t like making a distinction between red tomatoes and orange tomatoes. It’s not even an assertion that GMOs are unhealthy. It’s: “let the customer decide.”
By this logic, selling food containing, say, high levels of mercury, is acceptable because “people want it.”
The trouble, of course, begins with Monsanto and its government-agency allies, who insist, based on nothing, that GMOs are safe and non-toxic. From there, it appears that consumer choice is sane policy.
But it isn’t sane. That’s an illusion.
Yes, we can say that Whole Foods has made a step in the right direction, but that’s only true if its customers will really shun GMOs. And in the meantime, this “let the consumer decide” is a deception.
“Well, we’re in business to make money. We can’t just strip all GMO products off the shelves. We have to bow to the free market, to the customer.”
If that’s really Whole Foods’ position, then let them state it clearly. Don’t beat around the bush while you’re breaking your arm patting yourself on the back.
“Yes, like every other retailer in America, we’re selling bad products. We know they’re bad. They’re called GMOs. Nobody should be eating GMOs, but what the hell are we going to do?”
Of course, this kind of honesty would be a killer in the world of consumerism. It’s also one reason why GMO food has proliferated to this point. It’s a rare company that wants to step up to the plate and speak the unvarnished truth.
“Hey, we sell shit. Lots of it. But don’t blame us. You people want to buy it. You want it, we stock it. That’s the reality.”
Try this one on for size. Do you support the sale of ANYTHING, no matter WHAT it contains? Do you support poison in food, along with a major operation of concealment, so that the majority of the buying public isn’t informed that the poison is in their food? Is that okay? Is that LEGAL?
The answer to the last question is, of course, no. It’s not legal.
Unless corporate and government liars have been able to make it legal by passing the buck of responsibility and selling their souls to foist a clear criminal conspiracy on the citizenry. Which is exactly what happened.
Whole Foods, according to their statements, is betting on the consumer to dictate what the stores will sell. Underneath it all, Whole Foods seems to be saying, “We’re standing here watching you consumers, and we hope you make the right choice. Because a lot of that crap you’re buying now, in our stores, is no good for you. It’s bad. If you wake up and make your enlightened preferences known, we’ll follow and we’ll cheer your decision. But if not, we’ll keep selling you the food that’s bad for you and should be illegal.”
I don’t find myself applauding that position. I don’t find myself feeling warm inside about Whole Foods.
Again, yes, it’s better than nothing. But many things are better than nothing and yet don’t rise to the level of a peace prize, or a medal, or a misty response of heartfelt joy.
For the next five years, as Whole Foods starts labeling GMO products in their stores, they should undertake a full-bore education campaign across America. They should book halls and have their execs stand up and say:
“You know that big sign we have posted on our stores? ‘Nothing artificial, ever?’ That’s bullshit. Listen, for a lot of years now, you the consumer and we the seller have been involved in a scam. It’s called GMO food. We want this to end. We also don’t want to go broke. Help us and help yourselves. Here’s the complete evidence that we’ve been selling, and you’ve been buying, food that is harmful to your health. You and we are in an embrace, in this very bad spiral. We have to get out of it.”
That would be a start, but the chances of it happening are on a par with a flea driving a Mercedes on the moon.
And it wouldn’t begin to address the fact that toxic GMO food shouldn’t, by any reasonable law, be sold at all.
You also might keep an eye on corporate mergers and acquisitions, just in case Whole Foods decides to sell itself to a larger (and more predatory) company. Anything could happen in the next five years.
Here are a few of the largest shareholders in Whole Foods. They’re investment funds: JP Morgan Large Cap Growth Select; Wells Fargo Advantage Growth Inv; Fidelity Growth Company; JNL/Mellon Cap Management; T Rowe Price Growth Stock. Given this array of stock owners, it might be easier to step out into the spotlight and promote GMO labeling than to say, “Look, we’re eliminating GMO products from our stores, they’ll all be gone in a few years, no matter what.”
And what will Whole Foods do if, as they gradually place GMO labels on their products, those products continue to sell about as well as they’re selling now with no labels? Will the company keep pushing its pure agenda, or will it simply acquiesce, and end up with a half-GMO and half-non-GMO inventory, to “accommodate all tastes?”
An analogous question, to put this all into perspective: should drug companies manufacture vaccines with half the vials containing the neurotoxin mercury and half without mercury, so people can choose?
Finally, as food prices escalate (seemingly every week), who are these theoretically enlightened customers who’ll ultimately determine Whole Foods’ GMO policy? Are they, on balance, tough-mindedly dedicated to better health and even activism, or are they are merely following and then abandoning trends: from the $1000 bicycle and the grasshopper helmet and shiny Spandex, to the raw cashew vegan non-dairy ice cream, to the quinoa and kale and chia salad, to the Google Glass, to the gluten-free baby stroller…
Are these the people into whose hands Whole Foods is dropping its destiny? Is this the cutting edge of the non-GMO movement?
Jon Rappoport
The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at
Read more at 


ACTION NEWS: Canada   

NEW GE FREE ZONE IN BC: On March 8, Cherryville became the 13th BC municipality to pass a resolution to ban GMO crops! Three weeks ago local volunteer group Bee SAFE, held a public meeting at the Cherryville hall to discuss how GMO crops affect other crops. “There is no co-existence possible between GMO crops and other crops – by not deciding to ban them, we're deciding to ban every other type of agriculture and to put the future of our food and our farms in the hands of corporations like Monsanto, who own patents on GMO seeds” said Huguette Allen. Congratulations Cherryville!

PETITION AGAINST GM APPLE PRESENTED IN BC LEGISLATURE: The petition against the GM apple was presented in the BC Legislature on March 12 by BC NDP Agriculture Critic Lana Popham! 5536 signatures were collected on a hardcopy petition from at least 19 communities across BC! Congratulations to BC grassroots activists and community groups on a great action! This action was part of an ongoing campaign in BC - to get updates on how you can take action in BC subscribe at 

PEI FIGHTS TO STOP THE GM FISH: PEI action group ask Premier to ban GM fish. “A coalition of PEI organizations has lobbied both Liberal and Tory governments over the years for a GM-free province,” said Leo Broderick, Islanders Say No to GM Salmon representative. “Now because of the urgency of the situation we’ve come together to focus on a GM salmon ban." You can also follow Islanders Say No to Frankenfish on facebook:


Editorial -NEWSDAY

$alttextEditorial: Labels on non-'frankenfood' would help consumers

Photo credit: illustration |
Whole Foods Market's recent decision to require labels on foods sold in its stores after 2018 that contain genetically modified ingredients is a pro-consumer move. It smartly sidesteps the controversy over whether such labeling should be mandatory.

Even better, since 2009, the upscale grocery chain has been labeling many products that do not contain genetically modified organisms. Consumers should have that information so they can make informed decisions about what they eat.

The Food and Drug Administration has concluded that genetically modified products are safe and the agency doesn't require that they be labeled. But voluntary labeling of foods would let consumers speak loudly with their dollars, which will allow the market to determine the fate of genetically modified foods.



Bangladesh Kicks Our Butt on Agriculture

| Tue Mar. 12, 2013 3:00 AM PDT
A John Deere combine harvests corn.
Every year, nearly 30 percent of US farmland gets planted in corn, and our farmers produce close to 40 percent of the corn produced on Earth each year.
So why do we grow so much of this one crop—and what do we get for the effort? I've been pondering those questions since I began writing about food politics eight years ago. The answers I've come up with (see here and here for examples) have not been popular with the loose alliance of firms that provide seeds and agrichemicals to farmers to grow corn and that buy the harvest and turn it into a variety of products. Back in 2010, a corn-industry PR person once lashed out at my conclusions as the "rantings of an elitist with an anti-corn agenda."
I wonder what my critic, Cathryn Wojcicki, or @CornyCate as she's known on Twitter, will think of this cold-blooded examination of our corn agriculture from Jonathan Foley, Director, a professor of ecology at University of Minnesota. Foley won't be easy for the industry to dismiss. He's the coauthor of a 2012 Nature study finding that yields from industrial-scale farming trump those of organic by 25 percent—an analysis I criticized as narrow and incomplete. So he's not exactly an "anti-corn elitist" by disposition.
In his new piece, Foley trains a skeptic's eye on the place of corn in our agriculture and finds it … bizarre.
He starts with corn's appeal:

It has incredibly high yields compared with most other U.S. crops, and it grows nearly anywhere in the country, especially thriving in the Midwest and Great Plains. Plus, it can be turned into a staggering array of products. Corn can be used for food as corn flour, cornmeal, hominy, grits or sweet corn. It can be used as animal feed to help fatten our hogs, chickens and cattle. And it can be turned into ethanol, high-fructose corn syrup or even bio-based plastics.

The corn-soy behemoth covers more than half of US farmland. National Corn Growers Association, World of Corn 2012
But the analysis quickly turns devastating. Foley distinguishes between corn as a crop, which is highly productive and high-yielding; and corn as the centerpiece of an agriculture system, which is "inefficient at feeding people." How can that be? He notes that very little of the corn crop goes directly to our plates. The great bulk of its goes to animal feed, ethanol, and to exports (mainly as animal feed. This leads Foley here:

For corn-fed animals, the efficiency of converting grain to meat and dairy calories ranges from roughly 3 percent to 40 percent, depending on the animal production system in question. What this all means is that little of the corn crop actually ends up feeding American people. It’s just math. The average Iowa cornfield has the potential to deliver more than 15 million calories per acre each year (enough to sustain 14 people per acre, with a 3,000 calorie-per-day diet, if we ate all of the corn ourselves), but with the current allocation of corn to ethanol and animal production, we end up with an estimated 3 million calories of food per acre per year, mainly as dairy and meat products, enough to sustain only 3 people per acre. This is lower than the average delivery of food calories from farms in Bangladesh, Egypt and Vietnam. [Emphasis added.]
To generate this rather marginal return, we're devoting massive resources. How much? Foley:

In the United States, corn uses more land than any other crop, spanning some 97 million acres —  an area roughly the size of California. U.S. corn also consumes a large amount of our freshwater resources, including an estimated 5.6 cubic miles per year of irrigation water withdrawn from America’s rivers and aquifers. And fertilizer use for corn is massive: over 5.6 million tons of nitrogen is applied to corn each year through chemical fertilizers, along with nearly a million tons of nitrogen from manure. Much of this fertilizer, along with large amounts of soil, washes into the nation’s lakes, rivers and coastal oceans, polluting waters and damaging ecosystems along the way. The dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico is the largest, and most iconic, example of this.

Where does all the corn go? Mainly, into feedlots, ethanol factories, and high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS). National Corn Growers Association, World of Corn 2012
So let's get this straight. We're devoting nearly a third of our farmland—much of it, as in the Midwest prairie region, some of the richest farmland in the world—to a resource-sucking agriculture system that's less efficient than than the one in Bangladesh. And really, to get at the full absurdity of our corn-fed agriculture, you have to factor in corn's single rotation mate, soybeans, which also go largely to animal feed and other industrial uses. The corn system also sucks up massive amounts of public resources in the form of crops subsidies, Foley notes, and is also prone to shocks because of its lack of diversity. So now you've got more than half of US farmland tied up in an incredibly wasteful, risky activity.
What would be a better way? Here's Foley:

This reimagined agricultural system would be a more diverse landscape, weaving corn together with many kinds of grains, oil crops, fruits, vegetables, grazing lands and prairies. Production practices would blend the best of conventional, conservation, biotech and organic farming. Subsidies would be aimed at rewarding farmers for producing more healthy, nutritious food while preserving rich soil, clean water and thriving landscapes for future generations. This system would feed more people, employ more farmers and be more sustainable and more resilient than anything we have today.
Foley might have pointed to this 2012 Iowa State University study demonstrating the many ecological benefits that would proceed from a shift to more diverse farm systems in the Midwest. Or this new study from Cornell researchers finding that much less nitrogen pollution leaches from fields planted in diverse rotations vs. those planted in what the authors call "corn-soybean monocultures."
So what's the holdup? As Foley notes, the problem lies not with farmers but with farm policy and the market/political power of agribusiness—a "behemoth largely created by lobbyists, trade associations, big businesses and the government." Under current conditions, farmers "would be crazy not to grow corn," he continues; they're "simply delivering what markets and policies are demanding." In short, the corn system works for agribusiness, and the industry has the lobbying might to keep its favored policy agenda in place.


Monsanto: Patenting Death

Monsanto has yet another case pending in the court system, this time before the U.S. Supreme Court on the exclusivity of its genetically modified seed patents. Narrowly at issue is whether Monsanto retains patent rights on soybeans that have been replanted after showing up in generic stocks rather than being sold specifically as seeds, or whether those patent rights are “exhausted” after the initial planting. But more broadly the case also raises implications regarding control of the food supply (Photo: JBrazito via Flickr)and the patenting of life – questions that current patent laws are ill-equipped to meaningfully address.
On the specific legal issues, Monsanto is likely to win the case (they almost always do). The extant facts make this a relatively poor platform to serve as a test case of Monsanto's right to exert such expansive powers. The farmer in this situation had previously purchased Monsanto soybeans for planting (back in 1999), and in this instance bought previously harvested soybeans with the intention of planting them – even spraying Monsanto's Roundup herbicide on them in the hopes that at least some of the generic stock would be of the so-called "Roundup Ready" variety.
Despite this unfortunate posture, the case does provide another opportunity for critical inquiry regarding the unprecedented and perverse level of control Monsanto is asserting over the food supply. It is estimated that 90 percent of the soybeans in the U.S. are genetically modified and thus subject to potential patents. A random handful of soybeans procured anywhere is likely to contain at least some Monsanto-altered beans. Such a near-monopoly effectively gives Monsanto the right to control access to a staple food item that is found in a wide range of consumer products.
Other variations on this theme include pollen from Monsanto corn (similarly dominant in the U.S. market) pollinating a farmer's crop, or seeds from Monsanto-engineered grains being distributed by animals, winds, or waterways and commingling with non-GMO plantings. In each case, Monsanto could have a cause of action against an unwitting farmer by claiming patent infringement.
More broadly, and unlikely to be addressed in the instant case, is whether Monsanto (or any other company) should be able to patent seeds – the core of global food supplies, and thus of sustenance for billions of people – in the first place. Activists will decry the fact that Monsanto is patenting life, and this is indeed an Orwellian (or perhaps a Huxleyan) prospect, to be sure. Yet I would submit that Monsanto is actually patenting death, which is potentially even more disconcerting.
Consider that by exerting this level of control over the food supply, Monsanto is rapidly creating a world in which people have to pay fealty to the corporation in order to grow food and/or consume it. In this sense, Monsanto gains enormous power to determine who is allowed to eat – and thus who lives or dies. Consider further that Monsanto's patents also include technologies in which seeds are sold that cannot propagate themselves, resulting in plants terminating rather than perpetuating, requiring farmers to have to go back to the “company store” in order to replant their fields.
In the case currently before the Court, shades of the latter issue are present, with the question being whether the seeds of the seeds of Monsanto creations retain their exclusive patent rights – possibly in perpetuity. This sort of argument might give us cause to wonder whether an animal (or even a human being, someday?) who consumes these proprietary foods could be implicated in such assertions if they are somehow genetically altered in the process. Perverse slippery slopes aside, the permeation of patentable materials throughout the food chain is by now a clear and present danger.
These are troubling trends indeed. Monsanto wants the right to exert perpetual control, and with it the power to make decisions about who/what lives or dies. In addition to seed patents, their corporate creations include herbicides, pesticides, and biocides that toxify soils and poison waters. Genetically modified foods increasingly dominate the U.S. food supply (and supplies elsewhere, at least where they haven't been explicitly banned) despite insufficient testing and concerns about their health impacts. The ability of corporations like Monsanto to continue plying such products with little oversight constitutes a de facto consumer beta test on a mass level, the full effects of which may not be known for decades, if ever.
Taking all of this together, it increasingly appears that Monsanto is patenting death, perhaps even more so than life. Their patent rights should not trump the rights of people to procure safe, healthy, living foods. Whatever the result in the Supreme Court case, we should roundly deem Monsanto a loser in the court of public opinion, and strive to loosen their death grip on our food supply.
Randall Amster
Randall Amster, JD, PhD, teaches Peace Studies and chairs the Master’s program in Humanities at Prescott College in Arizona. He is the Executive Director of the Peace & Justice Studies Association, and serves as Contributing Editor for New Clear Vision. Among his recent books are Lost in Space: The Criminalization, Globalization, and Urban Ecology of Homelessness, and the co-edited volume Building Cultures of Peace: Transdisciplinary Voices of Hope and Action.

Wednesday, March 13, 2013


The Edible Blog

Hampton Bays Woman Fighting for GMO Labeling in New York State

Comment | March 13, 2013 | By

Whole Foods has been in the news for pledging to have all foods on their selves containing genetically engineered food or genetically modified organisms (GMO) labeled by 2018. This is good news for Kathleen  Furey, the education and media director for GMO-Free NY, but she says in five years it will be too late. The  Hampton Bays resident has been working full time to see that a dusty bill that’s been banging around Albany since 2001 will be on the legislative agenda in the coming session. The bill would require labeling of GMO food in New York State.
Lucky for East Enders, our representatives, state Senator Ken LaValle and Assembyman Fred Thiele, are already on board (but often need encouragement to continue to fight the good fight). But the rest of the state needs eduction, says Furey, and her goal is to get in front of as many legislators and voters as she can to educate them on the need for such a bill, so it does not go the way of California’s Proposition 37.
Locals who are interested in learning more can attend upcoming presentations sponsored by GMO-Free NY in Sag Harbor, Southampton and Stony Brook. Details below.
  • March 30, 2013, 12:00 pm:  Just Label GMOs Presentation/Discussion Fair Foods Farmers Market, Christ Church, Sag Harbor, NY
  • April 15, 2013, 4:00 – 5:30 pm:  Just Label GMOs Presentation/Discussion Stony Brook University Sustainability Studies Department Melville Library Building, Room E4330, Stony Brook, NY
  • May 2, 2013, 5:30 pm:  Just Label GMOs Presentation/Discussion Southhampton Public Library, Rogers Memorial Library Morris Meeting Room  91 Coopers Farm Road, Southampton, NY 


monsanto3.pngFood and Depopulation: Monsanto’s Monopoly

  • By Cassandra Anderson
June 10, 2010

(Part 2 of 4)
A monopoly is exclusive control of a commodity or service that makes it possible to manipulate prices.  This is accomplished through governmental regulations used to enforce the monopoly.  The way to break a monopoly is to remove those laws.  This is simple, but not easy in the case of Monsanto, because the roots extend to international, federal, state, and local government regulations.  Monopoly owners corner a market by taking control of the resource AND preventing others from using the resource.

Monsanto’s monopoly is firmly entrenched within the US government.

The famous robber baron JD Rockefeller refined this method of monopolization with Standard Oil; he created a cartel (an agreement between companies to avoid competition) with the companies he could not buy or force out of business through extraordinarily corrupt business practices.  Competition creates a free market; JD Rockefeller is famous for saying, “Competition is a sin.”  Of course, the Rockefellers have an enormous stake in biotechnology and the Rockefeller Foundation funded the biology centers and research that led to the creation of GMOs;  F.  William Engdahl’s book, “Seeds of Destruction”, is highly recommended for the complete details.
This article is intended as a brief sketch to explore the expanse of the roots of Monsanto & understand the machinery of a monopoly, therefore, the science and health issues behind GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) will not be covered in detail.  GMOs are created by injecting virus and/ or bacteria into a plant or animal cell, along with the DNA of life forms that would never mate in nature (like spiders and goats).
There is extensive proof that GMOs are detrimental to health.(1)  Monsanto’s business practices are corrupt- for example, there have been cases where seed sold as non- GMO were actually contaminated.  GMOs are not limited to food; industrial chemicals, plastic and drugs can be grown in plants like corn, and there is an overwhelming chance that you have ingested these chemicals and drugs, if you live in America.(2)  Cross pollination is rampant and is an enormous problem, thereby polluting non-GMO farms and endangering America’s food supply.  Most Americans are unaware that up to 75% of their daily diet is comprised of GMO food.
This is all part of the United Nations Agenda 21 Sustainable Development depopulation program (remember that the Rockefellers have overwhelming influence with the UN).  Monsanto promises their seeds are more prolific and can feed more people, but the opposite has often proven to be the truth.  The most shocking part of this is that the USDA co-owns a patent, along with Monsanto, on a gene (the Terminator) that can destroy food and be used as a bioweapon.
Monsanto’s monopoly is firmly entrenched within the US government:
1. US Patent Office: this where the problem began, in allowing a patent on life. Monsanto’s seeds are protected under an ‘Intellectual Property’ patent; the seeds are good for one season.  When a farmer buys Monsanto seed, he also signs the Technology Agreement that stipulates he may not collect seed and replant it.  While the farmer is free to plant any type of seed he wishes, the courts have maintained that farmers are not tied to Monsanto seeds in future seasons.  However, it is difficult and costly to stop using Monsanto seed once a farmer has planted it because he may not collect and replant the Monsanto seeds collected after harvest, and must buy all new seeds for the new season.  Even if a farmer, having once planted GMO seed, then wishing to switch back, faces the issue of “volunteers” (seeds in the ground from the previous planting) which appear and Monsanto has aggressively sued farmers for patent infringement.(3)
Monsanto is the GMO leader because it has a proprietary patent on the method for creating GMOs, so other companies pay an exorbitant fee to make GMOs.
Monsanto is now patenting non GMO seed as well; this is essentially a patent on nature.(4)  Monsanto owns over 20,000 patents
2. FDA (US Food & Drug Administration)*: Many people rely on the FDA to determine the safety of food or a product.  The FDA is corrupt, particularly within the realm of GMOs.  The only “testing” for safety that is required is for the GMO producer to submit a self authored report on the new GMO’s safety.  This fraud was accomplished by Michael Taylor, a lawyer who went to work for the FDA and established the “no testing” policy by reasoning that GMOs are “SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT” to food, and food has already been determined to be safe.  However, this is an oxymoron because in order to receive a patent, the new product must be different.  Michael Taylor (second cousin to Tipper Gore) is notorious for his “revolving door” employment within the US government and Monsanto- he was recently chosen by Obama as the Deputy Commissioner for foods in the FDA.(6)
GMO seed companies prohibit any testing of their products, by contract, to their buyers.(7)
The FDA has made it illegal to label GMO foods as containing GMOs, as they are GRAS (generally recognized as safe).  Some companies, like Whole Foods, are starting to label their products as NO GMOs.
3.   *President George HW Bush*, under executive power, mandated the Doctrine of Substantial Equivalence of 1992, the same year that Agenda 21 was introduced.  This policy requires NO health or safety testing before a GMO product is released into the public.(8)
4.  *USDA (United States Department of Agriculture)*: This government body determines whether a plant is safe to grow.  GMOs are unsafe to grow; wind, seeds blown from trucks and insect pollination bring GMO pollen and seeds into non-GMO farmland and contaminate the nearby non-GMO farms
Outrageously, the USDA co-owns the patent on the “Terminator Gene”, which means that the seeds have been modified to “commit suicide” after one season, and will not germinate if they are planted in a subsequent season.  This technology could potentially wipe out food on the planet in one season.  The US government has been funding GMO research since 1983; William Engdahl has said that this will give the owners control of the food seeds over entire regions and nations, when commercialized.
The USDA and the co-owner of the “terminator” patent promised not to commercialize it in 1999, however, in 2001, they signed a commercialization agreement.  Seven years later, Monsanto bought out the co-owner and is now partnered with the USDA for the “Terminator” patent.  Food can be used as a weapon.(9)
The USDA has also engaged in illegal dispersal of subsidies to Monsanto as well as giving farmers a break on crop insurance premiums if they used Monsanto seeds, which is tantamount to product endorsement.
Remember the USDA is business partners with Monsanto.  This is where your tax dollars are going.  We are paying for our government to poison us.
5.  EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency)*:  The EPA is responsible for determining the safety of GMOs in the environment.  GMOs can withstand more pesticides and herbicides than normal crops, so more of these toxins are used and a resistance to the toxins has occurred.  GMO pollen has been proven to be detrimental to certain insects; many believe that the great bee die- off in the US is a result of large quantities of pesticides sprayed on GMO crops plus, some crops have pesticides contained in their the DNA.  The EPA often relies on the chemical producer for its research and safety testing.(10)
The EPA is a corrupt agency that continually fails to protect public health: there are over 80,000 chemicals used today, but only a few hundred have been tested for safety.(11)
6.  The US Supreme Court* is an agency of the US government, which has usurped untold power.  Currently, there is a case in the Supreme Court, to uphold a ban on GMO alfalfa, as GMOs often contaminate nearby farms via cross pollination; a decision is expected this month.  Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was an attorney for Monsanto from 1976 to 1979, but he has failed to disqualify himself due to a direct conflict of interest.
A ban was placed on the GMO alfalfa due to danger of cross contamination (not safety of the food, but whether the plant is safe to grow- the USDA failed to carry out a proper Environmental Impact Study); the prior rulings have been against Monsanto, and this is their 3rd appeal.
Justice Scalia has made remarks that contamination isn’t “the end of the world”.  However, it does affect farmers regarding international trade because there are many GMO bans in Europe, and they don’t want GMO crops from the US.  A judgement against contamination and in favor of safety would put the USDA’s lack of ethics in preventing contamination in the news and could negate prior lower court decisions that failed to protect non- GMO farmers from contamination.  And a ruling in favor of food safety could put the USDA in the news again, connecting the dots of collusion because of their refusal to ban GMOs, in order to protect their own patent on the Terminator Gene.  So, given the evidence of governmental complicity in GMO monopolies, incompetence and ignorance, don’t expect the miracle of common sense to prevail in this case.

Incidentally, Elena Kagan, Obama’s candidate for the Supreme Court, sided with Monsanto in the alfalfa case, during the petition period, although it was outside of he jurisdiction as solicitor general.(12)
7.  State governments* have also contributed to the monopoly by blocking local bans on GMOs.  Mendocino and Marin Counties, in Northern California, banned GMOs in 2004.  California’s Central Valley, the nation’s largest produce provider, did not follow the GMO ban.  Lobbying from GMO seed producers was intense, as the monopoly became threatened.
The response was that a number of States enacted pre-emptive laws preventing local governments from declaring bans on GMOs within their jurisdictions.(13)
8.  Monsanto has a long history of lying, lobbying, bribing and pressuring government scientists and government officers in order to keep their monopoly in place.(14)  Monsanto has used very dirty business practices to corner the market on seeds.  Within Monsanto contracts there are provisions that mandate the destruction of all Monsanto seeds when a seed company changes ownership: the result is that this makes it very easy for Monsanto buy seed companies cheaply in the bidding process.  Another way that Monsanto has eliminated competition is through withholding non GMO seeds from the market.  They have also undercut their prices, making their cheaper product appear to be a good deal to farmers.  News stories about the detrimental effects of GMOs have also been suppressed, as in the case of some news investigators who got fired from a Fox news investigation over rBHG.
9.  US DOJ (Department of Justice)* is currently conducting an investigation regarding anti-trust violations (like the concentration of the seed supply being in the possession of 2 companies), but the investigation seems skewed in the favor of Monsanto as farmers are under-represented and the US interest in the GMO monopoly is deeply rooted.  In other words this will be a lightweight investigation.(15)
Maybe the 7 States that are investigating Monsanto’s monopoly on seeds will be more authentic, but I doubt it as DuPont’s complaint against Monsanto accuses them of offering rebates to seed distributors for excluding rival seeds; DuPont offers GMO seeds and is acting in its own interest- this investigation will likely avoid looking into how Monsanto edged out healthy non GMO seeds.(15)
In conclusion, it is undeniable that the our government is deeply complicit in depopulation through food control, especially the USDA’s patent on the Terminator Gene.  Frighteningly, amateur garage laboratory scientists and other hobbyists are pursuing new GMO creations on their own, which could have catastrophic results.(16)  While this option could break Monsanto’s monopoly, it is certainly not the preferred way to go
The solution is to educate your family, educate friends, and especially educating farmers is crucial.  The US government involvement is particularly disturbing, regarding the sterile Terminator Gene and needs to be exposed far and wide.  Please share this information with everyone you know, in order to support the growth of organic and non GMO farming.
Please visit  Cassandra Anderson’s website at <> for more information
1. <>
3. <>
6. <>
This article was posted: Thursday, June 10, 2010 at 12:52 pm