[Захумље]

Вилијама Ендала
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PP_f23YTOMw

[Захумље]

http://rt.com/news/159188-russia-gmo-terrorist-bill/

[Захумље]

Колико њиве ко су биле поплављене су биле ГМО?

И колико је кемикалије је ушло у воденог сто? Water Table!

[Захумље]

Monsanto and the Bio-Tech Conglomerates: Sowing the Seeds of Famine in Ethiopia

Author’s note

Based on research conducted in the 1990s, this article was first published by The Ecologist in September 2000. It was subsequently incorporated into the Second edition of The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order, Global Research, Montreal, 2003.

The research focussed on how GMO seeds were used as of the mid-1990s to destabilize the agricultural cycle in Ethiopia. This diabolical “free market” agenda was a dress rehearsal for the agri-bio-tech conglomerates’ assault led by Monsanto on peasant economies in all major regions of the World.

Michel Chossudovsky, May 23, 2014



The “economic therapy” imposed under IMF-World Bank jurisdiction is in large part responsible for triggering famine and social devastation in Ethiopia and the rest of sub-Saharan Africa, wreaking the peasant economy and impoverishing millions of people.

With the complicity of branches of the US government, it has also opened the door for the appropriation of traditional seeds and landraces by US biotech corporations, which behind the scenes have been peddling the adoption of their own genetically modified seeds under the disguise of emergency aid and famine relief.

Moreover, under WTO rules, the agri-biotech conglomerates can manipulate market forces to their advantage as well as exact royalties from farmers. The WTO provides legitimacy to the food giants to dismantle State programmes including emergency grain stocks, seed banks, extension services and agricultural credit, etc.), plunder peasant economies and trigger the outbreak of periodic famines.

Crisis in the Horn

More than 8 million people in Ethiopia – representing 15% of the country’s population – had been locked into “famine zones”. Urban wages have collapsed and unemployed seasonal farm workers and landless peasants have been driven into abysmal poverty. The international relief agencies concur without further examination that climatic factors are the sole and inevitable cause of crop failure and the ensuing humanitarian disaster. What the media tabloids fails to disclose is that – despite the drought and the border war with Eritrea – several million people in the most prosperous agricultural regions have also been driven into starvation. Their predicament is not the consequence of grain shortages but of “free markets” and “bitter economic medicine” imposed under the IMF-World Bank sponsored Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP).

Ethiopia produces more than 90% of its consumption needs. Yet at the height of the crisis, the nationwide food deficit for 2000 was estimated by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) at 764,000 metric tons of grain representing a shortfall of 13 kilos per person per annum.1 In Amhara, grain production (1999-2000) was twenty percent in excess of consumption needs. Yet 2.8 million people in Amhara (representing 17% of the region’s population) became locked into famine zones and are “at risk” according to the FAO. 2 Whereas Amhara’s grain surpluses were in excess of 500,000 tons (1999-2000), its “relief food needs” had been tagged by the international community at close to 300,000 tons.3 A similar pattern prevailed in Oromiya, the country’s most populated state where 1.6 million people were classified “at risk”, despite the availability of more than 600,000 metric tons of surplus grain.4 In both these regions, which include more than 25% of the country’s population, scarcity of food was clearly not the cause of hunger, poverty and social destitution. Yet no explanations are given by the panoply of international relief agencies and agricultural research institutes.

The Promise of the “Free Market”

In Ethiopia, a transitional government came into power in 1991 in the wake of a protracted and destructive civil war. After the pro-Soviet Dergue regime of Colonel Mengistu Haile Mariam was unseated, a multi-donor financed Emergency Recovery and Reconstruction Project (ERRP) was hastily put in place to deal with an external debt of close to 9 billion dollars that had accumulated during the Mengistu government. Ethiopia’s outstanding debts with the Paris Club of official creditors were rescheduled in exchange for far-reaching macro-economic reforms. Upheld by US foreign policy, the usual doses of bitter IMF economic medicine were prescribed. Caught in the straightjacket of debt and structural adjustment, the new Transitional Government of Ethiopia (TGE), led by the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) – largely formed from the Tigrean People’s Liberation Front (PLF) – had committed itself to far-reaching “free market reforms”, despite its leaders’ Marxist leanings. Washington soon tagged Ethiopia alongside Uganda as Africa’s post Cold War free market showpiece.

While social budgets were slashed under the structural adjustment programme (SAP), military expenditure – in part financed by the gush of fresh development loans – quadrupled since 1989.5 With Washington supporting both sides in the Eritrea-Ethiopia border war, US arms sales spiralled. The bounty was being shared between the arms manufacturers and the agribusiness conglomerates. In the post-Cold War era, the latter positioned themselves in the lucrative procurement of emergency aid to war-torn countries. With mounting military spending financed on borrowed money, almost half of Ethiopia’s export revenues was earmarked to meet debt-servicing obligations.

A Policy Framework Paper (PFP) stipulating the precise changes to be carried out in Ethiopia had been carefully drafted in Washington by IMF and World Bank officials on behalf of the transitional government, and was forwarded to Addis Ababa for the signature of the Minister of Finance. The enforcement of severe austerity measures virtually foreclosed the possibility of a meaningful post-war reconstruction and the rebuilding of the country’s shattered infrastructure. The creditors demanded trade liberalization and the full-scale privatization of public utilities, financial institutions, State farms and factories. Civil servants including teachers and health workers were fired, wages were frozen and the labor laws were rescinded to enable State enterprises “to shed their surplus workers”. Meanwhile, corruption became rampant. State assets were auctioned off to foreign capital at bargain prices and Price Waterhouse Cooper was entrusted with the task of coordinating the sale of State property.

In turn, the reforms had led to the fracture of the federal fiscal system. Budget transfers to the State governments were slashed leaving the regions to their own devices. Supported by several donors, “regionalization” was heralded as a “devolution of powers from the federal to the regional governments”. The Bretton Woods institutions knew exactly what they were doing. In the words of the IMF, “[the regions] capacity to deliver effective and efficient development interventions varies widely, as does their capacity for revenue collection”. 6

Wrecking the Peasant Economy

Patterned on the reforms adopted in Kenya in 1991 (see Box 9.1 ), agricultural markets were wilfully manipulated on behalf of the agribusiness conglomerates. The World Bank demanded the rapid removal of price controls and all subsidies to farmers. Transportation and freight prices were deregulated serving to boost food prices in remote areas affected by drought. In turn, the markets for farm inputs including fertiliser and seeds were handed over to private traders including Pioneer Hi-Bred International which entered into a lucrative partnership with Ethiopia Seed Enterprise (ESE), the government’s seed monopoly.7

At the outset of the reforms in 1992, USAID under its Title III program “donated” large quantities of US fertilizer “in exchange for free market reforms”:

[V]arious agricultural commodities [will be provided] in exchange for reforms of grain marketing… and [the] elimination of food subsidies…The reform agenda focuses on liberalization and privatization in the fertilizer and transport sectors in return for financing fertilizer and truck imports…. These program initiatives have given us [an] “entrée” …in defining major [policy] issues… 8

While the stocks of donated US fertiliser were rapidly exhausted; the imported chemicals contributed to displacing local fertiliser producers. The same companies involved in the fertiliser import business were also in control of the domestic wholesale distribution of fertiliser using local level merchants as intermediaries.

Increased output was recorded in commercial farms and in irrigated areas (where fertilizer and high yielding seeds had been applied). The overall tendency, however, was towards greater economic and social polarisation in the countryside, marked by significantly lower yields in less productive marginal lands occupied by the poor peasantry. Even in areas where output had increased, farmers were caught in the clutch of the seed and fertilizer merchants.

In 1997, the Atlanta based Carter Center – which was actively promoting the use of biotechnology tools in maize breeding – proudly announced that “Ethiopia [had] become a food exporter for the first time”.9 Yet in a cruel irony, the donors ordered the dismantling of the emergency grain reserves (set up in the wake of the 1984-85 famine) and the authorities acquiesced.

Instead of replenishing the country’s emergency food stocks, grain was exported to meet Ethiopia’s debt servicing obligations. Close to one million tons of the 1996 harvest was exported, an amount which would have been amply sufficient (according to FAO figures) to meet the 1999-2000 emergency. In fact the same food staple which had been exported (namely maize) was re-imported barely a few months later. The world market had confiscated Ethiopia’s grain reserves.

In return, US surpluses of genetically engineered maize (banned by the European Union) were being dumped on the horn of Africa in the form of emergency aid. The US had found a convenient mechanism for “laundering its stocks of dirty grain”. The agribusiness conglomerates not only cornered Ethiopia’s commodity exports, they were also involved in the procurement of emergency shipments of grain back into Ethiopia. During the 1998-2000 famine, lucrative maize contracts were awarded to giant grain merchants such as Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) and Cargill Inc. 10

Laundering America’s GM Grain Surpluses

US grain surpluses peddled in war-torn countries also served to weaken the agricultural system. Some 500,000 tons of maize and maize products were “donated” in 1999-2000 by USAID to relief agencies including the World Food Programme (WFP) which in turn collaborates closely with the US Department of Agriculture. At least 30% of these shipments (procured under contract with US agribusiness firms) were surplus genetically modified grain stocks. 11

Boosted by the border war with Eritrea and the plight of thousands of refugees, the influx of contaminated food aid had contributed to the pollution of Ethiopia’s genetic pool of indigenous seeds and landraces. In a cruel irony, the food giants were at the same time gaining control – through the procurement of contaminated food aid – over Ethiopia’s seed banks. According to South Africa’s Biowatch: “Africa is treated as the dustbin of the world…To donate untested food and seed to Africa is not an act of kindness but an attempt to lure Africa into further dependence on foreign aid.” 12

Moreover, part of the “food aid” had been channelled under the “food for work” program which served to further discourage domestic production in favour of grain imports. Under this scheme, impoverished and landless farmers were contracted to work on rural infrastructural programmes in exchange for “donated” US corn.

Meanwhile, the cash earnings of coffee smallholders plummeted. Whereas Pioneer Hi-Bred positioned itself in seed distribution and marketing, Cargill Inc established itself in the markets for grain and coffee through its subsidiary Ethiopian Commodities.12 For the more than 700,000 smallholders with less than 2 hectares that produce between 90 and 95% of the country’s coffee output, the deregulation of agricultural credit combined with low farmgate prices of coffee had triggered increased indebtedness and landlessness, particularly in East Gojam (Ethiopia’s breadbasket).

Biodiversity up for Sale

The country’s extensive reserves of traditional seed varieties (barley, teff, chick peas, sorghum, etc) were being appropriated, genetically manipulated and patented by the agribusiness conglomerates: “Instead of compensation and respect, Ethiopians today are …getting bills from foreign companies that have “patented” native species and now demand payment for their use.”13 The foundations of a “competitive seed industry” were laid under IMF and World Bank auspices.14 The Ethiopian Seed Enterprise (ESE), the government’s seed monopoly joined hands with Pioneer Hi-Bred in the distribution of hi-bred and genetically modified (GM) seeds (together with hybrid resistant herbicide) to smallholders. In turn, the marketing of seeds had been transferred to a network of private contractors and “seed enterprises” with financial support and technical assistance from the World Bank. The “informal” farmer-to-farmer seed exchange was slated to be converted under the World Bank programme into a “formal” market oriented system of “private seed producer-sellers.” 15

In turn, the Ethiopian Agricultural Research Institute (EARI) was collaborating with the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) in the development of new hybrids between Mexican and Ethiopian maize varieties.16 Initially established in the 1940s by Pioneer Hi-Bred International with support from the Ford and Rockefeller foundations, CIMMYT developed a cosy relationship with US agribusiness. Together with the UK based Norman Borlaug Institute, CIMMYT constitutes a research arm as well as a mouthpiece of the seed conglomerates. According to the Rural Advancement Foundation (RAFI) “US farmers already earn $150 million annually by growing varieties of barley developed from Ethiopian strains. Yet nobody in Ethiopia is sending them a bill.” 17

Impacts of Famine

The 1984-85 famine had seriously threatened Ethiopia’s reserves of landraces of traditional seeds. In response to the famine, the Dergue government through its Plant Genetic Resource Centre –in collaboration with Seeds of Survival (SoS)– had implemented a programme to preserve Ethiopia’s biodiversity.18 This programme – which was continued under the transitional government – skilfully “linked on-farm conservation and crop improvement by rural communities with government support services”. 19 An extensive network of in-farm sites and conservation plots was established involving some 30,000 farmers. In 1998, coinciding chronologically with the onslaught of the 1998-2000 famine, the government clamped down on seeds of Survival (SoS) and ordered the programme to be closed down. 20

The hidden agenda was to eventually displace the traditional varieties and landraces reproduced in village-level nurseries. The latter were supplying more than 90 percent of the peasantry through a system of farmer-to-farmer exchange. Without fail, the 1998-2000 famine led to a further depletion of local level seed banks: “The reserves of grains [the farmer] normally stores to see him through difficult times are empty. Like 30,000 other households in the [Galga] area, his family have also eaten their stocks of seeds for the next harvest.”21 And a similar process was unfolding in the production of coffee where the genetic base of the arabica beans was threatened as a result of the collapse of farmgate prices and the impoverishment of small-holders.

In other words, the famine – itself in large part a product of the economic reforms imposed to the advantage of large corporations by the IMF, World Bank and the US Government – served to undermine Ethiopia’s genetic diversity to the benefit of the biotech companies. With the weakening of the system of traditional exchange, village level seed banks were being replenished with commercial hi-bred and genetically modified seeds. In turn, the distribution of seeds to impoverished farmers had been integrated with the “food aid” programmes. WPF and USAID relief packages often include “donations” of seeds and fertiliser, thereby favouring the inroad of the agribusiness-biotech companies into Ethiopia’s agricultural heartland. The emergency programs are not the “solution” but the “cause” of famine. By deliberately creating a dependency on GM seeds, they had set the stage for the outbreak of future famines.

This destructive pattern – invariably resulting in famine – is replicated throughout Sub-Saharan Africa. From the onslaught of the debt crisis of the early 1980s, the IMF-World Bank had set the stage for the demise of the peasant economy across the region with devastating results. Now, in Ethiopia, fifteen years after the last famine left nearly one million dead, hunger is once again stalking the land. This time, as eight million people face the risk of starvation, we know that it isn’t just the weather that is to blame.

Notes

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Special Report: FAO/WFP Crop Assessment Mission to Ethiopia, Rome, January 2000.
Ibid
Ibid
Ibid
Philip Sherwell and Paul Harris, “Guns before Grain as Ethiopia Starves, Sunday Telegraph, London, April 16, 2000.
IMF, Ethiopia, Recent Economic Developments, Washington, 1999.
Pioneer Hi-Bred International, General GMO Facts, http://www.pioneer.com/usa/biotech/value..._value.htm#.
United States agency for International Development (USAID), “Mission to Ethiopia, Concept Paper: Back to The Future”, Washington, June 1993
Carter Center, Press release, Atlanta, Georgia, January 31, 1997.
Declan Walsh, America Find Ready Market for GM Food, The Independent, London, March 30, 2000, p. 18).
Ibid.
Maja Wallegreen, “The World’s Oldest Coffee Industry In Transition”, Tea & Coffee Trade Journal, November 1, 1999.
Laeke Mariam Demissie, A vast historical contribution counts for little; West reaps Ethiopia’s genetic harvest, World Times, October, 1998).
World Bank, Ethiopia-Seed Systems Development Project, Project ID ETPA752, 6 June 1995.
Ibid
See CIMMYT Research Plan and Budget 2000-2002 http://www.cimmyt.mx/about/People-mtp2002.htm#).
Laeke Mariam Demissie, op. cit
“When local farmers know best”, The Economist, 16 May 1998)
Ibid
Laeke Mariam Demissie, op. cit.
Rageh Omaar, “Hunger stalks Ethiopia’s dry land”, BBC, London, 6 January, 2000.
An earlier version of this article was published in The Ecologist, September 2000.
The famine – itself in large part a product of the economic reforms imposed to the advantage of large corporations by the IMF, World Bank and the US Government – served to undermine Ethiopia’s genetic diversity to the benefit of the biotech companies. With the weakening of the system of traditional exchange, village level seed banks were being replenished with commercial hi-bred and genetically modified seeds.

The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order

by Michel Chossudovsky

In this new and expanded edition of Chossudovsky’s international best-seller, the author outlines the contours of a New World Order which feeds on human poverty and the destruction of the environment, generates social apartheid, encourages racism and ethnic strife and undermines the rights of women. The result as his detailed examples from all parts of the world show so convincingly, is a globalization of poverty.

This book is a skilful combination of lucid explanation and cogently argued critique of the fundamental directions in which our world is moving financially and economically.

In this new enlarged edition –which includes ten new chapters and a new introduction– the author reviews the causes and consequences of famine in Sub-Saharan Africa, the dramatic meltdown of financial markets, the demise of State social programs and the devastation resulting from corporate downsizing and trade liberalisation.

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/monsanto-an...ia/5383597

---

Monsanto Teaming Up With US Military to Target GMO Activists

http://www.globalresearch.ca/groundbreak...ts/5344496

A hard-hitting investigative report recently published by a prominent German newspaper has uncovered some shocking details about the tactics being used by chemical giant Monsanto in assuming control of global agriculture. According to this thorough analysis, Monsanto appears to be aggressively targeting independent researchers, scientists, activists, and others opposed to genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) by utilizing the vast resources and manpower of both the United States federal government and the American military-industrial complex.

The report, which recently appeared in the July 13 print edition of Suddeutsche Zeitung (SZ), explains in rigorous detail how both individuals and groups opposed to GMOs and other chemical-based crop technologies have been threatened, hacked, slandered and terrorized for daring to digress from the pro-GMO status quo. On numerous documented occasions, pertinent information about the dangers of GMOs or lack of GMO safety data has been effectively blocked from timely release by mysterious forces that many say are the chemical industry in disguise.

“A conspicuously large number of Monsanto critics report regular attacks by professional hackers,” explains an English-translated snippet from the SZ report. “There are (Monsanto) ties with the U.S. secret services, the U.S. military, with very hard operating private security companies and of course, with the U.S. government.”

A telling example of this was when the European environmental group Friends of the Earth (FOTE), together with the German Environmental and Nature Protection Association (BUND), was targeted prior to releasing a damning study on the health-damaging effects of glyphosate, the primary active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. A mysterious virus infected the computer of the study’s main organizer just days before publishing, which threatened to delay several important press releases.

The distinguished GMO truth website GMWatch.org has also been relentlessly targeted with “cyber attacks” since at least 2007, a disturbing trend that the site’s main editor is convinced originates from the biotechnology industry. As we reported back in 2012, some of the strongest attacks against the site came just weeks and days before the historic Proposition 37 vote in California, which would have mandated GMO labeling at the retail level.

Monsanto’s targeting activities made possible through corporate takeover of federal government

As it turns out, Monsanto has many close friends within the ranks of the U.S. federal government these days. Scores of key government positions, in fact, are now held by former Monsanto executives, a strategic move that has given the multinational corporation exclusive access to the types of resources necessary to carry out cyber attacks against its opponents on a massive scale.

Monsanto’s own executives have even admitted in years past that so-called cyber “warfare” is necessary for the purpose of protecting its own economic interests both domestically and abroad.

“Imagine the internet as a weapon, sitting on a table,” former Monsanto Head of Public Relations Jay Byrne is quoted as saying back in 2001. “Either you use it or your opponent does, but somebody’s going to get killed.”

These are powerful words, and ones that ring increasingly true as reports continue to emerge about Monsanto’s intimidatory tactics against foreign governments that refuse its offerings. Confidential documents recently made public through Wikileaks, for instance, revealed a plan by government officials to “retaliate” against nations that refused to accept GMOs, even when the people of those nations wanted nothing to do with the technology.

All the sordid details of the U.S. government’s collusion activities with the biotechnology industry are available in the full, English-translated SZ report, which you can read here:
http://sustainablepulse.com

You can also learn more about the dangers of GMOs by visiting:
http://sustainablepulse.com/

---

Monsanto’s Campaign Contributions to US House and Senate Candidates

Global Research Editor”s Note

The amounts allocated under official provisions to candidates in support of their House or Senate election campaign are by no means large.

What is striking, however, is that the contributions are spread out and include a large number of both Republicans and Democrats.

Whoever wins, Monsanto has the support of the White House, the Senate and the House, not to mention key appoints in the US Department of Agriculture (USDA and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). “While there are numerous points of overlap between Monsanto and the United States Government under the Obama administration, the three most important connections are that of Michael Taylor, Roger, Beachy, and Islam Siddiqui—all three of these Monsanto affiliates were appointed to high level positions within the government by the Obama administration.”

For further details see the incisive article by Josh Sager Monsanto Controls both-the-White House and the US Congress

M.Ch., GR.Ed.





House
Total to Democrats: $72,000
Total to Republicans: $190,500
Recipient Total
Barrow, John (D-GA) $2,500
Bishop, Sanford (D-GA) $5,000
Boehner, John (R-OH) $10,000
Braley, Bruce (D-IA) $5,000
Camp, Dave (R-MI) $5,000
Cantor, Eric (R-VA) $10,000
Clay, William L Jr (D-MO) $10,000
Cleaver, Emanuel (D-MO) $5,000
Conaway, Mike (R-TX) $2,000
Courtney, Joe (D-CT) $4,500
Crawford, Rick (R-AR) $2,500
Fincher, Steve (R-TN) $8,000
Gardner, Cory (R-CO) $7,500
Goodlatte, Bob (R-VA) $4,500
Graves, Sam (R-MO) $5,000
Griffin, Tim (R-AR) $1,000
Guthrie, Brett (R-KY) $1,000
Hanabusa, Colleen (D-HI) $5,000
Hannemann, Mufi (D-HI) $1,000
Hartzler, Vicky (R-MO) $3,000
Holden, Tim (D-PA) $1,000
Huelskamp, Tim (R-KS) $2,500
Hultgren, Randy (R-IL) $2,500
Jenkins, Lynn (R-KS) $2,500
Johnson, Timothy (R-IL) $3,000
King, Steven A (R-IA) $2,500
Kingston, Jack (R-GA) $7,000
Kinzinger, Adam (R-IL) $3,500
Kissell, Larry (D-NC) $5,000
Labrador, Raul (R-ID) $2,000
LaMalfa, Doug (R-CA) $1,000
Landry, Jeff (R-LA) $1,000
Latham, Tom (R-IA) $10,000
Loebsack, David (D-IA) $5,000
Long, Billy (R-MO) $2,500
Lucas, Frank D (R-OK) $10,000
Luetkemeyer, Blaine (R-MO) $5,000
Lungren, Dan (R-CA) $1,000
McIntyre, Mike (D-NC) $1,000
Neugebauer, Randy (R-TX) $1,000
Noem, Kristi (R-SD) $1,000
Nunes, Devin (R-CA) $3,500
Owens, Bill (D-NY) $2,000
Peterson, Collin (D-MN) $10,000
Rogers, Hal (R-KY) $7,500
Rokita, Todd (R-IN) $5,000
Roskam, Peter (R-IL) $1,000
Schilling, Bobby (R-IL) $3,000
Schock, Aaron (R-IL) $5,000
Shimkus, John M (R-IL) $5,000
Simpson, Mike (R-ID) $10,000
Smith, Adrian (R-NE) $5,000
Stutzman, Marlin (R-IN) $5,000
Thompson, Bennie G (D-MS) $10,000
Thompson, Glenn (R-PA) $1,000
Upton, Fred (R-MI) $5,000
Valadao, David (R-CA) $2,500
Wagner, Ann L (R-MO) $10,000
Walden, Greg (R-OR) $1,000
Walorski, Jackie (R-IN) $2,500
Womack, Steve (R-AR) $1,000
Senate
Total to Democrats: $37,500
Total to Republicans: $85,000
Recipient Total
Akin, Todd (R-MO) $3,500
Baucus, Max (D-MT) $1,000
Berg, Rick (R-ND) $10,000
Blunt, Roy (R-MO) $10,000
Boozman, John (R-AR) $5,000
Casey, Bob (D-PA) $2,500
Chambliss, Saxby (R-GA) $5,000
Fischer, Deb (R-NE) $5,000
Gillibrand, Kirsten (D-NY) $1,000
Grassley, Chuck (R-IA) $2,000
Hatch, Orrin G (R-UT) $5,000
Hirono, Mazie K (D-HI) $1,000
Johanns, Mike (R-NE) $1,000
Klobuchar, Amy (D-MN) $5,000
Landrieu, Mary L (D-LA) $1,000
Lugar, Richard G (R-IN) $3,000
McCaskill, Claire (D-MO) $5,000
McConnell, Mitch (R-KY) $10,000
Moran, Jerry (R-KS) $2,500
Nelson, Ben (D-NE) $13,000
Rehberg, Denny (R-MT) $2,000
Risch, James E (R-ID) $3,500
Roberts, Pat (R-KS) $9,000
Stabenow, Debbie (D-MI) $8,000
Thompson, Tommy G (R-WI) $5,000
Wicker, Roger (R-MS) $1,000
Wilson, Heather A (R-NM) $2,500
Based on data released by the FEC on March 25, 2013.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/monsantos-c...es/5336404

---

The Sinister Monsanto Group: From ‘Agent Orange’ to Genetically Modified Corn

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-siniste...-2/5383672

The Americans do not only spy on governments, authorities and private individuals across the world with the help of their secret services; they also understand how to push forward the global interests of their companies with full force. An impressive example of this is the agriculture giant Monsanto, the leading manufacturer of genetically modified seeds in the world. A glimpse into the world of Monsanto shows that companies which delivered the pesticide ‘Agent Orange’ to the US military in the Vietnam war had close connections with the central power in Washington, with tough people from the field of the US secret services and with private security companies.


Source: Süddeutsche Zeitung

By MARIANNE FALCK, HANS LEYENDECKER AND SILVIA LIEBRICH

Translated by New Europe Translations for Sustainable Pulse (Original in German)

“Imagine the internet as a weapon”

In the global fight against genetic engineering, the US group draws on dubious methods, strange helpers – and the power of Washington. Critics of the group feel they are being spied upon.

The US group Monsanto is a giant in the agriculture business: and number one in the controversial field of plant genetic engineering. For its opponents, many of whom live in Europe, Monsanto is a sinister enemy. Time and again mysterious things happen, which make the enemy seem yet more sinister.

In the previous month, the European environmental organisation ‘Friends of the Earth’ and the German Environmental and Nature Protection Association (BUND) wanted to present a study on the pesticide glyphosate in the human body. Weed killers containing glyphosate are the big seller for Monsanto. The company aims for more than two billion dollars turnover for the Roundup product alone. ‘Roundup herbicide’ has a “long history of safe use in more than 100 countries”, Monsanto emphasises.

As viruses attack their computers, the eco-activists ask themselves: “could we be seeing ghosts?”

However, there are studies which show that the product may damage plants and animals and the latest study shows that many large city inhabitants now have the field poison in their bodies, without knowing it. Exactly what the spray can trigger in an organism is, as with so many things in this field, disputed.

Two days before the study across 18 countries was set to be published, a virus disabled the computer of the main organiser, Adrian Bepp. There was a threat that press conferences in Vienna, Brussels and Berlin would be cancelled. “We panicked”, remembers Heike Moldenhauer from BUND. The environmental activists were under extreme time pressure.

Moldenhauer and her colleagues have widely speculated about the motives and identity of the mysterious attacker. The genetic engineering expert at BUND believes the unknown virus suppliers wanted in particular to “generate confusion”. Nothing is worse for a study than a cancelled press conference: “we did ask ourselves at the time if we were seeing ghosts”, said Moldenhauer.

Like Sustainable Pulse on Facebook Here

There is no evidence that Monsanto was the ghost or had anything to do with the virus. The company does not do things like that. It takes pride in operating “responsibly”: “Today, it is very easy to make and spread all kinds of allegations,” Monsanto claims. They say that “over and over there are also dubious and popular allegations spread, which disparage our work and products and are in no way based on science.”

Critics of the group see things differently. This is due to the wide network Monsanto has developed across the world. There are ties with the US secret services, the US military, with very hard operating private security companies and of course, with the US government.

A conspicuously large number of Monsanto critics report regular attacks by professional hackers. The secret services and military also like to employ hackers and programmers. These specialise in developing Trojans and viruses in order to penetrate foreign computer networks. Whistle-blower Edward Snowden has indicated the connection between intelligence services actions and economic drive. However, this sinister connection has been overshadowed by other monstrosities.

Some powerful Monsanto supporters know a lot about how to carry out a cyber war. “Imagine the internet as a weapon, sitting on the table. Either you use it or your opponent does, but somebody’s going to get killed” said Jay Byrne, the former head of public relations at Monsanto, back in 2001.

Companies regularly fight with dubious methods to uphold what they see as their right: but friend or foe, him or me – that is fighting talk and in a war, you need allies. Preferably professionals. Such as those from the secret service milieu, for example.

Monsanto contacts are known to the notorious former secret service agent Joseph Cofer Black, who helped formulate the law of the jungle in the fight against terrorists and other enemies. He is a specialist on dirty work, a total hardliner. He worked for the CIA for almost three decades, among other things as the head of anti-terroism. He later became vice president of the private security company Blackwater, which sent tens of thousands of soldiers to Iraq and Afghanistan under US government orders.

Investigations show how closely connected the management and the central government in Washington are, as well as with diplomatic representatives of the USA across the world. In many instances, Monsanto has operationally powerful assistants. Former Monsanto employees occupy high offices in the USA in government authorities and ministries, industrial associations and in universities; sometimes in almost symbiotic relationships. According to information from the American Anti-Lobby-Organisation, Open Secrets Org, in the past year, 16 Monsanto lobbyists have taken up sometimes high ranking posts in the US administration and even in regulatory authorities.

For the company, it is all about new markets and feeding a rapidly growing world population. Genetic engineering and patents on plants play a big role here. Over 90 % of corn and soya in the USA is genetically modified. In some parts of the rest of the world the percentage is also growing constantly.

Only the European markets are at a standstill. Several EU countries have many reservations about the Monsanto future, which clearly displeases the US government administration. In 2009, the German CSU politician, Ilse Aigner, Federal Minister for Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection, also banned the corn type MON810 from German fields. When she travelled to the USA shortly afterwards, she was approached by her US colleague, Tom Vilsack about Monsanto. The democrat was once governor in the agricultural state of Iowa and distinguished himself early on as a supporter of genetic engineering. The genetic engineering industry elected him as ‘governor of the year’ in 2001.

Unfortunately, there is no recording of the discussion between Vislack and Aigner. It was said to be controversial. A representative for the Federal Government described the tone: there were “huge efforts to force a change in direction of the German government regarding genetic policy.” The source preferred not to mention details the type of “huge efforts” and the attempt “to force” something. That is not appropriate between friends and partners.

Thanks to Snowden and Wikileaks, the world has a new idea of how these friends and partners operate where power and money are concerned. The whistle-blowing platform published embassy dispatches two years ago, which also included details about Monsanto and genetic engineering.

For example, in 2007, the former US ambassador in Paris, Craig Stapleton, suggested the US government should create a penalties list for EU states which wanted to forbid the cultivation of genetically engineered plants from American companies. The wording of the secret dispatch: “Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU.” Pain, retaliation: not exactly the language of diplomacy.

Monsanto led the fight to allow the famous genetically engineered corn plant MON810 in Europe with lots of lobbying – the group completely lost the fight. It was even beaten out of the prestigious French and German markets. An alliance of politicians, farmers and clergy rejected genetic engineering in the fields and the consumers do not want it on their plates. But the battle is not over. The USA is hoping that negotiations started this week for a free-trade agreement between the USA and the EU will also open the markets for genetic engineering.

Lobbying for your own company is a civic duty in the USA. Even the important of the 16 US intelligence services have always understood their work as being a support for American economic interests on the world markets. They spy on not only governments, authorities and citizens in other countries under the name of the fight against terror, they also support American economic interests, in their own special way.

A few examples?

Monsanto denies the accusations and emphasises that it operates “responsibly”

More than two decades ago, when Japan was not yet a major economic power, the study ‘Japan 2000’ appeared in the USA, created by the employees of the Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT). Japan, the study read, was planning a kind of world takeover with a ‘reckless trade policy’. The USA would be the losers, stated the study. The national security of the USA was at threat, it continued and the CIA gave the call to war.

America’s economy must be protected from the European’s “dirty tricks”, explained former head of the CIA James Woolsey. This, he maintained, is why the “continental European friends” were spied upon. A clean America.

The whistle-blower Snowden was once in Switzerland for the CIA and during this time, he reported on which tricks the company was said to have tried in order to win over a Swiss banker to spy on account data. The EU allowed the American services to take a close look at its citizens’ financial business. Allegedly, this was to dry up money sources for terror. The method and purpose are highly dubious.

In Switzerland, the scene of many earlier espionage novels now plays one of these episodes that make Monsanto especially mysterious and enigmatic: In January 2008, the former CIA agent Cofer Black travelled to Zurich and met Kevin Wilson, at the time Monsanto’s safety officer for global issues. About what did the two men talk? Probably the usual: Opponents, business, mortal enemies.

The investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill, who wrote the reference work about Blackwater, the company specializing in mercenaries, wrote in the American weekly The Nation in 2010 about the reported strange meeting in Zurich. He had received leaked documents once again. These show: Monsanto wanted to put up a fight. Against activists who destroyed the fields. Against critics, who influenced the mood against the genetic modification company. Cofer Black is the right man for all seasons: “We’ll take off the kid gloves”, he declared after the 11 September terrorist attacks, and tasked his CIA agents in Afghanistan to take out Osama bin Laden: “Get him, I want his head in a box.” However, he also understands a lot about the other secret service business, which operates with publicly available sources. When he meets with the Monsanto safety officer Wilson, Cofer Black is still the Vice (President) at Blackwater, who has the Pentagon, the State Department, the CIA and, of course private companies as customers. However, there was a lot of anxiety in January 2008, because the mercenaries of the security company had shot 17 civilians in Iraq and some Blackwater employees had drawn attention by bribing Iraqi government employees. It just so happened that Cofer Black was at the same time head of the security company Total Intelligence Solutions (TIS), which was a subsidiary of Blackwater, not saddled with the same devastating reputation, however staffed with some excellent and versatile experts.

According to their own statements, Monsanto was conducting business with TIS at the time and not with Blackwater. It is without doubt that Monsanto received reports from TIS about the activities of critics. The activities in question were those that would have presented a risk for the company, its employees or its operating business. The information collected ranged from terrorist attacks in Asia to the scanning of websites and blogs. Monsanto emphasizes that TIS only used publicly accessible material when preventing said risk.

This matched Black’s modus operandus. No shady dealings.

There used to be rumors that Monsanto wanted to take over TIS to mitigate their risk – and there are new rumors these days that the group allegedly is considering a takeover of the company Academi that emerged after a few transformations from the former Blackwater Company. Is anything correct about these rumors? “As a rule we are not disclosing details about our relations with service providers, unless that information is already available to the public,” is the only commentary from Monsanto.

Every company has its own history, and the history of Monsanto includes a substance, which the turned the company into a demon not only not only for the aging 1968ers: Monsanto was one of the leading manufacturers of the pesticide Agent Orange, which was used until January 1971 by the US military in the Vietnam War. Forests were defoliated by constant chemical bombardment to make the enemy visible. Arable land was poisoned, so that the Vietcong had nothing to eat. In the sprayed areas, the teratogenic effects increased more than ten times. Children were born without noses, without eyes, with hydrocephalus, with facial clefts and the US military stated that the Monsanto agent was as harmless as aspirin.

Is everything allowed in war? Especially in the new fangled cyber war?

It is already obvious that somebody makes life difficult for Monsanto critics and an invisible hand ends careers. However, who is this somebody? The targets of these attacks are scientists, such as the Australian Judy Carman. Among other things, she has made a name for herself with studies of genetically modified plants. Her publications were questioned by the same professors which also attacked the the studies of other Monsanto critics.

Visit GMO Judy Carman – Information on Dr. Judy Carman here

It does not stop at skirmishes in the scientific community. Hackers regularly target various web pages where Carman publishes her studies and the sites are also systematically observed, at least that is the impression Carman has. Evaluations of IP log files show that not only Monsanto visits the pages regularly, but also various organizations of the U.S. government, including the military. These include the Navy Network Information Center, the Federal Aviation Administration and the United States Army Intelligence Center, an institution of the US Army, which trains soldiers with information gathering. Monsanto’s interest in the studies is understandable, even for Carman. “But I do not understand why the U.S. government and the military are having me observed,” she says.

The organization GM Watch, known to be critical of gene technology, also experiences strange events. Editor Claire Robinson reports continued hacker attacks on the homepage since 2007. “Every time we increase the page security just a bit, the opposite side increases their tenacity and following are new, worse attacks”, she says. She also cannot believe the coincidences that occur. When the French scientist Gilles Eric Seralini published a controversial study on the health risks of genetically modified maize and glyphosate in 2012, the web site of GM Watch was hacked and blocked. The same repeats when the opinion of the European food inspectorate (EFSA) is added to the site. The timing was skilfully selected in both cases. The attacks took place exactly when the editors wanted to publish their opinion.

It has not yet been determined who is behind the attacks.

Monsanto itself, as stated, emphasizes that the company operates “responsibly”.

The fact is, however, that much is at stake for the group. It is about an upcoming bill. Especially about the current negotiations on the free trade agreement. Particularly sensitive is the subject of the agricultural and food industry. The Americans want to open the European markets for previously prohibited products. In addition to genetically engineered plants controversial feed additives and hormone-treated beef are subject of the negotiations. The negotiations will probably extend over several years.

The Americans want to use the Free Trade Agreement to open the European GMO Market.

The negotiations will be detailed. Toughness will rule the day. US President Barack Obama has therefore appointed Islam Siddiqui as chief negotiator for agriculture. He has worked for many years for the US ministry of agriculture as an expert. However, hardly anyone in Europe knows: From 2001 to 2008, he represented CropLife America as a registered lobbyist. CropLife America is an important industry association in the United States, representing the interests of pesticide and gene technology manufacturers – including of course Monsanto. “Actually, the EU cannot accept such a chief negotiator because of bias”, says Manfred Hausling, who represents the Green Party in the EU parliament.

Eigentlich (In fact). The word Eigentlich (in fact) meant in the Middle High German according to the relevant dictionaries “indentured”, which is not a bad description of the current situation, in particular as the European and German politicians have surprisingly much understanding for the US services who regularly spy on them.

---

Monsanto Controls both the White House and the US Congress

No Matter Who Wins the Presidential Election Monsanto Benefits

his incisive article by Josh Sager published one month before the November 2012 US presidential elections carefully documents how Monsanto has cornered the US political system.

Whoever gets in, Monsanto’s interests will be served.

Moreover, Monsanto also controls key appointments to the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

In the 2012 presidential election, the American people will have to choose between incumbent President Barack Obama (D) and Mitt Romney ®. With this choice, the American public will determine who sets the tone for national policy and is given power over the executive branch of our government. There are many ways to look at the prospective presidential candidates, but one is to look at their past actions and affiliations in order to predict how they will act in the future; in this article, I will discuss the past actions of both current President Barack Obama and candidate Mitt Romney in relation to the agro-giant Monsanto Corporation.

As Obama has already served a term as president, there is little guessing required to predict what he will do in regard to Monsanto if he is given a second term—his actions speak louder than any speeches. A politician may rhetorically support one thing during speaking engagements, but what truly matters are their actual policy choices rather than scripted comments. Throughout his first term, President Obama has presided over the passage of several Monsanto-friendly legislative initiatives and has appointed numerous people associated with Monsanto to high-level positions.

Monsanto-Friendly Legislation



During Obama’s four years as president, the federal government had several opportunities to pass legislation and executive initiatives which affect Monsanto. Of these federal initiatives, the 2010 African hunger plan and the 2012 Farm Bill present the most important examples of the Obama administration’s friendly attitude towards Monsanto.

In 2010, the Obama administration pushed a humanitarian initiative focused upon increasing the food supply of poor areas of Africa—while the ideals of this program are admirable, the execution presents an incredible opportunity to agro-business conglomerates like Monsanto. In order to solve the hunger problem in Africa, the Obama administration has partnered with large industrial farming and GMO operations, under the aegis that these organizations can produce large amounts of food quickly.

By giving several billion dollars to agro-businesses, one of which is Monsanto, the “Southern Africa FY 2010 Implementation Plan” intends to promote the expansion of these businesses into the provision of food for Africa. In focusing on promoting industrial, mono-crop farming and genetically modified goods rather than investing in local farms, the Obama administration created a situation where Monsanto is able to increase its profits. As a partner in the Obama administration’s Africa program, Monsanto will be given subsidies to expand into the African farming market. This expansion is aimed at increasing food supplies in Africa, but it will have the unintended consequence of promoting Monsanto’s takeover of the African food markets.

Once Monsanto gains a foothold in the African food market—which is likely given the level of subsidies offered by the US government—they will be able to crowd out local farmers and capture the truly massive African food market; Monsanto is able to supply far more crops than any local farmer and at a lower price, thus it will likely reduce the competitiveness of local farmers. This capturing of the African food market by Monsanto means that more food will be available, but it will be supplied by Monsanto rather than small African farms and the local farmers of Africa will gradually begin to go out of business. Put plainly, Monsanto will crowd local African farmers out of the market and will make a profit that would be more beneficial in the hands of local African farmers and in the local African economy.

It is clear that Monsanto sees the Africa hunger plan as beneficial to its business, as Hugh Grant—the current Monsanto CEO—said this in response to the Africa initiative: “I’m delighted to be here taking part in this conversation as I believe public and private sector commitment is necessary and able to support a transformation in African agriculture.” The transformation that Grant envisions is one where large-scale industrial farming takes over from smaller, local farms, and provides mass-produced crops. In such a situation, hunger decreases, but it is multi-national corporations rather than local farmers which do this farming and garner most of the profits.

On the issue of GMO labeling, Obama is rhetorically supportive of mandating GMO products to be labeled, but his administration has been largely silent on the issue. During the creation of the 2012 Farm Bill, there was a fight over mandating that genetically modified foods be labeled. Despite Obama’s supposed support for such labeling, his administration was essentially silent on the issue during this fight and, as a result, no mandate was passed. Currently, there is no federal regulation that ensures that all GMOs are labeled, and there doesn’t appear to be any possibility that such regulation is going to be passed in the immediate future.

The aforementioned “Farm Bill” includes several policy changes which are immensely advantageous to Monsanto. While this is an issue that primarily involves the legislature rather than the Obama administration, it bears mentioning that the Obama Administration has been essentially silent on the proposed policy changes and appears unlikely to veto the bill if it passes the legislature. The Farm Bill would be an immense boon to Monsanto, as it would streamline the approval process of its GMO crops and would limit the ability of the federal government to regulate its commerce to the Department of Agriculture.

In totality, legislation passed under the Obama administration has been beneficial to large agro-businesses, one of which is Monsanto. Very little has been done to increase regulation on GMO producers and several laws have been passed that directly benefit such corporations.

Government Appointment of Monsanto Associates

Monsanto is a very large business and has control over a significant amount of the agro-business and genetically modified organism markets. Both the agricultural and GMO markets involve large public safety concerns (ex. food safety), thus Monsanto is heavily affected upon federal regulations (or potential regulations) on its business—the largest of which come from the United States Department of Agriculture [USDA] and the Food and Drug Administration. If regulations and labeling requirements are increased, Monsanto’s profits are directly impacted; conversely, if, such regulations are kept low, then corporations like Monsanto make a larger profit.

Due to the vested interest that Monsanto has in controlling regulation that affects its business, it has both donated to politicians and promoted the appointment of people who work for them to positions within the American government. As of yet, Monsanto has been successful in keeping its regulatory burdens low and getting its representatives into positions within the US government. The infiltration of regulatory agencies by corporate actors that is referred to here is called the “regulatory revolving door”. Individuals who work for industry go to work for the government, make public regulations, and then return to the private sector after leaving the public service. The following info-graphic gives a few examples of the revolving door between Monsanto and the United States government:



All Credit for this Venn diagram goes to Geke.us

While there are numerous points of overlap between Monsanto and the United States Government under the Obama administration, the three most important connections are that of Michael Taylor, Roger, Beachy, and Islam Siddiqui—all three of these Monsanto affiliates were appointed to high level positions within the government by the Obama administration.

The Obama administration appointed Michael Taylor, the previous vice president of Monsanto and a current Monsanto lobbyist, to a high level advisory role at the Food and Drug Administration [FDA]. It is virtually inarguable that this appointment constitutes a massive boon for Monsanto and an undeniable conflict of interest for Taylor. Given the fact that Taylor is a lobbyist for Monsanto and is being paid by the agro-giant, it is reasonable to assume that his advice to the FDA is focused upon helping his employer reduce its regulatory burden and improve its profitability. It isn’t a secret who Taylor worked for and we can assume that the Obama administration knew who they were appointing when they did it.

Roger Beachy, the Director of the Danforth Plant Science Center (a Monsanto organization), was appointed by the Obama administration as the Director of the USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture. NIFA is a department of the USDA which focuses on funding research and innovation in the field of agriculture as well developing more efficient ways to produce food. As the major grant-writing division of the USDA, the NIFA department has the ability to grant or reject agricultural research grants. By giving Beachy the Directorship of the NIFA, the Obama administration gave a Monsanto associate the most powerful position in the organization which allocates agricultural research grants. Needless to say, this appointment is a great boon for Monsanto and bad news for any group which disagrees with the agri-business giant.

Islam Siddiqui, a Monsanto lobbyist, was appointed to the post of Agriculture Trade Representative by the Obama administration. Trade representative are tasked with promoting trade of goods within their appointed field (ex. Agricultural trade reps promote the export of American crops). As Monsanto has a controlling interest in American corn production, the appointment of a Monsanto lobbyist to the position of trade representative is a large boon for the corporation. Siddiqui’s government job is to promote the export of American crops and his Monsanto job is to promote the sale of Monsanto crops—it is undeniable that these two jobs present a conflict of interest and will only lead to Siddiqui representing Monsanto’s interests as though they are the interests of the United States.

Appointment of Elena Kagen

The justices that a president appoints to the Supreme Court is one of their most enduring and important contributions to the United States that every president gives the country. During his first term, President Obama appointed two Justices, one of whom was Elena Kagan, the former Solicitor General of the United States. During her time as the Solicitor General, Kagan filed a brief in support of Monsanto.

In 2007, Monsanto was brought to court by growers of alfalfa in California—these growers alleged that their crops were being cross-pollinated with, and thus contaminated by, Monsanto’s GMO crops. After winning an initial legal victory and securing an injunction on Monsanto’s planting of its modified alfalfa, Monsanto appealed the ruling and the case eventually reached the Supreme Court. Despite the fact that the United States government had no interest in the Monsanto alfalfa case, Kagan, the solicitor general wrote an “amicus” brief in favor of Monsanto’s position.

Nobody knows why the Solicitor General’s office decided to get involved in the Monsanto alfalfa case, but it was an unusual act by a supposedly neutral body; there was no rational reason for the US government to get involved in this case. While we don’t know the reason for this brief, it does make many believe that Kagan may be sympathetic to Monsanto’s corporate interests.

Candidate Mitt Romney has a very long history with Monsanto and has shown a willingness to work with the agro-conglomerate if elected president. Throughout much of his business career, Romney was heavily involved with the internal operations of the Monsanto Corporation. During Romney’s private sector experience at Bain Capital, he worked for and had a significant amount of influence upon the activities of the Monsanto Corporation. In addition to the business connection between Romney and Monsanto, several officers of the Monsanto corporation have held private relationships with Romney and have contributed to his political aspirations.

Romney’s Business Connections with Monsanto

In 1977, Bain Capital—the company that Romney ran, and in which he made most of his money—was starting out as a corporate consulting firm; Monsanto was among the first major clients of Bain. The multi-million dollar relationship between Bain Capital and Monsanto lasted from 1977 to 1985 and had significant effects on both corporations. Bain Capital, and its officers, made large amounts of money through its relationship with Monsanto and gained a significant client with which to base its consulting practice upon. Monsanto was given business advice by Bain and the corporation’s recent successes in GMO produce are traceable back to the suggestions that Romney made to Monsanto administrators.

According to Dr. Earl Beaver, Monsanto’s Waste Director during much of the 1970s and 80s, Romney was one of the major proponents of Monsanto’s shift into the biotechnical and bioengineering industry. In response to the massive scandal surrounding Monsanto’s part in the creation of “Agent Orange” (a powerful chemical weapon that was used during the Vietnam War), Romney suggested to Monsanto Administrators that they focus on businesses that had lower levels of controversy surrounding them then the creation of chemical weapons—this shift would reduce the negative press received by the company and would help improve the public perception of the company (thus helping them make more money). The creation of bioengineered organisms was a developing industry during the late 20th century and Monsanto—partly on Romney’s advice—began to invest in their GMO production divisions as a new industry.

Patrick Graham, a founding member of Bain Capital, said the following about Romney’s work with Monsanto: “The most important contribution Bain made to Monsanto was concluding that the biggest opportunity was to bring an entirely new value product, namely biotech and herbicides, to the whole farming industry in America, soybeans and stuff.”

If the officers who worked at Monsanto are to be believed, Romney had significant influence on the corporate decision-making for Monsanto and it is his advice that convinced the company’s leadership deciding to focus on GMO creation rather than simply pesticides. Romney saw a move into GMOs as a way to move away from the controversies of Agent Orange and DDT, thus improving the perception of the company.

While there are many ways that people could look at Romney’s history (those who dislike GMOs will blame him for helping create the largest GMO creator, while those who worked with Monsanto would likely thank him for the profitable business advice), there are two things that one can be reasonably certain about a Romney presidency and Monsanto:

Romney suggested that Monsanto shift its industry to GMO creation, thus it is undeniable that he sees GMOs as a good investment; if he didn’t see GMO’s as a good way to make money he would never have suggested that Monsanto enter into GMO creation during his tenure as a consultant. Romney’s private sector support for GMOs will shade all of Romney’s policies in favor of GMOs and will make it very difficult to convince him to support any anti-GMO bills.
Romney worked for Monsanto for years and has numerous contacts within the company. If Romney is elected, Monsanto will get unprecedented access to the president, if only due to the fact that Romney’s experience in agriculture was shaped by his work at Monsanto with Bain (his agriculture experience comes solely from Monsanto and not from working around other farming organizations). We see this access already, in the selection of several high-level Monsanto agents for advisory posts in the Romney campaign.
Monsanto Connections Within the Romney Campaign

Romney and his campaign have had significant contact with the Monsanto Corporation and have received support from Monsanto officers. While Romney has yet to hold a national office (his governorship in MA didn’t expose him to lobbying by many agri-business groups), his campaign for president has shown high levels of cooperation with the agri-business industry as well as the corn lobby.

Arguably the most significant aspect of the Romney campaign’s involvement with Monsanto comes from his appointments to his “Agricultural Advisory” committee. This committee, which is tasked with advising Mitt Romney on all issues relating to agriculture and agri-business, is staffed by “experts” on the field. The experts who staff Romney’s advisory committee come directly from the agro-business industry and represent a huge level of cooperation between Romney and big agri-business.

Randy Russell, a top lobbyist for Monsanto Co., has been appointed to this committee and will likely remain on if Romney wins the election. Russell’s involvement in Romney’s agricultural advisory committee represents a direct line between the Romney campaign (and thus his presidency) and the Monsanto Corporation. The s

[Захумље]

http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/

[Захумље]

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/...75902.html

ST. LOUIS, June 29 /PRNewswire/ -- Monsanto Company (NYSE: MTC) and
Cargill, Incorporated, announced today that they have signed a definitive
agreement for Monsanto to purchase Cargill's international seed operations in
Central and Latin America, Europe, Asia and Africa for $1.4 billion.
The acquisition includes seed research, production and testing facilities
in 24 countries and sales and distribution operations in 51 countries in the
five regions. Cargill's international seed businesses specialize in the
development and marketing of corn, sunflower and rapeseed seeds and also
market soybean, alfalfa, sorghum, wheat and hybrid rice seed in these markets.
The acquisition does not include Cargill's seed operations in the United
States and Canada or Cargill Agricultural Merchants in the United Kingdom.
"The potential for our existing biotechnology traits outside North America
is roughly double the acreage potential within North America. The Cargill
international seed businesses give us quicker access to these global markets.
We can accelerate commercialization through established distribution channels
that will bring these and our future agronomic and quality traits to more
farmers around the world in the varieties they want to grow," said Monsanto
President Hendrik A. Verfaillie.
"The biotechnology revolution is rapidly changing the international seed
industry, and Monsanto has been a key player in this arena," said Ernest S.
Micek, Cargill chairman and chief executive officer. "This agreement combines
Cargill's excellent germplasm and international research, marketing and
distribution network with Monsanto's leadership in biotechnology."
Monsanto and Cargill expect that Cargill businesses in Central and Latin
America, Europe, Asia and Africa will continue to market Cargill seeds.
Cargill is a leading global producer of tropical corn seed and germplasm
with significant sales in the Central and Latin American, Asian and African
markets. It has a leading position in oilseeds globally and is one of the few
seed companies with a long-standing presence in Asia and Central and Latin
America. Its international seed business employs approximately 2,200 people.
The sale of Cargill's seed businesses in Central and Latin America,
Europe, Asia and Africa follows an earlier agreement between Monsanto and
Cargill to form a global joint venture to create and market products improved
through biotechnology for the grain processing and animal feed markets. In
addition to this initial agreement, Monsanto and Cargill are exploring future
opportunities to expand their partnership into other areas of agriculture and
food.
Monsanto is a life sciences company, committed to finding solutions to the
growing global needs for food and health by applying advanced bioscience and
biotechnology to agriculture, nutrition and health. It makes and manufactures
high-value agricultural products, pharmaceuticals and food ingredients.
Cargill, based in Minneapolis, Minn., is an international marketer,
processor and distributor of agricultural, food, financial and industrial
products with nearly 79,000 employees in more than 1,000 locations in 72
countries and with business activities in 100 more.

SOURCE Monsanto Company

Црквена Звона за ову инфомације!

[Захумље]

With a bankrupt economy, Ukraine will only welcome foreign investment in its agriculture. Under article 404 of the Associative Agreement that Ukraine has signed with the EU, the country agrees to cooperate ‘to extend the use of biotechnologies’, which is the Monsanto euphemism for GMOs crops. Cultivation of GMO crops was banned in Ukraine right up until the present leaders took power in Kiev. American GMO companies can now start large-scale cultivation of GMO modified crops, and establish a back door into the EU, where growing such crops is banned in most countries. For reasons best known to the corporations involved, hardly a word about this has been printed in world’s mainstream press.

Why is Ukrainian agriculture of interest to other countries?

William Engdahl: The Ukrainian soil is some of the finest high quality nutrient and rich soil in the world today. One of the ironic benefits of the 70 years under the Soviet system, is that the agriculture in Russia and Ukraine virtually received no heavy chemicals. All the chemicals were diverted for military purposes during the Cold War and so forth. And the soil, by the nature, the black soil of Ukraine is absolutely finest soil on the Earth.

So, the Ukrainian laws up until this coup d'état in February of this year, backed by Washington, by the way, protected the agriculture land as a national treasure from any foreign ownership. And under Yatsenyuk – the man, handpicked by Victoria Nuland, the neoconservative former advisor to Dick Cheney, who’s orchestrated the personnel to be the new Government after the February coup; Yatsenyuk is known as a waterboy for the IMF (the International Monetary Fund).

Now, what is the IMF? Many people don’t understand. The IMF was created by the US and Britain, and a few allies after WW II to oversee the reconstruction of Europe. It got changed into an agency to control better countries in Latin America and Poland, and Yugoslavia, and so forth during the debt crisis of the 1970’es and the 1980’s.

And the key thing about the IMF is that the controlling veto power of the agency is held by one country – the US Treasury Department.

Now we are talking about a more subtle form of colonialism, I believe, through the IMF and the World Bank using globalization. So, what is happening is that we are taking over new countries by taking over their markets. And the method that we are using is loans and strings attached to the loans, which you name in your article “conditionalities”, correct?

William Engdahl: Yes! It is a kind of informal imperialism or colonialism. The US and Britain together rigged the rules of the IMF. There is a huge debate with the emerging countries, like China, Russia – the BRICS countries – Brazil, South Africa and India – wanting to have a stronger voting share in the IMF. But the US and Britain hold onto this blocking veto. So, they determine the rules of the IMF. The head of the IMF is always a European approved by the US. And the head of the World Bank is always an American.

So, the control of Washington over the IMF and the money of Saudi Arabia, and other countries that are the members, is held by the US Treasury. It is a beautiful instrument of hidden colonialism. Many developing countries have guessed the game, because they’ve been victims of the rape and the looting by the IMF.

What they do is: they come in to a country like Ukraine and say – Ukraine, you are bankrupt (which is de facto true). And they say – we will give you $17 billion. Oh, that’s wonderful! But we have some conditions, we tie on some strings, because, of course, there is no free lunch. The strings are – you have to have a free market. You have to eliminate your laws that control the ownership of your agriculture land. You have to eliminate your law that bans the planting of genetically modified seeds, so that Monsanto, DuPont, Dow Chemical, Syngenta, BASF and so on, they can come in and plant they poisonous GMO seeds and ruin the finest agriculture in the world.

Why is GMO so bad?

William Engdahl: Two things. One, the seeds are patented such that farmers, who get trapped into Monsanto trap, every season have to buy not only Monsanto GMO seeds, but they are forbidden to replant the seeds – something that’s been done for 5000 years by farmers ever since the Mesopotamian invention of agriculture. The second thing is that you are forced by a contract to use Monsanto Roundup weed killers, poisonous chemicals and so forth. And you cannot violate that.

The diabolical thing that goes on here is that Monsanto refuses to allow government testing of any of its products – its weed killer Roundup, as well as its seeds. But there have been independent tests that they’ve managed to carry out in France and elsewhere. And they’ve shown that the weed killer that is paired by a contract, paired with Roundup Ready soybeans or corn contain toxins – poisons that kill cells in the female human embryo, in concentrations much less than is used in garden variety weed killers.

Is this invasion into Ukraine by these companies a way to get into Europe through the back door?

William Engdahl: Yes! Because of the Ukraine’s EU association agreement, they are going to then export the GMO crops and say that this is part of the EU. The European Commission in Brussels, they are a bunch of corrupt bastards. They’ve sold their soul to the devil and they would really love to have GMO all over the place. Who knows what they are getting under the table.

Why isn’t this being reported in the world’s mainstream press?

William Engdahl: That is a very good question: why the mainstream press doesn’t report many things? I think the problem is that the mainstream press, most print media today is struggling to survive because of the Internet and they are dependent on advertisers. Advertisers include agribusiness corporations – Big Time, Monsanto and others, DuPont, Dow Chemical, Syngenta in Switzerland.

And not only that. There is a mainstream media consensus process that creates opinions on key issues to stay controversially against that, like global warming. To argue with that openly and freely, which a democratic press has to do – that is their responsibility – that is considered a taboo and you don’t do it, if you want to have a career as a journalist.

Does this article 404 under the Associative agreement stipulate that Ukraine has to allow GMO cultivation?

Значи да Украјинци добијају ПАПИРНОГ ПОЗАЈМИЦЕ ИМФ......твз Украјна треба да уведе ГМО сјему....

Па овде бих се требало мало копати јели слично нешто се тако десило са Србијом и њихове ИМФ позајмице! Зашто аналогија је јасна.....а компромитованих људи на државним функције....инфинатна!

[Захумље]

Monsanto’s RoundUp-Ready GMO Grass About to Be Approved and Fed to Cattle
http://www.globalresearch.ca/monsantos-r...le/5403031

---

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-benefit...ts/5403116

[Ултрадесничар]

U Zakonu o genetički modifikovanim organizmima ((Sl. glasnik RS, br. 41/09), član 3. briše se ... Ovim zakonom zabranjuje se uzgoj, proizvodnja i promet GMO u....

[Прст_у_ока_латиници]

DNA methylation

[Прст_у_ока_латиници]

Проф. др Миладин Шеварлић: У току је кампања на државном нивоу да се дозволи увоз ГМО
7. марта 2018. Здравље Оставите коментар

На јуче одржаној конференцији за новинаре у Народној скупштини Републике Србије проф. др Миладин Шеварлић, народни посланик, говорио је о предлогу за допуну дневног реда заседања Народне скупштине у вези са Декларацијом о ГМО (генетички модификованим организмима).

„Поново сам предложио текст који је у складу са Законом о ГМО из 2009.године, и који су једногласно усвојили одборници 136 општина и градова у Републици Србији, или 80,5% локалних самоуправа у централној Србији и Војводини.

На територији тих 136 градова и општина живе 224 посланика. Данас се за предлог ове Декларације изјаснило свега 9 посланика па се поставља питање – да ли оних 213 посланика који живе на територији ових општина и градова омаловажавају преко 7.000 одборника у општинама и градовима који су се једногласно изјаснили и усвојили овакав текст Декларације.

Постављам питање свима нама, посебно имајући у виду пре два дана објављени интервју на читавој страни у Новостима са професором Сералинијем (ПРОФ. ЖИЛ ЕРИК СЕРАЛИНИ: ГМО изазива туморе и мења гене) који је вршио двогодишња истраживања утицаја ГМО кукуруза на експерименталне пацове – да ли смо свесни ризика да ће нам деца у другој генерацији имати промене на унутрашњим органима, да ће у трећој генерацији бити са повећаним процентом канцера, а посебно у Србији која је у време НАТО агресије бомбардована са оружјем које је садржало осиромашени уранијум и значајно повећало проценат оболелих од канцера, односно рака?
И најзад, у четвртој генерацији – да ли ће нам наши потомци остати бесплодни у оном проценту у којима су то били експериментални пацови који су храњени ГМО кукурузом?

У току је кампања на државном нивоу, али и од стране појединих представника различитих организација, да се дозволи увоз ГМО а остане забрана узгоја ГМО.
То је, поред свих досадашњих удараца које су претрпели наши пољопривредници, нови ударац који ће оставити катастрофалне последице јер се ради о нелојалној конкуренцији увозничког лобија и мултинационалних компанија које производе ГМО, и освајању тржишта вредног преко 5 милијарди евра на овако ниској куповној моћи потрошача.

Због тога апелујем на све представнике у Парламенту, да усвоје ову Декларацију, ја сам спреман да се одрекнем ауторства те Декларације, нека је присвоји парламентарна већина као свој текст Декларације, али је најбитније да се она усвоји.“

Професор др Миладин Шеварлић је нагласио да се очекује „референдумско изјашњавање грађана по различитим питањима, од промене Устава па на даље“, па је то јединствена шанса да се постави и питање грађанима Републике Србије – „да ли су ЗА или ПРОТИВ увоза, узгоја, прераде и промета ГМО и производа од ГМО“ и тако би се на референдуму сазнало шта грађани мисле, а што је основно демократско право свих потрошача у свету.
Он је навео пример Швајцарске, која сваке пете године спроводи референдум на ту тему, или Перуа који је недавно усвојио –„ десетогодишњи мораторијум на расправу на увоз, на производњу ГМО и производа од ГМО“.

7.3.2018. за СРБски ФБРепортер приредила Биљана Диковић

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzPnFR0NL7I

[Ултрадесничар]

Научници широм света прозивају га због етичких разлога и сматрају како је генетско модификовање опасно због идућих генерација

Kинески научник тврди да је помогао да се створе прве две генетички модификоване бебе.

У истраживању које би у већини земаља било илегално, професор Хе Јианкуи и његов тим променили су ембрионе седам парова који су се повргнули вештачкој оплодњи.

Једна трудноћа је успела и родиле су се две близнакиње за које Хе тврди да су “природно отпорне на ХИВ”.

Међутим, такав потхват кинеског научника наишао је на бројне критике. Научници широм света прозивају га због етичких разлога и сматрају како је генетско модификовање опасно због идућих генерација, јавља Индепендент.

Али, Хе тврди да он својим експериментом није покушао да излечи наследну болест, већ да направи мали број људи који ће бити отпорни на ХИВ. Податке о родитељима није хтео да износи, као ни болницу у којој је експеримент спроведен.

– Осећам јаку одговорност не да нешто урадим први, већ да направим пример. Друштво ће одлучити шта ће бити даље – рекао је за АП.

Напоменуо је да је одабрао овакав експеримент јер се Kина већ дуго времена мучи с ХИВ-ом. У експерименту су учествовали мушкарци и жене, но само су мушкарци имали ХИВ вирус.

Њихови симптоми били су регулисани бројним лековима, али Хе истиче да није хтео само да умањи шансу да добију дете које неће бити заражено, већ да парови у којима је отац заражен вирусом добију потпуно здраво дете отпорно на вирус.

[Ултрадесничар]