Barry Soetoro aka; Obama Streamlines Killer Monsanto Through Canadian Border: Monsanto People Killer!

kissinger depopulate

De-Populate!

*Consumers Be Wary of any warnings coming from the FDA these days* 

U.S.-Canada agreement beyond just borders, ‘streamlines and harmonizes’ food and auto regulations under UNCONSTITUTIONAL North American Union corporate agenda.

  1. Canadian officials ‘secretive’ on North American perimeter security agreement
  2. Deadbeat Senator Barbara Mikulski Snuck Deadly Monsanto Rider In 2013 Budget Resolution: An Illegal Act In Congress!
  3. Banker’s NWO Monsanto: Kills Girl With GMOs ~ Kidneys Fail.
  4. 617,000 Dead In U.S. From AIDS ~ Lead Cause Same Sex: Homosexuality Kills More Than Double The People Than Do Cars, Suicide, Violence By Guns & War Combined!

CANADIAN PRIME PIMPSTER STEPHEN HARPER

CANADIAN PRIME PIMPSTER STEPHEN HARPER

The secret deal merges many aspects of each nation’s law enforcement and terrorism efforts, allowing authorities to operate on the opposite side of the border while beefing up border check surveillance. But there’s much more that we don’t yet know.

U.S. President Barack Obama and CanadianPrime Minister Stephen Harper are set to meet next week in order to sign a thus-far secretive “Beyond Borders” pact between the United States and Canada– and surprisingly, the deal will mean not only new practices in border security, law enforcement and counter-terrorism but also in standards for food production, trade and commerce.

The 32-point border perimeter plan is clearly part of the North American Union agenda, but many observers also believe it will open the doors to many GM crops now banned in Canada and enhance the positions of dominant corporate players. However, the details of the agreement remain secret and will only be revealed once both heads of state sign the deal– negating the necessary process of public feedback and consent.

CTV describes the new joint effort’s leaked plan for “a new entry-exit control system that will allow the United States to track everyone coming and leaving Canada by air, land and sea.” Further, it would facilitate a merging of authorities on both sides of the border. The Toronto Starwrites, “U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder revealed last fall that the deal will authorize Canada and the U.S. to designate officers who can take part in police investigations on both sides of the border.”

While the Canadian press has rightfully focused on the massive power grab and privacy concerns posed by the new system (Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart expressed concern, stating that “she hasn’t been consulted on the project”), the deal will also have enormous impact on trade and industry, especially food.

The 32-point plan also features more than just new border-crossing protocols… In fact, both nations plan to streamline and harmonize regulations in the automotive and food sectors.

While the immediate impact for the auto sector could mean, among other items, the adoption of “U.S. crash-testing standards for seat belts and built-in child booster seats,” there are scant details on what it would mean for food. However, many critics of the deal are concerned that it would eliminate barriers for aggressive biotech firms like Monsanto, who’ve thus far received a less than warm welcome in the great northern nation.

The Council of Canadians, a citizens action group, obviously fears an unwelcome invasion of biotechnology after monitoring announcements about the clandestine deal, writing:

“What kind of ‘regulatory alignment’ might we expect to see as a result of the Beyond the Border action plan? …the biotechnology industry association asked that both countries adopt ‘consistent science-based processes that would significantly decrease the time required for authorization of biotech crops and their products’; …several US agricultural groups asked for harmonization of the maximum permissible pesticide residue levels for produce.”

While GMO corn has gained acceptance in Canada already, farmers and activists have successfully fought or delayed the approval and entry of numerous other GMOs, including Monsanto’s recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), GM alfalfa and have effected a court-ordered investigation of the effects of pesticides on amphibians, including Monsanto’s Round-up.

Monsanto vs. The Canadian Wheat Board

But the most notable victory against GMOs may be wheat, a major export in Canada worth more than $3 billion per year. It is the Canadian Wheat Board that got credit for fighting Monsanto against the potential effects of wheat contamination for the vast industry, and effectively prevented its entry into Canada.

“It has the potential to virtually destroy the $3.5-billion industry in Western Canada,” said Ian McCreary, a farmer and a director with the Canadian Wheat Board back in 2003.

By coincidence, the powerful Canadian Wheat Board was dismantled earlier this week, with many farmers now concerned about changes in market dynamics, and the potential for Big Agra corporations to move in.

Member of Parliament for the NDP, Romeo Saganash, writes this week:

The Wheat Board decision is just the beginning. They are coming after the dairy and egg boards. They won’t be satisfied until Viterra and Cargill and Monsanto control every bit of farmland in this country.

Globalism Breaks Agricultural Tariffs

The fate of the wheat board may well relate to the recent Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) meetings, further integrating global trade and making non-membership a hazard to exports. QMI agency reportedthat “critics recently jumped the gun when they reported that the Harper government was prepared to bargain away supply managed sectors of the agricultural economy in the TransPacific trade talks.”

And yet the trend appears to be there. While the Obama and Harper administrations are working the U.S.-Canada ‘Beyond Borders’ agreement in secret, both are openly courting the Trans-Pacific Partnership talks to decide the Asian markets. Pacific trade would be tied to new openings in the wheat market, and observers say the tariff protected egg, chicken and dairy markets could be next:

Given the federal government’s ongoing attempt to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board, it wouldn’t be a huge philosophical leap for them to agree to change the way the dairy and poultry industries work.

Indeed, Canadian papers are full of discussion on the topic, with pro-globalism articles blasting the country’s food tariffs and praising the new “freedom” for farmers no longer bound to the wheat board system, always with an eye on dairy and poultry.

Critics say consumers pay a heavy price for the protectionist policy, and they argue Canada won’t be able to strike an aggressive free-trade deal with Asia-Pacific countries because of strong objections from Canada’s trade partners who oppose the supply management system.

They also have argued it is inconsistent for Ottawa to liberalize western wheat markets while maintaining the protectionist system for the dairy, poultry and egg producers.

GMO Contamination As a Rationale for Market Penetration

Adding to this perfect storm to blast open the gates for the benefit of private biotech firms is a growing debate currently taking place in Canada and other parts of the world over the “low level presence” of GMOs– a buzzword being used in attempt to allow the importation of non-GMO crops contaminated at a low level with GM crops in countries that have banned GMOs. Take for example this analysis from a European Commission research center:

This study addresses a new issue in the commercialization of GM crops, namely the occurrence of traces—or “low-level presence” (LLP)—of nationally unapproved GM material in crop imports. The commercialization of GM crops is a regulated activity, and countries have different authorization procedures. Hence, new GM crops are not approved simultaneously. This “asynchronous approval” (AA), in combination with a “zero-tolerance” policy towards LLP, is of growing concern for its potential economic impact on international trade.

Once again the banner of globalism and “free trade” will put pressure for acceptance of GM crops. The LLP angle is a great half-measure and camel’s nose under the tent.

Farmers are rightfully outraged at the trend. This op-ed printed at BClocalnews.com cites the threat it poses to the growth of organic farming in Canada, cited here at an astounding overall industrial growth rate of 20 percent per year.

I am writing to state my strong opposition to federal government plans to allow so-called “Low Level Presence” of unapproved genetically engineered (GE or genetically modified, GM) foods in the Canadian food supply. This plan would not only undermine the work of Health Canada, but would undermine the entire organic agriculture industry in Canada, which is a major part of the overall industry and which is growing at about 20 per cent per year… It is unacceptable that our government would allow a percentage of GM foods into Canada that have not been approved by Health Canada.

What precise impact the looming U.S.-Canadian border pact will have for the food industry remains to be seen, but it is clear that the trend will have important consequences not only for the loss of sovereignty in both Canada and America, but for long-term health. The European Commission study found a huge growth curve for the presence and acceptability of genetically-modified crops on the global scene:

To forecast the future evolution of this issue, we compiled a global pipeline of GM crops that may be commercialized by 2015… While currently there are about 30 commercial GM crops with different transgenic events worldwide, it is expected that by 2015 there will be more than 120.

Clearly, the amount of successful resistance to GMOs among Canadians has posed a problem for biotech. So-called “free trade” agreements that actually form cooperative blocs, including the U.S. Canada effort and the concurrent Trans-Pacific Partnership, aid in breaking down the barriers of local resistance to trans-national agricultural planning. Biotech corporations are all to likely to seize upon this change, with sights on untapped Canadian markets.

PEJ News

Political Vel Craft

GMO

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) are constantly, and well-fundedly, heralded for their necessity, safety, equality, availability, acceptability, and inevitability. What record profits can’t pay off, is the facts and/or actions that refute each one of these claims, revealing merely globalistic profiteering, as American as genetically-modified-apple pie.

 I  –  Feeding the World, One Dead Farmer at a Time

If anyone tells you that GM is going to feed the world, tell them that it is not. To feed the world takes political and financial will.”
  Steve Smith  Novartis, 2000

In 2002, at the World Food Summit, “the United States championed the use of genetically modified (GM) foods to help feed the world’s poor.” This is an unsurprising position based on the investment angles of the corporate backers of such policy strategy (Monsanto, Dupont, JPMorgan Chase, UBS, General Mills, Cargill, and the Council for Foreign Relations, to name a few).

vilsackAgriculture is the answer to the moral dilemma of our time: how we feed an ever-increasing world population as resources become scarce.“  Tom Vilsack  USDA Secretary & Monsanto Lawyer

But if the goal is to feed the world, why are farmers being sued out of business? Peasant farmersfeed approximately 70% of the globe, yet Monsanto is actively suing 410 farmers and 56 small farm businesses across 27 US States.

rifkin“We are already producing enough food to feed the world. We already have technology in place that allows us to produce more than we can find a market for.” Jeremy Rifkin  Activist

In India, as the corporate chemical industry has taken control of the seed supply, farmers are broken by the combination of increased production costs and falling food prices. Over 270,000Indian farmers have committed suicide since 1997, when India opened its seed sector to global corporations.

shivaThe combination is unpayable debt, and it’s the day the farmer is going to lose his land for chemicals and seeds, that is the day the farmer drinks pesticide.” Vandana Shiva  Seed Freedom

Ignoring the profitability of increasing use of pesticides, as recently as April, 2013 Discover Magazine reports that GMO’s use less pesticides. Apparently they haven’t discovered that ‘Roundup Ready crops‘ mean that they are genetically engineered to withstand increased pesticide use, negating any lower levels of toxicity of the Monsanto Roundup pesticide they plug. They also excuse Monsanto for their environmental warfare through expanding monoculture, spreadinggene contamination, creating pesticide-resistant superweeds.

II  –  Preemptive Approval = Guaranteed Profits

The shell game of GMO health validity goes like this: Organics are not better than Conventional FarmingGMOs are not worse than Conventional Farming, ipso facto Organics are no better than GMOs. While this method-vs-modification, song-&-dance tactic convinces national publicationsthat GMOs are safe, research has found harmful effects on health due to GMOs and reports of this news, either from journalists or scientists, has been swiftly silenced.

akreThey wanted us to take out the word ‘cancer’. You don’t have to identify what the potential problem is, just say ‘human health implications.” Jane Akre  Journalist

But if GMO’s are so healthy, why has Monsanto spent millions lobbying Washington to elevate the corporation above the jurisdiction of the FDA? The Sequester-budget-attached, Congress-passed, 250,000-citizens-in-5-days-opposed, and Obama-signed Monsanto Protection Act was jointly written by fellow Missourians, Monsanto and Republican Roy Blunt (who received $65k from Monsanto in 2012 alone).

In short, the MPA grants Monsanto immunity from litigation if GMOs are ever found to cause cancer or other ‘ human health impilications’. Knowing there are no legal consequences for your actions, an immunity mirrored by big banks declared “Too Big to Fail” and now “Too Big to Jail”, Monsanto is now free increase profits by selling untested GMO food to unwitting American consumers. We are the guinea pigs line item.

III   –  Mother Nature Intended, Monsanto Patented

But lets forget the facts and swallow the money-biased science and say GMOs are the same as nature. If the six Gene Giants (Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta, Dow, Bayer and BASF), who make up 66% of all global seed sales, are selling an identical product, how are they able to patent it, and why do they fight for its ownership so religiously. Monsanto releases their patented GMO seeds into competitors fields, then sue them out of business for having their patented GMO seeds in their fields.

kaufmanEvery GM food becomes dangerous—not to health, but to society—when it can be patented.” Frederick Kaufman Journalist

Patenting GMO crops also can keep the seeds in the laboratory and not the fields. When UC-Davis’ Dr. Pamela Ronald worked to create a GM rice to survive the blight of Xanthomonas in Asia, legal hamstringing kept her seeds from being utilized to feed people, because it wasn’t profitable.

IV  –  Your Right to GMO

ogilvyGood products can be sold by honest advertising. If you don’t think the product is good, you have no business to be advertising it.” David Ogilvy  Advertister

If GMO’s are as humane, healthy and equal as the paid pundits proselytize, why is being GMO something to hide? Rather than celebrating their innovations, Monsanto, Dupont, Pepsi, Bayer, Dow, BASF, Syngenta, Kraft, Nestle, CocaCola, General Mills, ConAgra, Kellogs, Smithfield, Smuckers, and Dean Foods have spent over $23,000,000 fighting GMO labeling laws (in California alone, against Prop. 37).

rifkinThe industry’s not stupid. The industry knows that if those foods are labeled ‘genetically engineered,’ the public will shy away and won’t take them.” Jeremy Rifkin  Economist & Activist

Yet spending millions to keep consumers ignorant rather than on GMO-benefits education initiatives is a testament to Monsanto’s knowledge of the dangers growing inside their products.

In additional cost comparison, Monsanto and their ilk assert that GMO-labeling is bad because it will increase food costs for consumers, insinuating that buyers must foot the bill for GMO testing and GMO label printing. As Monsanto is heading to Washington state to defeat GMO labeling bill I-522 Trader Joe’s reveals that simplicity of an affidavit system to test for GMO’s which incurs a “minimal cost.”

So if its not the cost of GMO labeling, why is Monsanto so bashful about hiding the work they’ve dedicated their company to since 2000?

A key part of the Monsanto strategy was to mix genetically modified foods with traditional foods, and keep them all unlabeled so that no one would know what they were eating.” Dr. Peter Montague  Historian/Journalist

In 2012, Whole Foods admitted to selling GMO‘s under the Organic banner, have declared they will have full GMO labeling by 2018. As retailers are only responsible for labeling of raw commodities, any GMO producers will have to label their own products at the behest of Whole Food’s clearly capitalistic intentions, not State or Federal regulations, which have yet to materialize despite Obama’s campaign promise.

bamz

We’ll let folks know if their food has been genetically modified, because Americans should know what they’re buying.” Barack Obama   2007

Time will tell if such GMO shelf fillers such as Naked Juice, Izze, Odwalla, Simply Orange, Kashi, MorningStar Farms, Bear Naked, Gardenburger, Cascadia Farms, Larabar, R.W. Knudsen, Horizon Organic and Silk decide to financially punish their consumers for their right to know. In the meantime, feel free to label it yourself.

V – Profitable Employees make Powerful Allies

While championing competition and the equality of the free market, Monsanto has worked hard to not have to work hard. Unsatisfied merely riding the market-cracking free trade agreements (such as NAFTA and TPP) to impoverish populations and monopolize farm land access, Monsanto also profits of chemical warfare and disaster capitalism.

Unlike 27 countries worldwide who have banned Monsanto, don’t expect the US Government to get in their way. The revolving door between Monsanto and Washington is illustrated brilliantly by Michael R. Taylor, who worked for the FDA, then lawyered for Monsanto, then worked for the FDA, then worked for USDA, then lawyered for Monsanto, then became VP of Public Policy for Monsanto, then returned to work for the FDA, where he is now Obama’s Food Safety Czar.

Additional Monsanto alumni include public servants like Tom Vilsack (USDA Secretary), Hillary Clinton (Former Secretary of State), and Clarence Thomas (Supreme Court Justice) who just presided over Monsanto v Bowman arguments this past February.

VI  –  The Future is a Business

HOPE: “GMOs have contributed only modestly to yield increases, but on the horizon are approaches that could make a big difference.” Keith Kloor  Discover Magazine

SALVATION: “The resilience we need for the future will be delivered by smart plant breeding – and that’s all GMO is” George Freeman  British Parliament

While ad-space pundits and say-anything scientists espouse GMO’s technological and humanity empowering destiny, GMO manufacturers are developing seeds that end life, rather than sustain it. Called ‘Terminator’ or ‘Suicide’ seeds, these are seeds genetically modified to not produce additional seeds up growth and maturation. The profit logic is simple: ‘If your seeds don’t make seeds, you’ll have to buy more seeds.’ But Suicide seeds are aptly named: ending life to extend profits.

monsGMO technology could transform the marketplace – and the future was in the integration of chemicals, traits and seeds.” Hendrik A. Verfaillie, President/CEO Monsanto, 2000

In engineering sterile seeds, and suing farmers for replanting seeds created by previous crops, Monsanto and the other Gene Giants are shifting the natural “self-reliance of seed into dependence on purchase of seed.” This cycle of commoditizing and replacing nature posits that humans must pay government currency in exchange for the Earth’s bountiful sustenance.

What’s next for business? Patenting rainwater and air?
rutgersGenetic Engineering is often justified as a human technology, one that feeds more people with better food. Nothing could be further from the truth. With very few exceptions, the whole point of genetic engineering is to increase sales of chemicals and bio-engineered products to dependent farmers.” David Ehrenfield  Rutgers University
GMOs have never been about feeding the world population, but making profits off the world population.

kissin

Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people.” Henry Kissinger   1970

Daily Hypocrisy

JACOB ROTHSCHILD

JACOB ROTHSCHILD