- There has been a concerted national effort by citizens
to have the US government label GMOs. Opposing it are government
intent not only to keep them unlabeled in the US but efforts at the international
level by the US government to remove all labeling of GMOs through
Codex. The problem is that Codex applies to food, and GMOs don't
qualify.
-
- William Engdahl wrote in March of 2010 about a USDA funded
project to create a GM corn that sterilizes people.
-
- GMO, glyphosate and population reduction
-
- One long-standing project of the US Government has been
to perfect a genetically-modified variety of corn, the diet staple in Mexico
and many other Latin American countries. The corn has been field tested
in tests financed by the US Department of Agriculture along with a small
California bio-tech company named Epicyte. Announcing his success at a
2001 press conference, the president of Epicyte, Mitch Hein, pointing to
his GMO corn plants, announced, "We have a hothouse filled with corn
plants that make anti-sperm antibodies."14
-
- Hein explained that they had taken antibodies from women
with a rare condition known as immune infertility, isolated the genes that
regulated the manufacture of those infertility antibodies, and, using genetic
engineering techniques, had inserted the genes into ordinary corn seeds
used to produce corn plants. In this manner, in reality they produced a
concealed contraceptive embedded in corn meant for human consumption. "Essentially,
the antibodies are attracted to surface receptors on the sperm," said
Hein. "They latch on and make each sperm so heavy it cannot move forward.
It just shakes about as if it was doing the lambada."15 Hein
claimed it was a possible solution to world "over-population."
The moral and ethical issues of feeding it to humans in Third World poor
countries without their knowing it countries he left out of his remarks.
-
- The questions raised by "[s]permicides hidden in
GMO corn provided to starving Third World populations through the generosity
of the Gates' foundation, Rockefeller Foundation and Kofi Annan's AGRA"
are many and profound.
-
-
- 1. Isn't GM technology directed beyond third world
countries but at all countries in the world, and first and most heavily
in the US?
-
- 2. Is there a relationship, since the introduction
of GM-crops in the US, of how steeply birthrates in the US have fallen?
-
- U.S. birthrates overall are at an all time low. Continuing
a 12-year decline, the U.S. birth rate has dropped to the lowest level
since national data have been available ...
- Bt-corn was introduced in the US in 1996, three years
before the dramatic decline began. "Some seven million acres
were planted to Bt corn in 1997 with hybrids primarily from Mycogen, Novartis
(formerly Ciba), and Northrup King. Mycogen and Novartis both produce
pharmaceutical contraceptives.
-
- Teen birthrates in the US are inexplicably plummeting.
Corporate media, offering no evidence, suggests this is due to the
economy, but does not offer a comparison to previous serious economic downturns
generating any previous teen birthrates decline. Is there any
data showing that teens forgo sex or become more careful about contraception
out of concern about jobs? Are unemployed teens, stressed and with
time on their hands, more careful, or the opposite?
-
- 3. If GMOs are highly associated with infertility
and spontaneous abortions in animals, is a similar rate of infertitlity
(20%) occurring in people and are there increases in spontaneous abortion?
Would GMOs not affect humans who eat not only the crops but the animals
who are already so seriously affected by the crops?
-
- 4. Where did the Epicyte/USDA corn go? To
what countries? To the US as well? To US consumers?
-
- 5. How would researchers begin to answer questions
under number 3 and number 4? when in the US and in many countries, despite
consumer demand for labeling, the corporations involved have exerted tremendous
pressure to keep GMOs unlabeled and are pushing through Codex to have all
GMOs internationally be unlabeled?
-
- Doesn't keeping GMOs unlabeled undermine in any
country in which this is the case, scientists' capacity to trace them
epidemiologically and to investigate their impact biologically?
-
- Isn't keeping GMOs unlabeled a virtual form of mandating
them, since that lack of information leaves a population prey to them?
Does a population have a right to sue the government based on such
forced exposure? ? Is there any connection between a current
raw milk lawsuit in which the FDA claims the public has no right to choose
its food or any right to its health, and the government/corporations creating an
additional means of trapping the public into consuming GMOs?
-
-
- 6. With what other products do manufacturers claim
a range of astounding superior qualities (huge yields, ability to compensate
for global warming, ....) while marketing them rapidly and aggressively,
and yet want them kept unlabeled?
-
- The FDA approved GMOs and kept them unlabeled while Monsanto
lawyer Michael Taylor was there, bypassing the requirement for safety tests
on human beings. Keeping GMOs unlabeled has meant that the only arena
for study has been crop yield data (studies are showing that the biotech
claims are exaggerated) and animal studies, but non-labeling has ensured
there is little information on human impact. The FDA did not follow
the law in providing pre-marketing tests for human safety in consuming
GMOs, and in keeping them unlabeled, has ensured that post market safety
testing is nearly impossible.
-
- Meanwhile, GE-corn, GE-soy, GE-cotton seed oil, GE-canola,
are in most processed foods in the US. Consumers have little idea
they are there, little means to distinguish them from other items, and
they were never tested for safety for human consumption. Yet studies in
animals repeatedly show severe organ damage and infertility/sterility.
-
- 7. If the USDA is funding the creation of
a corn crop that sterilizes, is it not committing a crime in poisoning
those who are on the receiving end? And according to the UN, is it
not also committing genocide, a crime against humanity, in damaging
the reproductive ability of any group?
-
- But the UN appears to operate on two levels, one that
sets international standards for moral/legal behavior and one that is complicit
in immoral/illegal acts. The UN itself is involved in forced sterilization and
is interested in accelerating fertility decline in the least developed
countries. The UN is also impacted by "the generosity of the
Gates' foundation, Rockefeller Foundation and Kofi Annan's AGRA."
-
- 8. The USDA was also involved in developing terminator
seeds as were the Rockefellers who have a long history of eugenics and
genocide and are the developers of genetic engineering. In developing
corn that sterilizes, has the USDA, in fact, also now developed "terminator
food"?
-
-
- Food is defined as "any nourishing substance that is eaten, drunk, or otherwise taken into the body to
- sustain life, provide energy, promote growth, etc.
and by Webster as "material consisting essentially of protein, carbohydrate,
and fat used in the body of an organism to sustain growth, repair, and
vital processes and to furnish energy."
-
- But based on the incontrovertible harm done to animal
organs as animals eat GMOs, do GMO-crops even meet the definition of "food"
for animals since they do not sustain life, repair or vital processes,
but the opposite?
-
- And if one assumes that "sustaining life" encompasses
reproduction, a basic human function that the very basis of life it self,
does the USDA's funding of GMOs to sterilize human beings indicate that
GMOs for human beings do not meet the basic definition of "food"?
-
- 9. While the biotech companies have balked at labeling
GMOs as a means of foisting them upon the world - untested and unknown
- there appears a larger problem for them now. The corporations have
gotten GMOs into the market and patented using the legalism of "substantial
equivalence" to normal organisms, but at the more complex biologic
level of food itself, don't GMOs transparently fail to meet the definition
and or the biologic function of actual food, since they do not sustain
life? And does that make labeling of GMOs truly complex at that point?
-
- 10. If GMOs are not "food" by essential
biologic criteria and are being designed by the US government and private
corporations to damage or end the continuation of life, then would the
GMO label more appropriately be "weapon"?
-
- weap·on
-
- /?wep?n/Noun
-
- 1. A thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm
or physical damage.
-
- Or more specifically, a bioweapon?
-
-
- bioweapon [?ba????w?p?n]
-
- n
-
- (Military) a living organism or a toxic product manufactured
from it, used to kill or incapacitate
-
- And is intentionally keeping them unlabeled so people
cannot know where they are or if they are being exposed, is bioterrorism?
-
- Like some of the chemical weapons, biological weapons
may also be useful as area denial weapons. These agents may be lethal
or non-lethal, and may be targeted against a single individual, a
group of people, or even an entire population. They may be developed, acquired,
stockpiled or deployed by nation states or by non-national groups.
In the latter case, or if a nation-state uses it clandestinely, it
may also be considered bioterrorism.[1]
-
- With the more fitting definition of GMOs, it is easier
to appreciate the desire of the US government and corporations to get Codex
to remove all labeling from GMOs internationally as a means of maintaining
secrecy about its presence and deniability of its impact. But if
GMOs' true status is as bioweapons, is it even appropriate to include them
under Codex altogether, since they do not meet the essential definition
of food? Rather, do they instead need to be dealt with under military
treaties dealing with biologic weapons?
-
- To suggest a military basis for GMOs is entirely consistent
with a report created in the 1970s by Henry Kissinger for the US government.
Mr. Engdahl's article described both GMOs and vaccines as means to
eugenics and genocide, and food and vaccines are precisely the means Mr.
Kissinger suggested as a solution to world population which he said threatened
the security of the US.
-
- Mr. Kissinger is quoted as saying "The elderly
are useless eaters." The remark may be a window into Mr.
Kissinger's own child rearing background at a time when that
expression was commonly used against children. Childrearing practices
of the day were predicated on disgust at and hatred of children and obsessive
fear of their taking food. Does this dovetail with Mr. Kissinger's
urging the withholding of food to force nations to reduce their births,
and covert sterilization through false "humanitarian vaccines"
as another means to achieve it. Was Mr. Kissinger playing out some
personal psychological pain by writing a report that suggesting eliminating
the births of (repulsive, worthless) children and keeping food away from
those (black and brown countries) who produce such children, and in the
hands of (deserving) others?
-
- Mr. Engdahl shows without question that the USDA, through
genetic engineering, has turned "food" into a means of covert
sterilization. Now, it doesn't need to be withheld and nations don't
need to accept, under the threat of starvation, radical reductions in the
birthrate to satisfy the demands of US policy makers. Instead,
with GMOs, profits can be procured with GMOs at the same time sterilization
of populations can occur.
-
- GMOs, just like vaccines, can only cause "reduction
of populations" if they are "approved" by governments. Is
this why the US government and corporations are using the grandest of humanitarian
pretexts (to feed the world's poor starving people, to protect the world from
starvation from global warming, etc) to justify forcing them - unwanted,
untested, and unlabeled - on millions?
-
- In India, a bill was introduced to make it a crime to
question the safety GMOs (including in vaccines) - with prison
terms attached.
-
- Didn't the Borgias also depend on their guests not knowing
what they were eating?
|
