Nederlandse media blijven zwijgen over Monsanto

https://destillewaarheid.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/nederlandse-media-blijven-zwijgen-over-monsanto/

Media negeren wereldwijd protest tegen Multinational Monsanto

https://destillewaarheid.wordpress.com/2015/05/24/media-negeert-wereldwijde-protest-tegen-multinational-monsanto/

Monsanto's sinistere rol in de Oekraiense oorlog

http://www.gewoon-nieuws.nl/2015/01/monsantos-sinistere-rol-in-de-oekraiense-oorlog/

Facebook and Monsanto: top shareholders are identical Mar 22

www.nomorefakenews.com

Seven of the top 12 shareholders of Facebook and Monsanto are identical.

Even more to the point, three of the top five shareholders are the same.

The top shareholder, at the moment, in Monsanto is The Vanguard Group, which is number two on the list of top Facebook shareholders.

FMR, LLC, is the number one Facebook shareholder. For Monsanto, it’s number two.

The State Street Corporation is the number three shareholder for both Facebook and Monsanto.

BlackRock Institutional Trust Company is Monsanto’s number five shareholder, and ranks at number four for Facebook.

The other top dozen shareholders of both Monsanto and Facebook are Jennison Associates, Sands Capital Management, and the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund.

(Note: If you consult open listings (for example, investors.morningstar.com), you can look at the major shareholders of these two publicly traded companies, Monsanto and Facebook).

Yes, these are all investment funds, and they spread their enormous money around. They own shares of many, many publicly traded companies.

But the comparison of Monsanto and Facebook illustrates how, at the top of the food chain, there is connected wealth. These investment funds can, if they choose to, intercede in companies’ proxy votes to alter company policy.

And of course, in case a company decides to take a controversial stance on a political issue, or introduce a new product that would disrupt the foundations of the economic status quo, the investment funds can exert punishment:

Suddenly selling off millions of shares and avoiding the company like poison would have a severely negative effect.

As long as these companies proceed with business as usual, there’s really nothing to notice. The system hums in its normal way. And that’s the whole point. Don’t rock the boat.

---

---

Facebook operating as a consumer self-spying machine, laying out people’s personal details? Monsanto taking over the food supply with its dangerous and toxic GMO-pesticide technology?

No problem.

That’s business as usual. And the same top investment funds will continue to hold millions of shares in both companies. Because both companies are part of the same overall system.

That’s “normal.”

You have a company that intends to launch a new cheap energy technology that would revolutionize the planet? Or a natural plant-based treatment for cancer that actually works, with no devastating adverse effects? And you’re going to go public and look for vital and necessary support from investment funds?

That’s a whole other issue. That’s definitely not normal. Watch out.

You’ve got torpedoes heading your way.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

Source: http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2014/03/22/facebook-and-monsanto-top-shareholders-are-identical/

Monsanto Threatens To Sue Over GMO Labeling In Vermont

The citizens of Vermont want GMO foods to be labeled. As Natural Society’s Anthony Gucciardi reported in 2013, a bill which has already passed the House awaits a final O.K. by the Senate. If Monsanto gets their way though, as made evident in heated testimony given at the Statehouse this past Wednesday before a Judiciary Committee, not only will the bill get stalled in the Senate, but Monsanto points to the fact that the state will have to spend around a million dollars just to defend the bill in court.



You can guess who is on Monsanto’s latest pay-roll. Sen. Dick Sears, D-Bennington, chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee warned that, although he ‘supports a labeling bill’, he feels that there are potential litigation costs which could hinder state finances. He also mentions that dairy would also be excluded from the bill, but currently there is no GMO dairy in Vermont.

Agreeing with Monsanto’s interests and testifying that the new law would have to be defended is Assistant Attorney General Bridget Asay, stating that even if the state was successful in passing a GMO-labeling bill, the legal challenge could end up costing more than $5 million, and the state would not be able to recover legal fees. She estimates that the total cost would include potential reimbursement for a victorious plaintiff – Monsanto, Dow, Syngenta, and their poison-filled coffers.
The ‘expert’ testimony arguing against the labeling law likely did not include the potential costs if genetically modified organisms are allowed to continue to run rampant in our food supply – including costs to organic farmers, and the possibility that just three companies could end up owning the seed rights to just about every food we eat, once they are genetically modified and have cross-pollinated non-GMO crops.

Potential amendments to the bill could include:

1. The requirement a legal defense fund to cover the costs of litigation started by Big Ag companies, and;
2. An exemption of dairy for fear that it might undermine the bill’s passing or viability in court.
Attorney General Bill Sorrell’s is concerned about a proposal to pass the bill with one exception: if a privately funded legal defense fund would be established to cover the expense of legal challenges.
“Quite frankly that boxes us in,” Sears told Asay at the hearing. He said he thinks it would be irresponsible to set the state up for a potentially costly lawsuit without setting aside the money to pay for it.

Sen. Jeanette White, D-Windham, said she’s troubled by the prospect of setting a precedent for supporting only what can be backed by wealthy interests. The legal defense fund idea was not part of the Senate Agriculture bill, Sears acknowledged after the hearing, but he said that doesn’t mean the idea can’t be revisited.

How might Big Ag fight the bill legally? A potential lawsuit would possibly be based on several legal arguments: First Amendment rights and protections against compelled speech, “equal protection” laws, rules prohibiting conflict between state and federal laws, and the so-called “dormant commerce clause” saying states can’t make laws that will have an adverse impact on interstate commerce.
How about a counter suit for murder, and billions of dollars in pain and suffering fees to people who are dying of kidney failure, and cancer, or having reproductive challenges due to GMO crops? These politicians need to stop worrying about Monsanto and Big Ag’s threats and take care of the people that put them in office, otherwise, they will be looking for new jobs come next election.

Source
Image courtesy

“Doomsday Seed Vault” in the Arctic – Bill Gates, Rockefeller and the GMO giants know something we don’t

One thing Microsoft founder Bill Gates can’t be accused of is sloth. He was already programming at 14, founded Microsoft at age 20 while still a student at Harvard. By 1995 he had been listed by Forbes as the world’s richest man from being the largest shareholder in his Microsoft, a company which his relentless drive built into a de facto monopoly in software systems for personal computers.

In 2006 when most people in such a situation might think of retiring to a quiet Pacific island, Bill Gates decided to devote his energies to his Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the world’s largest ‘transparent’ private foundation as it says, with a whopping $34.6 billion endowment and a legal necessity to spend $1.5 billion a year on charitable projects around the world to maintain its tax free charitable status. A gift from friend and business associate, mega-investor Warren Buffett in 2006, of some $30 billion worth of shares in Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway put the Gates’ foundation into the league where it spends almost the amount of the entire annual budget of the United Nations’ World Health Organization.

So when Bill Gates decides through the Gates Foundation to invest some $30 million of their hard earned money in a project, it is worth looking at.

No project is more interesting at the moment than a curious project in one of the world’s most remote spots, Svalbard. Bill Gates is investing millions in a seed bank on the Barents Sea near the Arctic Ocean, some 1,100 kilometers from the North Pole. Svalbard is a barren piece of rock claimed by Norway and ceded in 1925 by international treaty (see map).

On this God-forsaken island Bill Gates is investing tens of his millions along with the Rockefeller Foundation, Monsanto Corporation, Syngenta Foundation and the Government of Norway, among others, in what is called the ‘doomsday seed bank.’ Officially the project is named the Svalbard Global Seed Vault on the Norwegian island of Spitsbergen, part of the Svalbard island group.

The seed bank is being built inside a mountain on Spitsbergen Island near the small village of Longyearbyen. It’s almost ready for ‘business’ according to their releases. The bank will have dual blast-proof doors with motion sensors, two airlocks, and walls of steel-reinforced concrete one meter thick. It will contain up to three million different varieties of seeds from the entire world, ‘so that crop diversity can be conserved for the future,’ according to the Norwegian government. Seeds will be specially wrapped to exclude moisture. There will be no full-time staff, but the vault’s relative inaccessibility will facilitate monitoring any possible human activity.

Did we miss something here? Their press release stated, ‘so that crop diversity can be conserved for the future.’ What future do the seed bank’s sponsors foresee, that would threaten the global availability of current seeds, almost all of which are already well protected in designated seed banks around the world?
Anytime Bill Gates, the Rockefeller Foundation, Monsanto and Syngenta get together on a common project, it’s worth digging a bit deeper behind the rocks on Spitsbergen. When we do we find some fascinating things.

The first notable point is who is sponsoring the doomsday seed vault. Here joining the Norwegians are, as noted, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; the US agribusiness giant DuPont/Pioneer Hi-Bred, one of the world’s largest owners of patented genetically-modified (GMO) plant seeds and related agrichemicals; Syngenta, the Swiss-based major GMO seed and agrichemicals company through its Syngenta Foundation; the Rockefeller Foundation, the private group who created the “gene revolution with over $100 million of seed money since the 1970’s; CGIAR, the global network created by the Rockefeller Foundation to promote its ideal of genetic purity through agriculture change.

CGIAR and ‘The Project’
As I detailled in the book, Seeds of Destruction1, in 1960 the Rockefeller Foundation, John D. Rockefeller III’s Agriculture Development Council and the Ford Foundation joined forces to create the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in Los Baños, the Philippines. By 1971, the Rockefeller Foundation’s IRRI, along with their Mexico-based International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center and two other Rockefeller and Ford Foundation-created international research centers, the IITA for tropical agriculture, Nigeria, and IRRI for rice, Philippines, combined to form a global Consultative Group on International Agriculture Research (CGIAR).

CGIAR was shaped at a series of private conferences held at the Rockefeller Foundation’s conference center in Bellagio, Italy. Key participants at the Bellagio talks were the Rockefeller Foundation’s George Harrar, Ford Foundation’s Forrest Hill, Robert McNamara of the World Bank and Maurice Strong, the Rockefeller family’s international environmental organizer, who, as a Rockefeller Foundation Trustee, organized the UN Earth Summit in Stockholm in 1972. It was part of the foundation’s decades long focus to turn science to the service of eugenics, a hideous version of racial purity, what has been called The Project.

To ensure maximum impact, CGIAR drew in the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization, the UN Development Program and the World Bank. Thus, through a carefully-planned leverage of its initial funds, the Rockefeller Foundation by the beginning of the 1970’s was in a position to shape global agriculture policy. And shape it did.

Financed by generous Rockefeller and Ford Foundation study grants, CGIAR saw to it that leading Third World agriculture scientists and agronomists were brought to the US to ‘master’ the concepts of modern agribusiness production, in order to carry it back to their homeland. In the process they created an invaluable network of influence for US agribusiness promotion in those countries, most especially promotion of the GMO ‘Gene Revolution’ in developing countries, all in the name of science and efficient, free market agriculture.

Genetically engineering a master race?
Now the Svalbard Seed Bank begins to become interesting. But it gets better. ‘The Project’ I referred to is the project of the Rockefeller Foundation and powerful financial interests since the 1920’s to use eugenics, later renamed genetics, to justify creation of a genetically-engineered Master Race. Hitler and the Nazis called it the Ayran Master Race.

The eugenics of Hitler were financed to a major extent by the same Rockefeller Foundation which today is building a doomsday seed vault to preserve samples of every seed on our planet. Now this is getting really intriguing. The same Rockefeller Foundation created the pseudo-science discipline of molecular biology in their relentless pursuit of reducing human life down to the ‘defining gene sequence’ which, they hoped, could then be modified in order to change human traits at will. Hitler’s eugenics scientists, many of whom were quietly brought to the United States after the War to continue their biological eugenics research, laid much of the groundwork of genetic engineering of various life forms, much of it supported openly until well into the Third Reich by Rockefeller Foundation generous grants.2

The same Rockefeller Foundation created the so-called Green Revolution, out of a trip to Mexico in 1946 by Nelson Rockefeller and former New Deal Secretary of Agriculture and founder of the Pioneer Hi-Bred Seed Company, Henry Wallace.

The Green Revolution purported to solve the world hunger problem to a major degree in Mexico, India and other select countries where Rockefeller worked. Rockefeller Foundation agronomist, Norman Borlaug, won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work, hardly something to boast about with the likes of Henry Kissinger sharing the same.

In reality, as it years later emerged, the Green Revolution was a brilliant Rockefeller family scheme to develop a globalized agribusiness which they then could monopolize just as they had done in the world oil industry beginning a half century before. As Henry Kissinger declared in the 1970’s, ‘If you control the oil you control the country; if you control food, you control the population.’
Agribusiness and the Rockefeller Green Revolution went hand-in-hand. They were part of a grand strategy which included Rockefeller Foundation financing of research for the development of genetic engineering of plants and animals a few years later.

John H. Davis had been Assistant Agriculture Secretary under President Dwight Eisenhower in the early 1950’s. He left Washington in 1955 and went to the Harvard Graduate School of Business, an unusual place for an agriculture expert in those days. He had a clear strategy. In 1956, Davis wrote an article in the Harvard Business Review in which he declared that “the only way to solve the so-called farm problem once and for all, and avoid cumbersome government programs, is to progress from agriculture to agribusiness.” He knew precisely what he had in mind, though few others had a clue back then— a revolution in agriculture production that would concentrate control of the food chain in corporate multinational hands, away from the traditional family farmer. 3
A crucial aspect driving the interest of the Rockefeller Foundation and US agribusiness companies was the fact that the Green Revolution was based on proliferation of new hybrid seeds in developing markets. One vital aspect of hybrid seeds was their lack of reproductive capacity. Hybrids had a built in protection against multiplication. Unlike normal open pollinated species whose seed gave yields similar to its parents, the yield of the seed borne by hybrid plants was significantly lower than that of the first generation.

That declining yield characteristic of hybrids meant farmers must normally buy seed every year in order to obtain high yields. Moreover, the lower yield of the second generation eliminated the trade in seed that was often done by seed producers without the breeder’s authorization. It prevented the redistribution of the commercial crop seed by middlemen. If the large multinational seed companies were able to control the parental seed lines in house, no competitor or farmer would be able to produce the hybrid. The global concentration of hybrid seed patents into a handful of giant seed companies, led by DuPont’s Pioneer Hi-Bred and Monsanto’s Dekalb laid the ground for the later GMO seed revolution. 4

In effect, the introduction of modern American agricultural technology, chemical fertilizers and commercial hybrid seeds all made local farmers in developing countries, particularly the larger more established ones, dependent on foreign, mostly US agribusiness and petro-chemical company inputs. It was a first step in what was to be a decades-long, carefully planned process.
Under the Green Revolution Agribusiness was making major inroads into markets which were previously of limited access to US exporters. The trend was later dubbed “market-oriented agriculture.” In reality it was agribusiness-controlled agriculture.

Through the Green Revolution, the Rockefeller Foundation and later Ford Foundation worked hand-in-hand shaping and supporting the foreign policy goals of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and of the CIA.

One major effect of the Green Revolution was to depopulate the countryside of peasants who were forced to flee into shantytown slums around the cities in desperate search for work. That was no accident; it was part of the plan to create cheap labor pools for forthcoming US multinational manufactures, the ‘globalization’ of recent years.

When the self-promotion around the Green Revolution died down, the results were quite different from what had been promised. Problems had arisen from indiscriminate use of the new chemical pesticides, often with serious health consequences. The mono-culture cultivation of new hybrid seed varieties decreased soil fertility and yields over time. The first results were impressive: double or even triple yields for some crops such as wheat and later corn in Mexico. That soon faded.

The Green Revolution was typically accompanied by large irrigation projects which often included World Bank loans to construct huge new dams, and flood previously settled areas and fertile farmland in the process. Also, super-wheat produced greater yields by saturating the soil with huge amounts of fertilizer per acre, the fertilizer being the product of nitrates and petroleum, commodities controlled by the Rockefeller-dominated Seven Sisters major oil companies.

Huge quantities of herbicides and pesticides were also used, creating additional markets for the oil and chemical giants. As one analyst put it, in effect, the Green Revolution was merely a chemical revolution. At no point could developing nations pay for the huge amounts of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. They would get the credit courtesy of the World Bank and special loans by Chase Bank and other large New York banks, backed by US Government guarantees.

Applied in a large number of developing countries, those loans went mostly to the large landowners. For the smaller peasants the situation worked differently. Small peasant farmers could not afford the chemical and other modern inputs and had to borrow money.

Initially various government programs tried to provide some loans to farmers so that they could purchase seeds and fertilizers. Farmers who could not participate in this kind of program had to borrow from the private sector. Because of the exorbitant interest rates for informal loans, many small farmers did not even get the benefits of the initial higher yields. After harvest, they had to sell most if not all of their produce to pay off loans and interest. They became dependent on money-lenders and traders and often lost their land. Even with soft loans from government agencies, growing subsistence crops gave way to the production of cash crops.5

Since decades the same interests including the Rockefeller Foundation which backed the initial Green Revolution, have worked to promote a second ‘Gene Revolution’ as Rockefeller Foundation President Gordon Conway termed it several years ago, the spread of industrial agriculture and commercial inputs including GMO patented seeds.

Gates, Rockefeller and a Green Revolution in Africa
With the true background of the 1950’s Rockefeller Foundation Green Revolution clear in mind, it becomes especially curious that the same Rockefeller Foundation along with the Gates Foundation which are now investing millions of dollars in preserving every seed against a possible “doomsday” scenario are also investing millions in a project called The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa.
AGRA, as it calls itself, is an alliance again with the same Rockefeller Foundation which created the “Gene Revolution.” A look at the AGRA Board of Directors confirms this.

It includes none other than former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan as chairman. In his acceptance speech in a World Economic Forum event in Cape Town South Africa in June 2007, Kofi Annan stated, ‘I accept this challenge with gratitude to the Rockefeller Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and all others who support our African campaign.’

In addition the AGRA board numbers a South African, Strive Masiyiwa who is a Trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation. It includes Sylvia M. Mathews of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; Mamphela Ramphele, former Managing Director of the World Bank (2000 – 2006); Rajiv J. Shah of the Gates Foundation; Nadya K. Shmavonian of the Rockefeller Foundation; Roy Steiner of the Gates Foundation. In addition, an Alliance for AGRA includes Gary Toenniessen the Managing Director of the Rockefeller Foundation and Akinwumi Adesina, Associate Director, Rockefeller Foundation.
To fill out the lineup, the Programmes for AGRA includes Peter Matlon, Managing Director, Rockefeller Foundation; Joseph De Vries, Director of the Programme for Africa’s Seed Systems and Associate Director, Rockefeller foundation; Akinwumi Adesina, Associate Director, Rockefeller Foundation. Like the old failed Green Revolution in India and Mexico, the new Africa Green Revolution is clearly a high priority of the Rockefeller Foundation.

While to date they are keeping a low profile, Monsanto and the major GMO agribusiness giants are believed at the heart of using Kofi Annan’s AGRA to spread their patented GMO seeds across Africa under the deceptive label, ‘bio-technology,’ the new euphemism for genetically engineered patented seeds. To date South Africa is the only African country permitting legal planting of GMO crops. In 2003 Burkina Faso authorized GMO trials. In 2005 Kofi Annan’s Ghana drafted bio-safety legislation and key officials expressed their intentions to pursue research into GMO crops.

Africa is the next target in the US-government campaign to spread GMO worldwide. Its rich soils make it an ideal candidate. Not surprisingly many African governments suspect the worst from the GMO sponsors as a multitude of genetic engineering and biosafety projects have been initiated in Africa, with the aim of introducing GMOs into Africa’s agricultural systems. These include sponsorships offered by the US government to train African scientists in genetic engineering in the US, biosafety projects funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the World Bank; GMO research involving African indigenous food crops.

The Rockefeller Foundation has been working for years to promote, largely without success, projects to introduce GMOs into the fields of Africa. They have backed research that supports the applicability of GMO cotton in the Makhathini Flats in South Africa.

Monsanto, who has a strong foothold in South Africa’s seed industry, both GMO and hybrid, has conceived of an ingenious smallholders’ programme known as the ‘Seeds of Hope’ Campaign, which is introducing a green revolution package to small scale poor farmers, followed, of course, by Monsanto’s patented GMO seeds. 6

Syngenta AG of Switzerland, one of the ‘Four Horsemen of the GMO Apocalypse’ is pouring millions of dollars into a new greenhouse facility in Nairobi, to develop GMO insect resistant maize. Syngenta is a part of CGIAR as well.7

Move on to Svalbard
Now is it simply philosophical sloppiness? What leads the Gates and Rockefeller foundations to at one and the same time to back proliferation of patented and soon-to-be Terminator patented seeds across Africa, a process which, as it has in every other place on earth, destroys the plant seed varieties as monoculture industrialized agribusiness is introduced? At the same time they invest tens of millions of dollars to preserve every seed variety known in a bomb-proof doomsday vault near the remote Arctic Circle ‘so that crop diversity can be conserved for the future’ to restate their official release?
It is no accident that the Rockefeller and Gates foundations are teaming up to push a GMO-style Green Revolution in Africa at the same time they are quietly financing the ‘doomsday seed vault’ on Svalbard. The GMO agribusiness giants are up to their ears in the Svalbard project.

Indeed, the entire Svalbard enterprise and the people involved call up the worst catastrophe images of the Michael Crichton bestseller, Andromeda Strain, a sci-fi thriller where a deadly disease of extraterrestrial origin causes rapid, fatal clotting of the blood threatening the entire human species. In Svalbard, the future world’s most secure seed repository will be guarded by the policemen of the GMO Green Revolution–the Rockefeller and Gates Foundations, Syngenta, DuPont and CGIAR.
The Svalbard project will be run by an organization called the Global Crop Diversity Trust (GCDT). Who are they to hold such an awesome trust over the planet’s entire seed varieties? The GCDT was founded by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and Bioversity International (formerly the International Plant Genetic Research Institute), an offshoot of the CGIAR.
The Global Crop Diversity Trust is based in Rome. Its Board is chaired by Margaret Catley-Carlson a Canadian also on the advisory board of Group Suez Lyonnaise des Eaux, one of the world’s largest private water companies. Catley-Carlson was also president until 1998 of the New York-based Population Council, John D. Rockefeller’s population reduction organization, set up in 1952 to advance the Rockefeller family’s eugenics program under the cover of promoting “family planning,” birth control devices, sterilization and “population control” in developing countries.

Other GCDT board members include former Bank of America executive presently head of the Hollywood DreamWorks Animation, Lewis Coleman. Coleman is also the lead Board Director of Northrup Grumman Corporation, one of America’s largest military industry Pentagon contractors.
Jorio Dauster (Brazil) is also Board Chairman of Brasil Ecodiesel. He is a former Ambassador of Brazil to the European Union, and Chief Negotiator of Brazil’s foreign debt for the Ministry of Finance. Dauster has also served as President of the Brazilian Coffee Institute and as Coordinator of the Project for the Modernization of Brazil’s Patent System, which involves legalizing patents on seeds which are genetically modified, something until recently forbidden by Brazil’s laws.

Cary Fowler is the Trust’s Executive Director. Fowler was Professor and Director of Research in the Department for International Environment & Development Studies at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences. He was also a Senior Advisor to the Director General of Bioversity International. There he represented the Future Harvest Centres of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) in negotiations on the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources. In the 1990s, he headed the International Program on Plant Genetic Resources at the FAO. He drafted and supervised negotiations of FAO’s Global Plan of Action for Plant Genetic Resources, adopted by 150 countries in 1996. He is a past-member of the National Plant Genetic Resources Board of the US and the Board of Trustees of the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center in Mexico, another Rockefeller Foundation and CGIAR project.

GCDT board member Dr. Mangala Rai of India is the Secretary of India’s Department of Agricultural Research and Education (DARE), and Director General of the Indian Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR). He is also a Board Member of the Rockefeller Foundation’s International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), which promoted the world’s first major GMO experiment, the much-hyped ‘Golden Rice’ which proved a failure. Rai has served as Board Member for CIMMYT (International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center), and a Member of the Executive Council of the CGIAR.

Global Crop Diversity Trust Donors or financial angels include as well, in the words of the Humphrey Bogart Casablanca classic, ‘all the usual suspects.’ As well as the Rockefeller and Gates Foundations, the Donors include GMO giants DuPont-Pioneer Hi-Bred, Syngenta of Basle Switzerland, CGIAR and the State Department’s energetically pro-GMO agency for development aid, USAID. Indeed it seems we have the GMO and population reduction foxes guarding the hen-house of mankind, the global seed diversity store in Svalbard. 8

Why now Svalbard?
We can legitimately ask why Bill Gates and the Rockefeller Foundation along with the major genetic engineering agribusiness giants such as DuPont and Syngenta, along with CGIAR are building the Doomsday Seed Vault in the Arctic.

Who uses such a seed bank in the first place? Plant breeders and researchers are the major users of gene banks. Today’s largest plant breeders are Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta and Dow Chemical, the global plant-patenting GMO giants. Since early in 2007 Monsanto holds world patent rights together with the United States Government for plant so-called ‘Terminator’ or Genetic Use Restriction Technology (GURT). Terminator is an ominous technology by which a patented commercial seed commits ‘suicide’ after one harvest. Control by private seed companies is total. Such control and power over the food chain has never before in the history of mankind existed.

This clever genetically engineered terminator trait forces farmers to return every year to Monsanto or other GMO seed suppliers to get new seeds for rice, soybeans, corn, wheat whatever major crops they need to feed their population. If broadly introduced around the world, it could within perhaps a decade or so make the world’s majority of food producers new feudal serfs in bondage to three or four giant seed companies such as Monsanto or DuPont or Dow Chemical.

That, of course, could also open the door to have those private companies, perhaps under orders from their host government, Washington, deny seeds to one or another developing country whose politics happened to go against Washington’s. Those who say ‘It can’t happen here’ should look more closely at current global events. The mere existence of that concentration of power in three or four private US-based agribusiness giants is grounds for legally banning all GMO crops even were their harvest gains real, which they manifestly are not.

These private companies, Monsanto, DuPont, Dow Chemical hardly have an unsullied record in terms of stewardship of human life. They developed and proliferated such innovations as dioxin, PCBs, Agent Orange. They covered up for decades clear evidence of carcinogenic and other severe human health consequences of use of the toxic chemicals. They have buried serious scientific reports that the world’s most widespread herbicide, glyphosate, the essential ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide that is tied to purchase of most Monsanto genetically engineered seeds, is toxic when it seeps into drinking water.9 Denmark banned glyphosate in 2003 when it confirmed it has contaminated the country’s groundwater.10

The diversity stored in seed gene banks is the raw material for plant breeding and for a great deal of basic biological research. Several hundred thousand samples are distributed annually for such purposes. The UN’s FAO lists some 1400 seed banks around the world, the largest being held by the United States Government. Other large banks are held by China, Russia, Japan, India, South Korea, Germany and Canada in descending order of size. In addition, CGIAR operates a chain of seed banks in select centers around the world.

CGIAR, set up in 1972 by the Rockefeller Foundation and Ford Foundation to spread their Green Revolution agribusiness model, controls most of the private seed banks from the Philippines to Syria to Kenya. In all these present seed banks hold more than six and a half million seed varieties, almost two million of which are ‘distinct.’ Svalbard’s Doomsday Vault will have a capacity to house four and a half million different seeds.

GMO as a weapon of biowarfare?
Now we come to the heart of the danger and the potential for misuse inherent in the Svalbard project of Bill Gates and the Rockefeller foundation. Can the development of patented seeds for most of the world’s major sustenance crops such as rice, corn, wheat, and feed grains such as soybeans ultimately be used in a horrible form of biological warfare?

The explicit aim of the eugenics lobby funded by wealthy elite families such as Rockefeller, Carnegie, Harriman and others since the 1920’s, has embodied what they termed ‘negative eugenics,’ the systematic killing off of undesired bloodlines. Margaret Sanger, a rapid eugenicist, the founder of Planned Parenthood International and an intimate of the Rockefeller family, created something called The Negro Project in 1939, based in Harlem, which as she confided in a letter to a friend, was all about the fact that, as she put it, ‘we want to exterminate the Negro population.’ 11

A small California biotech company, Epicyte, in 2001 announced the development of genetically engineered corn which contained a spermicide which made the semen of men who ate it sterile. At the time Epicyte had a joint venture agreement to spread its technology with DuPont and Syngenta, two of the sponsors of the Svalbard Doomsday Seed Vault. Epicyte was since acquired by a North Carolina biotech company. Astonishing to learn was that Epicyte had developed its spermicidal GMO corn with research funds from the US Department of Agriculture, the same USDA which, despite worldwide opposition, continued to finance the development of Terminator technology, now held by Monsanto.
In the 1990’s the UN’s World Health Organization launched a campaign to vaccinate millions of women in Nicaragua, Mexico and the Philippines between the ages of 15 and 45, allegedly against Tentanus, a sickness arising from such things as stepping on a rusty nail. The vaccine was not given to men or boys, despite the fact they are presumably equally liable to step on rusty nails as women.

Because of that curious anomaly, Comite Pro Vida de Mexico, a Roman Catholic lay organization became suspicious and had vaccine samples tested. The tests revealed that the Tetanus vaccine being spread by the WHO only to women of child-bearing age contained human Chorionic Gonadotrophin or hCG, a natural hormone which when combined with a tetanus toxoid carrier stimulated antibodies rendering a woman incapable of maintaining a pregnancy. None of the women vaccinated were told.
It later came out that the Rockefeller Foundation along with the Rockefeller’s Population Council, the World Bank (home to CGIAR), and the United States’ National Institutes of Health had been involved in a 20-year-long project begun in 1972 to develop the concealed abortion vaccine with a tetanus carrier for WHO. In addition, the Government of Norway, the host to the Svalbard Doomsday Seed Vault, donated $41 million to develop the special abortive Tetanus vaccine. 12

Is it a coincidence that these same organizations, from Norway to the Rockefeller Foundation to the World Bank are also involved in the Svalbard seed bank project? According to Prof. Francis Boyle who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 enacted by the US Congress, the Pentagon is ‘now gearing up to fight and win biological warfare’ as part of two Bush national strategy directives adopted, he notes, ‘without public knowledge and review’ in 2002. Boyle adds that in 2001-2004 alone the US Federal Government spent $14.5 billion for civilian bio-warfare-related work, a staggering sum.
Rutgers University biologist Richard Ebright estimates that over 300 scientific institutions and some 12,000 individuals in the USA today have access to pathogens suitable for biowarfare. Alone there are 497 US Government NIH grants for research into infectious diseases with biowarfare potential. Of course this is being justified under the rubric of defending against possible terror attack as so much is today.

Many of the US Government dollars spent on biowarfare research involve genetic engineering. MIT biology professor Jonathan King says that the ‘growing bio-terror programs represent a significant emerging danger to our own population.’ King adds, ‘while such programs are always called defensive, with biological weapons, defensive and offensive programs overlap almost completely.’ 13
Time will tell whether, God Forbid, the Svalbard Doomsday Seed Bank of Bill Gates and the Rockefeller Foundation is part of another Final Solution, this involving the extinction of the Late, Great Planet Earth.

Notes
1 F. William Engdahl, Seeds of Destruction, Montreal, (Global Research, 2007).
2 Ibid, pp.72-90.
3 John H. Davis, Harvard Business Review, 1956, cited in Geoffrey Lawrence, Agribusiness, Capitalism and the Countryside, Pluto Press, Sydney, 1987. See also Harvard Business School, The Evolution of an Industry and a Seminar: Agribusiness Seminar,http://www.exed.hbs.edu/programs/agb/seminar.html.
4 Engdahl, op cit., p. 130.
5 Ibid. P. 123-30.
6 Myriam Mayet, The New Green Revolution in Africa: Trojan Horse for GMOs?, May, 2007, African Centre for Biosafety, www.biosafetyafrica.net.
7 ETC Group, Green Revolution 2.0 for Africa?, Communique Issue #94, March/April 2007.
8 Global Crop Diversity Trust website, in http://www.croptrust.org/main/donors.php.
9 Engdahl, op. cit., pp.227-236.
10 Anders Legarth Smith, Denmark Bans Glyphosates, the Active Ingredient in Roundup, Politiken, September 15, 2003, in organic.com.au/news/2003.09.15.
11 Tanya L. Green, The Negro Project: Margaret Sanger’s Genocide Project for Black American’s, in www.blackgenocide.org/negro.html.
12 Engdahl, op. cit., pp. 273-275; J.A. Miller, Are New Vaccines Laced With Birth-Control Drugs?, HLI Reports, Human Life International, Gaithersburg, Maryland; June/July 1995, Volume 13, Number 8.
13 Sherwood Ross, Bush Developing Illegal Bioterror Weapons for Offensive Use,’ December 20, 2006, in www.truthout.org.

Source: The Article Was Originally Published in 2007: GlobalResearch

With Friends Like These, Monsanto Doesn't Need Regulators...Does It?

A quick look at the company's board of directors shows how tight it is with big food and big business.

The fight over GMO labeling isn’t the first regulatory battle Monsanto has engaged in over the course of its 112 years in business. From PCBs to DDT to Agent Orange, the chemical company turned ag giant has manufactured numerous products that ended up all but disappearing—if not being banned outright—following high-profile public debates about environmental and health concerns.

Despite defeats for grassroots movements trying to have genetically engineered foods in California and Washington labeled, recent progress on state-level GMO labeling laws suggests that the tide is shifting against genetically engineered foods. Polls show that most Americans want to know if their food has been genetically altered. But despite the small stepsmade by some food corporations, the food industry—and corporate America on the whole—is still decidedly on Monsanto’s side regarding genetic engineering.

You don’t have to look much farther than the boardroom to see how deeply entrenched its ties to the rest of the food industry are: Janice L. Fields, a former president of McDonald’s USA, and C. Steven McMillan, a former CEO of Sara Lee Corporation, both sit on the board of directors. Other board members have ties to Procter & Gamble, Lockheed Martin, and Microsoft. As a report from Food and Water Watch pointed out last year, the board’s connections—past and present—to big food and big business has helped build a friendly audience, in business and in government, for its products:

Monsanto’s board members have worked for the EPA, advised the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and served on President Obama’s Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations. They presided over multiple universities in various senior positions, including South Dakota State University (with whom Monsanto has a significant research agreement), Arizona State’s Biodesign Institute and Washington University in St. Louis.... The prevalence of Monsanto’s directors in these highly influential positions begs a closer look at how they’re able to push the pro-GE agenda within the government and influence public opinion.

But it's not like PCBs, DDT, and Agent Orange are contributing to the company’s bottom line any longer. For every regulator’s blind eye, there’s the eventual backlash and downfall. 

Still, it helps to know who goes to bat for Monsanto.

Source: http://www.takepart.com/article/2014/02/18/monsanto-board-directors?cmpid=foodinc-fb

ZADEN & PLANTEN RUILEN

Het in stand houden van een grote diversiteit gezonde, voedselgewassen ligt aan de basis van een gezonde, veilige en diverse voedselvoorziening voor een bevolking.

Daarom hebben Permacultuur Nederland enSpullen Delen de handen ineengeslagen om een planten- en zadenbank voor het Nederlandstalige taalgebied op te zetten waarin gewone mensen de hoofdrol spelen. Het gaat om het onderling delen van zaden, knollen en ander plantmateriaal van eetbare gewassen. We nodigen iedereen uit om hieraan mee te doen.

Om het ruilen van zaden en planten makkelijker te maken is het handig om kennis te hebben van technieken om planten te vermeerderen. Hieronder een heldere uitleg van verschillende technieken om planten, struiken en bomen te vermeerderen:

-) I Stekken
-) II Afleggen
-) III Marcotteren
-) IV Copuleren
-) V Oculeren
-) VI Enten

Ook is het nuttig om meer te weten over het oogsten, bewaren en ruilen van zaden.  Meer informatie daarover in de volgende links:

-) I - Zaden oogsten en bewaren
-) II - Het versturen van zaden via de post

Doe mee aan een gezamenlijk peer to peer zaden en planten ruilnetwerk.

Hoe kan ik meedoen?

Ga naar www.spullendelen.nl, hier kun je je registreren en beginnen. Registreer de zaden, knollen, stekken, etc.  van eetbare planten die je over hebt en het delen kan beginnen. Het is het meest praktisch om je aanbod in de categorie “zaden, stekjes, planten, kruiden” aan te bieden.

Ook kun je zelf zaden en planten krijgen van mensen die deze aanbieden. Ga naar “spullen” en bekijk daar vervolgens de categorie “zaai- & pootgoed“, hier kun je een uitgebreid aanbod van planten en zaden vinden.

Ga naar www.spullendelen.nl om mee te doen aan het planten en zaden ruilnetwerk.

Bedenk dat het niet uitmaakt of een plant die je over hebt al een paar keer wordt aangeboden, voeg ook heel gewone planten toe. Op spullen delen kunnen mensen onder meer zoeken op afstand tot hun locatie, bijvoorbeeld binnen een straal van 1, 5 of 10 kilometer. Het gaat in deze database juist om het beschikbaar maken van zoveel mogelijk planten zo lokaal mogelijk.

Mochten er problemen zijn met inloggen, het registreren, etc. stuur dan een mailtje naar info@permacultuurnederland en/of martin@spullendelen.nl en dan kijken we of we de problemen kunnen helpen oplossen.

Waarom dit initiatief?

Momenteel ligt het grootste deel van de planten en zaden diversiteit bij een beperkt aantal transatlantische corporaties actief in de chemische sector die dit puur voor de commercie doen zoals Monsanto, Bayer, DuPont, Dow en Syngenta (zie deze pdf voor de details - seedindustry).

Deze bedrijven proberen de biodiversiteit van het leven zo veel mogelijk te monopoliseren / carteliseren en hiermee mensen afhankelijk van ze maken. Als dit eenmaal is gelukt is er een boel geld te verdienen voor deze bedrijven.

Hoewel deze strategie als bedrijfsmodel prima werkt is het letterlijk levensgevaarlijk voor de biodiversiteit en alle mensen die daarvan afhankelijk zijn voor hun directe voortbestaan.

De algemene diversiteit in eetbare gewassen is de afgelopen decennia schrikbarend teruggelopen en deze grote bedrijven die vaak beursgenoteerd zijn en over veel lobbykracht beschikken weten zich in telkens meer onderzoeksinstuten (zoals de Universiteit van Wageningen) en overheden in te kopen en zo hun eigen agenda erdoorheen te drukken.

Wellicht het meest bekende voorbeeld hiervan is Monsanto. Een documentaire die de vele wanpraktijken van Monsanto belicht, gemaakt door een Franse onderzoeksjournaliste is: De Wereld Volgens Monsanto. (Met Nederlandse ondertitels)

Van de mensen voor de mensen!

Naast dat een peer to peer planten en zadenruilwerk tussen gewone mensen erg leuk is, is het ook echt heel belangrijk omdat we zo de biodiversiteit van gewassen in stand kunnen houden en vrij toegankelijk kunnen houden voor eenieder!

Dit is te belangrijk om over te laten aan grote transatlantische corporaties waarbij winst behalen het belangrijkste doel is.

Aanverwante informatie en links:
-) Website Spullen Delen - www.spullendelen.nl
-) Website Reclaim the Seeds NL - www.reclaimtheseeds.nl-) Website De Nationale Proeftuin - www.denationaleproeftuin.nl

(Op het internet hebben de lezers de macht! Zij bepalen welke informatie de wereld rond gaat! U bent zich er misschien niet van bewust, maar als elke lezer een link stuurt naar 3 geïnteresseerde personen, dan zijn er maar 20 stappen nodig om 3,486,784,401 mensen te bereiken! Wil je dat zien gebeuren? Gebruik je macht! Dit stuk mag dan ook vrij door iedereen overgenomen worden op websites, blogs, of om door te sturen aan familie, vrienden, kennisen, collega`s, etc. Graag zelfs hoe meer mensen dit weten hoe beter. Zet a.u.b. wel de bron erbij zodat mensen zich er verder in kunnen verdiepen als ze willen.)

Spreekt dit idee je aan? Verspreid het dan vooral onder je vrienden, familie, collegas, etc!

Source: http://www.permacultuurnederland.org/wp/?page_id=338#.UxRlK_l5Nwi

Monsanto koopt leger van tienduizenden huurlingen

Blackwater & XE Services

Het heeft er alle schijn van dat het gentech bedrijf Monsanto in 2011 het grootste huurlingenleger ter wereld heeft gekocht. Het gaat om “Academi“, het voormalige “Blackwater” dat later werd omgedoopt in “XE Services”. In 2009 werd de naam Blackwater veranderd in “XE services” vanwege het beestachtige optreden van hun  huursoldaten in Irak, waaronder massamoorden op burgers. Meer recent is het bedrijf omgedoopt in “Academi”. De grootste opdrachtgever van dit huurlingenbedrijf is het Amerikaanse “Department of State” (Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken).

 CIA-agenten

Veel voormalige CIA-agenten en ex-militairen zijn in dienst bij Blackwater en aanverwante bedrijven, die opgericht zijn om de aandacht van hun slechte reputatie af te leiden en van de enorme winsten die gemaakt worden op de verkoop van hun lugubere diensten. De ‘producten’ die Blackwater levert zijn; politieke lobby, paramilitaire training voor andere overheden, infiltratie (Arabische lente, Libië, Syrië) verstrekken van inlichtingen aan multinationals als Monsanto, Chevron en financiële reuzen als Barclays, Deutsche Bank en vele anderen.

Joseph Cofer Black

Cofer Black

Het was de voormalige vice-voorzitter van Blackwater, Cofer Black, die in 2008 een contract sloot met Monsanto om met zijn bedrijf “Total Intelligence” te infiltreren en spioneren bij organisaties van dierenrechtenactivisten en anti GMO-activisten. Cofer Black stond als toenmalig CIA-directeur bekend om de wreedheden die hij liet uitvoeren op zijn tegenstanders. Senior Manager – Global Issues- Kevin Wilson bij Monsanto weigerde commentaar te geven maar bevestigde later dat ze Total Intelligence in 2008 en 2009 hadden ingehuurd om gegevens bij te houden van de publicaties van tegenstanders van Monsanto. Verder wees hij erop dat Total Intelligence een “volledig aparte entiteit” was die los van Blackwater stond.

Science of death

Het wekt geen verwondering dat een bedrijf dat actief is in de “wetenschap van de dood” zoals Monsanto (Agent Orange, pesticiden, PCB’s, hormonen en genetisch gemanipuleerde zaden) kan worden geassocieerd met andere misdadige gezelschappen. Dat het feitelijk misdadigers zijn die lid zijn van een criminele organisatie blijkt uit het Handvest van de Verenigde Naties omdat private militante huurlingen organisaties die opereren in eigen- of andere landen, door de VN verboden zijn.

 Source: http://www.gewoon-nieuws.nl/2013/09/monsanto-bezit-bezit-leger-van-tienduizenden-huurlingen-2/#.UjHE2cbIbK0

Einde voor Monsanto bij verplichte etikettering GMO producten

Geheim handelspact TPP

Monsanto is samen met de regering Obama in het diepste geheim bezig met het oprichten van een handelspact die geheel buiten de wet om landen moet afdwingen om de etikettering van genetisch gemanipuleerde producten te verbieden. Het handelspact heeft de naam “Trans Pacific Partnership” (TPP). Details van het TPP worden zo geheim gehouden dat het de leden van het Congres niet is toegestaan om ze openbaar te maken. of zelfs maar te bespreken. Alles wat er bekend is over het TPP is afkomstig van lekken.
Meer dan zeshonderd CEO’s van multinationals, waaronder CEO’s van bedrijven die herhaaldelijk schuldig zijn bevonden aan financiële misdaden in Amerika hebben toestemming om de details van de TPP overeenkomst te beïnvloeden. Monsanto en Big Pharma-bedrijven hebben een top positie wat betreft de invloed die zij uitoefenen in dit super geheime overleg met de Obama-regering. Op deze geniepige wijze wordt geprobeerd de toekomst van de wereld in de handen te leggen van de meest kwaadaardige bedrijven aller tijden.

Weerstand tegen GMO-producten

Leden van TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership)

De strijd over etikettering van GMO-producten is van levensbelang voor Monsanto omdat wereldwijd gebleken is dat de mensen niets met hun gemanipuleerde rotzooi te maken willen hebben. Wanneer internationale regelgeving het verplicht maakt dat op de producten vermeld moet worden dat deze genetisch gemanipuleerd zijn zal dit een zeker einde voor Monsanto en andere manipulators worden.

De landen die momenteel betrokken zijn bij de TPP zijn: Verenigde Staten , Australië , Brunei , Canada , Chili , Japan , Maleisië , Mexico , Nieuw Zeeland , Peru , Singapore en Vietnam. Bij idere gelegenheid die zich voordoet wordt op de nog niet aangesloten landen druk (chantage) uitgevoerd om zich erbij aan te sluiten. Landen die het TPP ondertekenen verklaren zich akkoord dat GMO’s mogen worden gekweekt in hun land en er een verbod komt op etikettering van GMO-producten.

Voor ons is het van levensbelang om er voor te zorgen dat dit misdadige TPP handelspact er wat betreft Europa niet doorheen komt, maar wees op je hoede want ook Europese politici zijn ons vertrouwen niet waard.

Bron: NaturalNews

Mijn bron: http://www.gewoon-nieuws.nl/2013/09/einde-voor-monsanto-bij-verplichte-etikettering-gmo-producten/#.Ui38Ev85NUk.facebook

Advantame gaat aspartaam vervangen

Steeds meer mensen zijn op de hoogte van de vermeende bijwerkingen van Aspartaam. De grote bedrijven voelen dat in hun portemonnee en zijn telkens op zoek naar nieuwe zoetstoffen. Wij presenteren u het antwoord op obesitas: Advantame.

Gisteravond ging bij mij de telefoon. Ron Fonteine van Leefbewust.com had ontdekt dat er deze week een nieuwe zoetstof in de EU is goedgekeurd: Advantame. In Nederland zal men op de etiketten vermoedelijk over Advantaam gaan spreken. Net nu de bouwvak is begonnen en heel Nederland in het buitenland vakantie viert, proberen de machthebbers ongemerkt deze nieuwe super-aspartaam erdoorheen te drukken. Ooit was aspartaam het antwoord op obesitas, maar we zijn dikker dan ooit.
Ajinomoto
De ontwikkelaar van Advantame is Ajinomoto. Ajinomoto is een Japans bedrijf en heeft 40% van de aspartaammarkt in handen. Ajinomoto produceert voor ons ook de smaakversterker E621, oftewel monosodiumglutamaat (MSG). Het bedrijf produceert zoveel MSG voor de wereldwijde markt dat Ajinomoto een synoniem is geworden voor smaakversterkers. Naast smaakversterkers produceert dit bedrijf ook medicijnen. We hebben hier dus gewoon te maken met Big Pharma. Mochten mensen linksom ziek worden van Aspartaam, dan hebben ze daar rechtsom wel weer een medicijn voor. Ajinomoto bestaat al langer dan 100 jaar^*1 en heeft er 10 jaar over gedaan om Advantame te ontwikkelen. Het bedrijf is actief in ruim 100 landen en heeft meer dan 24.000 mensen in dienst.

Ajinomoto schroomt niet om zich te bedienen van onzuivere praktijken

• Begin jaren ’90 was het lid van een kartel rondom de prijs van Lysine^*2
• In 2001 bleek dat hun vegetarische MSG gemaakt was door varkenenzymen^*3
• Medio 2000 kochten ze de rechten op aspartaam van Monsanto^*4

Het bedrijf heeft een stevige voet aan de grond in Amerika en daarom ook nauwe banden met Monsanto. Ajinomoto geeft aspartaam regelmatig een andere naam om de consument op het verkeerde been te zetten, zo heette aspartaam eerst NutraSweet en toen opeens neotaam. De argeloze consument heeft geen idee meer wat ie in z’n mond stopt.


Advantame
Inmiddels zijn alle veiligheidstesten rondom deze nieuwe zoetstof met succes doorlopen en krijgt deze zoetstof groenlicht van de EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), in navolging van de Australische en Nieuw-Zeelandse FSANZ (Food Standards Agency of Australia and New Zealand). In Amerika loopt de procedure sinds april 2009 bij de FDA (the US Food and Drug Administration) en goedkeuring zal vermoedelijk spoedig volgen. Elk moment kunnen we nu producten verwachten die gezoet zijn met deze super-aspartaam. Wat mij stoort is dat de uitvinder zelf betrokken is geweest bij de onderzoeken naar de veiligheid van deze zoetstof^*5. Dit heeft wat mij betreft een hoog ‘Wij van WC-eend, adviseren WC-eend’-gehalte. Zelfs als de onderzoeken door een onafhankelijke partij extern zouden zijn uitgevoerd, dan zijn enkele maanden nog te kort om de schadelijke effecten op de lange termijn vast te stellen. Bij labratten is officieel de schadelijkheid van aspartaam nooit vastgesteld, maar tegenstanders beweren dat een testperiode van 2 maanden te kort is om de tumoren vast te kunnen stellen. Er schijnen meer dan 50 onderzoeken gedaan te zijn naar dit middel, maar om één of andere reden zijn er maar weinig gepubliceerd. Zorgwekkend.

Feiten over Advantame

• Is verwant aan aspartaam^*6
• Bevat vanilline i.c.m. aspartaam^*6
• 20.000 keer zoeter dan suiker^*7
• 100 keer zoeter dan aspartaam^*7
• Bevat residuen van de katalysatoren platinum en palladium^*8
• Veilig volgens de ESFA^*8

Boze broertje van Aspartaam
Chemisch is Advantame onder meer gebaseerd op een aminozuur uit vanille. Technisch gezien is dit zoetmiddel een derivaat van Aspartaam, dat wil zeggen dat het een afgeleide stof is. Aspartaam is zeer discutabel en wordt door velen een neurotoxine genoemd dat kanker kan aanjagen omdat deze onnatuurlijke stoffen in dit zoetmiddel niet door het lichaam afgebroken zouden kunnen worden. Ajinomoto heeft in 2000 het recht op Aspartaam van Monsanto gekocht voor slechts $67.000.000. Dat zijn geen kinderachtige bedragen die schuilgaan achter de zoetstoffen. Waar geld is, is macht. De jaarlijkse omzet van Ajinomoto is bijna 10 miljard.
Wees gewaarschuwd en blijf verre van de zoetstof Advantame!
Bronnen

1. Ajinomoto: about us
2. De Commissie legt geldboetes op aan ADM, Ajinomoto en andere ondernemingen die een kartel in de lysinesector hadden gevormd
3. INDONESIA: International outrage over Ajinomoto’s use of pork enzyme in halal food escalates
4. Sweetner sale
5. Advantame–an overview of the toxicity data.
6. Facts About Advantame
7. Advantame – The Calorie Control Council
8. Scientific Opinion on the safety of advantame for the proposed uses as a food additive

Meer informatie
AJINOMOTO, ASPARTAME & BRAIN TUMORS: RECIPE FOR DEATH!
New Mexico Senate President Sides with Artificial Sweetener Maker “Ajinomoto”
UK Supermarket Chain Bans Aspartame From Own-Label Products; Japanese Manufacturer Ajinomoto Sues!

Bron: http://www.ahealthylife.nl/advantame-gaat-aspartaam-vervangen/

Amerikaanse overheid verbiedt moestuintje van 4-jarig meisje

VS begint op Sovjet Unie te lijken

Het lijkt erop dat de Verenigde Staten van Amerika, het ‘thuisland van de vrijheid’ iedere dag meer en meer op de voormalige communistische Sovjet Unie beginnen te lijken, waar het verboden was om je eigen voedsel te verbouwen, tenzij het door de staat werd toegestaan.

In de jongste aanval van de Amerikaanse overheid op haar burgers heeft het agentschap van de USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) een verbod uitgevaardigd aan Rosie, een ijverig 4-jarig meisje uit Zuid-Dakota, om op een ongebruikt stukje grond naast haar gesubsidieerde wooneenheid, groente te verbouwen.

Rosie’s moeder is alleenstaand en ernstig gehandicapt. Zij en haar dochtertje moeten leven van een gehandicapteninkomen van $ 628,- per maand. In de tuin pal achter hun achterdeur zorgt Rosie liefdevol voor de groei van een klein aantal groenten die een verse en gezonde aanvulling zijn op hun dieet die zij zich op een andere wijze niet makkelijk kunnen veroorloven. Rosie begon haar tuintje mei 2013, maar nu heeft de beheerder van het onroerend goed bedrijf opdracht gegeven om het tuintje te verwijderen.

Landschapsarchitectuur

Als reden wordt opgegeven dat tuinieren tegen de regels ingaat van de plattelandsontwikkeling van het agentschap, de USDA. Deze verbiedt de bewoners om structuren van weke aard dan ook, te veranderen in aangelegde gebieden. Het argument dat het kweken van groenten door de meest behoeftigen van de Amerikaanse samenleving voorrang zou moeten krijgen boven landschapsarchitectuur, werd als niet ter zake doende opzijgeschoven.

 

Bron: http://www.gewoon-nieuws.nl/2013/08/amerikaanse-overheid-verbiedt-moestuintje-van-4-jarig-meisje/

European Patent Office grants Monsanto patent on natural broccoli seeds, florets

(NaturalNews) Monsanto's efforts to usher genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) into the European Union (EU) have been largely stagnant in recent years, so the multinational corporation and others in the industry are taking a new and more evil approach to gain more market control. According to a recent announcement put forth by the human rights advocacy group No Patents on Seeds!, the European Patent Office (EPO) is now granting biotechnology companies patents on all-natural crops such as broccoli, which was recently handed over as private property to Monsanto. Exploiting an egregious loophole in European patent law, Monsanto and others have been feverishly filing for patents on all sorts of natural crops, presumably in response to widespread resistance by members of the European public to its GMO offerings. Most recently, EPO granted Monsanto a patent on conventionally-bred broccoli, which includes not only broccoli seeds but also the "severed broccoli head" and the "plurality of broccoli plants ... grown in a field of broccoli" - in other words, broccoli in all of its natural forms. Though vehemently opposed by the European Parliament, EPO's decision to legitimize private ownership of nature - in this case broccoli - is apparently becoming the norm throughout Europe. Since the biotechnology industry has failed at replacing nature with its own "Frankencrops" throughout Europe, it has set its sights on seizing ownership of nature itself by claiming patents on it. And unless the people step up to forcibly stop this, using whatever means necessary, then these crimes against humanity will only continue. "We are calling for broad support of our opposition against the patent on 'severed broccoli'," said Christoph Then from the group No Patents on Seeds! recently. No Patents on Seeds! has formed a petition in opposition to patents on natural crops that recently topped two million signatures, and the group is joined by a cohort of other environmental advocacy and health freedom groups throughout Europe in its efforts. "We intend to send a clear signal that we will not let our food be monopolized." You can access this petition here: http://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org Monsanto also pushing for ownership of life in America as well No Patents on Seeds! is joined by Bionext (Netherlands), The Berne Declaration (Switzerland), GeneWatch (UK), Greenpeace (Germany), Misereor (Germany), Development Fund (Norway), No Patents on Life (Germany), Rete Semi Rurali (Italy), Reseau Semences Paysannes (France), and Swissaid (Switzerland) in calling on European politicians to assume control over EPO for the purpose of amending the patent loophole. "All the organizations involved are also making demands on European politicians," explains No Patents on Seeds!. "They are urging them to take over control of the EPO in order to change the interpretation of the current patent law through the Administrative Council of the EPO, which is the assembly of the Member States." The group Avaaz.org has also created its own petition to stop Monsanto from patenting natural organisms in Europe, which you can sign here: http://www.avaaz.org/en/monsanto_vs_mother_earth_twb/?tysEsab Back in the U.S., Monsanto is busy pushing for similar patents on the elements of life. As reported by the Los Angeles Times (LAT), Monsanto will soon try to convince the Supreme Court to allow it to patent future generations of seeds that naturally reproduce from GM strains. If the company gets its way, a new precedent will be set in the U.S. for corporations to assume patent control over natural life forms. "The case is a remarkable reflection on recent fundamental changes in farming. In the 200-plus years since the founding of this country, and for millenniums before that, seeds have been part of the public domain - available for farmers to exchange, save, modify through plant breeding and replant," explains the NYT. "But today this history of seeds is seemingly forgotten in light of a patent system that, since the mid-1980s, has allowed corporations to own products of life."

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/041014_Monsanto_seed_patents_GMOs.html#ixzz2aQkDpyrU