July 12, 2011
Fake food safety, FAO, FDA, food illnesses, food RFID, food safety, herbicides, hormones, Marti Oakley, Nanotechnology, pesticides, PPJG, USDA, vaccines, WHO
Marti Oakley (c)copyright 2011 All Rights Reserved
Noting “certain food-related ailments” this committee failed to ask the most obvious and relevant question:
If these ailments are a result of the food we are eating…..what is the underlying problem with the food? And why would finding a remedy for this increase in possibly deadly ailments include further contamination and adulteration of the food supply with nano-chips?
I had come across an article in the Dairy Reporter last year, about the coming plans to insert nano-technology into food. In the article from DR: Nanotechnology in food: What’s the big idea? By Caroline Scott-Thomas, 26-Jul-2010 this observation was made:
“At IFT’s nanoscience conference last week, major industry players discussed how to avoid a rerun of the GMO debacle with consumers – with some saying that one solution could be to say nothing about introducing nanotechnology in foods and to do it anyway.”
We all have enough experience with today’s bio-pirates who are openly colluding with the USDA, FDA and anyone else in government, like “Dirty Harry” Reid NV (D), who single-handedly and unanimously cast the one vote needed to pass the fake food safety bill, to know that food safety and longer shelf life is most likely not what this technology is actually intended to do. As it is, most products on the shelves of stores now are so chemically laden and contain so much gmo that I doubt spoilage is an option. After all….can chemicals, pesticides and herbicides actually rot? More
July 8, 2011
Agenda 21, FARMING & FOOD
biodiversity, climate cahnge, FAO, land degradation, land rights, livestock, ranching, united nations, USDA, water rights
Debbie Coffey Copyright 2011 All Rights Reserved.
“By restricting access to grazing land, for example, land and related feed resources become relatively scarce, so technical change will move towards making more efficient use of these resources…The same applies to all other natural resources that feed into the livestock production process, such as water or nutrients.
In 2006, the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and Livestock Environment and Development (LEAD), supported by US AID and the World Bank, put out a 416 page report titled “Livestock’s Long Shadow.” Statements made in this document should make American ranchers and farmers look for the United Nation’s long shadow over their land and water.
We’ll start off with some points the FAO made in the report, then some of their solutions (which, by the way, seem a lot like communism). Then I’ll tell you why I think this report is, pardon the pun, bullshit.
THIS FAO REPORT STATES: More
October 4, 2010
GMO, united nations
Amy Goldman, FAO, genetic preservation, global crop diversity, heirloom seeds, Kent Wheatly, seed savers, Svalbard seed vault, united nations
Speech delivered by Kent Whealy regarding the theft of heirloom seeds, the results of many years of heirloom seed saving, now deposited into the Svalbard Seed vault and controlled now by the FAO. This collection was the former Seed-savers Exchange.
Goldman and Fowler are being dishonest – to Seed Savers’ Members and in the avalanche of self-promotion from the Global Crop Diversity Trust, the entity that oversees Svalbard – by concealing the fact that being deposited in Svalbard places Seed Savers Members’ Seed Collection under the control of the United Nations’ FAO Treaty, which was specifically designed to facilitate access by corporate breeders.
September 22, 2010
CODEX, eugenics, HEALTH
Barbara H Peterson, CDC, Codex Alimentarius, Executive Orders, FAO, FDA, food, FSIS, genocide, International Health regulations, mandatory compliance, NHF, nutricide, NWO, u.n., USDA, WTO
By Barbara H. Peterson
Codex Isn’t Coming, It’s Here!
Why is there so much denial by consumer advocate groups such as the National Health Federation(1) (NHF) about Barry Soetoro implementing the U.S. Codex council via Executive Order(2)? What is it that they don’t want you to see? Just do the research, and you will discover that we have been up to our eyeballs in Codex since 1962 and don’t even know it.
Codex is a subsidiary body of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations and the World Health Organization (WHO). Codex develops international food safety and quality standards, such as standards concerning the safety of food additives. Standards set by Codex traditionally served as a minimum floor for less developed countries. The U.S. has participated in Codex since its formation in 1962 and has shared its technical expertise in efforts to aid less developed countries.
We are being lulled into complacency with declarations that Codex isn’t here yet, not to worry, while the elephant in the room is getting bigger all the time. Here is a quote from an article posted on the NHF site:
While the Executive Order is real, it is not imposing Codex rules on the United States. As NHF lobbyist Lee Bechtel correctly points out, “There is no direct policy link between this Council and Codex, or with the way in which the FDA regulates food and food supplements More
August 30, 2010
Africa, agriculture, FAO, Food crisis, global farmland grab, Gulf states, united nations, World Bank
Guardian News & Media (Johannesburg) | Aug 27 2010
If dodgy emails offering millions in return for your down payment to repatriate a stranded Nigerian astronaut do not tempt you, then maybe this will appeal to your speculative side — a hectare of fertile African land on a 99-year lease — for $1 a year.
Think about it: crop prices are soaring, land is appreciating and importdependent rich nations almost guarantee you a never-ending export market. It’s starting to sound like that Nigerian astronaut deal. But this is not a scam.
Sadly, for anyone who happens to live on that farmland, there are countless examples of African governments handing it over at bargain prices to foreign investors, ranging from hedge funds to biofuel producers. Critics call it land grabbing.
The trend of buying or taking out long-term leases on land first came to prominence during the 2008 world food crisis. As food riots raged across the world, speculators and countries with their own food-security fears quietly sealed deals with African nations. Others call it neocolonialism. More
May 5, 2010
FAO, GMO, gmo maize, GRAIN, land theft, MAIZE, Monsanto, seed saving, seeds
Between 28 February and 3 March 2010, the Network for the Defence of Maize, the National Assembly of Environmentally Affected People and Vía Campesina–North America held an independent public hearing in Guadalajara, Mexico. The objective was to bring together the evidence and to elaborate the arguments for starting proceedings in international courts of justice against the Mexican government for deliberately permitting the introduction into the country of genetically modified maize. Mexico is where maize originated, thousands of years ago, and where today more than 1,500 native varieties grow, evolve, and are bred. The cultivation of these varieties is governed by a complex interaction of not only social relations, profound knowledge and trust, but also community resistance.
Ten years ago, Mexico’s government began to distribute large quantities of GM maize seeds in the countryside, in an illegal, undercover operation, and native maize in different regions began to be contaminated. In response, indigenous and peasant communities from many regions formed the Network for the Defence of Maize (Red en Defensa del Maíz). They exchanged local knowledge and experience, and decided to ban the introduction of GM maize in their regions. The network was a space where they could share views, and they became more convinced than ever that the best way of protecting maize was by growing it.
For these communities, agriculture is not a commercial activity but a way of caring for the planet through continuous work. Growing their own food is not only a way of understanding the complex relations between winds, water, forests, other crops, animals and soils but also of protecting human life and promoting justice. Only then can communities be sure that the diversity of maize will not be lost and that the natural and social fabric of relations that lie behind maize will not be weakened.
The decision to hold a first public hearing to make an international case against the Mexican government and the major corporations involved in GM agriculture and food stemmed from the perception that the Mexican judicial system is completely closed or corrupt, or both. Over the last decade the Mexican government has approved a set of reforms and laws to privatise, register, certify or ban what were once commons – water, forests, seeds, biodiversity. It has encouraged intellectual property rights through patents and other legal devices and supported the introduction of GM crops. These laws have created a huge new space for the big corporations to manoeuvre at large but restricted yet further the already limited legal space available to common people. The three most damaging measures have been: the land counter-reform that permits the privatisation of public or communal land; the approval of NAFTA, which provides the big corporations with a totally different set of rules with which to advance their interests; and the refusal to acknowledge indigenous rights in the Constitution. More
November 19, 2009
Food Safety, GRAIN
biotechnology, famine, FAO, farmers, farmland, food security, food supply, global land grab, GRAIN.org, land, land grab, ranchers, starvation, structural adjustments
Rome, 16 November 2009
“The question we should be asking is not “How do we make these investments work?” It is “What farming and food systems will feed people without making them sick, keep farmers on the farm instead of the city slums, and allow communities to prosper and thrive?”
For over a year a half now, we have been watching carefully how investors are trying to take control of farmland in Asia, Africa and Latin America as a response to the food and financial crises. In the beginning, during the early months of 2008, they talked about getting these lands for “food security”, their food security. Gulf State officials began flying around the globe looking for large areas of cultivable land that they could acquire to grow rice to feed their burgeoning populations without relying on international trade. So too were Koreans, Libyans, Egyptians and others. In most of these talks, high-level government representatives were directly involved, peddling new packages of political, economic and financial cooperation with agricultural land transactions smack in the centre. More