Germany Initiates Move to Ban GMO Crops

Germany starts move to ban GMO crops: ministry letter

August 24, 2015

Reuters - Germany has initiated a move to stop the growing of genetically modified crops under new European Union rules, documents seen by Reuters showed on Monday.

German Agriculture Minister Christian Schmidt has informed German state governments of his intention to tell the EU that Germany will make use of new "opt-out" rules to stop GMO crop cultivation even if varieties have been approved by the EU, a letter from the agriculture ministry seen by Reuters shows.

A new EU law approved in March cleared the way for new GMO crops to be approved after years of previous deadlock. But the law also gave individual countries the right to opt out by banning GMO crops even after they have been approved as safe by the European Commission.

Widely-grown in the Americas and Asia, GMO crops have divided opinion in Europe. Britain is among those in favor of them, while France and Germany are among those opposed.

Previously, when the EU approved crops as safe to produce they had to be permitted for cultivation in all EU states.

In the letter, the ministry stressed that Schmidt is continuing a previously-announced policy to keep a ban on GMOs in Germany.

Under the new EU rules, countries have until Oct. 3, 2015, to inform the Commission that they wish to opt out of new EU GMO cultivation approvals, the ministry letter said.

Schmidt has asked German state authorities to say by Sept. 11 whether their region should be included in the opt-out, the letter said.

Michigan Delegates That It is Legal for Local Governments to Create and Enforce Ordinances Banning Farm Animals from Residential Zones

Michigan Bans Animals On Small Farms?

Governments could ban goats, chickens and even bee hives on properties where there are 13 homes within an eighth of a mile of a livestock property or another home within 250 feet of the property, under the Commission’s ruling. Eighty percent or more of the state lives in non-rural, non-agricultural zoned areas. What was NOT stated at the hearings was the fact that your livestock facility must setback off the road 1500 feet -- this is written in the body of the GAAMP. Also, your own house may or may not count as one of the 13 houses.

May 9, 2014

Off the Grid News - Many Michigan residents will lose their right to keep livestock on their own property due to a new ruling from the state’s Commission of Agriculture and Rural Development.

The Commission ruled April 28 that local governments have the right to ban livestock from any area zoned residential in the state.

The action will “effectively remove Right to Farm Act protection for many urban and suburban backyard farmers raising small numbers of animals,” Gail Philbin of the Michigan Sierra Club told Michigan Live. The Right to Farm Act is a state law designed to protect farmers from nuisance lawsuits and zoning regulations. The Commission ruled that the Right to Farm (RTF) Act does not apply to homeowners who keep small numbers of livestock.

“It’s all ‘Big Farm,’ and it’s ‘Big Farm’ deciding against the little farm,” Kim White, who raises chickens and rabbits, said of the Commission’s vote. “They don’t want us little guys feeding ourselves. They want us to go all to the big farms. They want to do away with small farms and I believe that is what’s motivating it.”
“The Commission is essentially taking sides in the marketplace,” Philbin said.

Bees, Chickens and Goats Now Illegal?

Governments could ban goats, chickens and even bee hives on properties where there are 13 homes within an eighth of a mile of a livestock property or another home within 250 feet of the property, under the Commission’s ruling, Michigan Public Radio reported.

“I believe we have over 100 communities in Michigan who have ordinances on the books against chickens and bees and other things, and they will be able to continue to move forward with those,” Jamie Clover Adams, the director of Michigan’s Department and Rural Development, told Michigan Radio.

The rationale for the Commission’s action is that officials are afraid there would be political pressure to repeal the Right to Farm to Act in order to stop backyard farming, Michigan Radio reported.

Opponents of the rule change have not laid out a course of action yet, although some backyard farmers are considering a legal challenge. Other possible courses of action include legislation in the state legislature and a ballot initiative.

Regulatory Limbo 

Some homesteaders in Michigan could find themselves in a complete regulatory limbo because of the Commission’s action. Blogger, writer and organic farmer Michelle Regalado Deatrick does not know if she’ll be able to keep her livestock, because about half of her 80-acre farm may not be zoned for farm animals.

“We’re building up a mixed production farm, planning to farm during retirement, and we have a permit in hand for a livestock facility,” Deatrick said, “but have waited with building until we were sure of what the GAAMP changes would be. Now we’re having to reconsider our business plans and may sell the farm and buy a farm in a more rural area with definite [Right To Farm] protection, or move to another state that’s more welcoming and protective of small farm rights.”

GAAMP refers to the Generally Accepted Agricultural and Management Practices, a set of guidelines put out by the state of Michigan. The current GAAMP designates many small farms as Category 3 lands where livestock might not be allowed.

“Category 3 sites may be zoned for agriculture, but are generally not suitable for livestock production facilities,” the GAAMP states. “They may be suitable for livestock facilities with less than 50 animal units.”

Another problem is that local governments in Michigan are under no obligation to follow the GAAMP. It is simply a set of guidelines.

Michigan is one of several areas where property owners have had to fight for the right to raise food on their own land. Off the Grid News has reported that property owners in Florida and Quebec have been barred from planting vegetable gardens.

Comments from OffTheGridNews:

"Farms now exist on the whim of a local ordinance.Perhaps a bigger impact this change has is that it reduces (eliminates) the state oversight of the largest agriculture processors, CAFOs. CAFOs are now “self-certifying” for compliance to state and federal rules.The Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD) clearly support only corporate agriculture. The director of MDARD has been openly hostile towards the small farmer while at the same time travelling the country and world to promote Michigan Ag. MDARD wants to sell product in China while denying local access to healthy food. Most ironically is that small farming in Michigan is now potentially illegal (criminal) just as the USDA is promoting small farming for local food sourcing under the Farm Bill." - Randy Zeilinger, OffTheGridNews, May 3, 2014

"Fight against the underlying problem…the main problem…the cause of all this nonsense. FIGHT AGENDA 21. Agenda 21 being purposed by the United Nations will take all our freedoms, our land, our rights. They will force us all to give up our properties, and move to metropolis areas to live and work. No personal transportation other than bicycles and your feet. The only people that will live outside the metropolis areas will be the farmers growing our food [on corporate-owed farms]. Everything else will be contained within the metropolis and have to abide by their rules/regulations/government. They work disguised by sustainable/green cloak. They are working thru local governments in underhanded and deceptive manner. All our presidents from 1962 to present have signed on to their plan. If you don’t believe me…look it up on the net…I HATE AGENDA 21 AND WILL DO ALL I CAN TO STOP IT." - Agenda Hater, OffTheGridNews, May 3, 2014

"This is all part of Agenda 21′s ICLEI program. Many states, governors, mayors and municipalities have signed off on this treasonous program. The ones that have are being paid well to do so. This program basically sells out the Constitution in lieu of it’s own Charters and resolutions. This is a United Nations program. The “new world order” everyone’s been gossiping about–this is IT! Read through the law fast and get ready to protest because pretty soon, we’ll lose our rights to everything AND lose our land. Part of this program’s ultimate goal is to ‘stack and pack’ people into tightly grouped high-rise city settlements and BAN people from the majority of the land in the USA claiming it for ‘sustainability.’ Dictating what people can and can’t do on their land is only the beginning!" - EFHerne, Off the Grid News, May 3, 2014

"I live in Michigan and we had a right to have small farms with small animals like chickens, goats, rabbits, and to sell eggs, etc. there can no longer be any bee keepers either. We no longer have that right if there is 13 houses within 1/8 of a mile OR 250 feet from your property line. I agree with the 13 houses ruling but the 250 feet from the property line will hurt a lot of people. That includes property on each side of them, behind them, and across the road. Now my question is: Shouldn’t there should also be a ban on dogs? I mean, they make a barking noise and poop in everyone’s yards!! So what is the difference?? Is this law only because you are providing for your family food to eat and have an outside small building. WAIT UNTIL GOVERNMENT SAYS YOU CAN NO LONGER HAVE A GARDEN EITHER!! You can be sure that is next. Oh, ya, and nobody can have a septic system in the country either. So everybody has to give their home and property to the government and move to the city!! You folks need to read up on the UN Agenda 21 World government Agenda." - Stand 4 right, OffTheGridNews, May 6, 2014

"You need to worry just a tad. this isnt’ happening only in MI, it is happening across the nation. IF they control the guns, you can’t fight back, IF they control the healthcare, you can die, and IF they control the food source, you will be in deep straights. Now this is not a conspiracy theory, check what is happening with AGENDA 21…….the UN’s plan for globalization. Check to see what is happening with ‘the new world order plans……..connect the dots……..there is much to be aware of. And it has nothing to do with what you think………don’t panic get busy and write to your congressman, representative and use your voice." - becky, OffTheGridNews, May 5, 2014

"The Right to Farm Act was designed to prevent new suburbanites living next door to pre-existing farmers in areas where the suburbs grew up around the farm from complaining about the sounds and smells of their food supply living next door. If you move to the country, expect it to look and sound and smell like the country or go elsewhere. It really had nothing to do with the urban areas where people wanted to take their double lot and raise chickens and have a goat (it’s usually against zoning laws). But those 'urban homesteaders' saw the Right to Farm Bill as a means to protect them. If these changes are going to leave the authentic small farmers whose farms predated the surrounding area’s development back where they were, without protection from idiot new suburbanite neighbors and wealthy developers, then those changes need to be cancelled." - Betterhave, OffTheGridNews, May 5, 2014

"It is unfortunate that most people, whether they live in town or out in the country, are all being made to conform to a standard because a hand full of others decide to complain. If you read the rules that have just been passed, you’ll notice that this affects anyone who is zoned residential. Mind you, I live out in the country on a dirt road, bordered on three sides by vast farmed fields. I have one neighbor across the road who owns 15 acres that is farmed as well as a neighbor about a half a mile away that lives on a 30 acre plot. But, because our zoning has been changed to residential recently (and very quietly as no one was notified that this was happening), none of us will have the ability to own even one chicken if these new rules are enforced. If the complainers are allowed to run the show, if law makers run scared of these complainers, and if big agri-business is wiling to throw a bunch of money into the ring to ensure that we are all forced into buying food from them, well, law hasn’t improved our lives, but worsened it beyond repair. There are going to be a lot of people blindsided by this ruling who have lived for many years with the family pet horse, small flock of sheep kept for hand spinning purposes, goats kept for milking, or chickens kept for eggs that will be affected by all of this foolishness as the zoning is changed to conform to someone’s warped sense of controlling the masses. If rules must be put into place to control farming practices for people who live in town or suburban areas, please change the law to focus ONLY on these areas and not the entire State of Michigan.For those of you who do complain over the noisy rooster next door or a stinky manure pile, you have the ability to move away from the noise or the smell much easier than the farm can move the animals, buildings, fencing, equipment, manure compost facilities, etc." - Mousehunter, OffTheGridNews, May 2, 2014

"Let’s do math. There are 5,280 feet in a mile. That means one eighth of a mile is 660 feet – but it would be a square 1/8 of a mile, so 660×660 = 435,600 square feet. There are 43,560 square feet in an acre, so that would be 13 houses spread out over 10 acres. That is not urban. That is 3/4 acre lots – this is suburban type zoning – but here in NJ that would be the ex-burbs. Most suburban NJ communities allow 3 or 4 chickens at the most on a lot that size (no roosters), with 2 acres in many places being required for livestock (like one horse). You can easily have 4 hives (my main business) on 1/4 acre. Many NJ communities have NO regulations regarding animals on private property. So I regard this ruling as being extremely restricting. NJ is actually going in the reverse direction right now – we are the most densely populated state in the USA, but the NJ legislature is expanding right-to-farm." - Leeann, OffTheGridNews, May 2, 2014

"The price of freedom, aside from the greatest sacrifice of lives, is that a neighbor may exercise it in a way that you don’t like. If you can’t own animals on your property you don’t own the land. If you can’t own the land you don’t have freedom. I remember when the Michigan Right to Farm Act was passed. It was passed in response to municipalities growing, suburbia encroaching in on what was farm land and the yuppies that wanted to escape urban blight didn’t like the sound and smell of some farms. The farms were there first, however. I have 2 acres in a city. It’s been in my family for over 40 years. It’s been literal hell to just try to live there. The city has done everything from making me get rid of a tractor or else pour a cement slab for it with a rat wall to mowing down sunflowers, calling them noxious weeds, and the charging me to do it. Do you want freedom or not? If you don’t, you’re an idiot and need to go back to whatever rock you crawled out from under. Go back to living with someone’s foot on your throat." - William Wallace, OffTheGridNews, May 3, 2014

Republican Congressman from Kansas Sponsors Bill to Block Mandatory GMO Food Labeling by States

"Somehow a handful of giant corporations have taken control of our food supply and away from the American fFarmers. If you thing these giant corporations have your health at the forefront of their best interests, you are a blind fool. On another note, I find it highly ironic and a huge red flag of the bowing down to lobbyists and big money, that a congressman from America's Heartland, where many people rely on farming as income, has decided to cater to these large corporations that bully farmers. It is disgusting to even think about. And it's not just localized to our agriculture. Just about every industry has been boiled down to just a handful of massive parent companies, and that is very bad for a capitalist economy. Competition cannot govern the market if there is no competition to be seen." - Rex Kramer, Danger Seeker, Yahoo!

"I'll bet the GOP stands to lose a lot of lobbyist bribe money if they can't prevent the labelling from becoming law. Of course, whenever anything Monsanto does is taken to the Supreme Court, it helps that they've got a former employee serving on the bench. Isn't that right Clarence?" - Half-Evil D, Yahoo!

For those who don't know: when you buy fruits and veggies, there are numbers on them... for GMO, it'll be a number normally starting with a 4 and will be like 4102 and such, and normally always 4 digits; for organic, it'll be a number starting always with a 9 and will be like 91803 and such, and normally always 5 digits.

Organic products have strict production and labeling requirements so why shouldn't GMOs? In the US, the Secretary of Agriculture promulgated regulations establishing the National Organic Program (NOP). The final rule was published in the Federal Register in 2000. It restricts the use of the term "organic" to certified organic producers (excepting growers selling under $5,000 a year, who must still comply and submit to a records audit if requested, but do not have to formally apply).

U.S. bill seeks to block mandatory GMO food labeling by states

The bill, dubbed the "Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act" was drafted by U.S. Rep. Mike Pompeo from Kansas, and is aimed at overriding bills in roughly two dozen states that would require foods made with genetically engineered crops to be labeled as such. Headline should read "Congressman from Kansas gets big paycheck from food industry to keep you from knowing what you are eating."

April 9, 2014

Reuters - A Republican congressman from Kansas introduced legislation on Wednesday that would nullify efforts in multiple states to require labeling of genetically modified foods.

The bill, dubbed the "Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act" was drafted by U.S. Rep. Mike Pompeo from Kansas, and is aimed at overriding bills in roughly two dozen states that would require foods made with genetically engineered crops to be labeled as such.

The bill specifically prohibits any mandatory labeling of foods developed using bioengineering.

"We've got a number of states that are attempting to put together a patchwork quilt of food labeling requirements with respect to genetic modification of foods," said Pompeo. "That makes it enormously difficult to operate a food system. Some of the campaigns in some of these states aren't really to inform consumers but rather aimed at scaring them. What this bill attempts to do is set a standard."

Consumer groups have been arguing for labeling because of questions they have both about the safety for human health and the environmental impacts of genetically modified foods, also called GMOs.

Ballot measures in California in 2012 and last year in Washington state narrowly lost after GMO crop developers, including Monsanto Co., and members of the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) poured millions into campaigns to defeat the measures.

The companies say the crops are safe and cite many scientific studies back those claims. Pompeo on Wednesday reiterated those claims, stating GMOS are safe and "equally healthy" and no labeling is needed.

"It has to date made food safer and more abundant," said Pompeo. "It has been an enormous boon to all of humanity."

But there are also many scientific studies showing links to human and animal health problems, and many indicating environmental damage related to GMO crops.

Notably, millions of acres of U.S. farmland have developed weed resistance due to heavy use of crops that have been genetically altered to withstand dousings of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, and the subsequent heavy use of Roundup.

Pompei said he expects hearings on the bill sometime this summer. The measure would amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. One provision would make it mandatory for biotech crop developers to notify the Food and Drug Administration before it brings a new biotech seed to market and receives no objection from the FDA.

Currently, companies typically do notify the FDA and consult with the agency, but it is not mandatory for them to do so if the ingredients have been strictly separated from biotech crops, and if the company does not imply that its product is safer than foods containing GMOs, the bill states.

The measure requires the FDA to promulgate regulations that specify a maximum permissible level of inadvertent GMO presence that is allowed in foods bearing such non-GMO labeling.

Backers of mandatory labeling of foods made with genetically modified crops said that the bill is a sign that the GMA and biotech seed developers fear growing consumer distrust of GMO foods.

"They know that the food movement's power is growing and that labeling is not a matter of if but when." said Colin O'Neil, director of government affairs for the Center for Food Safety, a non-profit group that supports mandatory GMO labeling. They are afraid of state action and now they're trying to steal away consumer choice in Congress."

Comment by Focalizer at Yahoo!

A great many independent scientists and scientific groups composed of hundreds of members have catgorically called GMOs biological warfare and a danger greater than nuclear bombs. It has been proven to cause a great many human health risk and its' negative impact on the environment are well documented, as in the lose of 90% of the bee population which is essential for natural pollination. The Monarch butterfly migration has been reduced over 80% due to the lose of milkweed, due to the use of Roundup and a myriad of other herbicides and insectcides used in the production of GMO crops, which is their primary diet during migrations which pass through heavily contaminated GMO crop areas. Huge amounts of bird deaths can be attributed to these products and their production methods.

Currently 52 countries have outright banned or heavily limited experimentation of GMOs and those based upon both scientific studies and the wishes of the populous.

No valid study has shown improved crop production via GMOs and, in fact, in some cases, just the opposite. The simple fact of the matter is that biotech industries are seeking to control the worlds' primary food staples via sales of non-reproductive seed strains so that they are insured annual sales of the seed stocks. They have absolutely no concern for the impacts which their products have upon the human or other life forms, other than seemly trying to destroy them as they contribute to the natural food sources which are the competition. As such it is in fact biological warfare and in all wars the innocents (in this case against all species) suffer the most.

The GMO industries are a ticking time bomb that is and will affect this generation and many coming ones with its unnaturally modified organisms. The health of the planet, including our human species, is at serious risk by corporations with no moral scruples and an insidious drive for power.

Of course they do not wish that products containing ingredients which they produce be labeled so that the people are knowledgeable as to what they are consuming and its affects upon humanity and the natural world. Yet, as I pick up any packaged products, they all list their ingredients, from vitamin and mineral contents to artificial ingredients used in their production.

Why should not the people also know when GMO ingredients are included!!!??? It is our health, the health of our children and theirs. Indeed the health of the natural balances within nature that all life is dependent upon and which is essential for the existence of all species upon our home planet for millions-billions of years to come.

What are the biotech industries so afraid of? After all, it is nothing more than other products whose ingredients must be listed on packaged foods, medicines and beverages made for human and animal consumption. Why should they be above and outside of the consumer protection laws, rules and regulations? Why should we allow the mad scientists of the biotech industries to dictate what we should know and what we shouldn't? Why should humanity allow a close and closed circle to usurp the world's food supplies and dictate our diets and what we must consume. 

Of course Hitler and crew would love it, but we have sacrificed greatly to prevent such inhumanities from occurring and insist on our freedoms for that is what America was conceived to do since its founding.

When it comes to a Public Enemy List, the Biotechs should be placed high up on that list, if not at the very top. They are guilty of crimes against humanity and nature. And obviously they do not want the public to know.

Comment by Bramduff at Yahoo! 

The American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have opposed mandatory labeling of genetically modified food because they said there is no scientific evidence of harm. The AMA believes that even voluntary labeling is misleading unless accompanied by focused consumer education. The AAAS stated that mandatory labeling "can only serve to mislead and falsely alarm consumers".

[Labeling] efforts are not driven by evidence that GM foods are actually dangerous. Indeed, the science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe. Rather, these initiatives are driven by a variety of factors, ranging from the persistent perception that such foods are somehow “unnatural” and potentially dangerous to the desire to gain competitive advantage by legislating attachment of a label meant to alarm. Another misconception used as a rationale for labeling is that GM crops are untested.

However, the American Public Health Association, the British Medical Association and the Public Health Association of Australia support mandatory labeling of genetically engineered ingredients in food. The European Commission believes mandatory labeling and traceability are needed to allow for informed choice, preclude potential misleading of consumers and facilitate the withdrawal of products if adverse effects on health or the environment occur. The American College of Physicians, the Illinois Public Health Association, and the Indiana State Medical Association all state:

"lack of labeling denies health professionals the ability to trace potential toxic or allergic reactions to, and other adverse health effects from, genetically engineered food"

A 2007 study on the effect of labeling laws found that once labeling went into effect, few products contained genetically modified ingredients. Businesses stopped carrying products with ingredients that had been genetically modified. The study also found that costs were higher in food-exporting than in food-importing countries. Food exporters like the United States, Argentina, and Canada have adopted voluntary labeling approaches, while importers have generally adopted mandatory labeling.

Flashback: Obama Signs Food Safety Modernization Act into Law

December has turned out to be a very good month for the Bilderbergers. The Food Modernization Act was signed into law, a bipartisan committee is voting for austerity measures against the people under the pretext of deficit reduction, Obama signed into law the tax package to destroy Social Security, the world's mayors signed a pact (prior to the UN climate change summit in Cancun, Mexico) to tax carbon emissions, California approved the creation of a cap-and-trade system (hoping other states will follow), the FCC adopted 'net neutrality' rules as a justification to seize more power (and to put an end to free and open internet) and, four days before Christmas, the new START Treaty (a nuclear pact with Russia) cleared its last Senate hurdle before ratification.

Patriot Act for Food: A Close Look at Bizarre Propaganda for S.510

November 30, 2010

Food Freedom - Need a good laugh? Check out the bizarre reasoning offered in support of the Patriot Act for Food (S 510, the Food Safety Modernization Act), which the U.S. Senate will vote on shortly (likely Monday). From a need to stop food smuggling, to the law is too old, to the terrorists are gonna get us, elites sure are shy on brains when it comes to credible propaganda. They must be drinking fluoridated water and smoking Monsanto marijuana, or hoping you are.

A couple weeks ago, we reported that Senator Bob Casey informed his Pennsylvania constituents that S.510 will stop food smuggling in the United States. Never heard of the problem? That might be because the “biggest food smuggling case in the history of the U.S.” amounted to $40 million worth of commercial grade honey over a five-year period. Food smuggling is clearly not a problem -- nor is it a fiscally sound reason for giving the Food and Drug Administration an extra $1.6 billion.

Admittedly, no one is accusing U.S. elites of being fiscally sound -- just look at our rising unemployment, hunger, and home foreclosure rates. Clearly, food smuggling is just bizarre bunk that lazy propagandists invented out of thin air.

Next, the well-regarded Christian Science Monitor listed as the “strongest argument for the bill” -- get this -- because the law in place is too old. Nothing about whether or not the old law is effective, nothing about the tens of thousands of deaths the FDA causes each year by the drugs it allows on the market. No -- that very agency needs more power, more money, more authority over what’s on your table, according to S.510 supporters.

Here’s some more penetrating analysis by CSM:

Would SB 510 put America’s cornucopia under the control of a “globalist mafia” led by the World Trade Organization?

No. Some people have been concerned that the bill would give international groups more power over food matters in the US. The bill does state that the US will not knowingly break any existing agreements with the World Trade Organization, but it doesn’t cede any inspection or enforcement powers to international agencies.

Merely because the bill does not cede inspection or enforcement powers to foreign agents does not preclude domestic ones from inspection and enforcement authority. CSM’s response is absurd, as well as deceptive. The correct answer is YES, SB 510 puts US food under the control of the WTO. Read the section and decide for yourself:

SEC. 404. COMPLIANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS.

Nothing in this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) shall be construed in a manner inconsistent with the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization or any other treaty or international agreement to which the United States is a party.

Black is white; war is peace; and who are you going to believe: corporate media or your own ability to read plain English?

And, who is the enforcement agency for these agreements? Why, the DHS, otherwise known as the:

• Dept. of Homeland Stupidity -- you know, those folks who want to build a bioterrorism lab in the middle of Tornado Alley, where a huge bulk of the nation’s food is grown and raised (map here);


• Dept. of Heck-of-a-Job Security that miserably failed New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina and has again failed the Gulf of Mexico following the BP oil catastrophe this year;


• Dept. of Homeland Perversity that sexually molests children and adults who travel by air, that is collecting naked images of those who pass thru their carcinogenic body scanners, and which has not prevented a single terrorist from boarding a plane.

That’s who’s going to be in charge of protecting the US food supply. Feel safer?

This leads us to the latest absurdity emanating from the federal government: The terrorists are going to try to poison us. Like the “red menace” that was so effective a bogeyman in the last century, the Muslim “terrorist” is this century’s bogeyman. It’s just as overblown.

How are terrorists going to poison the food supply? Seriously, that might be accomplished in a centralized food system that is forced to adulterate natural foods because laws and rules have decreed it or allowed it -- like the FDA allowing BPA, fluoride, chlorine, pesticides -- all known poisons. Notice how sick Americans are compared to the rest of the world? You can thank the alphabet soup of federal agencies that allows our skies, lands and waters, and thus our food, to be poisoned by industrial processes.

It’s nearly impossible to poison the food supply under a decentralized scenario with tens of millions of producers and distributors. Food safety is enhanced by decentralization and localization, not by allowing monopoly production as we have now in the U.S. Centralizing control in the hands of a few people who used to work for Monsanto, the company that brought us PCBs, DDT, rBST, Agent Orange, aspartame, and glyphosate, amounts to a clear and present danger to our health, and certainly to our food safety. But that’s what S.510 intends to do.

How likely is a terrorist attack on the US food supply? About as likely as 19 Muslims destroying four significant structures without a defensive response from the world’s largest and most technologically advanced military.

The threat to our food safety lies within, from a corrupt and bloated federal government owned and controlled by pharmaceutical, chemical and biotech corporations, not from outside our borders.

The entire food “safety” legislative scheme at the federal level is really a “food control” scheme backed by corporate monopolies. It is part and parcel of the Full Spectrum Dominance plan to control every aspect of human life.

“Control the food and you control the people,” planned Henry Kissinger back in the 1970s.

We might expect more effective propaganda when going for complete control over our natural born right to sustain ourselves as we deem fit, but we’d be expecting too much from this crop of elites. Rather than intelligence, they rely on brute force and hyper-regulation in destroying small producers and distributors of natural, unadulterated food.

To view a list of articles that detail the dangers of such legislation, click here.

Welcome to the food wars.

Obama Signs Food Safety Modernization Act into Law

December 23, 2010

Macon County News - President Barack Obama has signed into law sweeping new legislation that will give expanded powers and a new mandate to the Food and Drug Administration. The 2010 Food Safety Modernization Act marks the most significant change regarding the oversight of the national food supply in 70 years and is expected to cost $1.4 billion over the next four years, including the expense of hiring more than 2,000 new FDA inspectors.

Versions of the bill, written in response to a number of high profile cases of food contamination, had been floating around Congress for almost two years. Less than a month ago, the Senate had passed an almost identical bill, but that bill was tripped up by a constitutional rule stating that all legislation with revenue provisions must originate in the House of Representatives. This made Senate Bill 510 a nonstarter. Most predicted that a revision of the bill would have little to no chance in getting through the lame-duck Congress a second time and that the bill would be killed until the the 2011 session. A similar bill was attached by House lawmakers to a omnibus spending package, but that legislation, too, was blocked.

However, with only days left in this Congress, the Senate unanimously passed a new Food Safety Bill through a bit of nimble legislative gymnastics. On Wednesday, the bill was then sent to the House where it passed by a 215-144 vote.

While the bill received broad bipartisan support among legislators, opponents of the law say it will be ineffective against the big industrial food processors it is intended to regulate while at the same time endangering the livelihoods of small and organic farmers as well as the rights of people to choose their own food and vitamin supplements. Among other powers, the law gives the FDA a mandate to inspect processing plants, order recalls and impose stricter standards for imported foods.

The final bill that was signed into law yesterday does include a series of amendments sponsored by Sen. Jon Tester (D-Montana) and Sen. Kay R. Hagan (D-North Carolina) -- amendments intended to protect small farmers from onerous new regulations. These amendments include exemptions for farms that generate less than $500,000 annually and farms that only sell food directly to people, stores or restaurants within a 275 mile radius. An additional provision sponsored by Hagan offers protections from erroneous recalls.

Both right-wing groups and grassroots advocates for farmers and consumers of local, organic foods are calling the last minute legislating slippery politics. Some have even called it a betrayal by lame-duck representatives. Others are taking a wait and see attitude about the new law and the impact it may or may not have on the rights of people to choose their own food.

Emily Dale, a former chairperson of the Macon County Planning Board, says she is wary of the new law.

“While the Tester-Hagan amendment in S 510 certainly gave some breathing room to our local farmers and purveyors of homemade food items, I am still concerned about some of the language that keeps a foot in the door for further controls,” she said.

Dale goes on to note that the law adds yet another layer of regulations to those which the FDA and the USDA are already charged with carrying out, duties which she believes the agencies have never carried out sufficiently in the past.

In addition, Dale and others are concerned that the legislative process has been monopolized by large corporate lobby groups being funded by multi-national corporations such as Monsanto who have a vested interest in harmonizing international laws and controlling access to food as well as vitamin and minerals supplements.

Others claim that the law will not be cost effective. However, new estimates released by the federal Centers for Disease Control this month say that about 48 million people --— or about one in six Americans -- are sickened, 128,000 are hospitalized and 3,000 die each year from foodborne illnesses. Advocates of the law say that such numbers justify the FDA’s new mandate and will actually save the country money.

Local Sheriff Defends Farmer from FDA Intrusion

Local Sheriff Defends Farmer from FDA Intrusion (Obama Admininistration is Owned by Monsanto!)

December 8, 2011 2:31

American Vision News - Brad Rogers, Sheriff of Elkhart County, Indiana, is withstanding FDA bureaucrats who are harassing citizens in his county. The Complete Patient reports,

The U.S. Justice Department has withdrawn its subpoena of Indiana raw dairy farmer Richard Hochstetler to appear before a federal grand jury.

He was scheduled to testify tomorrow in Detroit, in connection with an outbreak of illnesses linked by public health officials, including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, to the milk of his Forest Grove Dairy. But yesterday he received a certified letter saying that his subpoena was being withdrawn.

The withdrawal came after Roger’s Sheriff’s Department told the FDA to back off:

He wrote two letters to the Justice Department warning it not to conduct inspections of Hochstetler’s farm without a warrant from a local judge. In the process, he got into a debate over the limits of federal power and the U.S. Constitution with the Justice Department’s Goldstein.

Earlier this month, Rogers emailed Goldstein that there had been “a number of inspections and attempted inspections on (Hochstetler’s) farm…”

He warned that “any further attempts to inspect this farm without a warrant signed by a local judge, based on probable cause, will result in Federal inspectors’ removal or arrest for trespassing by my officers or I.”

Finding itself losing battles on local food control lately, the FDA has been itching to make a public example of someone, and it appears Hochstetler is such a target. Yet its allegations of illness fly in the face of the evidence as “extensive testing of Hochstetler’s milk in 2010 had shown no signs of campylobacter.” Nevertheless, “FDA officials had targeted Hochstetler and another farmer, Richard Hebron, of Family Farms Co-op, in meetings in 2009.”

It’s clear the FDA is just trying to create a publicity case—a not-uncommon tactic in Federal history.

But now not only its evidence but its tactics are being withstood. A Kentucky Food Freedom blog explains the inspiration behind men like Rogers:

Sheriff Brad Rogers is member of the County Sheriff Project, a project that Richard Mack (one of the five Sheriffs that stood against the Brady Bill) and others began as an effort to educate its members on their oath to uphold the Constitution and stand up for the citizens against federal tyranny.

Elkhart County Sheriff Brad Rogers was well informed on the rights of his citizens and took action to protect them against the overreaching arms of the DOJ, the FDA, and the USDA.

When asked about the legal attacks, the Amish Hochstetler responded in faith:

“I never got too excited about it. It is spiritual warfare between good and evil and if we have God on our side, we will win.”

Having God on your side means having His righteous law on your side, and it’s good to have a local sheriff with the knowledge and courage to stand against unnecessary Federal intrusions into their local jurisdictions. If we are to restore freedom in America, it must begin with God, and it must begin locally. For more on restoring local sovereignty, read here.

For those farmers already tied up in the court process, there is the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund ready to help. Check to see how your state views raw milk sales and learn what you can do to further the cause of food freedom.

As Iowa Governor, Tom Vilsack was a leading advocate for Monsanto, genetic engineering, and factory farming. President Obama proudly lauded his new Agriculture Secretary for “promoting biotech.”

Vilsack has, in fact, promoted the most controversial and dangerous forms of agricultural biotechnology, including pharma crops, plants genetically engineered to produce pharmaceuticals. When grown outdoors on farmland, where most pharma crop trials have occurred, pharma crops can easily contaminate conventional and organic varieties.

Government Takes Away Human Right to Grow Food in New Zealand

New Food Bill in New Zealand Takes Away Human Right to Grow Food

November 20, 2011

Investment Watch - I was shocked to learn from a friend on the weekend that a new Food Bill is being brought in here in New Zealand. The new bill will make it a privilege and not a right to grow food.

I find two aspects of this bill alarming. The first is the scope and impact the new bill has, and secondly that it has all happened so quietly. There has been VERY little media coverage, on a bill which promises to jeopardise the future food security of the country.

I read that the bill is being brought in because of the WTO, which of course has the US FDA behind it, and of course that is influenced by big business (Monsanto and other players). It looks like this NZ food bill will pave the way to reduce the plant diversity and small owner operations in New Zealand, for example, by way of controlling the legality of seed saving and trading/barter/giving away; all will be potentially illegal.

The best website to read about the problems with the new bill is nzfoodsecurity.org (I have no connection with this website)

Here are some snippets:

• It turns a human right (to grow food and share it) into a government-authorised privilege that can be summarily revoked.


• It makes it illegal to distribute “food” without authorisation, and it defines “food” in such a way that it includes nutrients, seeds, natural medicines, essential minerals and drinks (including water).


• By controlling seeds, the bill takes the power to grow food away from the public and puts it in the hands of seed companies. That power may be abused.


• Growing food for distribution must be authorised, even for “cottage industries”, and such authorisation can be denied.


• Under the Food Bill, Police acting as Food Safety Officers can raid premises without a warrant, using all equipment they deem necessary – including guns (Clause 265 – 1).


• Members of the private sector can also be Food Safety Officers, as at Clause 243. So Monsanto employees can raid premises – including marae – backed up by armed police.


• The Bill gives Food Safety Officers immunity from criminal and civil prosecution.


• The Government has created this bill to keep in line with its World Trade Organisation obligations under an international scheme called Codex Alimentarius (“Food Book”). So it has to pass this bill in one form or another.


• The bill would undermine the efforts of many people to become more self-sufficient within their local communities.


• Seed banks and seed-sharing networks could be shut down if they could not obtain authorisation. Loss of seed variety would make it more difficult to grow one’s own food.


• Home-grown food and some or all seed could not be bartered on a scale or frequency necessary to feed people in communities where commercially available food has become unaffordable or unavailable (for example due to economic collapse).


• Restrictions on the trade of food and seed would quickly lead to the permanent loss of heirloom strains, as well as a general lowering of plant diversity in agriculture.


• Organic producers of heirloom foods could lose market share to big-money agribusiness outfits, leading to an increase in the consumption of nutrient-poor and GE foods.

FDA Continues Assault on Vitamins, Supplements and Alternative Health Remedies

FDA Threat to Your Health: Vitamins, Supplements and Alternative Health Therapies as “Medicinal”

May 2, 2011

PPJ Gazette - Even as the FDA has for decades routinely given a seal of approval to toxic and deadly medications and vaccines, claiming they are safe, and as hundreds and thousands of people, if not millions, have died or have been permanently injured as a result of their incompetence and gross dereliction of duty, this agency continues its assault on natural remedies and aids claiming they need to be regulated by FDA.

While one toxic and deadly medication, such as Vioxx can claim 70,000 lives, the manufacturer is never shut down by the FDA. Merck Pharmaceuticals never pays any fines or penalties. While they may be sued in court for wrongful death, this is only AFTER they have sold enough of their toxin to exceed any long term risk assessment costs.

In other words: Merck knows its product is lethal. It weighs the long term risk. The questions are never those of public safety, possible harm or death from using their product, but rather:

Can we sell enough of Vioxx fast enough and at levels high enough to offset what we estimate will be the costs of lawsuits for the people we killed or permanently injured and still make a hefty profit?”

And every pharmaceutical company operates their business under this model which is nothing short of pre-meditated murder in my opinion.

While state after state moves to criminalize the alternative therapies and the vitamin and supplement industry, not one state has moved to criminalize the use of toxic and deadly, FDA approved, medications. Not one state, and surely not those Republicans who are colluding state to state to criminalize alternative health practices, has ever suggested holding Merck or any other pharmaceutical company criminally responsible or criminally negligent for the people injured or killed in their respective states as a result of the use of long term risk assessments on the public, rather than safety.

Never in the history of natural and alternative therapies and health practices has any vitamin, mineral, supplement, herb or alternative therapy caused the death of 70,000 people. Not once. In fact, the reports of adverse reactions to natural remedies and health aids is so minimal, there virtually is no report of any consequence.

Because there is no evidence of large scale harm from the use of natural remedies and therapies, a skewed and fabricated report which was promoted by Consumer Reports, using terms such as “May be linked, Could be linked, might be, “is thought to be linked” and other evasive and non-conclusive statements to lead the reader to believe that there is a known and provable link to various diseases and health issues when no such evidence exists. Because these natural products are natural and not patentable and most have been used for centuries without harm, it is imperative to fictionalize some form of threat to justify handing them over to big pharma.

Consumer Reports also stated:

“The Food and Drug Administration has not made full use of even the meager authority granted it by the industry-friendly 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA).”

The FDA has actually stepped outside of its legal (not lawful) authority which is only concerned with labeling. Every effort has been made by FDA to create regulations and rules that would have no other effect than to expedite the closing of small supplement manufacturers as they move towards redefining nutritional supplements and dietary aids along with alternative health therapies as medicinal.

The Consumer Report also states that of the supplements tested many were found to be contaminated with heavy metals and other toxins, including prescription medications. It also says that most of this contamination originates in China….just like the melamine contaminated products.

Did the FDA move to halt these products? No! Do they inspect any Chinese producers? No! Were any penalties levied against Chinese producers? No!

What FDA did do in the case of the melamine contamination was to establish an acceptable amount of melamine in Chinese imports. Melamine is highly toxic at any level.

The use of the words and phrases such as, may, could, might, thought to be, are the same vague words used to justify the use of toxic vaccines and medications. Any of these pharmaceuticals “may, might, could be or may be thought to be” useful in fighting disease, but no one seems able to provide any conclusive evidence that they do, although we do seem to bury a large number of people subjected to them and we have to deal with the long term care for those who survive these things but who are now permanently damaged.

As a result of their continuing protection of, and approval of, untested medications and vaccines producers, is it any wonder the FDA Food & Drug Administration) is now openly referred to by the public as the “Federal Death Administration”?

This agency has given its approval to medications that have caused heart attacks, strokes, birth defects, autism, neurological disorders, seizures, coma, sudden infant death, infertility, cancer, leukemia, brain damage, dementia, amnesia, liver damage, muscle damage, high blood pressure, hemorrhages, blood clots, blindness, and so many other life threatening or life impairing conditions that it is impossible to list them all. The list of medications and vaccines that have been pulled from the market is extensive. Yet not one of them was taken off the market until the desired profits of the product manufacturer were realized and not once were criminal charges ever levied at a pharmaceutical company that decided profits were far more important than human lives.

This approval is given in lieu of money. It is given while accepting the intentionally skewed testing data provided by the same corporations seeking approval. The FDA rarely, if ever, actually does any independent testing of new drugs and vaccines. This is not a matter of the FDA not having enough authority; they have far more authority than they were ever intended to have.

The problem is that they are a privately-owned federal corporation unlawfully empowered to write rules and regulations (law-making) byC ongress ceding its authority, and as such are autonomous. Nothing in the FDA mandates and guidelines requires them to act in the public interest. And the fact is; they don’t.

FDA, Food Safety Modernization Act and Codex Alimentarius (Excerpt)

December 29, 2010

NaturalNews - Of all the talk about S.510, virtually no one has actually read the language in the bill -- especially not those lawmakers who voted for it. The more you read from this bill, the more surreal it all becomes. For example, did you know there's a global FDA power grab agenda hidden in the Food Safety Modernization Act? Keep reading and I'll quote text straight out of the bill itself.

Section 305 is entitled "BUILDING CAPACITY OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS WITH RESPECT TO FOOD SAFETY" and it gives the FDA authority to set up offices in foreign countries and then dictate the food safety plans of foreign governments. It says, specifically, on page 217 of the bill (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-...):

SEC. 308. FOREIGN OFFICES OF THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION.
(a) IN GENERAL. - The Secretary shall establish offices of the Food and Drug Administration in foreign countries selected by the Secretary.

It then goes on to say:

(a) The Secretary shall, not later than 2 years of the date of enactment of this Act, develop a comprehensive plan to expand the technical, scientific, and regulatory food safety capacity of foreign governments, and their respective food industries, from which foods are exported to the United States.

Huh? The FDA is now going to run the food safety programs of foreign governments? Look out, world: I'm from the FDA and I'm here to help!

...

The "Plan" described in this bill continues with the following:

"Recommendations on whether and how to harmonize requirements under the Codex Alimentarius."

This is included so that the FDA will "harmonize" the U.S. food and dietary supplement industries with global Codex requirements which outlaw virtually all healthy doses of vitamins and minerals.

Under full Codex "harmonization," America will be left with a dead food supply and the health food stores will be virtually stripped bare of dietary supplements. Selling vitamin D at a reasonable dose such as 4,000 IU per capsule will be criminalized and products will be seized and destroyed by FDA agents who recruit local law enforcement to bring in the firepower.

All this will, of course, ensure a diseased, nutritionally-deficient U.S. population. This actually seems to be the goal the FDA has been trying to achieve all along because the more diseased the population, the more money gets collected by Big Pharma for "treating" sick people with medication and chemotherapy...

Rank	Company	Country	FY '09 Total Revenues (USD millions)	FY '09 Net income/ (loss) (USD millions)	Employees
1	Johnson & Johnson	United States	63,747.0	12,949.0	118,700
2	Pfizer	United States	48,296.0	8,104.0	81,800
3	GlaxoSmithKline	United Kingdom	44,654.0	8,438.6	99,003
4	Roche	Switzerland	44,267.5	8,288.1	80,080
5	Sanofi-Aventis	France	42,179.0	5,636.7	98,213
6	Novartis	Switzerland	41,459.0	8,195.0	96,717
7	AstraZeneca	United Kingdom	31,601.0	6,101.0	65,000
8	Abbott Laboratories	United States	29,527.6	4,880.7	68,838
9	Merck	United States	23,850.3	7,808.4	55,200
10	Wyeth	United States	22,833.9	4,417.8	47,426
11	Bristol-Myers Squibb	United States	21,366.0	5,247.0	35,000
12	Eli Lilly	United States	20,378.0	(2,071.9)	40,500

[Source]

Read More...

Food Safety Bill Invokes Codex Harmonization and Grants FDA Authority to Police Food Safety of Foreign Nations

Food Safety Bill Invokes Codex Harmonization and Grants FDA Authority to Police Food Safety of Foreign Nations

December 29, 2010

NaturalNews - Of all the talk about S.510, virtually no one has actually read the language in the bill — especially not those lawmakers who voted for it. The more you read from this bill, the more surreal it all becomes. For example, did you know there’s a global FDA power grab agenda hidden in the Food Safety Modernization Act? Keep reading and I’ll quote text straight out of the bill itself.

Section 305 is entitled “BUILDING CAPACITY OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS WITH RESPECT TO FOOD SAFETY” and it gives the FDA authority to set up offices in foreign countries and then dictate the food safety plans of foreign governments. It says, specifically, on page 217 of the bill (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-…):

SEC. 308. FOREIGN OFFICES OF THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION.

(a) IN GENERAL. – The Secretary shall establish offices of the Food and Drug Administration in foreign countries selected by the Secretary.

It then goes on to say:

(a) The Secretary shall, not later than 2 years of the date of enactment of this Act, develop a comprehensive plan to expand the technical, scientific, and regulatory food safety capacity of foreign governments, and their respective food industries, from which foods are exported to the United States.

Huh? The FDA is now going to run the food safety programs of foreign governments? Look out, world: I’m from the FDA and I’m here to help!

Homeland Security and U.S. Treasury also involved

So who is involved in creating this? Believe it or not, the global “food safety” plan is to be developed under consultation to the Department of Homeland Security as well as the U.S. Treasury. As the bill states:

(b) Consultation – In developing the plan under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consult with the Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the United States Trade Representative, and the Secretary of Commerce, representatives of the food industry, appropriate foreign government officials, nongovernmental organizations that represent the interests of consumers, and other stakeholders.

You might reasonably wonder “What does the Department of Homeland Security have to do with the FDA’s food safety plan?” Or “Why is the U.S. Treasury involved in the food supply?” Learn more about the Federal Reserve and you’ll have the answers to these questions. I don’t have space for all the details here, but read Ed Griffin’s book and visit http://www.realityzone.com if you really want to know what’s behind a lot of this.

Codex harmonization, data sharing and more

So what does this global food safety plan actually entail? It’s all spelled out right in the language of the law. You can view this yourself on page 195 of the bill text in the PDF file at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-…

(c) Plan – The plan developed under subsection (a) shall include, as appropriate, the following:

• “Provisions for secure electronic data sharing.”

This is so that the FDA can electronically track and monitor the food production activities of foreign nations. That way, if somebody in Spain tries to sell raw almonds to the USA, the FDA can make sure those almonds get irradiated or fumigated with chemicals first. Because raw almonds are so dangerous they have actually been outlawed in America (http://www.naturalnews.com/021776.html).

• “Training of foreign governments and food producers on United States requirements for safe food.”

This is designed to shove the FDA’s “dead food” agenda down the throats of other nations. The FDA, you see, believes that the only safe food is dead food — that’s why, along with the USDA, they have declared war on raw milk, raw almonds and many raw vegetables (http://www.naturalnews.com/023015_f…).

Now, with this law, the FDA will begin pushing its dead foods agenda globally, essentially exporting the FDA’s agenda of death and disease by making sure other nations destroy the nutritive qualities of their food supply in the same way the U.S. is doing. It’s all great for the global Big Pharma profiteers, of course. The more disease they can spread around the world, the more money they’ll make from selling medications.

Codex Alimentarius is also promoted in the bill

The “Plan” described in this bill continues with the following:

• “Recommendations on whether and how to harmonize requirements under the Codex Alimentarius.”

This is included so that the FDA will “harmonize” the U.S. food and dietary supplement industries with global Codex requirements which outlaw virtually all healthy doses of vitamins and minerals. Under full Codex “harmonization,” America will be left with a dead food supply and the health food stores will be virtually stripped bare of dietary supplements. Selling vitamin D at a reasonable dose such as 4,000 IU per capsule will be criminalized and products will be seized and destroyed by FDA agents who recruit local law enforcement to bring in the firepower.

All this will, of course, ensure a diseased, nutritionally-deficient U.S. population. This actually seems to be the goal the FDA has been trying to achieve all along because the more diseased the population, the more money gets collected by Big Pharma for “treating” sick people with medication and chemotherapy.

It’s all right in the bill!

The text mentioned in this article is taken straight from the bill itself. You can search for it at http://thomas.loc.gov by searching for “S.510″ as the bill number.

It makes me wonder why some food book authors so wholeheartedly supported this bill. Why were so many progressives on the left so enamored with this law? Didn’t they realize this was a huge FDA power expansion that would destroy many small farms and put farmers out of business while subjecting the USA to possible Codex harmonization?

Did they even know the FDA is now on a global food-killing agenda that will seek to pasteurize, fumigate, cook or kill virtually every piece of food that enters the United States?

Did they not know that the bill does absolutely nothing to limit the use of chemical pesticides on imported food? According to the FDA’s stance on all this, foods laced with DDT and other pesticides are perfectly “safe” for human consumption, but foods teeming with probiotics — such as raw milk — are deadly and dangerous! (Seriously…)

How is it that popular food book authors and food documentary producers could possibly support this bill? Do they also think small dairy farmers who sell raw milk should be criminalized? Do they agree with the Codex harmonization agenda? Do they think the FDA should run the world’s food safety systems and that the Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Treasury should be shaping our global food safety agenda?

You really just have to shake your head and wonder about the true intentions of some people. I just have to ask: Were the supporters of this bill really so naive that they could somehow believe the FDA would actually seek to protect small, local organic farms? What about raw milk producers? What about the single-family farms that must now apply to the FDA for exemption status by authoring research reports, collecting tax returns and producing a pile of documentation the FDA will soon require?

Let me just say it bluntly: The Food Safety Modernization Act is the destroyer of local organic farming. It will gut small farms and local farms, greatly increasing the price of local organic food while decreasing America’s food security. Farmers’ Markets will be targeted by FDA agents who raid the operations of local farmers and imprison them for not having the right paperwork. Families will be destroyed, and those who have been successful at local food production will scale back their operations in a desperate effort to duck under the $500,000 / year rule (which can easily be surpassed by producing just ten acres of organic carrots, by the way).

The real agenda behind the bill

From another point of view, however, this bill is doing exactly what it was supposed to do: Destroy small farms, wipe out family farm operations, imprison raw milk producers and centralize food production in the hands of the big corporate food producers whose operations are steeped in pesticides and soil degradation.

This bill should have been called the “Big Agriculture Monopoly Act” because that’s what it does. It will ensure that America’s food supply will be controlled by Monsanto, DuPont and other agricultural giants who have been at odds with small organic farms for years.

The global food control agenda is a conspiracy, not a theory

It’s all part of the global food control agenda that we now know to be 100% true based on the leaked Wikileaks cables which revealed that the U.S. government conspired to push GMOs into Europe and “create a retaliatory target list” for any nation that resisted GMOs (such as France). Read that full report right here on NaturalNews: http://www.naturalnews.com/030828_G…

Thanks to Wikileaks, we now know that the global GMO conspiracy is quite real. It’s something that U.S. diplomats and government officials scheme on in order to appease their corporate masters in the agriculture industry. Now, with the Food Safety Modernization Act, this global conspiracy extends beyond GMOs and encompasses the global food supply, too.

It has become clear that U.S. lawmakers and bureaucrats will not stop until they have killed the entire global food supply, rendering living foods, raw foods and dietary supplements illegal or impossibly difficult to grow. You can thank your U.S. Congresspeople and Senators for all this, of course. In the end, every Senator in office today caved in and voted to pass this bill. You can also thank those who publicly promoted this bill even while having no real idea of the horrors they were supporting.

Such begins a new era of global food destruction headed by what can only be called the most dangerous government agency in North America: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration. If they do to your food what they’ve done to prescription drugs, annual food deaths will increase to over 100,000 a year.

Watch for the FDA to now set up enforcement offices in nations all around the world and start outlawing living foods on a global scale (if they can get away with it).

Also, watch for a new push for Codex harmonization which is a truly evil agenda to criminalize healing foods and nutritional supplements that prevent and even reverse chronic disease.