De-Populate! *Consumers Be Wary of any warnings coming from the FDA these days* U.S.-Canada agreement beyond just borders, ‘streamlines and harmonizes’ food and auto regulations under UNCONSTITUTIONAL North American Union corporate agenda.

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

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

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

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

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

CTV writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

II – Preemptive Approval = Guaranteed Profits



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

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

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

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

III – Mother Nature Intended, Monsanto Patented

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

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

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

IV – Your Right to GMO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

V – Profitable Employees make Powerful Allies

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

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

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

VI – The Future is a Business

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

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

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

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

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

What’s next for business? Patenting rainwater and air?

“Genetic Engineering is often justified as a human technology, one that feeds more people with better food. Nothing could be further from the truth. With very few exceptions, the whole point of genetic engineering is to increase sales of chemicals and bio-engineered products to dependent farmers.” David Ehrenfield Rutgers University

GMOs have never been about feeding the world population, but making profits off the world population.

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

Related articles