A Government of Monsanto, by Monsanto, and for Monsanto

Barbara H. Peterson
Farm Wars

With help from the FDA and USDA, the biotech industry is set to completely take over our food supply with genetically modified ingredients, irregardless of the wishes of “we the people.” Through collusion, subterfuge, and a bit of back-door manipulation, Monsanto can write it’s own ticket with the U.S. Federal Government’s stamp of approval. If the rules get in the way, then change the rules, or at least their interpretation, to fit the situation.

Monsanto is now ready to grow soybeans that are genetically modified to produce omega-3 fatty acids. The fact that the company is doing this comes as no surprise, but the important thing to note is the process that the FDA goes through to approve these types of substances as Generally Recognized as Safe, or GRAS, is to simply rubber-stamp the Monsanto application, no questions asked.

Feds order farmer to destroy his own wheat crops: The shocking revelations of Wickard vs Filburn

Dees Illustration

Mike Adams
Natural News

In arguing for S.510, the "Food Safety Modernization Act," there are all sorts of attorneys, legislators and internet commentators who keep claiming, "The government won't try to control the food production of small farms." They say, "Your backyard garden is safe" and that the feds won't come knocking on your door to control your seeds or foods.

As usual, these pushers of Big Government are utterly ignorant of the history in their own country. Because as you'll learn right here, not only CAN the U.S. government control and dictate to single-family farms what they can grow in their own backyards; the government has already blatantly done so!

In this article, I'll share with you the full and true story of how Big Government has already run rampant over the rights of individuals to grow their own food -- I'll even cite the US Supreme Court decision that "legalized" this tyranny. 


How the tyrants came after a farmer named Roscoe Filburn  

It all starts with a farmer named Roscoe Filburn, a modest farmer who grew wheat in his own back yard in order to feed hischickens.

One day, a U.S. government official showed up at his farm. Noting that Filburn was growing a lot of wheat, this government official determined that Filburn was growingtoo much wheat and ordered Filburn todestroy his wheat crops and pay a large fine to the federal government.

The year was 1940, you see. And through a highly protectionist policy, the federal government had decided to artificially drive up the prices of wheat by limiting the amount of wheat that could be grown on any given acre. This is all part of Big Government's "infinite wisdom" of trying to somehow improve prosperity by destroying food and impairing economic productivity. (Be wary any time the government says it's going to "solve problems" for you.)

The federal government, of course, claims authority over all commerce (even when such claims are blatantly in violation of the limitations placed upon government by the Constitution). But Roscoe Filburn wasn't selling his wheat to anyone. Thus, he was not engaged in interstate commerce. He wasn't growing wheat as something to use for commerce at all, in fact. He was simply growing wheat in his back yard and feeding it to his chickens. That's not commerce. That's just growing your own food.

But get this: The government insisted he pay a fine and destroy his wheat, so Filburn took the government to court, arguing that the federal government had no right to tell a man to destroy his food crops just because they wanted to protect some sort of artificially high prices in the wheat market.

This case eventually went to the US Supreme Court. It's now known as Wickard v. Filburn, and it is one of the most famous US Supreme Court decisions ever rendered because it represents a gross expansion of the tyranny of the federal government.

The US Supreme Court sided with government tyranny

The US Supreme Court, you see, ruled that Roscoe Filburn's wheat could be regulated and destroyed by the federal government simply because Roscoe's wheat production might reduce the amount of wheat he bought from other wheat producers and therefore could impact interstate trade.

Now stay with me on this, because this is a really, really important point to understand.

The federal government claimed authority under the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution (Article 1, Section 8), even though the Commerce Clause was originally written primarily to prevent states from erecting tariffs, not to allow the federal government to control interstate trade. But thanks to the twisted interpretation of the government -- and believe me, the government will twist every interpretation it can in an effort to assert more power over the population -- the feds claimed that Filburn's growing of his own wheat effectively reduced interstate commerce in wheat. Therefore, they reasoned, they could regulate his backyard wheat production (and order him to destroy his wheat).

Because of this US Supreme Court decision in 1942, it now means the federal government can order you to halt food production in your own back yard by arguing that when you grow your own food, the amount of food you purchase from other food providers is reduced, meaning that your food production impacts interstate trade and therefore can be fully controlled by the federal government.

In other words, the federal government claims the authority right now -- even without the Food Safety Modernization Act -- to knock on your door and order you at gunpoint to destroy all the food in your garden, your greenhouse or your farm. They can order you to destroy all seeds in your possession and all food harvested from your own garden. And they can do all this with the full protection of U.S. law by simply citing the precedent set in Wickard v. Filburn in 1942 as ruled by the US Supreme Court.

Read Full Article

RELATED ARTICLES:

Food Fascism in The Land of the Free

Independence Criminalized 

Buy 1 Get 2 Free at Botanic Choice Buy 1 Bottle and Get 2 FREE (select items), plus Free Shipping on $25+ Expires 12/31/2010

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

Live Superfoods It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!

Print this page

S.510 “Hitched” A Ride On Massive Budget Bill, 1984 Is Here

image source

The Intel Hub

Democrats passed a massive budget bill late Wednesday night. The bill narrowly passed by a 212-206 vote.

“A widely backed food safety bill is hitching a ride on the legislation. The measure passed the Senate by a 73-25 vote last week but got caught in a snag because it contained revenue provisions that, under the Constitution, must originate in the House.” Yahoo News

That’s right, S.510 has apparently HITCHED a ride on the budget bill that was passed during a late night session. Our food freedom has possibly been destroyed by the lame duck congress and their big agriculture masters.

Our government is attempting to steal away our food freedom!


Natural Solutions Foundation:

Natural Solutions Foundation Was There: We Saw The House Vote 212 to 205 (WITH NOT A SINGLE REPUBLICAN VOTING FOR THE BILL) When the House Shamefully Attached S510′s language to HR 3082.

Why is their act shameful?  Two reasons.  First, the contents of S. 510 is anti-health, anti-supplements, anti-freedom, anti-small business and anti-clean food to say nothing of anti-sense.  Second, the regulatory language of S. 510 should never have been attached to a Continuing Resolution, which is an administrative bill allowing the government of the United States to continue its activities by funding it. 

This tactic shows how desperate the Uber Cartel is to have this measure pass.  Think about that for a moment: apparently it is vitally important to the Uber Cartel, which makes, among other things, drugs, vaccines, agro-chemicals, GMOs and which grows food, to make sure that you do not have the choice to grow or eat clean food.  The reasons for that present themselves quite rapidly, don’t they?  Clean food = bad customers for Big Pharma.  Poisoned food = great customers.  And then there is the subtext of genocide. 

But we are far from finished here.

Here’s what Ralph Fucetola,JD, our Counsel and Trustee, wrote from Washington, where he spent the day, meeting with Ron Paul while he was there, by the way.

Our Next Step is to Continue Inundating the Senate -
1. We agree with Ron Paul (with whom we visited today, that [S510] is very bad legislative practice to combine a controversial regulatory bill with the Continuing Resolution needed to fund government activities. This bill will impact dietary supplements. That is clear from the way the FDA used section 301(11) of the 2007 FDA “enabling act” to outlaw a form of Vitamin B-6, although Congress put a clause in that bill “exempting” DSHEA products.

FDA will use any new food authority to attack supplements and natural remedies.
2. It is unprincipled to push this bill against the clear will of the voters that the Federal govt is too big and must stop over-regulating.
3. A clean Continuing Resolution is needed so that Congress can decide to continue funding at a certain level without muddying the process with extraneous matters.
4. The vote was nearly a pure partisan vote, with no Republicans in favor of this maneuver, and only a few Democrats standing against the lame-duck “leadership.” We will remember!
5. The People will keep a close eye on all GOP Senators and expect them to act from principle and not add this budget-busting bill, with its 4,000 new FDA agents to harass local food production and distribution.
For those of you who didn’t follow the events on Twitter or C-Span, the House lame-duck “leadership” pushed the “Food Safety” Bill, formerly known as S.510 into the “Continuing Resolution” Funding Bill to keep the Federal Govt running for another year, pass this Hot Potato to Senate again. That body could act Thursday, December 9th.
The House vote appears to have been 212 to 205, with no Republicans voting for the bill. The next step is to continue inundating the Senate with voter outrage.

    Please help us stop S.510 as a tack-on via HR 1755 to HR 3082.
1. Take Action NOW for each member of your household to tell your Senators that you STONGLY OPPOSE adopting the language of S. 510 in this or any other amendment or bill:
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=5303
2. Visit http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm, enter your State to find your Senators’ names and phone numbers. CALL THEM!  Yes, the line may be busy.  Keep trying.  Give the person who answers this message:
“I am calling to strongly opposed adopting the language of S. 510, the so-called Food Safety Modernization Act.  This language is currently attached to  ‘CR/Food Safety House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 3082 – Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011/FDA Food Safety Modernization Act’ which has been sent to the Senate.  I urge Senator [name] in the strongest possible terms to vote against this dangerous, unnecessary and expensive amendment and to oppose this language in any bill or amendment.”

The phone lines may be busy.  Keep trying.  This is literally an 11th hour attempt by Big Agribiz to control every bite you eat, and make sure it is to their liking, not yours.

IT IS TIME TO TAKE A STAND!!!!

RELATED ARTICLE:
Endgame Legislation: Lame Duck Session Ushers in Tyranny

Buy 1 Get 2 Free at Botanic Choice Buy 1 Bottle and Get 2 FREE (select items), plus Free Shipping on $25+ Expires 12/31/2010

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

Live Superfoods It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!

Print this page

S.510: Food Freedom Under Attack By Big Agriculture, Take A Stand! (Interview with Doreen Hannes)

The Intel Hub Radio

S.510, the so called Food Safety Modernization Act, in conjunction with other U.N approved “food and health” programs, was written by and for big agriculture including Monsanto and DuPont

Buying non GMO/Hybrid seeds would be nearly impossible if this bill becomes law. To top it off, the wording of the bill is so broad that it could, in the long run, ban or tax private gardens.
Take a stand against this food tyranny! Call your representatives and demand that they standAGAINST this eugenics minded bill.

Listen to the full show including the full interview with Doreen Hannes


RELATED ARTICLE:
S. 510 And Codex Alimentarius Link: Tracking, Tracing, and Monitoring Independent Food Production
Independence Criminalized: The Great Wall of Bureaucracy Comes to America 
 
Grow Your Own Organic Food
Non-GMO Heirloom Seed Bank

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

Live Superfoods It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!

Print this page

S. 510 and Codex Alimentarius Link: Tracking, Tracing, and Monitoring Independent Food Production

Regulated out of existence under S. 510

Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post

Being honest, I must confess some slight personal agitation at the thought of writing another article on yet another “food safety” bill making its way through congress with the words “tyranny” and “Codex” written all over it. It seems that every legislative session, we are faced with the prospect of the same food bill cloaked in a different name. Invariably, this bill seeks to corral all food production into the hands of a few major corporations and essentially destroy the ability of the population to feed themselves. Here in late 2010, we have the new version of food imperialism known as S.510, the Food Safety Modernization Act.




While it is true that S.510 contains new and improved tyrannical sections that are unique specifically to it, the truth is that it is merely a repackaging of past bills  (See here and here ) and attempts to control people through food. It is also yet another attempt to implement Codex Alimentarius guidelines under the guise of domestic legislation.




One example of hidden Codex guidelines in the Food Safety Modernization Act are the overly broad provisions regarding “traceability.” The desire for enhanced traceability of food products is sold to the public as a desire to better respond to food-borne illnesses and follow them back to their source. However, as with almost anything that comes out of the mouth of government, there is a more sinister role that traceability programs have to play. 





Essentially, traceability has little to do with food safety in this context. While no one could argue being able to trace food contamination back to the source is a bad thing, the fact is that these mechanisms already exist. Unfortunately, they are generally ignored and unused when it comes to adverse health effects related to food produced by multinational food corporations. While there is always an exception to the rule, it is a fact that international corporations are by far the source of food adulteration more often than small independent farms.




The real reason behind traceability programs lies in the desire to monitor where food is coming from to ensure that, in the future, it only comes from large agribusiness. Hence, the new traceability procedures  involve massive financial, management, and bureaucratic burdens placed on the shoulders of mainly small “food producers.”




It should be pointed out that, while it is true that major corporations will also be burdened with these regulations (unless the Secretary exempts them), it is also true that a company that makes billions in profits can afford to deal with them. Your neighborhood farm down the road simply can’t. 





For all the claims that small independent producers will be exempted, the fact is that the “exemption” is merely semantics. Small independent producers will be held to essentially the same guidelines as Big Agro. This is because, in order to be exempted from the regulations as S.510, they have to submit to similar regulations as the S.510 regulations themselves dictate. As Eric Blair points out in his article Why the Tester Amendment Does NOT Help Small Food Producers Under S.510:





Those [S.510 Tester Amendment Exemption Requirements] bear a striking resemblance to the ‘expensive’ food safety plans outlined in subsection (h) of S.510 that small producers are supposedly exempt from. In other words, they must submit similarly comprehensive plans just to qualify to be exempt from creating them. But it gets worse.
  If Grandma wants to sell her famous raspberry jam at the county fair (within 275 miles of her canning kitchen) she will indeed be a small producer exemptions, but not before she forks over 3 years of financials, documentation of hazard control plans, and local licenses, permits, and inspection reports. She must submit this documentation to the satisfactory approval of the Secretary; and if she fails to do so, the entirety of S.510 can be enforced on her. That’s hardly what I call an exemption.


He goes on to point out that the bill does not explicitly make it illegal to sell food independently produced, but it does make it so cumbersome that small producers will be unable to maintain compliance with the law. 





While one could successfully argue that by forcing independent producers to file information and obtain permits and licenses is in fact making the production of food illegal, there is no doubt that small producers will be forced out of business by the overbearing regulation.




Nevertheless, cumbersome traceability provisions have surfaced before in other areas. In reading the traceability-related sections of S.510, there is a striking similarity between the language of the bill and that of Codex Alimentarius in its own proposed guidelines. 



The HACCP (Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point), a “food safety” methodology used by Codex Alimentarius (and addressed in S.510), plays an important role in the tracking, tracing, and monitoring of food production. Under this system, food business operators (defined so broadly so as to include both big agribusiness and recreational gardeners) are required to “identify any steps in their operations which are critical to the safety of the food; implement effective control procedures at those steps; monitor control procedures to ensure their continuing effectiveness; review control procedures periodically and whenever the operations change.” 

Likewise, in the document entitled, “Recommended International Code of Practice General Principles of Food Hygeine,” Codex states that “Where necessary, appropriate records of processing, production and distribution should be kept and retained for a period that exceeds the shelf-life of the product. Documentation can enhance the credibility and effectiveness of the food safety control mechanism.” Although the language of the bill and the Codex document are not identical in every section, they are similar. Unfortunately, this is all that is needed to initiate the implementation of Codex Alimentarius guidelines in the United States.
 


However, there is yet another danger posed by S.510 in regards to Codex Alimentarius. The fact that this bill provides the FDA, HHS, and even DHS with even more authority over food production, transportation, and consumption should be alarming enough. But because these agencies often respond to policy as much as they do law, the chances of Codex Alimentarius guidelines being implemented domestically rises sharply. This is due to the fact that no congressional approval would be needed to implement them. Simply an executive order or change in policy from the executive branch or even the FDA, HHS, or DHS acting independently would be enough to enact Codex guidelines in the United States. 

Because Codex Alimentarius guidelines are enforced by the WTO, any dispute brought before the WTO and its dispute settlement board could essentially force the United States to buckle under and implement Codex guidelines. With the passage of S.510, the need to gain congressional approval for such a change would be effectively erased. 

Yet while Codex guidelines can be enforced through the WTO in one fell swoop, it is much more likely that they will be implemented by stealth. Introduced gradually and under the cover of domestic legislation, the chance of organized public resistance is greatly reduced. Without a doubt, the majority of Americans have no idea what Codex Alimentarius actually is. In fact, it is an unfortunate reality that the majority of the American public have no idea what S.510 is. Even to the relatively informed individual, the legislation is merely just another government power grab. Little do they know that is a major step forward on the path to a global dictatorship which uses food as a weapon and a means of control. 
 
Those who ridicule activists and opponents of S.510 as paranoid conspiracy theorists march unwittingly down a road which leads directly to just such a global tyranny where food will be most definitely taken – but not for granted. 


Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Mullins, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor’s Degree from Francis Marion University where he earned the Pee Dee Electric Scholar’s Award as an undergraduate. He has had numerous articles published dealing with a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, and civil liberties. He also the author of Codex Alimentarius - The End of Health Freedom 


Recently by Brandon Turbeville:

The History of Health Tyranny

The Health Tyrants
The Structure of Health Tyranny
Globalism, Think Tanks, and "The New World Order"  

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

Live Superfoods It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!

Print this page

“Unconstitutional” food bill driven by Big Food lobby dollars

Rady Ananda, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

While over 200 organizations lobbied on the Food Safety Modernization Act (S.510), no one seemed to notice an unconstitutional section in the bill until after it passed on Tuesday. That day, Roll Call advised that the bill contained a provision, Sec. 107, allowing the Senate to raise revenues. This violates Article I, Section 7, of the U.S. Constitution, granting that power exclusively to the House.   S.510 opponents now celebrate the House’s use of the “blue slip process” to return the bill to the Senate.

The Alliance for Natural Health figures that:

“The only possible ‘quick fix’ would be a unanimous consent agreement in the Senate to strike that revenue-raising provision from the bill—but Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) has already stated that he will oppose, so unanimity will be impossible.”

ANH believes it is unlikely that the Senate will return to a debate on S.510, given its full agenda. Its only other option is to “allow the bill to die at the end of this Congress [which means] a new Food Safety Bill will be introduced next year."

After S.510 passed, President Obama issued a statement: “I urge the House — which has previously passed legislation demonstrating its strong commitment to making our food supply safer — to act quickly on this critical bill, and I applaud the work that was done to ensure its broad bipartisan passage in the Senate.”

Apparently, the Senate moved too quickly. Their overreach only supports the natural foods movement assertion that the entire bill is over-reaching as the federal government seeks complete control over local foods. 

The Money and the Vote
In an email, Canada Health whistleblower Shiv Chopra noted, “It is all about corporate control of food and public health.”  He’s not alone in believing that a ‘hidden corporate agenda’ is driving the federal government to impose itself on local food production and distribution. This belief is bolstered by a detailed look at the financial contributors in support of food control legislation. Open Secrets.orgreports that 208 groups lobbied on S.510. According to an analysis by Maplight.org, financial supporters of S.510 include:

* The US Chamber of Commerce (no friend to small business);

* Kraft Foods North America (the world’s second largest food and beverage company;

* General Mills (which earned $15 billion in revenue in 2009); and the

* American Farm Bureau Federation (a Big Ag and insurance industry lobbyist that supports the use of genetically modified foods).

According to data at Open Secrets.org, AFB spent $9.5 million since 2009 to lobby for S.510 and against the House version.  Food & Water Watch noted that AFB president Bob Stallman “condemn[s] consumers and farmers who oppose the industrial model of agriculture, referring to them as ‘extremists who want to drag agriculture back to the day of 40 acres and a mule.’” Clearly, the American Farm Bureau Federation does not favor small farms.

Breaking agribusiness lobby spending down by sector, Open Secrets reports that in 2009, the:

* Crop production and basic processing industry spent $20.3 million;
* Food processing and sales industry spent $30.2 million; and the
* Agriculture services and products industry spent $34.4 million.

In 2009 and 2010, Pepsi spent over $14 million and Coca-Cola spent $4.5 million on both S.510 and HR 2749 (the House version).  Other groups supporting S.510 include the International Bottled Water Association, International Dairy Foods Association, International Foodservice Distributors Association, and the Snack Food Association. Hardly advocates of small producers or natural foods.

Under the guise of food ‘safety,’ food control legislation has been widely supported by major food industry lobbyists, who spent over $1 billion since 1998 to influence Congress. Do the American people even have a voice in food choice, when measured against the hundreds of millions of dollars multinational corporations foist on Congress to influence legislation? 

Monsanto and the Tester Amendment
Two final comments are in order: one on the ineffectual Tester Amendment and the other on Monsanto’s influence over food safety.

First, the Tester Amendment “exemption” — defined as those generating less than $500,000 a year in revenue –  is ludicrously low.  Kraft Foods generates that every seven minutes : it earned $40 billion in revenue in 2009.  There can be no single bill that adequately addresses food production when talking about producers as disparate as these.  Small farms are in a different universe from multinational corporations.

A ten-million-dollar exemption is more reasonable. Farms earning less than $10 million a year are much more similar to Mom & Pop operations than they are to Kraft Foods or Monsanto.  Farms earning between a half million and ten million annually are more likely than Mom & Pop to achieve product consistency and, because of a higher output, lower market price, thus appealing to locavores on three levels. That ludicrously low $500,000 figure only highlights the overreach of an obese federal government.

Second, the Tester Amendment does not exempt small food producers as broadly as proponents claim. Eric Blair noted that “even a ‘very small business’ making less than $500K per year, doing business ‘within 275 miles’ and directly with ‘end-user customers’ is still required to adhere to all of the [other] regulations” in the massive food control bill.

In order to qualify for exemption, he points out that small producers must file three years of detailed financial records, detailed hazard analysis plans, and detailed proof of compliance with local, county and state laws. Then, the Secretary of Health and Human Services must approve each exemption.
How many “food producers” who donate food to the homeless, or who supply homemade products at bake sales, county fairs, church bazaars, and community picnics are going to bother with such hyper-regulation?  Obama’s vision of food “safety” destroys the local economy, and it destroys community relations.

S.510 opponent Sen. Tom Coburn has repeatedly stressed that the bill will not make our food supply any safer and will “drive small producers out of business.” No wonder so many multi-billion dollar corporations support it.

Finally, let’s not forget that Obama has stacked his administration with former employees of Monsanto, making Michael Taylor his Food Czar. Anything this Administration supports in the way of food control will surely benefit Monsanto, while harming the natural foods industry and small producers. Indeed, the Food and Drug Administration is already waging a bureaucratic war on private food contracts and natural food producers.

Meanwhile, the battle for food freedom rages on, with a temporary reprieve now that S.510 has been recalled to the Senate Chamber.

Rady Ananda’s work has appeared in several online and print publications. She holds a B.S. in Natural Resources from The Ohio State University’s School of Agriculture. Using years of editorial experience and web publishing, Rady now promotes the ideas and work of a select group of quality writers and artists at Food Freedom and COTO Report. 

Related Articles by Rady Ananda
Tester Amendment To Food "Safety" Bill Puts Lipstick On A Pig 
Patriot Act For Food: A Close Look at Bizarre Propaganda For S. 510 

RELATED VIDEO:
Who Voted For S. 510?

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

Live Superfoods It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!

Print this page