is a publicly traded American multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri. It is a leading producer of genetically engineered (GE) seed and of the herbicide glyphosate, which it markets under the Roundup brand. Founded in 1901 by John Francis Queeny, by the 1940s it was a major producer of plastics, including polystyrene and synthetic fibers. Notable achievements by Monsanto and its scientists as a chemical company included breakthrough research on catalytic asymmetric hydrogenation and being the first company to mass-produce light emitting diodes (LEDs). The company also formerly manufactured controversial products such as the insecticide DDT, PCBs,Agent Orange, and recombinant bovine somatotropin.
Monsanto was among the first to genetically modify a plant cell, along with three academic teams, which was announced in 1983, and was among the first to conduct field trials of genetically modified crops, which it did in 1987. It remained one of the top 10 U.S. chemical companies until it divested most of its chemical businesses between 1997 and 2002, through a process of mergers and spin-offs that focused the company on biotechnology.
Monsanto was a pioneer in applying the biotechnology industry business model to agriculture, using techniques developed by Genentech and other biotech drug companies in the late 1970s in California.In this business model, companies invest heavily in research and development, and recoup the expenses through the use and enforcement of biological patents.
Monsanto's application of this model to agriculture, along with a growing movement to create a global, uniform system of plant breeders' rights in the 1980s, came into direct conflict with customary practices of farmers to save, reuse, share and develop plant varieties. Its seed patenting model has also been criticized as biopiracy and a threat to biodiversity.
Monsanto's role in these changes in agriculture (which include its litigation and its seed commercialization practices), its current and former agbiotech products, its lobbying of government agencies, and its history as a chemical company, have made Monsanto controversial.
The USA has more people locked up in prison than there are small farmers… OBAMA has passed a special law protecting MONSANTO from having to label foods with their genetically modified products… MONSANTO designed the AGENT ORANGE poison which was CHEMTRAILED from airplanes all over VietNam… Report by CHRIS EVERARD: Join my Facebook buddies list here to learn more HERE
At the G8 Summit held at Camp David last summer, President Obama met with private industry and African heads of state to launch the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition, a euphemism for monocultured, genetically modified crops and toxic agrochemicals aimed at making poor farmers debt slaves to corporations, while destroying the ecosphere for profit.
And Bono, of the rock group U2, is out shilling for Monsanto on this one.
It's phase 2 of the Green Revolution. Tanzania, Ghana, and Ethiopia are the first to fall for the deception, with Mozambique, Cote d'Ivoire, Burkina Faso and other African nations lining up for the "Grow Africa Partnership," under Obama's "Global Agricultural Development" plan.
Bono says that there has to be a 'public private partnership' in order to get this done and that they are going to be using the ideas of the African people and farmers. Really? This is what the African farmers say to that...
'We request that: – governments, FAO, the G8, the World Bank and the GAFSP reconsider their promotion of Public/Private Partnerships which, as they are now conceived, are not suitable instruments to support the family farms which are the very basis of African food security and sovereignty.' African Civil Society Organizations
I wonder if that could be any clearer. They don't WANT the public private partnerships involved in this process.
Monsanto Protection Act May Soon Be Repealed Thanks to Activism
by Anthony Gucciardi
The so-called Monsanto Protection Act signed into law earlier this year caused such an outrage that people around the world are planning to protest the biotech company later this month. Now a United States Senator is expected to try and repeal that law after mounting pressure.
The notorious ‘Monsanto Protection Act’ rider stuffed into the non-related Senate spending bill may soon be repealed thanks to the massive amounts of activism and outrage that have now amounted into a legislative charge towards action. Action that has turned into legislation progress through Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon, who has announced an amendment that would remove Section 735 (the Monsanto Protection Act as its known) from the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2013 Senate spending bill.
The rider, which almost managed to slip incognito and pass by the alarm system of the alternative media, grants GMO juggernaut Monsanto full immunity from federal courts in the event that one of its genetically modified creations is found to be causing damage to health or the environment. Essentially, it grants Monsanto power over the United States federal government. Thankfully, I was able to get on the subject through news tips and covered the Monsanto Protection Act all the way up until the bill containing it was signed into law by Obama.
Ultimately, as the Monsanto Protection Act became more a hot issue, we had an increasing amount of publicity — but the Senate vote came just too quickly for the attention to put a halt on the rider. But even after its passing, sources like Russia Today, NaturalNews, Infowars, and myself here at NaturalSociety were sounding the alarm big time. Enough so that it even led to an apology from the top Senator who actually ended up approving the bill containing the rider.
Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland actually went and released a statement apologizing for allowing the Monsanto Protection Act through and vowing to fight against GMOs and Monsanto. Ultimately, multiple Senators had entered damage control after the jig was up. That is besides Senator Roy Blunt from Missouri, who actually worked with Monsanto (as in he let them write it while he received funding) on the Monsanto Protection Act rider. A rider he says is perfectly reasonable. After all, why not give Monsanto full immunity from the legal system the rest of us are subject to?
Even Obama was getting blasted on his Facebook page following the approval of the Monsanto Protection Act, with the majority of comments coming into his page criticizing his signature on the bill that contained the rider.
Thanks to this activism, it looks like the Monsanto Protection Act may soon be repealed after this new bill hits Washington. This time, we will have plenty of time to let the Senators know that they are voting against the public if they choose to side with Monsanto. And with such a specific agenda for this bill, I see it doing well in the Senate.
Read more: NATURAL SOCIETY
May 13, 2013
May 13, 2013
Tom Laskawy, writing at Grist, points out how the next generation of GMOs is following in the track of present disasters:
“…the growing pest and weed problems for GMOs have caused farmers to turn to seeds that are coated with a different pesticide—a neonicotinoid. If that name rings a bell, it’s because these pesticides… have been implicated in the increasing epidemic of bee deaths.
“And that’s aside from the evidence that biotech’s ‘next big thing’ —seeds that emit multiple pesticides—may be doomed to fail. An international team of researchers, including USDA and biotech scientists, found what they termed ‘cross-resistance’ to these pesticides in [predatory] bugs exposed to the next-generation GMO seeds. Evidence, in other words, that GMO seeds are hitting a bug-covered wall.” The seeds don’t knock out the plant pests.
Yet the venerable journal Nature recently urged patience, because just over the next hill, the biotech giants will surely succeed in bringing us better GMO crops.
This reveals an underlying assumption about technology: when scientists discover a new way of doing things, it can never be retracted; it will eventually work well; improvements will come.
That false assumption sustains a tremendous amount of false science, as well as profits, of course, for the companies involved.
“Wait, better developments are being made.”
If scientists can shoot genes into plants, that’s a step that can never be taken back. It’s automatically a sign of progress. To admit defeat would be equivalent to admitting science can be wrong.
This is the insanity we are dealing with.
We’ve seen it in the field of psychiatric drugs, all of which carry heavy toxicity. If you push a researcher up against the wall, where he has to admit problems with the drugs, he’ll say, “But we’re working on next-generation chemicals. It’ll be different. We’re just starting to understand how the brain really works. Be patient. Help is on the way.”
In recent days, we’ve seen the US National Institute of Mental Health and its British counterpart defect from orthodox psychiatry in the interpretation of what a mental disorder is. Some people have taken this as a positive development. But that’s not the case.
The defectors intend to push brain research to new dangerous heights. Even though they have no baseline for “normal brain activity,” they are racing along the track of discovering “abnormal chemical imbalances.” In other words, their better science is no science at all.
They will invent new names for mental disorders, and there will be more drugs to treat patients, and the whole edifice will be founded on lies.
In the field of gene research, scientists are advancing on a road of manipulation of the human genome. This, they say, is yielding one breakthrough after another. New humans, better humans, more talented and healthy and intelligent humans will be the result.
But really, this translates into: we can shift genes around, we can substitute new genes for old genes, we can silence genes and provoke dormant genes to express themselves—therefore, we have to keep doing it. It’s science. We have to expand our work.
No they don’t. In the same way they don’t have to build even more destructive H-bombs, they don’t have to play roulette with the human body and brain.
Just because medical researchers can come up with new chemo drugs that kill cells and destroy immune systems, it doesn’t mean they have to.
Despite failures along every front of GMO-crop production, despite the fact that predictions of higher crop yields and reduced use of pesticides and herbicides have failed to materialize, Monsanto pushes on.
Monsanto lies and pretends their work is an enormous success. Their researchers, many of whom know the catastrophic failure they are dealing with, nevertheless keep going, keep telling themselves that this is science, and therefore it will ultimately succeed.
Translation: The seven billion people of earth are the guinea pigs in a vast corporate experiment.
Technocrats who envision trans-humans, a combine of brain and computerized brain, pin faith on the idea that, since brains can be hooked up to machines, they should be. It’s “scientific progress,” and therefore it has to happen.
All this used to be called scientism, a massive overreach of misplaced faith, but now the word is largely defunct. It was too accurate. It nailed the obsession and showed how crazy it was.
Years ago, I was invited to give a lecture to an atheist group in Los Angeles. The topic was HIV research, because I had written a book about it, AIDS INC.
I described the line of HIV research, and made a detailed case for the fact that researchers had never proved HIV caused a condition that was being called AIDS.
My analysis was met with strong opposition. The group was unhappy.
No problem. But it turned out their unhappiness was based on the notion that I was attacking science itself. And since they believed that’s what I was doing, they were angry because, get this, if I was against science, I must be for God. And they were atheists.
Therefore, I had to be wrong.
Their reaction mirrored 19th century attitudes about the rise of science. Its proponents felt they’d finally found an antidote to religion, and therefore, anyone who criticized science on any terms (e.g, flawed reasoning, bad data, bogus experiments) must be demanding a return to the Church, the Inquisition, and burning at the stake.
In the second half of the 20th century, a new class of people came into being. Amateurs who wanted to pretend they were scientific thinkers. Even though they knew nothing about what really went on in laboratories, they could spout a few pseudo-scientific truths and win friends and influence people at cocktail parties and academic confabs. They were “up on the latest developments.”
More and more, this also became the m.o. in media. Reporters, broadcasters, anchors, government spokespeople, and pundits issued proclamations about science, without in fact having a clue about the truth or falsity of what they were saying.
We saw this (and still do), for example, in the area of so-called climate science. Everyone is now an expert on global warming and its imminent threat to the planet. The evidence is “settled.” Well, that’s what the president said, so it must be right.
After all, he personally knows all there is to know about methods of compiling historical temperature records, about alternate periods of cooling and warming, about computer modeling, about the mathematics of climate prediction.
Through cutouts, the White House has recently launched a campaign to defame anyone who doubts or questions or criticizes the manmade warming hypothesis. This is science by PR and intimidation.
The very best medical researchers assured us that Swine Flu was an emerging pandemic. In the spring of 2009, on the basis of 20 cases of Swine Flu, and after changing the very definition of “pandemic,” so it no longer needed to include “widespread death and devastation,” the World Health Association declared Swine Flu a level 6 pandemic, the most dangerous threat level.
Eventually, it turned out that Swine Flu was far less significant than ordinary seasonal flu. But no mea culpas emerged. No one admitted the hoax. No one stepped up and confessed.
It was science, and science (and profits) had to be protected, even and especially if it was wrong.
Many of these science projects are designed, at the highest level, as ops. The lies are told from the top, the deceptions are arranged. But much, much support is given, at lower levels, by people who swallow generalities about science.
They entertain delusions about science as a continuous march of progress which shouldn’t be interrupted. They will swear up and down they’re defending rational thought, logic, and the experimental method, when in fact they’re merely mouthing sentiment and propaganda.
Monsanto, like a stage magician working a cheap club in Vegas, says, “Look! We can insert genes in plants! Isn’t that incredible?”
And the rubes in the audience, enchanted by the trick, applaud, ready to support all the coming variations. For their part, these yokels only want to be able to say they’re on the cutting edge of science.
Lower, not higher crop yields? Nutritionally deficient food? Increased, not decreased use of pesticides and herbicides? Superweeds that don’t die under the assault of Roundup, as advertised, but instead thrive and spread? Health problems for people consuming GMO food? Who cares? It’s the magic trick that counts.
They can insert genes in plants. No one could do that before. It’s got to be a good thing. You want proof? Now they can make the plant exude more than one pesticide. What a feat.
For those who continue to parrot the company/government line that there is no difference between GMO and conventional crops, and claim “that’s good science,” here are smoking gun data from Mosanto’s own researchers.
The data were uncovered by science writer Barbara Keeler in 2000. Keeler published pieces in the Whole Life Times and the LA Times. The Whole Life Times piece was titled: “Buried Data in Monsanto’s Study on Roundup Ready Beans.”
Keeler discovered that, in 1994, when Monsanto submitted studies to the FDA, to win approval for GMO soybeans, highly significant data were hidden.
Roundup Ready (RR) Monsanto beans contained 29% less choline than conventional non-GMO beans.
RR beans contained “27% more trypsin inhibitor, an allergen that inhibits protein digestion, can retard growth in animals fed raw soybeans, and has been connected to enlarged cells in rat pancreases.”
In data Monsanto failed to submit to the FDA, from its Puerto Rico field trials, RR beans “were significantly lower in protein and the amino acid phenylalanine.”
In retoasted RR soy meal, “levels of allergens called lectins…almost doubled the levels [found] in controls [non-GMO meal].”
In other words, there was quite enough evidence, in 1994, to halt the whole FDA approval process of Monsanto soy. It was there in Monsanto’s own studies. And it was ignored and buried.
Now new biotech masterpieces are on the way. Plants that emit multiple pesticides. We’re supposed to believe this is good science that will do no harm.
We’re in the technological age, and it’s all wonderful, and because we’re rational people, we should jump on the bandwagon.
This article was posted: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 at 2:36 pm
May 10, 2013
Countless individuals will soon assemble in small and large groups around the nation and the globe alike in protest against Monsanto’s genetic manipulation of the food supply. Organized under the May 25th movement known as the ‘March on Monsanto’, the massive new rally reveals how the grassroots public has truly had enough of Monsanto’s monopoly on the many staple crops that have quickly been sucked into Monsanto’s genetically modified tycoon.
It’s virtually impossible these days to enter a grocery store, even one bearing the title of ‘natural’, and not encounter at least a few items that contain genetically modified ingredients. And for quite some time, this fact was not even known to the large majority of the United States public. Many simply did not even know what a GMO was, or what it could potentially do to their bodies (or the bodies of the children who they were feeding with genetically engineered processed food).
This, of course, stems from the fact that the FDA and Monsanto have decided that you aren’t allowed to know if your food contains GMOs. Even despite the fact that peer-reviewed research has peggedMonsanto’s best selling herbicide Roundup (which is a key part of Monsanto’s Roundup-ready GMO crops) to around 37 associated diseases, the FDA says it’s perfectly safe. So safe that it’s not even necessary to label in your food. So very safe that the only study that ever examined how Roundup and GMOs affect rats throughout their lifetime found that the rats developed tumors so large that it impacted their very ability to move.
It’s madness that has been identified for a long time by alternative news writers and readers, but thanks to the success of Prop 37 and other initiatives it has now hit the general public — and they’re not happy.
The Grassroots Will End MonsantoNow enter campaigns like the March on Monsanto, which is slated to happen around the world on May 25th. It’s a grassroots event that has turned into a major organized movement thanks to countless local activists. The event is going on in major cities like San Diego and New York City, to small towns and even rural areas. It’s all being organized online via an open Google Document, where you can find the protest nearest to you and be a part of it. There’s also many open slots for organizers and speakers, so if you’re interested in that be sure to check that out as well.
The beauty of these events is that they are really the most effective at taking down any type of corrupt entity, as the grassroots aspect just empowers so many individuals without an underlying motivation for profits or anything of that sort. It really just comes down to people who want to eat real food and not some junk that’s spliced with the genetics of a spider. Or more importantly, the few people who understand that if we don’t stop genetically modified organisms today, they will develop technologically into what’s known as things like ‘biopharmaceutical‘ crops tomorrow.
I’ve said this back in 2011 and 2012, and I really do believe the grassroots will destroy Monsanto within the next 3-4 years (at most). The company has gotten away with Agent Orange and thehundreds of thousands of deaths from that, it has gotten away with horrendous pollution dumps, it has truly gotten away with so much that the average ‘small business’ (a business that isn’t in bed with the government agencies policing it) would never be able to. And the people aren’t having it anymore.
Checkout March Against Monsanto and head to a local event. Hand out some printed articles on GMOs from NaturalSociety or elsewhere, and just try and spread the word in a kind and inviting way to the general public.
This article was posted: Friday, May 10, 2013 at 5:21 am
Published time: May 09, 2013 19:23
Edited time: May 10, 2013 01:08
Monsanto protests scheduled in 36 countriesAn international protest planned for later this month against biotechnology company Monsanto is slated to span six continents and include demonstrations in dozens of countries around the globe.
Amid growing concerns over St. Louis, Missouri-based Monsanto and the impact the company is having on agriculture, activists have planned rallies for later this month in 36 countries.
Monsanto, a titan of the emerging biotech industry, has come under attack from environmentalists, agriculturalists and average consumers over the company’s conduct in the realm of genetically-modified organisms and genetically-engineered foods. Despite research on the effects of GMO crops being largely considered inconclusive, Monsanto has lobbied hard in Washington and around the globe to be able to continue manufacturing lab-made foods without the oversight that many have demanded.
In March, Congress passed a biotech rider dubbed the “Monsanto Protection Act” by its critics that essentially allows that company and others that use GMOs to plant and sell genetically-altered products without gaining federal permission.
“The provision would strip federal courts of the authority to halt the sale and planting of an illegal, potentially hazardous GE crop while the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) assesses those potential hazards,” dozens of food businesses and retailers wrote Congress before the bill was passed.
In the weeks since the rider was approved within an annual agriculture spending bill, anti-Monsanto sentiment has only increased. The international day of protest scheduled for May 25 is now looking at becoming one for the record books, and even a number of celebrities have lent their star power to help raise awareness of the movement.
“Here in America you don’t get the right to know whether you’re eating genetically modified organisms,” award-winning music performer Dave Matthews says in a video for the march that has been uploaded to the Web. Comedian Bill Maher and actor Danny DeVito also appeared in the clip to plead with people around the world to rally against GMO companies.
But even as the anti-Monsanto movement increases in intensity, the company itself continues to generate record-setting profits. In April the company announced a 22 percent increase in net profits, and representatives for the companies said they expect to see that trend continue.
"So our bottom line business outlook today means the momentum that we anticipated in our first quarter has clearly carried through into even stronger business results for the second quarter," CEO Hugh Grant told analysts and reporters during a phone call last month.
Earlier this year, Grant told the Wall Street Journal that despite an international backlash, venues around the world have been unable to link to his company with any concrete health risks caused by their products.
“They're the most-tested food product that the world has ever seen. Europe set up its own Food Standards Agency, which has now spent €300 million ($403.7 million), and has concluded that these technologies are safe,” Grant said in January. “France determined there's no safety issue on a corn line we submitted there. So there's always a great deal of political noise and turmoil. If you strip that back and you get to the science, the science is very strong around these technologies.”
But despite those claims, anti-Monsanto actions are expected to continue as planned around the world — and in those very countries. Four demonstrations are scheduled for Britain, including events in London and Bristol, and two separate events are scheduled for May 25 in Paris. In the US, demos are planned in 48 of the 50 states, plus the District of Columbia.
[Psychopathic doesn't quite cover it, Satanic is the word. Monsanto is a main player in the 'depopulation' poisoning agenda via Agent Orange, GM foods (over 166,304 farmers in India have taken their lives since 1997 1), rBGH Milk, & attempts at a seed monopoly. Paul Stitt blew the 'feed the world' bullshit with his research for a food giant, years ago. The Agent Orange manufactured by Monsanto contained 2,3,7,8-tetrachlordibenzo-para-dioxin (TCDD), extremely deadly even when measured against other dioxins. The levels found in domestic 2,4,5-T were around 0.05 ppm, that shipped to Vietnam peaked at 50 ppm, ie 1,000 times higher than the norm. Now owns Blackwater/XE which says it all.]
The World According to Monsanto - A documentary that Americans won't ever see. On March 11 a new documentary was aired on French television (ARTE – French-German cultural tv channel) by French journalist and film maker Marie-Monique Robin, The World According to Monsanto - A documentary that Americans won't ever see. The gigantic biotech corporation Monsanto is threatening to destroy the agricultural biodiversity which has served mankind for thousands of years.Dairy products from cows treated with Monsanto's genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rBGH or rBST) may sharply increase cancer risk and other diseases, especially in children. Already banned in most industrialized nations, it was approved in the US on the backs of fired whistleblowers, manipulated research, and a corporate takeover at the FDA. This must-see film includes footage prepared for a Fox TV station—canceled after a letter from Monsanto's attorney threatened "dire consequences."
- Your Milk on Drugs - Just Say No 2/2 HERE
MONSANTO Family Were
Jewish Slave Dealers And Owners
Here is some interesting MONSANTO history:
The Jewish Monsanto Family of Louisiana included Benjamin, Isaac, Manuel, Eleanora, Gracia and Jacob. They made frequent purchases of Blacks including twelve in 1785, thirteen and then thirty-one in 1787, and eighty in 1768.In 1794, Benjamin sold "Babet," a Black woman, to Franco Cardel. Manuel sold two Blacks from Guinea named "Polidor" and "Lucy" to James Saunders for $850 in silver.As individuals they were owners of Africans whom they named "Quetelle," "Valentin," "Baptiste," "Prince," "Princess," "Ceasar," "Dolly," "Jen," "Fanchonet," "Rozetta," "Mamy," "Sofia," and many others. Isaac repeatedly mortgaged four of these when in financial trouble. Benjamin Monsanto of Natchez, Mississippi entered into at least 6 contracts for the sale of his slaves which would take place after his death. Gracia bequeathed nine Africans to her relatives in her 1790 will, and Eleanora also held Blacks as slaves.Manuel Jacob Monsanto entered into at least 12 contracts for sale of slaves between 1787 and 1789 in Natchez and New Orleans, Louisiana.1135 "His family consists of himself and seven Negroes."1136 Later, "Jacob Monsanto, son of Isaac Rodrigues Monsanto, one of the very first known Jews to settle in New Orleans, owner of a several-hundred-acre plantation at Manchac, fell in love with his slave, Mamy or Maimi William. Their daughter Sophia, grew up to be a lovely quadroon." An excerpt of one of Benjamin's many slave contracts follows:"Be it known to all to whom these presents shall come, that I Benjamin Monsanto do really and effectually sell to Henry Manadu a negro wench named "Judy," aged Eighteen years, native of Guinea, for the sum of four hundred Dollars in all the month of January in the year one thousand Seven hundred and ninety one; and paying interest at the rate of ten per cent for the remaining two hundred and fifty Dollars until paid; said negro wench being and remaining mortgaged until final payment shall have been made; wherewith I acknowledge to be fully satisfied and content, hereby renouncing the plea of non numerata pecunia, fraud, or others in the case Whatsoever; granting formal receipt for the same. For which said consideration I do hereby resign all right, title, possession and claim, in and to the said Slave, all of which I transfer and convey to the Said Purchaser and his assigns, to be, as his own, held and enjoyed, and when fully paid for, Sold, exchanged, or otherwise alienated at pleasure in virtue of these presents granted in his favor in token of real delivery, without other proof of property being required, from which he is hereby released, binding myself to maintain the validity of this present sale in full form and right in favor of the Purchaser aforesaid, and granting authority to the Justices of his Majesty to compel me to the performance of the same as if Judgment had already been given therein, renouncing all laws, rights, and privileges in my favor whatsoever. And I the said Henry Manadu being present, do hereby accept this Instrument in my favor, receiving said negro Wench as purchased in the form and for the consideration therein mentioned and contained, wherewith I am fully satisfied and content, hereby renouncing the plea of non numerato pecunia, fraud, or other considerations in the case Whatsoever; granting formal receipt for the same. Done and executed, in testimony thereof, at the post of Natchez, this nineteenth day of the month of February in the year one thousand seven hundred and ninety...."Benjamin Monsanto, sold land and "a Dwelling House, Store, and two other buildings, for which I have received payment in a negro, named 'Nat;' to my full satisfaction." Another contract stipulated "that Don Louis Faure is bound to defend the said sale in case the negro shall be claimed by any other Person." In a 1792 contract, Benjamin mortgaged his Black slaves: "I do hereby specially mortgage three slaves to me belonging, namely Eugene and Louis, aged twenty four years each, the first named of the Senegal nation and the second of the Congo nation; and a Negro Woman named Adelaide, aged twenty eight years, also of the Congo nation; which said slaves I warrant free from mortgage or other incumbrance, as I have made appear by certificate from the Recorder of mortgages; and which said slaves I promise and engage shall not be sold nor otherwise alienated during the term of this obligation..."========================The following Jews were known dealers, owners, shippers or supporters of the slave trade and of the enslavement of Black African citizens in early New York history.Issack Asher, Jacob Barsimson, Joseph Bueno, Solomon Myers Cohen, Jacob Fonseca, Aberham Franckfort, Jacob Franks, Daniel Gomez, David Gomez, Isaac Gomez, Lewis Gomez, Mordecai Gomez, Rebekah Gomez, Ephraim Hart, Judah Hays, Harmon Hendricks, Uriah Hendricks, Uriah Hyam, Abraham Isaacs, Joshua Isaacs, Samuel Jacobs, Benjamin S. Judah, Cary Judah, Elizabeth Judah, Arthur Levy, Eleazar Levy, Hayman Levy, Isaac H. Levy, Jacob Levy, Joseph Israel Levy, Joshua Levy, Moses Levy, Uriah Phillips Levy, Isaac R. Marques, Moses Michaels, (E)Manuel Myers, Seixas Nathan, Simon Nathan, Rodrigo Pacheco, David Pardo, Isaac Pinheiro, Rachel Pinto, Morris Jacob, Raphall Abraham Sarzedas, Moses Seixas, Solomon Simpson, Nathan Simson, Simja De Torres, Benjamin Wolf, Alexander ZuntzTo read more...about Jewish Slave Dealers And Owners HERE
The Amazing Revolving Door -
Monsanto, FDA & EPA
From Rich Murray
Welcome To The Revolving DoorThe "revolving door" - the interplay of personnel that assists the industrial alignment of public service and regulatory authorities - has led to key figures at both the US's FDA and EPA having held important positions at Monsanto, or else doing so shortly after their biotech related regulatory work for the government agency.An article in The Ecologist's famous 'Monsanto Files' by Jennifer Ferrara, 'Revolving Doors: Monsanto and the Regulators', looked in detail at this issue.As an instance, Ferrara noted the FDA's approval of Monsanto's genetically engineered cattle drug rBGH which failed to gain approval in either Europe or Canada despite intense lobbying and accusations of malpractice:"Michael R. Taylor, the FDA's deputy commissioner for policy, wrote the FDA's rBGH labelling guidelines. The guidelines, announced in February 1994, virtually prohibited dairy corporations from making any real distinction between products produced with and without rBGH. To keep rBGH-milk from being "stigmatized" in the marketplace, the FDA announced that labels on non-rBGH products must state that there is no difference between rBGH and the naturally occurring hormone.In March 1994, Taylor was publicly exposed as a former lawyer for the Monsanto corporation for seven years. While working for Monsanto, Taylor had prepared a memo for the company as to whether or not it would be constitutional for states to erect labelling laws concerning rBGH dairy products. In other words Taylor helped Monsanto figure out whether or not the corporation could sue states or companies that wanted to tell the public that their products were free of Monsanto's drug.Taylor wasn't the only FDA official involved in rBGI-1 policy who had worked for Monsanto. Margaret Miller, deputy director of the FDA's Office of New Animal Drugs was a former Monsanto research scientist who had worked on Monsanto's rBGH safety studies up until 1989. Suzanne Sechen was a primary reviewer for rBGH in the Office of New Animal Drugs between 1988 and 1990. Before coming to the FDA, she had done research for several Monsanto-funded rBGH studies as a graduate student at Cornell University. Her professor was one of Monsanto's university consultants and a known rBGH promoter.Remarkably. the GAO determined in a 1994 investigation that these officials' former association with the Monsanto corporation did not pose a conflict of interest. But for those concerned about the health and environmental hazards of genetic engineering, the revolving door between the biotechnology industry and federal regulating agencies is a serious cause for concern." http://www.psrast.org/ecologmons.htmThe following is taken from the Edmonds Institute: http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.htmlDavid W. Beier . . .former head of Government Affairs for Genentech, Inc. . . . chief domestic policy advisor to Al Gore when he was Vice President.Linda J. Fisher . . .former Assistant Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Pollution Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances...now Vice President of Government and Public Affairs for Monsanto Corporation.Michael A. Friedman, M.D. . . former acting commissioner of the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Department of Health and Human Services . . .now senior vice-president for clinical affairs at G. D. Searle & Co., a pharmaceutical division of Monsanto Corporation.L. Val Giddings . . . former biotechnology regulator and (biosafety) negotiator at the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA/APHIS) . . .now Vice President for Food & Agriculture of the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO).Marcia Hale . . . former assistant to the President of the United States and director for intergovernmental affairs . . .now Director of International Government Affairs for Monsanto Corporation.Michael (Mickey) Kantor. . . former Secretary of the United States Department of Commerce and former Trade Representative of the United States . . . now member of the board of directors of Monsanto Corporation.Josh King . . . former director of production for White House events. . . now director of global communication in the Washington, D.C. office of Monsanto Corporation.Terry Medley . . . former administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture, former chair and vice-chair of the United States Department of Agriculture Biotechnology Council, former member of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) food advisory committee...and now Director of Regulatory and External Affairs of Dupont Corporation's Agricultural Enterprise.Margaret Miller . . . former chemical laboratory supervisor for Monsanto, . . .now Deputy Director of Human Food Safety and Consultative Services, New Animal Drug Evaluation Office, Center for Veterinary Medicine in the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA).*Michael Phillips . . . recently with the National Academy of Science Board on Agriculture . . . now head of regulatory affairs for the Biotechnology Industry Organization.William D. Ruckelshaus . . . former chief administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), . .now (and for the past 12 years) a member of the board of directors of Monsanto Corporation.Michael Taylor . . . former legal advisor to the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s Bureau of Medical Devices and Bureau of Foods, later executive assistant to the Commissioner of the FDA... still later a partner at the law firm of King & Spaulding where he supervised a nine-lawyer group whose clients included Monsanto Agricultural Company... still later Deputy Commissioner for Policy at the United States Food and Drug Administration, . . . and later with the law firm of King & Spaulding... now head of the Washington, D.C. office of Monsanto Corporation.*Lidia Watrud . . . former microbial biotechnology researcher at Monsanto Corporation in St. Louis, Missouri, . . .now with the United States Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Effects Laboratory, Western Ecology Division.Jack Watson. . .former chief of staff to the President of the United States, Jimmy Carter, . . .now a staff lawyer with Monsanto Corporation in Washington, D.C.Clayton K. Yeutter . . . former Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, former U.S. Trade Representative (who led the U.S. team in negotiating the U.S. Canada Free Trade Agreement and helped launch the Uruguay Round of the GATT negotiations), now a member of the board of directors of Mycogen Corporation, whose majority owner is Dow AgroSciences, a wholly owned subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company.Larry Zeph . . . former biologist in the Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, . . . now Regulatory Science Manager at Pioneer Hi-Bred International.*Margaret Miller, Michael Taylor, and Suzanne Sechen (an FDA "primary reviewer for all rbST and other dairy drug production applications" ) were the subjects of a U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) investigation in 1994 for their role in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's approval of Posilac, Monsanto Corporation's formulation of recombinant bovine growth hormone (rbST or rBGH). The GAO Office found "no conflicting financial interests with respect to the drug's approval" and only "one minor deviation from now superseded FDA regulations". (Quotations are from the 1994 GAO report)."When people are trying to kill you and when they attack because they hate freedom, other disputes from Frankenfood to bananas and even important issues like the environment suddenly look a bit different." - Condoleeza Rice, George Bush's National Security Adviser
Monsanto SendsSeed-Saving Farmer To PrisonOrganic Consumers AssociationFrom Agribusiness Examiner #2466-19-3PETER SHINKLE, ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH -- A farmer opposed to Monsanto Co.'s genetic seed licensing practices was sentenced pMay 7] in federal court at St. Louis to eight months in prison for lying about a truckload of cotton seed he hid for a friend.Kem Ralph, 47, of Covington, Tenn., also admitted burning a truckload of seed, in defiance of a court order, to keep Monsanto from using it as evidence in a lawsuit against him.The prison term for conspiracy to commit fraud is believed to be the first criminal prosecution linked to Monsanto's crackdown on farmers it claims are violating agreements on use of the genetically modified seeds.Ralph pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court on February 21 of lying in a sworn statement in the civil case.At issue is seed-saving, the age-old agricultural practice of keeping seed from one crop to plant another. Monsanto's licensing agreement forbids it, a policy that has drawn bitter opposition from some farmers.In court Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Richard Webber ordered Ralph to serve the prison time and to repay Monsanto $165,649 for about 41 tons of genetically engineered cotton and soybean seed he was found to have saved in violation of the agreement.Monsanto says it has filed 73 civil lawsuits against farmers in the past five years over this issue.Officials of the company, based in Creve Coeur, hoped that Ralph's case would send a stern message. Monsanto has distributed information about it and about the civil litigation as a warning.Before Ralph's sentencing Wednesday, a Monsanto official told Judge Webber that other farmers would closely watch the outcome."Their behavior will be set according to the results here today," said Scott Baucum, an intellectual property protection manager for Monsanto.The ruddy-faced Ralph appeared in court in blue jeans and a plaid shirt. He made no comment during or after the hearing. His attorneys have asked him to hold his peace because his civil case with Monsanto --- in which he has already been ordered to pay more than $1.7 million to the agribusiness giant --- is still not over.But Ralph has been outspoken about his feelings. He said in a deposition in2000 that opposition to Monsanto led to his decision to burn the bags of seed."Me and my brother talked about how rotten and lowdown Monsanto is. We're tired of being pushed around by Monsanto," he said then. "We are being pushed around and drug down a road like a bunch of dogs. And we decided we'd burn them."Monsanto's new seeds have won widespread acceptance among American farmers. An example is genetically modified soybean seeds, which are designed to work with Monsanto's herbicide Roundup.The seeds, which won government approval in 1994, are expected to account for 80% of the 73 million acres of soybeans planted in 2002 and 2003, the Department of Agriculture says.Monsanto and its supporters say its fees are justified so the company can recoup costs and pay for future research.Farmers who refuse to pay the fees obtain an unfair advantage over others, Monsanto says.Some critics contend that the company's pricing is excessive and too tough on farmers."Farmers were always able to compete by saving seed. It's really a question of the corporate profit - that's what's being protected. If you can't save seed, you've got to buy it," said Lou Leonatti, an attorney from Mexico, Missouri, who represents Ralph in his civil case.People from Tipton County, near Ralph's home, wrote to tell Judge Webber that farmers there had suffered some hard years.Paul D'Agrossa, attorney for Ralph in the criminal case, argued for probation so his client could continue to work the soil and support his teenage son.But Webber, who explained that he had saved seed on the family farm where he grew up, said he could not ignore Ralph's efforts to conceal evidence."I'm not interested in making an example of Mr. Ralph. At the same time, I can't turn a blind eye to his conduct," the judge said.Taking note of the planting season, Webber said he would not require the farmer to report to prison before July 1.http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/prison051403.cfmCommentFrom Horsthorst@nakis.gr6-20-31. Why don't they start with organic farming? It is a viable method with the same profit after the first couple of years needed for the soil to recover.2. Obviously, there are many farmers who suffer under this evil conduct of Monsanto.What will happen when thousands of farmers do the same? i.e. save seeds for the next year.They can't send them all to prison!Civil disobeyance is the right way to answer this and it is usually successfull. Use the internet to get organized!By the way, here in Europe Monsanto is THE symbol for evil Amerikkkan companies.
It should come as no surprise to many of you to find out that Monsanto actually authored the wording of its own Monsanto Protection Act hidden in the recently passed and signed Continuing Resolution spending bill. How could a major corporation write its own laws and regulations, you ask?Quite frankly I think it’s important to understand that the entire Senate passed the bill containing the Protection Act, but the politician who actually gave Monsanto the pen in order to write their very own legislation is no others than Roy Blunt — a Republican Senator from Missouri. As the latest IB Times article reveals, the Missouri politician worked with Monsanto to write the Monsanto Protection Act. This was confirmed by a New York news report I will get to shortly.As you probably know I do not play the political clown game of left verses right, and instead highlight corruption and wrongdoing wherever it is found — regardless of party affiliation. In the case of Senator Blunt, he admits to colluding with Monsanto, a corporation that has literally been caught running ‘slave-like’ working conditions in which workers are unable to leave or eat (among many worse misdeeds).This is one of the most blatant offenses against the citizens of the United States I’ve seen in a long time. A population that Blunt swore to serve. It’s not for the United States public at all, and it’s a serious matter that I don’t think is properly understood. The passing of this bill into law means thatMonsanto is now immune from federal courts regarding any suspension or action on their crops that have been deemed to be dangerous to the people (or the environment).This means crops that were approved and later found to damage the environment or the public will be immune from United States government action. Theoretically, one million studies could find that Monsanto’s latest creation was causing a massive cancer wave and under this law Monsanto could continue to peddle the crop to the public. The federal courts would (or will) be helpless to stop Monsanto, effectively giving Monsanto power over the entire branch of the United States government. Food Democracy Now, a major activist organization that organized signatures to fight the Monsanto Protection Act, described the rider:“The Monsanto Protection Act would force the USDA to allow continued planting of any GMO crop under court review, essentially giving backdoor approval for any new genetically engineered crops that could be potentially harmful to human health or the environment.”Sounds like a great idea, right?Serving Corporations, Not PeopleSenator Roy Blunt and those who knowingly passed the Monsanto Protection Act (including President Obama who signed it into law just last night) have chosen to serve corporations over people. Ironic, really, as corporations legally are people — a legal area commonly used to avoid real jail sentences for major CEOs and executives who knowingly were involved with the deaths of consumers around the world.It’s sad, really. I read up on Senator Blunt, and he does seem to constantly side with corporations over the public. Even on his Wikipedia page one line reads that Blunt ”consistently sided with Big Oil and other dirty polluters over a cleaner, more sustainable future.”I was even able to find a quote by Blunt defending his decision to allow Monsanto to write its own regulation through the Monsanto Protection Act. He told the NY Daily News in defense of the Monsanto Protection Act and his relationship with the company in writing the rider:“What it says is if you plant a crop that is legal to plant when you plant it, you get to harvest it.”I think Blunt is confused over which ‘people’ he is serving. I created this image to call Blunt out on his open decision to side with Monsanto over the public:You can contact Senator Blunt through his website and let him know what you think about his decision to let Monsanto write its own Protection Act. No longer can we sit idly by while corporate juggernauts like Monsanto triumph over the people through swindling and deceit. Share this article, the image, and publicly denounce all politicians willing to sell their souls to Monsanto.This post originally appeared at Natural Society