OT: New CODEX bill in New Zealand would prohibit home grown food without permit.

[Thekla]

Wow! No wonder McCain backs Romney.

Two chums being supported by Monsanto.

My mistake; Monsanto is one of his former clients.

Which is similar.

 

[MariaRegina]

My mistake; Monsanto is one of his former clients.

Which is similar.

Who is he?

Is Monsanto one of McCain's former clients, or Romney's?

 

[Thekla]

Who is he?

Is Monsanto one of McCain's former clients, or Romney's?

Romney's

 

[MKJ]

tThought this might be of interest to some, especially given the claims by companies like Monsanto that their methods are the only way we can feed our population.

Organic Can Feed the World
"We all have things that drive us crazy," wrote Steve Kopperud in a blog post this fall for Brownfield, an organization that disseminates agricultural news online and through radio broadcasts. Kopperud, who is a lobbyist for agribusiness interests in Washington, D.C., then got downright personal: "Firmly ensconced at the top of my list are people who consider themselves experts on an issue when judging by what they say and do, they're sitting high in an ivory tower somewhere contemplating only the 'wouldn't-it-be-nice' aspects."
At the top of that heap, Kopperud put Michael Pollan and Marion Nestle, a contributor to Atlantic Life and the author of Food Politics, the title of both her most well-known book and her daily blog.
"There's a huge chunk of reality missing from Dr. Nestle's academic approach to life," Kopperud wrote. "The missing bit is, quite simply, the answer to the following question: How do you feed seven billion people today and nine billion by 2040 through organic, natural, and local food production?" He then answers his own question. "You can't."

What is notably lacking in the "conventional" versus organic debate are studies backing up the claim that organic can't feed the world's growing population.​

As a journalist who takes issues surrounding food production seriously, I too have things that drive me crazy.
At the top of my list are agribusiness advocates such as Kopperud (and, more recently, Steve Sexton of Freakonomics) who dismiss well-thought-out concerns about today's dysfunctional food production system with the old saw that organic farming can't save the world. They persist in repeating this as an irrefutable fact, even as one scientific study after another concludes the exact opposite: not only that organic can indeed feed nine billion human beings but that it is the only hope we have of doing so...

 

[MariaRegina]

Thanks, MJK

There was a woman in my church that kept asking, "How can we feed the masses?"

She wanted to eat organics but wanted to feed the masses the cheap adulterated food produced by Monsanto and other processed food manufacturers. This adulterated food is shunned in Europe, so Monsanto is about to do an end run and force GMO processed food on the entire world.

If you have ever been in any hospital recently, you know exactly what I am talking about. There are very few hospitals with chefs as most serve highly processed pre-packaged food that is simply reheated and served. In Las Vegas at Centennial Hospital, a patient was served a very tiny overcooked breast of chicken. When she tried to cut it, it was very hard to cut. When she tried to chew it, she gagged. It was very tough and tasted like cardboard. This is the kind of fare that Monsanto, Dole, and ConAgra want to force on us through this WTO CODEX bills. Are you ready for it?

Anyone know how to spell Monopoly?

 

[MKJ]

Thanks, MJK

There was a woman in my church that kept asking, "How can we feed the masses?"

She wanted to eat organics but wanted to feed the masses the cheap adulterated food produced by Monsanto and other processed food manufacturers. This adulterated food is shunned in Europe, so Monsanto is about to do an end run and force GMO processed food on the entire world.

If you have ever been in any hospital recently, you know exactly what I am talking about. There are very few hospitals with chefs as most serve highly processed pre-packaged food that is simply reheated and served. In Las Vegas at Centennial Hospital, a patient was served a very tiny overcooked breast of chicken. When she tried to cut it, it was very hard to cut. When she tried to chew it, she gagged. It was very tough and tasted like cardboard. This is the kind of fare that Monsanto, Dole, and ConAgra want to force on us through this WTO CODEX bills. Are you ready for it?

Anyone know how to spell Monopoly?

A big trend in farming is to have these big agribusinesses buy up all the farmland in a particular area, and then hire the former farm-owners to manage the farms for them. It's precisely the sort of economic feudalism that Belloc said 100 years ago was the logical outcome of capitalism. That's why there is a big push toward that kind of agriculture, not because it is supports the common good in any way or is good for the land. It is good for big companies that want big profits in the next quarter, and they can crush everyone else because of their size, vertical integration, and political clout.

It is exactly the kind of thing that should be pointed out in that other thread on libertarianism - a system where profit is the motive and usury is rampant can never prosper in any human way, as it is based on one of the seven deadly sins and an unnatural monetary system.

 

[Knee V]

A big trend in farming is to have these big agribusinesses buy up all the farmland in a particular area, and then hire the former farm-owners to manage the farms for them. It's precisely the sort of economic feudalism that Belloc said 100 years ago was the logical outcome of capitalism. That's why there is a big push toward that kind of agriculture, not because it is supports the common good in any way or is good for the land. It is good for big companies that want big profits in the next quarter, and they can crush everyone else because of their size, vertical integration, and political clout.

It is exactly the kind of thing that should be pointed out in that other thread on libertarianism - a system where profit is the motive and usury is rampant can never prosper in any human way, as it is based on one of the seven deadly sins and an unnatural monetary system.

The issue isn't that they have bought up the farm land. The issue is what lead to that in the first place. That issue is corrupt politicians who are easily bought and who pass unjust laws in favor of corporations who happen to have the money to buy them out. Everyone with power is going to want more power. Heads of major businesses are no different. If those laws favoring the large businesses weren't in effect, then the farmers wouldn't be in a position to need to sell their land in the first place.

Almost every kid is going to ask to have cake for supper. It is the responsibility of a parent to say no, no matter how much the kid begs. Corporations are the same way with Congress. They're going to ask for laws to make them more profitable. It is Congress' responsibility to say no and continue to enact just laws. But the politicians are corrupt and easily bought, and they didn't say no. Instead, they said, "Sure, have cake for supper. And here's some candy, and fudge, and ice cream..."

When the government is corrupt, it doesn't matter what economic system is in place. That's why we are supposed to have a severely limited federal government. We cede more power to the federal government, and they respond by taking more power and giving it to their friends. But it's not just the U.S. The world is, and has been, moving in a very particular direction for some time now. As adamant as I am about my libertarian beliefs (severely limit the power of those in power), I know that I'm fighting a losing battle. As technology improves and gives us a more comfortable quality of life, it also serves to make domination that much more accessible to those who seek it out.

 

[Thekla]

A big trend in farming is to have these big agribusinesses buy up all the farmland in a particular area, and then hire the former farm-owners to manage the farms for them. It's precisely the sort of economic feudalism that Belloc said 100 years ago was the logical outcome of capitalism. That's why there is a big push toward that kind of agriculture, not because it is supports the common good in any way or is good for the land. It is good for big companies that want big profits in the next quarter, and they can crush everyone else because of their size, vertical integration, and political clout.

It is exactly the kind of thing that should be pointed out in that other thread on libertarianism - a system where profit is the motive and usury is rampant can never prosper in any human way, as it is based on one of the seven deadly sins and an unnatural monetary system.

Indeed, Monsanto's numerous (specious - some for owning seed sorters) lawsuits against small farmers has had the effect of driving people into bankruptcy before the case comes to trial. A pretty simple strategy to gain a monopoly over food production.

In a system entirely dependent on the judicial system, the powerful will always prevail, even when they are wrong.

Thus, imo, Libertarianism is social Darwinism.

 

[Thekla]

The issue isn't that they have bought up the farm land. The issue is what lead to that in the first place. That issue is corrupt politicians who are easily bought and who pass unjust laws in favor of corporations who happen to have the money to buy them out. Everyone with power is going to want more power. Heads of major businesses are no different. If those laws favoring the large businesses weren't in effect, then the farmers wouldn't be in a position to need to sell their land in the first place.

Almost every kid is going to ask to have cake for supper. It is the responsibility of a parent to say no, no matter how much the kid begs. Corporations are the same way with Congress. They're going to ask for laws to make them more profitable. It is Congress' responsibility to say no and continue to enact just laws. But the politicians are corrupt and easily bought, and they didn't say no. Instead, they said, "Sure, have cake for supper. And here's some candy, and fudge, and ice cream..."

When the government is corrupt, it doesn't matter what economic system is in place. That's why we are supposed to have a severely limited federal government. We cede more power to the federal government, and they respond by taking more power and giving it to their friends. But it's not just the U.S. The world is, and has been, moving in a very particular direction for some time now. As adamant as I am about my libertarian beliefs (severely limit the power of those in power), I know that I'm fighting a losing battle. As technology improves and gives us a more comfortable quality of life, it also serves to make domination that much more accessible to those who seek it out.

How will a severely limited federal government make any difference ?
How will it restrain the power of those with power ?

 

[Knee V]

How will a severely limited federal government make any difference ?
How will it restrain the power of those with power ?

By "limited" I mean that they don't have very much power to begin with. Our constitution is set up so that power is spread out all over the place. The Federal Government only has very specific powers that it can act on, and those are spread out over three branches. And the rest of the powers are given to all the individual states and the people of those states. If they don't have very much power, then there's not a whole lot that they can do to us. But we've given them all the power they want, and now they're unstoppable.

For example, the Federal Government doesn't have the authority of regulate farming and agriculture. Since it's not specifically spelled out as a power of any branch of the federal government, then, according to the 10th amendment, farming and agriculture is an issue to be handled on the state level (thus the U.S. Department of Agriculture is an unconstitutional agency). If we were to keep the federal government in check and prevent them from meddling in those types of affairs, groups like Monsanto wouldn't have a leg to stand on, as they wouldn't be able to get federal legislation that favors their operations.

But we've failed to keep in check those in power.

 

[MariaRegina]

The issue isn't that they have bought up the farm land. The issue is what lead to that in the first place. That issue is corrupt politicians who are easily bought and who pass unjust laws in favor of corporations who happen to have the money to buy them out. Everyone with power is going to want more power. Heads of major businesses are no different. If those laws favoring the large businesses weren't in effect, then the farmers wouldn't be in a position to need to sell their land in the first place.

Almost every kid is going to ask to have cake for supper. It is the responsibility of a parent to say no, no matter how much the kid begs. Corporations are the same way with Congress. They're going to ask for laws to make them more profitable. It is Congress' responsibility to say no and continue to enact just laws. But the politicians are corrupt and easily bought, and they didn't say no. Instead, they said, "Sure, have cake for supper. And here's some candy, and fudge, and ice cream..."

When the government is corrupt, it doesn't matter what economic system is in place. That's why we are supposed to have a severely limited federal government. We cede more power to the federal government, and they respond by taking more power and giving it to their friends. But it's not just the U.S. The world is, and has been, moving in a very particular direction for some time now. As adamant as I am about my libertarian beliefs (severely limit the power of those in power), I know that I'm fighting a losing battle. As technology improves and gives us a more comfortable quality of life, it also serves to make domination that much more accessible to those who seek it out.

And this is precisely what scares me about McCain and Romney.
They do not really care about Americans, but what American can do for their pocketbook.

Honestly, I cannot vote for either Romney or Obama.
We really do not have any choices. Lord have mercy.

http://www.webcasts.com/kingofbain/

 

[Thekla]

And this is precisely what scares me about McCain and Romney.
They do not really care about Americans, but what American can do for their pocketbook.

Honestly, I cannot vote for either Romney or Obama.
We really do not have any choices. Lord have mercy.

I hate to sound so downcast on the issue, but I think this has been true for quite some time.

 

[Dorothea]

And this is precisely what scares me about McCain and Romney.
They do not really care about Americans, but what American can do for their pocketbook.

Honestly, I cannot vote for either Romney or Obama.
We really do not have any choices. Lord have mercy.

There is nobody to vote for because they're all the same, imo.

 

[MariaRegina]

There is nobody to vote for because they're all the same, imo.

Exactly.

 

[MKJ]

The issue isn't that they have bought up the farm land. The issue is what lead to that in the first place. That issue is corrupt politicians who are easily bought and who pass unjust laws in favor of corporations who happen to have the money to buy them out. Everyone with power is going to want more power. Heads of major businesses are no different. If those laws favoring the large businesses weren't in effect, then the farmers wouldn't be in a position to need to sell their land in the first place.

Almost every kid is going to ask to have cake for supper. It is the responsibility of a parent to say no, no matter how much the kid begs. Corporations are the same way with Congress. They're going to ask for laws to make them more profitable. It is Congress' responsibility to say no and continue to enact just laws. But the politicians are corrupt and easily bought, and they didn't say no. Instead, they said, "Sure, have cake for supper. And here's some candy, and fudge, and ice cream..."

When the government is corrupt, it doesn't matter what economic system is in place. That's why we are supposed to have a severely limited federal government. We cede more power to the federal government, and they respond by taking more power and giving it to their friends. But it's not just the U.S. The world is, and has been, moving in a very particular direction for some time now. As adamant as I am about my libertarian beliefs (severely limit the power of those in power), I know that I'm fighting a losing battle. As technology improves and gives us a more comfortable quality of life, it also serves to make domination that much more accessible to those who seek it out.

I'm not sure I see what you are seeing as how what you've said relates to what i wrote, or to Libertarianism really? I think I must be missing something?

I agree that corrupt political leaders tend to result inevitably in corruptions in the economic life. The reverse is also true, a corrupted economic life will tend to attract corrupt business leaders and political leaders. And when either the political infrastructure or the economic infrastructure are themselves corrupt, the problem is likely to be endemic, which is just what we see. And that is true in a variety of different types of political structures world-wide.

I think the idea that controling the tendency for power to accumulate at the top of the political/economic structure is important, and one way to do that is a separation of powers like we see in the US or in Canada between different levels of government. And I think there are other ways political entities can try to do the same thing - what will work, and what levels are right for what kind of powers will depend on a lot of different circumstances.

But I don't think economic libertarianism is the answer - I think as a form of capitalism it is going to have exactly the opposite effect, because the result of capitalism is to concentrate capital in the hands of the few - and power will always follow, and political structures too. I think that is a big part of the reason you guys see this tendency for the feds to accumulate power, and we've seen a similar tendency for example for the PMO or even federal party leaders to accumulate power here in Canada. Our economic structure makes preventing it rather like Sisyphus' task.

It often seems to me that the goal of most libertarians is that power will be distributed to individuals, but I am unsure how that would happen under a capitalist system - even with some of the modern laws that allow companies to accumulate great wealth and just bulk done away with, it doesn't stop that tendency for wealth to accumulate.

 

[Thekla]

By "limited" I mean that they don't have very much power to begin with. Our constitution is set up so that power is spread out all over the place. The Federal Government only has very specific powers that it can act on, and those are spread out over three branches. And the rest of the powers are given to all the individual states and the people of those states. If they don't have very much power, then there's not a whole lot that they can do to us. But we've given them all the power they want, and now they're unstoppable.

For example, the Federal Government doesn't have the authority of regulate farming and agriculture. Since it's not specifically spelled out as a power of any branch of the federal government, then, according to the 10th amendment, farming and agriculture is an issue to be handled on the state level (thus the U.S. Department of Agriculture is an unconstitutional agency). If we were to keep the federal government in check and prevent them from meddling in those types of affairs, groups like Monsanto wouldn't have a leg to stand on, as they wouldn't be able to get federal legislation that favors their operations.

But we've failed to keep in check those in power.

ALEC has a great deal of behind the scenes influence at the state level (in fact, that is precisely their target); as long as such subscription/invitation only organizations exist, how does returning agricultural oversite to the state level change anything.

Pennsylvania (where I live) is a commonwealth; its laws place more recourse in the hands of counties and local communities. For the past decade, communities in Pa. have fought to keep certain corporate concerns out of their borders. This has been undermined at both the state legislative level, and also by the vastly superior firepower of corporate financial warchests - essentially pricing communities out of the legal system.

In some cases, like Monsanto nationwide, these corporations have mounted pre-emptive legal strikes to silence the opposition before it starts so to speak. (Like Monsanto falsely accusing farmer/s with seed sorters of accepting patented seed from friends to sort for collection and replanting, successfully working to remove the availability of seed sorting machines from an area by bankrupting small concerns with legal costs.) Monsanto further, through its patent rights, is able to silence any object scientific exploration of its products.

Any law - state or federal - is enforced and addressed in the legal system.

Where there is a disparity in the ability of individuals and communities to mount the dollars to go against those with greater financial fire- and legal-power, the application of the law is wholly a matter of one's financial strength.

 

[Thekla]

Article (recent) on the battle of some PA boroughs, townships, etc. against corporations

(specifically sewer sludge spreaders); many of these locations (beginning in 2002) have

used the tactic of outlawing Corporate Personhood.

The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund : Slinging Sludge


Note that the state AG is fighting them, not infrequently at the particular request of the corporations now or potentially affected by these ordinances.

 

[MariaRegina]

I wonder if Monsanto, Dole, or ConAgra are behind these efforts to OUTLAW the prohibition of sludging.

In Bakersfield, CA, the farmers are very upset that the Los Angeles Dept of Water and Power wanted to spread their sewer sludge onto their very fertile lands.

 

[Thekla]

I wonder if Monsanto, Dole, or ConAgra are behind these efforts to OUTLAW the prohibition of sludging.

In Bakersfield, CA, the farmers are very upset that the Los Angeles Dept of Water and Power wanted to spread their sewer sludge onto their very fertile lands.

I haven't tracked the Sludge companies; even if there isn't a direct relationship, I would not be at all surprised if there is some sort of cooperation through ALEC.

I've posted the following article on CF numerous times, but per the relationship to sewage sludge, thought it pertinent:

Bringing Cancer to the Dinner Table: Breast Cancer Cells Grow Under Influence of Fish Flesh
Tests of river fish indicate their flesh carries enough estrogen-mimicking chemicals to cause breast cancer cells to grow

Many streams, rivers and lakes already bear warning signs that the fish caught within them may contain dangerously high levels of mercury, which can cause brain damage. But, according to a new study, these fish may also be carrying enough chemicals that mimic the female hormone estrogen to cause breast cancer cells to grow. "Fish are really a sentinel, just like canaries in the coal mine 100 years ago," says Conrad Volz, co-director of exposure assessment at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute's Center for Environmental Ecology. "We need to pay attention to chemicals that are estrogenic in nature, because they find their way back into the water we all use."


Volz and colleagues, including biochemist Patricia Eagon, took samples from 21 catfish and six white bass donated by local anglers as part of a study presented at the American Association for Cancer Research meeting in Los Angeles this week. The fish were caught in five places: a relatively unpolluted site 36 miles upstream from Pittsburgh on the Allegheny River; an industrial site on the Monongahela River; an Allegheny site downstream from several industries that release toxic chemicals; and the confluence of the Allegheny and Monongahela rivers, where Pittsburgh dumps much of its treated sewage and sewer outflows. "This is the largest concentration of combined sewer outflows in the U.S.," Volz notes, about the confluence, known as the Point. The researchers also bought several fish at the store as controls.

...

It remains unclear exactly what estrogen-mimicking chemicals were actually present in the fish and what kind of cancer-causing role they might have. But their effects on the fish themselves were clear: the gender of nine of the fish could not be determined. "Increased estrogenic active substances in the water are changing males so that they are indistinguishable from females," Volz says. "There are eggs in male gonads as well as males are secreting a yolk sac protein. Males aren't supposed to be making egg stuff."

Bringing Cancer to the Dinner Table: Breast Cancer Cells Grow Under Influence of Fish Flesh: Scientific American


We talk about "kicking the can down the road" in reference to the public debt, but environmental degradation is another debt we "kick down the road" to our children ...

 

[MariaRegina]

Lord have mercy.