by Jon Rappoport
June 3, 2013
It’s a scandal.
Monsanto has just announced it’s
giving up on most of Europe: people there don’t want GMO food.
In America, the struggle is for labeling GMOs.
This is some kind of “fairness doctrine.” Let the US consumer decide
what kind of food to buy. Choice. It’s the American way, right?
No, actually it isn’t.
The evidence gathered over the last 10
years is staggering. GMO food and the herbicides sprayed on them
constitute a major health hazard, to say the least.
And this doesn’t begin to cover the lying business practices of
Monsanto, who promised farmers that Roundup would kill weeds in the
fields. Instead, the weeds have proliferated to the point where the
farmers have to kill everything growing
with stronger, more dangerous herbicides, like
In the US, laws exist to prosecute crimes involving endangerment of
health and crimes related to false marketing practices. These laws
are on the books. When it comes to Monsanto, they’re gathering dust
on the shelves.
Choice and fairness apply to competitive products that are safe. The
consumer picks one type of tomato over another. The consumer buys
walnuts rather than pecans. The consumer chooses black olives over
Choosing non-GMO corn instead of GMO corn still leaves dangerous GMO
corn in produce bins.
Should a bottle of cyanide sit on a store shelf next to a bottle of
salt, just to be fair to the consumer? To give him a choice?
Three or four federal law-enforcement agencies would arrest and
prosecute the store owners who sell cyanide, as well as the
distributors, and the packagers. But in the case of GMO food, the
FDA and USDA, the relevant agencies, do nothing. Neither does the
Dept. of Justice.
Aside from several counties in America that have banned the growing
of GMO crops, the big push is for labeling of GMO food in stores.
The theory is, when consumers have a choice, they’ll overwhelmingly
reject GMOs and put a serious crimp in Monsanto’s business. That may
or may not happen (if labeling is widespread), but the theory
doesn’t directly address Monsanto’s crimes.
The “kinder, gentler” approach is based on two assumptions. One,
American consumers need soft activism. They won’t demand legal
rejection of GMO food. They will, however, choose the right food.
And two, Monsanto has made such a powerful inroad on food-crop
farming, it’s too late to take it back. It’s too late to declare all
the GMO crops illegal.
“You see, so many people are taking
Vioxx, we can’t go to court over it. It’s a done deal, even
though patients are dropping like flies.”
It wasn’t a done deal. Neither are GMOs...
In a previous article, “Meet
Monsanto’s number-one lobbyist - Barack Obama,” I
detailed Obama’s horrendous record when it comes to allowing new GMO
crops to enter the food chain, and his outrageous appointments of
ex-Monsanto stalwarts to important and key positions in his
But Obama is “a good man.” He must be doing the right thing. He’s
popular, so it wouldn’t be wise to attack him on the issue. Better
to lay back, paste a smile on our faces, and try to secure labeling
Of course, that’s exactly the wrong strategy. But as in all
campaigns, the longer people wait and do nothing and remain timid,
the less likely it is they can succeed, if and when they decide to
That’s why Monsanto now has so many acres of GMO food growing in the
United States. That’s why Monsanto has been able to push its
unconscionable propaganda down the throat of the American consumer.
That’s why Whole Foods and other major health-food companies decided
to surrender the real battles and opt for co-existence with
Monsanto. When there is continuing crime in a community, the people,
the citizens have to go after and expose the public officials who
are doing nothing about it, who are indeed profiting from it.
In the case of Monsanto, the officials
are, among others,
President Barack Obama
Tom Vilsack, head of the USDA
Michael Taylor, food czar at the
But health-food companies, who should be
leading the battle, are either friendly or neutral toward these bad
actors. They’re hedging their bets.
“We’ll inform consumers so they can
make good choices, we’ll do labeling, but don’t expect us to be
more aggressive than that. Don’t expect us to get mad.”
Neutrality is apparently the American
First and foremost, the business of
America is business. And the idea of consumers staging a full-bore
boycott against Whole Foods? Out of the question. No, consumers are
too busy loading up bags with groceries.
Monsanto relies on that. Monsanto knows Americans are tuned up to
buy, buy, and consume, and then buy more. Americans consider it
their right not to be distracted from that obsession.
before him, are silent on
the GMO issue. They all pretend it
doesn’t exist. They sell out the people at the drop of a hat, and
they don’t lose any sleep over it. Conscience? Never heard of it.
Ditto for major mainstream news outlets.
“We don’t cover the Monsanto story
in depth because it’s a he-said he-said thing. The scientific
issues are complex. People on both sides make interesting
points. But there’s no traction…”
That’s a bunch of crap.
Make me the managing editor of the
Washington Post for a year and I’ll send sales of the paper through
the roof. I’ll let the hounds loose on Monsanto 24/7 and pound on
the story day after day. The bottom line of the Post will look
healthier than it has since Watergate, a minor topic compared to
But the Post doesn’t really care about their bottom line. They would
go bankrupt before they’d venture into these waters. They’re sold
out from the top down. They’re part of the cover-up.
I’ve written about this before, but here it is again. In the early
1990s, when the US health freedom movement was at a fever pitch,
when people were going after the FDA for raiding natural
practitioners’ offices and trying to limit access to nutritional
supplements in stores, I sat in on several significant meetings of
People who controlled those meetings, who were connected to
supplement companies, wanted a bill in Congress to protect the
consumer. To give the consumer choice and access to supplements.
That’s all they wanted.
I told them, in no uncertain terms, that this wouldn’t work over the
long term. We had to
go after the FDA. We had to attack.
I had a dossier on the FDA. I, like others, knew a lot about their
crimes going back a long way.
I was told this was the wrong strategy.
“First,” they said, “let’s get a
good bill passed in Congress. Then we can attack the FDA.”
They had no such intention, and I told
them so. They were never going to support going after the FDA and
exposing it down to the ground as a criminal agency.
They had no stomach for it, and they were sold out themselves. They
had a confined agenda, which had to do with helping to guard
supplement companies’ profits.
They were slick operators. They knew how to present themselves as
neutral and rational. They could spout New Age garble at appropriate
“Anger can be self-defeating.”
“You achieve your aims when you come
from a place of doing service.”
The same thing is happening now.
“Give people the right to know, the
right to choose what’s in their food.”
It plays well, because it caters to the
wholly absorbed self-interest of the health-food consumer with
It doesn’t work in the long run. It papers over the fact that
corporate criminals, in partnership with the highest government
officials, are committing RICO crimes against the health of the
The appropriate emotion is outrage.
In case you hadn’t noticed, for the past 40 years there has been
a major psyop in progress against righteous outrage and on
behalf of Nice. Be nice. Be friendly. Be happy. Be self-contained.
Don’t make waves. Anger is a sign of a mental disorder. Outrage
isn’t Spiritual. You’ll injure your Karma.
Karma was invented to
prop up a caste system. It was used to promote passivity.
Silence is not golden. Profits are.
Labeling food that isn’t poisonous, while permitting the sale of
poison, is let’s-pretend virtual reality.
I’ve met so-called health entrepreneurs who’ve adopted squeaky clean
New Age cover-personalities to obscure their sleazebag cynical
motives. They’re very slippery characters. They do their real work
in conference rooms where they look at spread sheets.
The chance of them going after GMO criminals is zero.
Once in a while, if you wait for it, or if you push them a little,
you’ll see something come into their eyes. A dead cold nothing. It’s
a sign of the personal Arctic region where they really live.
They don’t till, they don’t plant, they don’t harvest. They sell.
They’re very much like the Sunday television preachers who are there
to hustle dollars. Only they take a kinder, gentler approach.
They’re all about “consciousness” and
saving the planet.
If the planet were alive in the way they claim it is, the planet
would have long ago consigned them to a desert island under a