The convergence of corporate,
"philanthropic," governmental, and inter-governmental interests
promoting GM crops around the world can be seen in the
bewildering array of research institutes, industry associations,
and "consultative groups" that have invaded this field.
They
include,
-
the Rockefeller-founded International Rice Research
Institute (IRRI)
-
the Rockefeller/Monsanto/USAID brainchild International Service
for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA)
-
the Rockefeller/Ford/World Bank-created Consultative Group of
International Agricultural Research (CGIAR)
...and dozens of other bland-and-benign-sounding organizations set
up for the sole purpose of creating and popularizing GM crops.
Through the combined efforts of public and private groups in
funding and publicizing GM research, the GM cartel has succeeded
in sowing its synthetic seed all across the planet.
One sign, if any were needed, that the ultimate
aim of this cartel may not be benign is the Svalbard Global Seed
Vault. Like something out of a James Bond movie, the seed vault is
carved into the side of a mountain on a remote archipelago halfway
between Norway and the North Pole.
And, as the vault's own website
informs us, it is designed,
"to store duplicates (backups) of seed
samples from the world's crop collections" as "the ultimate
insurance policy for the world food supply."
Specifically, the
permafrost and thick rock of the Arctic tundra are meant to ensure
that the seed samples will remain frozen and preserved even without
power, meaning that the vault and its contents will survive in the
event of a worldwide disaster.
The vault contains more than 1,000,000 non-GMO
seed samples from all over the world and has the capacity to store
as many as 4.5 million varieties of crops within its icy walls.
It
is administered by
the
Crop Trust, an organization founded by the aforementioned CGIAR
and funded by the
Bill & Melinda
Gates Foundation, along with the
Rockefeller
Foundation, Dupont/Pioneer Hi-bred, Syngenta AG,
...and a score of
governments, UN-affiliated organizations, and
other corporations and foundations.
So, what exactly is the
Crop Trust?
Long
story short, in 2001, the FAO adopted the
International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture (shortened to "the plant treaty"),
which,
"aims to improve global food security by making it easier
for scientists and farmers to obtain and use seeds and other plant
material for crop improvement, research, and training."
The treaty
created a mechanism called the "Multilateral System" to make
sixty-four valuable food crops available in,
"an easily accessible
global pool of genetic resources that is freely available to
potential users in the Treaty's ratifying nations for some uses."
To
help it reach this lofty goal, the governing body of the plant
treaty entered into an agreement with the Global Crop Diversity
Trust (aka "the Crop Trust"), an international nonprofit
organization charged with raising and disbursing funds to preserve
crop diversity, to provide tools and financial support for genebanks
worldwide, and to conserve genebank specimens ex situ - i.e.,
buried in the side of a mountain in Svalbard's icy Arctic tundra.
Until 2012, the Crop Trust was
chaired by
Margaret Catley-Carson, a
former president of the J.D. Rockefeller III-founded Population
Council (the
American Eugenics Society by another name).
Her
connections prove that no matter where you turn in the realm of
genetics you always end up back at the doorstep of the same elitist,
eugenics-obsessed families and the corporate oligopoly they have
nurtured into existence.
What on earth are the eugenicists preparing for
with the seed vault?
Why does humanity need a backup of millions of
seed varieties that have presumably been around (for the most part)
throughout human history?
What kind of environmental catastrophe
could possibly contaminate the gene pool to the point where we would
need to repopulate the earth with heirloom, non-GMO seeds?
The answers you receive to these questions
depend, as usual, on whom you ask.
The Crop Trust itself has offered some scenarios
that appear to justify the existence of the seed vault.
"There are big and small doomsdays going on
around the world every day," the trust's former executive director,
Marie Haga,
told
TIME in 2017.
"Genetic material is being lost all
over the globe."
To which one property manager in charge of
overseeing the vault's day-to-day operations added:
"It is away from the places on earth
where you have war and terror, everything maybe you are
afraid of in other places."
Two years earlier, in 2015, the Crop Trust
announced that
the Svalbard seed bank had had its first-ever
withdrawal that year after a gene bank in war-torn Aleppo was
damaged by the US-backed terrorist insurgency in Syria.
At the time,
Crop Trust spokesman Brian Lainoff
opined that,
"the withdrawal actually serves as proof that such a vault is
necessary."
More recently,
the case has even been made by the
Independent that the
vault is required to protect the world's genetic heritage,
"in times
of global catastrophe, like the raging
Covid-19 'pandemic'."
Who knew
that Covid was such a threat to crop diversity?
War? Terrorism? Covid...?
True, geopolitical turmoil
and natural disasters do present a threat to crop diversity
in various locales, but these threats alone could not be the real reason that the multibillion-dollar foundations and NGOs
behind the Gene Revolution are creating a disaster-proof seed bank.
No... There must be something more than these
concerns to explain their obsession with repopulating the earth with
heirloom, non-GMO seeds in the wake of a worldwide catastrophe.
The only logical conclusion is that,
the very
eugenicists who have spearheaded the genetic engineering of the food
supply are aware that their Machiavellian machinations threaten life
on earth to such an alarming extent that a "backup" of the natural
world may be needed to one day "reboot" the planet.
Our first reaction to this sobering information
and its implication might be to panic. Then a feeling of
helplessness might set in, causing us to simply cave to the
seemingly unstoppable
GMO takeover.
After all,
how could there
possibly be a solution to an agenda as meticulously planned,
massively funded, and monumentally overwhelming as this one?
It has been suggested that governments should be
lobbied to institute national bans on the planting or cultivation of
GM crops.
Yet, given that these national governments are
increasingly ensnared in a web of international treaties and
organizations:
...and given that
these organizations and agreements are themselves tied in to the
biotech agenda through groups like IRRI and ISAAAA and CGIAR, it
seems unlikely that individual nation-states will be able to buck
the onslaught of the multibillion-dollar, multi-decade,
multi-national agenda of the agribusiness giants for very long.
On an even more fundamental level, though, the
answer to bad science is not to ban science, any more than the
answer to hate speech is to ban speech.
Giving governments the power
to ban (or, by implication, permit) this or that field of research
is to assign the power over the future direction of society to the
very eugenicists and corporate fat cats who control the legislatures
of each nation-state.
Certainly, by all means, we should be engaged in
whatever efforts we can to stop state funds from underwriting this
type of research, but lobbying for laws to ban the research
altogether would almost certainly backfire.
The ban hammer may
strike in the direction we want (banning GM crops, for example), but
it may just as easily swing in a direction we don't want
(approving GM crops for cultivation).
And, given the resources at
the disposal of the GMO-crazed eugenicists, it is difficult to
imagine how we citizens would ever win that political fight.
So, then, is there a way to stop the
scourge of GMOs from taking over the planet?
Thankfully, that isn't
a rhetorical question. And, thankfully, the answer is a resounding "Yes."
In fact, it has already been demonstrated that we
can
win this war by employing one of the simplest weapons at our
disposal:
the boycott...
Let me explain.
Posilac is the trade name for
Monsanto's genetically engineered
recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), which is injected into
lactating dairy cows to increase milk production.
In 1993, Posilac
was approved by the FDA for use in the dairy industry despite
warnings from medical researchers about the potential dangers it
posed to humans who consume the milk from cows treated with these
injections.
The milk from Posilac-treated cows was sold
unlabeled, despite being chemically, nutritionally, and
pharmacologically different from non-treated milk.
Not only did the rBGH milk contain
significantly higher levels of the
cancer-accelerating hormone
IGF-1 (Insulin-like Growth Factor) than does regular dairy milk, but
it also contained pus and antibiotics from the mastitis caused by
the use of the drug.
Multiple FDA insiders were warning in the 1990s
that safety data about the rBGH milk was being manipulated by
compromised FDA staffers to help Posilac pass the agency's approval
process.
Nonetheless - and unsurprisingly - the approval went ahead
anyway. Equally unsurprisingly, the
whistleblowers who raised these concerns about the process were
forced out of the agency and their testimony was disregarded.
But the suppression of this data did not stop
there. In a case made famous by the 2003
documentary
The
Corporation, two investigative reporters at a Fox News channel
affiliate television station produced an exposé on the rBGH scandal.
After Monsanto put pressure on the network, their story never aired,
and the two were fired.
By 2004, however, the public had begun to become
informed about the issue and consumers began to put massive pressure
on stores to stop selling rBGH milk.
This movement scored success
after success, with major national retailers, including,
...and producers, including,
...agreeing to stop selling or producing milk from
cows treated with artificial growth hormones.
Today, rBGH milk, once
nearly ubiquitous across America, is a rarity in the dairy section.
This change didn't come about through sweeping
government action. It didn't come about through violence or
coercion. Instead, it came about when consumers educated themselves
about the problem, put pressure on the producers to address the
problem, and continued that pressure until their demands for rBGH-free
milk were met.
Granted, the overall struggle against GM foods
will not be won as easily or as straightforwardly as it was in the
specific instance of rBGH.
Yet we can take the kernel of wisdom
found in the story of the struggle against rBGH milk and plant that
kernel in the rich seedbed of the struggle against GMOs.
Because it is within our power as consumers to
reject products that we have concerns about, whether on health or
safety or moral grounds, there is really no one else to blame but
ourselves for the fact these GMO foods are so prevalent on our
plates today.
It is our responsibility to know what is in the
products we are eating and to withhold our support from the
companies that are using genetically engineered ingredients in their
products.
Thankfully, technologies are coming online that
will make coordinated consumer action against GMOs easier than it
was even a decade ago.
The
Buycott app, for example, promises to allow users to join the
"buycotting" of non-GMO products - that is, to commit to buying only
certified non-GMO goods - and also to join a boycott campaign that
targets producers of GMO products.
An Organic Consumers group on the Buycott website has organized a "Pro-GMO? Or Pro-Right to Know?"
campaign that lists 243 companies to either avoid or back based on
those companies' opposition to or support of GMO labeling laws.
Of
the million-plus members of the Buycott site who are voting with
their wallets, more than half of them are
signed up to champion the GMO labeling campaign.
Other initiatives include the Institute for
Responsible Technology's
Non-GMO Shopping Guide, which lists thousands of consumer
products that have been verified as GMO-free.
There's also the no-tech solution to GMOs:
guerrilla gardening.
This approach encompasses a wide variety of
actions - from growing food on your own land to participating in a
community garden to sourcing organic food from local producers via
the local farmer's market.
If all of this sounds like a lot of work, it is.
If it sounds like the switch to 100 percent non-GMO
foods will be a gradual process of weaning yourself off of certain
products and sourcing appropriate alternatives, it will.
If it sounds like there's no one else to blame
but ourselves if we don't start taking these steps toward securing a
non-GM world for our children, there isn't.
In the end, we can't directly determine what
happens in our neighbor's house (let alone what happens in other
countries or on other continents), but the buck stops where it has
always stopped:
at our own kitchen table...
For the most part, we still have the freedom to
choose what we eat - and what we won't eat.
But, unless we start
taking that freedom seriously and treating it as the grave
responsibility it is, the Gene Revolution just might be the
planet-wide disaster that makes the seed vault in the frozen tundra
of Norway a necessity...
