The Current
Paradigm of Food and Farming
The current paradigm of food production in much of the modern world
typically involves growing food at a mass scale - what is often
known as industrial or factory farming - while focusing on
maximizing production and profits, and minimizing costs.
This intensive
agriculture often involves the heavy use of toxic pesticides on
geneticallly engineered crops.
Of
the more than 9 billion animals raised for food in the US each year,
the vast majority are raised on factory farms, the largest of
which are also called Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations or
CAFOs.
CAFO's are large scale factory farms where animals are kept
in confined enclosures, unable to freely move or graze on land.
Chickens, pigs, and cows are raised in CAFOs.
In recent years
critics have become increasingly vocal about the shortcomings of
this type of farming. Not only are these farms demeaning and
dangerous for the animals, but they greatly contribute to pollution
in the local communities surrounding the farms.
The biggest source
of this pollution comes from the estimated more than 440
million tons of poop generated by confined animals in the U.S. every
year.
Legally,
CAFOs are not required to treat this
waste at all. Despite clear evidence of harm to the environment and
human health, CAFOs continue to use manure
lagoon and sprayfield systems.
In 1972, US Congress passed the
modern Clean Water Act, and directed the EPA to regulate CAFOs.
However, current EPA standards allow lagoons to keep polluting due
to loopholes that allows CAFOs to continue to exist.
Additionally, in
the US, nearly every aspect of the industrial food animal production
system is
highly concentrated and controlled by just a few megaproducers.
According
to a 2019 report from Open Markets titled, "Food
and Power - Addressing Monopolization in America's Food System",
nearly all of the seeds, pesticides, and herbicides purchased by
farmers comes from a handful of Big Agriculture corporations.
The
report states:
"For the past
two decades, increased consolidation has coincided with the prices
of farm inputs increasing faster than the prices farmers receive for
their crops.
Seeds are often designed to terminate - or, to fail to
germinate - after one harvest, forcing farmers to purchase new seeds
each season.
Consolidated corporations also gain control over
producers through seed and chemical product pairings that push
farmers into a 'pesticide treadmill,' in which they are dependent on
both a corporation's evolving seeds and chemical inputs to
produce a healthy crop.
This
combined seed and chemical regime also increases farmers'
costs of production, with USDA data showing that the
per-acre cost of soybean and corn seed spiked dramatically
between 1995 and 2014, by 351 percent and 321 percent,
respectively."
The current
mainstream food paradigm, with its toxic, violent, and monopolized
business, was born out of the Green Revolution of the 1950's and
60's.
Mexican President Manuel Ávila Camacho invited the Rockefeller
Foundation into the country to help study and modernize Mexico's
farming.
In 1943, Norman Borlaug, a plant geneticist, and his team
of researchers traveled to Mexico and jumpstarted the so-called
Green Revolution.
Borlaug was funded by the
Rockefeller Foundation
and the Ford Foundation, with both organizations having an interest
in establishing international farming standards which benefitted
their bank accounts.
While the
Green Revolution is often touted as a 'success' due to increases in crop
yields and an apparent
drop in infant mortality, there is also a growing body of
evidence indicating that the abundant use of pesticides has caused a
rise in adverse health effects, including
cancer...
Most infamously, the world's most widely used
herbicide,
glyphosate - a product of Agri-giant Monsanto, now owned
by Bayer -
has been linked to a number of cases of cancer and resulted in
multiple billion dollar settlements against the company.
Bayer is
hoping to stem the tide of lawsuits by taking
the matter to the Supreme Court.
It's important to
note that the same megacorporations involved in
the Oilgarchy and
Big Pharma are also the same driving forces behind
the Green Revolution.
The Rockefeller Standard Oil network and their partners
win the fertilizer industry, specifically DuPont, Dow Chemical, and
Hercules Powder, benefitted handsomely from the apparent revolution
in farming.
However, when a struggling "third world" nation could
not afford the new technologies needed to participate in the
programs, the Rockefeller controlled Chase Manhattan Bank partnered
with the
World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to offer
loans, which in turn granted the banks ownership over resources and
financial assets should the nations fail to settle the debt.
Another outcome of
the Green Revolution is the so-called Gene Revolution, which
popularized the use of genetically modified organisms, GMOs, or
genetically engineered foods.
Once again, the cast of characters
involved in the Gene Revolution are identical to the Green
Revolution, the Big Pharma cartel, and the Oilgarchy.
The
Rockefeller and Nazi connected
IG Farben has subsidiaries,
Bayer CropScience and BASF PlantScience working with Dow AgroScience, DuPont
Biotechnology, and the infamous
Monsanto.
All of these corporations
benefit from the funding of,
...and similar
organizations.
GMO's: Safe Or
Dangerous?
Before we go any
further, let's explain
what a GMO is.
A GMO is any organism whose
genetic makeup has been altered using genetic engineering, and
specifically, an organism that was altered in a way that does not
occur naturally through mating or natural recombination.
While the
topic is much bigger than we have time for in this broadcast, the
story is much the same as the Green Revolution:
supporters say it
increased yields and lifted farmers out of poverty, while critics
say the Green Revolution generally, and GMOs specifically, lead to a
rise in the use of pesticides and a range of potential health
problems.
So how true are
these claims?
The
mainstream consensus is pretty much that GMOs are absolutely safe
and anyone who suggests otherwise is an anti-science bafoon.
There
are a number of science sites dedicated to debunking claims made
about the harms of genetically engineered foods and one is not
likely to be seen as a credible, intelligent person for questioning
the safety of this technology.
Let's take a look
at the claims made by the anti-GMO movement.
The concerns include
contamination of the non-genetically modified food supply, the
influence of BioTech and Big Ag companies on government regulators,
control of the food supply by the same companies, concerns over the
use of herbicides with glyphosate, and accusations of "playing God"
by engineering the genes of various life forms.
Some critics also
fear the implications of patents and intellectual property rights
applied to plants and seeds.
The resistance to
GMO food and Monsanto culminated in the international March Against
Monsanto actions taking place in hundreds of cities around the world
on May 25, 2013.
People all over the world called for labeling of
foods containing GMOs.
Below Bernie
video 0:35-1:25...
The opposition grew
steadily during the Presidency of
Barack Obama as the public grew
weary of,
the revolving door relationship between Monsanto and the
White House...
The practice began before the Obama admin, with the
Bush and Clinton administrations both having favorable relationships
with executives from,
Monsanto, Syngenta, Dow, DuPont, and other
Biotechnology, pesticide companies.
While much of the
opposition to GMOs does center around captured government agencies
and conflicts of interest, the majority of concerns appear to stem
from fears of harm to human health resulting from eating food
derived from genetic engineering.
One of the major studies to show
potential harms is the 2012 Seralini study, named for the lead
researcher.
The study (Long Term Toxicity of a Roundup
Herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant Genetically Modified
Maize), originally published
in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, made headlines when
it reported that rats studied for 2 years while being exposed to
Monsanto's Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize died 2-3
times more than rats not eating GMO corn.
The study also claimed
female rats developed tumors more often than the rats fed non-GMO
corn. The images of the massive tumors on the rats went viral and
spread all over the internet.
The controversy was
quickly followed by complaints from various pro-GMO companies and
food regulators.
The detractors claimed the scientists were
engaged in fraud, or that the Sprague-Dawley rat used in the experiment has
a high incidence of tumors and thus GMOs could not be blamed for the
results.
Before long, Food and Chemical Toxicology retracted the Seralini study and the public was told that GMOs were totally safe.
And that was the end of the Seralini saga...
Well, actually,
despite
the corporate media reporting on the study's retraction, the
truth is a bit more complex.
While the editors
of Food and Chemical Toxicology did say they believed the type of
rat used would effect the experiment, they did not dismiss the
results of the study altogether. In fact, the retraction states,
"Ultimately,
the results presented (while not incorrect) are inconclusive, and
therefore do not reach the threshold of publication for Food and
Chemical Toxicology."
Even the claim that inconclusive results
are not ready for publication in the journal seems to be a lie based
on other
published studies which also reach inconclusive results -
including other studies involving the same Monsanto GMO corn.
Researcher William Engdahl also pointed out obvious conflicts of interest which arose
in the months following publication of the Seralini study.
Engdahl
writes:
"Then, out of
the blue, in May 2013, six months after the Seralini study release,
Elsevier announced that it had created a new position, 'Associate
Editor for Biotechnology'.
The person they hired to fill it was
Richard E. Goodman, a former Monsanto employee who in addition was
with the Monsanto pro-GMO lobby organization, the International Life
Sciences Institute (ILSI) which develops industry-friendly risk
assessment methods for GM foods and chemical food contaminants and
inserts them into government regulations.
Then on
November 24, 2013, six months after Goodman took control of
GMO issues at the Journal, Dr. A. Wallace Hayes, the editor
of the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology reportedly
decided to retract the study by the team of Professor Séralini."
After his study was
retracted and his name tarnished, Professor Seralini won
a defamation lawsuit against a magazine that called the research
conducted by him and his team a "scientific fraud".
Further, In
2014, his team went on to have their study republished in
the journal Environmental Sciences Europe.
The researchers once
again used the Sprague-Dawley strain of rat, a fact they acknowledge
while also noting that the rat is "recommended for chronic
toxicology tests bythe National Toxicology Program in the USA" and
also used by Monsanto themselves in their own 90-day study.
In their final
conclusion in the published study they write,
"Taken
together, the significant biochemical disturbances and
physiological failures documented in this work… show that the
conclusion of the Monsanto authors that the initial indications
of organ toxicity found in their 90-day experiment were not
'biologically meaningful' is not justifiable."
"We propose
that agricultural edible GMOs and complete pesticide
formulations must be evaluated thoroughly in long-term studies
to measure their potential toxic effects."
A Corruption of
Science
Once again, we have
an example of the corporate media misrepresenting a story - in this
case a scientific study - and the corporations who stand to lose
from the story lobbying the scientific community to make changes.
As
we have previously demonstrated in this series, the establishment
media is a tool for the elite and intelligence agencies.
Also, as
with the corruption of science from Big Wireles and the Medical
cartel, scientific studies can be altered, research can be defunded,
and scientists outright threatened until a favorable result is
achieved.
The simple fact is
that the agencies we are told are meant to regulate or protect our
food supply and environment,
the USDA, FDA, and EPA in the United
States, and similar agencies around the world,
...are largely captured
in the same fashion as the FCC, the CDC, and other federal agencies.
For one reason or
another these agencies seemed determined to ignore, silence, or
discredit research pointing to potential dangers of GMOs or
pesticides.
For example, Jonathan Lundgren, an entomologist working
for the US Department of Agriculture,
filed
a whistlblower complaint against his employer for suppressing
his research which found that certain pesticides may be affecting
bee and butterfly populations.
The USDA sought to dismiss Lungren's
complaint as "frivolous" and based on "speculative and unsupported"
allegations. However, the court's ruled in favor of Lundgren.
Lundgren originally
filed an internal complaint in September 2014 accusing the USDA of
retaliating against him because of his research.
The complaint was
dismissed by the USDA and Lundgren was suspended in October 2014. He
was suspended for three days after USDA investigators found emails
among his research staff which included indecent jokes.
On October
28, 2015, Lundgren filed a complaint with the federal Merit Systems
Protection Board after his supervisors allegedly began to,
"impede or
deter his research and resultant publications."
Lundgren's complaint
alleged that his supervisors suspended him in retaliation for his
research on neonicotinoid pesticides and his calls for an
investigation of both the USDA and the Environmental Protection
Agency.
The experience of
Jonathan Lundgren does not seem to be an isolated one.
According to
the the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, the
organization representing Lundgren, at least 10 USDA scientists have
been investigated or faced other consequences arising from research
that called into question the safety of certain agricultural
chemicals.
In 2015, PEER filed
a legal petition with the U.S. Department of Agriculture seeking
new rules that would enhance job protection for government
scientists whose research questions the safety of farm chemicals.
In late December
2016, researchers with France's National Institute for Agricultural
Research confirmed the allegations of conflicts of interest involved
in GMO research.
The study found
that nearly half of studies on genetically modified crops were found
to have conflicts of interest.
The
study also
concluded that GM studies with conflict of interest had an increased
likelihood of drawing conclusions which favored genetically modified
or engineered foods.
The researchers
examined 579 published studies and found that around 40% showed at
least one conflict of interest.
In these cases the conflict was
typically related to someone involved with the study also working as
an employee of a GM company or having received funds directly from
the company.
The director of research at France's
National Institute
for Agricultural Research (INRA) told
the media,
"We thought
we would find conflicts of interest, but we did not think we
would find so many."
It is these
conflicts of interest which have caused much of the public to view
official proclamations about the safety of genetically engineered
foods with skepticism.
Although
the FDA has downplayed any efforts
to label GM foods as potentially hazardous, previously unreleased
FDA documents show the agency was aware of possible risks to humans
as far back as 1991.
The documents were
released through a lawsuit filed by Steven Druker, a public interest
attorney and executive director of the Alliance for Bio-Integrity (ABI).
Druker obtained 44,000 pages of messages, memos, and reports from
the FDA and released them in his book, Altered
Genes, Twisted Truth.
One such
document, the FDA's 1992 "Statement
of Policy: Foods Derived From New Plant Varieties," stated the
agency was,
"not aware of any information" showing that GMOs differ "in any meaningful way" from other food, despite memos showing
researchers did, indeed, have questions about the safety of GE
foods.
One FDA compliance officer wrote that
the agency,
"was trying
to fit a square peg into a round hole... (by) trying to force
an ultimate conclusion that there is no difference between
foods modified by genetic engineering and foods modified by
traditional breeding practices.
The processes of genetic
engineering and traditional breeding are different, and
according to technical experts in the agency, they lead to
different risks."
It's abundantly
clear that there is more to the story when it comes to the safety of
genetically engineered foods and pesticides.
When we look beyond the
corporate media headlines, we can see the science is not settled.
Food
as a Weapon of War
One final area of research which is extremely pertinent to
the conversation around what might be termed "Big Food", is the
history of food being used as a weapon during times of war.
Throughout modern and ancient history we have examples of warring
nations using food as a way to destroy their enemy or empower their
allies.
Providing or withholding food during conflict is equally as
powerful as guns, drones, and missiles.
Controlling an opponents
access to food is important during war and can also be a bargaining
tactic. Sometimes food is used as a weapon by destroying a harvest,
or preventing a harvest from being shipped to other locations.
The
phrase "Salting the Earth" was borne out of the ritual of spreading
salt in the soil of a conquered land in an effort to prevent crops
from growing again.
The U.S. has
historically used food as a tool of foreign policy, delivering
aid to nations which follows programs favored by the U.S. and
its allies, and initiating embargos and tariffs on food goods
for nations which do not comply.
In recent years, there have
also been discussions on using food to blackmail nations into
adopting population control programs.
This might sound like
insanity, but a 1974 memo drafted by former Secretary of State
Henry Kissinger outlines the entire plan.
The memo is called,
"National
Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population
Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests (NSSM 200)",
...and
was drafted by Kissinger
for the United States National
Security Council.
The memo focuses on
the "paramount importance" to population control measures and the
promotion of contraceptive measures to 13 populous nations known as
the "Least Developing Countries".
The argument was that the
socio-political and economic growth of these countries is vital to
national interests of the U.S. since the,
"U.S. economy will require
large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad" and the
countries can produce destabilizing opposition forces against the
US.
The 'Kissinger
Report' discusses how there already existed a precedent for,
"taking
account of family planning performance in appraisal of assistance
requirements by US AID (U.S. Agency for International Development)."
The report goes on to state that allocation of scarce resources
should,
"take account of what steps a country is taking in population
control as well as food production."
The document also notes that it
is important to "avoid the appearance of coercion" while also
discussing "mandatory programs".
The document also
considers whether or not food can be considered "an instrument of
national power". "Is the
U.S. prepared to accept food rationing to help people who
can't/won't control their population growth?,"
Of course, it
should be noted that Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of
State, is a longtime associate of the Rockefeller agenda.
Our conversation
started with the Rockefeller driven 'Green Revolution' and the 'Gene
Revolution', and now we come full circle with the Rockefeller's
latest initiative, 'Reset the Table'...
The Rockefeller Foundation is
now claiming that COVID-19 and the economic losses from lockdowns
have,
"made the negative consequences of the food system worse and
more obvious".
The Foundation notes that COVID-19 has presented the
moment to,
"transform the U.S. food system."
The Rockefeller
document, titled Reset
the Table - Meeting the Moment to Transform the U.S. Food System,
outlines how the Rockefeller Foundation can once again use its money
and influence to shape the direction of a major industry, this time,
the food supply itself.
Ironically, the
Reset the Table document
also notes that the Rockefeller Foundation "played a role in seeding
and scaling" the
Green Revolution, while also noting that the
Rockefeller Green Revolution left a legacy of,
"overemphasis of
staple grains at the expense of more nutrient-rich foods", and
a "reliance on chemical fertilizers that deplete the soil, and
overuse of water."
With no hint of shame, the
Rockefeller's and their ilk will present themselves as the solution
to problems they previously contributed to or outright
created.
Using the same
flowery language and trendy buzzwords which allowed them to
infiltrate and capture,
...they have managed to gain control over the large
institutions which farm the world's animals and crops in violent,
destructive, and costly ways.
This dangerous monopolistic cartel has
captured many national and international regulatory bodies designed
to protect the public and the food supply.
The players involved in
this piece of the Pyramid of Power also continue to use their wealth
and connections to suppress research which paints their products and
investments in a negative light, including GMOs and pesticides.
Finally, these criminal elements have made it clear they believe
food can be, and indeed SHOULD BE, used as a tool for
negotiation, or a tool for forcing compliance from populations.
Solutions
- Localized and Decentralized Food systems
Learning to identify the people and institutions which make up
the Pyramid is only one vital component of this journey.
The second,
equally important step is to identify and implement solutions which
can help the masses to break free from these immoral people and
their corruption.
One solution which
applies to all aspects of the Pyramid is to continue to question
authority and official sources. As with previous investigations, we
see that blindly trusting the government science or industry funded
research is a mistake.
It's very easy to ignore the warnings from
scientists and health professionals who warn about health concerns
and environmental damage caused by factory farming, pesticides, and
genetically engineered foods - especially when the corporate media
and mainstream science organizations are telling you what to think.
This is not to say that the corporate media or mainstream,
governmental science should never be trusted, anymore than
it should always be trusted.
The focus should be employing
critical thinking, using discernment, and taking a nuanced view as
opposed to a simple black-and-white view.
Another empowering
solution to break free of the industrial farming system and the
inefficient food distribution system is to begin growing your own
food. Whether you begin with a backyard or frontyard garden, or join
a community garden or Community Supported Agriculture, the key is to
localize your food supply.
By supporting or building local and
decentralized farming networks you are taking power away from Big Ag
and Big Food.
At the same time, you are building local food security
by ensuring your communities are not dependent on supermarket
grocery chains for all of your food.
Local farming built on
permaculture principles is also better for the environment and
wildlife.
While some people
might choose to find a group like minded people, leave the cities
and towns, buy land, and build their permaculture paradise, others
will stay in the cities and build urban farming and food
distribution networks.
The key is to sever any dependencies you have
on the mainstream food production and distribution systems.
If our
international communities continue to allow the convenience
of supermarkets with infinite options to distract us from the
increasingly necessary work of building food security, we are going
to remain beholden to the titans of industry who aim to manipulate
the world via,
technology, energy, medicine, and food...
We must continue to
question the agendas in front of us, and remember that what we put
in our bodies, what we choose to use as nourishment for our vessel,
will determine the direction of our mental, physical, and spiritual
health.
We cannot entrust our health to those who believe in using
food as a weapon.
We must remember to use our food as our
medicine.
We must support localized, decentralized neighborhood
farms so that organic, nutrient rich crops can be grown and provided
to communities which have historically faced food deserts.
This is
the key to escaping the destructive, genetically modified, and
pesticide laden food system.
This is the key to escaping from the
Pyramid of Power...
