It is necessary to know how the industry / government / university alliance works, if we are to take back our food supply. Please see:
- 2013-06-10 Under the pretext of preventing hunger, the rich nations are engineering a new scramble for Africa. Monbiot. (Monsanto)
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
“THE SCRAMBLE” HAS BEEN IN THE MAKING, AND IT’S NOT JUST IN AFRICA – EXCERPTS FROM FOUR EARLIER POSTINGS
In looking at the corporate takeover of agricultural land, the first three items below name different Industry front groups. Why? . . . because the front groups are the VEHICLE for the takeover.
I include the fourth posting, not because it adds to the documentation of the takeover, but because it draws the front groups into one updated discussion.
It is necessary to know how the industry / government / university alliance works, if we are to take back our food supply.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Among the listed sponsors of the seed vault are: Monsanto; . . . world agribusiness giants Dupont/Pioneer Hi-Bred and Syngenta, both promoting GMO seeds and all the chemicals needed for large scale monoculture farming . . .
Engdahl points out that the so called “Green Revolution” was a steady networking grab, allowing the monopoly Rockefellers to eventually gain control over much of international agribusiness while ruining small third world farms and forcing those farmers into cheap labor pools.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
- 2011-12-12 Here is the real reason behind the demise of the CWB … (Canadian Wheat Board)
Corporate ownership of farmland
The information is about Canada (Agcapita).
CBC Radio, The Current, did an interview some months ago – – a large pool of money (an American hedge fund managed by a Canadian woman) and the country was Africa. It was pretty insidious how they propagandized African farmers about how much better off they would be if they sold their land but continued to farm it.
It seemed obvious to me that the new “owners” will be dictating what crops and how they are raised (bioteched and chemicalled). It’s industrialized farming and the number of “employees” won’t be many, not with the big machines they will bring in. I hope there are lots of people to spread the word – the new owners won’t care whether or not local people are employed and can continue to feed themselves.
Oh Lord! what problems are created when there are large amounts of money in one place! Coupled with absentee ownership – – give your money to someone to invest and all you care about is “return on investment”.
We are all paying the food and environmental costs associated with this type of unsustainable, impoverishing agriculture.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
(5) THANKS TO WIKILEAKS: U.S. EMBASSY RECOMMENDS A LIST OF COUNTRIES FOR ‘RETALIATION’ OVER THEIR OPPOSITION TO GENETIC MODIFICATION
This latest cable further confirms that globally promoting genetically modified foods is a high priority for the US State Department. As discussed in a prior piece, numerous leaked cables reveal a strong focus by embassy officials on cataloging how nations perceive GMOs, boosting GM acceptance in Africa, and even going so far as to discuss spiking food prices to spur GM acceptance in Europe. The latest cable is no different:
“Post will continue to lobby the Vatican to speak up in favor of GMOs, in the hope that a louder voice in Rome will encourage individual Church leaders elsewhere to reconsider their critical views.”
Strong opposition within the church cites the monopoly control over food held by multinational corporations:
“The Vatican cannot force all bishops to endorse biotechnology, he said, particularly if their opposition has to do with concerns over protecting profits of large corporations who hold the patents for the crops, versus feeding the hungry. In the Philippines, he noted, bishops strongly protested GMOs in the past. (Note: South African Cardinal Wilfrid Fox Napier’s November 16 comments to a news agency that ‘Africans do not need GMOs, but water’ is another example of specific Church leaders skeptical about the potential benefits of new biotechnologies.).”
Corporate control of the food supply is only one problem with biotech foods, albeit a major one. After fourteen years of commercial experience, the U.S. is fast becoming the poster child for why nations, and the Church, should reject such technology.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
. . . More than 50 front groups, working on behalf of food and biotechnology trade groups―Monsanto being the most prominent―have formed a new coalition called Alliance to Feed the Future. . . . this alliance and many other industry-sponsored front groups masquerading as non-profits and consumer protection organizations are becoming increasingly exposed for what they really are … how the food and agricultural industry hide behind friendly-sounding organizations aimed at fooling the public, policymakers and media alike.