July 24, 2011
The recent deregulation of genetically mutated bluegrass is the first domino to fall in the scheme to deregulate all GMO’s and to avoid having to label these disgusting creations so that consumers, many of whom are fully aware of the dangers of these products, can choose to avoid them. The economic power wielded by consumers via their food dollars would quickly put an end to genetic modification, mutation and alteration. Therefore, regulation, control, liability for harm and damage along with labeling, must be avoided at all costs.
The reduction of biodiversity as a result of the infestation of transgenic plants and crops will cause the rise of monocultures where a single crop is grown in a region, or becomes the only crop that will grow, wiping out any biodiversity and by necessity causing a rise in the use of pesticides and herbicides as insects and weeds alike develop a tolerance to genetically mutated seeds and chemical applications. This infestation and resulting contamination of food crops in particular, or those crops to be used for feeds and fuel should be treated for what they actually are: the equivalent of AIDS in the plant world.
Transgenic crops are protected by fraudulent patents and will eventually be used to eradicate all rights to regional germ plasms. The GATT agreement will facilitate the loss of the right of farmers in any given region to reproduce or save seed, and will prohibit the sharing of seed; exactly what is being implemented now.
While one council after another is set up under the guise of protecting the environment, not one — not even the National Invasive Species Council — has addressed the issue of developing monocultures as a result of genetically mutated and aggressive plants and crops. This lack of perspective and failure to actively investigate the possibility of monocultures developing and the subsequent devastation to biodiversity that would result, is a dead giveaway that they are aware of this possibility and most likely have no intentions of highlighting what they know to be a growing and threatening problem. And as noted in the article by Debbie Coffey, Monsanto is “advising” the Invasive Species Council which is a clear indicator that what emanates from this Council should be seriously questioned and never taken as anything remotely resembling the truth.
Too many questions regarding the ecological impact of mutated crops and seeds have gone unanswered. It appears that those questions are not allowed to be asked in the first place. But, if any are asked, the answers are quickly hidden away from public view so that future plausible deniability can be claimed when the actual biological devastation and ecological collapse in any region is so apparent they can not be ignored or denied. No one is going to want to be held directly responsible for the environmental catastrophes about to befall us as genetic mutations wreak havoc on ecological systems.
Genetically mutated crops are intended to replace natural crops and to limit the range of crop seed available. As the USDA intentionally bypassed environmental impact studies (and any independent studies), and in most instances actively facilitated the squashing of studies and reports that sounded the alarm on the dangers of genetically mutated seeds and crops, they simultaneously helped corner the market monopoly on behalf of companies such as the malevolent Monsanto as the availability of traditional and uncontaminated seed supplies is forcibly reduced. Every effort has been made to seize, outlaw and eradicate any natural seed supplies so that the market can be monopolized by bio-pirates looking to control and profit from the theft of germ plasms from the public domain.
- A d v e r t i s e m e n t
Claiming they “created” a new life form from the stolen germ plasm, bio-pirates go on to file for a patent claiming the frankenplant is so vastly different from the original that a patent is necessary to protect their creation; it’s a new life form. As soon as the patent is granted, the bio-pirates claim the plant is substantially equivalent and basically the same as the plant it imitates (The Substantial Equivalence Doctrine) and that it is generally regarded as safe (GRAS) and should not be regulated or labeled.
So why has no one in the hallowed halls of the USDA or even the Supreme Court asked the million dollar question: “How can a mutated germ plasm be so vastly different that a patent can be obtained and, at the same time, be so substantially the same as the germ plasm it was derived from that it should be generally considered safe and unregulated?” Someone? Anyone?
It would appear that the bio-pirates are either lying about their new creation, OR, they are lying about their end product. Most likely they are just lying about everything.
Because genetic mutations are bred to be invasive and aggressive, and no effort is put into establishing if these mutations can be controlled, and because horizontal gene transfer occurs with such aggressive rapidity; along with wind drift, the mutation of weeds and other plant life quickly become part of the mutated system. This is intentional. Entire regions are subject to becoming homogeneous, with all plant life being absorbed, overtaken and mutated, reflecting at least in some part genetic signatures of the invasive, genetically mutated plant species. Once this assimilation occurs, bio-pirates will be allowed to lay claim to entire ecological systems without ever being held liable or responsible for the infectious contamination that devastated the environment and the food supply to begin with.
The groundwork for this claim of ownership by virtue of introducing an aggressive and unnatural invasive species into natural environments has been arbitrarily established in the courts. The harm and damage done to natural crops and land should have been cause for the bio-piracy corporation to be held liable. Instead, the farmer that maintained a traditional and uncontaminated crop is held liable for the uncontrolled infection of his crops by the mutated plants.
Biotic stress, caused by the activity of genetically mutated organisms, affects other organisms in close proximity including animals which might feed on it. “Biotic” is any living part of the environment which affects other organisms. Animals feeding on these organisms are also affected and now also carry the genetic signature of the mutation. As Monsanto and other bio-pirates have been allowed to contaminate field after field of non-GMO crops, USDA, FDA, and even SCOTUS have supported their contentions that the natural crop which was attacked and infected by the genetically mutated crops, now belongs to them. It is a highly technical system of theft of private property carefully constructed through international harmonization agreements and governmental corporate contracting which has its genesis in the initial theft of germ plasms from the public domain and requires the collusion of multiple agencies and corrupt courts.
Biotechnology is not a humanitarian business. It is commercial activity conducted for no other reason than creating a monopolized market with an eye on profits. In order to make this activity as profitable as possible, the complicity and collusion of the USDA and the FDA is required, along with assorted international organizations such as the World Trade Organization and the United Nations. The use of harmonization agreements which are in fact the tool used to create substandard thresh holds for corporate raiders and bio-piracy around the world is the political weapon of choice in voiding the issues of sovereignty, self-determination and preservation, while encouraging the corporately induced contamination of the food supply.
Genetic manipulation including transgenic plants and animals are not created to feed the world’s hungry, or to reduce the production costs of farmers, nor are these mutations capable of producing larger crops, or fatter cows, for less money. Genetically mutated crops contain less than half the nutritional value of traditional crops, making them virtually worthless as a nutritious food staple, and economically far more costly to grow. But this issue is not about feeding the hungry more effectively, or how many people in the world might starve as a result of this manipulation of life.
Genetic mutation is not a humanitarian effort; it is a business plan. Nothing more.
Biotechnology is being pursued to patch-up the problems that have been caused by previous agrochemical technologies (pesticide resistance, pollution, soil degradation, etc.) plants are the unintended transfer to plant relatives of the “transgenes” and the unpredictable ecological effects (Rissler and Mellon 1996). http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/~agroeco3/the_myths.html
Given the above considerations, agroecological theory predicts that biotechnology will exacerbate the problems of conventional agriculture and by promoting monocultures will also undermine ecological methods of farming such as rotation and polycultures (Hindmarsh 1991). http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/~agroeco3/applying_agroecological_concepts.html
A biotic factor is any living component that affects another organism, including animals that consume the organism in question, and the living food that the organism consumes. Biotic factors include human influence.
Biotic components are contrasted to abiotic components, which are non-living components of an organism’s environment, such as temperature, light, moisture, air currents, etc.
Marti Oakley is a political activist and former op-ed columnist for the St Cloud Times in Minnesota. She was a member of the Times Writer’s Group until she resigned in September of 07. She is neither Democrat nor Republican, since neither party is representative of the American people. She says what she thinks, means what she says, and is known for being outspoken. She is hopeful that the American public will wake up to what is happening to our beloved country . . . little of it is left. Her website is The PPJ Gazette