Study – Grow – Know

Monsanto, GMO, and Biotechnology

June 6, 2013 at 10:15 AM 3 comments

Anyone who has read the Agenda 21 document or has heard anything about it knows that “biotechnology” is one of the many catchphrases connected to it. There are numerous definitions associated with this term, but for grins and giggles, let’s use this one:

“Biotechnology is the use of living systems and organisms to develop or make useful products, or ‘any technological application that uses biological systems, living organisms or derivatives thereof, to make or modify products or processes for specific use” (UN Convention on Biological Diversity)’.”

In a nutshell, think of the process of “modifying living organisms according to human purposes.” Humanity did this with plants and animals. Now, we have taken it a larger step forward by attempting to create what is termed genetically modified organisms (GMO) or genetically engineered food. Monsanto is big in this and unfortunately, though Monsanto has attempted to create seeds for food that require less water, less soil, and even less pesticide application, scientists have enumerated a list of problems with Monsanto seeds.

For instance, genetically modified corn from Monsanto has been found to be high in toxins. One article notes, “A report given to MomsAcrossAmerica4 by an employee of De Dell Seed Company (Canada’s only non-GMO corn seed company) offers a stunning picture of the nutritional differences between genetically engineered (GE) and non-GE corn. Clearly, the former is NOT equivalent to the latter, which is the very premise by which genetically engineered crops were approved in the first place.”

It seems word is getting out there that Monsanto GMOs are unsafe. The same report notes some very important differences between non-gmo and GMO-related products. “Calcium: GMO corn = 14 ppm / Non-GMO corn = 6,130 ppm (437 times more), Magnesium: GMO corn = 2 ppm / Non-GMO corn = 113 ppm (56 times more), Manganese: GMO corn = 2 ppm / Non-GMO corn = 14 ppm (7 times more).”

Very likely, one of the bigger problems with GMO foods, such as corn, is that they contain 13 ppm of glyphosate. That’s a lot if we consider the fact that our own EPA has determined that the safe zone for glyphosate is 0.7ppm. Moreover, “glyphosate is blamed for the dramatic increase in devastating birth defects as well as cancer. Sterility and miscarriages are also increasing. This may be due to its similarity to DDT, which is well-known to cause reproductive problems, among other things.”

The difficulty associated with glyphosate is that it literally becomes part of the plant (systemic). As the article notes, you cannot wash it away. It is part of the plant and when eaten, it is digested. Glyphosate kills off the good bacteria in a person’s system and increases virulent pathogens.

Yet, in spite of these inherent dangers, the United States Federal Government continues to push Monsanto’s product and other GMO foods. Why does the government continue to push this product, even protecting it (via Agricultural Appropriations Bill – HR9332)? Monsanto is virtually untouchable with the recent passage of the “Monsanto Protection Act” (HR 933).

It is interesting to consider the fact that 50 countries throughout the world have “significant restrictions or outright bans on GMOs.” Neither Canada and the United States require labeling at all. One woman – who happens to be a delegate for the Democratic National Convention representing North Carolina noted something interesting. “President Obama promised to label genetically modified foods during his campaign in 2007 but once elected into office, he abandoned this stance. Why? Upsetting Big Ag and the chemical industry was not going to help him get re-elected in 2012. Protecting the rights of American consumers and keeping his campaign pledge were obviously of secondary importance.”

Wait, is she saying that Obama made a promise he did not keep? Why yes, I believe that’s exactly what she’s saying. If you take the time to go to this woman’s website, you’ll note that she has talked with many Democrats and the answers she has received about GMOs ranges from absurd to comical.

She concludes her article on GMOs by stating, “I am not sure how we can move this country “Forward,” as President Obama suggests, if our food policy and the resulting health of our nation continues to go backwards. Labeling GMOs will allow us all to finally understand what we are eating. As American citizens, it is our fundamental right to know what’s in our food.”

One can only wonder that if 50 countries understand the dangers of GMOs and require labeling, yet neither Canada or America does, the natural question becomes why? Why is our government refusing to acknowledging the will of the people if the polls are correct that over 90% of Americans believe GMOs should be labeled?

The obvious answer is $$$. Ag companies spend tons of money to elect and re-elect politicians. If a candidate doesn’t do things that are favorable for those donors, do you think they might take their money and find another candidate? Could it also have something to do with Agenda 21?

Some believe that written within Agenda 21 is a means of killing large amounts of the population with tainted food supplies, or GMOs. Just a few months ago, “Corporate giant Monsanto, known for its controversial business model, lobbying, and its widely criticized genetically modified organisms (GMOs), has officially joined the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, a group of powerful interests including major banks and Big Oil backing the United Nations ‘Agenda 21’ scheme for so-called ‘sustainable development’.”

I find that fascinating, don’t you? The fact that major banks and big oil also support the UN’s Agenda 21. According to Occupy and even the Obama administration, isn’t big business bad because it is capitalism run amok?

One website called Leftwise has an informative article on Agenda 21. “In a nutshell, the plan calls for governments to take control of all land use and not leave any of the decision-making in the hands of private property owners. It is assumed that people are not good stewards of their land and the government will do a better job if they are in control. Individual rights in general are to give way to the needs of communities as determined by the governing body. Moreover, people should be rounded up off the land and packed into human settlements, or islands of human habitation, close to employment centers and transportation. Another program, called the Wildlands Project spells out how most of the land is to be set aside for non-humans.”

The article also notes that Agenda 21 informally goes back to the 1970s, but did not become officially recognized by the United States until Bush Sr. signed onto the document in 1995. As noted previously, Clinton kept it going with specific executive orders as has Obama.

I wonder if that has anything to do with the reason why the Wayne Hage family of Nevada was harassed for decades by the federal government? They finally won their lawsuit recently against the government just a few days ago. You can read about it here.

Are GMOs good for you? They don’t appear to be and even Russia is threatening “global war” over the issue of Monsanto’s GMOs. Something is seriously amiss, yet our government is stonewalling we the people. There is obviously a lot at stake here and our government doesn’t want to lose.

Entry filed under: Agenda 21, Political Correctness, Politically Correct, Politics. Tags: #ccot, #pjnet, #tcot, agenda 21, monsanto gmos.