French Magazine "J'ai Tout Compris" publishes a statement from former US Secretary of State, then head of the World Bank, Robert McNamara: ""One must take draconian measures of demographic reduction against the will of the populations. Reducing the birth rate has proved to be impossible or insufficient. One must therefore increase the mortality rate. How? By natural means: famine and sickness." http://educate-yourself.org/cn/vaccinationsilentgenocide14nov05.shtml
It's almost as if, in response to McNamara's bizarre statement, somebody raised his hand and said "I think we can help with that....", because what followed was a devilishly clever process that, in one fell swoop, satisfied McNamara's "orders", and made Monsanto a massive pot of money. And the sub-plots in this little drama are both intricate and fascinating; if the whole thing didn't read as so terribly, inconceivably evil, it would rate as one of the most brilliant marketing schemes ever invented.
In 1970, John E. Franz, an organic chemist working at Monsanto, discovers that Glyphosate is a powerful herbicide, despite having been developed by its inventors as a de-scaling agent to clean industrial pipes of lime and other water deposits. Renamed RoundUp, Glyphosate enters the marketplace in 1974. The herbicide quickly establishes itself as a mainstream product for widespread agricultural and consumer use. Then Monsanto starts manipulating plant genomes to develop genetically-modified crops that not only tolerate a heap of RoundUp , but require its use (Assisted by major funding from guess who? The Rockefeller Foundation ). Neat plan: create both the need and the solution, and profit from both.
Monsanto had pretty much laid the golden egg. Almost magically, a bunch of other market conditions came together in the 90's that allowed the corporate giant to maximize it all: trade agreements, drafted between nations in complete secrecy, creating international contracts that guarantee "investor" corporations the ability to profit from the sale of their patented goods under "TRIPS" , which are defined thusly on the WTO website:
What are intellectual property rights?
Intellectual property rights are the rights given to people over the creations of their minds.
That's a fancy way of saying "patented or copyrighted inventions" - like the ones Monsanto holds on such things as RoundUp, for instance - and all their genetically-modified seeds. And so, Monsanto can win in court against innocent farmers like Saskatchewan's Percy Schmeiser, whose canola field was cross-pollinated by natural factors (wind, insects, animal and/or bird droppings, etc.) with RoundUp Ready Canola next door. Monsanto sues farmers like poor Percy for theft of their "intellectual property", and wins, routinely. As an "investor" with patented products involved, Monsanto's profits are protected, and our courts must comply, thanks to the trade agreements.
And here is where the rubber meets the road, because this is where the blame gets shifted, where the sleight of hand happens, and where the activists of the world are sent off on a wild goose chase that nets them nothing, and the biotech industry chuckles to itself and trots off to the bank to deposit its harvest.
How does this happen?
It's all a matter of public perception - or the lack thereof. Remember that RoundUp came onto the market in the 70's, and as a common, garden-variety pesticide, hardly raised a hair in the eyes of the average Joe Citizen. But when the first genetically-modified foods were announced, a lot of people yelled "Ew! Frankenfoods!" Glyphosate, AKA RoundUp, having already been on the market for a long time, didn't draw anyone's attention, but the GMO foods evoked a horrified gut response from the marketplace.
So when the French Seralini study came out, showing rats with huge tumors, son of a gun, even the authors opined that these were all because of the genetic modification, unwittingly skirting the fact that the genetically modified foods were made toxic by the Glyphosate they were infused with and required for growth, and that all the negative effects on living things were being damaged by this herbicide, and not by the GMO's all by themselves!
Result: Thousands of activists and hundreds of groups world-wide, campaigning against GMO food, and demanding labeling of GMO-containing food products. Around the same time, in 2013, long after the Seralini study was published in 2008, and therefore with no conceivable excuse whatsoever for the additional load of toxic crap dumped into the American food supply, the EPA increased the allowable limits of Glyphosate in oilseed crops, which include sesame and flax, from 20 parts per million (ppm), to 40 ppm (soy is at 20 ppm). It also raised the allowable glyphosate contamination level for sweet potatoes and carrots from 0.2 ppm to 3 ppm for sweet potatoes and 5ppm for carrots, that's 15 and 25 times the previous levels.
"That herbicide-laced soy winds up in thousands of nonorganic packaged foods and in animal feed for livestock like pigs, cows, chickens, and turkeys.
Why is this happening? Genetically engineered crops are manipulated in a way that could never occur in nature so plants like corn, soy, canola, cotton, and sugar beets can withstand high doses of glyphosate-containing herbicides that would normally kill them. The result? Roundup in food that people and farm animals eat." ~ Rodale News
Do yourself a favor and scroll through this page at "The Liberty Beacon" site, to learn about the damage that RoundUp, and its main ingredient, Glyphosate, does to living organisms, all by itself. Glyphosate does not require a plant to be a GMO to be "useful". According to the well-respected journal Entropy, "Contrary to the current widely-held misconception that Glyphosate is relatively harmless to humans, the available evidence shows that Glyphosate may rather be the most important factor in the development of multiple chronic diseases and conditions that have become prevalent in Westernized societies."
What is Glyphosate known to do to living organisms? The following is a list presented to the EPA by Zen Honeycutt, founder of Moms Across America, and despite its length and its shock value, is not even complete:
Exposure to Glyphosate correlates with chronic illness. Chronically ill people have significantly higher levels of Glyphosate in their systems than healthy people.
Glyphosate is an endocrine disruptor which is toxic to placental cells. This means it may impact our ability to conceive and carry healthy babies to term. It may also cause breast cancer.
Glyphosate destroys the gut bacteria we need for good health. Scientists have observed that in chickens and cattle, Glyphosate kills the good gut bacteria while leaving behind bacteria that cause food poisoning. Glyphosate's negative impact on our microbiome may be the reason for increasing rates of allergies, celiac sprue and gluten intolerance, and colitis and Crohn's disease.
Glyphosate makes vaccines far more toxic than they would otherwise be. When children are overexposed to Glyphosate, they are more likely to react badly to vaccination. There's an intricate connection between the gut and the brain, such that an unhealthy digestive system translates into pathologies in the brain. Aluminum, mercury and Glyphosate work synergistically to create severe deficiency in sulfate supplies to the brain. This may be what's causing the epidemic levels of autism and other diseases such as Alzheimer's.
Glyphosate is a chelator that deprives living things of vital nutrients, vitamins and minerals. This is how Glyphosate kills plants. It may also be how it's killing people. Glyphosate-induced vitamin deficiency may be a factor in the growing cancer rates.
Glyphosate has been directly linked to non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. A recent meta-analysis found that exposure to Glyphosate doubled the likelihood of contracting B-cell lymphoma."
Glyphosate is shown to debilitate the Cytochrome P450 Gene, which is responsible for the production of critical enzymes in the body. If impeded, this prevents the metabolization of antidepressant medications, while allowing the liver and kidneys to become overloaded with poison, causing widespread organ distress and serious illness. It also stops the production of amino acids like L-Tryptophan, and Serotonin, which psychiatry claims as the key factor in depression, is similarly disabled. Sri Lanka has just banned Glyphosate due to an overwhelming number of liver and kidney problems in that country.
Honeycutt asks, "Will the EPA do what is right, consider this evidence and move to protect our children from Monsanto's poison?"
Don't hold your breath.
As they say in court: "The defendant knew, or ought to have known...." Yes. They knew. But they did it anyway. And they did it without much of a stink being raised at the time, because by then, all the activists were chasing GMO's exclusively, demanding labeling, and leaving Glyphosate, for the most part, out of the picture.
Now, if you go to the grocery store produce section and you know your PLU (Product Look Up) Codes, you know that by and large, most fresh produce is unaltered, genetically. Anything that is modified shows up with a code beginning with a 5 or an 8. Organic produce codes begin with a 9, while conventionally-grown produce codes start with a 3 or a 4. Many consumers are looking for PLU codes as a guide to what is relatively safe, absolutely safe, and definitely not safe. But is that really the case?
No. Conventionally-grown produce can still have been subjected to Glyphosate in RoundUp, and still merit use of the codes beginning with 3 or 4, and you will not know, short of interviewing the farmer who grew the stuff, whether or not there is Glyphosate in the produce you're buying. So even if you are meticulously avoiding GMO foods, you are not avoiding the Glyphosate, and therefore, not avoiding the damage that you're trying to avoid, unless you have never eaten anything that isn't organic.
Good luck with that. About 90% of the foods on the shelves of any supermarket include some form of ingredient that is infused, to some degree, with Glyphosate.
It is estimated that Americans consume their own weight in GMO's annually, and that more than 90% of processed, prepackaged foods in the supermarkets contain GMO's - and therefore, Glyphosate. Like it or not, we are all rather chock full of Glyphosate, because we've been unwittingly stuffing our faces with this junk for decades. And we wonder how come our society is so unhealthy!
Meanwhile, the battle to label GMO's continues. But for what purpose, when the damage is not confined to GMO foods at all? Glyphosate is ubiquitous, and therefore, so is the damage. So when folks come down with this or that disease, and have not been consuming GMO's, Monsanto says "See? It's not our GMO's, it's something else". Righty-ho.
Furthermore, GMO labeling may, to some teensy extent, assist consumers in choosing healthy food. But labeling is a waste of time if Glyphosate is the culprit here (it is), and is used conventionally (it has). And it won't stop the genetic drift that occurs in nature: Plant the fields, the seeds will spread. That's how nature works. Ever try to stop a flood with a napkin?
Worse yet, Monsanto's RoundUp patent protection expired in 1991, and since then, copycats have popped up everywhere, because everybody wanted a piece of that highly profitable action. So now, while Monsanto still takes most of the heat, other producers of similar products sell their damaging goods completely unimpeded. And our entire ecosystem is at risk because of it.
The funny thing is, that while diverse, informed and intelligent groups around the world are wagging their index fingers furiously at Glyphosate, the majority of more famous, established sources will point only at the GMO labeling issue. Even the much-vaunted Organic Consumers' Association will not sway from its appointed mission to label GMO's. Millions have been spent on both sides of the argument, probably over 100 million, coming from the pro-biotech side.
And here, at the heart of the issue, is where that odor of rotting fish is coming from -- this is where the red herring, the sleight-of-hand, comes into play. Why spend all that money to prevent labeling of genetically-modified foods, when labeling actually legitimizes their products, by allowing them to be sold as "fit for human consumption"? Why not say, sure, label away, why, we're that proud to show you how artful we've been with what you feed your family?
Why indeed, unless it was to divert attention from the issue of that Glyphosate, that is infused in so much more than just the genetically-modified foods: It is everywhere, and it's been everywhere, since 1974, and it's in almost everything we consume. We think we're smart by avoiding genetically-modified foods, but we only think we're avoiding the damage, because we believe it's the GMO part that hurts - and we're wrong.
Monsanto, with its near-bottomless pockets, along with its equally rich pals, has us fishing in the wrong pond, deeply embroiled in the GMO labeling issue, and gosh, even our elected officials have got into the act, with various states, cities and a whole bunch of countries all stirring the pot.
But it's the wrong pot. An absolutely classic red herring, if ever there was one. And it is one big mother of a fish.
The real damage is in the Glyphosate, and always has been. The GMO's are damaging because they use the stuff, and even require it. It's killing us, and it's killing our food supply. There are enough studies out there to sink a battleship, proving that the human gene pool has been sabotaged, deeply damaged, poisoned in perpetuity, by Monsanto's Glyphosate, and will continue to be, as long as we keep chasing the labeling of GMO's as any sort of solution at all.
Yep, we have to admit it: we were fooled. GMO's are really not much more than a delivery system for Glyphosate. And it's time for those activist groups to come to grips with that fact, and get on the correct band wagon. It's Glyphosate that needs labeling. It needs banning, really. But since it is already regulated, there is no reason not to demand that it be included in the "ingredient" list of our foodstuffs, just as the government demands of the slightest random molecule in a natural health product. To all intents and purposes, it is an additive: Nature didn't put it there, man did, no matter how he did it.
At least, if Glyphosate-containing foods are labeled, an informed consumer can avoid swallowing a measure of poison with his potato chips. The government wasn't shy about having Aspartame listed on food labels, and we all know that's poisonous, so what's stopping them from labeling things containing Glyphosate?
Ah, but there, dear reader, is the rub. Our government can't warn about things if they might impede profits. That would only be the case if they wanted to warn us. If they did, they wouldn't have signed the trade agreements.
What we all have to grok, to understand fundamentally, is that the way this has played out is anything but accidental. And the collusion between the government, its health agencies, and Monsanto, et al, is stunningly obvious: all of the alphabet soup gang is there, from the NIH to the EPA to the FDA, the WHO, and the WTO, along with the multinational biotech/chemical/pharmaceutical companies, all were involved, consciously. They cannot claim otherwise, because they've had nearly 50 years and a ton of studies to tell them.
Furthermore, with all the money being spent to keep us distracted, diverted, and disengaged, like kids throwing tantrums, it does not take a rocket scientist to see that these things did not come together by accident, nor is there one iota, one scintilla, of an excuse available to those behind the scam. They all lied, and they keep on lying.
Dr. Stephanie Seneff, Senior Research Scientist at the world-famous Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), has been bell-ringing about the dangers of Glyphosate for years now. She points to a quickly-growing body of evidence being presented to the public, and how the truth has been suppressed by the powers-that-be all along, and a growing list of researchers coming forward to stop the madness. Dr. Thierry Vrain, former genetic engineer and soil biologist with Agriculture Canada, lectures across Canada, warning that Glyphosate is the real enemy, along with famed Health Canada whistleblower Dr. Shiv Chopra and Glyphosate-testing promoter Tony Mitra. Former US Navy scientist Dr. Nancy Swanson is another, one of a host of scientific luminaries around the globe, warning that a focus on GMO's is all very well and fine, but it's like chasing down a pickpocket while the bank is being robbed.
How can this be anything but deliberate, when in the face of this damning - and growing -- pile of evidence, forming a very pregnant baby bump under the rug in the living room, the EPA turns around and quietly, inexplicably, increases the "safe" levels for human consumption in food crops - by 3000%?
Most people simply cannot wrap their heads around the obvious: McNamara was not kidding; the Rockefeller Foundation doesn't throw money at things that are good for us; the EPA is protecting something, but it isn't us; and as unthinkable as it may be, applied eugenics is the order of the day.
The human herd is indeed being culled. Glyphosate is one of the weapons fulfilling the wet dream of Robert McNamara, the former US Secretary of State and President of the World Bank: the death of millions.