Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2013

    EU To Ban Heirloom Seeds and Criminalize Unregistered Gardens

    Saturday, January 11, 2014

    EU To Ban Heirloom Seeds and Criminalize Unregistered Gardens

    If the global domination is allowed to take root, biotech and Big Agra will control the world food supply, at the expense of personal liberty.

    Aaron Dykes
    Activist Post

    Because independence is the greatest of all crimes under the emerging global government, which essentially works to protect the dominance established by the biggest of corporations, who participate, in turn, as de facto members of the ruling oligarchy – and in baby steps through the EU, and emerging North American Union, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, et al.

    Related: Trans-Pacific Partnership Breaks Down Sovereignty and GMO Protections via Intellectual Property Rights

    The U.S. has already seen its fair share of cases where backyard gardens and rain collectors are raided by SWAT teams, shut down through regulations and otherwise intimidated out of proliferation.

    Now, official policies to support this kind of dominance by biotech, pesticide companies and other plays in big agribusiness are being pushed through in Europe, in this case by the European Commission through a truly bunk proposed law.

    Arjun Walia, from, writes:
    The European Commission is changing the European Union’s plant legislation, apparently to enhance food safety across the continent. This move has sparked a heavy opposition from many, saying that the measure will threaten seed diversity and favour large agrochemical businesses. This new law creates new powers to classify and regulate all plant life anywhere in Europe.
    The “Plant Reproductive Material Law” regulates all plants. It contains restrictions on vegetables and woodland trees, as well as all other plants of any species. It will be illegal to grow, reproduce, or trade any vegetable seed or tree that has not been been tested and approved by the government, more specifically the “EU Plant Variety Agency.” [...] The new law basically puts the government in charge of all plants and seeds in Europe, and prevents home gardeners from growing their own plants from non-regulated seeds. If they did, they would now be considered criminals.

    If this takes root as law in Europe and elsewhere, it will contribute towards the total subjugation of the people to the undue powers granted to biotech and Big Agra.

    The Real Seed Catalogue has warned about this tyrannical law and the business interests behind it. They say that under this bad law, “It costs nearly £3000 to test & register just one single variety of seed for sale“:
    This law will immediately stop the professional development of vegetable varieties for home gardeners, organic growers and small scale market farmers. Home gardeners have really different needs – for example they grow by hand, not machine, and can’t or don’t want to use such powerful chemical sprays. There’s no way to register the varieties suitable for home use as they don’t meet the strict criteria of the Plant Variety Agency, which is only concerned about approving the sort of seed used by industrial farmers – Ben Gabel, Director of The Real Seed Catalogue
    According to the Real Seed Catalogue, the bill was heard by the EU Environment and Agriculture committees, but has been reworked due to significant public outcry. As of Nov. 2013, they reported, “The feedback we’re getting from all the MEPs is that they are receiving hundreds of emails, and they really know that there is a problem and that gardeners are worried!“

    A community petition posted on titled “We don’t accept this. Let us keep our seeds EU!” is nearing 100,000 signatures and may have worthwhile influence in convincing Europe’s unelected bureaucrats to drop this ridiculous corporate interest law. Click here to view and sign.

    Additionally, you can personalize the form letter posted on the Real Seed Catalogue and send it to the appropriate members of the European Parliament to let them know the public is watching with disdain.

    This kind of tactic was literally used in the occupation of Iraq, by the way, where Bush appointee Paul Bremmer instituted the so-called 100 Orders of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) that in one part forced Iraqi farmers to use only registered seeds, essentially jeopardizing thousands of thousands of years of heirloom seed agriculture, dating back to Mesopotamia.

    Instead, it strong armed most farmers into using genetically-modified seeds – even as new corporate friendly agricultural cropped up to grow a brand new corn industry to grow, in turn to grow fodder for its brand new beef cattle industry.

    As Global Research aptly explained in their 2005 article, "Biopiracy and GMOS: The Fate of Iraq’s Agriculture":
    Order 81 deals specifically with Plant Variety Protection (PVP) because it is designed to protect the commercial interests of corporate seed companies. Its aim is to force Iraqi farmers to plant so-called “protected” crop varieties ‘defined as new, distinct uniform and stable’, and most likely genetically modified. This means Iraqi farmers will have one choice; to buy PVP registered seeds. Order 81 opens the way for patenting (ownership) of plant forms, and facilitates the introduction of genetically modified crops or organisms (GMOs) to Iraq. U.S. agricultural biotechnology corporations, such as Monsanto and Syngenta will be the beneficiaries. [4] Iraqi farmers will be forced to buy their seeds from these corporations. GMOs will replace the old tradition of breeding closely related plants, and replace them with organisms composed of DNA from an altogether different species, e.g., bacterium genes into corn. In the long run, there won’t be a big enough gene pool for genetic viability.
    Upon purchasing the patented seeds, farmers must sign the company’s technology agreement (Technology User Agreements). This agreement allows the company to control farmers’ practices and conduct property investigation. The farmer becomes the slave of the company. Like U.S. farmers, Iraqi farmers will be “harassed for doing what they have always done.” For example, Iraqi farmers can be sued by Monsanto, if their non-GMO crops are polluted by GMO crops planted in their vicinity. [5] The health and environmental consequences of GMO crops are still unknown. GMO-based agriculture definitely encourages monoculture and genetic pollution. Moreover, this will further increase the already polluted Iraqi environment as a result of tens of thousands of tons of ‘depleted’ uranium dust, napalm, chemical weapons, and phosphorous bombs.
    Farmers will also be required to buy fertilisers, herbicides and insecticides, against plants disease. Iraqi farmers will be required to pay royalties for the new seeds and they will be forbidden from saving seeds. In other words, Iraqi farmers will become agricultural producers for export, a recipe for the introduction of hunger in Iraq, not unknown in many developing countries. Unless an independent sovereign Iraqi government repeals these edicts, they will override Iraq’s original patent law of 1970, which, in accordance with the Iraqi constitution, prohibited private ownership of biological resources.
    Furthermore, Order 81 ignores Iraqi farmers’ old traditions of saving seeds, and using their knowledge to breed and plant their crops. It also brutally disregards the contributions which Iraqi farmers have made over hundreds of generations to the development of important crops like wheat, barley, dates and pulses. If anybody owns those varieties and their unique virtues, it is the families who bred them, even though nobody has described or characterized them in terms of their genetic makeup. If anything, the new law — in allowing old varieties to be genetically manipulated or otherwise modified and then “registered” — involves the theft of inherited intellectual property, the loss of farmers’ freedoms, and the destruction of food sovereignty in Iraq.
    Unbelievable! (But true.)

    Aaron Dykes is a co-founder of, where this first appeared. As a writer, researcher and video producer who has worked on numerous documentaries and investigative reports, he uses history as a guide to decode current events, uncover obscure agendas and contrast them with the dignity afforded individuals as recognized in documents like the Bill of Rights.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Trans-Pacific Partnership Breaks Down Sovereignty and GMO Protections

    By Aaron Dykes on August 21, 2013

    Multilateral trade agreement crafted by megacorporations would undermine jobs, expand GMOs and Big Pharma, restrict Internet freedom and strengthen global government.

    Japan is joining negotiations with 11 other countries in an ongoing effort to create a Trans-Pacific Partnership that participants hope to finalize by the end of the year. Led by the U.S., partner nations already on board include Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Chile, Mexico, Brunei, Malaysia, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam.
    Many voices in the public, however, oppose the deal on the grounds that its formation favors the business interests of megacorporations who would profit off of global trade at the expense of internet freedom, national sovereignty, food independence and jobs. Moreover, the deal has been worked out largely in secret and without consulting Congress.
    U.S. trade representative Michael Froman visited Japan ahead of the TPP negotiation to iron out agreements and rally against protective interests in Japan who see the agreement, and particularly its loosening of tariffs as a threat. According to the WSJ, concerns persist over the ‘rice, beef, pork, dairy, wheat and sugar’ markets and other industries:
    Japan’s Central Union of Agricultural Cooperatives adopted a declaration on Aug. 8. saying it has “grave problems” with the TPP, as it could jeopardize food safety and universal healthcare services, and undermine the nation’s sovereignty. “It’s extremely regrettable that the government has entered the negotiations without clarifying such concerns,” the statement said.

    Mr. Froman said “Barriers to access to Japan’s automotive and insurance markets, and non-tariff measures and other sectoral and cross-cutting areas hold back growth and innovation, undermine competitiveness, and hurt workers, businesses and consumers in both our countries.” [emphasis added]

    Michael Froman’s previously worked with Citigroup and was a senior fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations, putting him in square alliance with unlimited globalization. The CFR recently interviewed Mireya Solís, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Center for Northeast Asian Policy Studies, who described the gravity of trade represented under the TPP.
    Japan’s participation in the latest round could “triple the economic gains that the United States can expect from the TPP,” Solís says, and “with Japan on board, the Asian identity of the TPP is more than solidified.” The TPP currently comprises Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Japan, the United States, and Vietnam, which together make up roughly 40 percent of global gross domestic product and about a third of world trade.

    [...] To be frank, we are talking about a level of liberalization when it comes to Japan that is unprecedented.

    Globalization agreements, including the likes of GATT, WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA and other multilateral treaties, establish more than just trade between nations. Their deconstruction of trade barriers and tariffs are touted for creating cheaper goods, but often criticized for hurting farmers, small businesses, home-based industries, environmental factors and workers.

    GMO / Agribusiness Dominance

    One of the major concerns that have been raised about the scope of the Trans-Pacific Partnership is its impact on genetically modified foods, which observers say will favor big players in the biotech industry and undermine labeling laws and bans on growing GMO crops and/or imports.
    While the North American Union nations – U.S., Canada and Mexico – have no labeling laws for GM foods, Australia, New Zealand and Japan do. Further, Peru recently declared a 10-year moratorium on genetically modified crops, but the TPP deal could change that.
    The leader of the Greens party in Australia critiqued the plan, blaming the ‘push for a free trade area in the Asia-Pacific’ as part of an attempt ‘to remove a ban on genetically modified crops.’ Senator Christine Milne said:
    “It is supported by both parties and if it goes through [it] will open up Tasmania to be sued by giant international companies who want to push their GMOs [genetically modified organisms] here.”

    Barbara Chicherio, treasurer of the Gateway Green Alliance, charges that negotiations have included more than 600 industry lobbyists with unparalleled secrecy and little input from Congress:
    The chief agricultural negotiator for the US is the former Monsanto lobbyist, Islam Siddique. If ratified the TPP would impose punishing regulations that give multinational corporations unprecedented right to demand taxpayer compensation for policies that corporations deem a barrier to their profits. There appears not to be a specific agricultural chapter in the TPP. Instead, rules affecting food systems and food safety are woven throughout the text.

    Specifically, previous rounds of TPP negotiations have sought an agreement not to interfere with the importation of so-called “low level presence” GMO foods. Proponents of this point hope to avoid “creating an artificial trade barrier due to the possibility of very low levels of dust or commingling in other grain shipments” – despite legitimate concerns about contamination.
    Phillips and Brian Innes, market access manager for the Canola Council of Canada, who favor GMOs on the market argue:
    said science-based policies related to maximum residue levels of crop protection products and biotechnology will help improve both trade and international food security.

    “The reality in the world today is that biotechnology is playing a central role in crop production, and we need strong policies that facilitate trade and avoid unnecessary non-tariff trade barriers,” said Innes.

    Internet Freedom

    The Electronic Frontier Foundation outlined the case to block the TPP in the following video on grounds that it would make enforcement of intellectual property rights stronger, limiting internet freedom:

    Global “Governance”

    The Trans-Pacific Partnership goes beyond specific arrangements benefiting corporations and extents towards the creation of global structures.
    The New American explained how the agreement is being used to create regional control structures :
    The TPP and TTIP should be of special concern to Americans, since, as we shall detail presently, the authors and promoters of these agreements admit that they deal with far more than trade and have been designed to drag the United States into “regional governance” on a host of issues. The architects of the TPP and TTIP are virtually unanimous in their head-over-heels praise of, and support for, the political and economic merger taking place in the European Union (EU). The once-sovereign nations of Europe have been tricked, bribed, and browbeaten into yielding control over almost every aspect of their lives to globalist banking and corporate elites and their bureaucratic servitors in Brussels.
    AlterNet reports that “Fast Track” trade-promotion authority (TPA) is being used, as with other global treaties, to get the deal done fast and limit opposition, regulation and oversight. Daily Kos rightly criticizes the fact that such far-reaching trade agreements give megacorporations the right to sue partner nations whose environmental or trade policies limit their business endeavors – putting all other concerns on the back burner.
    More official info on the Trans-Pacific Partnership can be found on the U.S. Trade Representative’s website here. The deal could be blocked by the Senate, who must ratify treaty negotiations. Corporations are reportedly lobbying senators for its passage, and even backing candidates to oppose those who could block the TPP.
    As futile as it may seem, rallying major opposition against the Trans-Pacific Partnership now and telling your senator to oppose ratification if final agreement is reached, could stop it. Such efforts sent a strong message in regards to SOPA/PIPA/CISPA, and it could work again.

    Aaron Dykes is a co-founder of As a writer, researcher and video producer who has worked on numerous documentaries and investigative reports, he uses history as a guide to decode current events, uncover obscure agendas and contrast them with the dignity afforded individuals as recognized in documents like the Bill of Rights.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts