April 26, 2016 By Joseph P. Farrell

If you've been following the whoel GMO-glyphosphate issue, you'll be readily aware that the whole scientific method and process has been corrupted by the GMO corporations - a global network of big agribusiness mercantilists that we not-so-lovingly refer to on this website as "I.G. Farbensanto", or Mon(ster)santo, or DuPontzanto, Syncrudda, and a variety of other accurate names to denote both the quality of their products, and the caliber of their morals and business ethics. To be blunt, and as most readers of this and other websites that are devoted to the subject of GMOs, the corporate-sponsored "science" proving the safety of their own products (big surprise, huh?) has been challenged by a number of independent scientists conducting their own studies (most especially in France, where these studies were legally challenged and vindicated).  Well, there may have been another setback for I.G. Farbensanto in, of all places, Brussels, the center of that bureaucratic-technocratic nightmare misnamed the European "Union", according to this article shared by Ms. M.W., and written by F. William Engdahl, one of our favorite researchers and commentators on the subject:

Dramatic Turn in Brussels Glyphosate Battle

First, you'll note the reference to those bothersome French studies that IG Farbensanto tried to kill (indeed, we wonder why it didn't simply assassinate Dr. Seralini, who conducted them):

The true secret of the toxic danger of GMO crops in the animal and human food chain is gradually coming to light. It is becoming clearer that perhaps as much or even more a toxic danger for human and animal consumption of GMO corn, soy products and other GMO varieties, are the chemicals the GMO seeds are by contract agreement necessarily mated with. No farmer anywhere in the world is allowed to buy Monsanto GMO “Roundup Ready” seeds without at the same time signing a binding contract to annually buy and use Monsanto glyphosate-based Roundup weed killer. In fact, the only trait that Monsanto Roundup Ready corn or soybeans are genetically modified for is to resist the toxic killing effect of Roundup while every living biological matter around not “glyphosate resistant” is killed.

Until a recent study by the courageous group of scientists under Professor Giles-Eric Seralini at France’s Caen University, few independent scientific long-term rat studies of Roundup or glyphosate were done. Monsanto and other GMO companies refused to disclose the adjuvant chemicals paired with Roundup or other herbicides claiming “business secrets.”

Since the WHO’s March 2015 IARC determination that glyphosate, alone and in combination with adjuvant toxic chemicals was a probable human carcinogen, the dam of secrecy around glyphosate has burst. To parody the line of then Presidential candidate Bill Clinton in a debate with opponent George H.W. Bush in the 1992 election race, “It’s the glyphosate, stupid!”

The problem now facing the Brussels bureaucrats is that growing opposition, which has now reached proportions that even a dumbed-down European commissioner can understand the implications:

As we described in a previous writing, the EU Commission had recommended approval of another 15-year license for the controversial glyphosate based on the suspicious determination by the EU’s corrupt EFSA that there was no reason to believe glyphosate is a carcinogen. That determination, not backed up by open disclosure of the relevant health and safety studies EFSA claimed to rely on, went totally against the 2015 determination by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that glyphosate, the weed-killer used in most every GMO plant worldwide and most other crops and even home gardens as well, was a “probable carcinogen.”

EFSA, basing its view on a report by Germany’s Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), which in turn was given it by Monsanto and other agrochemical industry groups, said it is unlikely to pose a cancer risk. IARC used only data that was in the public domain, but the corrupt German BfR based its report on secret industry studies that it refused to release to IARC or to the public.

Currently the Monsanto and other agribusiness industry studies submitted to support regulatory authorizations of pesticides are kept secret under commercial confidentiality agreements with regulators. Now Andriukaitis, clearly feeling the pressure, has said that this needs to change. He stated, “We are ready to assess the legal environment,” as there are certain legal protections on industry data. But, he added, “It’s absolutely crystal clear, we need to change today’s situation. We see different options, but at the moment, yes, the idea is to change the rules, especially keeping in mind the overriding public interest.”

You'll note the typical bureaucratese being spoken here: "change the situation" and "different options" and "change the rules".  These are not the words of an individual enthusiastic about doing the right thing, but of someone, as Mr. Engdahl points out, under pressure from independent scientists and over a million and a half petitioners.

The problem, however, is that the modern "state" in the West is largely just for show; the peoples of the west are largely - and deliberately - disenfranchised from any real political influence by a variety of mechanisms, mostly leading back to large corporations and their mercentilist policies of obtaining special privileges and status from their respective governments. Consider, for example, the implications of the following quotations from Mr. Engdahl's article:

Under the right of access to documents in the EU treaties, as enshrined in Regulation 1049/2001 and in the Aarhus Regulation, I am requesting documents which contain the following information:

There is an alarming scientific controversy between the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization (IARC) with regard to the carcinogenicity of glyphosate. In March 2015, IARC concluded that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen (category 2A) . However, later that same year, in November 2015, EFSA concluded that glyphosate is “unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans and the evidence does not support classification with regard to its carcinogenic potential.”

Proper classification of glyphosate is crucial because it potentially affects public health and entails important regulatory consequences. It is therefore vital to investigate why there are contradictory results in the EFSA and IARC assessments. To date EFSA has explained that its “evaluation considered a large body of evidence, including a number of studies not assessed by the IARC which is one of the reasons for reaching different conclusions” (EFSA news story, 12 November 2015 –…). This means that the EFSA peer review is based on unpublished studies whose findings cannot yet be verified and subjected to independent scrutiny.

You'll notice that besides the reference to the lack of real and genuine independent scientific verification of the safety claims for GMOs and glyphosphate, that the whole quotation refers, not once, to any law or legislation, but to "treatises" and "regulations," and that, is, indeed, the central problem of the modern west, and the GMO issue has highlighted it for all to see: the people have no real voice, and the regulators and bureaucrats, whose presumptive duty is to guard the safety and health of the general public, are doing, and have done, anything but, since the institutions of government they ostensibly fill have been bought and paid for by the corporations they supposedly regulate! The result has been what Mr. Putin has pointed out: western governments are now forcing their populations in some places to get vaccines, for which there is a growing and disturbing body of evidence that some ingredients are linked to autism, while GMOs have ruined the soil, endangered the health of their populations, and while the corporations seek by any and all means to continue to do so.

In short, I contend that the GMO issue has given us a taste of Mr. Global's vision for "the global community" and "global government" by banks, corporations, and technocrats.

And they have utterly and completely failed. One cannot have genuine science, genuine health, and most importantly, genuine government and a civil society without transparency, and freedom to question and challenge, and without an absolute equality of law; there cannot be one set of "rules" for the corporations and the Mr. Rockefailures who want to rule everything, and another set for everyone else.

The experiment of Mr. Global is a failure, and that failure is revelaed by the GMO issue. If there is to be a "global order," then a new vision is required, one in which corporations are not the arbiters of opinion, policy, regulation, and law.

Or to put it "Donald Trump simple": Mr. Rockefailure, you're fired.

See you on the flip side...