Giza Death Star

A Website of Alternative Thinkers & Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

GMO SCRAPBOOK: MON(STER)SANTO TO PAY 289.2 MILLION IN LAWSUIT

Most regular readers here know I have my concerns about GMOs, and particularly about the most notorious player in that game, I.G. Farbensanto. Indeed, when former I.G. Farben component Bayer bought controlling interest in Mon(ster)santo recently, I thought that we might have the makings of some classic karma coming home to roost, since Bayer was a large component of the notorious I.G. Farben chemicals cartel.

Recently a lawsuit was concluded in California, and Mon(ster)santo was ordered to pay $289,200,000 in a lawsuit brought against it for its glyphosate-ridden herbicide, Round-up, which is a product to be used in conjunction with its herbicide resistance GMO crops (thanks to Mr. G.B. and Mr. G.F. for sharing these articles):

Monsanto to Pay $289.2M in Landmark Roundup Lawsuit Verdict

Monsanto Slammed With $289 Million Verdict In Historic 'RoundUp' Cancer Lawsuit

The results of this trial should confirm the warnings that various people have been trying to send for years concerning not only Mon(ster)santo's product, but more importantly, its behavior:

After eight weeks of trial proceedings, the jury found unanimously that Monsanto’s glyphosate-based Roundup weed killer caused Mr. Johnson to develop NHL, and that Monsanto failed to warn of this severe health hazard. Importantly, the jury also found that Monsanto acted with malice, oppression or fraud and should be punished for its conduct.

Monsanto Co. continues to refuse to warn consumers of the dangers of its multi-billion-dollar product Roundup despite the world’s foremost authority on cancer—the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)—listing glyphosate as a probable carcinogen in 2015.

Lee Johnson is one of more than 4,000 people from across the country to file suit against Monsanto in state and federal courts based on allegations linking Roundup to cancer.

He was represented at trial by Brent Wisner of Baum, Hedlund, Aristei and Goldman, David Dickens of the Miller Firm and Mark Burton of Audet & Partners LLP.

Co-lead trial counsel Brent Wisner said today’s verdict was a result of newly-revealed, confidential company documents.

"We were finally able to show the jury the secret, internal Monsanto documents proving that Monsanto has known for decades that glyphosate and specifically Roundup could cause cancer," Wisner said. "Despite the Environmental Protection Agency’s failure to require labeling, we are proud that an independent jury followed the evidence and used its voice to send a message to Monsanto that its years of deception regarding Roundup is over and that they should put consumer safety first over profits."

For years Monsanto has claimed that there is no evidence that Roundup causes cancer, yet a mountain of testimony and documents was admitted during the trial. Johnson’s attorneys proved through testimony from Monsanto’s witnesses that company employees “ghostwrote” scientific articles and paid outside scientists to publish the articles in their name.

Internal documents revealed that a scientific advisor hired by Monsanto told the company that past testing for Roundup was insufficient because glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, was tested in isolation without the other chemical ingredients that make up the Roundup formulation.

"Many of these confidential Monsanto documents were unsealed for the first time,” co-lead counsel David Dickens said. “They show that Monsanto knew that its testing was insufficient and that there was a synergistic effect when glyphosate is combined with surfactants which help the glyphosate penetrate both plant and animal cell walls.”

Mon(ster)santo, as regular readers here know, was recently bought out by the giant German chemicals combine, Bayer (a former component of I.G. Farben, along with B.A.S.F. and other companies), and the decision sent Bayer's stocks tumbling. But there's more, for according to the second article linked above, from Zero Hedge the internal pressures to "fudge the data". But more importantly, there's other cases lurking in the wings:

As the New York Times noted last year, new internal emails, among other things, reveal ethical objections from former employees to "ghost writing" research studies that were pawned off as 'independent' analyses.

The documents underscore the lengths to which the agrochemical company goes to protect its image. Documents show that Henry I. Miller, an academic and a vocal proponent of genetically modified crops, asked Monsanto to draft an article for him that largely mirrored one that appeared under his name on Forbes’s website in 2015. Mr. Miller could not be reached for comment.

A similar issue appeared in academic research. An academic involved in writing research funded by Monsanto, John Acquavella, a former Monsanto employee, appeared to express discomfort with the process, writing in a 2015 email to a Monsanto executive, “I can’t be part of deceptive authorship on a presentation or publication.” He also said of the way the company was trying to present the authorship: “We call that ghost writing and it is unethical.”

The newly disclosed emails also reveal internal discussions which cast some doubt over whether internal scientists actually believed in the company's external messaging that Roundup was, in fact, safe.

“If somebody came to me and said they wanted to test Roundup I know how I would react — with serious concern."

And, here's more:

The documents also show that a debate outside Monsanto about the relative safety of glyphosate and Roundup, which contains other chemicals, was also taking place within the company.

In a 2002 email, a Monsanto executive said, “What I’ve been hearing from you is that this continues to be the case with these studies — Glyphosate is O.K. but the formulated product (and thus the surfactant) does the damage.”

In a 2003 email, a different Monsanto executive tells others, “You cannot say that Roundup is not a carcinogen … we have not done the necessary testing on the formulation to make that statement.”

Sometimes the wheels of justice turn slowly - too slowly - but in this case, I hope they continue to turn, and grind, for both Mon(ster)santo and Bayer have their murky histories (and that's putting it very kindly), and neither has ever really faced justice. The GMO industry has had a sad practice of suing farmers whose fields have contained GMO crops for non-payment of licensing fees, even if those crops were accidentally seeded into their fields by bird droppings and so on. (What exactly is that law? Practicing agriculture without a license? And by the way, how does one determine if a farmer's fields contained corporate seeds, without sending out spies, and tramping through someone's private property?) The damning thing here is the 2003 email of a Mon(ster)santo executive cited in the Zero Hedge quotation admitting that as of 2003, no carcinogenic testing had been done by the company. It's time for some counter-suits by farmers who did not want their fields contaminated by GMOs...

... and as for this decision, I suspect it will be the first of many more, both in the USA and in Europe. I suspect I'm not alone when I say that I hope Mon(ster)santo and Bayer choke on a flood of lawsuits, because no amount of money can bring Mr. Johnson's life back, nor bring back the lives of many others ruined by corporate greed and "science" (Zyklon B, anyone?).

If Mon(ster)santo becomes a millstone around Bayer's neck, a corporate White Elephant it could not sell at a rummage sale, I for one won't shed any tears for either company, because I strongly suspect Mr. Johnson's sad case is not the only one. Mon(ster)santo and Bayer were made for each other...

See you on the flip side...

 

 

NEW RETROVIRUS STUDY, AND OLD PATTERNS

The reader can probably tell that this week I've been focused on a number of technological issues, and today is no different, although today we gather some of those concerns - vaccines, GMOs, and ...well... just "too much human tinkering" with things - all under one umbrella with this article that was sent by Mr. S.D., and it's an eye-opener, and I suspect even qualifies for "whopper dooziedom":

Vaccines and Retroviruses: A Whistleblower Reveals What the Government is Hiding

The thesis is simple: a significant segment of the American population is infected with retroviruses, due to vaccinations, and these are causing auto-immune disorders entirely unrelated to the HIV version of AIDS; this infection began in the 1930s, and received a major push in the 1970s:

Data suggests that 6% of the U.S. population is harboring a retrovirus in their bodies that can develop into an acquired immune deficiency. This is not the well-known AIDS caused by HIV, but Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) associated with other retroviruses. These non-HIV retroviruses were unintentionally introduced into humans over the past 75 years.

It began with trials of polio vaccines and yellow fever vaccines given in the early 1930s. This is when the first recorded cases of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and autism appeared. It involved the use of laboratory mice to prepare vaccines for human use. [1]

Retrovirus exposure intensified in the 1970s as new vaccines and pharmaceutical products were developed. These retroviruses and related infectious agents are now associated with dozens of modern chronic illnesses – perhaps nearly all of them. In these diseases, infection leads to inflammation — and unresolved inflammation can lead to chronic disease.

...

Once activated, they create diseases such as Myalgic Encephalomyelitis, also called Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS), Chronic Lyme disease, Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), numerous cancers, and a wide range of other autoimmune, neuroimmune, and central nervous system diseases. Please see reference number 2 at the end of this article for a comprehensive list of diseases. [2]

There's a big caveat, however, and this is where it gets really interesting:

The retroviruses being discussed here do not directly cause diseases by themselves. A perfect storm of events need to come together to create acquired immune system deficiency (non-HIV AIDS). When conditions are right, the viruses create unrelenting inflammatory processes that disrupt the immune system.

The perfect storm occurs when human DNA is disturbed by retroviruses, when there are co-infections, when there is severe shock or trauma, when hormones are dysregulated, when there are genetically modified organisms and glyphosate in the diet, when there are pesticides and other toxic substances in food and the environment, and when there are genetic susceptibilities.

If some or all of these conditions occur together, then the immune system will be weakened to the point where the perfect storm occurs, and people become ill with some type of modern chronic disease. (Emphasis added)

Recall that yesterday I blogged about the potential epigenetic effects of standard gene editing, the point being that while precision editing of one gene may look good on paper, it occurs in a living organism, which, if one may so put it, is a system that is more than the sum of its parts; the system itself determines its own development and the effects of any modification made on one of its components. If there is a fault of western science in the last five hundred years, it has been this analytical approach, rather than a synthetic one. Systems of systems can produce their own effects, and its that combination of effects of different systems that is being referred to here, retroviruses activate when several different systems assault the immune system, and combine to collapse that system. Yet, little to no scientific study of the combined effects of all these systems - vaccines, GMOs, genetic therapies, and so on - has been done.

So why haven't such studies been done. J.P. Thomas, author of the article, lays the blame - once again - at our non-functioning governmental agencies, which function as agencies for corporations, not the people supposedly being governed:

If you have never heard about the retrovirus problem, then you can thank the CDC, NIH, FDA, and other government agencies for covering up the problem since it was first reported to them in 1991 by American immunologist Elaine DeFreitas. [3]

They did not want to alarm you. They didn’t want to induce a panic, or a rebellion against the use of vaccines. They didn’t want to send shock waves through the conventional medical care system and the pharmaceutical industry that would threaten their profits. They didn’t want to risk a public panic among people needing blood transfusions. They didn’t want to disturb the resolve of Big Pharma and political leaders working to pass mandatory vaccination laws. They didn’t want to interfere with the full implementation of genetically engineered crops. They didn’t want to lay the groundwork for numerous class action lawsuits from people who were harmed or who will be harmed in the next 20 to 30 years as the retroviruses continue to multiply in the bodies of infected persons.

But it's even worse than that:

The most recent chapter of the story began in the 1970s. It took place in research laboratories throughout the world where scientists were doing research on diseases such as cancer and HIV/AIDS.

These were the same laboratories where they were manufacturing vaccines. These labs work with mice that are genetically engineered to have immune system deficiencies, which made them vulnerable to express certain diseases. In other words, their immune systems have been altered in such a way that they will get a certain disease when exposed to a certain pathogen or toxin.

Research activities involved injecting lab mice with human viruses to attenuate or weaken the viruses. Scientists routinely did these experiments with mice in the same laboratories where they were growing human cell lines. They believed that mouse viruses and human viruses would not interact, or travel from one part of the research facility to another.

In the past, scientists didn’t worry about mouse virus contamination, because they believed that these viruses would not harm humans if they actually made their way into a human being. Scientists acknowledged the risks, but maintained the judgment that the benefits of vaccines outweighed the risks. The work of Dr. Mikovits and other scientists challenged their beliefs. They suggested the problem with mouse viruses was already out of control and the cost of the damage could destroy the economies of nations. (Emphasis added)

So, once again, we're back at a concern I voiced years ago in a blog about GMOs, that there could be cross-species contamination, and that scientists, with few exceptions, were operating on the assumption there could not be such cross-contamination, that "mouse viruses and human viruses would not interact." As one angry reader of one of my GMOs put it at the time, just because you eat an egg sandwich or bacon sandwich, that doesn't turn you into a chicken or a pig. True enough, but that wasn't my point then, nor is it now. It took a couple of years before studies were published that did indeed suggest some sort of cross contamination was occurring with GMOs, and this current article on the research of Dr. Judy Mikovits is saying essentially the same thing. There were, of course, warnings:

Dr. G. Stuart made the same warning in 1953, when he spoke to the World Health Organization. He was talking about the yellow fever vaccine at that time. He stated:

Two main objections to this vaccine have been voiced, because of the possibility that (i) the mouse brain employed in its preparation may be contaminated with a virus pathogenic for man although latent in mice … Or may be the cause of a de-myelinating encephalomyelitis; (ii) the use, as an antigen, or a virus with enhanced neurotropic properties may be followed by serious reactions involving the central nervous system. [5]

In 1996, Dr. John Coffin, a leading expert on recombination in viruses, warned against transplanting cells from animals into humans to improve the functioning of the immune system of HIV-AIDS patients. He stated:

The infection is a virtually inevitable consequence of xenotransplantation and this is a very serious worry because the animals that have been chosen for doing this — the baboon and the pig — are both known to carry endogenous viruses, replication competent, but very poorly studied, that are capable of infecting human cells. [6]

Let that sink in... mouse brains, baboons, and pigs, in vaccines...

Dr. Judy Mikovits made an interesting discovery:

The long held judgement of the majority of the scientific community was proven wrong in 2009 by Dr. Judy Mikovits and other scientists who discovered that something unexpected and very harmful was happening in laboratories throughout America and the world. They discovered that a retrovirus called XMRV (xenotropic murine retrovirus) and other related retroviruses were now present in 6% of Americans and that this retrovirus was appearing in a very high percentage of people with diseases such as prostate cancer, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, autism, Lou Gehrig’s Disease, treatment resistant Lyme disease, and Parkinson’s Disease.

The term “xenotropic” indicates that the virus had a non-human origin and it is now able to live and multiply in humans. This retrovirus had an appearance that was similar to mouse virus, but it also had qualities of human virus. It was a chimera – like a mythical beast – part human and part mouse. It was accidentally created in laboratories when a naturally occurring mouse virus recombined with a human virus found in a prostate cancer culture.

Dr. Mikovis spoke out about it, and of course, the corporate-government link (that's classic fascism), went to work on her:

Dr. Mikovits is not just one of the leading scientists in the area of retrovirus related illness, she stands at the center of a scientific controversy and political battle that has ended her career as a government-funded research scientist. She spoke the truth about the fraudulent use of government research money, the marketing of inaccurate retrovirus tests, Medicare fraud, the contaminated blood supply, and the harm that is associated with vaccines and their schedule of administration. Her research showed how retroviruses are linked to the plague of modern illnesses that are bankrupting the U.S. healthcare system.

The result of her unwavering determination to stick to the truth of her research and to stand up against those who want to keep the truth hidden, resulted in her being taken to criminal court and civil court. She was gagged for four years by fabricated criminal charges in Nevada, and could not speak openly about retrovirus science or the government cover-up without risking further persecution/prosecution.

They didn't stop there. For her efforts in documenting the effects of retroviruses in vaccines, including the connection between them and autism,

Dr. Mikovits was arrested 6 weeks later, and held in jail for 5 days without the opportunity for bail as a fugitive from justice. Eventually she was charged with stealing her own research notebooks. These notebooks contained all of her recent research about retroviruses. On the day she was fired, she was locked out of her lab and offices while they were ransacked. They might have taken her notebooks, but a coworker understood what was going on and he temporarily secured Dr. Mikovits’ notebooks as well as his own.

A research scientist’s notebooks are a precious possession. Their value is equal to his or her professional credibility and personal integrity. The notebooks of Dr. Mikovits are important, because they contained the confidential names and addresses of every patient that had been involved in her gammaretrovirus research. They contain proof of the existence of gammaretroviruses and their connection with ME/CFS that no one could deny. Gammaretroviruses are one of the retrovirus families that cause chronic illness.

I won’t go into the details of the court proceedings. But political corruption in Nevada and in the U.S. scientific research community made sure that Dr. Judy Mikovits would be silenced and financially destroyed. She and her husband lost everything. They now live in a rental unit in Southern California.

Big money has created big science, but in the process, like everything else in our "kulcher", no dissent is tolerated, or allowed. Big money can silence and persecute the opposition. And in the end, big pharma, big agribusiness, and, yes, big physics, will end up destroying science itself with money. So far, Dr. Mikovits has been lucky; she could have ended up dead like the growing list of "natural" doctors. That phenomenon has pointed out the new disturbing trend in "big science"; if you can't silence them by trumped-up charges, bought and aid-for corporate kangaroo courts, then simply silence the opposition, permanently.

What won't go away are Dr. Mikovits' findings, nor their implications: we need to start studying systems themselves, their interactions, including the big money corporations and how they are contributing to ill-health. And given the CDC's role in all this, alluded to throughout the article, perhaps it's time to give Robert F. Kennedy Jr the mandate to clean out that whole pharmaceutical swamp.

See you on the flip side...

 

CRISPR CRACKS AND EPIGENETICS

If you've been following the GMO issue, or for that matter, the whole wider issue of genetic engineering and "editing", then you'll be interested by the latest studies of problems emerging with CRISPR, the revolutionary genetic technology that was touted as being able to edit specific genes with precision, rather than the "shotgun" approach that obtained formerly. In fact, so many people sent me various versions of this story that I began to wonder what they were seeing in it. I've selected two versions of the story (the Science Alert article shared by Mr. Bernard Grover):

Potential DNA damage from CRISPR has been ‘seriously underestimated,’ study finds

(Meletios Verras/iStock) BREAKING: CRISPR Could Be Causing Extensive Mutations And Genetic Damage After All

There's a statement in the first article that caught my attention, and it is this:

The DNA damage found in the new study included deletions of thousands of DNA bases, including at spots far from the edit. Some of the deletions can silence genes that should be active and activate genes that should be silent, including cancer-causing genes.

The DNA chaos that CRISPR unleashes has been “seriously underestimated,” said geneticist Allan Bradley of England’s Wellcome Sanger Institute, who led the study. “This should be a wake-up call.”

...

The Sanger scientists didn’t set out to find collateral DNA damage from CRISPR. As they investigated how CRISPR might change gene expression, a “weird thing” showed up, Bradley said: The target DNA was accurately changed, but that set off a chain reaction that engulfed genes far from the target. The scientists therefore changed course. (Emphasis added)

The reason that italicized statement caught my eye was that it suggests the presence of epigenetic factors. Briefly and simplistically put, epigenetics is the idea that genetics - this particular or that particular gene - are not the sole determiners of the development or genetic tendencies of an organism. There's another "wholistic" factor beyond the genes themselves (hence, "epi-genetic" or "beyond genetics") that is somehow also affected. It's a bit like saying that the engine in an automobile works as a whole, and that one cannot tinker with the carburetor without messing up the whole engine; a Ford carburetor probably won't work as well in a Chevy engine, and vice versa. We'll get back to this epigenetic problem in a moment.

Then there was this in the second article from Science Alert:

In the worst-case scenario, if such mangled edits were introduced into humans in a CRISPR/Cas9 treatment, important genes might end up being switched on or off, which could make for potentially serious health consequences.

"In the clinical context of editing many billions of cells, the multitude of different mutations generated makes it likely that one or more edited cells in each protocol would be endowed with an important pathogenic lesion," the authors write.

"Such lesions may constitute a first carcinogenic 'hit' in stem cells and progenitors, which have a long replicative lifespan and may become neoplastic [promoting abnormal growths] with time."

If such unforeseen side effects can indeed be introduced by using CRISPR/Cas9 to snip at the genome, the researchers say it's imperative for future clinical applications to address the risks.

Now, imagine the intergenerational effect of such edits, over not one or two, but three or more generations, and that when the full effect of epigenetic influences is not well understood, and one has a recipe for a potential disaster. What works today may, generations down the line, actually have a reverse effect.

When CRISPR came out, there was a great deal of fanfare, and some of that fanfare was coming from the GMO argibusiness sector, a sector which, as I've pointed out many times, did not do adequate intergenerational testing in my opinion, a fact highlighted by the Russian government in its own banning of GMOs and its call for genuine intergnerational studies.  Now imagine all those "unintended edits" as a consequence of CRISPR getting out into the food supply, thanks to the corporate-controlled regulatory agencies that rubber-stamped GMOs in the first place, and you get the idea... Of course, it is equally possible that what scientists have found may eventually lead to a cure for cancer. But that's the point: let's do some genuinely long term studies before releasing too much of this into the public, because once it's out, there's no turning it back. One might even envision a time when "full disclosure" before marriage might include the requirement to state whether or not one partner has ever undergone any genetic therapy.

See you on the flip side..

JUDGE CLEARS WAY FOR LAWSUITS AGAINST MON(STER)SANTO

If you've been following the GMO saga over the years, then you'll be interested in this story shared by Mr. B, for a U.S. District Judge, Vince Chhabria has cleared the way for hundreds of lawsuits against the agribusiness giant, Mon(ster)santo to proceed:

Lawsuits alleging Roundup caused cancer can move forward

U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria said evidence that the active ingredient in Roundup - glyphosate - can cause the disease seemed "rather weak." Still, the opinions of three experts linking glyphosate and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma were not "junk science" that should be excluded from a trial, the judge ruled.

The lawsuits say agrochemical giant Monsanto, which makes Roundup, long knew about the cancer risk but failed to warn people. The ruling allows the claims to move forward, though the judge warned it could be a "daunting challenge" to convince him to allow a jury to hear testimony that glyphosate was responsible for individual cancer diagnoses.

Many government regulators have rejected a link between cancer and glyphosate. Monsanto has vehemently denied such a connection, saying hundreds of studies have established that the chemical is safe.

The company is facing hundreds of lawsuits in state and federal courts that claim otherwise. Chhabria is presiding over more than 400 of them.

One has to question whether this is good news, or bad news, for those concerned about the safety of GMOs, and for those concerned about the "practice" of Mon(ster)santo, with a long track record of harsh practice detailed by a number of researchers (see, for example, F. William Engdalh's study, Seeds of Destruction, or Marie-Monique Robin's The World According to Monsanto). For those concerned about the "practice" itself, the news is perhaps good news. But the judge, in clearing the way for the lawsuits to proceed, has already apparently stacked the deck, calling some plaintiff expert witnesses "shaky" and disallowing others.

But I suspect that in the long term, it is good news, and for a very important reason: Mon(ster)santo, as most regular readers here are aware, was recently bought - for cash! - by the German chemicals giant Bayer, forming what I have nicknamed "I.G. Farbensanto." This now means that Bayer will now foot the bill for any potential decisions against it, and the way may be open for much more serious international legal actions. India, for example, whose farmers were also subjected to the typical agribusiness tactics employed by GMO seed companies, has already seen lawsuits, and with the way now clear for American lawsuits, more lawsuits will probably occur in India.

Then there's Europe, where the debate on GMOs has been the other "dirty issue" confronting the Eurocrats in Brussels. Europe is significant, for many of the independent studies on GMOs, not just with respect to the alleged carcinogenic properties of glyphosate, but also more disturbing studies indicating species-crossing of GMO genes, have been conducted there, from France, the UK, to Denmark.

And then there's Africa, where some countries have struggled against the influx of GMOs and the strong-arm tactics of the agribusiness giants. Rest assured, they will follow the cases with interest, and perhaps bring their own suits. And last week I blogged about the growing problem of GMO modified grass that has escaped into the open and is now causing endless problems for Oregon farmers.

So regardless of the outcome of these lawsuits, the bad news for I.G. Farbensanto is, expect more (and you may want to rethink that purchase... perhaps you need to look for a new buyer for your Mon(ster)santo subsidiary before the stocks tumble and the juries come back). The "optics" won't look too good once those African nations start filing their own lawsuits. And big pharma, you might want to watch the situation closely as well, especially with the recent news coming out about the safety of your products... Oh, wait, I forgot, Bayer is big pharma...

See you on the flip side...

GMO GEOPOLITICS: PUTIN CONFIRMS IT

For years I've been arguing that there is a GMO geopolitics going on in the world, as European and American agribusiness cartels - think only of IG Farbensanto, my nickname for the whole GMO-food control project, recently made a reality by German giant Bayer buying out American Monsanto (in cash!) - try to gain control of the world's food supply through patented seeds, and while other countries, Russia and India, have resisted. I've been arguing that Russia's growing stance against GMOs would position it as the world's biggest non-GMO food supplier. This article, shared by Mr. B., makes it abundantly clear that this is exactly what is in Mr. Putin's mind:

Russia positions itself to supply the world with organic food

Mr Putin makes Russia's food and agricultural strategy clear:

The country voiced concerns about the effect GMOs and their associated pesticides have on the environment, which often cause irreversible damage to Earth’s valuable resources. Russia has set itself apart from other nations through its rejection of modified foods, proving they are not in fact required for humans to survive – as the biotech industry will have you believe.

“Not only can we ourselves eat it, but also taking into account our land and water – which is particularly important – resources Russia could become the world’s largest supplier of healthy, environmentally friendly, high-quality food that has long been missing in some western producers,” said Russian President Vladimir Putin.

...

“Especially as the demand on the global market for such products is growing,” he added.

Putin is right. Organic food sales more than tripled between 2004 and 2014, growing from $11.6 billion in sales to nearly $36 billion, according to the Organic Trade Association. Globally, organic food and drink sales are expected to reach $104.5 billion, up from just $57.2 billion in 2010.(2)

In other words, there's a growing global market to be tapped, and Mr. Putin means to tap it.

Which brings us to another article, shared by Mr. T.M.:

Putin is cutting down on military spending to pay for his 'Russia First' agenda

This article is odd in that it begins with a picture of President Putin with Russian Federation Defense Minister Shoigu. Whether or not this is a stock picture is unknown, but it is perhaps interesting that it occurs in an article about Mr. Putin's fourth term agenda: a cut-down on military spending, which the article notes is in flat contradiction to the western media's hype about the Russian military threat, and an attention on the development of Russian infrastructure:

Inaugurated for his fourth official term as Russia's president Monday, Vladimir Putin surprised many by declaring what sounds like a "Russia first" program: a relentless focus on domestic development, to be partially paid for by sharp cuts in defense spending.

It may sound contrary to Western perceptions of Russia's global intentions. But the priorities listed in the new Kremlin strategic program suggest that Mr. Putin has decided to use what seems likely to be his final term in office to cement his already substantial legacy as a nation-builder.

The projected surge in spending on roads, education, and health care will have to be paid for. A key source of that funding will be the military budget, which had been growing by around 10% annually for much of the Putin era.

...

In his decree, Putin ordered the new government to draw up a detailed plan by Oct. 1, aimed at social objectives that polls show many Russians find attractive. Those include increasing real incomes, raising pensions, improving housing, cutting poverty, and expanding access to quality health care. He also called for plans to invest in high-tech and export-oriented industries, and to create "transport corridors" to strengthen Russia's road, rail, and sea connections with the wider world. (Emphasis added)

I've long suspected that, at least in part, the western hysteria about Russia's "ambitions" under Mr. Putin was directly tied to Russia's stance against GMOs, and the growth of Russian agriculture since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Recall, for example, that during the beginning of the Ukrainian crisis, Mon(ster)santo and other agribusiness cartels had successfully lobbied for certain ports and deals with the new regime in Kiev. Until, that is, Mr. Putin put a stop to it by reincorporating the Crimea into the Russian Federation, retaining control over the vital port of Sevastopol, and giving the Russian Black Sea fleet an interdiction capability throughout the Black Sea. Additionally, it secures those sealanes for Russian exports to Turkey.

As I pointed out a few weeks ago, Mr. Putin alluded to these changes in direction, by highlighting the expansion of Russian agriculture, and the need to strengthen its transportation infrastructure. In short: if Russia means to play the GMO geopolitics game, its infrastructure - particularly in Siberia and central Asia, will have to be expanded. Similarly, in addition to the sea lanes through the Black and Caspian Seas, redundancy for trade with the south - Turkey, Iran, Syria - will have to be built in in the form of railroads and roads.

What we're looking at is a long-term and ambitious project, and funding for it will not come solely from cuts in Russia's defense budget. Investment will have to come from elsewhere. The usual suspect - China - of course presents itself. But there's another player in the region, one looking increasingly askance at America's reliability, and one which needs more secure energy and food supplies. "More secure" translates into "closer to hand," and that's Japan.

Mr. Abe and Mr. Putin have already coordinated a number of deals, and have managed to bypass the delicate sticking point of the Kurile islands.

Look for more of the same in the coming years of Mr. Putin's fourth term.

A lot more.

See you on the flip side...

 

NEW DNA STRUCTURE FOUND…

This was one of those stories this past week that so many people brought to my attention, I had to blog about it. The trouble is, when I read the story, I initially had a rather tepid reaction. Indeed, I had to wonder why so many people found the story intriguing, and in the process, I "reverse engineered" a putative process of reasoning that might have been at work in their fascination with the article.  So, with thanks to all who sent in various versions of this story, let's look at two of them:

Found: A new form of DNA in our cells

Move Over, Double Helix: A New Form of DNA Has Just Been Discovered This is the first time it's ever been seen in a living cell.

Just a glance at the titles is, I suspect, reason enough to appreciate why so many people thought this was an intriguing article; both titles state that a completely new structure of DNA has been found, or, in the second article's case, it's the first time it's been seen. And that raises all sorts of high octane speculation possibilities, which we'll get back to presently.

A glance at the first article outlines the basic history behind the story:

In a world first, Australian researchers have identified a new DNA structure -- called the i-motif -- inside cells. A twisted 'knot' of DNA, the i-motif has never before been directly seen inside living cells.

The new findings, from the Garvan Institute of Medical Research, are published today in the leading journal Nature Chemistry.

Deep inside the cells in our body lies our DNA. The information in the DNA code -- all 6 billion A, C, G and T letters -- provides precise instructions for how our bodies are built, and how they work.

The iconic 'double helix' shape of DNA has captured the public imagination since 1953, when James Watson and Francis Crick famously uncovered the structure of DNA. However, it's now known that short stretches of DNA can exist in other shapes, in the laboratory at least -- and scientists suspect that these different shapes might play an important role in how and when the DNA code is 'read'.

...

 

"The i-motif is a four-stranded 'knot' of DNA," says Associate Professor Marcel Dinger (Head, Kinghorn Centre for Clinical Genomics, Garvan),.who co-led the research with A/Prof Christ.

"In the knot structure, C letters on the same strand of DNA bind to each other -- so this is very different from a double helix, where 'letters' on opposite strands recognise each other, and where Cs bind to Gs [guanines]." (Emphasis added)

And here's the second article, explaining that structural and binding change:

The fact that scientists finally observed this different form of DNA in human cells is a pretty big deal, but it’s actually even more than just a different shape. It seems to play by different rules than double-helix DNA, too. It employs nucleotides — the basic A, G, T, and C units that compose DNA — a lot differently than helical DNA does.

“The i-motif is a four-stranded ‘knot’ of DNA,” Marcel Dinger, Ph.D., an associate professor at Garvan and one of the study’s authors, explained in a statement released Monday. “In the knot structure, C letters on the same strand of DNA bind to each other — so this is very different from a double helix, where ‘letters’ on opposite strands recognize each other, and where Cs bind to Gs.”

Now, as one might imagine, all sorts of questions started popping into my mind, and these questions, I suspect, were what popped into the minds of all the people sending me versions of this article. Notably, in no version that I saw, were we given much of an explanation why scientists were looking for the structure in the first place. The first article merely notes that the structure has been known about for a while, but has only now been witnessed operating in vitro. What I'd like to know is, when was it first noticed or suspected, and why?  It strikes me - with apol0gies to professional scientists - that there's a problem here, and it may just be my stupidity and lack of understanding, but in any case I'll crawl way out on to the end of the twig and speculate anyway. If this newly discovered four-stranded knotty structure is natural and integral to genetic processes, and  since its bonding rules are different than those of the double helix, it would therefore seem to imply a nasty question: why would it have gone unnoticed? Did it interfere with the discovery and development of the double-helix structure? Wouldn't such a natural structure possibly inhibit or at least cause some confusion in the discovery of the helix?

Or to put my intuitions "country simple": something appears not to add up here(and, as cautioned, it may be due to my invincible ignorance and stupidity).

Scientists have noted that this is a structure that appears to be some sort of regulatory structure, appearing and then disappearing under certain conditions. If this is the case, then my question might answer itself, for a temporary structure might not inhibit the discovery of the helix.

But there's another possibility that struck me as I was reading this article, and this possibility will, I suspect, put the stamp of proven and irrefutable invincible stupidity on me: what if this structure is, somehow, not natural? What if it has arisen recently in response to certain factors? It's that "C binding to C" thing that flummoxes me, for it's as if we're being told that there is a new - albeit "temporary" - base pair, and the "pair" in this case consists of the same thing! In other words, what if we're looking at one of those "major mutations" that - like the Grand Unification in physics - is the holy grail of evolutionary theory? And once we've admitted that possibility, then one faces another: if it arose recently, was it injected? (And for that matter, might it be possible to view the strange four-stranded regulatory "knot" as a kind of epigenetic code?) And the ultimate question: is this natural, or artificial?

I don't know, of course, the answers to any of these questions, and in asking them I'm sure I'm provoking guffaws of laughter in certain professional circles. Nonetheless, that said, I still cannot help but feel we're not being given the whole story here, and that there are some prickly questions which cannot be so easily smoothed over.

See you on the flip side...

 

GMO GEOPOLITICS UPDATE: MON(STER)SANTO LOSES PATENT RIGHTS IN INDIA

Ms. M.W. spotted this one and, in my estimation, it could be a very significant development in the emergence of GMO geopolitics. The US "agribusiness" giant Mon(ster)santo has lost a crucial decision in India; it cannot patent its GMO seeds in that country. But there's more:

Monsanto loses right to patent seeds

Here's the crucial parts of the story:

Opponents of genetically modified crops received a boost when the Delhi High Court upheld the Indian Patent Act, which states that seeds and life forms cannot be patented, and the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001 (PPV&FR Act), which biotechnology multinationals have tried to undermine, and ruled that key plant genetic material cannot be patented. The court was deciding a dispute between Monsanto and Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd, Prabhat Agri Biotech Ltd and Pravardhan Seeds Private Ltd, over interpretation of law, especially Section 3(j) of the Indian Patent Act and applicability of PPV&FR Act for transgenic plants.

Justice S Ravindra Bhat and Justice Yogesh Khanna, on April 11, ruled that Monsanto Technologies LLC does not have the patent for Bt Cotton seed varieties ‘Bollgard’ and ‘Bollgard II’. The Bench permitted Monsanto three months to register the seed varieties under the Plant Varieties Act (PV Act), which would entitle the firm to trait fee (royalty) as fixed by the Government, give it control over plant reproductive materials, but not the key genetic material, which would be available to the public for further research and development.

The ruling is a boost to domestic seed companies that used Monsanto’s gene to prepare Bt Cotton seeds for farmers, and will seriously curb the ability of multinationals to establish a seed monopoly in India, which is the goal of the GM industry. This could downsize the market for genetically modified seeds in India (in any life form) and pave the way for more environmentally sustainable agriculture.

...

The ruling forbids Monsanto from stopping supplies to seed companies and holding farmers hostage. Monsanto will have to abide by Indian laws to operate in India. Reluctance will help revive the native seed industry which has been undermined by the agri-MNCs and their links with public-funded agricultural institutions that never bothered to assess the impact of GM seeds on soil, animal and human health.

Note several things: the ruling prevents Mon(ster)santo from stopping shipments of seeds for whatever reason, but more importantly, allows Indian companies essentially to clone or "reverse engineer" Mon(ster)santo's GMO seeds. Because of that, there is a further implication which the article points out: "This could downsize the market for genetically modified seeds in India (in any life form) and pave the way for more environmentally sustainable agriculture." In other words, what the decision of the Indian courts really means is that natural heirloom seeds now have the ability to recapture a significant share of the Indian seed market. Here GMOs are at a distinct disadvantage, for natural seeds, being natural, are less costly since they do not represent an investment in genetic techniques to create the seeds. In other words, the cost-to-benefit ratio of GMO vs normal seeds is beginning to shrink.

And here, in my high octane speculation, is where the GMO geopolitics kicks in, for India has essentially sent a resounding "No!" to the agenda of the big agribusiness cartels to control the world's food supply via GMOs, patents, and royalties. In this, India now joins the other major agricultural powerhouse that has also said "No!" to IG Farbensanto and the global GMO cartel agenda: Russia. As I've been arguing for many years, Russia appears to have positioned itself as the great "contradiction" to the dogmas of Mr. Globaloney: Mr. Putin, in speech after speech, has challenged the core dogmas of Mr. Globaloney by questioning the desirability of global corporate government, or by challenging the notion that cocktails of vaccines are ipso facto "good." Similarly, Russia has challenged the whole propaganda matrix surrounding GMOs and positioned itself as a major agricultural supplier of natural seeds (the so-called heirloom seeds).

If this reading of "GMO geopolitics" that I've been arguing for a few years  is true, then we can expect that Russia and India will cement new trading deals which will include a Russian entry into the seed markets of India. If so, then expect the anti-GMO revolt against IG Farbensanto to spread quickly, to Africa (where there is already significant resistance in some countries to GMOs), and eventually to South and Meso America.

The bottom line for the USA is that it has to start producing something other than poisoned food, war, drones, and privileges for its corporations, for GMO geopolitics as it has practiced it, is beginning to backfire.

See you on the flip side...

 

“SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCE” ON STEROIDS

Mr. A.F. saw this article on the next step in the ongoing GMO crime syndicate's gallant struggle against clear thinking and non-corporate science, and I have to talk about this one, because it's by our friend and colleague Jon Rappoport:

The next huge GMO crime is here

So why am I bothering to call this review of Mr. Rappoport's article "substantial equivalence on steroids"? Well, go back for a moment to Dr. Scott deHart's and my book, Transhumanism: A Grimoire of Alchemical Agendas. In that book, we noted not only the overall resemblance of transhumanism to the old alchemical agenda of "transforming man", but that one of the ways this was to be achieved was through food, the "frankenfoods" of GMOs. Digging into the subject, we quickly came across Mr. F. William Engdahl's book Seeds of Destruction, in which he detailed the doctrine of "substantial equivalence". This was the doctrine concocted by the agribusiness giants to argue that, since GMO corn was "substantially" the same as non-GMO corn, that no special long-term studies of human or environmental impact needed to be done, since the verdict, so to speak, was already in; since GMO corn looked like ordinary corn and tasted like ordinary corn, so in effect, it was corn and could be treated as such. Except, of course, when it came to the idea of patents and royalties, in which case, it wasn't ordinary corn any more, but had magically transubstantiated into something else, but retained all the accidents of ordinary corn. One can almost hear the medieval scholastics arguing this case to the Food and Drug Administration: "By substantial equivalence, we mean the bundle of cornish accidents in which the substantial corn is, for the purposes of regulation and testing, but since the cornish accidents themselves are of private confecture and not owing to the substance of corn sub specie naturae, we hold that a rent is due on the accidents, and not the substance of the corn."

Boy, the Fourth Lateran Council had nothing on these people.

So, with that little transubstantiatory background in mind, consider the latest "update" on the theory of "substantial equivalence" and the flaw in the doctrine as reported by Mr. Rappoport:

We’re on the cusp of a new level of GMO crime-business, and the man in charge of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Sonny Perdue, is cheerleading from the sidelines.

Perdue says the newest gene-edited plants won’t be any different from those developed by traditional non-GMO breeding methods.

Which is like saying a missile fired from a tank is identical to an arrow shot from a bow.

Here is the brand new policy from the USDA: “Under its biotechnology regulations, USDA does not regulate or have any plans to regulate plants that could otherwise have been developed through traditional breeding techniques…This includes a set of new [gene-editing] techniques that are increasingly being used by plant breeders to produce new plant varieties that are indistinguishable from those developed through traditional breeding methods.”

Yes, indistinguishable, if you’re wearing a blindfold and wandering around in a pitch-black lab.

Yup... "indistinguishable" simply means that the same old doctrine of substantial equivalence is still in effect, and is being actively extended to include technologies not in evidence when the doctrine was first proposed. The USDA's statement is basically informing us that its ordinary magisterium has already pronounced on the matter and traditional agronomical means of breeding characteristics into or out of plants are "indistinguishable" (and therefore, substantially equivalent) to methods of direct genetic alteration and engineering.  And of course, that is precisely what is in play:

Claire Robinson, the relentless and sharp publisher of gmwatch.org, goes for the throat:

“If by some miracle the USDA should turn out to be correct when it claims that genome-edited plants are indistinguishable from naturally bred plants, then the whole genome-editing commercial venture is over. That’s because the driving force behind all genetic engineering of plants, including genome editing, is patents. And to get a patent on a genome-edited plant you have to show that it is a man-made invention that is completely different from anything that you might find in nature.”

“Therefore the GMO industry is telling the public and regulators that genome-edited plants are indistinguishable from naturally bred plants, and yet at the same time it is telling patent offices that genome-edited plants are completely different from naturally bred plants.”

“Both claims cannot be true. So one is a lie. There are no prizes for guessing which one.”

But Mr. Rappoport has seen yet another implication here that few others have. Ponder this insight very carefully:

To grasp this situation at ground level, imagine a bevy of food police came into your house and said: “We’re going to take all the food out of your refrigerator, we’re going to fool around with the genes, not really knowing what changes are occurring as we cut and paste, having no idea how this will affect your health, and then we’ll come back and put the gene-edited food in the fridge. Don’t worry, be happy.”

If this new generation of edited food is accepted by a sleeping public, there is yet another step coming on the road to full food control. We’ve seen hints of it already. The companies doing the gene-editing will claim they’ve got varieties of food crops that don’t need pesticides, because the DNA-editing protects the plants from pests and weeds. With blasts of PR, the companies will say these crops should have the status and label, ORGANIC.

There will eventually be a big push in that direction. An organic apple grown in an orchard where the farmer has taken years to clean up the soil and institute natural pest/weed control—that organic apple will be considered identical to an apple whose genes were tweaked and re-tweaked with gene-editing.

The USDA will call these two apples “indistinguishable” from each other.

How do you like them apples?

And as Mr. Rappoport also observes, when people start getting sick from the new apples in this serpentine garden of delights, science will again slither in and hiss in our ear that this problem can be solved by "a snip here and and snip there" in the human genetic code... genetically modified humans, for genetically modified frankenfoods.

See you on the flip side...

 

 

GMO GEOPOLITICS: CHINA’S TIT-FOR-TAT TARIFFS

The past couple of days I've been following stories related to what I've been calling (for several years) "GMO geopolitics." In yesterday's blog, GMO Geopolitics: Of Seed Banks and Syria, I outlined the basic feature of this idea as follows:

Over the years of watching and occasionally blogging about the international scope of the GMO issue, I've also watched the development of GMO geopolitics, as I like to call it. We may conveniently define this in two ways: (1) those powers of nations which are home to large agribusiness cartels and trusts, like the USA or Germany with IG Farbensanto, will pursue agricultural policies on the world stage designed to curtail, and eventually eliminate, natural (or as they're sometimes called, heirloom) seeds, thus gaining control over the world's food supply, and enriching themselves in the process, since heirloom seeds cannot be patented and charged a royalty for use, while GMO seeds can. In pursuit of this nothing-less-than-diabolical goal, any science or counter-arguments about the health and/or environmental safety of GMOs, or, in some cases, studies about falling yields and rising cost studies that would indicate heirloom seeds are a better investment than GMOs, will be suppressed. Farmers who have not planted GMOs will be hauled into court is GMO plants are discovered on their property, and sued for non-payment of royalties, even though the presence of GMOs on their fields might have been the result of natural processes. You get the idea. The counterpart of this is (2) nations or powers that do not rely on GMOs for their agricultural production can, by careful marketing, actually capture a large share of the world's agricultural trade, since many people don't want to eat foods that have been genetically modified. Such nations will also engage in their own counter-propaganda pointing out the problems of GMOs, of GMO corporations and their "behavior", and so on.

In other words, viewed a certain way, a kind of shadow war, not quite covert, but not quite overt either, is underway to cartelize and control the world's food supply and concentrate it in the hands of a few large corporations, or to resist this trend and to maintain genuinely open and fair markets with access to heirloom seeds. Russia, as I noted yesterday, appears to be playing "Game Number Two" while the rest of the world is somewhere in the Game Number One camp.

With one notable exception: China.

If one follows the Chinese government's policies over the years, one is met with...ambivalence. To be sure, China is more pro- than anti-GMOs. After all, it has in excess of a billion people to feed, and much of its land might be productive with genetically modified plants. Chinese scientific institutions have been studying them for years. But occasionally one also hears cautionary notes from China.

And that brings us to Mr. Trump's tariffs. Recently the Trump administration slapped some tariffs on China, and in this article, shared by Mr. G.B., China has already indicated retaliation:

Here It Comes: China About To Launch "Tens Of Billions" More In Tariffs

What Mr. G.B. pointed out in his email to me, was one category of US exports to China that could be hard hit. Look closely at the following chart from the article:

According to the chart, American exports of aircraft to China, presumably largely  in the form of commercial liners, accounts for about 58% of China's total imports in that category. But in second place are "Seeds and fruits", which account for about 38% of that country's total imports in that category. It does not take much imagination to understand that most of that percentage is likely to be in the form of GMO seeds and crops. If Mr. Xi's government plans to make that category a component of its tariff restrictions, then this will hit the American, and potentially European, agribusiness where it lives. Why European? Because with the recent acquisition by Germany's Bayer of the USA's Mon(ster)santo, the world's largest agribusiness company spans the Atlantic, calling to mind another great German chemicals cartel from yesteryear: I.G. Farben, which is why we call the whole GMO industry I.G. Farbensanto, A.G.

China will not, of course, give up its own domestic GMO research, but it will have to find another reliable food supplier in the meantime if indeed "Seeds and Fruits" are on Mr. Xi's tariffs list. And with Mr. Putin's non-GMO Russian agriculture, one can expect a new and tighter relationship to develop between those countries, with heavy Chinese investment in the expansion of Russian agriculture. Similarly, it will have to look to its BRICSA bloc partners, in particular, Brazil, and potentially Argentina, and hence one may expect new rounds of negotiations with  those countries as well. And then there's always Africa, where China's presence and influence is growing...

See you on the flip side...

GMO GEOPOLITICS: OF SEED BANKS AND SYRIA…

Over the years of watching and occasionally blogging about the international scope of the GMO issue, I've also watched the development of GMO geopolitics, as I like to call it. We may conveniently define this in two ways: (1) those powers of nations which are home to large agribusiness cartels and trusts, like the USA or Germany with IG Farbensanto, will pursue agricultural policies on the world stage designed to curtail, and eventually eliminate, natural (or as they're sometimes called, heirloom) seeds, thus gaining control over the world's food supply, and enriching themselves in the process, since heirloom seeds cannot be patented and charged a royalty for use, while GMO seeds can. In pursuit of this nothing-less-than-diabolical goal, any science or counter-arguments about the health and/or environmental safety of GMOs, or, in some cases, studies about falling yields and rising cost studies that would indicate heirloom seeds are a better investment than GMOs, will be suppressed. Farmers who have not planted GMOs will be hauled into court is GMO plants are discovered on their property, and sued for non-payment of royalties, even though the presence of GMOs on their fields might have been the result of natural processes. You get the idea. The counterpart of this is (2) nations or powers that do not rely on GMOs for their agricultural production can, by careful marketing, actually capture a large share of the world's agricultural trade, since many people don't want to eat foods that have been genetically modified. Such nations will also engage in their own counter-propaganda pointing out the problems of GMOs, of GMO corporations and their "behavior", and so on.

With billions at stake in profits on either side, and with the ultimate prize, corporate control of the world's food supply in the hands of people like IG Farbensanto, it should come as no surprise that GMOs have been the quiet "players" in recent events, from the coup in the Ukraine, to... well, we'll get to that in a moment in today's high octane speculation.

But first, consider this article shared by Mr. M.A.:

A Turkish project to preserve 17 varieties of #Syrian wheat

The story is simple enough:

The Agricultural Research Institute has launched “the Southeast Anatolia Development Project” which is a project to cultivate 17 varieties of Syrian wheat in cooperation with the Qatar Red Crescent, to protect these seeds from extinction and re-plant them in Syria in the future.

The director of the center, “Ibrahim Khalil Getner” told Anadolu news agency many plants are vulnerable and will disappear in Syria, and the agricultural activities have reached the point of cessation, stressing that “more than 20 varieties of wheat is threatened of extinction because of the crisis.”

He added that Ankara had been forced to move to mitigate the consequences of the crisis on the future of the neighboring country. The Qatari Red Crescent brought 17 types of wheat threatened to disappear, nine of which were for the pasta industry and 8 for bread. (Emphases added)

Now, there's two things to note here: (1) Turkey is playing the role of "concerned regional agricultural citizen", a role which I don't buy for a moment, since it's been instrumental in helping exacerbate the crisis in the first place, and (2) Syria's agriculture, as a result of the crisis, is faced with the extinction of "more than 20 varieties of wheat," varieties which, let us add, have been carefully cultivated and bred through centuries of agronomical practice.

So on to the high octane GMO geopolitics speculation. Ever since the disastrous post-9/11 U.S. interventions in the region, the standard explanations for the U.S. presence have been about oil, about controlling the Middle East's supply of oil and its transportation. Concomitant with that explanation is a corollary: that the U.S. presence is also about counter-acting China's silk road plans, and gaining control of pipeline routes, railroad routes, and so on.

But what if there's been another hidden agenda all along? To eradicate the Middle East's supply of heirloom seeds, and to make the Middle East reliant upon western GMO suppliers? A little thought will reveal that this may not be so far-fetched, because two nations in the region, in particular, had national seed banks storing heirloom seeds:

Iraq, and Syria.

And with that said, one wonders if Iran does as well (and I'd be very surprised if it didn't).

From the standpoint of "GMO geopolitics," it makes some sense. GMOs were a factor in the coup against the government of The Ukraine, as certain large American "agribusiness" companies had obtained special rights and port facilities along the Black Sea. Thus, President Putin's re-incorporation of the Crimean peninsula into the Russian federation may not have been merely about its Black Sea Fleet's base at Sevastopol, but also about denying certain ports to those companies, and about the ability to interdict the rest. Russia, after all, is not a GMO-growing country, as I've pointed out from time to time. In fact, there is serious indication that Russia is playing GMO geopolitics game number two. In terms of the Middle East, controlling and switching its food supply from heirloom to GMO seeds would provide the West with a revenue stream to counteract the outflow from purchasing Middle East oil, and be a means to control a far more valuable resource and commodity: food. On this view, it isn't just about oil, or the threat of Iranian a-bombs, it's about food.

My bet? If the Syrian crisis ever does resolve, I wouldn't expect Turkey to be too willing to sell those seeds or even give them back (after all, they belong to Syria in the first place). Turkey will be "lobbied," threats will be made, payola will change hands under the table, and IG Farbensanto will  be granted "special market concessions." You get the idea.

See you on the flip side...

 

 

WALMART’S ROBOTIC BEES PATENT

Mr. D.W., and Ms. M.W.(not related), sent along versions of this story, and Mr. D.W.'s email came along with the brief suggestion of a high octane speculation, which I am going to pass along. Here's the story...

A Giant US Retail Corporation Just Filed a Patent For Autonomous Robot Bees

Walmart silently filed a patent for robotic bees meant to pollinate crops

A few years ago, GMOs -  and more particularly, glyphosate, the chief ingredient in I.G. Farbensanto's "Round Up" weed killer - began to be connected in some studies to the phenomenon of honey bee colony collapse disorder. Long before that, people began to notice a strange thing - and I number myself in this category - there were fewer and fewer bees. In fact, when I was young, there were bees constantly buzzing around in my mother's flower garden, every day. Now, in my small little flower garden in front of my house, seldom, if ever, do I see any honey bees. It began even to be a topic of discussion on the then most popular overnight radio talk show in the USA, Art Bell's Coast to Coast AM. What mystified me, and many people, was with mounting evidence that GMOs were connected to the phenomenon (bees, after all, began to decline right at about the same time that GMO crops began to be introduced in a major way), there seemed to be no real concern in the USSA's corporate kleptocracy whatsoever.

Now we know why (citing the first article):

Like an episode out of Black Mirror, Walmart has filed a patent for autonomous robotic bees, technically called pollination drones, that could potentially pollinate crops just like real bees.

The drones would carry pollen from one plant to another, using sensors and cameras to detect the locations of the crops.

First spotted by CB Insights, the robot bee patent appears along five other patents for farming drones, including one that would identify pests and another that would monitor crop health. Walmart did not immediately respond to Business Insider's request for comment.

While Walmart's exact goal for these patents is unclear, they may signal that the company hopes to venture into agriculture and gain more control over its food supply chain.

This would make sense, considering Walmart has recently focused on improving its grocery delivery business. (Emphasis added)

This is all part of a wider move to miniaturize drones for a variety of agricultural tasks, according to the second article:

Anxious about the food supply? Don't blame you. Pollinators at large, and bees in particular, are struggling to adapt to the Anthropocene world - and they're dropping dead in huge numbers while at it. But fret not, for retail giant Walmart is determined to soothe your fears; mainly by replacing them with an equally disturbing, Black Mirror-esque premise.

In a move first reported on by CB Insights, Walmart has filed a patent for autonomous bees. Technically called ‘pollination drones', these robots are meant to do just that: pollinate crops in lieu of real bees. They would carry pollen from one plant to another, relying on cameras and other sensors to identify crops and their flowers.

The patent appears alongside five other patents for farming drones, including one that would keep an eye out for pests and another tasked with monitoring crop health. It's not yet clear what Walmart plans to do with these patents; Business Insider tried to contact Walmart, but so far they didn't respond to their request for comment.

I think it's safe to assume that the company wants to get into agriculture, to gain more control over its food supply chain. (Emphasis added)

Now, both articles point out that these "pollinator drones" are far from readiness to deploy, but they also point out that they're a lot further along than just a few years ago.

And both articles are agreed on something else: substituting "pollinator drones" for real living honey bees allows corporations to gain control of yet another stage in the food supply chain. "Pollinator drones" as both articles point out, are "patentable" and therefore fall under proprietary ownership. In this case, however, Walmart, as most everyone knows, is one of the world's largest retailers, and has plans to expand its "home delivery" business for groceries. Amazon has similar plans, and even local grocery retailers are making moves toward "online shopping" and "home delivery.

No need for you to leave your home. Just go online, and file your grocery order, and it will be delivered, while the pollinator drones happily buzz in your flower garden and local farm fields that are planted with GMO crops, which are also patented. In other words, the entire food cycle is being corporatized.

Now, add to this those stories from decades ago when it was reported that the CIA was toying with the idea of making miniaturized electronic eavesdropping components to put on insects to spy on people in their homes, and it's a short step to the idea that "pollinator drones" could also be modified with surveillance equipment, and voila, yet another level of espionage and invasions of privacy are added to the mix, and following behind it, one can expect "laws" and "regulations" will be put in place to prevent citizens from destroying "private property" (i.e., the "pollinator drones") even if they're found on one's own property!  After all, they belong to Walmart, or whomever.

So what was Mr. D.W.'s private high octane speculation? In his email that passed along the second article, he said "To be frank, the more I think about it the I wonder if the demise of the bees was intended..."  And I have to wonder the very same thing.

See you on the flip side...

GMO SCRAPBOOK: NO SOONER SAID THAN DONE: INDIA SLASHES IG ...

Tuesday, you'll recall, I blogged yet again about my idea that GMO geopolitics is becoming a defining feature of the Western bloc vs those nations friendly to Russia, whose agriculture, while booming, is also non-GMO based, since that country has banned GMOs until long-term inter-generational testing can be done. One consequence of this is that we shall see the increasing politicization of the science related to the subject. This, as anyone who has followed the subject knows, has already occurred in the corporatized west, where the "agribusiness 'community'" has contributed to the suppression of studies indicating a growing list of problems with their products.

I also indicated Tuesday that countries "on the fence", which have been allowing GMOs to be grown, but which have not fully endorsed them, like India, could increasingly be driven into the non-GMO camp, and hence into a relationship with Russian agriculture (if nothing else, as a source of non-genetically-modified seeds).

Well, no sooner said than done, according to this article spotted and shared by Mr. S.D.:

India slashes Monsanto's GMO seed royalty, says US firm 'free to leave' anytime

This, as the article notes, is the second time that India has cut IG Farbensanto's royalties in two years:

India has cut royalties that local seed companies pay to US agrochemical giant Monsanto for the second time in two years. The producer of genetically modified seeds has previously threatened to pull out of the country.

According to a government order released on Tuesday, the country’s farm ministry has decided to reduce royalties paid by Indian seed companies to Monsanto for its genetically modified (GM) cotton by 20.4 percent.

Two years ago, the company’s royalties were cut by more than 70 percent. The move triggered a long-running dispute between the Indian and US governments.

But this is not what really caught my eye in this article. In fact, the article itself didn't catch my eye.

It was the other articles from previous years covering the GMO issues linked on RT's page:

‘Monsanto shouldn’t be allowed to exploit farmers’: India vows to break up GM-cotton monopoly

Monsanto sued by Brazilian soybean farmers over GMO seed

GMO that kills: GM-cotton problems drive Indian farmers to suicide

Monsanto, US, & Gates Foundation pressure Kenya to reverse GMO ban

You get the idea. In fact, this definite pattern of coverage on RT has provoked some "studies" in the West alleging Russian bias in coverage of the GMO issue. Those "studies" have, of course, ignored the pro-GMO bias of western reportage, and completely ignored - as far as I can tell - any mention of independent studies in the West that have pointed out growing problems with GMOs. But in either case, these biases - both pro and con - are to my mind the surest indicator that we are looking at the emergence of a GMO geopolitics on the world stage, and clearly, Russia means to position itself not only as the chief national critic of GMOs, but also as the chief non-GMO supplier, and its doing so will not go unnoticed in nations like India, or Kenya.

This brings me to today's high octane speculation: if there is a GMO geopolitics, which it seems to me there clearly is, then we can expect two long-term trends to watch. The one is frightening, and the other seems a necessity. And both hinge on the central fact that a stable national agriculture is one of the foundations of national sovereignty and security. The first implication is that with the growing successes of Russian agriculture without the presence of the Ukraine, that it could easily become the target of covert operations designed to disrupt it, possibly even to the extent that Russia becomes reliant upon western food and seed imports. This would ruin Russia's independent position as a source of non-GMO foods. Such action may not even be directly tied to Western governments, but could come as a corporate action. (Not that there's much difference between governments and corporations in the West.) By the same token, in such a heated-up climate of tensions between the West and Russia, the same might hold true in reverse. As I've stated many times, two can play the covert operations game, and it could be the case that covert operations could  be launched to corrupt the West's GMO foodstocks and seed supply as well. In short, the GMO geopolitics we've seen emerging could become the new "playground" for covert operations.

The second implication is one confined, largely, to the West. With the growing opposition around the world to GMOs, sooner or later, it will become a matter of national security and policy for western exporters of food to be able to supply the growing demands for non-GMO products, or surrender the markets to Russia. In other words, because of the emergence of GMO geopolitics, western governments, and in particular that of the USA, and agribusiness cartels like IG Farbensanto, are on a collision course, like it or not. It is because of that collision course - if nothing is done - that I am suggesting the first implication might be growing covert operations against food supplies, for so far, western governments seem to be so in the pocket of the GMO concerns that they are unable to develop responsible national policies, nor are they able to address the growing success of Russian agriculture, which is a clear challenge to the whole GMO narrative.

We are entering dangerous times.

See you on the flip side...