Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Corporations attempt to redefine reality: Safety, Nutrients, Seed, Herbs, Sell, Property

Biodiversity is being displaced in order to leave synthetic GMOs in its stead.  A great shrinking of nature and then clamping down on its use is going on around the world, to force nature into private hands.  

The same phenomenon is occurring in language.  Normal words are being supplanted by synthetic definitions that have no relation to normal or even to reality, but those redefinitions are being pushed as aggressively as GMOs and are central to establishing control over biology.

Redefinition One:  Safety

Six alleged "food safety" bills in Congress (Hr 875, HR 814, HR 1332, HR 759, S 425 and S 510) apply impossible to meet regulations, bureaucracy, and costs that will wipe out small local farmers and food producers, the backbone of food security for any region, and industrialize those remaining through mandating pesticides,GMO feed, and drugs; they contain CODEX Alimentarius http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?page_id=161

which, in declaring all nutrients toxins and limiting access to them, is a profound danger to human health; and they are unconstitutional, allowing for no due process, but establishing warrantless entry, surveillance, monitoring, and massive, open-ended penalties with no congressional oversight and no judicial review.

Those corporate interests pushing these measures "redefine" severe dangers to our country as "food safety," wrapping them in the positive connotation of protecting the public from harm.  The hundreds of pages of bills, in reality, would (at a minimum) remove the safety of having local farmers, eliminate choice of food, expose people to harm from pesticides, and animals fed GMOs and drugs, criminalize alternative health and natural substances to maintain health and life, and subvert the Constitution and our democracy. 

The absence of small farmers, of choice in food, of access to nutrients and choice of healers, of democratic rights and of freedom itself, are redefined as "safety."

Bad is redefined as  good.

Redefinition Two:  Nutrients 

Under CODEX, all nutrients are redefined as toxins or contaminants, to be removed from free human usage to protect the public from "risk."

What is the standard definition of "nutrient"?  Many sources of given:

Definition of nutrient :  any substance that is assimilated (taken in) by an organisms that is needed for the organism to live, grow, breathe, move, excrete waste, or reproduce. Examples: carbon dioxide, nitrate, and phosphate, proteins, vitamins, and minerals. 


n.  A source of nourishment, especially a nourishing ingredient in a food.  adj.  Providing nourishment.  [Latin nūtriēns, nūtrient-, present participle of nūtrīre, to suckle.]  http://www.answers.com/topic/nutrient

nutrient nu·tri·ent (noo´tre-int)

  1. nourishing; providing nutrition.
  1. a food or other substance that provides energy or building material for the survival and growth of a living organism.

Dorland's Medical Dictionary for Health Consumers. © 2007 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved.

nu·tri·ent (ntr-nt)  n.  A source of nourishment, especially an ingredient in a food.  The American Heritage® Medical Dictionary Copyright © 2007, 2004 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Nutrient  A food substance that provides energy or is necessary for growth and repair. Examples of nutrients are vitamins, minerals, carbohydrates, fats, and proteins.  Mentioned in: Antidiarrheal Drugs, Carbohydrate Intolerance  Gale Encyclopedia of Medicine. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

nutrient  [no̅o̅′trē·ənt]  Etymology: L, nutriens, food that nourishes  a chemical substance that provides nourishment and affects the nutritive and metabolic processes of the body. Nutrients are essential for growth, reproduction, and maintenance of health.  Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 8th edition. © 2009, Elsevier.

CODEX Alimentarius redefines nutrients, deeming them not only "not nourishing" (the opposite of what they are) but hazardous.  This redefinition prepares the ground for their removal, though they are essential elements of survival and growth.  By "labeling" them toxins and contaminants, CODEX promoters claim it is about protecting people from the risk of harm, though in reality it is designed to deprive people of critical free access to the literal building blocks of life so they will be left with only corporately owned synthetic pharmaceuticals.

How is such a radical overturning of the known value of nutrients accomplished?

"Previously, dietary supplements, such as vitamins and minerals, couldn't be regulated by the FDA.  Under this bill, a food-borne illness outbreak is defined as:

"the occurrence of 2 or more cases of a similar illness resulting from the ingestion of a common food."

Now, those things that cause an "outbreak" are considered "contaminants."  

both vitamin c and magnesium can cause diarrhea in some people at currently acceptable dosage levels. Magnesium will do it to almost anyone if they take the entire current RDA (500 mg.) at the same time. If two people get diarrhea from either of these substances, their status as "contaminants" will be cemented, putting them under the regulation of these agencies under DHHS. ...

The bill [Hr 875, one of the six "food safety" bills comprising CODEX] states that the Administrator of Food Safety only has to come up with a list of "contaminants" they will regulate SIX MOTHS AFTER enactment of the bill.

"This means that congress will have a bill in front of them that every fan of peanut butter will want passed  from its name alone, yet not have any idea what this person, (be they an employee of Monsanto, or a pharmaceutical company, or a tobacco executive, or a health-food guru,) intends to regulate or outlaw.


Consuming nutrients is not only normal but vital.  It is not only an aspect of food safety but the only true basis for any food safety.  

But these CODEX bills would set a "risk" standard that would be used to indict normal, essential-to-life-itself nutrients as harmful and then redefine them as contaminants.  By a misuse of science and of logic and of language, the bills would attempt to counter reality itself.  

The essential meaning imbedded in human understanding, and the knowledge of the relationship of nutrients to "nourishing" and "nutritious" would be turned on its head.  Out of the most primary goodness for life itself - nutrients - the bills would create something extreme in the negative.  This is biologically nonsensical but the redefinitions would still exist and have legal force.

"Codex specialists insist that codex will eventually implement a Napoleonic code of what we'll be allowed to consume. This sure sounds like a beginning of that to me."


Good is redefined as bad.

Redefinition Three:  Seeds  

In Iraq, where ancient seed banks were plundered (the actual theft of biodiversity), laws were put in place afterwards which mimic the biologic theft.  They displaced "natural" or common meanings of words and the historical laws that had always existed there before, laws which took for granted the existence of normal seeds and that those seeds were owned by farmers and that those farmers were free to collect and reuse or sell them.  

While the focus in Iraq has been on Bremer's Order Number 81 which installed intellectual property laws that suit Monsanto and other multinationals and give them absolute control over agriculture by stopping farmers from using their own seeds,  http://www.uruknet.de/?p=m47991&hd=&size=1&l=e  the focus here is on redefinitions of "normal" things that made that possible, definitions which are occurring now around the world.

Normal seeds become "infringing" and GMO seeds become "the protected variety."

Under this mandate, Iraq's commercial farmers must now buy "registered seeds." These are normally imported by Monsanto, Cargill and the World Wide Wheat Company. Unfortunately, these registered seeds are "terminator" seeds, meaning "sterile."  ...

"What makes this Order 81 even more outrageous is that Iraqi farmers have been saving wheat and barley seeds since at least 4000 BC, when irrigated agriculture first emerged, and probably even to about 8000 BC, when wheat was first domesticated. Mesopotamia's farmers have now been trumped by white-smocked, corporate bio-engineers from Florida who strive to replace hundreds of natural varieties with a handful of genetically scrambled hybrids. ...

"Order 81 ... is quite diabolical upon closer inspection. First, it forces Iraq's commercial farmers to use registered terminator seeds (the "protected variety"). Then it defines natural seeds as illegal (the "infringing variety"), in a classic Orwellian turn of language.

"This is so incredible that it must be re-stated: the exotic genetically scrambled seeds are the "protected variety" and the indigenous seeds are the "infringing variety."

"As Jeffrey Smith explains, author of Order 81: Re-Engineering Iraqi Agriculture:  "To qualify for PVP [Plant Variety Protection], seeds have to meet the following criteria: they must be 'new, distinct, uniform and stable'... it is impossible for the seeds developed by the people of Iraq to meet these criteria. Their seeds are not 'new' as they are the product of millennia of development. Nor are they 'distinct'. The free exchange of seeds practiced for centuries ensures that characteristics are spread and shared across local varieties. And they are the opposite of 'uniform' and 'stable' by the very nature of their biodiversity." (3)

"Order 81 comes with the Orwellian title of "Plant Variety Protection." Any self-respecting scientist knows, however, that imposing biological standardization accomplishes the exact opposite: It reduces biodiversity and threatens species. So Order 81 comes with an Orwellian title and consists of Orwellian provisions."

Power is then put behind that redefinition of normal:

Just in case Iraqi farmer can't read, Order 81 enforces the new monopoly on seeds with the jackboot. Order 81 makes this clear in its own text, buried at the bottom of the document, as is most screw-you fine print:

"The court may order the confiscation of the infringing variety as well as the materials and tools substantially used in the infringement of the protected variety. The court may also decide to destroy the infringing variety as well as the materials and tools or to dispose of them in any noncommercial purpose." (5)

In the US, the FDA has redefined seeds as food.  

Then, it redefined the most basic agricultural elements necessary to all farming -agricultural water, manure, harvesting, transporting and seed cleaning equipment, and seed storage - as "sources of contamination."  

That made it possible, all in the name of "food safety," to simple raise the standards so high that use of one of those elements (seed cleaning equipment) is already prohibitively expensive and the others are threatened.  Meanwhile, pesticides and herbicides and chemical fertilizers, all known to be deadly contaminants, are not listed. 


Historic normal is redefined as illegal, encroaching abnormal is redefined as the legal standard, and historic normal is eliminated.

Redefinition Four:  Herbs  

If one can't get nutrients commercially, one might grow them as food and herbs.

Monsanto and the Thai government have come under sharp criticism from NGOs for their encouraging the use of agrochemical and technologies there.  http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/1887...   At the same time, "[t]he Industry Ministry - aiming to control pesticide production and commercialisation - announced its new regulation on February 3, listing the 13 plants as "hazardous substances type 1" under the 1992 Hazardous Substances Act."  

So, being an organic farmer just got much harder.  Organic farmers who grow their own herbs, whether as a substitute for pesticides or to sell, are being told those herbs are now to be listed as hazards.  

"The plants are: neem, citronella grass, tumeric, ginger, Chinese ginger, African marigold, Siam weed or bitter bush, tea seed cake, chilli, Chinese celery, ringworn bush, glory lily and stemona.

"They are widely used among farmers as alternatives for expensive and toxic farm chemicals, pesticides and herbicides.

"Meanwhile, the Department of Agriculture, a member of the hazardous substances committee, has proposed the new draft requiring growers, manufacturers, importers and exporters of pesticides made from the 13 herbal plants to conform to the Department of Agriculture and follow safety and quality control regulations issued by the committee."

For safety, they say, those who are working with the agrochemical companies.  

The redefinition is not inconsequential.  Besides imposing a regulatory burden and cost, the redefinition comes with force.  People who mix chili powder or ginger with water and spray it on their plants would be considered criminals for not following government regulations over ... normal harmless herbs.

"Law violators will face six months in jail and a fine of 50,000 baht."

The government, as its excuse for this action, said "it was receiving a lot of complaints from organic farmers and the department had no regulations to control the misuse of herbal pesticides."   Misuse of herbal pesticides?  Is it not peculiar for organic farmers (or any other group) to complain to the government about their own actions?


Safe and nontoxic efforts to avoid hazards are redefined as hazardous.  That hazardous standard can then be used to drive out safe and nontoxic.

Redefinition Five:  Sell

The old definition of "sell":  

"includes the offer for sale, expose for sale, have in possession for sale and distribute, whether or not the distribution is made for consideration."  

[In Canada, under Bill C-51] The NEW definition of "sell," however, opens the door for a very broad interpretation:  

"includes offer for sale, expose for sale or have in possession for sale, or distribute to one or more persons, whether or not the distribution is made for consideration and in relation to a device, includes lease, offer for lease, expose for lease or have in possession for lease."

"Now, what's the reason for redefining the meaning of the word "sell" to include the simple act of "distributing to one or more persons"? Who does this new meaning benefit? Who does this now include that was not included before? Why the need for such a broad definition?  

"In plain English, it appears the law now applies if I were to simply give something to another person for free, whether it's a stranger or a family member."

Thus, giving your child chamomile tea could be defined as "selling" a controlled substance (nutrient) to a minor and be a felony.  This redefinition of "sell," added to the redefinition of "nutrients," then, puts immense force to stopping free human access to something as normal and essential as nutrients.  

The redefinition of sell expands the real meaning to allow those in power to criminalize its opposite - donating, sharing, giving - at will, so any contact whatever with substance those in power wish to control, can be "made to seem" illegal.

Redefinition Six:  Property  

The National Animal Identification System which is part of all the "food danger" bills, contains the word "premises."  It is not a redefinition but a sly substitution for another word - "property" - leaving it to people to believe they mean the same thing since, in common usage, they often do.  But as with the items above in which great care was taken over controlling meaning, using "premises" instead of "property" appears not to be accidental.  

"With any governmental agency, the words used in any law, regulation, rule or other declaration by the government or its agencies must be carefully scrutinized. What may seem to be nothing more than a simple word-swap may actually be a new legal definition and one that may come back to haunt you. Under NAIS the term [property] is swapped for Premises.

"Property is the term used to indicate private ownership of a thing such as land or animals and is protected by rights in the Constitution. It does signify legal ownership, and who is the legal owner and allows you access to a Civil Court and protection under the Constitution.

"Premises is a term derived from the International Law of Contracts which are the international rules, for conducting business, usually corporate, whereby [non- human entities] are declared to be [persons]. Agreeing to the redefining of  [property] and to the conversion to premises, eliminates civil protections and redefines you as an [legal entity] who may or may not own the thing in question.  This also subjects you to Administrative Courts using statute and codes which are derived from the International Law of Contracts (ILC) and prohibits any use of rights enumerated or otherwise within the constitution.

"Neither the government nor its agencies or agents have listed any limits with regard to any authority any or all of them may now assume or implement as a result of rule making or changes to policies, mandates and regulations. This means you do NOT know all the terms of the contract.

"Neither is NAIS an [adhesion contract] wherein the terms and conditions of the contract never, ever change because USDA or even Congress can change the rules and regulations at any time.

"Since the USDA is a self regulating and rule making agency, in effect making its own laws and enforcing them at will, rules could be changed at a later date drastically affecting everyone who has entered into this contract.  ...

"In the end, we need to understand that property has a far different meaning under the laws than the word [premises]. Had there not been an intention to render a change in the status of property ownership and control there would have been no need to use the word Premises." 


Rights under the constitution become no rights whatever through a word substitution.  Protection becomes loss of ownership and rights.  Good becomes bad.  

 Corporate redefinitions in the "food safety" bills are set to end American farming and choice of foods, put health practitioners and access to adequate nutrients essential for survival out of reach, and curtail fundamental democratic rights.  Corporate redefinition of normal seeds in Iraq has put them out of legal reach, and threatens survival there.  A redefinition in Thailand threatens farmers and the safe and valuable herbs they use as alternatives to chemicals.  A redefinition of "sell" in Canada threatens prison sentences for sharing.  A slip between two similar sounding words threatens theft of rights and land.

"Normal" and good is being redefined as dangerous.  Through redefinition, essential things needed for existence are being shut down, limited or made difficult to attain.  Meanwhile, "abnormal" and bad - limiting human beings' access to what they depend on to live and be healthy, GMO seeds, violations of basic rights ... - is redefined as "protecting people from risk" and as "safety."

In reality, these few simple redefinitions cloak lies, monopoly, corruption, theft, civil rights and human rights abuses, and unfathomable threat to human life itself.

No comments:

Post a Comment