Saturday, May 30, 2009

The stunning naivete of the sustainable ag community


The sustainable ag community seems to have not noticed that everything they cares about is at stake with six "food safety" bills in congress, another one from Waxman on the way.

They seem not to have noticed the timing - just after the inauguration, when hope was high and attention diverted by that and the bailout. 

They seem not to have noticed that the bills had to have been prepared well in advance of any peanut issues, suddenly showing up as they did.

They seem not to have noticed that were it not for work by ordinary people to say the bills are dangerous, they may have already slipped through congress, unnoticed, as "food safety."

They seem not to have noticed that they are Hillary Clinton's presidential platform to create a massive and centralized "food safety" department, a platform developed with her advisor Mark Penn, CEO of Burson Marsteller, representing Monsanto.

They seem not to have noticed Hillary Clinton's ties going back to Arkansas and the Rose Law Firm - to Walmart, Tysons and Monsanto - world leaders in industrial food, industrial farming, biotech.  

They seem not to have noticed DeLauro's ties to agribusiness or her harshness in dealing with farmers.

They seem not to have noticed DeLauro's husband's work with the Clintons and Monsanto, http://www.gqrr.com/index.php?ID=403
 including his interest in globalization and helping corporations frame issues to their advantage.  http://www.gqrr.com/index.php?ID=408

They seem not to have noticed the Clinton's have a history with food safety and that Bill Clinton gave us the first "food safety" plan - HACCP.  http://www.organicconsumers.org/irrad/ctf.cfm

They seem not to have noticed that HACCP was an agribusiness/WTO bonanza which got rid of inspections, lowered food safety standards, wiped out safe local processors who were competition,   
and centralized the food supply into WTO members' hands, including his friends at Tysons.

They seem not to have noticed that Bill Clinton's "food safety" plan - HACCP - increased illnesses and led to deaths and blocked trace back to corporate slaughterhouses.

They seem not to have noticed that Bill Clinton got us into the WTO with big promises US sovereignty would never be affected and Hillary bills - coming in through Rosa DeLauro and other Clinton friends - would eliminate US sovereignty over its own food supply, giving all power to the WTO.

They seem not to have noticed that Monsanto is taking over seed world wide, including in the EU.   http://www.grain.org/briefings/?id=202

They seem not to have noticed that the bills here are harmonized with the laws in the EU so seeing what is happening to them is seeing what the bills here will do.

They seem not to have noticed the immense and rapid decline in small farming in the EU.
They seem not to have noticed the huge loss of diversity in seeds in the EU as only those placed on a government registry may be sold and since it costs a fortune to get seeds there, farmers can't and biotech can.

They seem not to have noticed the FDA redefined seed as food and seed storage as one source of contamination or the implications.

They seem not to have noticed the implications playing out already as the FDA has made normal seed cleaning equipment - central to sustainable agriculture - illegal and set the 'food safety" standard for the equipment so high it would cost a million or more to meet it, and separate equipment (and another million plus) is now required for each line of seed.

They seem not to have noticed the "food safety" bills never mention the word "seed" and yet can eliminate ownership of them by simply doing to "storing" what they have already done to "sorting" - raise the standard above anyone's capacity to meet it.  
They seem not to have noticed they need seed to exist and the country needs human control over them to remain a functioning democracy.

They seem not to have noticed that NAIS is in the bills and includes a version for plants as well, meaning all US farmland would be under it.

They seem not to have noticed that NAIS includes Premises ID which is not "property" covered under the Constitution but an international term, that appears to make owners mere "stake holders" in their property.

They seem not to have noticed the peculiarity of even a single chicken putting someone under NAIS and that their even getting rid of the chicken would not remove the land from "premises" registration, nor would selling the land to someone without animals.

They seem not to have noticed this makes the argument that Premises ID is needed for tracing animal diseases, false.

They seem not to have noticed the USDA for 5 years will not change the word to "property" or answer if it is so that landowners become mere "stake holders" or answer the accompanying question - "If those holding all US farmland are mere stake holders, who are they holding the stake for?"

They seem not to have noticed that some believe that all US farmland, collected through this shift in a single word, may be collateral on the bailout and if we default, others - perhaps China - will claim it.

They seem not to have noticed the bills are essentially Codex Alimentarius, http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5266884912495233634
the primary political battlefield where the war is being waged about who will regulate and control the global food supply, from field and stable to table.
They seem not to have noticed Codex is working with other groups supporting the following agendas: 
1. The chemical industry's aim that all animals be treated with antibiotics and hormones. 
2. The largest seed company in the world (Monsanto) is working toward 100% genetically-modified crops. 
3. The nuclear industry's goal of irradiating all foods including plants and livestock. 
4. All industries' goal: phasing out truly organic foods, or at least, making them extremely difficult to obtain. 

They seem not to have noticed that under Codex, all nutrients (vitamins and minerals) are to be considered toxins/poisons and are to be removed from all food because Codex prohibits the use of nutrients to "prevent, treat or cure any condition or disease"

They seem not to have noticed that all food (including organic) is to be irradiated, removing all toxic nutrients from food (unless eaten locally and raw).

They seem not to have noticed that nutrients allowed will be limited to a Positive List developed by Codex which will include such beneficial nutrients like Fluoride (3.8 mg daily) developed from environmental waste. All other nutrients will be prohibited nationally and internationally to all Codex-compliant countries [2].

They seem not to have noticed that all nutrients (e.g., CoQ10, Vitamins A, B, C, D, Zinc and Magnesium) that have any positive health impact on the body will be deemed illegal under Codex and are to be reduced to amounts negligible to humans' health [3].

They seem not to have noticed that people will not even be able to obtain these anywhere in the world even with a prescription.

They seem not to have noticed that all advice on nutrition (including written online or journal articles or oral advice to a friend, family member or anyone) will be illegal, including reports on vitamins and minerals and all nutritionist's consultations.

They seem not to have noticed the bills contain a civil and criminal penalty section that sets up an independent funding source so there will be no congressional oversight, has unlimited punishments even beyond the massive ones listed, will be applied by "the Administrator" (see below) without judicial review over even validity and appropriateness.

They seem not to have noticed those penalties apply to everyone in the country who "holds" food.   http://yupfarming.blogspot.com/2009/04/jam-and-water-watch.html

They seem not to have noticed those penalties come on top of no due process, warrantless entry, surveillance, monitoring, taking of all records, ....

They seem not to have noticed that those promoting the bills use canny verbiage to deny they will regulate or shut down organic farming, gardening, farmers markets, etc.  by saying "there is no language in the bill" that says those things, while those opposing the bills flag the worrisome fact of broad and vague language and then point instead to what the bills will actually do.

They seem not to have noticed that, though so much is at stake, the organizations they count on are quoting reassurances from the very people who introduced the bills, despite their close ties to agribusiness and Monsanto.

They seem not to have noticed that the organizations they count on plan to compromise with the bills, trusting industry's friends' reassurances while dismissing the long list of threats which farming/health/food/leftist friends have easily seen in them.

They seem not to have noticed the oddness of that or flinched at Monsanto bragging in comments on websites that Grist and Slow Food agree with them there is no problem.
They seem not to have noticed in reassuring them nothing is wrong, their own organizations are aligned with Monsanto interests.

They seem not to have noticed that Monsanto has repeatedly shown up on websites, trashing those criticizing them, while saying they are not involved with the bills at all.

They seem not to have noticed that Bill Clinton gave us Michael Taylor and Taylor gave us rBGH and unlabeled, unregulated GMOs.

They seem not to have noticed Taylor is back, dressed as a "food safety" professor now, and was on Obama's transition team.  

They seem not to have noticed that Food Democracy Now says Monsanto, through Michael Taylor, is expecting to run the giant agency the bills will set up and to control the entire US food supply, including all farms and homes and gardens.

They seem not to have noticed that Codex was developed by Nazis.

They seem not to have noticed the bills are Kissinger Plan of "control food, control people."

They seem not to have noticed these bills are a more extreme threat to our country, our democracy, and each of us individually than the bailout.

They seem not to have noticed they should be mobilizing for all they are worth.

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. 

http://www.everythingbio.com/glos/definition.php?word=nutrient

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.

http://yupfarming.blogspot.com/2009/05/codex-inside-hr-875-herbs-vitamins-and.html

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."

http://yupfarming.blogspot.com/2009/05/codex-inside-hr-875-herbs-vitamins-and.html

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. 

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Seeds--How-to-criminalize-by-Linn-Cohen-Cole-090319-579.html

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?

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Govt-C...

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." 

http://www.gnhealth.com/articles/pdf/NAIS.pdf

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.

Monday, May 25, 2009

The Corporate redefinition of Normal


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 forcing it into private hands.  

The same phenomenon is occurring in language where normal words are being supplanted by synthetic definitions that have no relation to normal or even to facts, but those redefinitions are central to establishing control over biology.


Redefinition One:  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.  

It has also 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."  

Then, in the name of "food safety" it raised the standards for cleanliness so high that use of one of those elements is already prohibitively expensive and the others are threatened.  Meanwhile, pesticides and herbicides and chemical fertilizers, known to be deadly contaminants, are not listed.


Redefinition Two:  Nutrients

Under CODEX nutrients are redefined as toxins or contaminants, to be removed from free human usage.

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, proteinsvitamins, and minerals.
http://www.everythingbio.com/glos/definition.php?word=nutrient

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.
2. 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.
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, changing them from nourishing to hazardous.  This prepares the ground for saying the removal of essential elements of survival and growth protects people from the risk of harm, though in reality it undermines fundamentals of people's health by limiting critical free access to the very building blocks of life.

"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. http://yupfarming.blogspot.com/2009/05/codex-inside-hr-875-herbs-vitamins-and.html

Thus, "food safety" bills which are actually a danger to food, are redefined as protective, and using the positive meaning of "the name alone," are falsely promoted.  

And the bills themselves redefine normal, essential-to-life-itself nutrients as contaminants, reversing the normal and very positive definition to an extreme of negative.

"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."
http://yupfarming.blogspot.com/2009/05/codex-inside-hr-875-herbs-vitamins-and.html
 
Consuming nutrients is not only normal but vital.  But just as corporate redefinition of normal seeds in Iraq put them out of legal reach, corporate redefinition in the "food safety" bills is set to criminalize nutrients essential for survival.  

Normal is being made abnormal and being shut down.  Abnormal - limiting human beings' access to what they depend on to live and be healthy - is redefined as "safety."



Redefinition Three:  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-cn.htm   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 suddenly, being an organic farmer just got much harder.  Organic farmers who grow their own herbs as a substitute for pesticides 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?

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Govt-Called-Cancel-Rules-Listing-H-t242231.html


Redefinition Four:  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.  


Hidden Redefinition through Sly Substitution:  Premises for 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 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."
http://www.gnhealth.com/articles/pdf/NAIS.pdf

 

 

These few simple redefinitions cloak theft, monopoly, government corruption, civil rights and human rights abuses, and unfathomable threat to human life itself.