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.
No comments:
Post a Comment