It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Barney Cohen reviews levels, differentials, and trends in fertility for more than 30 countries from 1960 to 1992. He finds evidence of fertility decline in Botswana, Kenya, and Zimbabwe, confirming the basic results of the DHS. What is new here though is his finding that the fertility decline appears to have occurred across cohorts of women at all parities, rather than just among women at middle and higher parities, as might have been expected on the basis of experience in other parts of the world. He also presents evidence that fertility may have begun to fall in parts of Nigeria and possibly in Senegal
...This transformation was the result of organized plans developed by a group of highly powerful – though unelected – financial and industrial executives who wanted to drastically change agricultural practices in the US to better serve their collective corporate financial agenda. This group, called the Committee for Economic Development, was officially established in 1942 as a sister organization to the Council on Foreign Relations. CED has influenced US domestic policies in much the same way that the CFR has influenced the nation's foreign policies.
Composed of chief executive officers and chairmen from the federal reserve, the banking industry, private equity firms, insurance companies, railroads, information technology firms, publishing companies, pharmaceutical companies, the oil and automotive industries, meat packing companies, retailers and assisted by university economists – representatives from every sector of the economy with the key exception of farmers themselves – CED determined that the problem with American agriculture was that there were too many farmers. But the CED had a “solution”: millions of farmers would just have to be eliminated.....
...Their plan was so effective and so faithfully executed by its operatives in the US government that by 1974 the CED couldn't help but congratulate itself in another agricultural report called “A New US Farm Policy for Changing World Food Needs” for the efficiency of the tactics they employed to drive farmers from their land.
The human cost of CED's plans were exacting and enormous.
CED's plans resulted in widespread social upheaval throughout rural America, ripping apart the fabric of its society destroying its local economies. They also resulted in a massive migration to larger cities. The loss of a farm also means the loss of identity, and many farmers' lives ended in suicide , not unlike farmers in India today who have been tricked into debt and desperation and can see no other way out
No one wants to discuss this eh?
Too busy with partisan talking points, baiting and playing politics as usual?
It's okay, because the truth is sometimes to hard to accept.
Sure its your buddy Crim. and all a grand globalist conspiracy to bring down the US economy.
Although the SPS measures were recognized as having the potential to impede trade and were considered important under previous GATT rounds, they were relegated to being included as parts of other agreements and as exceptions to the main provisions fostering increased trade. [SPS measures were found in the original GATT Articles, mainly Article XX "General Exceptions," and later in the 1979 Tokyo Round Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, a plurilateral agreement known as the Standards Code (www.wto.org... ).] The impetus for negotiating a separate Agreement for SPS measures and for bringing quarantine issues to the forefront can be attributed to the deeper integration of agriculture into the international trading system (open markets and free trade) in general and to the decision to discipline the use of quantifiable nontrade barriers (quotas, subsidies, and licenses) in particular. Many countries, including the United States, feared that, with a reduction in the use and levels of these support measures, some importing countries might turn to technical trade barriers (notably SPS measures) as a means of allowing them to continue providing support to their farming community. Consequently, the intent of the Agreement was to ensure that when SPS measures were applied, they were used only to the extent necessary to ensure food safety and animal and plant health, and not to unduly restrict market access for other countries (James and Anderson, 1998; Roberts, 1998). xstatic99645.tripod.com...
The AoA, which was written by the US-dominated giant grain trading interests and the agribusiness allies such as Cargill, ADM, Monsanto and DuPont, serves only the agenda of these global supranational private companies, whose sole aim is to maximize stock gains and profits, regardless of human consequences. Their focus is the domination of the $1 trillion global agriculture trade. Notably, the actual author of the AoA of WTO was Daniel Amstutz, a former Vice President of Cargill Grain, who was at the time in the Washington US Trade Representative’s Office, before going back to the grain trade.(3).
The TRIPS agreement of WTO is at the heart of the GMO takeover of world food production. Under TRIPS the WTO demands that all member countries give ‘intellectual property protection’ via patent rights to plant varieties, something entirely outside the domain of normal patent rights. Even though the Indian government refused to ratify the GATT TRIPS clause at Uruguay, a US challenge in the WTO later forced India to pass TRIPS legislation that gives patent protection to firms like Monsanto and Syngenta....
Who controls WTO?
Almost never does someone ask ‘who really controls the WTO?’ The question is of utmost importance for the future of global food security.
The essential control of WTO decisions, decisions which have the full power of international law and can force governments to repeal local laws for health, safety and such if WTO claims it prevents the free trade of GMO products, that power is held by private interests, by a global US-centered agribusiness cartel...
Under the secretive WTO rules, countries can challenge another’s laws for restricting their trade. The case is then heard by a tribunal or court of three trade bureaucrats. They are usually influential corporate lawyers.
The lawyers have no conflict of interest rules binding them, such that a Monsanto lawyer can rule on a case of material interest to Monsanto. Incredibly, the names of the judges are kept secret! Further, there is no rule that the judges of WTO respect any national laws of any country. The three judges meet in secret without revealing the time or location. All court documents are confidential and cannot be published. It is a modern version of the Spanish Inquisition with far more power.
The powerful private interests who control WTO agriculture policy prefer to remain in the background as little-publicized NGO’s. One of the most influential in creating the WTO in the first place was an organization called the IPC or the International Food and Agricultural Trade Policy Council or International Policy Council, for short.
The IPC was created in 1987 explicitly to drive home the GATT agriculture rules of WTO at Uruguay talks. The IPC demands removal of ‘high tariff’ barriers in developing countries, remaining silent on the massive government subsidy to agribusiness in the USA.
IPC: International Policy Council on Agriculture, Food and Trade.
A look at the IPC membership will explain what interests it represents.
The Chairman is Robert Thompson, former Assistant Secretary US Department of Agriculture and former Presidential economic adviser.
Also included in the IPC are Bernard Auxenfans, former chairman Monsanto France; Allen Andreas of ADM/Toepfer;
Andrew Burke, Bunge (US);
Dale Hathaway former USDA official and head IFPRI (US).
Other IPC members include Heinz Imhof, chairman of Syngenta (CH)
Rob Johnson of Cargill (US) and USDA Agriculture Policy Advisory Council;
Guy Legras (France) former EU Director General Agriculture,
Rolf Moehler (Germany) former EU Director General Agriculture
. Donald Nelson of Kraft Foods (US);
Joe O’Mara of USDA,
Hiroshi Shiraiwa of Mitsui & Co Japan;
Jim Starkey former US Trade Representative Assistant;
Hans Joehr, Nestle head of agriculture;
Jerry Steiner, Monsanto (US).
And Members Emeritus include Ann Veneman, herself a board member of a Monsanto subsidiary company before she became US Secretary of Agriculture for George W. Bush in 2001.
In effect the IPC is run by US-based agribusiness giants including Cargill, Monsanto, Bunge, ADM, the very interests which benefit from the rules they drafted for WTO trade.
In Washington itself, the USDA no longer represents interests of small family farmers. It is the lobby of giant global agribusiness.... www.publiceyeonscience.ch...