I am surprise there is not more interest in a major threat to the USA and the rest of the world.
What is that threat?
Senate bill 510: The take over of the World Food Supply!
This is not a Liberal vs Conservative issue, It is a PEOPLE vs INTERNATIONAL CORPORATE CARTEL issue.
As most people are aware food contamination has been making headlines in recent years. This is a direct result of "Never let a good crisis go to
waste, if you do not have a crisis BUILD ONE"
RULE of instituting special interest laws. In other words the Food Safety Crisis was coldbloodedly
So when was “The U.S. has the safest food supply in the world”
changed to “We need Safety Laws”?
I can pinpoint the exact time
and what changed. The first change was the 1995 ratification of the World Trade Organization with its Agreement on Agriculture. This opened up the
USA to foreign food WITHOUT ADEQUATE INSPECTION. The Key phrase is:
"Aims to ensure that governments do not use quarantine and food safety requirements as Unjustified trade barriers.. It provides Member
countries with a right to implement traceability [NAIS] as an SPS measure." OIE
Food inspections have dropped from a robust 50,000 in 1972 to about 5,000 today, meaning that U.S. food processors are inspected on average about
every 10 years. The chance of a food product from overseas being inspected is infinitesimal. Most raw materials for our drugs come from foreign
producers that are rarely inspected. The rate of quality-control failures found in manufacturing facilities by FDA inspectors has soared.
The USDA has decrease the inspection of imported food from 8.0% to 0.6% WHILE IMPORTS HAVE DOUBLED SINCE THE MID NINETIES.
The second cause of the Food Crisis was the scuttling of the old USDA inspection system and the adoption of
HACCP food-safety system in 1996
when USDA “officials initially described HACCP to the industry in the mid-90’s, the agency made the following enticing promises:
* “Under HACCP, the agency will implement a ‘Hands Off’ role in meat inspection.
* “Under HACCP, the agency will no longer police the industry, but the industry will police itself.
* “Under HACCP, the agency will disband its previous command and control authority.
* “Under HACCP, each plant will write its own HACCP Plan, and the agency cannot tell plants what must be in their HACCP Plans.”
As a result, the plant operator was required to identify potential hazards and the critical points in the process where those hazards could come into
play. The plan would then identify procedures that would be used to minimize the hazard risk at those control points. The plant would be responsible
for the implementation of the plan.
As a result, the inspector was no longer responsible for what was happening on the plant floor: that was left to company personnel. The new role of
the inspector was to make sure that plant personnel were carrying out their duties in a manner consistent with the HACCP plan. In many cases this
amounted to making sure that all of the paper work was in the proper order.
When the system failed Food inspectors complaints went unheeded as Mr. Stan Painter, Chairman, National Joint Council of Food Inspection Locals stated
in his Apr 17, 2008 Testimony
into the Congressional Investigation.
It (the recall of Hallmark/Westland Meat) highlights one of the problems that we have attempted to raise with the agency ever since 1996 when the
Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) inspection system was put in place. There seems to be too much reliance on an honor system for the
industry to police itself. While the USDA investigation is still on going at Hallmark/Westland, a couple of facts have emerged that point to a system
that can be gamed by those who want to break the law. It (HACCP) shifted the responsibility for food safety over to the companies .
Mr Painter's testimony was "discounted" by both the USDA and Congress despite the fact that "Over 1000 non-compliance reports – weighing some
16 pounds -- were turned over" as a result of a FOIA request.
Another example of the results of these two polices is the reintroduction of bovine tuberculosis into the USA.
In 1995, before WTO, California did 10,576 TB tests in cattle after HACCP and the WTO agreement on Ag, it was cut to 1,425 by 1999. Meanwhile per
the WTO Agreement on Ag the USA borders were opened to Mexican cattle and a Mexican cattle Assoc was responsible for the Santa Teresa, NM cattle
port-of-entry”- RESULT TB found in New Mexico, California Oklahoma and other states. The Media TRUMPED the INCREASE of testing from 1,425 to 2,500
but said NOTHING about the DECREASE from 10,576 Even worse a TEXAS ANIMAL HEALTH COMMISSION Report says not only is the US government shutting down
testing labs but with ”the discontinuation of first-point testing, slaughter testing will become the primary method for brucellosis
surveillance.... An animal identified through slaughter testing as possibly infected is no longer living and therefore additional testing of that
animal is not possible. As a result, the process to be followed requires the identification of the herd the animal came from and conducting a whole
herd test to determine whether or not infection is present in the herd. “
So what changed in the mid nineties?
Purdue University: Private International Cartels:
the Ag Cartels exist.
The sudden discovery of a global pandemic of international cartels in the mid 1990s, after a hiatus of a half century, is puzzling. That the
greatest number and most injurious conspiracies should be clustered in the food and feed ingredients industries adds another element of mystery to the
Please note that it was in 1995 that the Ag cartel got the World Trade Organization Agreement on Agriculture written by Dan Amstutz, VP of the grain
trader Cargill. And it was ratified by Congress with the help of Senior Foreign Trade Adviser to Bill Clinton, Robert Shaprio, CEO of MONSANTO!
Now the Ag Cartel is putting in place their final lock on the World food supply. It is called
S.510 (Food Safety and Modernization Act)
KEY POINTS of THE BILL
I. Food Facilities – these provisions apply to any place that engages in “manufacturing,
processing, packing, or holding food for consumption in the United States.”
...B. Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based Preventative Controls (“HARPC”) (sec. 103)
1. HARPC requirements are very similar to the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control
Point plans (HACCP) plans required under the House version of the bill. Every
facility would be required to develop a HACCP-type plan that identifies and evaluates
potential hazards, develops preventative controls, monitors the effectiveness of the
controls, takes corrective actions, and provides verification. The facility owner must
also keep records documenting all of this and periodically reanalyze the plan. The
plan is subject to FDA approval and inspection. (pp.11-16)
...II. On-Farm Regulation: “Standards for Produce Safety” (Sec. 105) (pp. 29-41)
A. FDA is authorized to establish standards for how fruits and vegetables are grown and
harvested, including standards for “soil amendments, hygiene, packing, temperature
controls, animals in the growing area, and water.”
C. The requirements specifically include farms that sell directly to consumers (p.31)
You can read a blow by blow account of an earlier bill by Progressives
It is a compilation of research by
several people so it may be rough reading. The HR 875 bill shows the REAL goal.
From the Tea Party site: click
The most offensive parts (S.510):
page 121 – “Sec. 404 Compliance with international agreements.”
page 136 – “Review” …. “internationally-recognized standards….”
page 137 – “Nothing… limits the authority of the Secretary…to revise, issue, and enforce product and category-specific
regulations….” And “(f) DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS – Nothing in the amendment made by this section shall apply to any dietary supplement that is
in compliance with the requirements of sections 402(g)(2) and 761 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 USC 342(g)(2), 379aa-1).”
page 195 – “No limit on Secretarial Authority” What??!!!! No limit?
page 212 – “(c) Civil Penality – inserts “or any person who does not comply with a recall order under 423….” (see also page 137)
page 213 – exchanges reasonable language to seemingly arbitrary language – “’1) striking ‘credible evidence or information indicating’
and inserting ‘reason to believe’ and (2) striking ‘presents a threat of serious adverse health consequences or death to humans and
animals’ and inserting ‘is adulterated or misbranded.’” Misbranded = produced in an unregistered facility. Adulterated = intentional or
unintentional contamination or poisoning.
(and conservatives) seem
to think the Tester-Hagan amendments will turn this EVIL bill into something acceptable.
BUT Remember Paul Warburg's famous lines.
"Warburg's associates said, "Paul, what are you doing? We don't want those in there this is our bill." And his response was this, he said,
"Relax fellas, don't you get it? Our object is to get the bill passed. We can fix it up later." Those were his exact words. "We can fix it up
later." A Talk by G. Edward Griffin
He was correct. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 has been amended over 100 times. Every one of the provisions designed to protect the public were
removed long ago. Now the banks are operating with out a reserve, making loans out of thin air and requiring you to pay back their counterfeit money
with your labor. Market Skeptics: *****US Banks Operating Without
The food safety bills are just a repeat of the 1913 Federal Reserve Act strategy but this time instead of a goal of private interest grabbing control
of the money machine the goal is grabbing complete control of food production. As Henry Kissinger said in 1970:
"Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people; control money and you control the world."
Background on Farming
History, HACCP and the Food Safety Con Job
Reviewing F. William Engdahl's "Seeds of Destruction"
Stolen harvest: the hijacking of the
global food supply By Vandana Shiva
A quick (well maybe) Synopsis:
After World War II the Council on Foreign Relations and its sister organization, the Council on Economic Development (CED) were formed. The members
were Bankers, Corporate heads and Academics who rely on funding from the first two groups.
Graham F. Towers, Governor of the Central Bank of Canada (from 1934 to 1955)
describes how banking
"That is the Banking business, just in the same way that a steel plant makes steel. (p. 287) The manufacturing process consists of making a
pen-and-ink or typewriter entry on a card in a book. That is all. (pp. 76 and 238) Each and every time a bank makes a loan (or purchases securities),
new bank credit is created — new deposits — brand new money. (pp. 113 and 238) Broadly speaking, all new money comes out of a Bank in the form of
From this description it is obvious that the bankers make their money from loaning out "Pixie dust" and collecting your wealth (labor paid for in
dollars) If people do not borrow the bankers can not run their con game.
Corporations make their money by buying raw materials and labor as cheaply as possible and selling it at the highest price the market will allow.
Implied in this is an abundant supply of cheap labor (fairly high unemployment) and a large demand for their products.
As Nicole Johnson spells out in History, HACCP and
the Food Safety Con Job
The decision was made by the Council on Economic development in 1947 to get rid of independent US farmers.
A History of American Agriculture 1776-1990
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. In a number of reports written over a few decades, CED
recommended that farming "resources" " that is, farmers " be reduced.
In its 1945 report "Agriculture in an Expanding Economy," CED complained that "the excess of human resources engaged in agriculture is probably
the most important single factor in the "farm problem'" and describes how agricultural production can be better organized to fit to business
A report published in 1962 entitled "An Adaptive Program for Agriculture" is even more blunt in its objectives, leading Time Magazine to remark
that CED had a plan for fixing the identified problem: "The essential fact to be faced, argues CED, is that with present high levels farm
productivity, more labor is involved in agriculture production that the market demands " in short, there are too may farmers.
To solve that problem, CED offers a program with three main prongs." Some of the report's authors would go on to work in government to implement
CED's policy recommendations. Over the next five years, the political and economic establishment ensured the reduction of "excess human resources
engaged in agriculture" by two million, or by 1/3 of their previous number.
shows this is true:
WHY were these changes actually forced??
1945-70 - Change from horses to tractors and the adoption of a group of technological practices characterized the second American agricultural
The second American agricultural revolution required farmers to MORTGAGE their farms to BUY tractors, very expensive implements, seed and
fertilizer. A boon to both Bankers and Corporations. No longer would rural communities be close to self-sufficient with most of the products made and
repaired locally. We see the same technique used in India right
with the same results - increased poverty and suicide.
As Nicole states:
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.
(And there you have the real source for the break down of US society since the 1950 when you could leave the keys in the car and your doors unlocked)
Even the US state department
sees that the "American agricultural
revolution" has been good for everyone BUT the farmers and rural communities.
As has been true since the nation's founding, continuing improvements in farm machinery, better seeds, better fertilizers, more irrigation, and
effective pest control have made farmers more and more successful in what they do (except for making money).
So WHO is reaping the benefits? The Corporate Ag Cartels of course.
Freedom to Fail: How U.S. Farming Policies Have Helped Agribusiness And Pushed
Family Farmers Toward Extinction
Who's making the bread?
Freedom to Farm's lower commodity prices have not translated into consumer benefits. Since 1984, the real price of a USDA market basket of food has
increased 2.8 percent while the farm value of that food has fallen by 35.7 percent, according to C. Robert Taylor, professor of agriculture and public
policy at Auburn University. Taylor says there is a "widening gap" between retail price and farm value for numerous components of the market basket,
including meat products, poultry, eggs, dairy products, cereal and bakery products, fresh fruit and vegetables, and processed fruit and vegetables.
At a major farm rally in Washington, D.C. in March, farmers served legislators a "farmers" lunch. The lunch included what would typically be an $8
lunch -- barbecued beef on a bun, baked beans, potato salad, coleslaw, milk and a cookie. The farmers charged only 39 cents for the meal, reflecting
what farmers and ranchers receive to grow the food for such a meal.
This is also supported by the fact both Monsanto and Cargill reported record earnings in 2008 while world food riots broke out.
"The World Bank says that 100 million more people are facing severe hunger. Yet some of the world's richest food companies are making record
profits. Monsanto last month reported that its net income for the three months up to the end of February this year had more than doubled over the same
period in 2007, from $543m (£275m) to $1.12bn. Its profits increased from $1.44bn to $2.22bn....
A look at the figures for 2007, when the world food crisis began, shows that corporations such as Monsanto and Cargill, which control the cereals
market, saw their profits increase by 45 and 60 per cent, respectively; the leading chemical fertilizer companies such as Mosaic Corporation, a
subsidiary of Cargill, doubled their profits in a single year"
Monsanto and the World Food Crisis