It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Is there any way to ethically destroy Monsanto?

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 01:06 PM
reply to post by crimvelvet

My understanding is that the Tester-Hagan amendment protects them.

Tester-Hagan Amendment: Exempting Small Farms

The Tester-Hagan amendment played a large role in the passage of FMSA. The strongest opposition to the bill was due to the impact it could have on small farms and food producers who would be overburdened by paperwork and expenses associated with the new law. Under the Tester-Hagan amendment small farms are exempt from most of the new regulations created by FMSA.

The Tester-Hagan amendment applies to farms that sell within 275 miles of their farm or within state lines and to farms who make at least half of their money from direct-to-consumer sales and make only $500,000 a year or less.

If each vertical farm acts as a stand alone farm with the intent to only sell to their local community, then they should be good to go. I am not sure I could see a farm like this making oodles of money, so it should be safely below the $500K per farm threshold. I think the biggest challenges are zoning regulations, honestly.

posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 03:20 PM

Originally posted by crimvelvet
reply to post by DerepentLEstranger

one of the purposes of a corporation is to serve as a mask behind which
the stockholders hide,and avoid accountability.

just find out who the stockholders are,
then we'll know who to go after

SIGHHhhhh in this post a couple of comments before yours, I showed the Banksters are using innocent people's money to buy the stock through mutual funds, but it is the mutual funds that VOTE the stock. Most if not ALL of the "stockholders" do not even KNOW there money is invested in MONSANTO.

What I am trying to saying is go after the OWNER of those mutual funds. People like the Johnsons!

SIGHHhhhh by stockholders i was implying TRUE OWNERS/end of money trail all of them. why get rid of the big ones and protect the little stockholders who will then fill the resulting vacuum?
get rid of them all. and make it clear the human race is not to be F'ed with.

monsanto spent most of the 20th century poisoning the human race, recently they changed tactics and are now using agribusiness as a front for more of the same. leave a single spore of that creeping fungus and you may as well have done nothing.

posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 03:31 PM

Originally posted by rogerstigers
reply to post by anumohi

Indeed.. Like finding some venture capitalists and buying up a lot of old empty skyscrapers and converting them into vertical farms. Then hiring locals to tend to the farms and selling the produce out of a store on the first floor of the building.
That would be a fund project.. and something like that could be a way to both provide good food at low cost to people who have limited access to it as well as really harming the people who sell monsanto products.

i have to agree with Crimvelvet re legal problems why not make this a community effort everybody contributes Time/Effort/Money and splits the proceeds.
selling will expose you to legal problems under existing or newly created laws.
if it's the entire community [not a single or small group of vulnerable individuals], growing it's own food and not a business commerce laws should not apply, also the size of the community may be too large to deal with in terms of covert or legal violence.

edit on 14-2-2011 by DerepentLEstranger because: added edit

posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 03:47 PM
reply to post by DerepentLEstranger

Well, to be honest that is EXACTLY what I would love to do. There is a sizable plot of land in my neighborhood that has been empty for years. It would be great to put that together as a community farm with people contributing and benefitting from it. Zoning and ownership issues are the problem, though.

The whole idea of verticle farming, though takes on a slightly differant approach. It would be more challenging from the cost side -- noone wants to give up a tall building. In addition, growing veggies in a sky scraper would require a hydropnics system and a power grid capable of running the pumps, etc. It would be more feasible to set it up as a farm upstairs and market downstairs.. personal opinion.

Still, I love the idea of a community farm. I would even go so far as to say community farms and community electric plants (solar and thermal).

posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 05:23 PM
reply to post by rogerstigers

My understanding is that the Tester-Hagan amendment protects them.

That is the LIE put out by the Banker/corporate cartel. All the Tester-Hagan amendment does is apply different regulations it does not exempt any farm completely.

The whole food safety issue has been full of lies used to herd the sheeple into clamoring for a law that hands control of American farming over to the Food Cartel. I have been involved in the fight for five years and it really opened my eyes to how corrupt the news media, Congress and "Activist groups" actually are. A VERY rude awakening let me tell you.

Since when is PRODUCING a HACCP plan to receive the exemption from producing a HACCP plan an exemption??? Notice it only exempts the farm from certain paragraphs of the law not the whole law.


‘‘(2) EXEMPTION.—A qualified facility—
‘‘(A) shall not be subject to the requirements under subsections (a) through (i) and
subsection (n)
in an applicable calendar year; and

‘‘(B) shall submit to the Secretary—
‘‘(i)(I) documentation that demonstrates that the owner, operator, or agent in charge of the facility has identified potential hazards associated with the food being produced, is implementing preventive controls to address the hazards, and is monitoring the preventive controls to ensure that such controls are effective;
[HACCP plan]


‘‘(II) documentation (which may include licenses, inspection reports, certificates, permits, credentials, certification by an appropriate agency (such as a State department of agriculture), or other evidence of oversight), as specified by the Secretary, that the facility is in compliance with State, local, county, or other applicable non-Federal food safety law; and

‘‘(ii) documentation, as specified by the Secretary in a guidance document issued not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this section, that the facility is a qualified facility under paragraph (1)(B) or (1)(C).

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In the event of an active investigation of a foodborne illness out-break that is directly linked to a qualified facility subject to an exemption under this sub- section, or if the Secretary determines that it is necessary to protect the public health and prevent or mitigate a foodborne illness outbreak based on conduct or conditions associated with a qualified facility that are material to the safety of the food manufactured, processed, packed, or held at such facility, the Secretary may with draw the exemption provided to such facility under this subsection......

‘‘(C) CONSUMER.—For purposes of sub14 paragraph (B), the term ‘consumer’ does not
include a business.......

THIS is the CAUSE of the food safety problem:

Whistleblower Big John as usual explains it much better than I can.

John Munsell - September 26, 2010 8:35 AM

Mr. Marler, my first thought after reading your suggestions is that America has been lulled to sleep by USDA's pompous declarations that USDA-Style HACCP is (1) "science based", and (2) that it is true HACCP, which it is not.

Pillsbury invented the HACCP protocol, and required Kill Steps (such as full cooking or irradiation) on all HACCP products, ensuring production of food which is consistently safe. USDA on the other hand pretends that raw meat & poultry qualifies for HACCP, although such product carries microbes outlawed by Pillsbury HACCP.

Since Pillsbury-style HACCP produces safe food, and is indeed science based, such products require very little, if any microbial testing. USDA-style HACCP, on the other hand, produces so blasted much pathogen-laced meat that a plethora of microbial testing is absolutely mandatory. This fact alone reveals that USDA-Style HACCP is an imposter, a wolf posing in lamb's clothing.

USDA officials discredited the previous pre-HACCP meat inspection as a mere "poke & sniff" dinosaur relegated to the trash heap. So what? Well, inspectors are now trained to look the other way when they observe fecal material on carcasses. Why? Because visual observation is part of the old "organoleptic" (sensory) system which has been replaced by "science". When we pressed the agency back in the late 90's to define what they meant by "science", their answer was microbial testing, which is NOT a part of Pillsbury-style HACCP.

Now, when agency inspectors collect ground beef samples for microbial analysis at USDA labs for the presence of E.coli, and E.coli is detected, the agency DOES NOT traceback to the SOURCE of contamination, that is, the slaughter plant. The agency blithely places all accountability at the downstream further processing facility (grinding plant, retail meat market, hospital, school, etc). USDA now expects the victimized downstream DESTINATION to implement corrective actions to prevent recurrences. Good luck! Simultaneously, the agency DOES NOT expect or demand corrective actions at the SOURCE slaughter plants, essentially guaranteeing ongoing outbreaks and recurring recalls. This insulation of the huge, multinational slaughter plants from accountability is not based in science, but in political science.

The agency's demand that the downstream destination facilities implement corrective action to prevent recurrences is likewise not based in true science, but in science fiction.

I say this not only to reveal the ugly truth about USDA's HACCP Hoax, but also to reveal that Americans should NOT suggest that growers, manufacturers, restaurants, regulators and consumers implement USDA-style HACCP! USDA's HACCP Hoax should be outlawed, and let's go back to the drawing board. When USDA intentionally altered true HACCP principles for science-fiction based imposters, the agency had these motives in mind:

1. USDA-style HACCP removes all liability from the agency for unsafe food. How can the agency be made even partly liable for pathogen-laced meat it never inspected in the first place?

2. Comfort. By intentional agency design, USDA-style HACCP deregulated the largest plants, allowing the huge plants to police themselves, while the agency's role has been relegated to a "Hands Off" non-involvement role, as publicly stated by the agency. Since inspectors are no longer allowed to utilize their senses (sight, smell, touch, etc), all they can do is collect samples for microbial analysis. And if samples are positive for E.coli, the agency publicly admits it will not trace back to the SOURCE.

3. Deregulated HACCP will reduce the numbers of inspectors, saving the agency bookoo bucks in payroll costs.

4. USDA-style HACCP transfers much responsibility for meat inspection from the agency over to the industry.

5. Deny inspectors the right to detect pathogens via the senses, totally replacing human common sense with theoretical, allegedly "science based" claims. As such, USDA threw the baby out with the bathwater. Instead of retaining common sense and supplementing it with microbial analyses, the agency threw out common sense.

6. USDA-style HACCP removed all authority from inspectors, describing this as dismantling command and control, another public pronouncement from the agency. However, history has proven countless times that the agency, from day one of HACCP, merely transferred command and control to its District Offices and top bureaucrats in DC, where they rewrite history from their remote locations, totally divorced from field operations and actual conditions on the slaughter floors. Very deceptive, but it has worked well............for the agency, but not for consumers.

Sadly, while USDA-style HACCP has deregulated the largest, fast chain speed slaughter plants, it has hyper-regulated small low-volume plants, many out of existence.

Mr. Marler, at the DC meeting in which you and I participated this week, one of the items was Tracebacks to the SOURCE, an idea which the agency has outlawed since USDA-style HACCP was authored. Under Secretary Dr. Elisabeth Hagen concluded that she fully favors Tracebacks, a laudable and courageous statement. Well, why hasn't the agency implemented Tracebacks during the 12 years since HACCP was implemented by the largest plants? Because forcing the SOURCE to clean up their act is absolutely contrary to what the agency and the big packers had in mind when they partnered in authoring USDA-style HACCP regulations in the mid-90's.

Bottom line: True Pillsbury-style HACCP is a Cadillac, while USDA-style is a jalopy, a cruel hoax, which has spawned all our ongoing outbreaks and recurring recalls, which should have been predictable. We must outlaw the basic underlying lies upon which USDA designed their intentionally faulty deregulated system of meat non-inspection. When we continue to emulate USDA's faulty system via Hazard Analyses, interventions, etc, we merely ensure that consumers will continue to get sick, some will die. How long do we want to endorse falsehood?

This reminds me of an alcoholic, emptying yet another bottle of wine, while questioning why his health is deteriorating. We Americans continue to endorse USDA-style HACCP, while wondering why we are simultaneously getting sick. Egads folks, the USDA-style HACCP Hoax continues to sicken us, yet we are unwilling to admit the hoax.

John Munsell

new topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in