World Trade Organization is now directly dictating US law!!!

page: 2
42
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by sir_slide
 




It does seem to me like there is a war on the farmer. From the GM crops of Monsanto, the lawsuits associated, and now this!!

I read about this a while back and never thought it could actually be implemented without some kind of uproar. Out of all the people in the world to start a war on............it saddens me. War on drugs, war on terror, war on farmers, what's bloody next?


There is a War on Farmers. That War has been going on for decades. If you count Feudal control of farmland it has gone on for centuries. The elite are not dumb. They have used food as a weapon of war for centuries.

"Food is a weapon," said Maxim Litvinov, Soviet Commissar of Foreign Affairs

' The Socialist Revolution in the US cannot take place because there are too many small independent farmers there. Those people are the stability factor. We here in Russia must hurry while our government is stupid enough to not encourage and support the independent farmership.' V. Lenin, the founder of the Russian revolution

“The Collective Farm Policy was a terrible struggle, Ten million died. It was fearful. Four years it lasted. It was absolutely necessary." Joseph Stalin link

"[Our] future is becoming visible in Russia." Assistant Secretary of Agriculture Rexford Tugwell link

If you think the World Trade Organization Agreement on Agriculture was some sort of fluke think again.

In September of 1995, the same year WTO was ratified, Catherine Bertini, Executive Director of the United Nations World Food Program, and former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, stated "Food is power. We use it to change behavior. Some may call that bribery. We do not apologize." at the UN's 4th World Conference on Women: Beijing, China.

You only have to look at some of SpartanKingLeonidas threads to see how the first thing the Nasi's did was to inventory the possessions of everyone and put them on IBM punch cards!

That is why many farmers refused to fill out the last Ag survey where you were to itemize EVERYTHING! SOme of us at least remember the lessons of Nazi Germany. see some of the protests and reasons (including a lawyers) HERE




posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   
RFIDS are cheap, you can get your own glass rfid for 4 bucks. recommend the programmable kind, plant in skin between thumb and forefinger.. change who you are with a single read write op.
That rfid tracking might be used to track back to the farmer and not the packer is not true. walmart is or is going to rfid all products. this means the packer and distributor can be tracked. you can get an rfid as small as the period at the end of a sentence.. if glass encapsulated, could be safely eaten Walmart stool tracking. Yahoo!
You can get an rfid scanner for the USB port on the PC.
Can anyone google waterproof rfid scanner for the USB port?

You are what you eat. Now you can know. After dinner.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Speaking of Nazi Germany and the parrallels to today......


"One of the first enactments of the Nazis in 1933 was to outlaw the Jewish method of slaughter," warned Rabbi Yehuda Brodie, registrar of the Manchester Beth Din.

"Significantly, the infamous Nazi 'documentary' film Der ewige Jude (The Eternal Jew), designed to sow hatred for Jews, contained a gruesome scene that utterly distorted the way in which animals are killed in accordance with Jewish law, depicting the practice as a barbarous custom in which Jews rejoice at the suffering of animals." www.reference.com...



....There was widespread support for animal welfare in Nazi Germany and the Nazis took several measures to ensure protection of animals. Many Nazi leaders, including Adolf Hitler and Hermann Göring, were supporters of animal protection. Several Nazis were environmentalists, and species protection and animal welfare were significant issues in the Nazi regime. Heinrich Himmler made efforts to ban the hunting of animals. Göring was an animal lover and conservationist. The current animal welfare laws in Germanymarker are more or less modification of the laws introduced by the Nazis.....

maps.thefullwiki.org...



Looks like TPTB are using the same methods to "Boil the Frog" again. I can blame them. Pushing the hot button (Sweet Furry Animals) worked the last time didn't it????

It is our own fault we can not see the fangs buried underneath the FAUX fur.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by crimvelvet
 


Do you people understand anything? U.S. law REQUIRES us to follow the WTO.

God what idiots.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 




The key there is the consent of the governed - I never consented for unelected bureaucrats to make LAW, and RULES are made specifically to be broken.///



You hit the nail on the head!

HOW the heck did TPTB get around the Constitution on this one????

Help me here folks. (Isn't this what ATS is all about ?)

WHY does executive branch bureaucrats have the RIGHT to not only MAKE laws (Regulations) but also to be JUDGE and JURY????

This is taken from the original text of the bill when it was HR 875. We know from how the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 morphed into the original bill on STERIODS that all we have to do is look at the original bill before it is modified to make it palatable to the masses, to know what it will look like a decade from now after the fuss has died down and they sleep in the 1001 Amendments.

This is cut and paste directly from HR 875, nothing added. It talks of all the RIGHTS the Administrator has and you do not.

Once the commerce clause is invoked we are dead meat guys.


....The Administrator, in order to protect the public health, shall establish a national traceability system that enables the Administrator to retrieve the history, use, and location of an article of food through all stages of its production, processing, and distribution.

set good practice standards to protect the public and animal health and promote food safety;

conduct monitoring and surveillance of animals, plants, products, or the environment, as appropriate.....

A food production facility shall permit the Administrator upon presentation of appropriate credentials and at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner, to have access to and ability to copy all records maintained by or on behalf of such food production establishment in any format (including paper or electronic) and at any location, that are necessary to assist the Administrator

Civil Penalty
(A) IN GENERAL- Any person that commits an act that violates the food safety law (including a regulation promulgated or order issued under the food safety law) may be assessed a civil penalty by the Administrator of not more than $1,000,000 for each such
B) SEPARATE OFFENSE- Each act described in subparagraph (A) and each day during which that act continues shall be considered a separate offense.

Criminal Sanctions-
(1) OFFENSE RESULTING IN SERIOUS ILLNESS- Notwithstanding section 303(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 333(a)), if a violation of any provision of section 301 of such Act (21 U.S.C. 301) with respect to an adulterated or misbranded food results in serious illness, the person committing the violation shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, fined in accordance with title 18, United States Code, or both.
(2) OFFENSE RESULTING IN DEATH- Notwithstanding section 303(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 333(a)), if a violation of any provision of section 301 of such Act (21 U.S.C. 331) with respect to an adulterated or misbranded food results in death, the person committing the violation shall be imprisoned for not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with title 18, United States Code, or both.
(e) Penalties Paid Into Account- The Administrator--
(1) shall deposit penalties collected under this section in an account in the Treasury; and
(2) may use the funds in the account, without further appropriation or fiscal year limitation--
(A) to carry out enforcement activities under the food safety law; or
(B) to provide assistance to States to inspect retail commercial food establishments or other food or firms under the jurisdiction of State food safety programs.


edit on 15-8-2011 by crimvelvet because: fumble fingers



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Scytherius
 





Do you people understand anything? U.S. law REQUIRES us to follow the WTO.

God what idiots.

Of course I am well aware of that.

I see NOTHING about traceability in this document from WTO:


www.wto.org...

Article 1: General Provisions back to top
1.        This Agreement applies to all sanitary and phytosanitary measures which may, directly or indirectly, affect international trade.  Such measures shall be developed and applied in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement.

Article 2: Basic Rights and Obligations back to top
1.         Members have the right to take sanitary and phytosanitary measures necessary for the protection of human, animal or plant life or health, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Agreement. 

2.         Members shall ensure that any sanitary or phytosanitary measure is applied only to the extent necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health, is based on scientific principles and is not maintained without sufficient scientific evidence, except as provided for in paragraph 7 of Article 5.


Article 3: Harmonization
1.        To harmonize sanitary and phytosanitary measures on as wide a basis as possible, Members shall base their sanitary or phytosanitary measures on international standards, guidelines or recommendations, where they exist, except as otherwise provided for in this Agreement, and in particular in paragraph 3.

2.        Sanitary or phytosanitary measures which conform to international standards, guidelines or recommendations shall be deemed to be necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health, and presumed to be consistent with the relevant provisions of this Agreement and of GATT 1994.
Article 5: Assessment of Risk and Determination of the Appropriate Level of Sanitary or Phytosanitary Protection back to top

1.        Members shall ensure that their sanitary or phytosanitary measures are based on an assessment, as appropriate to the circumstances, of the risks to human, animal or plant life or health, taking into account risk assessment techniques developed by the relevant international organizations.

4.        Members should, when determining the appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection, take into account the objective of minimizing negative trade effects.

2.        Members shall, in particular, recognize the concepts of pest- or disease-free areas and areas of low pest or disease prevalence.  Determination of such areas shall be based on factors such as geography, ecosystems, epidemiological surveillance, and the effectiveness of sanitary or phytosanitary controls.

3.        Exporting Members claiming that areas within their territories are pest- or disease-free areas or areas of low pest or disease prevalence shall provide the necessary evidence thereof in order to objectively demonstrate to the importing Member that such areas are, and are likely to remain, pest- or disease-free areas or areas of low pest or disease prevalence, respectively.  For this purpose, reasonable access shall be given, upon request, to the importing Member for inspection, testing and other relevant procedures.

2.        Members shall, in particular, recognize the concepts of pest- or disease-free areas and areas of low pest or disease prevalence.  Determination of such areas shall be based on factors such as geography, ecosystems, epidemiological surveillance, and the effectiveness of sanitary or phytosanitary controls.

3.        Exporting Members claiming that areas within their territories are pest- or disease-free areas or areas of low pest or disease prevalence shall provide the necessary evidence thereof in order to objectively demonstrate to the importing Member that such areas are, and are likely to remain, pest- or disease-free areas or areas of low pest or disease prevalence, respectively.  For this purpose, reasonable access shall be given, upon request, to the importing Member for inspection, testing and other relevant procedures.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Where did TRACEABILTIY come from???

From International Organization OIE (Office International des Épizooties) we have:

“It is urgent that scientists come forward with alternative methods of disease control that will not only avoid wastage of valuable animal proteins but that will also promote the international trade of animals and animal products by removing technically unjustified trade barriers caused by animal diseases”, www.oie.int...


“Furthermore, it can help to eliminate unjustified trade barriers, since a sound traceability system provides trading partners with assurances on the safety of the products they import. Traceability techniques can provide additional guarantees as to the origin, type or organoleptic qualitytraceability is a RIGHT but is not mandatory AND it is ONLY for export PRODUCTS of food products.” www.oie.int...

Yet it is obvious that traceability does nothing to prevent disease, it only allows blame to be placed after the fact. So why is the idea being promoted and where did it come from?

In the USA

“..early 2002, when the National Institute for Animal Agriculture (NIAA) organized a national identification task force to provide leadership for the preparation of the initial report, the National Identification Work Plan....The US Animal Identification Plan (USAIP) is needed to maintain the economic viability of American animal agriculture... This is essential to preserve the domestic and international marketability of our nation's animals and animal products.” www.usaip.info.... [Sec of Ag Schafer alleges the idea came in 2003, AFTER BSE was found.]


If we follow the idea further back in time to 1995 (compare to the dates noted above) we find:
The World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) changed how disease and food safety is handled around the world. The USDA decided to change focus from disease eradication to disease “prevention” by changing from a zero tolerance import policy to a “scientifically-based and transparent risk assessment,” and opening US borders to trade in “low risk commodities”. This is why the USA has suddenly been flooded by tainted imports. They are obviously considered “low risk” link

According to the World Trade Organization:

"Measures to trace animals...to provide assurances on...safety ...have been incorporated into international standards... The Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures...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."



So traceability is a RIGHT but is not mandatory AND it is ONLY for export PRODUCTS!!!!!




posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   
The question we should be asking is

What is being covered up by changing the rules from quarantine and test to "Traceability"



International integrity in action

After disease detectives in Great Britain determined that mad cow (BSE), was spread by feeding cattle infected meal, British officials banned the practice. But they didn't ban the export of feed, spreading BSE to continental Europe and Japan...At the height of the BSE epidemic, the UK exported 500,000 tons, including 168,000 metric tons of MBM (meat and bone meal) between 1990 and 1996. It also exported 3.2 million cattle to 36 countries. A Harvard study said that the exact amount sent to the U.S. was unknown, but it noted that at least 69 tons of "mammalian meal and flour" and 334 cattle were shipped here during the period. www.organicconsumers.org...


USA Risk Assessment

“There is a small chance that mad cow disease.. (BSE), is already in this country, according to a risk assessment released today by Harvard University. The risk assessment concluded that even if BSE had entered this country, it wouldn’t become a major public health problem, although human illnesses could occur”.Harvard Risk Assessment 12/3/2001

This is the “scientific basis” behind the USDA ban on 100% BSE testing at Creekstone Farms and mandating “less than 1 percent [40000 per year] of slaughtered cattle to be tested for BSE. The agency contends that more comprehensive testing doesn't guarantee food safety and may produce a false positive that alarms consumers.” www.cspinet.org...

If you do not test you will not find the disease.




posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by crimvelvet
HOW the heck did TPTB get around the Constitution on this one????


...it doesnt apply to them (even if they are a citizen of the usofa) unless they want it to - like when the supreme court ruled "corporations are people too", a thinly veiled facade at best... the constitution was designed with fail-safes to protect the elite and con/screw the common folk...

...as has been so aptly pointed out - controlling food sources is key to controlling the masses... the elite need some of us or their infrastructure fails but they dont need all of us - and - gosh, how simple it is to kill off a few thousand here and there with laboratory created diseases and releasing once-erradicated diseases, which is why when it comes to traceability of tainted food stock, they are against it if it applies to them and they are 100% for it if it applies to a competitor that they cant corrupt...

...the common folk who survived the great depression (which was intentionally caused by the elite) could feed themselves for the most part, depending on the local store only for staples (coffee, flour, salt, sugar) which were really luxuries for most... lots of people speculate now about the coming depression and that it'll be so much worse because, for the most part, we cant feed ourselves...



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Wyn Hawks
 




...the common folk who survived the great depression (which was intentionally caused by the elite) could feed themselves for the most part, depending on the local store only for staples (coffee, flour, salt, sugar) which were really luxuries for most... lots of people speculate now about the coming depression and that it'll be so much worse because, for the most part, we cant feed ourselves...


That is a very valid point and I wish more people understood it.

Tractors did not really show up until between 1910 and 1915 and horses are still used depending on the farm and farmer. I know farmers who are not Amish and still prefer horse drawn equipment. My fields were plowed and disked by a buddy and his pair of belgiams.

One farmer supplied 9.8 persons with food in the 1930's. By 1970 one farmer supplied 75.8 persons SOURCE

The following blurb gives you an idea of the "Advances" made in farm equipment during the last couple of "Lifetimes" The big change was going to horse drawn machines, cutting labor time to 1/10 and then again to the new all mechanized modern equipment that again cut labor time to a tenth.




1830 - About 250-300 labor-hours required to produce 100 bushels (5 acres) of wheat with walking plow, brush harrow, hand broadcast of seed, sickle, and flail [essentially by hand]
....
1890 - 35-40 labor-hours required to produce 100 bushels (2-1/2 acres) of corn with 2-bottom gang plow, disk and peg-tooth harrow, and 2-row planter [Horse drawn]
....
1930 - 15-20 labor-hours required to produce 100 bushels (2-1/2 acres) of corn with 2-bottom gang plow, 7-foot tandem disk, 4-section harrow, and 2-row planters, cultivators, and pickers
1930 - 15-20 labor-hours required to produce 100 bushels (5 acres) of wheat with 3-bottom gang plow, tractor, 10-foot tandem disk, harrow, 12-foot combine, and trucks
....
1987 - 3 labor-hours required to produce 100 bushels (3 acres) of wheat with tractor, 35-foot sweep disk, 30-foot drill, 25-foot self-propelled combine, and trucks
1987 - 2-3/4 labor-hours required to produce 100 bushels (1-1/8 acres) of corn with tractor, 5-bottom plow, 25-foot tandem disk, planter, 25-foot herbicide applicator, 15-foot self-propelled combine, and trucks
inventors.about.com...
edit on 15-8-2011 by crimvelvet because: fix bad sentence



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   
I stay out of these food threads, these GMO / Monsanto hysteria fests because what I have to say is insulting. But I recieved a private message asking me to participate in this one. Great, the WTO is taking over the food world too. So if someone is going to specifically ask me to participate in the debate, then I'm bringing both barrels of fish.

First of all the field of greivances is too narrow. Way too narrow. Do you have any idea what would happen to the world if food was allowed to be truely free market? All accumulated wealth would vanish. Food is quite litterally the top of the ... well ... the food chain. When it comes to needs and desires food wins. Period. Farmers have been persecuted and prices kept supernaturally low since the civil war. You remember. That period in history when people that grew cotton were the wealthiest Americans.

So good luck on these nickle and dime issues.

Second unless you are like my best friend and have advanced degrees in both microbiology AND law, you are wasting you efforts fighting agracorp. Everytime I see a story that whips up a popular resistance; the secret reason behind it is that the issue in question is actually useful to small farmers and the big boys want it destroyed. Nothing quite like hysterical middle class people stampeeding for justice to squash a few small voices.

Third and not least. Do any one of you know the legal difference between food grown indoors or outdoors, grown on private land or corporate land, and what is called imported or domestic. Well if you don't, then why are you letting agricorp define the debate? Its not an issue of shifting the blame for contaminated meat to one lone rancher instead of the processor who contaminated it. It's an issue of "My Land" and "caveat emptor" to the one who buys anything off of it.

What if you aren't growing food in a small garden at home to eat. What if you are conducting a scientific experiment on the growth rate of various genetic stocks, using rigorous methodology, a controlled environment, and keeping fastidious records. This whole thing is about who has the highest scientific standards. And these world powers think you small farmers are too dumb to realize it.


David Grouchy
edit on 15-8-2011 by davidgrouchy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by davidgrouchy
 




...Second unless you are like my best friend and have advanced degrees in both microbiology AND law, you are wasting you efforts fighting agracorp.....


Thanks for giving us your view point. It is appreciated although this thread is not at all about GMO. It is about new regulations effecting farmers placed in the federal register for review by the American Public.


So you think we might as well give up and hand complete control of the food supply over to the AG Cartel???


Also you think that the Ag Cartel produces "cleaner" "healthier" food because it is more "Scientific"???

(I am a Chemist/ Certified Quality Engineer BTW)

I went into the CDC web site and found this info on food borne disease by category (meat only) (WTO was 1995 and HACCP was 1996)
year....total = bacteria + beef + pork + poultry + seafood + complex

1993....489
1994....653
1995....628
1996....477
1997....504
1998....1314
1999....1343
2000....1417
2001....1243
2002....1330

The data seems to indicate changing from hands on inspection plus testing plus international quarantine gave us "Safer" food than did the International "Risk based" HACCP guidelines. Ten data point is usually considered a decent sample size at least in chemistry especially when the difference between the two sets is so very obvious.


The New York Times article “The Safety Gap” written by Gardiner Harris, 11/2/2008
www.nytimes.com...


"This year, 18.2 million shipments of food, devices, cosmetics and drugs are expected to enter more than 300 U.S. ports; the FDA. had 454 investigators in 2007 — one and a half per port — to scrutinize them.."

“China’s leap to one of the biggest suppliers of pharmaceutical ingredients in the world over the last decade [note the date], Generic drug makers in the United States, where price competition is fierce, were the first to seek cheaper drug ingredients...Over the past six years, the F.D.A. has managed to inspect annually an average of just 15 of the 714 Chinese drug plants that export to the United States. At its present pace, the FDA. would need more than 50 years to visit all Chinese plants. By contrast, the FDA. inspects domestic drug plants every 2.7 years ”



Report Rips FDA Oversight Of Produce
FDA's efforts to combat foodborne illness are hampered by staffing shortages, infrequent inspections and lax enforcement at fresh produce processing plants, according to congressional investigators. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) report also said only 1% of produce imported into the U.S. is inspected, and the practice of mixing produce from several sources makes tracing contamination challenging...The report said inspections at produce-processing facilities are rare, and when problems are discovered, FDA relies on the industry to correct them without oversight or follow-up. Between 2000 and 2007, FDA detected food safety problems at more than 40% of the 2,002 plants inspected, yet half of those plants were inspected only once. The plants with food safety problems received only warning letters from FDA, and even those ended in 2005...Salmonella Source Found

The Salmonella strain associated with the lastest foodborne illness outbreak has been found, in irrigation water as well as in a sample from some serrano peppers at a Mexican farm. The farm is located in Nuevo Leon, Mexico. “The agency seized no fresh produce, sought no injunctions and prosecuted no firms” www.americanvegetablegrower.com...


Stanley Painter, Chairman of the National Food Inspection Unions, stated in his testimony at the congressional hearing on the Hallmark Dower Cows:

“..when we see violations of FSIS regulations and we are instructed not to write non-compliance reports... Sometimes even if we write non-compliance reports, some of the larger companies use their political muscle to get those overturned....Some of my members have been intimidated by agency management in the past when they came forward and tried to enforce agency regulations and policies. I will give you a personal example:

In December 2004, I began to receive reports that the new SRM regulations were not being uniformly enforced. I wrote a letter to the Assistant FSIS Administrator for Field Operations at the time conveying to him what I had heard...I was paid a visit at my home in Alabama by an FSIS official dispatched from the Atlanta regional office to convince me to drop the issue. I told him that I would not. Then, the agency summoned me to come here to Washington, DC where agency officials subjected me to several hours of interrogation including wanting me to identify which of my members were blowing the whistle on the SRM removal violations. I refused to do so....I was then placed on disciplinary investigation status. The agency even contacted the USDA Office of Inspector General to explore criminal charges being filed against me...

Both my union AFGE and the consumer group Public Citizen filed separate Freedom of Information Act requests in December 2004 for any non-compliance records in the FSIS data base that would support my allegations. It was not until August 2005 that over 1000 non-compliance reports – weighing some 16 pounds -- were turned over to both AFGE and Public Citizen that proved that what my members were telling me was correct – that some beef slaughter facilities were not complying with the SRM removal regulations... on the same day those records were released, I received written notification from the agency that they were dropping their disciplinary investigation – eight months after their “investigation” began. njcfil.com...

[SRM removal regulations concern brain and spine removal to prevent BSE]

Other data backs up the CDC information.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by crimvelvet



...Second unless you are like my best friend and have advanced degrees in both microbiology AND law, you are wasting you efforts fighting agracorp.....


Thanks for giving us your view point. It is appreciated although this thread is not at all about GMO. It is about new regulations effecting farmers placed in the federal register for review by the American Public.


So [color=gold] you think we might as well give up and hand complete control of the food supply over to the AG Cartel???





No.

I said...


This whole thing is about who has the highest scientific standards.


Which means quit letting the debate be defined for you. There are rules to the game. Reactionary hysteria is not a winning strategy. Learn the standards, measurements, and tests the big players are using. And only then will we begin to beat them.


David Grouchy
edit on 15-8-2011 by davidgrouchy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by davidgrouchy
 





Which means quit letting the debate be defined for you. There are rules to the game. Reactionary hysteria is not a winning strategy. Learn the standards, measurements, and tests the big players are using. And only then will we begin to beat them.


One of the biggest problems is the USDA and FDA slammed the door on independents doing testing such as banning BSE testing by Creekstone farms and preventing Psyeudorabies testing by the Henshaws.

THEY KNOW there are big problems and they are trying to hide them. For example a Biologist (friend) working in a local food manufacturing plant told me she was ordered to delete the results that showed the new shipment of corn was contaminated with Listeriosis The Corn was processed and sold to human consumers. I believe her because shortly after that I lost three goats whose necropsy showed Listeriosis as the cause of death.




Summary of Tuberculosis Surveillance in California Cattle

Number of Cattle Tested........1995.....1996.....1997.......1998.......1999......2000.....2001
By Animal Health Officials...10,576...5,100 ....2,861 .....3,530.....1,425 ....1,967.....2,500
By Private Veterinarians ...15,921...17,100...19,930...18,189...22,863...19,930...19,587
Submissions at Slaughter..........39..........58 .........64...........39...........58..........64.........385
www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu...




Bovine TB was confirmed in three dairy herds during 2002-2003.[California] ....Although the source of the infections was not confirmed, the investigations indicate TB was most likely imported in infected cattle.... www.cdfa.ca.gov...




For Mexican Feeder Cattle in Effect April 1, 2002... Dr. Logan... said, the disease is extremely rare in U.S. herds. How ever, more TB-lesioned cattle are being detected at slaughter, and ear tags indicate that many of these animals are of Mexican origin. www.tahc.state.tx.us...

Those are just a couple of examples .

There is a rather significant study called Shielding the Giants documenting a huge cover-up by the USDA.

and this:


TEXAS ANIMAL HEALTH COMMISSION 2009 – 2013 AGENCY STRATEGIC PLAN

The surveillance element or function is the most intensive of the six functions with respect to resources and personnel. Surveillance includes all activities designed and implemented to identify and locate any possible focus of infection or exposure to diseases of animal/poultry health significance in the livestock, poultry and exotic animal population. TAHC surveys animal populations for possible disease problems by collecting blood samples at livestock markets, on farms or ranches, and at slaughter plants.... Additionally, TAHC foreign animal disease diagnosticians investigate all reports of potential foreign animal diseases in order to achieve early diagnosis of a foreign animal disease, should it be introduced into the state.

USDA is moving toward supporting fewer labs nationwide, with the remaining labs serving as regional labs and supporting larger geographic areas..... If this funding is not maintained, this lab will be closed and the out-of-state samples will not be processed by remaining TAHC laboratories....

The first-point testing program is the “early warning system” for the brucellosis program, enabling detection of infection prior to sale of cattle within the state. With the discontinuation of first-point testing, slaughter testing will become the primary method for brucellosis surveillance. There is a key difference between first-point testing and slaughter testing. An animal identified through first-point testing as possibly infected is alive. This allows the agency to collect additional samples (blood, milk and tissue) and conduct additional diagnostic serologic and culture tests to determine if the animal is in fact infected with Brucella abortus. 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. The traceability back to the original owner or farm of origin is also much higher in a first-point test positive versus a slaughter positive, because the animals are individually identified with permanent identification devices, are identified to an owner at the time of testing and market records improve traceability of the animals. ...


..All states are expected to collaboratively participate in cooperative disease control and eradication programs or face significant animal movement restrictions from USDA and other states. Movement restrictions would significantly reduce the marketability of Texas animals and increase the cost of market access.

[NAFTA and WTO trade agreements impact]
...New national disease control programs, emergency management responsibilities, and trade agreements with foreign countries have a significant impact on TAHC. These new or expanded programs continue to stretch TAHC’s already stressed resources to their limits.

[foreign diseases imported due to trade agreements and the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures]

...The responsibilities of TAHC have significantly increased.... Some are domestic diseases that are increasing in significance. Others are foreign diseases that may be imported as result of the exponential increases in international importations of animals and animal products. Our industries and our economy are threatened by diseases and pests that heretofore we only read about in disease text books or heard about in lectures....

Since 1999, there have been seven foreign animal diseases diagnosed within the United States (West Nile Virus, Exotic Newcastle Disease, High Pathogenic Avian Influenza, Hemorrhagic Disease of Rabbits, Monkey Pox, Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, and Wildebeest Associated Malignant Catarrhal Fever). Unfortunately, there does not appear to be an end in sight for outbreaks of foreign or domestic diseases and these diverse activities related to disease control and eradication....



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by davidgrouchy
 


The other half of the question is the whole change in the food safety management system and what can be said about that.

{my notes on quality}

“The WTO and The Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement (SPS) allows members to take scientifically based measures to protect public health. The agreement commits members to base these measures on internationally established guidelines and risk assessment procedures.”
www.cid.harvard.edu...
www.oie.int...



At that point you talking about ISO, the FAO and OIE Guide to Good Agricultural Practices etc.



HACCP, “The Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point" system" is a MANAGEMENT system not measurements, and tests. It is replacing government standards, measurements, and tests and seems to be an out growth of the ISO philosophy. It was originialy developed in conjunction with NASA and the Pillsbury company. However ALL management systems (and Quality systems) are completely dependent on the honesty, integrity and expertise of top management. I have had my rear fired often enough not to EVER trust upper management's decisions in regard to quality. The normal method of operating is to lie until caught and then fire a scape goat, usually the lab manager (me) or some other poor sucker stuck taking orders.

Remember Dr Deming, the father of the modern Quality Revolution, said this:

"The problem is at the top; management is the problem." [1] Dr. Deming emphasized that the top-level management had to change to produce significant differences, in a long-term, continuous manner. As a consultant, Deming would offer advice to top-level managers, if asked repeatedly, in a continuous manner.
[1] Deming, W. Edwards. 1993. The New Economics for Industry, Government, Education, second edition.


In my opinion, after 30 years in the QC field, no amount of paperwork, or traceability or other magic wands can make up for the attitude of top management. Turning our food safety system into a paperwork system directed by the top Management of the Ag Cartel whose first concern is Profit is the act of a madman.

“Management practices” based on ISO.
ISO is seen by many Quality Professionals “as the primary negative influence.” in “ the direction that the quality movement has taken in recent years.”



NAIS and ”Guide to Good Farming Practices” (GGFP) are WTO and ISO's “internationally established guidelines” the SPS “agreement commits members to” Both are based on the same faulty reasoning.

ISO 9000 and similar certification schemes like GGFP do not add quality to a product, nor do they insure that quality is in the product. Instead, they show documentation that indicates the methods by which the product was supposed to have been made and nothing more.

To rely upon certification, management practices and traceability as an indicator of quality misses the mark entirely. Not only that in farming it shifts the product liability from the processing plants where most food contamination originates to the farmer. Instead of promoting food safety it encourages laxity in the processing plants because the liability has been shifted. Already Equity Livestock Co-op, allowed by WISCONSIN to create a monopoly, has burdened cattle producers with contracts shifting all liability to feeder cattle producers if they can’t prove they are innocent.
See Comment


See this article, for a discussion of the origins of ISO 9000, what is wrong with it, and why. In the article Admiral Hyman Rickover was concerned with bad quality that resulted from bad management. ISO 9000 addresses conformity to standards instead of improvement of management. The Japanese who were trained in QUALITY IMPROVEMENT by Dr. Demming, father of the modern Quality Movement, do not endorse ISO.

Scott Dalgleish was an editor of the American Society for Quality Magazine for five years, and now owns a small manufacturing business.


...Scott Dalgleish, [was] vice president of manufacturing at Spectra Logic Corp., a Boulder, CO, maker of robotic computer tape backup systems. Dalgleish, an ASQ certified quality manager who has worked in the quality profession since the late 1980s, is not happy with the direction that the quality movement has taken in recent years. And he sees the ISO 9000 family of standards as the primary negative influence.

....Among other things, Dalgleish contends that ISO 9000 misdirects resources to an overabundance of paperwork that does almost nothing to make products better, while fostering complacency among top management and quality professionals alike. The recent conversion to the 2000 version of the standard has only made things worse, he says. While ISO 9000:2000 has almost no effect on how good companies operate, it requires huge amounts of time for document revision that could better be spent on real quality improvement, he believes...”
www.qualitymag.com...
Probing the Limits: ISO 9001 Proves Ineffective
www.qualitymag.com...



...”I'm wondering if there might be a silent majority of Quality readers out there on the topic of ISO 9000. The response to my July editorial, "Eliminate ISO 9000?," was the heaviest that we have received in some time. I got lots of e-mails from readers about the piece, which reported the views of Scott Dalgleish, a quality professional who has been publicly critical of the impact of ISO 9000 on manufacturers, and has suggested that companies eliminate ISO 9000 altogether from their quality management systems.

Many of the responses were quite articulate, and some were humorous and entertaining. You can read a sampling in this month's Quality Mailbag department on p. 12.
One thing that struck me about the letters I received is that almost all expressed some level of agreement with Dalgleish, particularly on issues related to excessive ISO 9000 documentation requirements. As you'll see in the Mailbag department, one reader even said that his company has already dropped its ISO 9001 certification with no apparent negative effects.
What surprised me is that the July editorial elicited no ardent rebuttals in defense of ISO 9000...”
www.qualitymag.com...


“ A while back, I asked one of W. Edwards Deming’s assistants if she knew of any truly quality-focused, Deming-based companies. She could not name one that was currently in business. “ Scott Dalgleish


Even the Military is not happy with ISO


Mil Standard 105E was declared obsolete in 1995.
(This is from the handbook, not from the Standard.


The ISO 9000 series of standards (and their U.S. equivalents, the ANSI/ASQC Q9000 standards) specify a set of requirements aimed primarily at achieving customer satisfaction through the establishment of a documented quality system. The intent is to prevent nonconformities at all stages from design to servicing (see paragraph 5.1.2 of MIL-STD-1916). With the international affiliation of the standards, organizations in all parts of the world can be assured that a supplier complying with the appropriate ISO 9000 standard has the framework for an acceptable quality system.

A basic quality management system should adhere to the elements described in the ANSI/ASQC Q9000 Series of Standards. The ANSI/ASQC Q9000 standards provide a template after which organizations can model their quality systems. Using ANSI/ASQC Q9000 will not in itself assure quality products. However, it will assure that if the organization is using its quality system appropriately, it has in place the necessary mechanisms for corrective and preventive action...



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by davidgrouchy
 




Reactionary hysteria is not a winning strategy. Learn the standards, measurements, and tests the big players are using. And only then will we begin to beat them.


Are the last two posts the type of information you are talking about or did I miss your meaning again?



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by crimvelvet
 


This is primarily driven by none other than I.B.M., yes, THAT I.B.M., and Destron Fearing.

I've done decades of research into this, since 1979, and have done countless threads on it.

The infrastructure has been in place for human implantation since the first bar code.


Quote from : Destron Fearing Website

Destron Fearing is a global leader in innovative animal identification.

With presence in over 40 countries worldwide we seek to provide real world ID solutions to match the ever increasing complexity and opportunities related to animal identification.

Since 1945 we have provided innovative products addressing the needs of livestock producers, companion animal owners, horse owners, wildlife managers and government agencies.

Full complement of radio frequency identification products and software solutions

Destron Fearing provides a full complement of radio frequency identification products and software solutions to automate the collection of critical livestock production and carcass information.

Individual and herd information can then be easily transferred between all parties involved in the production and retail of meat products.

Information sharing allows the food industry to meet the discriminating demands of the market place.

Italicized, bolded, and underlined by SKL


This is as well where EVERY single "alien abduction" and case of "cattle mutilation" comes from.

As well as the "Chupacabra" and various other nonsense.

Even including Human Trafficking and the real agenda of the elite behind that.

Xenophobia is highest when we are kept in the dark like mushrooms and fed what?
edit on 8/15/11 by SpartanKingLeonidas because: Adding Depth and Insight Into the Post.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Dr Thornsberry a veterinarian who chairs R-CALF USA’s animal health committee in one paragraph summed up the whole problem with Animal ID, the World Trade Organization and the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE).


He answers the Question WHY???

A question the US government has been dancing around for years.



Horse owners should know why the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) is being forced on their industry. The U.S. signed a World Trade Organization (WTO) treaty and is now submitting to global rules on animal trade established by the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE).

The OIE wants the U.S. to accept imports from countries where animal disease problems persist.

For example, while the U.S. eradicated Equine Piroplasmosis – a tick-borne protozoal infection, the OIE wants the U.S. to accept imports from countries that have not eradicated this disease. With NAIS, horse movements could be traced from birth to death, thus eliminating the need to disallow high-risk imports because, according to the OIE, the U.S. could manage contagious diseases within its borders.
www.r-calfusa.com...&%20The%20Equine%20Owner,%20Op-Ed%20by%20Dr%20Thornsberry%20-%20Handout.pdf


Food SAFETY my rear! It is all about opening borders to DISEASE RIDDEN animals, vegetables and fruit!
edit on 16-8-2011 by crimvelvet because: (no reason given)
edit on 16-8-2011 by crimvelvet because: I can't spell!



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   
This could be where POTUS shows beyond the Shadow of a doubt that he's signed on to the Establishment Shadow Govt NWO. If anyone here had their doubts, they should pay attention to how he works the NWO food control efforts and WTO. He is not for "the little people" or even the "proletariat". (and not for the FOLKS neither)

Great thread crim! This ties in with Codex Alimentarius and the harmonization of the US with European efforts to control our nutritional supplements.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
 


Whoa! Maybe this is some kind of precursor to Soylent Green. I mean, human and animal rfid tracking, and getting all mixed up at the processing plant, ewwww!





new topics
top topics
 
42
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join