As most everyone knows, Amendment 1, Missouri’s MegaAg Protection Racket, or Monsanto Protection Act, barely passed. It’s my understanding that there is going to be a recount on that amendment to Missouri’s Constitution. Personally, I think there needs to be more than a recount, but I will save that for another day.
Despite the assertions that Monsanto and genetically modified organisms in general are gaining “world wide acceptance”, the truth is that many nations are doing all they can to ban these abominations of nature. Below is an article about Mexico and Monsanto’s Round Up Ready Soy…A little “Yeah!” for those who want to eat clean food.
Just one small comment here. I find it increasingly odd that I am often in agreement on a topic with organizations that are so far left of where I am politically. In the case I am addressing at the moment, that group is Greenpeace. To be clear, I am a massive proponent of private property owner’s rights. Staunchly opposed to corporations posing as “individuals” and against consolidation, contraction and restriction of access to markets for farmers growing real food. I am not a “greenie weenie”, but I do believe that we were put here by our Creator to be stewards of the land and His creation and not to rape, pillage and plunder the creation. We certainly are not called to change the genetic structure of life and create abominations of natural species by mutating them in a lab.
Sweet victory for Mexico beekeepers as Monsanto loses GM permit
A small group of beekeepers in Mexico has inflicted a blow on biotech giant Monsanto, which has halted the company’s ambitions to plant thousands of hectares of soybeans genetically modified to resist the company’s pesticide Roundup.
A district judge in the state of Yucatán last month overturned a permit issued to Monsanto by Mexico’s agriculture ministry, Sagarpa, and environmental protection agency, Semarnat, in June 2012 that allowed commercial planting of Roundup-ready soybeans.
The permit authorised Monsanto to plant its seeds in seven states, over more than 253,000 hectares (625,000 acres), despite protests from thousands of Mayan farmers and beekeepers, Greenpeace, the Mexican National Commission for the Knowledge and Use of Biodiversity, the National Commission of Natural Protected Areas and the National Institute of Ecology.
In withdrawing the permit, the judge was convinced by the scientific evidence presented about the threats posed by GM soy crops to honey production in the Yucatán peninsula, which includes Campeche, Quintana Roo and Yucatán states. Co-existence between honey production and GM soybeans is not possible, the judge ruled.
Mexico is the world’s six biggest producer and third largest exporter of honey. About 25,000 families on the Yucatán peninsula depend on honey production. This tropical region produces about 40% of the country’s honey, almost all of which is exported to the EU. This is not small change: in 2011, the EU imported $54m (£32m) worth of Mexican honey.
The concerns are multiple. Roundup-ready crops – soybeans, corn, canola, sugar beets, cotton and alfalfa – have been manipulated to be resistant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup.
Some argue that glyphosate poses a risk to human and animal health, a claim that Monsanto and other agribusinesses reject.
In addition to health risks, environmental damage to soil, water and bee colonies – which are dwindling fast – have been attributed glyphosate use, threatening food and water security across the globe.
GM crops could devastate the important European export market for Mexican beekeepers, where the sale of honey containing pollen derived from GM crops has been restricted since a landmark decision in 2011 by the European court of justice.
The ruling barred honey derived from a GM crop unapproved for human consumption – which includes some soy and other animal feeds – from sale in the EU. Honey with more than 0.9% of GM pollen (from an approved GM food) must be labelled as containing GM ingredients and cannot be marketed as an organic product. Some countries, including Germany, reject honey that contains any GM pollen.
A small study conducted in Campeche, where about 10,000 hectares of GM soybeans were planted after the permit was approved in 2012, found GM pollen in some honey samples destined for the European market. This, say the authors, threatens the local honey industry and contradicts the position taken by Sagarpa and industry groups that soybeans are not visited or pollinated by bees searching for food because they can self-pollinate.
The Monsanto ruling was commended by the respected national newspaper La Jornada, which accused the Mexican government of ignoring widespread concerns over GM and forcing those opponents to fight it out in court with powerful multinational companies. The government’s stated ambition of eliminating hunger is incompatible with its decisions to increasingly allow multinational companies such as Monsanto to introduce GM crops, the paper’s editorial concluded.
Central to the ruling was the Mexican constitution, specifically the government’s obligation to fully consult indigenous communities before making any major decision about what happens, including what is grown, on their territory. The judge ordered planting to stop and gave Sagarpa six months to carry out full and proper consultations with indigenous farmers – which it should have done before the permit was granted in 2012.
It was this same omission that led to an almost identical ruling by a district judge in Campeche in March 2014.
These two judgments have set a precedent that will help farmers, campaigners and environmentalists take local legal action against the rollout of GM soy and corn, which the federal government is sanctioning without consultation and against experts’ advice.
But this is a high-stakes game to play, in which indigenous communities are being forced to fight their own government and multinational corporations with multimillion-dollar legal departments, simply to have their constitutional rights honoured and protect their traditional ways of farming and living.
So while a third victory in Chiapas, where a similar case is pending, could soon follow, this is almost certainly only round one. Monsanto will probably appeal against the decision to a higher court.
The North American Free Trade Agreement, criticised by some for crippling small-scale Mexican farming, is not on the side of the beekeepers. This David and Goliath battle is about so much more than honey.
Truth Farmer 
Aug 23, 2014 @ 01:26:52
“….Staunchly opposed to corporations posing as “individuals” ….”
I have heard a LOT of leftists make this claim, but have never heard the position articulated very well at all. So far I have stomped all of their arguments as most of them are just parrots, parroting the leftist line with no thought at all as to what they are saying.
From what I have seen allowing a “corporation” to file an income tax etc. is not the work of Satan but just a legal convenience. The corporation also is, liability speaking, a separate “person” and that too makes sense.
A corporation does not immunize anyone from criminal liability. That if it occurs is a failing of prosecutors and our standards of evidence in such cases. It has nothing to do with a corporation being a person…
Aug 24, 2014 @ 08:13:57
The problem with corporations being afforded the rights of individuals is that the large multi-national corporations are in business with the one corporation that has a monopoly on those living in this nation. Of course I refer to gov’t. When corporations are in business with government and they have a revolving door between the headships in agencies the rule making is directed by those who financially benefit from controlling the market, and THAT is the biggest problem with corporations. We have a global govicorp.
People have very little to no capacity to affect the rule making process. Likely the best evidence of this is the decision to move Plum Island to Kansas. More than 12,000 comments against doing so were submitted, and the fed gov just says, “yes, we heard you and your objections aren’t valid according to us so we will do it anyway.”
The original rules for corporations in this country were logical. They afforded charters for a time and the corporation had to demonstrate an overall positive “greater good” that could be achieved by the existence of the corporation. No longer.
I have no problem with small corporations to insulate the homes of people from a business liability, what I have a problem with is unelected, unaccountable, corporately owned people making the rules the rest of us have to try to live under. Also, the fascism that is inherent in US Federal agencies being in actual business with corporations. I also detest the idea that a “fictitious entity” can have the rights of a human being. They don’t breathe and were not created by Yahweh. As such, they cannot have inherent rights.
Aug 24, 2014 @ 13:30:26
We seem to agree then. The problem as I see it is people, whether acting as a corporation, an LLC or whatever, take control of government.
Just FYI I think a better way to protect your self is through your right to contract by forming a non-statutory trust. Dave Champion is the go to man IMHO on that topic. One can basically form a corporation with no need for the approval of or interference from the state.
Aug 23, 2014 @ 02:36:28
If were were to have an issue with a fictional entity causing harm by being treated as a human being one would be hard pressed to find a better example than government.
The fictional creature Government has so much person-hood that you can actually commit crimes against the fiction when no actual person was harmed!! To my way of seeing things this is heads and shoulders more dangerous that the “alleged” dangers of Corporate person-hood.