Wto To Europeans: Eat Your Frankenfoods

[forrest]

The World Trade Organization (WTO), responding to intense pressure from the Bush Administration and the biotech industry, has ruled that the European Union's (EU) moratorium on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) from 1998-2004 was illegal. The moratorium was put in place because of EU concerns on human safety, environmental pollution, and inadequate testing, and has subsequently been officially lifted. Canada and Argentina backed the U.S. in filing a complaint with the WTO in 2003, alleging that the moratorium was a violation of international trade laws. The Bush Administration has claimed that the EU ban has hurt U.S. farmers who grow genetically engineered crops, and that the EU should pay hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties to the U.S. But market analysts point out that the WTO ruling will not benefit the biotech industry, because EU food manufacturers and supermarket chains, fearing a consumer backlash, will continue to refuse to sell food products containing GMOs, no matter what the WTO says. U.S. Trade officials have admitted that the main impact of the WTO ruling will be to intimidate smaller nations from banning GMOs. http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/ruling060208.cfm

____________________________________


image parody
by Michael Gibbs
BIG BROTHER WANTS TO TRACK ANIMALS AND THEIR OWNERS
Plans for a system that would require tagging or implanting all farm animals with radio frequency devices and registering those animals with a federal government tracking system have been delayed until after 2009, the USDA announced last week. The National Animal Identification System (NAIS) has been gaining support in the corporate agribusiness world, supposedly as a method for sourcing the origins of Mad Cow disease or possible terrorist biological attacks on the nation's livestock. Opponents point out the plan was drawn up by corporate behemoths like Monsanto and would require every owner of even a single animal to register their home with a national tracking system, including Global Positing Coordinates (for satellite tracking) and implant or tag every animal with a radio frequency device (RFID). Large-scale livestock producers say NAIS would help them control an outbreak of disease by allowing individual animals to be tracked to their origins. Small-scale farmers say the registration fees, RFID expenses and administrative bureaucracy of the system would drive them out of business. The USDA announced a delay in the launch of the program last week, based on disputes in the cattle industry over who gets control of the overall database. The OCA is in the process of building an online NAIS information and action center to help citizens educate themselves and offer feedback to the USDA on the NAIS issue.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/ofgu/ID060202.cfm

We Have to stop these things! Spread it around the web! PLEASE! :)

Your silence will not protect you.

[forrest]

It's already unleashed on U.S.
http://www.krafty.org/flash/

[treehugger]

Eeeeew, we have a big huge Kraft Foods/Oscar Mayer production plant here!!! Blech. I had to WORK there for a job when I used to install ammonia refrigeration systems! :(

Kath

[Pedata]

I don't buy Kraft or any other products that have commercials. Why should I pay thier advertising bills? It's either generic or scratch for me.

Seriously, convenience foods are getting spooky!

-Cass

[toman]

This whole RFID thing is getting blown way out of proportion. There are so many other things people should be paranoid about; RFID is just a modern name tag, nothing else. And the issue of cost is silly; the chips themselves cost virtually nothing, and the equipment used to implant them is no more complicated or expensive than any one of the million other hypodermic injections animals get. It's not like we're talking about GPS locator chips or something; an organized system to keep track of livestock in this country seems to me like a pretty logical safety precaution with no practical drawback.

[forrest]

This whole RFID thing is getting blown way out of proportion. There are so many other things people should be paranoid about; RFID is just a modern name tag, nothing else. And the issue of cost is silly; the chips themselves cost virtually nothing, and the equipment used to implant them is no more complicated or expensive than any one of the million other hypodermic injections animals get. It's not like we're talking about GPS locator chips or something; an organized system to keep track of livestock in this country seems to me like a pretty logical safety precaution with no practical drawback.

This wasn't about RFID tags, but you brought it up!
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2005/Nov/29/op/FP511290310.html

PROTECT OUR FRAGILE CIVIL LIBERTIES!
Sen. George Allen, (R-VA):

“And what makes us a great nation is that this is a country that understands that people have God-given rights and liberties. And we cannot—in our efforts to bring justice—diminish those liberties.” (Cong.Rec., 9/12/01)
Sen. John Warner (R-VA):

“Again, as we pursue the legislative challenge to balance the magnificence of our Constitution, which has held us united—it remains the oldest continuously performing Republic in the world today—and balance the need of additional security against human rights, civil rights, and the rule of law, we will do it.” (Cong.Rec., 9/12/01)
Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN):

“As an open society with enormous respect for civil liberties, we are vulnerable to those who would target innocent civilians.” (Cong.Rec., 9/12/01)
Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE):

“If we abandon the liberties we cherish, the terrorists will have won.” (Cong.Rec., 9/12/01)
Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX14):

“Demanding domestic security in times of war invites carelessness in preserving civil liberties and the right of privacy. Frequently the people are only too anxious for their freedoms to be sacrificed on the altar of authoritarianism thought to be necessary to remain safe and secure. Nothing would please the terrorists more than if we willingly gave up some of our cherished liberties while defending ourselves from their threat.” (Cong.Rec., 09/11/01)
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA48):

“To Americans across the Nation who mourn and who are angry, I call on you to focus your anger on the perpetrators of this unlawful act and not to cast anger on neighbors, on coworkers, simply because of their certain religion, race, or nationality.” (Cong.Rec., 9/11/01)
Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA07):

“What we must avoid, however, is the knee-jerk reaction to pass more laws restricting the civil liberties of American citizens. The tragedies of this attack will only be compounded by giving the government more power at the expense of our civil liberties. If we cannot stop this sort of attack with all of the power our government agencies already have, then we are in very serious trouble. As I have said, the one area where the government can and must approve is in allowing more latitude to gain information overseas and in taking direct action against terrorists.” (Cong.Rec., 9/11/01)
Rep. Timothy Johnson (R-IL15):

“I encourage my colleagues to be wary of any suggested government action that would infringe on our freedoms. Any encroachment of our civil liberties is a victory for the perpetrators of yesterday's heinous crimes.” (Cong.Rec., 9/11/01)
Rep. Roscoe Barlett (R-MD06):

“In responding to this heinous attack, we must reaffirm our commitment to uphold our Constitution, including the rights guaranteed to every American in the Bill of Rights? We have an obligation to overcome this latest challenge to freedom while honoring our Constitution and preserving the rights it guarantees for ourselves, our children, and our children's children.” (Cong.Rec., 9/11/01)
Democrats
Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE):

“In the ultimate American way, he called at the end of his speech for not abrogating the basic cherished liberties that this Nation has.” (Cong. Rec., 9/12/01)
Sen. John Breaux (D-LA):

“Let us at the same time all be mindful of some points that I think need to be remembered. First, these perpetrators are not American citizens. They are not entitled to the protection of the U.S. Constitution. They are not entitled to a presumption of innocence. They are not entitled to a trial by jury of their peers, and they are not entitled to the services of a free attorney.” (Cong.Rec., 9/12/01)
Sen. Jon Corzine (D-NJ):

“We have defended over the centuries the fundamental liberties that make us so strong and, as spoken about so eloquently, including the rule of law? It is our responsibility at this moment in time to stand strong on those principles. It motivates us and moves us to be ever vigilant, protecting our security and freedoms.” (Cong.Rec., 9/12/01)
Rep. John Dingell (D-MI16):

“In addition to this, Mr. Speaker, it will be necessary for us to protect the civil liberties of Americans. We have some mistakes in our background: what we did to German-Americans in World War I, what we did to Japanese-Americans in World War II, and German-Americans and Italian-Americans in World War II. Those things cannot be done in this instance, and we must indeed see to it that we protect the great constitutional and indeed religious principles with regard to treating our fellow Americans well and properly.” (Cong.Rec., 9/11/01)
Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL):

“We have experienced all too personally a new kind of warfare, and in the process of us exacting this justice—I say justice; I did not say revenge—we will protect the constitutional rights of all people; we will respect them.” (Cong.Rec., 9/12/01)
Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA36):

“We must take bold steps. And, fourth, respect the civil liberties and intelligence of Americans.” (Cong.Rec., 9/11/01)
Rep. Solomon Ortiz (D-TX27):

“Nothing has really moved you to think about what this country means to you, how fragile our liberties are? Then let this moment in history move you. Let it move you to a greater understanding of our nation and our constitutionally-protected liberties, let it move you to appreciate those liberties, let it take us to a deeper understanding of who we are as a country.” (Cong.Rec., 9/11/01)
Rep. Mike McIntyre (D-NC07):

“We in Congress must be dedicated and determined to take immediate action in three ways:...Second, to ensure that our liberties as American citizens are protected and that the American public is safe.” (Cong.Rec., 9/11/01)
Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI02):

“Our constitutional liberties shall not be sacrificed in our search for greater security, for that is what our enemies and all enemies of freedom and democracy hope to achieve.” (Cong.Rec., 9/11/01)
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH10):

“America must remain calm because such calm is essential to preserving our liberties? We must be cautious about rolling back freedoms at home or placing blame in the wrong place.” (Cong.Rec., 9/11/01)
Rep. Marty Meehan (D-MA05):

“In the days to come, we must take a hard look at the state of our defenses against terrorism. It is a delicate task to prevent terror while preserving the civil liberties that have long distinguished our nation. We must rededicate ourselves to finding a balance that both protects and empowers the American people.” (Cong.Rec., 9/11/01)
Rep. John Tierney (D-MA06):

“Our civil liberties and those of all Americans, together with our own sense of justice, will not be abandoned lest we tender to terrorists the victory they have not achieved and they do not deserve.” (Cong.Rec., 9/11/01)
Rep. David Wu (D-CA06):

“Finally, in the process of combating international terrorism, we must either** abandon American civil liberties nor express our fears and anger by indiscriminately striking out against those with different names, skin color or religion.” (Cong.Rec., 9/11/01) **This sentence is exactly as it appears in both the print and online editions of the Cong. Rec.
Rep. James Moran (D-VA08):

“America must also stand firm, though, in its commitment to civil liberties for all of our people. In the coming months and years, all of us will have to make accommodations to heightened security at our airports, Federal buildings, and other large landmarks. We can and must make those accommodations and in a manner that is wholly consistent with the U.S. Constitution.” (Cong.Rec., 9/11/01)
Rep. Eva Clayton (D-NC01):

“How many of our individual liberties do we relinquish in order to ensure our personal safety?? We must take the necessary precautions to safeguard our lives and American interests, but we must not relinquish our cherished freedoms.” (Cong.Rec., 9/11/01)
Rep. Lynn Rivers (D-MI13):

“Additionally, as we consider legislation to address this crisis, each proposal must be passed before the great lens of our Constitution, the cornerstone of our Republic and our freedoms.” (Cong.Rec., 9/11/01)
Rep. F. Allen Boyd (D-FL02):

“We must always maintain the magnificence of our Constitution while moving forward with the legislative challenge of balancing the need for additional security versus our God given rights and the rule of law.” (Cong.Rec., 9/11/01)

My posts may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. For more information please review Title 17, Sec. 107 of the U.S. Code.


SPREAD THE TRUTH ON... WE THE PEOPLE!