LE VOÎLE DÉCHIRÉ (1) Index du Forum

LE VOÎLE DÉCHIRÉ (1)
...

 FAQFAQ   RechercherRechercher   MembresMembres   GroupesGroupes   S’enregistrerS’enregistrer 
 ProfilProfil   Se connecter pour vérifier ses messages privésSe connecter pour vérifier ses messages privés   ConnexionConnexion 

CONTRÔLE DE LA NOURRITURE/FOOD CONTROL (PARTIE 2)
Aller à la page: 1, 2, 313, 14, 15  >
 
Poster un nouveau sujet   Répondre au sujet    LE VOÎLE DÉCHIRÉ (1) Index du Forum -> FASCISTE ENVIRONNEMENTAL/ENVIRONMENTAL FASCIST -> CONTRÔLE DE LA NOURRITURE /FOOD CONTROL / PROPERTY RIGHTS / DROITS A LA PROPRIETE(PARTIE 2)
Sujet précédent :: Sujet suivant  
Auteur Message
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Ven 4 Mai - 03:18 (2012)    Sujet du message: CONTRÔLE DE LA NOURRITURE/FOOD CONTROL (PARTIE 2) Répondre en citant

Bill Action Alert: Help!

THE “NATIONAL UNIFORMITY FOR FOOD ACT


IL EST DÉJÀ PRÉVU, QU'EN TEMPS D'URGENCE NATIONALE OU DE LOI MARTIALE, LES GOUVERNEMENTS CONTRÔLERONT TOUT LE SECTEUR ALIMENTAIRE. QUE VEUT RÉELLEMENT DIRE «NATIONAL FOOD UNIFORMITY»?

QUAND NOUS VOYONS COMMENT L'AIDE INTERNATIONALE EST DISTRIBUÉE DANS LES PAYS EN DEMANDE, NOUS POUVONS VOIR QUE TOUT EST TRÈS TRÈS LIMITÉ ET BIEN AU-DESSOUS DES BESOINS ÉLÉMENTAIRES QUE CHAQUE ÊTRE HUMAIN DEVRAIT AVOIR. BIENTÔT, VERRA-T-ON LES POLICES DE LA SURVEILLANCE ENVAHIR NOS APPARTEMENTS ET CONFISQUER TOUT CE QUI N'EST PAS SUR LA LISTE? JE PEUX VOUS DIRE QUE CELA EST DÉJÀ PRÉVU. TOUT CE QUI NE SERA PAS PERMIS PAR LE GOUVERNEMENT SERA DÉFENDU. TOUT SERA BASÉ SUR DES PRIVILÈGES ET NON SUR DES DROITS.

UN BON EXEMPLE À CELA, EST L'EAU. JE VOUS AI MIS DERNIÈREMENT UN PROJET DE LOI DU GOUVERNEMENT AMÉRICAIN QUI PRÉVOIT QUE CEUX QUI POSSÈDERAIENT DE L'EAU POURRAIT ÊTRE ACCUSÉ DE POSSESSION DE DROGUE. ET J'AI ENTENDU, ENTRE LES BRANCHES, QUE POUR AVOIR DROIT DE RÉCUPÉRER L'EAU DE PLUIE, IL FAUDRAIT OBTENIR UN PERMIS. J'ATTENDS DE TOMBER SUR LE DOCUMENT POUR VOUS LE CONFIRMER. MAIS DÉJÀ, NOUS POUVONS VOIR QUI CONTRÔLE LA FAMINE QUI AVANCE DE PLUS EN PLUS ET QUI CAUSE UN TAUX DE MORTALITÉ ÉNORME DANS LES DIFFÉRENTES COMMUNAUTÉS. TOUT HUMAIN A BESOIN D'EAU POUR SA SURVIE ET LA SURVIE DE SES BÊTES ANIMALES.

CETTE FAMINE EST DÉLIBÉRÉE ET CRIMINELLE ENVERS TOUS LES CITOYENS. DE PLUS, LES ORGANISATIONS INTERNATIONALES POURRONT CONTINUER D'EMPOISONNER LES POPULATIONS VIA LES OGM, CELLES-CI ÉTANTS ENCOURAGÉES POUR RÉGLER LE PROBLÈME DE LA PAUVRETÉ!!!


Un article paru par Christianity Today nous montre comment cet organisme oecuménique qu'est Vision Mondiale joue un rôle de premier plan à travers le monde. Le message est complètement faussé et irréaliste mais c'est comme cela qu'on veut que les populations soient INFORMÉS pour ne pas voir ce qui se passe réellement. Nous pouvons voir comment cet organisme promouvoit l'aide internationale du «World Food Program of the United Nations» en la présentant comme une âme et une mission charitable. Christianity Today ne fait aucune mention de ce qu'est réellement Vision Mondiale.

Un exemple qui est donné dans l'article qui suit est «In Turkana, people in need are supposed to get a monthly distribution of corn meal, beans, and vegetable oil. Last month, only corn came down the column.» Les personnes sont supposées recevoir à tous les mois, du maïs (génétiquement modifié) des fèves et de l'huile (sûrement aussi modifié comme l'huile de canola). Le dernier mois, les populaces n'ont reçu que du maïs transgéniques. Aucune mention aussi de l'approvisionnement d'eau dont souffre plusieurs centres de réfugiés et de citoyens. Voilà le genre de futur que l'Aide Internationale peut vous procurer! Voilà, le programme du «national food uniformity»

Maintenant, allez faire un tour dans votre armoire à manger et comparez la situation. Vous verrez que même si vous êtes pauvres, vous ne vivez sûrement pas la situation de ces gens. C'est pourtant le futur que les Nations-Unies ont préparé aussi pour chacun de nous. Vous n'acceptez pas la carte d'identité? Vous ne pourrez aller faire votre épicerie, car les militaires aux portes refuseront de vous laisser entrer. Pensez-vous encore qu'ils peuvent régler la famine qui sévit de plus en plus dans le monde? Ne sont-ils pas plutôt là pour la créer afin de mieux nous soumettre?

Nous pouvons voir que «Christianity Today» entretient le mythe d'un monde meilleur sous la tutelle des Nations-Unies. Combien maintenant tombe tête première dans ce piège en croyant à tous ces mensonges? Lisez maintenant la vérité sur le sujet.


THE “NATIONAL UNIFORMITY FOR FOOD ACT

William Teach February 28th, 2006

Usually, I do not side with Liberals on anything. However, on the forum I frequent, Joey from Georgia mentioned an Amendment to the National Uniformity For Food Act of 2005, which concerns me. Let’s go to a health nut website, Newstarget:

The House of Representatives will vote this week on a controversial “national food uniformity” labeling law that will take away local government and states’ power to require food safety labels such as those required in California and other states on foods or beverages that are likely to cause cancer, birth defects, allergic reactions, or mercury poisoning. This bill would also prevent citizens in local municipalities and states from passing laws requiring that genetically engineered foods and ingredients such as Monsanto’s recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH) be labeled.

The House will vote March 2, 2006 on a bill that would gut state food safety and labeling laws. H.R. 4167, the “National Uniformity for Food Act,” lowers the bar on food safety by overturning state food safety laws that are not “identical” to federal law. Hundreds of state laws and regulations are at risk, including those governing the safety of milk, fish, and shellfish. The bill is being pushed by large supermarket chains and food manufacturers, spearheaded by the powerful Grocery Manufacturers of America.

Perhaps a bit overblown, but, when dealing with the Feds, you know how the beauracracy can be. If you look at H.R. 4167 (search it here), there is some ambiguous language, and some ability for States to petition the Secretary of the Food And Drug Administration. But, this is the Fed’s interfering for interference sake.

As someone who could go to the hospital (again) because of an MSG allergy, and could go into anaphalactic shock from merely touching something that had scallops on it, I prefer to allow States and other entities to be allowed to make the labels stricter without useless red tape.

Do me a favor, go here, and write your Congress Critter. There is little time.


http://www.thepiratescove.us/?cat=39


Revenir en haut
Publicité






MessagePosté le: Ven 4 Mai - 03:18 (2012)    Sujet du message: Publicité

PublicitéSupprimer les publicités ?
Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Ven 4 Mai - 03:18 (2012)    Sujet du message: H.R. 4167 [109th]: NATIONAL UNIFORMITY FOR FOOD ACT OF 2005 Répondre en citant

H.R. 4167 [109th]: NATIONAL UNIFORMITY FOR FOOD ACT OF 2005

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-4167


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Ven 4 Mai - 03:19 (2012)    Sujet du message: KISSINGER'S 1974 PLAN FOR FOOD CONTROL GENOCIDE Répondre en citant

KISSINGER'S 1974 PLAN FOR FOOD CONTROL GENOCIDE

EN 2006, HENRY KISSINGER A ÉTÉ NOMMÉ CONSEILLER DU PAPE BENOÎT XVI. IL DEVIENT ÉVIDENT QUE L'UNITÉ PRÔNÉE ET LA JUSTICE DE NOTRE DIEU NE SONT PAS DES PRIORITÉS POUR CES LEADERS MONDIAUX, QUI AU CONTRAIRE SUPPORTENT DES CAUSES QUI TUENT DES MILLIERS D'INDIVIDUS, AU NOM DE LA SURVIE DE LA PLANÈTE, PLANÈTE QU'ILS SONT EN TRAIN DE DÉTRUIRE AU NOM DE LA PAIX ET LA SÉCURITÉ.

http://ncregister.com/site/article/1370/

by Joseph Brewda
Dec. 8, 1995

On Dec. 10, 1974, the U.S. National Security Council under Henry Kissinger completed a classified 200-page study, "National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests." The study falsely claimed that population growth in the so-called Lesser Developed Countries (LDCs) was a grave threat to U.S. national security. Adopted as official policy in November 1975 by President Gerald Ford, NSSM 200 outlined a covert plan to reduce population growth in those countries through birth control, and also, implicitly, war and famine. Brent Scowcroft, who had by then replaced Kissinger as national security adviser (the same post Scowcroft was to hold in the Bush administration), was put in charge of implementing the plan. CIA Director George Bush was ordered to assist Scowcroft, as were the secretaries of state, treasury, defense, and agriculture.

Read more :
http://www.schillerinstitute.org/food_for_peace/kiss_nssm_jb_1995.html


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Ven 4 Mai - 03:20 (2012)    Sujet du message: EFFONDREMENT DES STOCKS DE POISSONS - LES SUPERMARCHÉS CANADIENS SONT DANS LA MIRE DE GREENPEACE Répondre en citant

EFFONDREMENT DES STOCKS DE POISSONS - LES SUPERMARCHÉS CANADIENS SONT DANS LA MIRE DE GREENPEACE

GREENPACE EST UNE AGENCE NON-GOUVERNEMENTALE DES NATIONS UNIES. CETTE COMÉDIE N'A POUR BUT, UNE FOIS DE PLUS DE FAIRE CROIRE AUX POPULATIONS QUE LES ESPÈCES SONT MENACÉES AFIN D'AMENER UN PLUS GRAND CONTRÔLE AFIN DE MIEUX NOUS AFFAMER.


Canoë
Virginie Roy
17/06/2008 10h47


Greenpeace dévoile un rapport alarmant sur la situation des stocks de poissons dans les océans et la responsabilité des supermarchés canadiens.

© Canoë / Virginie Roy

Greenpeace accuse les supermarchés canadiens de participer à l’effondrement des stocks de poissons et de fruits de mer dans les océans.

En effet, dans un rapport intitulé «Épuisé: Rapport sur les supermarchés et l’avenir des aliments de la mer», publié aujourd’hui, on constate que les trois plus grands supermarchés du Canada, qui représentent plus de 75% du marché, n’ont toujours pas de politique d’approvisionnement pour favoriser les produits de la mer durables et continuent de vendre une grande majorité des espèces en danger qui se retrouvent sur la liste rouge de Greenpeace.

En effet, cette liste rouge recense les espèces qui sont menacées d’extinction commerciale. Pourtant, Loblaws, Sobey’s, Metro, Wal-Mart, Costco, Safeway, Overwaitea et Federated Cooperatives n’ont toujours pas cessé de vendre ces produits. Deux d’entre elles vendent tous les groupes d’espèces de la liste (il s’agit de Loblaws, qui détient 32% du marché, et de Sobey’s, qui en détient 15%). De plus, aucune des huit grandes chaînes canadiennes n’ont de pratiques d’étiquetage qui fournissent suffisamment d’information pour un client qui désire faire un choix responsable, alors qu’un récent sondage démontrait que les consommateurs achèteraient volontiers des produits de la mer durables s’ils étaient identifiés comme tels dans les supermarchés.

Ainsi, dans le rapport, Greenpeace confirme que de plus en plus d’espèces disparaissent à un rythme alarmant dans les océans. Près de 75% des espèces de poissons commerciales sont exploitées à pleine capacité, surexploitées ou épuisées. Les grandes espèces les plus prisées sont déjà décimées à 90%.

«Le thon rouge de l’Atlantique et la morue font partie des espèces les plus à risque, explique Beth Hunter, responsable de la campagne Océans chez Greenpeace. Les supermarchés doivent faire leur part pour réduire la pression de pêche sur les espèces menacées et acheter uniquement des produits de la mer exploitées dans le respect des principes du développement durable. Sinon, ils n’auront tout simplement plus de poissons à vendre.»

Parmi les espèces menacées d’extinction commerciale, on retrouve le thon rouge de l’Atlantique, le flétan de l’Atlantique, la morue, le requin, la raie, l’hoplostète orange et le hoki de Nouvelle-Zélande. La crevette tropicale est l’espèce de la liste que l’on consomme en plus grandes quantités.

Les supermarchés ont une influence

Les océans de la planète sont en péril parce que la capacité de pêche à l’échelle mondiale est 2,5 fois supérieure au seuil maximal de récolte qu’il faudrait adopter pour une exploitation durable, d’après Greenpeace. De plus, les pratiques de pêche destructrices, comme le chalutage sur le fond et le dragage, entraînent chaque année la capture accidentelle de près de 27 tonnes d’animaux marins. La plupart sont ensuite rejetés à l’océan morts ou agonisants.

Sachant que 63% des poissons et fruits de mer consommés au Canada, dont beaucoup d’espèces vulnérables, sont achetés dans les supermarchés, Greenpeace croit que ce sont les chaînes alimentaires qui ont la plus grande influence pour changer le cours des choses.

«Ce sont les supermarchés qui font le lien entre les fournisseurs et les consommateurs. Les étalages de poisson bien garnis donnent aux citoyens une impression d’abondance qui est trompeuse. La réalité, c’est que nous sommes en train de vider les océans. Et les supermarchés ont un rôle important à jouer pour renverser la vapeur», ajoute Beth Hunter.

Greenpeace demande donc aux supermarchés de cesser de vendre les produits de la mer inscrits sur sa liste rouge et d’adopter des politiques d’approvisionnement qui respectent les principes du développement durable. «En agissant de la sorte, explique Beth Hunter, les supermarchés enverront un message fort aux producteurs et aux fournisseurs».

De plus, Greenpeace désire établir un réseau mondial de réserves marines qui couvriraient 40% de la superficie des océans. La pêche doit également être gérée en fonction du développement durable dans les zones hors réserves.


http://www.canoe.com/infos/environnement/archives/2008/06/20080617-104729.h…


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Ven 4 Mai - 03:20 (2012)    Sujet du message: LA SUREXPLOITATION DES MERS, MENACE POUR LES POISSONS ET LES PÊCHEURS Répondre en citant

LA SUREXPLOITATION DES MERS, MENACE POUR LES POISSONS ET LES PÊCHEURS

LES LOIS MISES EN PLACE PAR NOS GOUVERNEMENTS QUE CE SOIT AU NIVEAU DE LA NOURRITURE, DES VITAMINES ET DE L'EAU, LA LOI DU «SEA LAW» AINSI QU'UN NOUVEAU PROJET DE LOI HR2421 QUI EST PRÉSENTEMENT DEVANT LE CONGRÈS FERA DES ÉTATS-UNIS UN ÉTAT COMMUNISTE.

MAIS AVEC LA «SEA LAW», LE GOUVERNEMENT CONTRÔLERA TOUTES LES EAUX SUR LA PLANÈTE. AFIN DE MENER À BIEN LEUR PROJET DE CONTRÔLE SUR LA NOURRITURE VIA LA PÊCHE. ILS TRAVAILLENT DÉJÀ DEPUIS QUELQUES ANNÉES À CONTRÔLER LES DIFFÉRENTS QUOTAS DE PÊCHE DANS PLUSIEURS RÉGIONS DU MONDE. LES CONSÉQUENCES SONT DÉJÀ DÉSASTREUSES DANS CERTAINES RÉGIONS, MAIS AVEC CETTE LOI, ILS IRONT EN AVANT DE PLUS EN PLUS AFIN D'EMPÊCHER LES POPULACES DE SE NOURRIR AVEC LES PRODUITS DE LA MER ET DES RIVIÈRES.

CETTE FIN DE SEMAINE, JE SUIS ALLÉE À LA PÊCHE AU FORT DE CHAMBLY, AU QUÉBEC. CETTE PLACE ÉTAIT TRÈS FRÉQUENTÉE PAR LES AMATEURS DE PÊCHE VENANTS DES PETITES VILLES DES ALENTOURS. SURPRISE, VOUS NE POUVEZ PLUS PÊCHER TOUT AUTOUR DU FORT, LÀ OÙ LA PÊCHE EST LA MEILLEURE POUR CET ENDROIT. DES PANCARTES SUR TOUT LE PARCOURS. J'AI DEMANDÉ À DES RÉSIDENTS DE LA PLACE POURQUOI CETTE INTERDICTION. RÉPONSE : AFIN DE PROTÉGER LES GENS QUI VIENNENT VISITER LE SITE. UNE QUESTION DE SÉCURITÉ QUOI, ENCORE...

LA SEULE PLACE OÙ VOUS POUVEZ ALLER EST SUR UN QUAI OÙ SE TROUVE UNE MARINA DE PETITS BATEAUX DE PLAISANCE. CROYEZ-VOUS QUE LES POISSONS SE TIENNENT LÀ? LA SEULE CHOSE QUE J'AI ATTRAPÉ CETTE JOURNÉE EST UN PETIT COUP DE SOLEIL SUR LA PEAU. L'ARTICLE SUIVANT NOUS RACONTE UN TAS DE BOBARDS QUI N'A POUR BUT QUE DE CONTRÔLER ENCORE UN PEU PLUS LA PÊCHE/NOURRITURE ET VOUS-MÊME.


2008-05-20 00:00:00

Au-delà des conflits sociaux liés à la flambée des prix du gazole, le secteur de la pêche est confronté à un vertigineux défi: la surexploitation des ressources de la mer, qui menace la biodiversité mais aussi, à terme, la survie même de cette activité économique

"Nous sommes dans une situation de surexploitation qui est explosive (...) dans laquelle le moindre à-coup économique provoque des conflits graves", explique Philippe Cury, de l'Intitut de recherche pour le développement.

"Les conflits dans le monde la pêche se multiplient rapidement (...) Il faut réconcilier exploitation et conservation", ajoute le chercheur, co-auteur d'un ouvrage intitulé "Une mer sans poissons" (éditions Calmann-Levy).

Selon l'Organisation mondiale pour l'alimentation et l'agriculture (FAO), la moitié des stocks halieutiques mondiaux sont exploités au maximum de leur potentiel, un quart est surexploité ou déjà épuisé et un quart seulement est modérément exploité.

"Quand il n'y aura plus de poissons, il n'y aura plus de pêcheurs. A faire systématiquement primer le socio-économique, on emmène la pêche dans le mur", regrette Stephan Beaucher, responsable de la campagne Océans de Greenpeace France.

La flotte de pêche est de plus en plus perfectionnée et efficace et le renouvellement des stocks de poisson ne se fait plus.

"C'est la dernière activité économique qui s'exerce aux dépens d'un stock sauvage dont on ne maîtrise ni la reproduction ni la dynamique de population. Or, on utilise des moyens qui s'assimilent à de l'industriel", souligne -t-il.

L'Union européenne fixe chaque année en décembre, à l'issue de négociations ardues, des quotas de pêche pour les différentes espèces. Les quotas visant à protéger le cabillaud, dont les réserves s'épuisent dangereusement, ont donné lieu à de vives protestations en France.

Mais plusieurs spécialistes jugent ces mesures insuffisantes face à la menace qui pèse sur nombre d'espèces.

Selon Charles Braine, chargé du programme pêche durable pour WWF France, la mise en place de politiques de pêche au niveau européen est, historiquement, partie sur de mauvaises bases.

"La pêche est une activité de cueillette, on est complètement dépendant de l'écosystème marin. Or, on a un peu plaqué le modèle agricole (...) sans se soucier de savoir si le milieu était capable de fournir durablement", regrette-t-il.

Pour arriver à une pêche durable, des scientifiques plaident pour la multiplication de réserves où toute activité humaine d'extraction est interdite. L'organisation Greenpeace réclame ainsi que 40% des océans soient transformés en "sanctuaires marins".

Mais un climat de défiance entre les différents acteurs de la filière ne favorise pas l'émergence d'un nouvel équilibre.

"Les scientifiques et les pêcheurs ont du mal à parler le même langage", souligne M. Beaucher.

Et d'expliquer qu'un stock peut, en apparence, être bonne santé, mais une analyse fine peut révéler une situation beaucoup plus alarmante. C'est le cas du thon rouge en méditerranée, pour lequel les scientifiques ont constaté la rareté préoccupante des poissons les plus actifs sexuellement.

Des solutions existent, selon M. Cury, mais la réaction de la communauté internationale sera un test crucial.

"Si nous ne sommes pas capables de résoudre ce problème de pêche, nous serons strictement incapables de résoudre le problème du changement climatique, qui est également un dossier global mais autrement plus compliqué", souligne-t-il.


http://technologie.sympatico.msn.ca/La surexploitation des mers menace pour…


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Ven 4 Mai - 03:21 (2012)    Sujet du message: LE PROJET DE LOI C-51 MENACE L'INDUSTRIE DES PRODUITS NATURELS ET LA SANTÉ CANADIENNE, DISENT LES VERTS Répondre en citant

LE PROJET DE LOI C-51 MENACE L'INDUSTRIE DES PRODUITS NATURELS ET LA SANTÉ CANADIENNE, DISENT LES VERTS

NOUS AVONS VU DERNIÈREMENT QUE LE PROJET DE LOI C-51 CRIMINALISERA LES PERSONNES QUI AURAIENT EU LA SAGESSE DE SE FAIRE DES RÉSERVES ALIMENTAIRES POUR PLUS D'UN MOIS. NOUS APPRENONS AUJOURD'HUI QUE LE PROJET DE LOI C-51 CONCERNE AUSSI LES PRODUITS DE SANTÉ NATURELLE. CE QUI NOUS DÉMONTRE QUE CE PROJET DE LOI S'AJUSTE EN TOUT POINT SUR LES LOIS AMÉRICAINES MISES EN PLACE PAR LE PRÉSIDENT CLINTON ALORS QU'IL ÉTAIT AU POSTE DE PRÉSIDENT DES ÉTATS-UNIS.

IL EST CLAIR LORSQUE NOUS VOYONS DES PROJETS DE LOI AUSSI INSENSÉS, QUE NOS GOUVERNEMENTS NE DÉSIRENT PAS PROTÉGER LE PEUPLE, SINON SES LOIS N'EXISTERAIENT TOUT SIMPLEMENT PAS, AU CONTRAIRE, NOS GOUVERNEMENTS ENCOURAGERAIENT LES POPULATIONS À SE PRÉPARER NON PAS POUR UNE PÉRIODE DE 72 HEURES MAIS POUR DES MOIS ET DES ANNÉES À VENIR.


12.05.2008

OTTAWA – Le Parti Vert demande aux députés de voter contre le projet de loi C 51, un projet de loi conçu pour limiter l’utilisation et la vente des produits de santé naturels. Le projet de loi C 51 modifierait les principaux termes liés à la Loi sur les aliments et drogues pour imposer des conditions d'obtention d'une licence pour la vente directe de produits de santé naturels, limitant sensiblement leur légalité et leur disponibilité.

« Le projet de loi C 51 modifie la Loi sur les aliments et drogues de façon à permettre au gouvernement de contrôler et de limiter la vente et l’utilisation des produits naturels, y compris les bonnes herbes, les vitamines et même certains aliments comme les bleuets », a déclaré la chef du Parti Vert Elizabeth May. « Bon nombre de Canadiennes et de Canadiens fuient les produits pharmaceutiques en faveur des aliments et des produits de santé naturels, mais M. Harper semble bien déterminé à aider l’industrie pharmaceutique à éliminer la concurrence que représente l’industrie des produits naturels. »

Mme May affirme par ailleurs que le projet de loi C 51 élargi le pouvoir du gouvernement fédéral de rejeter les produits naturels, d’imposer des amendes exorbitantes aux contrevenants et de criminaliser les praticiens du domaine des produits de santé naturels en accordant à Santé Canada des pouvoirs de contrainte sans précédent. Selon Mme May, le fait de limiter les produits naturels de la sorte obligerait les Canadiennes et les Canadiens à se tourner vers les produits pharmaceutiques.

« Le libellé du projet de loi C 51 est truffé de double langage orwellian. Il est rédigé de manière à entraîner la confusion, et les Conservateurs le présentent comme une loi destinée à protéger la santé des Canadiennes et des Canadiens. En réalité, tout ce qui compte pour le premier ministre Stephen Harper est de protéger les profits des grandes sociétés pharmaceutiques. »

Le porte-parole (par intérim) du Parti Vert en matière de santé Jake Cole a ajouté que le projet de loi permettrait d’éviter un examen parlementaire avant de synchroniser les lois canadiennes sur les aliments et drogues avec celles d’autres pays. Le gouvernement pourrait simplement introduire de nouveaux règlements sans proposer de lois et sans chercher à obtenir l’aval du Parlement.

« M. Harper menace la santé des Canadiennes et des Canadiens avec cette loi draconienne », a déclaré M. Cole. « Ceux et celles ont recours aux produits de santé naturels pour soulager leurs troubles médicaux sont condamnés à souffrir. Le Parti Vert s’oppose à toute mesure qui obligerait les Canadiennes et les Canadiens qui préfèrent les produits naturels à consommer des produits pharmaceutiques. »


http://www.greenparty.ca/fr/releases/12.05.2008


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Ven 4 Mai - 03:21 (2012)    Sujet du message: BILL C-51 UNLAWFULLY SUPPRESSES CANADIAN CITIZENS' RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS. Répondre en citant

BILL C-51 UNLAWFULLY SUPPRESSES CANADIAN CITIZENS' RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS.

Canadian Rights and Freedoms are at Risk. An Important Notice Regarding Bill C-51.

On April 8th, 2008, the Canadian Minister of Health introduced Bill C-51 into the House of Commons. This Bill proposes significant changes to the current Food and Drugs Act that will have wide-ranging negative implications for Canadians.

Bill C-51 will:

• Remove democratic oversight, bypassing elected officials to vote in laws and allow bureaucrats to adopt laws from other countries without our consent.
• Remove 70% of Natural Health Products from Canadians and many others will be available by prescrïption only.
• Restrict research and development of safenatural alternatives in favor of high risk drugs.
• Punish Canadians with little or no opportunity for protection or recourse for simply speaking about or giving a natural product without the approval of government. More than 70% of people in Canada use a Natural Health Product. The new law goes so far as to warrant action against a person who would give another person an unapproved amount of garlic on the recom mendat ion that it would improve that persons health.

More than 70% of people in Canada use a Natural Health Product. The new law goes so far as to warrant action against a person who would give another person an 'unapproved' amount of garlic on the recommendation that it would improve that person's health.

Many natural health products that have been sold in Canada for decades would become unavailable, and remaining products would cost much more (Sections 13 & 18.7);

• The government could designate any natural health product a "prescrïption drug," making it available by prescrïption only (Section 15.1(4));
• You could be fined thousands of dollars or go to jail for giving your child or friend a natural health product -- what actually is food -- (Sections 31 & 3(3) expanded definition of sell);

Propos ed New Enforcement Powers:

• Inspectors will enter private property without a warrant
• Inspectors will take your property at their discretion
• Inspectors will dispose of your property at will
• Inspectors will not reimburse you for your losses
• Inspectors will seize your bank accounts
• Inspectors will charge owners shipping and storage charges for seized property
• Inspectors will be empowered to store your property indefinitely
• Inspectors will levy fines of up to $5,000,000.00 and/or seek 2 years in jail per incident
With your assets and money under the ir con trol will you be able to defend yourself in Court?
Can you trust government with this new law and enforcement power? Would our government really ever turn this law against us? Read the following account.

Example

In 2003 Health Canada launched an attack on a group of mentally ill patients and the company who supported them naturally. They seized shipments of a safe natural therapy required by the patients and stormed the support center with 17 armed officers and agents. The company (Truehope) reported that they lost contact with more than 300 of their Canadian participants. The Canadian Mental Health Association told of suicides as a result of government action.

Health Canada then charged the not for profit company, burdening them with heavy legal costs. Truehope was found innocent by necessity and instructed by the judge to continue under legal and moral responsibility. Although the ag ents a dmitted knowing they were injuring people through their actions, they stated under oath they care only about policy and directive. And what happened to the more than 300 mentally ill Canadians that became unreachable? In the months and years following, reports of hospitalizations and suicides during the seizures have surfaced. No Health Canada agent has ever been charged.

Will this new law be used to abuse and punish special interest groups, minorities, religious groups or others? Why do bureaucrats want to bypass the Parliament and approval to create
new laws? Why do bureaucrats want seizure warrants without judge approval ? With fines being increased a 1000 times, and seizing authority without a warrant, is Bill C-51 meant to bankrupt and silence its target audience?

Here's what you can do to protect your rights:

Educate Yourself
• Go to http://www.s/ topc51 .com/
• Read a legal discussion on Bill C-51
• Read bill C-51 on http://www.parl.gc.ca/
• Tell others about it
• Talk to your local Press
• Contact your local MP Click Here
• Ask the leaders in your community to get involved
• Contact your MLA
• Tell your Friends
• Get involved
• Attend our rally at the Calgary Federal Court on May 9th 2008. Call 1-888-878-3467 for Details
• Print off this fact sheet and hand it out in your neighborhood.

Forward this email to all of your concerned f riends , family and community leaders.
+ + + + +

J.H.'s CONCLUSION:

You, ordinary people, are guilty of the capital crimes of INDIFFERENCE and PASSIVENESS in allowing terrorist Nazi governments to rule as they see fit, to be above the law and to be cooperating with the plutocracy in the pursuit of their depopulation project. As the result of this, you will all die a horrible death but mind you, all the members of government will also die a most horrible death for the simple reason that they are not accepted members of the International Plutocracy and the underground shelters are reserved for these only:

AND NO ONE ELSE ! So, many are those who will have a big surprise when "the worst comes to pass". Suddenly, they will be sorry for their past misdeeds... too late though!

As you can perhaps see, your refusal to think is your death sentence, though of course, true enough, to think is forbidden in the United States and will soon also be forbidden in all plutocracy-controlled areas of the world. So, O.K., be a "patriot" and stop thinking... so you can suffer and die for the greater wealth and power of the International Plutocracy: the less than three thousand International Plutocrats who own your body, your brain and your soul.

Kenn


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Ven 4 Mai - 03:22 (2012)    Sujet du message: ANTI-HORDING ACT Répondre en citant

ANTI-HORDING ACT

What Do Executive Orders Say About Storing?
Updated 12 November 1998

DISCLAIMER: Any findings of law or conclusions reached are those made by the user, and information provided on Noah's Ark concerning state or federal law is for information and research purposes only and not to be construed as legal advice.

Can Our Government Really Tell Us How Much Food and Supplies We Can Keep?

The short answer is YES, in a roundabout way. Due to numerous discussions questioning the existence of federal anti-hoarding legislation, I wanted to see if such Executive Orders had been written. First and foremost, we do not want to suggest people store items beyond "legal limits" if such limits did exist. Second, we want to separate fact from rumor buzzing around the Internet which has only added to the confusion. This search has yielded no federal legislation aimed directly at prohibiting food storage. But this does not mean "hoarding" is legal, and here's why.

So What Exactly Is An Executive Order?

Executive Orders (EO) have been used by presidents since the days of George Washington. The first EO addressed Washington's normal household expenses which ones were be accepted and paid by the Treasury Department. Pretty innocuous. The FBI was formed under an executive order by Teddy Roosevelt on July 26, 1908.

The first time it was used to make a law was in 1916 by President Woodrow Wilson. It was said to be an 'emergency' measure and Congress was encouraged to validate it. They did and now the door was now open to ignore the Constitution. This is the same method used by Franklin Roosevelt in 1933 to close all the banks in the country. Americans were ordered to turn in all their gold to local banks.

The general purpose of an executive order is to provide the President with a mechanism for executing laws passed by Congress, not control of lives. These EOs are issued by the President as directives to agencies responsible for implementing laws.

Since the U.S. Constitution places responsibility for executing laws in the hands of the President, issuing EOs is an appropriate means of carrying out the responsibilities IF they are within the bounds of the Constitution. President Kennedy, during his short time in office, signed into law 214 Executive Orders. Numerous Kennedy EOs have brought about positive changes for the American people such as:

· 11063 - Equal Opportunity in Housing

· 10914 - Food Distribution to Needy Families

· 11022 - Council on Aging

· 11925 - Equal Opportunity in Employment

These Kennedy EOs have a distinctly different flavor though aimed at preserving individual rights, not usurping them. Many EOs overstep Constitutional authority and consequently, are an exercise of unconstitutional power.

One of the worst offenders is EO #13083 dubbed the "Federalism EO" which revokes Ronald Reagan's EO #12612. Reagan attempted to address government's slow creep into our lives, but with the signing of Clinton's EO #13083, Reagan's step back toward progress has been amputated. Read the Nation's Governors Blast Clinton on EO #13083. Score "1" for The People!

"Federalism" is defined as the relationship of the states to the federal government and the distribution of power between the two as established by the Constitution. It doesn't take blind Freddy to realize these rights have greatly been eroded since Clinton took office.

It's important to recognize the federal government came into existence with permission (ratification of the Constitution) granted by the states. The concept was that the federal government would oversee national defense, international trade agreements and other foreign affairs, but the states would retain the right to manage their own internal affairs. The limits imposed by this concept of "Federalism" is clearly stated in the Tenth Amendment.

This is where the problem lies. Power is, without question, being removed from the states and its people.

So Where Do Anti-Hoarding Laws Come In?
These ideas of anti-hoarding legislation may have stemmed from two areas of confusion:

First is from Executive Orders in place dating back to 1939 which Clinton has grouped together under one order, EO #12919 released on June 6, 1994. The following EOs all fall under EO#12919:

10995--Federal seizure of all communications media in the United States;

10997--Federal seizure of all electric power, fuels, minerals, public and private;

10998--Federal seizure of all food supplies and resources, public and private and all farms and equipment;

10999--Federal seizure of all means of transportation, including cars, trucks, or vehicles of any kind and total control over all highways, seaports and water ways;

11000--Federal seizure of American people for work forces under federal supervision, including the splitting up of families if the government so desires;

11001--Federal seizure of all health, education and welfare facilities, both public and private;

11002--Empowers the Postmaster General to register all men, women and children in the United States of America;

11003--Federal seizure of all airports and aircraft;

11004--Federal seizure of all housing and finances and authority to establish forced relocation. Authority to designate areas to be abandoned as "unsafe," establish new locations for the populations, relocate communities, build new housing with public funds;

11005--Seizure of all railroads, inland waterways and storage facilities, both public and private;

11051--Provides FEMA complete authorization to put above orders into effect in times of increased international tension of economic or financial crisis (FEMA will be in control in case of "National Emergency").

These EOs are not aimed at anti-hoarding but rather at seizure or confiscation of items and facilities "to provide a state of readiness in these resource areas with respect to all conditions of national emergency, including attack upon the United States." You'll find most 'seizure' legislation ends with this phrase. These Executive Orders don't define what specifically constitutes a national emergency and maybe this is as it should be. The specifics on hoarding are left up to the individual states.

Title 50 and Hoarding

There are anti-hoarding references under Title 50 War And National Defense, Section 2072. Stripping off the legalese, it says no one shall accumulate goods in excess of "reasonable amounts" for business, personal or home consumption which could become scarce, "goods" to be designated by the President. Penalties for doing so may result in fines of not more than $10,000 and/or one year imprisonment.

Since Title 50 is about expire September 30, 1998, does this mean we are home-free? Not with the implementation of EO #13083, the "Federalism" EO, and this could be one explanation for its existence. There is also state anti-hoarding legislation. The bases are pretty well covered.

What Is FEMA's Role?

EO #11051 is interesting; it authorizes FEMA near-total power in times of crisis. There's been lots of discussion on the Internet regarding the excessive control FEMA has been granted and it was pointedly commented upon in July's world premiere movie release of the "X-Files".

FEMA was created by President Carter under Executive Order #12148. Its legal authorization is Title 42, United States Code 5121 (42 USC Sec. 5121) called the "Stafford Act." During activation of Executive Orders, FEMA answers only to the National Security Council which answers only to the President. Once these powers are invoked, not even Congress can intervene or countermand them for six months.

What Clinton, or Reagan, or any other president did when writing an EO, was to direct his Cabinet member(s), in this case FEMA, to take specific action to carry out the directives of the EO. Where Jimmy Carter had created FEMA by Executive Order in 1979, Robert Safford took it a step further and pushed a bill through in 1988 that made it law. This legislation made FEMA a bonafide department like Justice. Where the EO is critical to the USC (United States Code) and Title 50, is in interpreting the law how that department or FEMA, should conduct itself when declaring they will tell the states, national guard, military forces, or whomever, to confiscate extra hoarded food or medical supplies or whatever...

We must also consider any PDD (Presidential Decision Directives) Ok, so who will determine how much food we have in our house - why FEMA of course. And the amount depends on the need of all...not your needs or my needs...but the "welfare" of the needy.

Bottom line? Clinton delegated authority to FEMA to run the show however it sees fit if he declares a national emergency. Who will determine how much food we can have in our house? FEMA. And the amount depends on the needs of all...not your needs or my needs...but the "welfare" of the needy.

Many people have balked about FEMA's extensive authority, but think about it, what other agency has the manpower to cover and implement aid? As it is, FEMA still does not have the manpower to control every city all over the US in times of crisis. Chances are they would only be dispatched to larger metropolitan areas where more crowd control might be needed. Lots of people suggest darker reasons for their existence, but this site is only addressing anti-hoarding legislation, nothing else.

EO #11051 covering "economic or financial crisis" certainly would have Y2K implications as well. An emergency does not have to be defined as another Hurricane Hugo or massive Midwestern flooding.

State Legislation's Role in Anti-Hoarding

The other area where anti-hoarding confusion might have arisen is state legislation. Most states have chosen to enact their own anti-hoarding laws. That means some states may not have such laws, others do and not all are uniform. However, uniformity of state law is something governors are striving for under the Interstate Compact Agreement. The Compact Agreements, much like Executive Orders for the president, really don't require voters' input. They are law if the legislature doesn't object, much like Congress that has 30 days to object to an EO before it becomes law.

At times of "declared emergencies", each governor cedes (gives over) authority of his/her state to the federal government. When a governor declares it for his state, he becomes the delegated representative of the federal government according to an Interstate Compact Agreement. Bottom line, even though federal legislation does not directly address anti-hoarding, goods can be seized if national circumstances are felt to warrant it whether or not amounts stored are deemed excessive in your state's eyes.

How Can I Find The Legislation for My State?

Since these anti-hoarding laws are not federal in nature, one would need to look at Titles for his/her own state. These statutes should be located under Public Safety laws or titles. For specific URLs go to State Legislation Locator. To locate information for your state, look for laws about:

· Blood Typing

· Disaster Preparedness

· Emergencies

· Hoarding

· Injections

· Martial Law

· Militia

· National Guard

· Public Safety or Public Welfare

· State Militia

· State Police Force

Hawaii As A Specific Example of Anti-Hoarding

For Hawaii, this information will be found in Title 10 under "Public Safety". It is located after legislation on militias, state guard troops, etc. Then you find the jewel... In Hawaii you are considered a "hoarder" if you have more than one week's provisions on hand BUT you have to dig to uncover this information. Here is a specific example:

"HAWAII REVISED STATUTES REVISED 1997, Title 10:

(1) Prevention of *hoarding, waste, etc. To the extent necessary to prevent hoarding, waste, or destruction of materials, supplies, commodities, accommodations, facilities, and services, to effectuate equitable distribution thereof, or to establish priorities therein as the public welfare may require, to investigate, and any other law to the contrary notwithstanding, to regulate or prohibit, by means of licensing, rationing, or otherwise, the storage, transportation, use, possession, maintenance, furnishing, sale, or distribution thereof, and any business or any transaction related thereto."

Committee Notes? Huh?

In the actual Title document for Hawaii, you will not find the specifics for what length of time constitutes "hoarding" nor an amount. Instead, you must look at the committee notes which describes it as the opinion that one week's supplies per person is considered adequate food provisions. It is not spelled out what those provisions shall consist of or how much is considered "adequate" until you get to the committee notes.

You will probably have to "dig" for the committee notes as well. Lynn Shaffer, our legislative interpreter, explains committee notes this way. "When the legislature agrees that a law or statute is needed to effect certain governmental goals to prohibit or encourage civilians to respond in a particular way, that statute has attached to it (you will see it printed in the law books) what is called "committee notes." The courts, when making a determination of how the statute is to be interpreted and applied to the case before it, looks to "legislative intent" or what was recorded in the committee's notes when the bill was meandering its way through the legislative process."

OK, So If I Hoard, Then What?

Again using Hawaii's Titles as an example, any items in excess of what legislation has deemed appropriate to store (in Hawaii's case any amount over 1 week) is subject to forfeiture and may be confiscated, ordered destroyed or may be redistributed for public use. See exact text below:

"128-28 Forfeitures. The forfeiture of any property unlawfully possessed, pursuant to paragraph (2) of section 128-8, may be adjudged upon conviction of the offender found to be unlawfully in possession of the same, where no person other than the offender is entitled to notice and hearing with respect to the forfeiture, or the forfeiture may be enforced by an appropriate civil proceeding brought in the name of the State. The district courts and circuit courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction of the civil proceedings. Any property forfeited as provided in this section may be ordered destroyed, or may be ordered delivered for public use to such agency as shall be designated by the governor or the governor's representative, or may be ordered sold, wholly or partially, for the account of the State. [L 1951, c 268, pt of 2; RL 1955, 359-25; HRS 128- 28; am imp L 1984, c 90, 1]"

It's The Pits Everywhere!

Before you say "I'm outta here! Book me on the next flight to Australia!", let me share a couple tidbits with you. Asking Stan where one might find anti-hoarding legislation for Australia he replied, " it probably isn't available to the public if it exists."

It is not just Americans who may be under the gun for seizure activities by the government. Right here, right now in Ballarat, three things have come to light recently:

1. If rain becomes scarce again, there is legislation waiting to be signed which will put usage taps on private water bores on private property. Again this is pending legislation since rain has not become critical in Ballarat - yet. Legislators are hesitant to pass this bill as it will be met with much resistance from the farming community, but it's in the wings.

2. Water bores on private property must be registered with the shire and aerial photos are taken of all bores and dam reservoirs.

3. This last piece of interesting news was shared by our neighbor who has lived in Ballarat for decades. It should be the least popular measure so far. If another drought came to this area, private water tanks will be metered and taxed for usage! It's a good thing it wasn't fly season as hearing this made my jaw hit the pavement. The alternate plan, equally unpalatable, is to assess current rainfall levels and tax the owner by the size his tank(s)!

What I think of this is not printable on the Net. Here we've purchased the property, the tanks themselves and paid for installation of same and filled them with FREE rainwater for which we may be taxed for our prudence. This is truly amazing since as I write this section, we're gazing at moss growing on our trees and brick sidewalks. So what really is being set up?

Before you think America has gone to hell with rights' forfeitures, remember your friends across the ocean. America is no more ridiculous than this, if you discount Zippergate.

By now, many of you in other countries may be wondering what your own legislation says about hoarding. If you have documentable information, we will be happy to upload it to this page, but I simply don't have access to it. It was "interesting" enough navigating the U.S. legislation, but imagine being a "dern furiner" ("darned foreigner") trying to find information in another country. Any material may be submitted anonymously but hearsay will not be accepted.

EOs have not been widely publicized but you can get copies of them. They are all printed in the U.S. Federal Register and have the force of law when activated by a president. You can contact your congressman for information on how to get copies of these EOs, or check your local library.

Executive Orders Links

...What Has YOUR State Legislated On Food Storage?

This information may be used by you freely for noncommercial use only with my name and E-mail address attached.

Holly Deyo, E-mail: hollyd@netconnect.com.au Home Page: Noah's Ark All contents copyright © 1998, 1999 Holly Deyo. All rights reserved.


http://members.aol.com/poesgirl/storing.html


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Ven 4 Mai - 03:25 (2012)    Sujet du message: PAUL MCCARTNEY ENCOURAGE LES "LUNDIS VÉGÉTARIENS"] Répondre en citant

PAUL MCCARTNEY ENCOURAGE LES "LUNDIS VÉGÉTARIENS"]

PAUL MCCARTNEY, NOUS APPELLE ICI À UNE MOBILISATION DES LUNDIS VÉGÉTARIENS.

CET ANCIEN MEMBRE DES BEATLES, GROUPE QUI NOUS A DÉMONTRÉ AU FIL DES ANNÉES LEUR APPARTENANCE SATANIQUE, VIA LEUR POCHETTES DE DISQUE ET PAR LEUR MUSIQUE, AUJOURD'HUI, NOUS DEMANDE DE PRENDRE ACTION, POUR LA PROTECTION DES ANIMAUX ET DES CHANGEMENTS CLIMATIQUES, LE TOUT APPUYÉ PAR LA GRANDE ORGANISATION DES NATIONS UNIES ET D'ORGANISATIONS QUI FONT LA PROMOTION DU VÉGÉTARISME.




CET ALBUM DES BEATLES, NOUS MONTRE DES PHOTOS TRÈS INTÉRESSANTES, DONT UNE DE ALESTER CROWLEY, GRAND SATANIQUE QUI A MIS EN PLACE LA RÉFORME DE NOS VALEURS SOCIALES DANS LES ANNÉES 60. "SEX, DRUG & ROCK&ROLL", ONT ÉTÉ LA BASE DE CETTE GRANDE RÉVOLUTION SOCIALE ET SEXUELLE. NOUS VOYONS AUJOURD'HUI JUSQU'OÙ CETTE RÉVOLUTION A PU AMENER L'HUMANITÉ, QUI A PERDU TOUTES SES BALISES MORALES AU NOM DE LA LIBERTÉ. CECI EST UNE GUERRE DIRECTE CONTRE DIEU ET LES VALEURS JUDÉO-CHRÉTIENNES. CE SONT DES HOMMES COMME CEUX-LÀ QUI SONT AUJOURD'HUI SUR LE DEVANT DE LA SCÈNE POUR FAIRE AVANCER LA DESTRUCTION DES VALEURS MORALES.

CROYEZ-VOUS QUE CET HOMME NE SAIT PAS QUE LES NATIONS UNIES SONT UNE ORGANISATION SATANIQUE? CROYEZ-VOUS QUE CET HOMME NE SAIT PAS QUE LA MAJORITÉ DE NOS LÉGUMES SONT MAINTENANT CONTAMINÉS PAR LES GÊNES DESTRUCTEURS OGM? NE SAIT-IL PAS QUE DIEU A DONNÉ LA PERMISSION À L'HOMME DE MANGER DE LA VIANDE?

N'Y A-T-IL PAS DERRIÈRE CE PLAN, UNE VOLONTÉ DE VOIR MOURIR LES GENS, DONT DES MILLIERS SE DÉPLACENT POUR ALLER L'ENTENDRE CHANTER, NE SACHANT RIEN DE CE QUI SE TRAME?

DE PLUS, NOUS VOYONS LA FAMINE AVANCER PARTOUT DANS LE MONDE. N'Y A-T-IL PAS UN BUT DE NOUS HABITUER À AVOIR FAIM DERRIÈRE UN TEL PROJET? OUI, LES NATIONS UNIES ONT DIT QU'IL SERAIT PRÉFÉRABLE DE MANGER MOINS DE VIANDE MAIS EST-CE POUR VOTRE BIEN QU'ON VOUS DEMANDE D'ADHÉRER À UNE TELLE DEMANDE?


24-06-2008

Journal de Montréal



Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Ven 4 Mai - 03:25 (2012)    Sujet du message: NAVY MAN INDICTED FOR FOOD HOARDING Répondre en citant

NAVY MAN INDICTED FOR FOOD HOARDING

Special to The New York Times.

May 30, 1918, Thursday

If you don't think food hoarding can be made illegal, you've got to read this archived NY Times report from 1918;

NAVY MAN INDICTED FOR FOOD HOARDING; Medical Director Nash Had Tons of Food Supplies Stored in His Home. WIFE IS ACCUSED ALSO She Inherited a Legacy and Couple Invested Heavily to Forestall Any Food Shortage.

Read more :
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=940CEEDD1238EE32…


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Ven 4 Mai - 03:26 (2012)    Sujet du message: PLAN EUGÉNIQUE DE DÉPOPULATION MONDIALE - LA NOURRITURE COMME ARME DE DESTRUCTION MASSIVE Répondre en citant

PLAN EUGÉNIQUE DE DÉPOPULATION MONDIALE - LA NOURRITURE COMME ARME DE DESTRUCTION MASSIVE



"...ET DIEU LEUR DIT : SOYEZ FÉCONDS, MULTIPLIEZ, REMPLISSEZ LA TERRE ET ASSUJETTISSEZ-LA ; ET DOMINEZ SUR LES POISSONS DE LA MER, SUR LES OISEAUX DU CIEL, ET SUR TOUT ANIMAL QUI SE MEUT SUR LA TERRE. ET DIEU DIT : VOICI, JE VOUS DONNE TOUTE HERBE PORTANT DE LA SEMENCE ET QUI EST À LA SURFACE DE TOUTE LA TERRE, ET TOUT ARBRE AYANT EN LUI DU FRUIT D'ARBRE ET PORTANT DE LA SEMENCE : CE SERA VOTRE NOURRITURE." GENÈSE 1 : 28-29


COMBIEN DE PERSONNES NOUS DISENT QUE NOUS SOMMES PARANO DE CROIRE EN SES VIEILLES HISTOIRES DE LA BIBLE? UN S'AMUSE CES DERNIERS TEMPS, SUR UN AUTRE SITE, À ME TRAITER DE CONNASSE, DE FOLLE, ETC. PARCE QUE JE DIS LA VÉRITÉ ET QUE J'ESSAIE D'EN RÉVEILLER QUELQUES-UNS. CES PERSONNES IGNORANTES NE SEMBLENT PAS VOIR CE QUI SE PASSE PRÉSENTEMENT SUR CETTE PLANÈTE QUI EST EN PÉRIL. PARCE QU'ILS CROIENT TOUT CE QUE LEUR BON GOUVERNEMENT LEUR DIT, ILS COURRENT À LEUR PROPRE DESTRUCTION À CAUSE DE LEUR IGNORANCE.

CE À QUOI NOUS ASSISTONS PRÉSENTEMENT EST LA DESTRUCTION DU CHRISTIANISME DANS TOUS LES SENS DU MOT. LA NOURRITURE DONNÉE AUX HOMMES PAR LE CRÉATEUR NOUS MONTRE LA BONTÉ QUE DIEU A POUR L'HUMANITÉ. LA VARIÉTÉ ET LA QUALITÉ D'ALIMENTS EST UNE PREUVE DE LA BONTÉ DE DIEU ENVERS SA CRÉATION, MAIS... LES NOMBREUX EFFORTS FAITS PAR DES GENS MAL INTENTIONNÉS, QUI COMME PAR HASARD TRAVAILLENT TOUS AU NIVEAU INTERNATIONAL, FÉDÉRAL, PROVINCIAL ET MUNICIPAL, AFIN DE RÉDUIRE LES POPULATIONS EST UNE ATTAQUE CONTRE DIEU LUI-MÊME ET CONTRE LES HOMMES.

LE FAIT AUSSI QUE NOS GOUVERNEMENTS ONT MIS EN PLACE DES LOIS CRIMINALISANTS CEUX QUI ONT DES RÉSERVES DE NOURRITURE DEVRAIT TIRER UNE SONNETTE D'ALARME. POURQUOI DONC, NOTRE BON GOUVERNEMENT VEUT-IL CRIMINALISER CEUX QUI ONT POUR PLUS D'UN MOIS DE NOURRITURE. CES LOIS PASSÉES SOUS LE RÈGNE DE BILL CLINTON ET ADAPTÉES DANS PLUSIEURS PAYS N'A AUCUN BON SENS, VOUS NE CROYEZ PAS? LA NOURRITURE EST DEVENUE UNE ARME DE DESTRUCTION MASSIVE CONTRE LES POPULATIONS. UN PEUPLE QUI A FAIM EST UN PEUPLE COMPLÈTEMENT DÉPENDANT DE LA "BONTÉ" DES CRIMINELS QUI METTENT EN PLACE DE TELLES LOIS. VOILÀ LA VRAIE RAISON!

CE PROGRAMME S'APPELLE LA MORT. LE CONTRÔLE DE LA NOURRITURE EST DEPUIS LONGTEMPS UTILISÉ CONTRE LES POPULATIONS AFIN DE LES EXTERMINER, MAIS DEPUIS QUELQUES ANNÉES, NOUS VOYONS UNE MONTÉE EN FLÈCHE DE CE PLAN DESTRUCTEUR. NON SEULEMENT, RÉDUISENT-ILS LE QUOTA ALIMENTAIRE, MAIS NOS ALIMENTS SONT PRATIQUEMENT TOUS INFECTÉS PAR TOUTES SORTES DE PESTICIDES ET DE VACCINS EMPOISONNÉS AFIN DE NOUS AIDER À MOURIR PLUS VITE ET CE DANS DES CONDITIONS TRÈS SOUFFRANTES.

CROYEZ-VOUS QUE C'EST DIEU QUI A VOULU CELA? DIEU N'A-T-IL PAS PLUTÔT DONNÉ LA NOURRITURE À L'HOMME POUR SON BIEN-ÊTRE PHYSIQUE ET MENTAL?

IL EST DONC IMPORTANT DE DÉNONCER CE QUI SE PASSE ET CHERCHER DES SOLUTIONS POUR PROTÉGER CET HÉRITAGE DONNÉ PAR LE CRÉATEUR. NOUS DEVONS DÉNONCER CE QUE DES GARS COMME KISSINGER (CONSEILLER DU PAPE), ROCKEFELLER ET TANT D'AUTRES QUI NOUS GOUVERNENT (TANTÔT SECRÈTEMENT ET D'AUTRES COMME EXÉCUTANTS) FONT À LA RACE HUMAINE AFIN DE HÂTER SA DESTRUCTION.

LE CHRÉTIEN NÉ DE NOUVEAU A UNE TÂCHE BIEN PRÉCISE SUR CETTE TERRE : DE MARCHER SELON LE COEUR DE DIEU QUI N'A DONNÉ QUE DE BONNES CHOSES AUX HUMAINS ET CELLE D'AVERTIR LE PEUPLE DES DANGERS QU'ELLE COURT SI ELLE VA VERS DES CHEMINS DANGEREUX. ET CE GOUVERNEMENT MONDIAL EST UN CHEMIN DANGEREUX DONT IL FAUT PRENDRE GARDE CAR IL EST L'ANTITHÈSE DE LA PAROLE DE DIEU.

LE PROGRAMME ENVIRONNEMENTAL PRÔNÉ PAR LES NATIONS UNIES EST UN BIEN GRAND PIÈGE POUR TOUS, CAR IL N'A POUR BUT QUE LA DESTRUCTION, LA DÉLOCALISATION, LA DICTATURE ET LA MORT. MAINTENANT, REMARQUEZ TOUS LES GROUPES ET GOUVERNEMENTS QUI TRAVAILLENT MAIN DANS LA MAIN POUR L'AVANCEMENT DE CE GRAND PROJET DE DESTRUCTION DE L'HUMANITÉ ET POSEZ-VOUS LA QUESTION : POURQUOI FONT-ILS CELA?

CELUI QUI SAIT QUE DIEU A CRÉÉ LA TERRE PREND SOIN DE CETTE TERRE. IL N'A PAS BESOIN QU'ON LUI DISE DE METTRE SON PAPIER DANS LA POUBELLE. MAIS LE PROGRAMME ENVIRONNEMENTAL VA BEAUCOUP PLUS LOIN. REMARQUEZ TOUTES LES LOIS QUI PRENNENT PLACE AFIN DE SOI-DISANT PROTÉGER L'ENVIRONNEMENT. VOUS VERREZ QUE PENDANT QU'ON VOUS DEMANDE DE FAIRE DES EFFORTS ET D'OUVRIR VOTRE PORTEFEUILLE, CES MÊMES INDIVIDUS CRAPULEUX SÈMENT LA TERREUR ET LA MORT PARTOUT SUR LA TERRE AVEC TOUT LEUR ARMEMENT BIOCHIMIQUE ET MILITAIRE. PRENNENT-ILS VRAIMENT SOIN DE CET ENVIRONNEMENT QU'ILS DISENT VOULOIR PROTÉGER? REMARQUEZ QU'À MESURE QU'AVANCE LE PROGRAMME ENVIRONNEMENTAL, LA PAUVRETÉ PROGRESSE DANS LE MONDE. VOUS PENSEZ QUE CELA EST UN HASARD?

CE PLAN DE RÉDUCTION DES POPULATIONS FAIT PARTIE DU PROGRAMME ENVIRONNEMENTAL, CAR DISENT-ILS L'HUMAIN EST UN DANGER POUR LA PLANÈTE TERRE. MAIS QUAND CE PROGRAMME S'ADRESSE À TOUS SAUF À EUX-MÊMES, ON PEUT SÉRIEUSEMENT SE POSER DES QUESTIONS SUR LES VÉRITABLES INTENTIONS DE CES DERNIERS.

DE PLUS EN PLUS, NOUS VOYONS D'AUTRES PROGRAMMES EUGÉNIQUES PRENDRENT PLACE : STÉRILISATION DES POPULATIONS, AIDE POUR AIDER LES "VIEUX" À MOURIR DANS LA DIGNITÉ, AIDER LES MALADES À MOURIR DANS LA DIGNITÉ, L'AVORTEMENT, LA VACCINATION POUR DES PROBLÈMES DE SANTÉ QUE LES GENS N'ONT PAS, SE DÉBARASSER DES ENFANTS QUI POURRAIENT AVOIR DES PROBLÈMES PHYSIQUES À LA NAISSANCE, LE FLUOR, L'ASPARTAME ET COMBIEN D'AUTRES...

FAITES LA COMPARAISON AVEC LE PROGRAMME EUGÉNIQUE MIS EN PLACE SOUS LE RÈGNE D'HITLER ET VOUS VERREZ QUE L'HISTOIRE SE RÉPÈTE ENCORE UNE FOIS. DIEU A-T-IL VOULU TOUT CELA? NON, MES AMIS, DIEU N'A PAS VOULU TOUT CELA. UNE GUERRE FAIT RAGE CONTRE LA RACE HUMAINE ET IL EST PLUS QUE TEMPS QUE LES POPULATIONS SE RÉVEILLENT CAR L'HEURE EST TRÈS TRÈS GRAVE.


PLAN EUGÉNIQUE DE DÉPOPULATION MONDIALE - LA NOURRITURE COMME ARME DE DESTRUCTION MASSIVE

WHAT DO EXECUTIVE ORDERS SAY ABOUT STORING?

Read more : http://standeyo.com/News_Files/Exec.Orders/EOs.html

KISSINGER'S 1974 PLAN FOR FOOD CONTROL GENOCIDE

Read more : http://www.larouchepub.com/other/1995/2249_kissinger_food.html

FOOD AS A WEAPON: BUCHAREST, ROME AND THE POLITICS OF STARVATION.

Read more : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12307033

THE FOOD AS A WEAPON PLAN

Read more : http://www.fdrs.org/food_as_a_weapon.html

MIDDLE CLASS MAY BE SUBJECT TO FOOD RATIONS, WARNS UN

Read more : http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2008/022508_food_rations.htm

FOOD AS A WEAPON - THE RAPE OF IRAQ

Read more : http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/9/13738/98820/681/492574

POPULATION CONTROL AND A WORLD FOOD AUTHORITY

Read more : http://bodo.gnn.tv/blogs/28162/Population_Control_And_A_World_Food_Authorit…

RESHAPING THE INTERNATIONAL ORDER -

PART 5 - POPULATION CONTROL AND A WORLD FOOD AUTHORITY *


Read more : http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=304

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND GLOBAL SECURITY

Read more : http://www.clubofrome.org/docs/confs/islaus-sustainab_globalsecurity.pdf


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Ven 4 Mai - 03:27 (2012)    Sujet du message: DECLARATION ON TOLERANCE - THE UN PLAN FOR FOOD AND LAND Répondre en citant



DECLARATION ON TOLERANCE - THE UN PLAN FOR FOOD AND LAND
by Berit Kjos, 1996

For background information, read Local Agenda 21 & The UN Plan for Your Mental Health

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"At the World Food Programme we have recognized what a valuable tool food aid can be in changing behaviour. In so many poorer countries food is money, food is power. ... Yes, it's bribery. We don't apologize for that."3 Catherine Bertini, Executive Director of the World Food Program.

"We, in the green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which killing a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian brothels."1 Carl Amery, German Greens

"If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels."2 Prince Philip of Great Britain, leader of World Wildlife Fund

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Where the Buffalo Roam: Reclaiming the Great Plains." This title for the cover article in a TWA magazine intrigued me. Flying east across the Great Plains toward Minneapolis, I scanned the quilt-like farmland below and wondered which part might be reclaimed for the bison.

The article began with a full sized picture of an old red barn in a golden field. "An abandoned farm in Mayville, North Dakota," explained the caption, "signifies the decline in self-sustaining agriculture on the Great Plains." Under a photo of grazing buffaloes was written, "Buffalo are integral to the region's health." Abandoned farms in Mayville? No health without bison?

Since my husband grew up in Mayville, I knew well that no one abandons farms in this fertile valley. But contrary facts matter little to political activists with a green agenda. These deceptive photos help "prove" the existence of a crisis. They provide the persuasive "information" needed to "raise consciousness", produce consensus, validate centralized land management, and speed compliance with unthinkable controls. I read on:

"Human design, not natural selection, will be responsible for the great buffalo herds of the 21st century. They are part of a plan to reconstruct nature already well along in the initial stages of implementation."

The grander scheme, led by President Clinton's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) together with the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development, means restoring wolves, owls, snails, bugs and bacteria to an idealized version of their former state. Whole ecosystems, not just parts, must be reconstructed-often at the expense of private landowners.

With the United Nations' World Food Summit (WFS) on my mind, I pondered an obvious paradox: How would UN visionaries and their environmental partners reconcile (1) their desire to return fertile farmland back to buffalo grazing land with (2) their demand for a global welfare systems promising "food security" for all?

Reconstructing Nature

The vision of buffalo herds roaming free throughout the plains was birthed by academics Deborah and Frank Popper in distant New Jersey. They interpreted statistics showing reduced population in many rural communities to mean that farming the Plains had been an "ill-conceived" notion from the beginning. "The best use for the Great Plains", argued the Poppers, was to ban farming altogether, create a "Buffalo Commons", and restore the land to its original condition. Other land-use planners from distant states agreed. But farmers were afraid .

"We're tremendously concerned about losing our property rights," said Mike Schmidt, a South Dakota rancher. "Right now, two things are particularly scary for us-endangered species and wetlands Essentially, they can determine how you use your land."

Schmidt has reason to fear. The "Buffalo Commons" envisioned by idealistic planners is huge enough to touch everyone. "To really do any good, we have to plan over large geographies," says Bruce Stein, the director of external affairs for conservation science at the Nature Conservancy, a powerful advocacy group for ecosystem planning. "A natural system needs room to function."

A "healthy Great Plains would encompass every square meter of the Plains, from the prairie provinces of Canada through Oklahoma and Texas," added Glen Martin who wrote the TWA article. It would include Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, and the Dakotas as well as the "adjacent ecosystems, such as the boreal forests of northern Michigan and Minnesota and aspen groves of the eastern slopes of the Rockies. Some Great Plains species need more than one habitat to thrive."

So do some humans, but that matters little.

Aware of opposition, restoration scholars are willing to start small: by connecting big chunks of biodiverse ecosystems with corridors to aid animal migrations. This agenda matches that of The Wildlands Project conceived by convicted "eco-warrior" Dave Foreman who co-founded the militant eco-group Earth First and serves as on the board of the Sierra Club.

"Embraced by the U.S. Department of the Interior, the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), The Nature Conservancy, UNPED (United Nations Environment Programme), UNESCO, and the Sierra Club," says Henry Lamb, publisher of éco-logic, "the Wildlands Project wants to return 'at least 50 percent' of the land area in America to 'core wilderness areas' where human activity is barred."4

These "core wilderness areas", Lamb explains, would "be connected by corridors" and "surrounded by buffer zones" in which there may be managed human activity providing that biodiversity protection is the first priority." 5

Congressman Don Young (R-Alaska) shares Henry Lamb's concern. In June 1996, he introduced "The American Land Sovereignty Protection Act." It would have protected private property owners and required Congressional approval of international land designations in the US-something most Americans would have taken for granted. But it failed to pass-in spite of his persuasive words to the House of Representatives:

More and more of our nation's land has become subject to international land-use restrictions... A total of 67 sites in the United States have been designated as UN Biosphere Reserves or World Heritage Sites. These programs are run by UNESCO-an arm of the UN... The Biosphere Reserve program is not even authorized by a single U.S. law or even an international treaty. That is wrong. Executive branch appointees... should not do things that the law does not authorize.

...the power to make all rules and regulations governing lands belonging to the United States is vested in the Congress... Yet the international land designations under these programs have been created with virtually no congressional oversight.6

Even so, the President's Council on Sustainable Development, like the other national CSDs around the world, continues to pursue its intrusive plan for land management based on UN guidelines. It suggests using government regulations, tax incentives and disincentives, the media, and persuasive "scientific" information to manage lands, people, communities, consumption, transportation, and knowledge.

Its authors include Bruce Babbitt (Secretary of the Interior), Jay Hair (former National Wildlife Federation president who formed a partnership with John Denver's New Age-globalist organization Windstar), Madeline Kunin (Deputy Secretary, Department of Education), and Timothy Wirth (Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs).

Its "principal liasons" include the EPA, The Nature Conservancy, and the Sierra Club-the same organizations that support the Wildlands Project. In light of this liason, ponder the comment by Wildlands Project Director Reed Noss: "The collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans."7

Even when people are starving?

Managing Food

"World leaders will assemble in Rome from 13 to 17 November, 1996, making a public commitment to action to eliminate hunger," stated the official "Brochure" available on the World Food Summit's world wide web page. "As preparations for the Summit proceed, world grain stocks have dwindled to dangerously low levels... a reminder of the fragility of food supplies in a world that must produce more each year to feed a rapidly increasing population. An estimated 800 million people still are chronically undernourished. The agreements reached at the Summit will place food at the top of the global agenda alongside peace and stability."

The "agreements" are a two-part contract: the World Food Summit (WFS) Document and the Plan of Action. Signed by the participating nations, this contract holds nations accountable for fulfilling their assigned part of the UN agenda. Under the noble banner of "civic government", it links local and international NGOs (Non Governmental Organizations) directly to UN agencies, bypassing Congress and state legislatures that cling to old notions of sovereignty.

The real issue is control. Who will manage and monitor the global production and distribution of food? How will they manage information, motivate the masses, and establish consensus and solidarity?

Just as US educators promise "local control" while implementing the global education plan, so the WFS acknowledged national sovereignty, but mandated compliance. Each nation that signed the contract agreed to a monstrous system of old and new UN resolutions starting with Commitment One: "We will ensure an enabling political, social, and economic environment designed to create the best conditions for the eradication of poverty and for durable peace ."

What does that mean? The Marxist economics and social "equality" touted by the UN?

The jubilant reception of Fidel Castro and his hard-line Communist message gives a clue to the world's hostility toward Western capitalism and free enterprise. No wonder the WFS contract tells nations to "reallocate resources" as "required to ensure food for all" (#59,e) -not through foreign aid, but through total worldwide social and economic transformation.

During a televised "World Food Summit Preview"8 featuring U.S. Under-Secretary of State Timothy Wirth and Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman, a reporter asked if the US might be "negotiating away some rights" and "accepting restraints on what we can plant, what fertilizers we can use, what chemicals we can use on the land."

Obviously irritated by the question, Glickman, who heads the US delegation to the WFS, answered, "We were never headed in that direction. We would never have accepted that!" Yet, minutes later, he mentioned his plan to restrict the use "of pesticides, herbicides and insecticide."

The WFS contract doesn't detail the specific "preventative measures". Apparently, the more sensitive parts of the agenda were discussed in settings less open to critical eyes. As a UN news release suggested, the gathering of international leaders "might yield more than the summit itself":

Canadian Agriculture Minister Ralph Goodale told reporters that he hoped to have unofficial talks. 'Part of what will happen in Rome,' he said, 'apart from the official agenda, is a great deal of corridor conversations, which on occasion can be more valuable than the official proceedings.'9

Far more sobering than the stated goals and steps is the establishment of a legal framework for global governance. Most official contracts signed by nations at former UN Conferences reach beyond stated topics such as saving the earth, protecting the children, eradicating poverty, empowering women, and feeding the poor. Those issues fit into a larger context which involves a vast "systemic" plan for global transformation-a reality which begs the question: Could each current issue simply be the "crisis" needed to persuade the masses to accept totalitarian controls?

For example, the WFS contract calls for "protecting the interests and needs of the child consistent with the World Summit for Children [and] the Convention on the Rights of the Child." (#17) Are children's rights being used as a smokescreen that justifies government plans to develop "human resources" without hindrance from parents with contrary beliefs and values?

In a 1993 speech at the International Development Conference, James P. Grant, past executive director of the United Nation's Children's Fund (UNICEF), said-

Children and women can be our Trojan Horse for attacking the citadel of poverty, for undergirding democracy, dramatically slowing population growth and for accelerating economic development.10

The WFS contract asked governments, "in partnership with all actors of civil society" to "establish legal and other mechanisms, as appropriate, that advance land reform." (#15, b) Could this mean the rights of the poor, especially of women, to "access to land" might be emphasized over and above the property rights of present land owners? The UN contract signed at Women's Conference in Beijing indicated such a "right", and the WFS affirmed that suggestion: "Support and implement commitments made at the Fourth World Conference on Women." (#16,a)

Nations that signed the WFS contract agreed to Commitment 7: "implement, monitor, and follow-up this Plan of Action at all levels in cooperation with the international community." President Clinton took a big step toward fulfilling his part through Executive Order 13011. Creating a massive information technology management system linked to international systems, it helps federal agencies-FBI, CIA, FEMA, EPA and Departments of State, Education, Labor, Health and Human Services, Agriculture, Interior, etc.-exchange and monitor information around the world.

According to UN guidelines, all people and all places would be monitored-schools, homes, workplaces.... All who violate the new standards for tolerance, gender equity, or sustainable living at home or at work would be tracked through the vast UN-controlled data system.

Globalist leaders know that only a new set of beliefs and values will prepare the Western world to accept what Al Gore calls "sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society."11 The 3 E's of Sustainable Development (Environment, Economy, and Equity) must become the world's central organizing principle. Every nation must submit to a "system-wide coordination within the framework of the coordinated follow-up to UN conferences" Resident UN coordinators would guide and monitor "the allocation and use of financial and human resources" (#59,h,e), while nations with representative government would yield their sovereignty to a monstrous multilevel global bureaucracy controlled by socialist UN rulers.

All this would be hard for Americans to swallow unless persuasive and strategic information can change their minds. So the UN calls for "system-wide advocacy" to guide its agenda through the "difficult times of economic transition, budget austerity and structural adjustment" ahead. (#59,m,n)

"Improve the dissemination and utilization of information and data needed to guide and monitor progress" states the contract. (#59,c) The validity of new data matters less than its power to stir feelings and motivate the masses to accept the new socialist criteria for economic equality.12 As Stanford University environmentalist Stephen Schneider said, "we need to get some broad based support .' we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts we might have...."1

To rally public support, advocacy must outweigh integrity. Last April a public health agency told its employees to dispose of any data that contradicted politically correct policies and conclusions. A memo to employees of the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment 13 told workers to discard all documents "which contain other policy proposals not adopted or reflected" in its final policy decisions. "Only those communications which are reflected or embodied in the final decision or document shall be kept on file."

What counts is the appearance of consensus -- the key to managing people through "civic government." To ensure conformity to UN policies at every level of society, the "WFS Plan of Action builds on consensus reached." (#10) This strategy, which uses planned dialogues and politically correct data to create a collective mindset, is already being used in American schools, workplaces, communities, and government agencies. It is promoted through UN literature, the US Department of Education's Community Action Toolkit, and Sustainable America, the 1996 report by the President's Council on Sustainable Development. In fact, the worldwide "human resource" management system envisioned by socialist leaders decades ago is almost in place.

Managing people.

"Raise the global profile of food security issues through system-wide advocacy," states the WFS contract. (#58.12) It uses words such as advocacy, civil society, participatory, and empowering to indicate the strategic blend of propaganda and dialogue used around the world to win grass-roots public support for the global agenda.

At each level of society, facilitators are being trained to use the consensus process. Emotional phrases such as "food insecurity" and "vulnerability information" evoke the public sympathy needed to change attitudes and spur desired action.

The WFS contract states, "To prevent and resolve conflicts peacefully and create a stable political environment, through a transparent and effective legal framework governments. will reinforce peace, by developing conflict prevention mechanisms promoting tolerance. Develop policy making processes that are democratic, transparent, participatory, empowering." (#14)

"Promoting tolerance" is key to the paradigm shift from biblical to earth-centered beliefs and values. The 1995 UNESCO Declaration on Tolerance, signed by member states, defines tolerance as "respect, acceptance and appreciation" of the world's diverse cultures and lifestyles-an attitude that "involves the rejection of dogmatism and absolutism." It is "not only a moral duty, it is also a political and legal requirement." Since "intolerance is a global threat," UNESCO demands an international "response to this global challenge, including effective countermeasures."

Why discuss tolerance, consensus building, compromise, and conflict resolution at a UN summit on food? The answer is two-fold. First, UN leaders warn us that intolerance causes conflict, which hinders food production and causes poverty. Second, since intolerance implies resistance to the new global values and solidarity, it is a threat to the implementation of the whole UN plan. Therefore intolerance must be quenched, while "tolerance promotion and the shaping of attitudes. should take place in schools and universities... at home and in the workplace."14

The solution, as you saw, is the consensus process, also called conflict resolution, Hegelian dialectics, and the Delphi Technique. To unify people who embrace opposing values, the public must be engaged in "participatory" dialogues. Led by trained facilitators, these dialogues produce the collective thinking which prods participants beyond the old truths into the ambiguous realm of imagination and evolving truths.

The ground rules demand that everyone participate and find "common ground." They forbid dissent and argument, no matter how unsound the "scientific" evidence used to back the preplanned consensus. "Adversarial processes" must be replaced with "collaborative approaches to resolving conflicts" through "education, information and communications" until "people, bonded by a shared purpose"15 learn to comply.

It's already happening across America. Young and old are being trained to blend their values, adapt their beliefs, think as a group, and conform to the new standards. Like other nations, America is following the Pied Piper into a new world order whose architects may sound wise and compassionate, but are neither rational, factual, honest or tolerant.

Population Control

Notice the paradoxes. The United Nations promises human rights, but mandates social engineering. It promises peace, but creates conflict. It touts science, but twists it into propaganda. And it pledges food security, but limits land use. How, then, can it reconcile its vision of a global welfare system with its green agenda, including the huge Biosphere reserves?

The Global Biodiversity Assessment (GBA) suggest an answer: simply cut the world population by about 80%-or return to a feudal lifestyle (no cars, planes, air conditioners ) Meeting the need for "scientific and technical assessments" mandated in the UN Convention on Biological Diversity,16 the GBA estimates that,

an 'agricultural world' in which most human beings are peasants, should be able to support 5 to 7 billion people.... In contrast, a reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion [people].17

For globalist leaders such as Undersecretary of State Timothy Wirth, the process is too slow. "We hope the senate will... ratify the Biological Diversity Treaty which is essential to all the issues," he told the above reporters, "[and to the] continuing emphasis on the increasing need for population stabilizing ... " A crusader for Malthusian economics and China's one-child family planning, Wirth has indicated that by protecting women fleeing China's oppressive abortion policies, "we could potentially open ourselves up to just about everybody in the world saying 'I don't want to plan my family, therefore I deserve political asylum."18

Wirth's views may sound too radical for consensus, but that depends on whose voice is heard. UN leaders tells us that solving the world's problems must involve the participation of all members of society, but they demonstrate the opposite. They promise to include everyone -- global and national leaders, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), women, youth and "other sectors of civil society"-- if they share their vision. But dissenters are left out.

Today's typical consensus process allows resisters a moment to expose themselves, but it refuses to record their objections. So does the new civil society. "Bella Abzug's NGO Forum will submit a document supposedly representing 1,200 NGOs and millions of persons worldwide," observed Eagle Forum leader Cathie Adams, "The supporters of that document claim to represent the world's civil society. It's interesting, though, that conservative groups like Eagle Forum have experienced tremendous harassment regarding accreditation for the Rome event. Clearly, the 'new civil society' cannot accommodate traditional family values. The radical feminists are extremists attempting to stifle any conservative views."19

So do the socialists behind the UN agenda. As Andrei Vishinsky wrote in The Law of the Soviet State "In our state, naturally, there can be no place for freedom of speech, press, and so on for the foes of socialism." 20

Exclusion and hostility have pursued Jews and Christians throughout history. Biblical values simply don't fit a world that has turns its back to God. "If you were of the world, the world would love its own," Jesus told His friends. "Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.... If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you... because they do not know Him who sent Me."

Moments later, Jesus encouraged His friends with a promise:

"These things I have spoken to you, that in Me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world." (John 15:19-21, 16:33) In a world of confusion, conflict, and catastrophe, He alone offers the hope, strength, and guidance that can bring victory over evil.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For practical information about the U.S. implementation of the U.N. agenda for educating the masses, read Brave New Schools


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Endnotes:

1 Kathleen Marquardt, "Are Your Ready for Our New Age Future?" Insider's Report, American Policy Center (703-925-0881), December 1995; p. 3.

2 Ibid.

3 Catherine Bertini, Executive Director of the World Food Program, Beijing, World Conference on Women, Sept.1995. Read her whole message at

http://www.un.org/esa/gopher-data/conf/fwcw/conf/una/950906150325.txt.

4 Henry Lamb, "Rewilding America," Eco-logic (November/December 1995)
5 Ibid.

6 Don Young, Statement on H.R. 3752 in House of Representatives, September 12, 1996.

7 Henry Lamb, "Rewilding America," Eco-logic (November/December 1995)

8 CNN, November 8, 1996.

9 WFS News release: Rome, November 10, 1996.

10 Joan Veon, Compilation of the Beijing Draft Document Grouped by Perceived or Stated Goals (Olney, MD: TWG, Inc., 1995),i.

11 Al Gore, Earth in the Balance (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1992), p. 274.

12 All these points will be validated with quotes from the PCSD or WFS Plan of Action.

13 This agency evaluates the risks of chemical pollutants and assists the state Environmental Protection Agency in writing regulations supposedly needed to protect public health.

14 Declaration on Tolerance, UNESCO.

15 The President's Council on Sustainable Development, Sustainable America, 112-113.

16 Article 25 (2a)

17 Lines 1782-1786

18 Robert James Bidinotto, "Environmental Freedom's Foe for the Nineties," The Freeman (November 1990), p. 418. Cited by The Environmental Policy Task Force News, Washington, D.C. (202-543-4779).

19 Cathie Adams, Texas Eagle Forum Press Release, November 13,1996.

20 Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 5, p. 164.

1 Jonathan Schell, "Our Fragile Earth," Discover (October 1989); 44.

http://www.crossroad.to/text/articles/Food-Land96.html


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Ven 4 Mai - 03:30 (2012)    Sujet du message: PLAN EUGÉNIQUE DE DÉPOPULATION MONDIALE - LA NOURRITURE COMME ARME DE DESTRUCTION MASSIVE Répondre en citant

PLAN EUGÉNIQUE DE DÉPOPULATION MONDIALE - LA NOURRITURE COMME ARME DE DESTRUCTION MASSIVE



"...ET DIEU LEUR DIT : SOYEZ FÉCONDS, MULTIPLIEZ, REMPLISSEZ LA TERRE ET ASSUJETTISSEZ-LA ; ET DOMINEZ SUR LES POISSONS DE LA MER, SUR LES OISEAUX DU CIEL, ET SUR TOUT ANIMAL QUI SE MEUT SUR LA TERRE. ET DIEU DIT : VOICI, JE VOUS DONNE TOUTE HERBE PORTANT DE LA SEMENCE ET QUI EST À LA SURFACE DE TOUTE LA TERRE, ET TOUT ARBRE AYANT EN LUI DU FRUIT D'ARBRE ET PORTANT DE LA SEMENCE : CE SERA VOTRE NOURRITURE." GENÈSE 1 : 28-29


COMBIEN DE PERSONNES NOUS DISENT QUE NOUS SOMMES PARANO DE CROIRE EN SES VIEILLES HISTOIRES DE LA BIBLE? UN S'AMUSE CES DERNIERS TEMPS, SUR UN AUTRE SITE, À ME TRAITER DE CONNASSE, DE FOLLE, ETC. PARCE QUE JE DIS LA VÉRITÉ ET QUE J'ESSAIE D'EN RÉVEILLER QUELQUES-UNS. CES PERSONNES IGNORANTES NE SEMBLENT PAS VOIR CE QUI SE PASSE PRÉSENTEMENT SUR CETTE PLANÈTE QUI EST EN PÉRIL. PARCE QU'ILS CROIENT TOUT CE QUE LEUR BON GOUVERNEMENT LEUR DIT, ILS COURRENT À LEUR PROPRE DESTRUCTION À CAUSE DE LEUR IGNORANCE.

CE À QUOI NOUS ASSISTONS PRÉSENTEMENT EST LA DESTRUCTION DU CHRISTIANISME DANS TOUS LES SENS DU MOT. LA NOURRITURE DONNÉE AUX HOMMES PAR LE CRÉATEUR NOUS MONTRE LA BONTÉ QUE DIEU A POUR L'HUMANITÉ. LA VARIÉTÉ ET LA QUALITÉ D'ALIMENTS EST UNE PREUVE DE LA BONTÉ DE DIEU ENVERS SA CRÉATION, MAIS... LES NOMBREUX EFFORTS FAITS PAR DES GENS MAL INTENTIONNÉS, QUI COMME PAR HASARD TRAVAILLENT TOUS AU NIVEAU INTERNATIONAL, FÉDÉRAL, PROVINCIAL ET MUNICIPAL, AFIN DE RÉDUIRE LES POPULATIONS EST UNE ATTAQUE CONTRE DIEU LUI-MÊME ET CONTRE LES HOMMES.

LE FAIT AUSSI QUE NOS GOUVERNEMENTS ONT MIS EN PLACE DES LOIS CRIMINALISANTS CEUX QUI ONT DES RÉSERVES DE NOURRITURE DEVRAIT TIRER UNE SONNETTE D'ALARME. POURQUOI DONC, NOTRE BON GOUVERNEMENT VEUT-IL CRIMINALISER CEUX QUI ONT POUR PLUS D'UN MOIS DE NOURRITURE. CES LOIS PASSÉES SOUS LE RÈGNE DE BILL CLINTON ET ADAPTÉES DANS PLUSIEURS PAYS N'A AUCUN BON SENS, VOUS NE CROYEZ PAS? LA NOURRITURE EST DEVENUE UNE ARME DE DESTRUCTION MASSIVE CONTRE LES POPULATIONS. UN PEUPLE QUI A FAIM EST UN PEUPLE COMPLÈTEMENT DÉPENDANT DE LA "BONTÉ" DES CRIMINELS QUI METTENT EN PLACE DE TELLES LOIS. VOILÀ LA VRAIE RAISON!

CE PROGRAMME S'APPELLE LA MORT. LE CONTRÔLE DE LA NOURRITURE EST DEPUIS LONGTEMPS UTILISÉ CONTRE LES POPULATIONS AFIN DE LES EXTERMINER, MAIS DEPUIS QUELQUES ANNÉES, NOUS VOYONS UNE MONTÉE EN FLÈCHE DE CE PLAN DESTRUCTEUR. NON SEULEMENT, RÉDUISENT-ILS LE QUOTA ALIMENTAIRE, MAIS NOS ALIMENTS SONT PRATIQUEMENT TOUS INFECTÉS PAR TOUTES SORTES DE PESTICIDES ET DE VACCINS EMPOISONNÉS AFIN DE NOUS AIDER À MOURIR PLUS VITE ET CE DANS DES CONDITIONS TRÈS SOUFFRANTES.

CROYEZ-VOUS QUE C'EST DIEU QUI A VOULU CELA? DIEU N'A-T-IL PAS PLUTÔT DONNÉ LA NOURRITURE À L'HOMME POUR SON BIEN-ÊTRE PHYSIQUE ET MENTAL?

IL EST DONC IMPORTANT DE DÉNONCER CE QUI SE PASSE ET CHERCHER DES SOLUTIONS POUR PROTÉGER CET HÉRITAGE DONNÉ PAR LE CRÉATEUR. NOUS DEVONS DÉNONCER CE QUE DES GARS COMME KISSINGER (CONSEILLER DU PAPE), ROCKEFELLER ET TANT D'AUTRES QUI NOUS GOUVERNENT (TANTÔT SECRÈTEMENT ET D'AUTRES COMME EXÉCUTANTS) FONT À LA RACE HUMAINE AFIN DE HÂTER SA DESTRUCTION.

LE CHRÉTIEN NÉ DE NOUVEAU A UNE TÂCHE BIEN PRÉCISE SUR CETTE TERRE : DE MARCHER SELON LE COEUR DE DIEU QUI N'A DONNÉ QUE DE BONNES CHOSES AUX HUMAINS ET CELLE D'AVERTIR LE PEUPLE DES DANGERS QU'ELLE COURT SI ELLE VA VERS DES CHEMINS DANGEREUX. ET CE GOUVERNEMENT MONDIAL EST UN CHEMIN DANGEREUX DONT IL FAUT PRENDRE GARDE CAR IL EST L'ANTITHÈSE DE LA PAROLE DE DIEU.

LE PROGRAMME ENVIRONNEMENTAL PRÔNÉ PAR LES NATIONS UNIES EST UN BIEN GRAND PIÈGE POUR TOUS, CAR IL N'A POUR BUT QUE LA DESTRUCTION, LA DÉLOCALISATION, LA DICTATURE ET LA MORT. MAINTENANT, REMARQUEZ TOUS LES GROUPES ET GOUVERNEMENTS QUI TRAVAILLENT MAIN DANS LA MAIN POUR L'AVANCEMENT DE CE GRAND PROJET DE DESTRUCTION DE L'HUMANITÉ ET POSEZ-VOUS LA QUESTION : POURQUOI FONT-ILS CELA?

CELUI QUI SAIT QUE DIEU A CRÉÉ LA TERRE PREND SOIN DE CETTE TERRE. IL N'A PAS BESOIN QU'ON LUI DISE DE METTRE SON PAPIER DANS LA POUBELLE. MAIS LE PROGRAMME ENVIRONNEMENTAL VA BEAUCOUP PLUS LOIN. REMARQUEZ TOUTES LES LOIS QUI PRENNENT PLACE AFIN DE SOI-DISANT PROTÉGER L'ENVIRONNEMENT. VOUS VERREZ QUE PENDANT QU'ON VOUS DEMANDE DE FAIRE DES EFFORTS ET D'OUVRIR VOTRE PORTEFEUILLE, CES MÊMES INDIVIDUS CRAPULEUX SÈMENT LA TERREUR ET LA MORT PARTOUT SUR LA TERRE AVEC TOUT LEUR ARMEMENT BIOCHIMIQUE ET MILITAIRE. PRENNENT-ILS VRAIMENT SOIN DE CET ENVIRONNEMENT QU'ILS DISENT VOULOIR PROTÉGER? REMARQUEZ QU'À MESURE QU'AVANCE LE PROGRAMME ENVIRONNEMENTAL, LA PAUVRETÉ PROGRESSE DANS LE MONDE. VOUS PENSEZ QUE CELA EST UN HASARD?

CE PLAN DE RÉDUCTION DES POPULATIONS FAIT PARTIE DU PROGRAMME ENVIRONNEMENTAL, CAR DISENT-ILS L'HUMAIN EST UN DANGER POUR LA PLANÈTE TERRE. MAIS QUAND CE PROGRAMME S'ADRESSE À TOUS SAUF À EUX-MÊMES, ON PEUT SÉRIEUSEMENT SE POSER DES QUESTIONS SUR LES VÉRITABLES INTENTIONS DE CES DERNIERS.

DE PLUS EN PLUS, NOUS VOYONS D'AUTRES PROGRAMMES EUGÉNIQUES PRENDRENT PLACE : STÉRILISATION DES POPULATIONS, AIDE POUR AIDER LES "VIEUX" À MOURIR DANS LA DIGNITÉ, AIDER LES MALADES À MOURIR DANS LA DIGNITÉ, L'AVORTEMENT, LA VACCINATION POUR DES PROBLÈMES DE SANTÉ QUE LES GENS N'ONT PAS, SE DÉBARASSER DES ENFANTS QUI POURRAIENT AVOIR DES PROBLÈMES PHYSIQUES À LA NAISSANCE, LE FLUOR, L'ASPARTAME ET COMBIEN D'AUTRES...

FAITES LA COMPARAISON AVEC LE PROGRAMME EUGÉNIQUE MIS EN PLACE SOUS LE RÈGNE D'HITLER ET VOUS VERREZ QUE L'HISTOIRE SE RÉPÈTE ENCORE UNE FOIS. DIEU A-T-IL VOULU TOUT CELA? NON, MES AMIS, DIEU N'A PAS VOULU TOUT CELA. UNE GUERRE FAIT RAGE CONTRE LA RACE HUMAINE ET IL EST PLUS QUE TEMPS QUE LES POPULATIONS SE RÉVEILLENT CAR L'HEURE EST TRÈS TRÈS GRAVE.


PLAN EUGÉNIQUE DE DÉPOPULATION MONDIALE - LA NOURRITURE COMME ARME DE DESTRUCTION MASSIVE

WHAT DO EXECUTIVE ORDERS SAY ABOUT STORING?

Read more : http://standeyo.com/News_Files/Exec.Orders/EOs.html

KISSINGER'S 1974 PLAN FOR FOOD CONTROL GENOCIDE

Read more : http://www.larouchepub.com/other/1995/2249_kissinger_food.html

FOOD AS A WEAPON: BUCHAREST, ROME AND THE POLITICS OF STARVATION.

Read more : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12307033

THE FOOD AS A WEAPON PLAN

Read more : http://www.fdrs.org/food_as_a_weapon.html

MIDDLE CLASS MAY BE SUBJECT TO FOOD RATIONS, WARNS UN

Read more : http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2008/022508_food_rations.htm

FOOD AS A WEAPON - THE RAPE OF IRAQ

Read more : http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/9/13738/98820/681/492574

POPULATION CONTROL AND A WORLD FOOD AUTHORITY

Read more : http://bodo.gnn.tv/blogs/28162/Population_Control_And_A_World_Food_Authorit…

RESHAPING THE INTERNATIONAL ORDER -

PART 5 - POPULATION CONTROL AND A WORLD FOOD AUTHORITY *


Read more : http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=304

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND GLOBAL SECURITY

Read more : http://www.clubofrome.org/docs/confs/islaus-sustainab_globalsecurity.pdf


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Ven 4 Mai - 03:30 (2012)    Sujet du message: HAVE YOU HAD YOUR GOVERNMENT CHEMICALS TODAY - RAID ON FARM! Répondre en citant

05 déc. 2008, 18:36

Sujet : HAVE YOU HAD YOUR GOVERNMENT CHEMICALS TODAY - RAID ON FARM!

Texte : ----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: circa..1967
Date: Dec 5, 2008 5:04 PM

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Kia Kaha
Date: Dec 5, 2008 5:58 PM

On Monday, December 1, a SWAT team with semi-automatic rifles entered the private home of the Stowers family in LaGrange, Ohio, herded the family onto the couches in the living room, and kept guns trained on parents, children, infants and toddlers, from approximately 11 AM to 8 PM. The team was aggressive and belligerent. The children were quite traumatized. At some point, the “bad cop” SWAT team was relieved by another team, a “good cop” team that tried to befriend the family. The Stowers family has run a very large, well-known food cooperative called Manna Storehouse on the western side of the greater Cleveland area for many years.

There were agents from the Department of Agriculture present, one of them identified as Bill Lesho. The search warrant is reportedly supicious-looking. Agents began rifling through all of the family’s possessions, a task that lasted hours and resulted in a complete upheaval of every private area in the home. Many items were taken that were not listed on the search warrant. The family was not permitted a phone call, and they were not told what crime they were being charged with. They were not read their rights. Over ten thousand dollars worth of food was taken, including the family’s personal stock of food for the coming year. All of their computers, and all of their cell phones were taken, as well as phone and contact records. The food cooperative was virtually shut down. There was no rational explanation, nor justification, for this extreme violation of Constitutional rights.

Presumably Manna Storehouse might eventually be charged with running a retail establishment without a license. Why then the Gestapo-type interrogation for a 3rd degree misdemeanor charge? This incident has raised the ominous specter of a restrictive new era in State regulation and enforcement over the nation’s private food supply.

This same type of abusive search and seizure was reported by those innocents who fell victim to oppressive federal drug laws passed in the 1990s. The present circumstance raises the obvious question: is there some rabid new interpretation of an existing drug law that considers food a controlled substance worthy of a nasty SWAT operation? Or worse, is there a previously unrecognized provision(s) pertaining to food in the Homeland Security measures? Some have suggested that it was merely an out-of-control, hot-to-trot ODA agent, and, if so, this would be a best-case scenario. Anything else might spell the beginning of the end for the freedom to eat unregulated and unmonitored food.


One blogger familiar with the Ohio situation has reported that:

“Interestingly, I believe they [Manna Storehouse] said a month or so ago, an undercover ODA official came to their little store and claimed to have a sick father wanting to join the co-op. Both the owner and her daughter-in-law had a horrible feeling about the man, and decided not to allow him into the co-op and notified him by certified mail. He came back to the co-op demanding to be part of it. They refused and gave him names of other businesses and health food stores closer to his home. Not coincidentally, this man was there yesterday as part of the raid.



The same blog also noted that the Ohio Department of Agriculture has been chastised by the courts in several previous instances for its aggression, including trying to entrap an Amish man in a raw milk “sale,” which backfired when it became known that the Amish believe in a literal interpretation of “give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away” (Matthew 5:42)

The issue appears to be the discovery of a bit of non-institutional beef in an Oberlin College food service freezer a year ago that was tracked down by a county sanitation official to Manna Storehouse. Oberlin College’s student food coop is widely known for its strident ideological stance about eating organic foods. It seems that the Oberlin student food cooperative had joined the Manna Storehouse food cooperative in order to buy organic foods in bulk from the national organic food distributor United, which services buying clubs across the nation. The sanitation official, James Boddy, evidently contacted the Ohio Department of Agriculture. After the first contact by state ODA officials, Manna Storehouse reportedly wrote them a letter requesting assistance and guidelines for complying with the law. This letter was never answered. Rather, the ODA agent tried several times to infiltrate the coop, as described above.

When his attempts failed, the SWAT team showed up!

Food cooperatives and buying clubs have been an active part of the American landscape for over a generation. In the 1970s, with the rise of the organic food industry (a direct outgrowth of the hippie back-to-nature movement) food coops started up all over the country. These were groups of people who freely associated for the purpose of combining their buying power so that they could order organic food items in bulk and case lots.

Anyone who was part of these coops in the early era will remember the messy breakdown of 35 pounds of peanut butter and 5 gallon drums of honey!

These buying clubs have persisted and flourished over the years due to their ability to purchase high quality organic foods at reduced prices in bulk quantities. Most cooperatives have participated greatly in the local agrarian economies, supporting neighborhood organic farmers with purchases of produce, eggs, chickens, etc. The groups also purchase food from a number of different local, regional and national distributors, many of them family-based businesses who truck the food themselves. Some of these food cooperatives have become large enough to set up mini-storefront operations where members can drop in and purchase items leftover from case lot sales. Manna Storehouse had established itself in such a manner, using a small enclosed breezeway attached to their home. It was a folksy place with old wooden floors where coop members stopped by to chat and snack on bags of organic corn chips.

The state of Ohio boasts the second largest Amish population in the country. Many of the Amish live on acreages where they raise their own food, not unlike Manna Storehouse, and sell off the extras to neighbors and church members. There is a sense of foreboding that this state crackdown on a longstanding, reputable food cooperative operation could adversely impact the peaceful agrarian way of life not only for the Amish, but homeschoolers and those families living off the land on rural acreages. It raises the disturbing possibility that it could become a crime to raise your own food, buy eggs from the farmer down the road, or butcher your own chickens for family and friends – bustling activities that routinely take place in backwater America.

The freedom to purchase food directly form the source is increasingly under attack. For those who have food allergies and chemical intolerances, or who are on special medical diets, this is becoming a serious health issue. Will Americans retain the right to purchase food that is uncontaminated by pesticides, herbicides, allergens, additives, dyes, preservatives, MSG, GMOs, radiation, etc.? The melamine scare from China underscores the increasingly inferior and suspect quality of modern processed institutional foods.

One blog, commenting on the bizarre and troubling Manna Storehouse situation, observed that:

“No one is saying exactly why. At the same time the FDA says it it safe to eat the 40% of tainted beef found in Costco's and Sam's all over the nation. These farm raids are very common now. Every farmer needs to fully eqiped [sic] for the possibility of it happening to them. The Farmer To Consumer Legal Defense Fund was created just for this purpose. The USDA just released their plans to put a law into action that will put all small farmers out of business. Animals for the sale of meat or milk will only be allowed in commercial farms, even the organic ones.

” December 3, 2008 7:09 PM


http://bulletins.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=bulletin.read&authorI…


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Ven 4 Mai - 03:31 (2012)    Sujet du message: FEDS EYE CONTROL OF VITAMINS, SUPPLEMENTS – EVEN WATER! Répondre en citant

FEDS EYE CONTROL OF VITAMINS, SUPPLEMENTS – EVEN WATER!

FDA looks to regulate natural substances as drugs, with prescrïptions from doctors

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: April 24, 2007
9:30 pm Eastern


By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com


FDA Commissioner Andrew von Echenbach

The Food and Drug Administration says vitamins, supplements, herbs and other natural substances, including water when it is used to "treat" dehydration, should be classified as drugs, and opponents have only until April 30 to express their concern about the proposals under Docket No. 2006D-0480.

The government agency under the direction of Andrew C. von Eschenbach, who became commissioner in 2006, also has put its "Complementary and Alternative Medicine Products and Their Regulation by the Food and Drug Administration" on a fast track for implementation.

But parents' groups, natural remedy interests, food and herb businesses and others are horrified. A group called Gentle Christian Mothers alerted its constituency in no uncertain terms.

"Please Read!!! The FDA is trying to regulate all things that are considered by them to be treatment for disease. They want to regulate vitamins, herbs, alternative therapies (things like hot stone therapy), even down to juices and holy water," the warning said. "It might mean having to go to a doctor or medical professional for vitamins."

The website noted that among likely developments if the FDA has its way:

Growing and selling common garden herbs will get you arrested as a drug dealer.

Massage oils and handheld massagers will be regulated as medical devices."

Vegetable juice will be regulated as a drug.

Weight machines will be regulated as "medical devices" and require FDA approval before being sold or used.

Raw sprouts and other anti-cancer foods will be regulated as drugs.

Bottled water that "treats" dehydration will be regulated as a drug.

Massage therapists who use hot rocks as part of their therapy will have the ROCKS regulated as medical devices! (It's true. The FDA will actually look at a pile of rocks and declare, "Those are medical devices!")

Foods, supplements, vitamins and homeopathic remedies will disappear from store shelves, pending FDA "review."

Vitamin store owners will be arrested and prosecuted for "practicing medicine without a license."

"This could be potentially devastating, not just to my business but to any business relating to supplements," Sophy Winnick, a Felton, Calif., mother of four who has been selling Youngevity products for 10 years, told the Santa Cruz Sentinel. "People better get on the horn about this."

The FDA's "draft guidance" on the issue first appeared in December, but federal officials said it was printed in the Federal Register on Feb. 27, prompting the growing storm of protest.

The FDA has reported that approximately one-third of all adult Americans have reported participating in or using some form of "complementary and alternative medicine" and officials estimate nutritional supplement sales total about $5 billion a year in America.

On the NewsTarget website, self-described "Health Ranger" Mike Adams posted one of the alerts.

"What this means to consumers, according to the proposal as outlined in FDA Docket number 2006D-0480, is that things like vitamins and herbs would be controlled by the FDA, and could possibly require prescrïptions from a naturopath, herbologist or some other physician, all of which would require you to pay a health insurance company and contribute to the already back-breaking cost of healthcare in America," he wrote.

"There are those who do not trust the U.S. government to act in the interest of its citizens over the interests of pharmaceutical companies and health insurance providers," he said. "Those people have good reason to feel this way, and the amount of dangerous – DEADLY, even – pharmaceutical drugs that get recalled … is testament to the fact that human beings can be used as guinea pigs because the FDA allows the pharmaceutical industry to release drugs that haven't been properly tested."

As WND recently reported, Merck and Co. had been donating to state legislators across the nation who in return were working to require young girls to be given Merck's $400 vaccine that prevents a virus that is spread only through sexual contact.

WND also has reported on the mandatory anthrax shots for members of the military, even though they had not been fully tested, and the possibility that government officials also could order civilians to be vaccinated.

"This [new] proposal would allow the FDA to control your access to 'alternatives' to the broken, profit-driven, corrupt pharmaceutical industry here in the U.S.," Adams wrote.

"When it comes to health freedom, this is the FDA's end game," he said. "They tried to sneak this under the radar, but word got out and now the natural health community is up in arms over this rule.

"This move by the FDA is designed to once and for all destroy the 1994 DSHEA law that has made supplements 'legal' while eliminating nutritional supplements and natural medicine from the United States, ensuring monopoly profits and control by drug companies and the FDA," he said.

"Under these proposed guidelines, FDA 'experts' (the same corrupt officials who re-approved Vioxx after it killed over 50,000 Americans) will decide whether herbs, supplements, vitamins or simple devices like massage stones are to be regulated as drugs and medical devices," Adams continued. "If the FDA experts, in their infinite wisdom, decide that these things are to be reclassified, they will essentially be outlawed, stripped from the shelves, and regulated out of existence. Anyone who dares to manufacture, promote or sell such products may be branded a criminal and rounded up by armed FDA agents who have a well established history of suppressing natural medicine."

"This is not a drill. It really is time to be alarmed," he said. "Nothing else I've written about this year is as important as this sinister plot to destroy natural medicine and force the American population to resort to dangerous prescrïption medications sold at monopoly prices under a system of medical tyranny."

For example, he cited wording directly from the FDA plans: "…if a person decides to produce and sell raw vegetable juice for use in juice therapy to promote optimal health … [and] if the juice therapy is intended for use as part of a disease treatment regiment…, the vegetable juice would also be subject to regulation as a drug."

Keep in mind, he said, the FDA is the agency that "openly allows the mass poisoning of the public with cancer-causing food additives such as sodium nitrite."

According to his website, Adams suffered from degenerative disease, was nearly obese and diabetic by 30. He became a student of nutrition and natural therapies and gave up all pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter drugs, caffeine and pursued a natural foods diet with exercise.

He lost 50 pounds, his diabetes symptoms vanished and his blood pressured reached 105/60, so he began a writing and teaching career on his own transformation.

An essay by Roger Wicke at Rocky Mountain Hi Herbal noted, "The unstated purpose of the FDA, and similar organizations in many other countries, is and always has been the protection of major pharmaceutical company profits. Expensive testing protocols act as a way to keep drugs and herbs within the control of the international cartels. While such tests may make sense for newly synthesized drugs with no track record in cultural tradition or popular usage, they are inappropriate for herb and food products, especially those with a long history of usage."

The FDA, in its announcement, said the federal government has been investigating and monitoring "complementary and alternative medicine" since 1992. It also said "depending on the … therapy or practice, a product used … may be subject to regulation."

Secondly, it noted, the law does not exempt alternative medicine products from regulation.

Alan Stang, writing on etherzone.com, was a little more blunt.

"Recently we wrote about the 72-year-old Florida grandmother whom the Food and Drug Administration Nazis are charging with a couple of felonies and some misdemeanors for helping cancer victims get the laetrile (Vitamin B-17) they need," he wrote. "Now here come these same offspring of unmarried female canines, with a scheme that may outlaw dietary supplements…"

He said where such laws already have kicked in, Echinacea, which recharges the immune system, used to cost $14 a bottle, but now is $153. "Because they work, they have now become 'drugs,'" he said.

"Not content to dominate the drug trade and send your prescrïption drugs into the $tratosphere, the Food & Drug Administration is now trying (yet again) to take over the entire health food and nutritional supplement industry so they can shut it down forever, leaving expensive FDA-approved drugs – with their myriad side effects – as your only option for treating anything from Alzheimer's to zits," wrote Jim Rutz, in a WND column.

"The FDA hacks are pooh-poohing the significance of the new guidelines as toothless suggestions that merely 'clarify' and 'change nothing.' Yeah, right. In truth, they're following the classic procedure for passing outrageous laws that wouldn't have a chance without an incremental, camel-nose-under-the-tent approach," he said.

"In reality, 2006D-0480 would eventually change everything, including your life expectancy. The FDA realizes that alternative medicine has far, far more solutions to chronic diseases than mainline medicine does ... and that panics them…"

WND also has reported on an agreement by the FDA and the Federal Trade Commission to a Trilateral Cooperation Charter with counterparts in Canada and Mexico under the auspices of NAFTA and the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America that will elevate the crackdown on public access to food supplements and vitamins.

"The purpose is to make an end run around any domestic law that interferes with food and drug multi-national corporate profits," John Hammell, a critic of the plan, told WND.

Hammell is the founder of International Advocates for Health Freedom, an advocacy group created to fight globalists' efforts to regulate alternative health treatments, including herbs, dietary supplements, and vitamins.

"A key goal of the Trilateral Cooperation Charter is to limit the public's access to food supplements and vitamins that are fundamental to many types of alternative medicine," Hammell said. "The Trilateral Cooperation Charter is determined to attack the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 by moving to merge our food and drug regulations with those of Canada and Mexico, both of whom are far more restrictive on dietary supplements."

He believes the agenda of the Trilateral Cooperation Charter reflects a globalist desire to advance the interests of the large pharmaceutical companies by reining in the food supplements industry worldwide.

He points to efforts such as the Codex Alimentarius Commission that was created in 1963 by the Food and Agricultural Organization and the World Health Organization, both official groups within the United Nations.

"The Codex Alimentarius Commission claims that their main purpose is to protect the health of consumers and ensure fair trade practices in the food trade worldwide," Hammell explained to WND. "But the truth is that the Codex Alimentarius Commission is dominated by corporate multi-national interests that do not have as their primary concern the health interests of the people they claim they are in business to protect, not if that health interest is better served by alternative food supplements and alternative medicine. They have a business with disease – it's not in their best interests that people be healthy."

Comments can be submitted in writing to: Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.


http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Find-Freedom.htm?At=043325


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Ven 4 Mai - 03:32 (2012)    Sujet du message: UPDATE ON OHIO FAMILY HIT BY SWAT TEAM RAID Répondre en citant

UPDATE ON OHIO FAMILY HIT BY SWAT TEAM RAID

VIDEO : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdLxMKuxyr4&eurl=http://www.lighthousetr…

On December 6th, Lighthouse Trails issued a report by Kjos Ministries about an Ohio family that was victimized in a SWAT team raid on their food coop in their home. There is now a video interview with the family, who is telling their story. Also for updates and further information from Kjos on this situation, click here. WorldNet Daily has also reported on this story.

Also related:

"Raid on Family's Home and Organic Food Co-Op Challenged"

Columbus - The Buckeye Institute's 1851 Center for Constitutional Law today took legal action against the Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA) and the Lorain County Health Department for violating the constitutional rights of John and Jacqueline Stowers of LaGrange, Ohio. The Stowers operate an organic food cooperative called Manna Storehouse. ODA and Lorain County Health Department agents forcefully raided their home and unlawfully seized the family's personal food supply, cell phones and personal computers. The legal center seeks to halt future similar raids. The complaint was filed in Lorain County Court of Common Pleas.

"The use of these police state tactics on a peaceful family is simply unacceptable," Buckeye Institute President David Hansen said. "Officers rushed into the Stowers' home with guns drawn and held the family - including ten young children - captive for six hours. This outrageous case of bureaucratic overreach must be addressed."

The Buckeye Institute argues the right to buy food directly from local farmers; distribute locally-grown food to neighbors; and pool resources to purchase food in bulk are rights that do not require a license. In addition, the right of peaceful citizens to be free from paramilitary police raids, searches and seizures is guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 14, Article 1 of the Ohio Constitution.

Click here to read this entire press release http://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/article/1284 .

This article or excerpt was posted on December 19, 2008@ 5:50 pm .


http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/index.php?p=1321&more=1&am…


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Ven 4 Mai - 03:32 (2012)    Sujet du message: RAPPORT BRITANNIQUE - MOINS DE VIANDE DANS LES HÔPITAUX CONTRIBUE À LA SANTÉ... DE LA PLANÈTE Répondre en citant

RAPPORT BRITANNIQUE - MOINS DE VIANDE DANS LES HÔPITAUX CONTRIBUE À LA SANTÉ... DE LA PLANÈTE

VOILÀ UNE MANIÈRE INGÉNIEUSE POUR COUPER LES FRAIS DANS LES HÔPITAUX ET AINSI AVOIR UN PEU PLUS DE CONTRÔLE SUR CE QUE LES GENS PEUVENT MANGER OU NON. QUAND À LA QUALITÉ DES ALIMENTS, NOUS SAVONS QUE TOUTE LA NOURRITURE EST MAINTENANT CONTAMINÉE, ALORS LEUR BEAU DISCOURS SUR LA SANTÉ, ON EN A MARRE.

L'EMPREINTE CARBONE, C'EST-À-DIRE LE DANGER DE POLLUTION DES GAZ À EFFET DE SERRE, POINTS SOULEVÉS PAR NOS CHERS SCIENTIFIQUES QUI TENTENT DE NOUS CONVAINCRE, QUE L'HUMAIN SERAIT MAINTENANT UN DANGER POUR LA PLANÈTE EST DE LA PURE FOUTAISE. QUAND EST-IL LORSQUE L'ON LÂCHE UN BON PET PUANT ET QUELS EN SONT LES EFFETS NÉFASTES POUR CETTE CHÈRE TERRE-MÈRE? SE BOUCHE-T-ELLE LE NEZ???

CES NOUVELLES MESURES NE SONT EN FAIT QUE LA CONTINUITÉ DU PROGRAMME "NATIONAL UNIFORMITY FOR FOOD ACT", SUR LE CONTRÔLE ALIMENTAIRE MONDIAL.


Associated Press (AP)
Raphael Satter
26/01/2009 15h27

" target="_blank">http://www.canoe.com/archives/infos/environnement/media/2009/01/20090126-152711-g.jpg[/img]
Moins de porc, de boeuf et de fromage peut être bon pour la santé des malades et celle de la planète, a expliqué lundi le Dr David Pencheon, directeur de l'unité développement durable du Service de santé national britannique (NHS).

© Corbis

LONDRES - Les hôpitaux en Grande-Bretagne vont être invités à réduire la part des viandes et produits laitiers dans les menus des patients afin de préserver la santé... de la planète. Une proposition qui figure dans une étude sur l'impact environnemental du système public de santé britannique.

À la place de ces aliments, le rapport, qui doit être publié mardi, recommande davantage de légumes produits localement, précise le Dr. David Pencheon, directeur de l'unité développement durable du Service de santé national (NHS).

Moins de porc, de boeuf et de fromage peut être bon pour la santé des malades et celle de la planète, a-t-il expliqué lundi. «Le NHS a le devoir de montrer l'exemple: il est parfaitement possible de manger sainement sans consommer autant de viande», a-t-il déclaré à l'Associated Press.

Le NHS est le premier acheteur de produits alimentaires en Grande-Bretagne, et y consacre 500 millions de livres sterling (855 millions $ CAN) chaque année. Une grande partie des aliments sont importés de l'étranger. Dans une version préliminaire de l'étude, on apprend que les ingrédients habituels du «steak and kidney pie», une tourte au boeuf et aux rognons, parcourent 31 200 kilomètres avant d'atteindre l'assiette du patient.

Selon le Dr Pencheon, le rapport recommande de réduire la consommation de viande en servant des repas exclusivement végétariens un jour de la semaine. Substituer des légumes produits localement à des viandes importées est bon pour l'environnement, et un environnement sain est bon pour les patients sur le long terme, explique-t-il. «C'est bon pour notre santé maintenant et notre santé future.»

Ces conclusions ont été saluées par des organisations écologistes britanniques, dont beaucoup ont fait campagne pour sensibiliser l'opinion publique au lien entre élevage et changement climatique. Clare Oxborrow, des Amis de la Terre, souligne que le secteur de l'élevage est fortement émetteur de gaz à effet de serre comme le méthane et l'oxyde nitreux, et évoque un rapport de l'ONU de 2006 selon lequel un tiers des terres arables sont consacrées aux cultures fourragères destinées aux animaux d'élevage.

Joyce D'Silva, porte-parole de Compassion dans l'agriculture mondiale, un groupe de défense des animaux, salue les conclusions de l'étude. «Réduire la quantité de viande et de produits laitiers dans votre régime alimentaire est probablement le moyen le plus facile par lequel chaque individu peut réduire son empreinte carbone», explique-t-elle. «C'est plus facile que d'acheter une voiture hybride.»

Les recommandations du rapport ne sont pas contraignantes, mais un porte-parole du NHS a précisé qu'elles pourraient à terme être adoptées par les hôpitaux.


http://www.canoe.com/infos/environnement/archives/2009/01/20090126-152711.h…


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Ven 4 Mai - 03:33 (2012)    Sujet du message: HOUSE BILL 1175 ... CONCERNING THE REGULATION OF NATUROPATHIC DOCT Répondre en citant

HOUSE BILL 1175 ... CONCERNING THE REGULATION OF NATUROPATHIC DOCT

My GAwd, all these bills this week attacking our food supply, you realize we are coming to the point where we have to ignore all these laws if we are to stay healthy and alive..... this is awful.

YOU DO REALIZE THEY ARE DECLARING WAR ON US????

I hope people are finally getting this .... no more denial please... lets work on how we can over come negative news with POSITIVE "EFFECTIVE" ACTION. Key word here is "effective".

Telling them how to vote is a lost art form that they do not respond to in case you haven't noticed their votes all week that criminalize organic growing, seed banking and small family farm destruction. That does not include the NAIS either....... we are surrounded and prevented from feeding ourselves and must rely on them for our very lives... that is where we are now with all of this so they can control HOW LONG WE WILL LIVE. That is why they are attacking natural remedies, since 1 million people a year die from aleopathic medicine, drugs and procedures...... population control and depopulation for even more control.

Do you believe me NOW?????

On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 7:38 AM, Bonnie S. <bsolan101@...> wrote:

HB-1175 - CONCERNING THE REGULATION OF NATUROPATHIC DOCTORS.

Email or call LegilaLegislators> to vote NO on this bill.

This week (March 13, 7:30 am) it is not a Health & Human Services committee argument; it’s Appropriations. Their decisions will all be based ONLY on state costs if this bill passes.

APPROPRIATION MEMBERS TO CONTACT:

John “Jack” Pommer jack.pommer.house@... (303)866-2780
Mark Ferrandino mferrandino@... (303)866-2911
Joel Judd repjoeljudd@... (303)866-2925
Andrew Kerr andy.kerr.house@... (303)866-2923
Elizabeth McCann beth.mccann.house@... (303)866-2959
Sal Pace sal.pace.house@... (303)866-2968

Below is a combination of the fiscal impact pertinent to appropriations concerns, as well as info regarding our personal liberties

The CNME “Naturopathic Doctors” seek to register or license only themselves – 97 total “Doctors” in the state of Colorado. (these few practitioners attended one of the six “chosen” schools that exist in North America & Canada)… The AANP/CNME graduates have been attempting to pass exclusionary and monopolistic legislation, to take total control of the naturopathic profession in Colorado and the entire country.

No exemptions within this bill exist for classically trained homeopaths, nutritional counselors, herbalists, lifestyle counselors and coaches, or nutraceutical representatives, and businesses. 16,000 Coloradans would NOT be able to practice

Second and any subsequent offenses would be a Class 6 felony, punishable by up to three years in prison and up to a $100,000 fine.

· Stress the fact that the Dept of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) would need to be augmented, and our state DOES NOT have the money right now.

· Then, all cases that DORA might get a hold of (such as holistic practices being prosecuted as felonies) would then be sent to the DA's office (more cost). The DA needs to be available (time and $) for prosecuting true criminal cases, not benign holistics.

16,000 holistics practitioners not able to work X $20K yearly average income = massive loss of state income tax revenue & state sales tax. (not exactly a DORA decision, but $ are $, and this committee makes $ decisions)

Vote NO on HB 1175 because this bill would continue to grow the size of the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies at a time when other more deserving state agencies are suffering massive cuts and jobs are being lost in droves in the private sector.

For further information, contact

Cindy Sherman Kim M. Green, Pres.

Health Freedom Activist Colorado Citizens for Health Freedom

719/287-5832 719/231-5715

For full text of all Senate bills, please go here: http://www.leg.state.co.us/Clics/CLICS2009A/csl.nsf/BillFoldersSenate?openF…

For full text of all House bills, please go here: http://www.leg.state.co.us/Clics/CLICS2009A/csl.nsf/BillFoldersHouse?openFr… .

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CLG_Revolution_Tactics/message/20086       


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Ven 4 Mai - 03:33 (2012)    Sujet du message: LA FAO LANCE UNE NOUVELLE BASE DE DONNÉES SUR LES PRIX ALIMENTAIRES Répondre en citant

LA FAO LANCE UNE NOUVELLE BASE DE DONNÉES SUR LES PRIX ALIMENTAIRES



19 mars 2009 – Dans le souci de suivre de près l'évolution des prix alimentaires - qui restent fermes dans l'ensemble -, l'Organisation des Nations Unies pour l'alimentation et l'agriculture (FAO) vient de lancer une base de données interactive relative aux prix des denrées de base sur les marchés nationaux des pays en développement. Elle couvre pour l'instant 55 pays.

Disponible sur Internet, cet outil technologique montre les prix des différents produits alimentaires en dollars ou en monnaies locales en tenant compte des unités de mesure et de poids standards.

Il permet d'établir des comparaisons de prix entre les marchés nationaux et internationaux, entre les marchés locaux dans un même pays et entre les marchés de plusieurs pays.

"Alors que les prix des produits alimentaires sont en régression au plan international, ainsi que l'indique l'indice FAO des prix alimentaires, l'outil en question montre que ces prix ont baissé moins vite ou pas du tout dans les pays en développement", selon l'experte de la FAO, Liliana Balbi.

"Cette base de données, facile à utiliser, est une source d'information précieuse pour les décideurs et responsables en matière de production agricole, commerce, développement et services humanitaires", ajoute-t-elle.

"L'inflation des prix alimentaires touche plus particulièrement les pauvres, car la part de leurs ressources consacrée à l'alimentation est bien plus grande que celle des populations aisées", poursuit Mme Balbi.

"L'alimentation représente 10 à 20% des dépenses du consommateur dans les pays industriels, contre 60 à 80% dans les pays en développement, ces derniers étant par ailleurs, pour la plupart, importateurs nets de denrées alimentaires".

Actuellement, quelque 963 millions de personnes, soit environ 15% de la population mondiale, endurent faim et sous-alimentation.

Ce nouvel instrument d'analyse a bénéficié d'une contribution financière de l'Espagne dans le cadre de l'Initiative de la FAO contre la flambée des prix alimentaires.

Des fonds supplémentaires sont requis pour étoffer la base de données et couvrir d'autres pays.


http://www.un.org/apps/newsFr/storyF.asp?NewsID=18725&Cr=prix&Cr1=a…


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Ven 4 Mai - 03:34 (2012)    Sujet du message: TIMOR-LESTE : UNE FICTION RADIO POUR SENSIBILISER LA POPULATION À LA SANTÉ REPRODUCTIVE Répondre en citant

TIMOR-LESTE : UNE FICTION RADIO POUR SENSIBILISER LA POPULATION À LA SANTÉ REPRODUCTIVE

20 mars 2009 – Une fiction radio en plusieurs épisodes vient d'être lancée par le ministère de la santé du Timor-Leste, avec le soutien du Fonds des Nations Unies pour la Population (UNFPA), afin de sensibiliser la population à la santé reproductive.

La série radio intitulée « Domin Familia » a été diffusée pour la première fois le 14 mars. Elle raconte l'histoire de la famille Amaral, une famille timoraise typique qui affronte les problèmes liés au planning familial, à la santé maternelle et à la santé reproductive.

« Domin Familia » met en scène l'histoire d'amour interdite entre Lena Amaral, le plus jeune membre de la famille, et Julio, le fils d'un organisateur de combats de coqs. Le grand frère de Lena, Octavio, est contre le jeune couple.

« Cette initiative permet au ministère de la santé d'insister sur l'importance de créer des produits qui sont sensibles à la culture des gens du Timor-Leste », a déclaré le ministre de la santé, le Dr Nelson Martins.

La série en 24 épisodes diffusée sur Radio Timor-Leste est issue d'une collaboration entre le ministère, l'UNFPA, HAI, la Fondation Alola et Marie-Stopes International.


http://www.un.org/apps/newsFr/storyF.asp?NewsID=18744&Cr=timor-leste&am…


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Ven 4 Mai - 03:35 (2012)    Sujet du message: PÉNURIE ALIMENTAIRE À VENIR : UN NOUVEL AVERTISSEMENT PROPHÉTIQUE Répondre en citant

PÉNURIE ALIMENTAIRE À VENIR : UN NOUVEL AVERTISSEMENT PROPHÉTIQUE

par Andrew Strom
Liste Revival
Posteur: nicolas | 9 mar 2009 à 08:33

La soupe populaire des années 30, en France. Une époque révolue?

Ceci est une note d'Andrew Strom, publiée la semaine dernière sur la liste prophétique Revival. Il existe quantité de liste dites "prophétiques" sur le Net, mais on y trouve surtout des messages à la mode, positivistes, d'exhortation. Le ministère prophétique consiste à avertir le peuple des dangers à venir, et en cela, ce ministère est très rare de nos jours.

L'année passée, nous avons averti au sujet de la pénurie alimentaire qui allait se produire et nous ne l'avons pas fait à la légère. Habituellement, j'évite d'alarmer car je suis conscient de toutes les fausses prophéties qui ont circulé pendant des années, poussant les gens à faire des provisions lyophilisées, etc. Mais je suis extrêmement sérieux à ce sujet. En fait, c'est un des mes plus grands soucis - spécialement en ce qui concerne les pauvres. Cependant, il est vraisemblable que nous serons tous concernés et que la crise alimentaire nous affectera tous.

Comme vous pouvez le constater en lisant l'article ci-dessous, il existe une terrible probabilité qu'une tempête se lève mettant en péril les réserves mondiales de nourriture dans les mois qui viennent, en relation avec de grandes sécheresses un peu partout. Certaines ont déjà touché de nombreux pays. Ceci combiné avec le manque de crédits accordés aux agriculteurs ainsi qu'une crise internationale des transports maritimes, tout arrive au même moment et il est grand temps de prier et de se préparer.

Si vous vous étonnez de constater que vos dépenses pour la nourriture augmentent, la réponse se trouve dans les conditions météorologiques, car des périodes de grande sécheresse affectent maintenant le globe.

La sécheresse touchant actuellement la Chine du Nord, est la pire qui ait sévi depuis 50 ans. Le pays constitue des stocks de nourriture, le gouvernement sait bien qu'il doit nourrir 20% de la population mondiale avec seulement 10% de terre arable. Notons également que la Chine produit chaque année 18% de la production mondiale de céréales.

En Australie, les conditions n'ont jamais été aussi graves depuis 117 ans, les pluies étant en dessous des normes depuis 2002, 41% des cultures australiennes sont touchées par la sécheresse.

En Afrique, la pénurie d'eau a diminué l'humidité du sol au point que le continent a perdu les nutriments nécessaires pour les cultures,

En Afrique du Sud, l'Argentine est dans un état critique, il n'y a pas eu de pluie depuis le mois de novembre. Les récoltes de blé du Brésil sont en baisse de 15.5% et l'Uruguay a déclaré l’état d’urgence agricole en raison de la pire sécheresse depuis des décennies : elle menace les récoltes, le bétail et l’approvisionnement en produits frais.

En résumé, la situation devient très préoccupante.


http://www.blogdei.com/index.php/2009/03/09/4740-penurie-alimentaire-a-veni…


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Ven 4 Mai - 03:36 (2012)    Sujet du message: AUDIO - "HOW LONG?? - 7 YEARS of CRISIS" Répondre en citant

AUDIO - "HOW LONG?? - 7 YEARS of CRISIS"

Less than a day ago, Andrew Strom was interviewed on Dan
Catlin's "Messiah's Branch" radio show in the USA - about the
economic crisis and what it really means for God's remnant.

Here are some of the topics covered in the interview:

-Why the worst of the slump is set to last for at least 7 years.

-Are food shortages in the USA really a danger?

-What this massive "shaking" will accomplish in the church.

-The purging of our hedonistic culture.

-What does God want His people doing as the crisis deepens?

There are two links below to listen to this interview. Please feel free to comment on Revivalschool.com after you have listened to it.

LINKS to the INTERVIEW:

http://branch.podomatic.com/player/web/2008-12-18T19_20_20-08_00

http://branch.podomatic.com/enclosure/2008-12-18T19_20_20-08_00.mp3

God bless you all.

MODERATOR:

Andrew Strom,
PO Box 21-904,
Henderson,
West Auckland 0650,
New Zealand.


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Ven 4 Mai - 03:37 (2012)    Sujet du message: L'ARABIE SAOUDITE FINANCERA LE SOMMET DE LA FAO SUR LA SÉCURITÉ ALIMENTAIRE Répondre en citant

L'ARABIE SAOUDITE FINANCERA LE SOMMET DE LA FAO SUR LA SÉCURITÉ ALIMENTAIRE

New York, Jul 30 2009 10:00AM

L'Arabie Saoudite a décidé de prendre en charge les coûts, estimés à 2,5 millions de dollars, du prochain Sommet mondial sur la sécurité alimentaire qui se tiendra au siège de l'Organisation des Nations Unies pour l'alimentation et l'agriculture (<" http://www.fao.org/index_fr.htm">FAO) à Rome du 16 au 18 novembre 2009, a annoncé jeudi la FAO.

Le Sommet a pour vocation d'inverser la tendance à la baisse des investissements dans l'agriculture et de retourner aux niveaux de 1980 de 17% de l'aide publique au développement (APD).

Le but est d'éliminer la faim dans le monde qui touche désormais un milliard d'êtres humains, et de doubler la production vivrière pour une population qui devrait atteindre 9 milliards en 2050. Le Sommet verra la participation des chefs d'Etat et de gouvernement des membres de la FAO et des Nations Unies.

"Je suis profondément reconnaissant envers le Gardien des Deux Saintes Mosquées, le Roi Abdullah, pour son offre généreuse de financer cette importante réunion", déclare le directeur général de la FAO, Jacques Diouf. "Le monde compte aujourd'hui plus d'un milliard de personnes affamées et l'Arabie Saoudite continue d'être en première ligne de la lutte contre la faim et la pauvreté".

L'offre a été présentée à l'occasion de la visite de M. Diouf au Royaume d'Arabie Saoudite du 17 au 20 juillet 2009. Le directeur général a également rencontré à Djeddah le ministre de l'agriculture, Fahd Bin Abdulrahman Bin Sulaiman Balghunaim, et Ahmed Mohamed Ali Al Madani et Birama Boubacar Sidibé, respectivement président et vice-président de la Banque islamique de développement.

Reçu de l'ONU


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Ven 4 Mai - 03:37 (2012)    Sujet du message: LA FAO LANCE UN DÉBAT SUR LA DÉCLARATION DU SOMMET MONDIAL SUR LA SÉCURITÉ ALIMENTAIRE Répondre en citant

LA FAO LANCE UN DÉBAT SUR LA DÉCLARATION DU SOMMET MONDIAL SUR LA SÉCURITÉ ALIMENTAIRE

DERRIÈRE TOUT CE BEAU PROGRAMME DE LA FAO, QU'ON POURRAIT QUALIFIER D'ESSENTIEL DANS CE TEMPS DE GRAND CHANGEMENT, NOUS POUVONS VOIR DERRIÈRE CE DOUBLE LANGAGE SUR LA SÉCURITÉ ALIMENTAIRE, LES BUTS DIABOLIQUES DE CEUX QUI DISENT VOULOIR NOTRE BIEN.

REGARDONS D'UN PEU PLUS PRÈS. QUAND IL EST DIT "L'ÉRADICATION DE LA FAIM DANS LE MONDE D'ICI 2025 ET À UN ACCÈS SÛR À DES ALIMENTS SAINS, SANS RISQUE, EN QUANTITÉ SUFFISANTE ET NUTRITIFS POUR UNE POPULATION QUI DEVRAIT ATTEINDRE 9,2 MILLIARDS D'HABITANTS EN 2050".

VUS DEVEZ COMPRENDRE PREMIÈREMENT LE PUISSANT CONTRÔLE QUE LES NATIONS UNIES, VIA LA FAO EXERCENT SUR LE SECTEUR ALIMENTAIRE PARTOUT DANS LE MONDE. CE CONTRÔLE VIA LE PROGRAMME DU CODEX ALIMENTARUS ET LA COMPAGNIE PUISSANTE DE MONSANTO NOUS ONT DÉMONTRÉ JUSQU'À QUEL POINT LEURS PLANS ÉTAIENT DÉMENTIELS ET CONTRÔLANTS, EN PLUS D'ÊTRE DANGEREUX POUR NOTRE SANTÉ.

LORSQUE L'ON COMPREND LES IMPACTS NÉGATIFS SUR LA SANTÉ DE TOUTES CES NOUVELLES CULTURES OGM, DE MONSANTO, NOUS COMPRENONS MIEUX CE QU'ILS VEULENT DIRE PAR L'ÉRADICATION DE LA PAUVRETÉ. NON SEULEMENT NOS ALIMENTS SONT MAINTENANT PRESQUE TOUS CONTAMINÉS. LES NOUVELLES LOIS CRIMINALISERONT CEUX QUI AURONT DES SEMENCES NATURELLES, DES ANIMAUX NON CLÔNÉS DE MÊME QUE CEUX QUI POSSÉDERONT DES VITAMINES NATURELLES, NOUS CONFIRMENT QUE LEURS PROJETS N'ONT PAS POUR BUT D'APPORTER L'ABONDANCE ET LA GUÉRISON, MAIS LA PÉNURIE ET LA MORT.

TOUT CETTE CONTAMINATION DÉLIBÉRÉE, QU'EUX CONSIDÈRENT COMME DES ALIMENTS SAINS, A POUR BUT PREMIER L'ÉRADICATION DE LA PAUVRETÉ (LA MORT DE MILLIERS DE PERSONNES QUI SONT CONTAMINÉES PAR TOUTES LES TOXINES ET POISONS MIS DANS LES SEMENCES OGM, LA VIANDE CLÔNÉE, ETC.)

LES POPULATIONS, PAR TOUS LES PROGRAMMES DE MORT MIS DE L'AVANT PAR CE GOUVERNEMENT MONDIAL, NE DEVRAIENT PAS ATTEINDRE LES 9,2 MILLIARDS D'HABITANTS EN 2050, PUISQUE DÉJÀ, NOUS VOYONS QUE LE PLAN D'EXTERMINATION DES POPULATIONS NE CESSENT D'AVANCER. CECI N'EST DONC QU'UN AUTRE MENSONGE POUR ALLER DE L'AVANT DANS LEUR AGENDA FUNESTE.

LA NOUVELLES STRUCTURES MONDIALES DE GOUVERNANCE DE LA SÉCURITÉ ALIMENTAIRE QUI SE MET MAINTENANT EN PLACE, IRONT DE L'AVANT JUSQU'À DÉCIDER CE QUI EST BON OU NON POUR CHACUN DE NOUS. LE JAPON DICTE DÉJÀ À SA POPULATION CE QU'ELLE DOIT MANGER, COMBIEN DE CALORIES ELLE A DROIT, ETC, LE TOUT DÉGUISÉ SOUS UN PROGRAMME DE SANTÉ PUBLIQUE, ALORS QUE TOUT CELA FAIT PARTIE DU PROGRAMME DE CONTRÔLE TOTAL DES POPULATIONS. CES HOMMES S'AMUSENT ÉNORMÉMENT PENDANT QU'EUX NE SE PRIVENT D'AUCUNS BIENFAITS.

IL EST DIT DANS L'ARTICLE QUE "LES DIRIGEANTS DU G8 ONT PRÉCONISÉ UNE ACTION DÉCISIVE POUR LIBÉRER L'HUMANITÉ DE LA FAIM ET DE LA PAUVRETÉ EN ENCOURAGEANT LA PRODUCTION DURABLE". LA PRODUCTION DURABLE EST TOUT CE PROGRAMME DE SEMENCES OGM, QUI CONTAMINE ET NOS TERRES ET NOS VIES.

IL EST DIT ÉGALEMENT "EN RENFORÇANT LA PRODUCTIVITÉ AGRICOLE ET EN METTANT L'ACCENT SUR LA CROISSANCE DU SECTEUR PRIVÉ ET SUR LES PETITS EXPLOITANTS". AVEZ-VOUS REMARQUÉ QUE CET AGENDA AVANCENT DANS TOUS LES PAYS ET QU'ELLES SONT DE PLUS PROTÉGÉES PAR LA LOI? LES PETITS EXPLOITANTS, JE DIRAIS LES PETITS AGRICULTEURS, QUI ONT DE PLUS EN PLUS DE MISÈRE À SURVIVRE DÛ À L'ENDETTEMENT ET/OU À LA DESTRUCTION DE LEUR TERRE PAR DES CATASTROPHES NATURELLES SE VOIENT OFFRIR PAR LE SECTEUR PRIVÉ DE NOUVELLES OPPORTUNITÉES AVEC SES NOUVELLES SEMENCES ET CES NOUVEAUX ÉLEVAGES. ILS SONT TOUTREFOIS TENUS DANS L'IGNORANCE DES CONSÉQUENCES NÉFASTES POUR LA PLANÈTE ET POUR LA SANTÉ CHEZ L'HUMAIN. ILS DEVIENNENT DES SOUS-TRAITANTS DE CETTE GRANDE CORPORATION CRIMINELLE ET ILS N'ONT PLUS UN MOT À DIRE SUR LEUR PROPRE TERRE, CAR MONSANTO DÉCIDE DE TOUT, EN PLUS DE SE REMPLIR LES POCHES.

VOILÀ DONC QUE CE NOUVEL ORDRE MONDIAL VA ENCORE RESSERRER LA VIS POUR METTRE DE L'AVANT CES CULTURES, CES MÊMES CULTURES QUI ÉTAIENT SUR CETTE TERRE DU TEMPS DES NÉPHILIM ET DES ANGES-DÉÇHUS DE LA PÉRIODE PRÉ-DILUVIENNE. COMME NOUS SAVONS QUE CES ANGES DÉÇHUS DOIVENT DE NOUVEAU RÉGNER SUR CETTE TERRE À LA FIN DES TEMPS, IL EST DONC NORMAL QUE LEURS SUPPORTERS REMETTENT EN PLACE CE QUI ÉTAIENT.

NE VOUS ATTENDEZ PAS TOUTEFOIS, À VOIR DANS LE FUTUR VOS TABLES AUSSI BIEN GARNI QUE CE QUE NOUS AVONS CONNU JUSQU'À MAINTENANT, PUISQUE CE CONTRÔLE SERA BIENTÔT SOUS LA SUPERVISION DE LA FEMA, ET DE L'OTAN, QUI VERRONT À FAIRE APPLIQUER LES LOIS SUR LE CONTRÔLE ALIMENTAIRE. COMME JE VOUS L'AI DÉMONTRÉ, CEUX QUI POSSÉDERONT POUR PLUS D'UN MOIS DE RÉSERVE ALIMENTAIRE POURRAIENT ÊTRE ACCUSÉS ET DEVOIR SOIT PAYER DE FORTES AMENDES OU FAIRE DE LA PRISON. ON VEUT DONC S'ASSURER QU'ON POURRA VOUS CONTRÔLER PARFAITEMENT PAR CET AUTRE SYSTÈME DE TERREUR DE CONTRÔLE ALIMENTAIRE.


LA FAO LANCE UN DÉBAT SUR LA DÉCLARATION DU SOMMET MONDIAL SUR LA SÉCURITÉ ALIMENTAIRE

New York, Jul 31 2009 10:00AM

Le directeur général de l'Organisation des Nations Unies pour l'alimentation et l'agriculture (<" http://www.fao.org/index_fr.htm">FAO), Jacques Diouf, a invité vendredi les gouvernements du monde entier à participer aux négociations visant à aboutir à une déclaration qui sera adoptée à l'issue du Sommet mondial des chefs d'Etat et de gouvernement sur la sécurité alimentaire à Rome (16 au 18 novembre 2009).

Pour lancer le processus, M. Diouf a envoyé un document aux ministres des Affaires étrangères, de la Coopération au développement et de l'Agriculture des membres de la FAO et des Nations Unies.

Le texte, intitulé "Contribution du Secrétariat à la définition des objectifs et des décisions possibles du Sommet mondial sur la sécurité alimentaire" plaide pour l'éradication de la faim dans le monde d'ici 2025 et à un accès sûr à des aliments sains, sans risque, en quantité suffisante et nutritifs pour une population qui devrait atteindre 9,2 milliards d'habitants en 2050.

Le document propose des éléments d'une nouvelle structure mondiale de gouvernance de la sécurité alimentaire. Il aborde également les questions d'investissements publics et privés pour relancer la production agricole dans les pays en développement, l'aide alimentaire d'urgence, l'intervention rapide en cas de crise alimentaire, le commerce extérieur et le soutien aux agriculteurs, l'instabilité des marchés, le renforcement des capacités et des institutions, la qualité et la sécurité sanitaire des aliments, les ravageurs et les maladies transfrontalières des plantes et des animaux, ainsi que l'atténuation et l'adaptation au changement climatique dans l'agriculture.

Le document envoyé aux Etats membres de la FAO s'inspire de la récente déclaration du G8 sur la sécurité alimentaire, adoptée à L'Aquila (Italie) en juillet.

Les dirigeants du G8 ont préconisé une action décisive pour libérer l'humanité de la faim et de la pauvreté en encourageant la production durable, en renforçant la productivité agricole et en mettant l'accent sur la croissance du secteur privé et sur les petits exploitants. Ils se sont engagés à mobiliser 20 milliards de dollars sur une période de trois ans.

"Je nourris l'espoir que le document ouvrira un riche débat au sein des Etats membres, faisant intervenir non seulement les gouvernements, mais aussi le secteur privé, les agriculteurs et les organisations non gouvernementales, le système des Nations Unies et d'autres organismes internationaux et partenaires du développement, ainsi que les ambassadeurs et représentants permanents des différents groupes régionaux", a souligné M. Diouf.

"Il est temps d'affronter les causes profondes de la faim et de trouver une solution structurale et durable à la sécurité alimentaire mondiale", a-t-il ajouté.

Reçu de l'ONU


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Ven 4 Mai - 03:40 (2012)    Sujet du message: OCHA : GAZA, DEUX ANS DE BLOCUS Répondre en citant

OCHA : GAZA, DEUX ANS DE BLOCUS

GAZA, QUI SERT GRANDEMENT LES INTÉRÊTS DE L'ÉLITE MONDIALE EN VUE D'ANNIHILER ISRAËL ET DE TROMPER LE MONDE ENTIER MET POURTANT EN PLACE LE MÊME PLAN DE DESTRUCTION QUE NOUS RETROUVONS PRÉSENTEMENT DANS PLUSIEURS PARTIES DU MONDE.

NOUS SAVONS QUE LA MÊME MISÈRE, QUE SUBISSENT PRÉSENTEMENT LES PALESTINIENS DE GAZA, QUANT À LA PERTE DE L'ÉLECTRICITÉ, DE L'EAU, DE L'HYGIÈNE ET DE L'ÉDUCATION, SERA AUSSI PRÉSENTE DANS TOUS LES PAYS DÉVELOPPÉS, SOUS PEU. LA FEMA ET LE HOMELAND SECURITY ONT DÉJÀ TOUT PRÉVU À CE SUJET.



Gaza

17 août 2009 – Le territoire palestinien de Gaza, une des zones les plus peuplées sur la terre, est en proie à une dégradation des conditions de vie et des infrastructures dans les domaines de la santé, de l'eau, de l'hygiène et de l'éducation, affirme un nouveau rapport du Bureau de la coordination des affaires humanitaires (OCHA).

« Au cours des trois derniers mois, Israël a autorisé l'entrée dans Gaza d'un petit nombre de camions transportant des biens auparavant interdits. Bien que ces mesures soient bienvenues, leur impact réel comparé aux besoins de Gaza reste négligeable », affirme le rapport intitulé « Enclavé : L’impact humanitaire de deux ans de blocus sur la Bande de Gaza ».

Le nombre de camions entrant dans Gaza chaque jour depuis le blocus (112) représente 1/5ème du nombre de cargaisons passant la frontière auparavant, soit 583 entre janvier et mai 2007. Quant aux exportations elles ont été totalement interdites à part 147 camions de fleurs et de fraises.

En tout depuis deux ans, 120.000 emplois du secteur privé ont été perdus. Les résidents de Gaza sont soumis à des coupures d'électricité de 4 à 8 heures par jour.

Quatre-vingt millions de litres d'eaux usagées ou partiellement traitées sont déversées chaque jour dans l'environnement en raison du manque d'entretien du réseau d'égout.

Le régime alimentaire des Gazaouïs est passé d'une alimentation de qualité riche en protéines à une alimentation bon marché riche en sucres.

Enfin, au premier semestre de 2007-2008, 20% seulement des élèves de sixième ont réussi leurs examens de mathématiques, de sciences, d'anglais et d'arabe.

http://www.un.org/apps/newsFr/storyF.asp?NewsID=19863&Cr=Gaza&Cr1=O…


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Ven 4 Mai - 03:40 (2012)    Sujet du message: NEW UN REPORT SPOTLIGHTS HUMANITARIAN CRISIS TRIGGERED BY BLOCKADE OF GAZA Répondre en citant

NEW UN REPORT SPOTLIGHTS HUMANITARIAN CRISIS TRIGGERED BY BLOCKADE OF GAZA



17 August 2009 – The ongoing Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip, now in its third year, has triggered a “protracted human dignity crisis” with negative humanitarian consequences, according to a new report released today by the United Nations relief wing.

“At the heart of this crisis is the degradation in the living conditions of the population, caused by the erosion of livelihoods and the gradual decline in the state of infrastructure, and the quality of vital services in the areas of health, water and sanitation, and education,” adds the report, entitled “Locked In: The Humanitarian Impact of Two Years of Blockade on the Gaza Strip.”

The blockade, imposed following the Hamas takeover of Gaza in June 2007, includes the closure of Karni, one of the largest and best equipped commercial crossings; sweeping restrictions on the import of industrial, agricultural and construction materials; the suspension of almost all exports; and a general ban on the movement of Palestinians through Erez, the only passenger crossing to the West Bank.

“The denial of Palestinians' right to leave Gaza , or to move freely to the West Bank , particularly when their lives, physical integrity, or basic freedoms are under threat, is another key component of the current human dignity crisis.

“The blockade has 'locked in' 1.5 million people in what is one of the most densely populated areas on earth,” notes the report, prepared by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).

It finds that the blockade has resulted in the devastation of livelihoods, rising food insecurity, a protracted energy crisis and a deterioration of water and sanitation infrastructure, among other issues.

The lack of essential imports, including raw materials, coupled with the ban on exports, has “decimated” economic activity in the private sector, where 120,000 jobs have been lost.

Also, except for a short interval during the ceasefire brokered by Egypt in 2008, almost no construction materials have been allowed into Gaza through the official crossings, compared to an average of 7,400 truckloads imported every month between January and May 2007.

The ban on the import of building materials has prevented the reconstruction of most of the 3,540 homes destroyed during Operation Cast Lead – launched by Israel in December 2008 in response to rocket attacks by militants in Gaza .

The report notes that Israel has allowed entry into Gaza of a small number of truckloads over the past three months carrying good previously prevented from entering, such as limited construction, water, sanitation and education materials.

“While these are welcome steps, their actual impact when compared to the current level of needs in Gaza remains negligible,” OCHA says.

The report adds that the UN and others have repeatedly urged the Israeli Government to remove the restrictions on Gaza 's border, to allow free access to agricultural areas within Gaza , and to allow unrestricted fishing in Gaza 's territorial waters.

“These are the urgent first steps needed to start the reconstruction of homes and infrastructure, the revival of the economy and the restoration of human dignity in Gaza ,” it states.

The report also describes how the recurrent cycles of violence and human rights violations, stemming from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, especially from the recent clashes, and Hamas' rule over Gaza , have compounded the suffering of the population of the Strip.

Meanwhile, the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) today launched an appeal for $181 million to maintain its support to refugees in Gaza .

The appeal, which coincides with the eve of the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan, covers food assistance, job creation opportunities, and cash assistance for the poorest of the poor. Other urgent needs right now include the rehabilitation of UNRWA education and health facilities.

“A generous response to this appeal will immediately mitigate the downward spiral of destitution and hopelessness facing many refugees as Ramadan approaches,” states the agency. “However, this destitution and hopelessness can, and will, only be curtailed by lifting the siege on Gaza , opening borders in both directions, and allowing the freedom of movement of people.”


http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=31779&Cr=Gaza&Cr1=


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Ven 4 Mai - 03:41 (2012)    Sujet du message: WASHINGTON QUIETLY MULLS NEW QUARANTINE REGULATIONS – DO YOU HAVE ENOUGH FOOD STORED? Répondre en citant

THE COMING FAMINE IN AMERICA AND ALL OVER THE WORLD

WASHINGTON QUIETLY MULLS NEW QUARANTINE REGULATIONS – DO YOU HAVE ENOUGH FOOD STORED?



Josh Gerstein
Politico.com

The Obama administration is quietly dusting off an effort to impose new federal quarantine regulations, which were vigorously resisted by civil liberties organizations and the airline industry when the rules were first proposed by the Bush administration nearly four years ago.

White House officials aren’t saying what their rules might ultimately require. But the previous administration proposed giving the federal government the authority to order a “provisional quarantine” of three business days — or up to six calendar days — for those suspected of having swine flu or other illnesses listed in a presidential executive order.

VIDEO :
http://www.politico.com/singletitlevideo.html?bcpid=1155201977&bctid=31…

http://farmwars.info/?p=1337


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Ven 4 Mai - 03:41 (2012)    Sujet du message: THE JACKASSES DIT IT…… HR 2749 THE SEIZURE OF THE US FOOD SUPPLY AND PRODUCTION PASSED THE HOUSE Répondre en citant

THE JACKASSES DIT IT…… HR 2749 THE SEIZURE OF THE US FOOD SUPPLY AND PRODUCTION PASSED THE HOUSE

Despite some really eloquent speeches to the contrary, our “for sale” House of Representatives passed the Food Fascism Act…. euphemistically called a food safety act, by a margin of about 140 over the naysayer’s.

True to form, Rosa DeLauro spoke about things she knows nothing about and couldn’t care less; Rosa just loves her some Monsanto!

And that exclusion for farms??? Gone! And that includes you organic idiots who thought you had kissed enough behinds to have your industry excluded.

The newly revised bill that appeared overnight after the original was defeated 29th of July, now includes all those farms we were told would not be affected by this legislation. Of course those big agri-corporations made out like bandits. Biopiracy is going to have a profitable future thanks to the political whore’s in congress we call our representatives.

The entire HR 2749 bill was completely wiped and replaced with an amendment that was the text of another bill similar to, but far more lethal than the first. Now, please tell me again that backroom deals and pre-planned votes don’t happen in congress. To make it look bi-partisan, some Democrats voted no, and some Republicans voted yes. This was to make you think they had actually debated and considered what they all intended to do anyway.

The bill that passed does only two things……..it seizes control of food production and supply and then hands it over to big agri-corporations. The remaining content of the bill is a primer on enforcement…… meaning all the powers they have granted themselves to prevent you from claiming Constitutional protections, and enabling them to violate your rights on multiple levels….. all for food safety of course.

There is NOTHING in this bill that will address, prevent or otherwise affect the safety of food. This was federal encroachment which will be extended to the states with the cooperation of state officials. This bill did nothing but establish a police agency, granting it massive and uncontrolled enforcement capabilities allowing it to make up even more rules to benefit its corporate sponsors, as it moves along.

Oh! And did I mention this will be done by expanding the FDA? The FDA for god’s sake!

A November 2007 report titled “Subcommittee on Science and Technology, FDA Science and Mission at Risk” doc was a scathing review of the not only the inadequacies of FDA, but the fact that it in no way can assure the safety of food in the United States.

That report cited the massive failure of FDA to perform even its basic functions, going on to declare the agency’s problems were the result of corporate influence and funding. It should have been declared defunct right then and there, but of course the lobbyists who stalk the hallways of congress on behalf bio-pirates and other parasitic corporations just wouldn’t hear of such a thing.

I can only assume the report on the massive failure of FDA to operate on even a cursory level ended up in the restrooms to wipe the behinds of all those royal asses who hold down seats in the House and who voted today to end competition for industrialized corporate producers while wiping out family and independent operations.

And it wasn’t just the House that sold us out. In the last few months various organic associations and other assorted producers came out with what they described as “myths on the net” about the intention of these bills. Why….. these bills were not going to apply to family and independent farms and ranches and surely not to organic growers. That was just internet hysteria! I wonder who was hysterical last evening as this bill passed specifically bringing them under the expanded FDA authority?

And drinks all around!

I have no doubt that dinner and drinks were being supplied last evening by corporate lobbyists as a way to thank House members for passing this seizure of the US food production and supply. FDA was probably pouring the champagne.

I wonder if anyone thought to invite those organic groups?

Maybe they could give everyone a big dose of Vioxx when they arrive, spike it with a Gardasil shot and then wash it all down with a big giant super sized diet soda loaded with that yummy aspartame. This should all be followed by a meal consisting of gmo infected fruits and veggies with a big slab of genetically altered meat just oozing antibiotics, growth hormones and the residues from chemicals of all kinds, shipped in from a country who gave their word they “inspected” the food before shipping it.

After all, thanks to Henry Waxman and his cohorts in Constitutional Crime, that’s what is going to end up on our plates.

(C) 2009 Marti Oakley

July 31, 2009


http://farmwars.info/?p=1320


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Ven 4 Mai - 03:43 (2012)    Sujet du message: STRANGE MARTIAL LAW VIA FOOD CONTROL: HR 2749 Répondre en citant



STRANGE MARTIAL LAW VIA FOOD CONTROL: HR 2749

Not what the American people ordered – HR 2749, martial law and the enslavement of their farmers

By The Writers’ Collective

HR 2749 is a strange bill in many ways. While the other “food safety” bills have been around since winter, allowing for much public discussion on the internet, HR 2749 has only suddenly appeared. It is a mutant conglomeration of the worst of the other bills, with the addition of one very original part – martial law.

When it was a draft, it was Waxman’s bill. But once given a number, it became Dingel’s who already had a “food safety” bill, HR 759. So Waxman got none and Dingel got two. (Was this because Waxman, being Jewish, was a hideous choice to introduce a bill with Codex in it – designed by the Nazi pharmaceutical companies that funded Hitler, provided the gas for the gas chambers, experimented on prisoners with vaccines – and is expected to kill millions?)

* HR 2749 would give FDA the power to order a quarantine of a geographic area, including “prohibiting or restricting the movement of food or of any vehicle being used or that has been used to transport or hold such food within the geographic area.”

[This - "that has been used to transport or hold such food" - would mean all cars that have ever brought groceries home or any pickup someone has eaten take-out in, so this means ALL TRANSPORTATION can be shut down under this. This is using food as a cover for martial law.]

Under this provision, farmers markets and local food sources could be shut down, even if they are not the source of the contamination. The agency can halt all movement of all food in a geographic area.

[This is also a means of total control over the population under the cover of food, and at any time.] See this DailyKos entry.


The bill is unusual, too, because slow as it was to appear. The little bugger of bill has made up for it since. It got a number on June 10, went to committee on June 17, passed instantly, and is headed for a vote on the floor of the House.

The first Patriot Act was passed using fear of terrorism. This Patriot Act is more coy, hiding under a cloak of “food safety” and but also using fear – fear of food contamination. Evidently, Americans are supposed to be so frightened by the slightest possibility of a terrorist or of E-coli, they would trade away all their precious, hard fought freedoms for the promise of safety. Or at least, that is what the trade-off has become. “Terrorism” and “contamination” are great bugaboos used to open doors to an end to the US Constitution. That is exactly what we are left with after those who wrote HR 2749 are done.

Who did write these bills? It seems Monsanto had not only a hand, but a “defining” influence.
http://farmwars.info/?p=594

This redefining of reality is what seems to be underlying all the loss of freedom. Normal and free are disappearing into the maw of corporate definitions of reality. See this Yup Farming piece.

So, we begin with contaminated food from filthy corporate processors and concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). And what do we end up with after that reality is ground up by corporate legal hands? Changes in the definition of risk so that natural things are treated as dangerous and toxic things are untouched, such that:

Healthy, normal farms are taken over by government as though they were run by criminals and contaminated corporate slaughterhouses are untouched;


The necessary freedom of individuals to live and grow food and be left alone are somehow suddenly destroyed, though they were never the source of any food contamination issue; and such that
The profit and control and power of corporations which were absolutely the source of the increasingly terrible food, is somehow suddenly vastly increased.  


Thanks to corporate control over reality, our wanting to clean up corporate processors and feedlots and CAFOS and end up with farmers’ markets and local farms and organic food has become the industrialization and potential destruction of every healthy part of the food system and the triumph of the most contaminated and toxic part. And in the non-bargain, we lost all freedoms and they took all control. And “all” is not a hyperbole here, for one need only look at another provision of HR 2749 to feel how insane, how distant from all we ever wanted.

* HR 2749 would empower FDA to regulate how crops are raised and harvested. It puts the federal government right on the farm, dictating to our farmers.

[What is missing in pointing out this astounding control, is that it opens the door to CODEX and WTO "good farming practices" will include the elimination of organic farming by eliminating manure, mandating GMO animal feed, imposing animal drugs, and ordering applications of petrochemical fertilizers and pesticides. Farmers, thus, will be locked not only into the industrialization of once normal and organic farms but into the forced purchase of industry's products. They will be slaves on the land, doing the work they are ordered to do - against their own best wisdom - and paying out to industry against their will. There will be no way to be frugal, to grow one's own grain to feed the animals, to raise healthy animals without GMO grains or drugs, to work with nature at all. Grassfed cattle and poultry and hogs will be finished. So, it needs to be made clear where control will take us. And weren't these the "rumors on the internet" that were dismissed but are clearly the case?] See this DailyKos entry.

When we wanted not to get E-coli in processed meat, did we intend to put our farmers into corporate servitude? Did we plan to have our own lives straight-jacketed by a million new controls over our own gardens, our own desire to grow food, our own plans to start small businesses, our own dreams to have a small piece of land and farm ourselves? Who has the audacity to take our needs and grotesquely bastardize them in these ways, while giving the destruction and totalitarian control the sham name of “food safety”?

We wanted good food. We never wanted to trap our farmers into an industrial prison on their own land, afraid moment to moment of not fulfilling some monstrous set of instructions that never end – rules the farmers loathe, rules that have not only nothing to do with real farming but which are antithetical to it. Why have we ended up with HR 2749, an intense corporate nightmare around the most central and necessary aspects of a free country and of free human beings – farming and food?

American farming needs to be relieved of the burdens it has been under, not finished off by its corporate competition. It needs freedom to flourish again. Obviously – and Congress people who would think to vote for such absurdities, take note – the imposition of surveillance, monitoring, warrantless entry, taking of all records, licensing, fees, Codex and NAIS, in addition to massive penalties and prison terms (all without judicial review over even appropriateness and validity), are not how one thanks American farmers for holding together the only working part of our food system. See Literal Enslavement by Linn Cohen-Cole.

HR 2749 is the most vicious and insane bill one could imagine. Who treats our farmers in this way? Who believes that such police measures can provide for the rebirth of farming and the return of healthy food? Who wrote this bill that trashes the freedom of all our lives? HR 2749 was not what we ordered and it should be sent back the bowels of hell it came from.

HR 2749 is both insane and cruel. And the deceptiveness of hiding a Patriot Act in it and the brutal rush to slip it through Congress are ANTI-democratic.

Go here to tell Congress, “No.”
http://www.ftcldf.org/petitions/pnum993.php

http://farmwars.info/?p=1145


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Ven 4 Mai - 03:44 (2012)    Sujet du message: HR 2749 - THE FOOD SAFETY ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2009 Répondre en citant

HR 2749 - THE FOOD SAFETY ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2009

Read the Executive Summary
Sign the Oppose HR 2749 petition!
Read Frequently Asked Questions
Read our Response to Consumers' Union
Take It All In - Food Safety Summary

Listen to Pete Kennedy's HR 2749 Interview on Michale Olson's Food Chain Radio (July 18, 2009) Click here and "Listen Now" for #643.


Listen to Pete Kennedy's HR 2749 Interview on RadioAmerica (June 18, 2009 at 8 am)

Updates
July 30, 2009 - Pete Kennedy, Esq. The U.S. House of Representative passed HR 2749 by a vote of 283 to 141. The next step for the bill is the Senate. It is likely the Senate will not consider HR2749 until they return from their summer recess. The Fund will continue to provide updates on the progress of the bill.

July 14, 2009 by Pete Kennedy, Esq.: House Ag Committee to Review Current Issues in Food Safety - Full Committee - Public Hearing on Thursday July 16 at 10:00 am. 1300 Longworth House Office Building Check for Updates to Schedule http://agriculture.house.gov/hearings/schedule.html Listing of Ag Committee Members http://agriculture.house.gov/inside/members.html

June 18, 2009 by Pete Kennedy, Esq.: On June 17, the Waxman amendment to HR 2749 was voted out of the House Commerce and Energy Committee and is headed to the House floor for consideration. It may be amended again before the House votes on HR 2749. See Talking Points for changes to the "Alarming Provisions".

* * * * *

News Post
June 15, 2009 - by Pete Kennedy, Esq.: The review below of HR 2749 was based on the June 10 Pallone version that was voted out of the Health Subcommittee of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce - see Endnotes for edits from updated versions.

On May 26, leading members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee released a discussion draft of the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009 (FSEA). Committee members supporting FSEA include Chair Henry Waxman (D-CA), Chair Emeritus John Dingell (D-MI), Frank Pallone (D-NJ, Chair of the Health Subcommittee), and Bart Stupak (D-MI, Chair of the Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee).

Even before the FSEA was formally introduced, the Health Subcommittee held a hearing on the discussion draft on June 3. (Six other food safety bills have been introduced, but none have gotten a hearing yet.) The discussion draft, with some changes, was introduced as HR 2749 on June 8 by Rep. Dingell. Rep. Pallone introduced an amendment “in the nature of a substitute to HR 2749″ on June 10. This version of HR 2749 has been voted out of the Health Subcommittee and is now headed to the full Energy and Commerce Committee for mark-up on June 17. The bill is on the fast track.

Passage of the FSEA into law would amend the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). The bill proposes a substantial increase in power and resources for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and would significantly diminish existing judicial restraints on actions taken by the agency. Although the bill includes some provisions that could improve the mainstream food system, many of these are vaguely worded and do not clearly define the scope of the agency’s power, creating the potential for inappropriate application and enforcement. Small farms and local artisanal producers are part of the solution to the food safety problem in this country; the bill would impose on them a one-size-fits-all regulatory scheme and would disproportionately impact their operations for the worse. A detailed analysis of some of the key provisions is below [the citations are to the relevant section and page number of the June 10 version of the bill].

The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund is opposed to HR 2749 because it would adversely impact small farms and food producers, without providing significant reforms in the industrial food system. HR 2749 does not address the underlying causes of food safety problems, including industrial agriculture practices and the consolidation of our food supply.

I. REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS

Under current law, all “food facilities” are required to register with the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) [21 USC § 350d]. The registration requirement is for one time only and no fee is charged. The FSEA would amend the current law to add significant requirements.

A. ANNUAL REGISTRATION FEE

The FSEA would require facilities to register annually [section 101(b)(1)–p. 3], rather than a one-time registration. Registrants would also be required to pay an annual fee of $500, to be adjusted for inflation [section 101, Part6, sec 743(b)(1)(A)–p. 10].

B. LIMITED EXCLUSION FROM REGISTRATION FOR FARMS

The term “facility” does not include “farms” for purposes of registration in either the current law or under the bill [21 USC § 350d(b)(1)]. But what exactly is a “farm”? The FDA’s current regulations take a very narrow view of what qualifies as a farm:

“…a facility in one general physical location devoted to the growing and harvesting of crops, the raising of animals (including seafood), or both. Washing, trimming of outer leaves of, and cooling produce are considered part of harvesting. The term “farm” includes:

“(i) Facilities that pack or hold food, provided that all food used in such activities is grown, raised, or consumed on that farm or another farm under the same ownership; and

“(ii) Facilities that manufacture/process food, provided that all food used in such activities is consumed on that farm or another farm under the same ownership.” [21 CFR § 1.227(3)] (emphasis added)

“Manufacturing/processing” is defined as “making food from one or more ingredients, or synthesizing, preparing, treating, modifying or manipulating food, including food crops or ingredients. Examples of manufacturing/processing activities are cutting, peeling, trimming, washing, waxing, eviscerating, rendering, cooking, baking, freezing, cooling, pasteurizing, homogenizing, mixing, formulating, bottling, milling, grinding, extracting juice, distilling, labeling, or packaging.” [21 CFR § 1.227(6)] In other words, any farm that makes jam, cans vegetables, or packages cut fruit would not be considered a “farm” under the regulation unless the food is consumed only on the farm!

In a subsequent guidance document, FDA expanded the definition of “farm”: “The term ‘farm’ also includes facilities that manufacture/process, pack, or hold food, provided that all food used in those activities is grown, raised, or consumed on that farm or another farm under the same ownership.” (emphasis added). Under the guidance document, a “farm” can process food if the raw ingredients are grown or raised on that farm. In other words, a farmer could make lacto-fermented foods from his own produce; but a farmer who obtains produce from a neighbor to make such foods (unless consumed there) would no longer be considered a “farm” and would be subject to FDA registration.

Even under the guidance document, many small farms and artisanal producers could be required to register. FDA has not enforced this requirement strictly so far, but that is no guarantee about future actions by the agency. And if the agency were to revoke the guidance document and enforce the registration requirement in accordance with the definition of “farm” contained in the regulations, many farms would be required to register and, under the FSEA, pay an annual fee.

B. ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION

The FSEA would also mandate that registrations be submitted in electronic format only [section 101(b)(1)(C)–p. 4]. Amish and Mennonite food producers having to register would thus be faced with a choice of violating either their religious faith or the law, while other food producers could face added expense and problems if they do not have the necessary technology. Failure to properly register would constitute misbranding and would be a violation of the law [section 101a–p. 3].

C. UNIQUE FACILITY IDENTIFIER

All food facilities required to register would also be required to have a “unique facility identifier” [section 101(b)(2)(G)–p. 6]. “The Secretary may, by guidance, specify the unique numerical identifier system to be used . . . .” [section 206, sec. 911 (c)–p. 101]

II. QUALITY CONTROL FOR REGISTRANTS

A. HAZARD ANALYSIS & PREVENTIVE CONTROLS

Under FSEA, the owner, operator or agent of a facility that must register must also undertake extensive paperwork requirements including the following:

1. Conduct a hazard analysis (or more than one if appropriate);

2. Identify, implement, and validate effective preventive controls;

3. Monitor preventive controls;

4. Institute corrective actions when monitoring shows that preventive controls have not been properly implemented or were ineffective;

5. Conduct verification activities;

6. Maintain records of monitoring, corrective action, and verification; and

7. Reanalyze for hazards. [section 102(b), sec 418A(a)–p. 18]

Failure to comply with any of these requirements would constitute adulteration under section 102(a) [p. 17]. These requirements apply even if a facility engages solely in intrastate commerce, such as a local baker selling at a farmers market.

B. FOOD SAFETY PLANS

Before a facility can ship any food in interstate commerce, a written food safety plan must be developed and implemented. The plan must include the hazard analysis and any reanalysis as well as a descrïption of each of the following elements:

preventive controls being implemented;
procedure for monitoring preventive controls;
procedures for taking corrective action;
verification activities for the preventive controls, including validation, review of monitoring and corrective action records, and procedures for determining whether the preventive controls are effectively preventing, eliminating, or reducing to an acceptable level the occurrence of identified hazards or conditions;
recordkeeping procedures;
procedures for the recall of articles of food, whether voluntarily or when required;
procedures for the trace back of articles of food, whether voluntarily or when required;
procedures to ensure a safe and secure supply chain for the ingredients or components used in making the food manufactured, processed, packed, transported or held by such facility; and
procedures to implement the science-based performance standards issued. [section 102, sec 418A (a)(2)–pp. 24-26]
The requirements for the hazard analysis, preventive controls and the food safety plan will strain the time and resources of small producers, putting many of them out of business. As a result, consumers will lose local food sources and be forced to obtain more of the foods from the industrial system–the system responsible for the food safety problems in the first place.

C. RISK-BASED INSPECTIONS

Finally, all registered facilities will be subject to federal inspection even if they engage only in intrastate commerce. In contrast, under current law, inspection can be made only of a “factory, warehouse or establishment” of a firm engaged in interstate commerce [21 USC 374(a)(1)] Note that the massive recalls during the last several years have all involved facilities that shipped interstate.

The FSEA charges the Secretary with implementing an inspection schedule with the frequency of inspections dependent on the “risk presented by the facility”. Under the FSEA, “any facility that manufactures or processes raw products of animal origin” would be a high-risk facility and could be subject to inspections as frequently as every six months [section 105(a)–p. 36]. Refusing an inspection would constitute adulteration under the FSEA [section 207(a)–p. 101].

III. RECORDKEEPING AND TRACEABILITY REQUIREMENTS

Beyond registration, farms would not be exempt from several onerous requirements under the FSEA.

A. RECORDKEEPING

Under the FSEA, all food producers would have to make their records available to FDA inspectors. Under current law, FDA can examine the records of those in the food business (excluding farms and restaurants) if there is “a reasonable belief that an article of food is adulterated and presents a threat of serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals” [21 USC 350c(a)]. Under the FSEA, all those in the food business, including farms, must turn over to FDA inspectors all records “bearing on whether the food is adulterated, misbranded or otherwise in violation of this Act . . .” [section 106(a)–p. 39]. This requirement “applies to all records relating to the production, manufacture, processing, packing, transporting, distribution, receipt, holding of [food]” that is maintained “in any format and at any location.” [section 106(a)–pp. 39-40]

In other words, FDA would now be empowered to go on a ‘fishing expedition’ and search records without any evidence whatsoever that there has been a violation. Even farmers selling direct to consumers would have to provide the federal government with records on where they buy supplies, how they raise their crops, and a list of customers. Refusing a records inspection would constitute adulteration [section 207(a)–p. 102].

B. TRACEABILITY

The FSEA charges the HHS Secretary with establishing a tracing system for food:

Such regulations shall require each person who produces, manufactures, processes, packs, transports, or holds such food–

to maintain the full pedigree of the origin and previous distribution history of the food;
to link that history with the subsequent distribution history of the food;
to establish and maintain a system for tracing the food that is interoperable with the systems established and maintained by other such persons; and
to use a unique identifier for each facility for such person for such purpose. [section 107(c)(2)(A)(i)–pp. 43-44]
The tracing system must enable the Secretary to “identify each person who grows, produces, manufactures, processes, packs, transports, holds, or sells such food in as short a timeframe as practicable but no longer than 2 business days.” In issuing related regulations, the Secretary may include:

“(A) the establishment and maintenance of lot numbers;

“(B) a standardized format for pedigree information; and

“(C) the use of a common nomenclature for food.” [section 107(c)(3)–p. 45]

“Pedigree” is not used in reference to food anywhere in the United States Code (USC) or the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) nor is it referenced as such in any dictionary. FDA is being given power to invent a new meaning for this word. How far will the traceback extend to determine the full pedigree? Will it go back to the harvested crop (or even seed) from which the food is produced? How will traceback be done on multi-ingredient foods? Will part of determining the full pedigree require tracing the inputs used in food? How large a database will be needed to store this information? What will the cost of it be? How many people will FDA have to hire in order to enforce traceability?

There is an exemption from the traceability requirements for direct-marketed food, “if such food is–

“(i) produced on a farm; and

“(ii) sold by the owner, operator, or agent in charge of such farm directly to a consumer or to a restaurant or grocery store.” [section 107(c)(4)(A)–p. 46].

For example, vegetables grown on a farm and sold at a farmers market would be exempt. But if that same farmer brought peaches from a neighbor’s farm to sell at the market, the peaches would not be exempt.

IV. GROWING STANDARDS

The FSEA will also directly impact produce farmers by authorizing FDA to tell them how they can grow their crops. The bill would require the HHS Secretary to establish by regulation “science-based standards for the safe growing, harvesting, packing, sorting, transporting, and holding of raw agricultural commodities that–(1) are from a plant or a fungus; and (2) for which the Secretary has determined that such standards minimize the risk of serious adverse health consequences or death to human or animals.” [section 104(b), sec 419A(a)–p. 31]

Any issued regulation “may include standards addressing manure use, water quality, employee hygiene, sanitation and animal control, and temperature controls, as the Secretary determines to be reasonably necessary.” [section 104(b), sec 419A(b)(3)–p. 32]

In issuing the regulation, the Secretary “shall take into consideration, consistent with ensuring enforceable public health protection, the impact on small-scale and diversified farms, and on wildlife habitat, conservation practices, watershed-protection efforts, and organic production methods” [section 104(b), sec 419A(b)(7)–pp. 32-33]

Based on the FDA’s track record with “good agricultural practices”, the agency is unlikely to adequately address the differences between industrial operations and sustainable farms. The danger is that FDA will adopt regulations that treat small farms growing a diversity of crops organically (whether certified or not) the same as a facility growing thousands of acres of a single crop conventionally. The regulations could be expensive and burdensome, or simply not feasible, for small farms. Any produce that does not meet the established safety standards would be considered adulterated under the FSEA [section 104(a)–p. 30].

Aside from produce, the Secretary is charged with issuing “science-based performance standards . . . applicable to foods or food classes.” The Secretary is to “identify the most significant foodborne contaminants and the most significant resulting hazards . . .” and “to minimize to an acceptable level, prevent or eliminate the occurrence of such hazards” [section 103(b), sec 419–pp. 29-30]. Food that “has been manufactured, processed, packed, transported, or held under conditions that do not meet [these] standards” is considered as adulterated under the FSEA. FDA would have the power to make pasteurization of raw milk a performance standard.

V. ENFORCEMENT POWERS

The FSEA would give FDA considerable enforcement powers. Under current law, FDA can administratively detain food if there is “credible evidence or information indicating that such article [of food] presents a threat of serious adverse health consequences or death to human or animals” [21 USC 334(h)(1)(A)]. The FSEA would lower the standard for detention, permitting the government to detain food simply if there is “reason to believe that the article [of food] is adulterated, misbranded or otherwise in violation of this act” [section 132(a)–p. 82]. In other words, the agency could detain food based on a suspicion of a paperwork error.

A. RECALL POWER

The FSEA would not only expand the ability of FDA to detain food but would also significantly increase the agency’s recall powers. The agency already has the power to request a voluntary recall [21 CFR 7.45(a)], administratively detain food [21 USC 334(h)(1)(A)], or file for a court order to seize food [21 USC 334(a)(1)] or prohibit the food from being distributed[21 USC 332(a)].

Under the FSEA, the powers of the HHS Secretary would be expanded.

The HHS Secretary may request a voluntary recall if there is “reason to believe [the food] is adulterated, misbranded or otherwise in violation of [the FFDCA]” [section 111(b), sec 420(b)–p. 61].

Under the FSEA, the Secretary also would have the power to order the distribution of food to cease if there is “reason to believe that the use or consumption of, or exposure to, an article of food may cause adverse health consequences to humans or animals . . . ” [section 111(b), sec 420(c)–p. 62].

The firm affected would have 24 hours to appeal the order and request an informal hearing [section 111(b), sec 420(d)–pp. 62-63]; after providing an opportunity for a hearing, the Secretary could either vacate the order or amend the order to require a recall of the food [section 111(b), sec 420(e)–p. 63].

If there is a reasonable belief that a food subject to an order to cease distribution “presents a threat of serious adverse health consequences to humans or animals”, the Secretary may issue an emergency recall order without having to conduct a hearing beforehand [section 111(b), sec 420(f)–pp. 64-65].

Although consumer groups have urged that FDA be granted mandatory recall authority, the “reasonable belief” standard provides too much latitude to the agency and is open to abuse, particularly absent prior judicial review.

B. POWER TO QUARANTINE

Finally, the bill would give FDA the power to order a quarantine of a geographic location. The FSEA provides:

“If the Secretary determines that there is credible evidence or information that an article of food presents a threat of serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals, the Secretary may quarantine any geographic area within the United States where the Secretary reasonably believes such food is located or from which such food originated. The authority to quarantine includes prohibiting or restricting the movement of food or of any vehicle being used or that has been used to transport or hold such food within the geographic area” [section 133(b)(1)–pp. 83-84].

In other words, the agency can halt the movement of all food in a geographic area. Farmers markets and local food sources could be shut down, even if they are not the source of the dangerous contamination. The agency could take this drastic action without any court order. The only requirements are that the HHS Secretary “notify an appropriate official of the State affected” and issue a public announcement [section 133(b)(2)–p. 84].

C. CRIMINAL & CIVIL PENALTIES

The FSEA creates severe criminal and civil penalties. Under current law, anyone committing a violation of the FFDCA can be imprisoned for up to three years if the violation was committed “with the intent to defraud or mislead” [21USC 333(a)(2)]. Under the FSEA, anyone who “knowingly violates” certain prohibitions contained in the FFDCA, such as the prohibition against introducing adulterated or misbranded food into interstate commerce [21 USC 331(a)], can be imprisoned for up to ten years [section 134(a)(3)–p. 85]. Note that such actions as failing to register a facility or not conducting a hazard analysis constitutes “misbranding”. So, an Amish farmer who knowingly refuses to register his facility, or a local baker who knowingly failed to fill out the extensive required paperwork, could be thrown in jail.

The bill also provides fines of up to a total of $100,000 for individuals; and a corporation or other entity can be fined up to a total of $7.5 million. Each day during which a violation continues shall be considered a separate offense [section 135a–pp. 85-86]. These fines can be imposed for any prohibited act, which would include violations of the growing standards or paperwork requirements. In contrast, under current law, civil fines are half as high and only levied if someone has introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce adulterated food. [21 USC 333(f)(2)(A)]

While higher penalties may be necessary to deter industrial food companies from repeated dangerous violations, the agency has a track record of pursuing small farmers and producers; these penalties could be imposed to ruin people for actions that pose no threat to human health.

VI. CONCLUSION

The FSEA gives the Food and Drug Administration tremendous power while making the agency less accountable for its actions. It fails to describe how the resources it provides are to be allocated. The industrial food system and food imports are badly in need of effective regulation, but the bill does nothing to prevent FDA from concentrating a disproportionate amount of its resources on local food producers.

The stated purpose of the FSEA is to “improve the safety of food in the global market.” It was disclosed at the June 3rd hearing that, out of the 378,000 food facilities that have registered with FDA, 220,000 of them are foreign facilities that export to the United States. Rep. Dingell commented that the percentage of our food coming from out of the country will increase in the future. This creates massive food insecurity in our country, yet the bill continues to push the federal government’s policy of food interdependence.

While information FDA obtains may be exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act [5 USC 52(a)], it may still be provided “to any foreign government agency; or any international organization established by law, treaty or other governmental action and having responsibility–to facilitate global or regional of harmonization of standards and requirements in an area of responsibility of the Food and Drug Administration; or to promote and coordinate public health efforts . . .” [section 112(b)(4)–p. 71].

Food security is achieved by becoming as self-sufficient as possible in food production. Lessening the regulatory burden on small farms and local artisanal producers will improve both food security and food safety. If the FSEA is implemented, many small producers will not have the economies of scale to be able to comply with its onerous requirements.

The Food Safety Enhancement Act needs to be defeated. Any food safety bill should target industrial food processors and imports while leaving the local food system alone. Readers need to contact their Representatives to urge them to oppose the bill. To contact legislators by zip code, use the finder tool at http://www.congress.org/ or call the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121.

Editor's Endnotes:

1. 6/25/09 edit: The HR 2749 revision (6/17 - Waxman) leaves animals under USDA jurisdiction. Edit 1 - Traceability: Will it go back to the animal or harvested crop (or even seed) from which the food is produced? Edit 2 - Growing Standards: FDA would have the power to make pasteurization of raw milk and irradiation of meata performance standardsstandard. Edit 3 - Criminal and Civil Penalties: The bill also provides fines of up to a total of $100,000 for each violation for individuals; and a corporation or other entity can be fined up to $500,000 for each violationa total of $7.5 million.


http://www.ftcldf.org/news/news-15june2009.htm


Revenir en haut
Contenu Sponsorisé






MessagePosté le: Aujourd’hui à 23:50 (2016)    Sujet du message: CONTRÔLE DE LA NOURRITURE/FOOD CONTROL (PARTIE 2)

Revenir en haut
Montrer les messages depuis:   
Poster un nouveau sujet   Répondre au sujet    LE VOÎLE DÉCHIRÉ (1) Index du Forum -> FASCISTE ENVIRONNEMENTAL/ENVIRONMENTAL FASCIST -> CONTRÔLE DE LA NOURRITURE /FOOD CONTROL / PROPERTY RIGHTS / DROITS A LA PROPRIETE(PARTIE 2) Toutes les heures sont au format GMT + 2 Heures
Aller à la page: 1, 2, 313, 14, 15  >
Page 1 sur 15

 
Sauter vers:  

Portail | Index | Creer un forum | Forum gratuit d’entraide | Annuaire des forums gratuits | Signaler une violation | Conditions générales d'utilisation
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Traduction par : phpBB-fr.com