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, 3, 4, 5, 613, 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 - 17:26 (2012)    Sujet du message: CANADA PASSES CODEX FOOD LAW THAT PERMITS POLICE TO TRESPASS, SEIZE PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHOUT WARRANT Répondre en citant

CANADA PASSES CODEX FOOD LAW THAT PERMITS POLICE TO TRESPASS, SEIZE PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHOUT WARRANT

Wednesday, December 22, 2010 by: Jonathan Benson, staff writer

(NaturalNews) The Canadian Parliament recently passed its own form of legislation S. 510, the draconian U.S. "food safety" bill that threatens to eliminate the freedom to grow, sell and buy clean food. Bill C-36, deceitfully branded by the Canadian mainstream media as a "consumer protection" law, is actually part of the larger CODEX Alimentarius food tyranny plan. It eliminates the law of trespass and allows Canadian police to invade private property and confiscate whatever they wish without a warrant.

Massive outcry from natural health product companies and consumers killed several previous versions of Bill C-36, including C-52 and C-6. Proponents of the new bill say it will protect consumers by banning the producing, importing, advertising or selling of any products that pose an unreasonable danger to consumers. But in actuality, Bill C-36 is nothing more than the same affront to health freedom that the previous versions were.

Passed on December 14 by the Canadian Senate, Bill C-36 allows government authorities and health inspectors to invade personal property and arbitrarily confiscate any items deemed "unsafe". It completely bypasses all existing privacy and confidentiality laws that protect citizens from such unlawful interference, and restricts citizen access to courts for due process in such matters. And perhaps worst of all is Canadian citizens are now considered guilty until proven innocent rather than innocent until proven guilty as has long been the standard.

Several Canadian Senators, including Elaine McCoy, Josephy Day, Celine Hervieux-Payette, George Furey and Tommy Banks all spoke out against the bill as a violation of civil liberties. Banks even told the Natural Health Products Protection Association (NHPPA) that the bill "is undoing 400 years of common law."

In accordance with CODEX Alimentarius guidelines, Bill C-36 will harmonize Canadian law with international law and trade restrictions concerning food. So whatever outside groups like the World Health Organization (WHO) and United Nations (UN) decide concerning food safety will now hold sway over Canadian law.

To read Bill C-36 for yourself, visit:
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublica...

Sources for this story include:

http://www.suite101.com/content/bil...

http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/20...

http://www.naturalnews.com/030809_Codex_Canada.html


Revenir en haut
Publicité






MessagePosté le: Ven 4 Mai - 17:26 (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 - 17:27 (2012)    Sujet du message: FOOD SAFETY BILL INVOKES CODEX HARMONIZATION AND GRANTS FDA AUTHORITY TO POLICE FOOD SAFETY OF FOREIGN NATIONS Répondre en citant

FOOD SAFETY BILL INVOKES CODEX HARMONIZATION AND GRANTS FDA AUTHORITY TO POLICE FOOD SAFETY OF FOREIGN NATIONS



Wednesday, December 29, 2010
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com

(NaturalNews) Of all the talk about S.510, virtually no one has actually read the language in the bill -- especially not those lawmakers who voted for it. The more you read from this bill, the more surreal it all becomes. For example, did you know there's a global FDA power grab agenda hidden in the Food Safety Modernization Act? Keep reading and I'll quote text straight out of the bill itself.

Section 305 is entitled "BUILDING CAPACITY OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS WITH RESPECT TO FOOD SAFETY" and it gives the FDA authority to set up offices in foreign countries and then dictate the food safety plans of foreign governments. It says, specifically, on page 217 of the bill (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-...):

SEC. 308. FOREIGN OFFICES OF THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION.
(a) IN GENERAL. - The Secretary shall establish offices of the Food and Drug Administration in foreign countries selected by the Secretary.

It then goes on to say:

(a) The Secretary shall, not later than 2 years of the date of enactment of this Act, develop a comprehensive plan to expand the technical, scientific, and regulatory food safety capacity of foreign governments, and their respective food industries, from which foods are exported to the United States.

Huh? The FDA is now going to run the food safety programs of foreign governments? Look out, world: I'm from the FDA and I'm here to help!

Homeland Security and U.S. Treasury also involved

So who is involved in creating this? Believe it or not, the global "food safety" plan is to be developed under consultation to the Department of Homeland Security as well as the U.S. Treasury. As the bill states:

(b) Consultation - In developing the plan under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consult with the Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the United States Trade Representative, and the Secretary of Commerce, representatives of the food industry, appropriate foreign government officials, nongovernmental organizations that represent the interests of consumers, and other stakeholders.

You might reasonably wonder "What does the Department of Homeland Security have to do with the FDA's food safety plan?" Or "Why is the U.S. Treasury involved in the food supply?" Learn more about the Federal Reserve and you'll have the answers to these questions. I don't have space for all the details here, but read Ed Griffin's book and visit http://www.realityzone.com/ if you really want to know what's behind a lot of this.

Codex harmonization, data sharing and more

So what does this global food safety plan actually entail? It's all spelled out right in the language of the law. You can view this yourself on page 195 of the bill text in the PDF file at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-...

(c) Plan - The plan developed under subsection (a) shall include, as appropriate, the following:

• "Provisions for secure electronic data sharing."

This is so that the FDA can electronically track and monitor the food production activities of foreign nations. That way, if somebody in Spain tries to sell raw almonds to the USA, the FDA can make sure those almonds get irradiated or fumigated with chemicals first. Because raw almonds are so dangerous they have actually been outlawed in America (http://www.naturalnews.com/021776.html).

• "Training of foreign governments and food producers on United States requirements for safe food."

This is designed to shove the FDA's "dead food" agenda down the throats of other nations. The FDA, you see, believes that the only safe food is dead food -- that's why, along with the USDA, they have declared war on raw milk, raw almonds and many raw vegetables (http://www.naturalnews.com/023015_f...).

Now, with this law, the FDA will begin pushing its dead foods agenda globally, essentially exporting the FDA's agenda of death and disease by making sure other nations destroy the nutritive qualities of their food supply in the same way the U.S. is doing. It's all great for the global Big Pharma profiteers, of course. The more disease they can spread around the world, the more money they'll make from selling medications.

Codex Alimentarius is also promoted in the bill

The "Plan" described in this bill continues with the following:

• "Recommendations on whether and how to harmonize requirements under the Codex Alimentarius."

This is included so that the FDA will "harmonize" the U.S. food and dietary supplement industries with global Codex requirements which outlaw virtually all healthy doses of vitamins and minerals. Under full Codex "harmonization," America will be left with a dead food supply and the health food stores will be virtually stripped bare of dietary supplements. Selling vitamin D at a reasonable dose such as 4,000 IU per capsule will be criminalized and products will be seized and destroyed by FDA agents who recruit local law enforcement to bring in the firepower.

All this will, of course, ensure a diseased, nutritionally-deficient U.S. population. This actually seems to be the goal the FDA has been trying to achieve all along because the more diseased the population, the more money gets collected by Big Pharma for "treating" sick people with medication and chemotherapy.

It's all right in the bill!

The text mentioned in this article is taken straight from the bill itself. You can search for it at http://thomas.loc.gov/ by searching for "S.510" as the bill number.

It makes me wonder why some food book authors so wholeheartedly supported this bill. Why were so many progressives on the left so enamored with this law? Didn't they realize this was a huge FDA power expansion that would destroy many small farms and put farmers out of business while subjecting the USA to possible Codex harmonization?

Did they even know the FDA is now on a global food-killing agenda that will seek to pasteurize, fumigate, cook or kill virtually every piece of food that enters the United States?

Did they not know that the bill does absolutely nothing to limit the use of chemical pesticides on imported food? According to the FDA's stance on all this, foods laced with DDT and other pesticides are perfectly "safe" for human consumption, but foods teeming with probiotics -- such as raw milk -- are deadly and dangerous! (Seriously...)

How is it that popular food book authors and food documentary producers could possibly support this bill? Do they also think small dairy farmers who sell raw milk should be criminalized? Do they agree with the Codex harmonization agenda? Do they think the FDA should run the world's food safety systems and that the Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Treasury should be shaping our global food safety agenda?

You really just have to shake your head and wonder about the true intentions of some people. I just have to ask: Were the supporters of this bill really so naive that they could somehow believe the FDA would actually seek to protect small, local organic farms? What about raw milk producers? What about the single-family farms that must now apply to the FDA for exemption status by authoring research reports, collecting tax returns and producing a pile of documentation the FDA will soon require?

Let me just say it bluntly: The Food Safety Modernization Act is the destroyer of local organic farming. It will gut small farms and local farms, greatly increasing the price of local organic food while decreasing America's food security. Farmers' Markets will be targeted by FDA agents who raid the operations of local farmers and imprison them for not having the right paperwork. Families will be destroyed, and those who have been successful at local food production will scale back their operations in a desperate effort to duck under the $500,000 / year rule (which can easily be surpassed by producing just ten acres of organic carrots, by the way).

The real agenda behind the bill

From another point of view, however, this bill is doing exactly what it was supposed to do: Destroy small farms, wipe out family farm operations, imprison raw milk producers and centralize food production in the hands of the big corporate food producers whose operations are steeped in pesticides and soil degradation.

This bill should have been called the "Big Agriculture Monopoly Act" because that's what it does. It will ensure that America's food supply will be controlled by Monsanto, DuPont and other agricultural giants who have been at odds with small organic farms for years.

The global food control agenda is a conspiracy, not a theory

It's all part of the global food control agenda that we now know to be 100% true based on the leaked Wikileaks cables which revealed that the U.S. government conspired to push GMOs into Europe and "create a retaliatory target list" for any nation that resisted GMOs (such as France). Read that full report right here on NaturalNews: http://www.naturalnews.com/030828_G...

Thanks to Wikileaks, we now know that the global GMO conspiracy is quite real. It's something that U.S. diplomats and government officials scheme on in order to appease their corporate masters in the agriculture industry. Now, with the Food Safety Modernization Act, this global conspiracy extends beyond GMOs and encompasses the global food supply, too.

It has become clear that U.S. lawmakers and bureaucrats will not stop until they have killed the entire global food supply, rendering living foods, raw foods and dietary supplements illegal or impossibly difficult to grow. You can thank your U.S. Congresspeople and Senators for all this, of course. In the end, every Senator in office today caved in and voted to pass this bill. You can also thank those who publicly promoted this bill even while having no real idea of the horrors they were supporting.

Such begins a new era of global food destruction headed by what can only be called the most dangerous government agency in North America: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration. If they do to your food what they've done to prescrïption drugs, annual food deaths will increase to over 100,000 a year.

Watch for the FDA to now set up enforcement offices in nations all around the world and start outlawing living foods on a global scale (if they can get away with it).

Also, watch for a new push for Codex harmonization which is a truly evil agenda to criminalize healing foods and nutritional supplements that prevent and even reverse chronic disease.


http://www.naturalnews.com/030863_food_safety_bill_Codex_Alimentarius.html#…


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Ven 4 Mai - 17:28 (2012)    Sujet du message: FEED ME, OBAMA, FEED ME: THE PLAN FOR FOOD DEPENDENCY Répondre en citant

FEED ME, OBAMA, FEED ME: THE PLAN FOR FOOD DEPENDENCY

December 28, 2010
By John Griffing

What does any would-be tyrant need in order to gain control over the lives of citizens? Three things come to mind: martial law, socialized medicine, and food dependency.

In at least two of these categories, President Obama has already succeeded.

Martial Law

By way of executive proclamation, President Obama has secured for himself the power to declare martial law in the event of a national "emergency," real or contrived, and without the accountability typically required by the Posse Comitatus Act and the National Emergencies Act of 1976.

This is the legacy of the "conservative" Bush administration. National emergencies have now been transformed into power-grabbing devices thanks to the virtually unnoticed National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) 51.

NSPD 51 empowers the president to co-opt all state and local government authority in the event that he declares a national emergency. This is a self-declared power not subjugated to the National Emergencies Act of 1976 as in previous directives.

President Obama quickly went beyond NSPD 51, signing an order creating a "Council of Governors" who would be put in charge of declaring martial law. The directive is in direct violation of Posse Comitatus and the Insurrection Act. This "Council of Governors" answers only to President Obama.

In October of last year, President Obama declared a national emergency in the midst of the much-hyped swine flu crisis. This declaration was largely overlooked. By combining his October declaration with the provisions of NSPD 51, President Obama can now be considered virtually uninhibited by Congress and free to flip the switch at any moment.

Socialized Medicine

Whether or not Republicans achieve repeal, a precedent has been set. It is unlikely that the full damage of ObamaCare can be completely undone without Republican control of the White House. The U.S. government can now dictate the coverage and benefits of most Americans -- i.e., those on Medicaid, Medicare, and SCHIP, which together account for thirty percent of the population. In addition, government can punish Americans without insurance with unconstitutional fees and fine employers who refuse to provide every single employee with premium health benefits, making economic recovery unlikely.

In previous articles, I have explained the deadly dimension to ObamaCare as currently construed, demonstrating the serious potential for the mass destruction of human life on the basis of erroneous factors like "hospital readmission." Who will challenge federal officials with health care at stake? Who would seriously suggest that health care will not be used as a political weapon? When the government has all power and no accountability, it has very little reason to use that power responsibly. Accountability is what makes the American model work. But accountability is removed with ObamaCare.

The one area where elites have been so far reluctant to venture is food. Food is the stuff of life. Control over food would mean direct control over the political decisions of average Americans. The elites have slipped the slope, passing legislation that will give federal bureaucrats jurisdiction over food "production" -- i.e., who produces food, what kinds of food are produced, and in what quantities. However, this is not a debate about food regulation or food inspection. What is taking place is in fact a coup d'état, with dinner tables as the strategic weapons.

Food Dependency

The greatest tyrants in history have used food as a method of control. To state the obvious, people must eat to live. By controlling the flow of food to people who side with the political intelligentsia, rule is established. People may challenge tyranny when they have meat on the table. But who in their right mind would bite the hands of their benefactors (so called)?

Meet the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), a new legislative proposal designed to centralize control over food stocks to protect Americans from "terror."

The motive may indeed be to protect the food supply from the actions of terrorists, but what about acts of government terror? Can centralized control by the government protect the people against the whims of human nature? This question is not being asked by those so in favor of surrendering control of food to an entity that cannot even manage a budget, much less an oil spill or other natural disaster. Now we are to believe that this same inefficient, broken entity can guarantee the safety of our food? Something stinks, and it smells like government cheese. Usually when people ask for power, it is because they want power, regardless of the stated motive.

What good, for example, can be gained from removing the right of Americans to grow their own food, as several of the provisions of the Food Safety Modernization Act do? The Ninth Amendment arguably guarantees this and other unenumerated rights. The Ninth Amendment reads:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

To clarify, how can the rights to life, liberty, and property enshrined in the Constitution exist without the ability of citizens to attend to bodily needs -- i.e., sustenance?

The FSMA doesn't merely wrest control of the food supply from citizens. Dangerously, the FSMA proceeds to transfer U.S. food sovereignty to the WTO, with one provision reading, "Nothing in this Act shall be construed in a manner inconsistent with the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization or any other treaty or international agreement to which the U.S. is a party." This provision is significant, since the WTO draws all its food safety standards from the controversial Codex Alimentarius, which is thought by some to be a vast postwar scheme to control the world's population by means of food. The bottom line vis-à-vis food is that Americans lose control, and foreign bureaucrats gain control.

Even if the alleged motive were legitimate, the FDA already inspects food imports, albeit quite poorly. The federal government already possesses the necessary power to thwart terrorist contamination of the food supply. This proposal, then, is not really about protecting food, but instead about controlling food -- and by extension, controlling Americans. We must resist while the fruits of the field are still here for the picking.

President Obama is willing to shut off the water in a small town in the heart of America's agricultural center. Might he be willing to stop shipments of food to politically opposed states?


http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/12/feed_me_obama_feed_me_the_plan.html


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Ven 4 Mai - 17:28 (2012)    Sujet du message: HERE IT IS: CODEX ALIMENTARIUS IN S510 Répondre en citant

HERE IT IS: CODEX ALIMENTARIUS IN S510

Posted by GIT-R-DONE! on December 30, 2010 at 2:14pm

(NaturalNews) Of all the talk about S.510, virtually no one has actually read the language in the bill -- especially not those lawmakers who voted for it. The more you read from this bill, the more surreal it all becomes. For example, did you know there's a global FDA power grab agenda hidden in the Food Safety Modernization Act? Keep reading and I'll quote text straight out of the bill itself.

Section 305 is entitled "BUILDING CAPACITY OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS WITH RESPECT TO FOOD SAFETY" and it gives the FDA authority to set up offices in foreign countries and then dictate the food safet plans of foreign governments. It says, specifically, on page 217 of the bill (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-...):

SEC. 308. FOREIGN OFFICES OF THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION.
(a) IN GENERAL. - The Secretary shall establish offices of the Food and Drug Administration in foreign countries selected by the Secretary.

It then goes on to say:

(a) The Secretary shall, not later than 2 years of the date of enactment of this Act, develop a comprehensive plan to expand the technical, scientific, and regulatory food safety capacity of foreign governments, and their respective food industries, from which foods are exported to the United States.

Huh? The FDA is now going to run the food safety programs of foreign governments? Look out, world: I'm from the FDA and I'm here to help!

Homeland Security and U.S. Treasury also involved
So who is involved in creating this? Believe it or not, the global "food safety" plan is to be developed under consultation to the Department of Homeland Security as well as the U.S. Treasury. As the bill states:

(b) Consultation - In developing the plan under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consult with the Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the United States Trade Representative, and the Secretary of Commerce, representatives of the food industry, appropriate foreign government officials, nongovernmental organizations that represent the interests of consumers, and other stakeholders.

You might reasonably wonder "What does the Department of Homeland Security have to do with the FDA's food safety plan?" Or "Why is the U.S. Treasury involved in the food supply?" Learn more about the Federal Reserve and you'll have the answers to these questions. I don't have space for all the details here, but read Ed Griffin's book and visit http://www.realityzone.com/ if you really want to know what's behind a lot of this.

Codex harmonization, data sharing and more
So what does this global food safety plan actually entail? It's all spelled out right in the language of the law. You can view this yourself on page 195 of the bill text in the PDF file at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-...

(c) Plan - The plan developed under subsection (a) shall include, as appropriate, the following:

• "Provisions for secure electronic data sharing."

This is so that the FDA can electronically track and monitor the food production activities of foreign nations. That way, if somebody in Spain tries to sell raw almonds to the USA, the FDA can make sure those almonds get irradiated or fumigated with chemicals first. Because raw almonds are so dangerous they have actually been outlawed in America (http://www.naturalnews.com/021776.html).

• "Training of foreign governments and food producers on United States requirements for safe food."

This is designed to shove the FDA's "dead food" agenda down the throats of other nations. The FDA, you see, believes that the only safe food is dead food -- that's why, along with the USDA, they have declared war on raw milk, raw almonds and many raw vegetables (http://www.naturalnews.com/023015_f...).

Now, with this law, the FDA will begin pushing its dead foods agenda globally, essentially exporting the FDA's agenda of death and disease by making sure other nations destroy the nutritive qualities of their food supply in the same way the U.S. is doing. It's all great for the global Big Pharma profiteers, of course. The more disease they can spread around the world, the more money they'll make from selling medications.

Codex Alimentarius is also promoted in the bill
The "Plan" described in this bill continues with the following:

• "Recommendations on whether and how to harmonize requirements under the Codex Alimentarius."

This is included so that the FDA will "harmonize" the U.S. food and dietary supplement industries with global Codex requirements which outlaw virtually all healthy doses of vitamins and minerals. Under full Codex "harmonization," America will be left with a dead food supply and the health food stores will be virtually stripped bare of dietary supplements. Selling vitamin D at a reasonable dose such as 4,000 IU per capsule will be criminalized and products will be seized and destroyed by FDA agents who recruit local law enforcement to bring in the firepower.

All this will, of course, ensure a diseased, nutritionally-deficient U.S. population. This actually seems to be the goal the FDA has been trying to achieve all along because the more diseased the population, the more money gets collected by Big Pharma for "treating" sick people with medication and chemotherapy.

It's all right in the bill!

The text mentioned in this article is taken straight from the bill itself. You can search for it at http://thomas.loc.gov/ by searching for "S.510" as the bill number.

It makes me wonder why some food book authors so wholeheartedly supported this bill. Why were so many progressives on the left so enamored with this law? Didn't they realize this was a huge FDA power expansion that would destroy many small farms and put farmers out of business while subjecting the USA to possible Codex harmonization?

Did they even know the FDA is now on a global food-killing agenda that will seek to pasteurize, fumigate, cook or kill virtually every piece of food that enters the United States?

Did they not know that the bill does absolutely nothing to limit the use of chemical pesticides on imported food? According to the FDA's stance on all this, foods laced with DDT and other pesticides are perfectly "safe" for human consumption, but foods teeming with probiotics -- such as raw milk -- are deadly and dangerous! (Seriously...)

How is it that popular food book authors and food documentary producers could possibly support this bill? Do they also think small dairy farmers who sell raw milk should be criminalized? Do they agree with the Codex harmonization agenda? Do they think the FDA should run the world's food safety systems and that the Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Treasury should be shaping our global food safety agenda?

You really just have to shake your head and wonder about the true intentions of some people. I just have to ask: Were the supporters of this bill really so naive that they could somehow believe the FDA would actually seek to protect small, local organic farms? What about raw milk producers? What about the single-family farms that must now apply to the FDA for exemption status by authoring research reports, collecting tax returns and producing a pile of documentation the FDA will soon require?

Let me just say it bluntly: The Food Safety Modernization Act is the destroyer of local organic farming. It will gut small farms and local farms, greatly increasing the price of local organic food while decreasing America's food security. Farmers' Markets will be targeted by FDA agents who raid the operations of local farmers and imprison them for not having the right paperwork. Families will be destroyed, and those who have been successful at local food production will scale back their operations in a desperate effort to duck under the $500,000 / year rule (which can easily be surpassed by producing just ten acres of organic carrots, by the way).

The real agenda behind the bill

From another point of view, however, this bill is doing exactly what it was supposed to do: Destroy small farms, wipe out family farm operations, imprison raw milk producers and centralize food production in the hands of the big corporate food producers whose operations are steeped in pesticides and soil degradation.

This bill should have been called the "Big Agriculture Monopoly Act" because that's what it does. It will ensure that America's food supply will be controlled by Monsanto, DuPont and other agricultural giants who have been at odds with small organic farms for years.

The global food control agenda is a conspiracy, not a theory
It's all part of the global food control agenda that we now know to be 100% true based on the leaked Wikileaks cables which revealed that the U.S. government conspired to push GMOs into Europe and "create a retaliatory target list" for any nation that resisted GMOs (such as France). Read that full report right here on NaturalNews: http://www.naturalnews.com/030828_G...

Thanks to Wikileaks, we now know that the global GMO conspiracy is quite real. It's something that U.S. diplomats and government officials scheme on in order to appease their corporate masters in the agriculture industry. Now, with the Food Safety Modernization Act, this global conspiracy extends beyond GMOs and encompasses the global food supply, too.

It has become clear that U.S. lawmakers and bureaucrats will not stop until they have killed the entire global food supply, rendering living foods, raw foods and dietary supplements illegal or impossibly difficult to grow. You can thank your U.S. Congresspeople and Senators for all this, of course. In the end, every Senator in office today caved in and voted to pass this bill. You can also thank those who publicly promoted this bill even while having no real idea of the horrors they were supporting.

Such begins a new era of global food destruction headed by what can only be called the most dangerous government agency in North America: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration. If they do to your food what they've done to prescrïption drugs, annual food deaths will increase to over 100,000 a year.

Watch for the FDA to now set up enforcement offices in nations all around the world and start outlawing living foods on a global scale (if they can get away with it).

Also, watch for a new push for Codex harmonization which is a truly evil agenda to criminalize healing foods and nutritional supplements that prevent and even reverse chronic disease.

Articles Related to This Article:• The Honest Food Guide empowers consumers with independent informati...

• Interview with "Kevala" Karen Parker, master raw foods chef

• Cigarettes, Lies, and Pet Food Advertising

• The true horrors of pet food revealed: Prepare to be shocked by wha...

• Interview: Raw food guru David Wolfe explores the healing energy of...

• Boku Super Food: An Astonishing New Premium Superfood Product Revie...


http://patriotsforamerica.ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2734278:BlogPost:2…


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Ven 4 Mai - 17:29 (2012)    Sujet du message: 'SHADOWS OF THE FUTURE' A SHORT WAKETF UP! CODEX ALIMENTARIUS VS THE NHF.com DOCU BY KEVIN Répondre en citant

'SHADOWS OF THE FUTURE' A SHORT WAKETF UP! CODEX ALIMENTARIUS VS THE NHF.com DOCU BY KEVIN

VIDEO : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5YVcNuRerk


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Ven 4 Mai - 17:29 (2012)    Sujet du message: FARMER WINS LEGAL BATTLE WITH CITY OVER RAW MILK Répondre en citant

FARMER WINS LEGAL BATTLE WITH CITY OVER RAW MILK

Good news. Learn how to fight this corrupt system


Reported by: Emily Baucum
Tuesday, January 04 2011

(Greene County, MO) -- It's a big win for farmers and people who prefer to buy locally-grown food.

A husband and wife who run a farm in Conway have been acquitted on charges of illegally selling raw milk inside Springfield city limits.

The Bechards sell milk that's regularly tested but not pasteurized.

It's not against the law, but Missouri requires milk sold at distribution points like grocery stores and farmers markets to be pasteurized.

Is a farmer's car a distribution point? That's where the legal battle boiled.

"We come once a week," says customer Carolyn Sparks.

They've pre-paid.

"It's $4 for half a gallon," says Hillary Mosher.

And cart away coolers full of raw milk from Armand Bechard's farm.

"I think it's a better health choice," adds Mosher. "It tastes better."

"I like the flavor," says Sparks. "I like knowing where the cows are."

Bechard says the law's always been on his side.

"A state statute says a farmer can sell from his cart, wagon or vehicle," he says. "Paraphrasing here, it's considered to be as if you were selling from the farm. That was the premise we were operating under."

But in 2009, the city of Springfield and the state of Missouri sued the Bechards for selling raw milk in a parking lot inside city limits.

"The charge was operating a food establishment without a permit," says Bechard.

Bechard went to court, lost, then appealed the decision. The farmer, who defended himself, asked the judge to be acquitted -- and won.

"It'll be a huge victory for farmers."

Bechard says he quoted a state law that convinced the judge to take his side.

"States an individual can purchase and have delivered to them for their own personal use raw milk or cream from a farm."

That means if a sale's arranged ahead of time, it's legal. And the Bechard's customers can continue to stock up in town.

"I would have had to drive out to their farm and that's probably an hour away from me," says Sparks.

Bechard says he's changing one thing about his business because of the lawsuits. He'll only sell raw milk in parking lots just outside of city limits; and of course, you have to call and pay ahead of time to take it home.

Springfield City Attorney Dan Wichmer says the city won't pursue the case any longer.

But, the Bechards still face a court battle with the state of Missouri -- and that case could have larger implications for farmers.

Previous Report: Koster Sues Raw Milk Producers


+ VIDEO : http://ozarksfirst.com/fulltext/?nxd_id=381317


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Ven 4 Mai - 17:30 (2012)    Sujet du message: 4,700 FARMS SHUT DOWN IN GERMANY OVER DIOXIN SCARE Répondre en citant

4,700 FARMS SHUT DOWN IN GERMANY OVER DIOXIN SCARE

VIDEO :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6HybNGTluE


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Ven 4 Mai - 17:31 (2012)    Sujet du message: SUD-SOUDAN : FAO ET PAM INQUIETS D'UNE DÉTÉRIORATION DE LA SÉCURITÉ ALIMENTAIRE Répondre en citant

SUD-SOUDAN : FAO ET PAM INQUIETS D'UNE DÉTÉRIORATION DE LA SÉCURITÉ ALIMENTAIRE



12 janvier 2011 – Alors que les Sud-Soudanais continuent de voter pour s'exprimer sur l'autodétermination de leur région, le nombre de personnes ayant besoin d'une aide alimentaire au Sud-Soudan demeure étroitement lié à la période post-référendum et au nombre de réfugiés qui rentreront au Sud, selon un rapport publié mercredi par l'Organisation des Nations Unies pour l'alimentation et l'agriculture (FAO) et du Programme alimentaire mondial (PAM).

« La situation globale de la sécurité alimentaire s'est considérablement améliorée en 2010 par rapport à l'année précédente, en grande partie grâce aux pluies favorables », a souligné le Directeur régional du PAM pour le Soudan, Amer Daoudi. « Cela ne doit en aucun cas donner lieu à un excès d'optimisme. Plus d'un million de personnes ont encore besoin d'une aide alimentaire et la situation pourrait se détériorer rapidement », a-t-il ajouté.

D'après une évaluation conjointe de la FAO et du PAM, les récents progrès accomplis en matière de sécurité alimentaire, en particulier dans les Etats limitrophes du Nord-Soudan tels que le Haut-Nil et Unity, sont susceptibles d'être annulés par l'augmentation des prix alimentaires et le risque de conflits localisés.

Le rapport note des conditions de croissance des cultures généralement bonnes en 2010. Les précipitations ont démarré à temps dans la plupart des régions et les niveaux de pluie ont été normaux et bien répartis dans l'ensemble. En dépit de quelques périodes de sécheresse et inondations localisées, la production céréalière de 2010 est estimée à 695.000 tonnes, soit près de 30% de plus qu'en 2009, ce qui laisse un déficit global d'environ 291.000 tonnes à couvrir en 2011 avec les importations commerciales et l'aide alimentaire.

« Toutefois, en prévision des 400.000 personnes rentrant au Sud pour voter, le déficit estimé pourrait passer à 340.000 tonnes », a indiqué Mario Zappacosta, économiste à la FAO. « Les rapatriés exerceront une pression accrue sur les disponibilités locales des marchés alimentaires », a-t-il précisé.

Selon le rapport, dans le meilleur des cas qui correspondrait à un processus de référendum sans accroc au Sud, le nombre de bénéficiaires d'une aide alimentaire d'urgence devrait subir une augmentation progressive cette année, avec un pic de 1,4 million de personnes prévu pour le début de la période de soudure (de mars à août).

Les perspectives de la sécurité alimentaire dépendent en grande partie du référendum qui a démarré le 9 janvier et de la période post-référendum.

« Les gains récents pourraient facilement être inversés compte tenu de plusieurs facteurs de risque: la hausse des prix alimentaires due à la réduction des flux commerciaux et à la demande accrue des réfugiés rentrant dans leur pays, une escalade éventuelle des conflits localisés dans les zones frontalières, et un regain potentiel des tensions ethniques et intertribales », prévient le rapport de la FAO et du PAM.

Dans le cas d'une baisse des échanges, d'une intensification de la demande, de la hausse des prix alimentaires et d'une aggravation de l'insécurité durant la période post-référendum, le nombre de personnes recevant une aide alimentaire d'urgence pourrait atteindre 2,7 millions (sur une population totale du Sud-Soudan estimée à 9,16 millions en 2011) au début de la période de soudure, c'est-à-dire lorsque les réserves de la récolte précédente s'épuisent.

La mission FAO/PAM a estimé que 890.000 habitants étaient actuellement en grave situation d'insécurité alimentaire au Sud, et que 2,4 millions souffraient d'une insécurité alimentaire modérée.

Compte tenu des incertitudes liées au référendum, les approvisionnements en céréales du Nord-Soudan et, dans une moindre mesure, de l'Ouganda et du Kenya, devraient chuter sensiblement. Les stocks céréaliers sont en recul dans certaines zones frontalières, ce qui se traduit par une hausse des prix, exacerbée par le retour de grands nombres de personnes au Sud. Plus de 120.000 personnes sont rentrées chez elles depuis le mois d'octobre et on en attend 250.000 autres d'ici février.


http://www.un.org/apps/newsFr/storyF.asp?NewsID=24165&Cr=Soudan&Cr1…


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Ven 4 Mai - 17:33 (2012)    Sujet du message: USA - HOUSTON : CITY PUTS A STOP TO HOMELESS OUTREACH Répondre en citant

USA - HOUSTON : CITY PUTS A STOP TO HOMELESS OUTREACH



Couple must have proper permit to continue feeding dozens each day

By BRADLEY OLSON
HOUSTON CHRONICLE
Jan. 13, 2011, 11:14PM

Eric Kayne For the Chronicle



Bobby "Tre9" Herring, center, prays with John Bradley who had been on the streets for 41/2 months after his roommate lost his job and created financial stress during Feed a Friend anniversary event, Nov. 12, 2010, in Houston, under the Main Street bridge near downtown.

Bobby and Amanda Herring spent more than a year providing food to homeless people in downtown Houston every day. They fed them, left behind no trash and doled out warm meals peacefully without a single crime being committed, Bobby Herring said.

That ended two weeks ago when the city shut down their "Feed a Friend" effort for lack of a permit. And city officials say the couple most likely will not be able to obtain one.

"We don't really know what they want, we just think that they don't want us down there feeding people," said Bobby Herring, a Christian rapper who goes by the stage name Tre9.

Anyone serving food for public consumption, whether for the homeless or for sale, must have a permit, said Kathy Barton, a spokeswoman for the Health and Human Services Department. To get that permit, the food must be prepared in a certified kitchen with a certified food manager.

The regulations are all the more essential in the case of the homeless, Barton said, because "poor people are the most vulnerable to foodborne illness and also are the least likely to have access to health care."

Bobby Herring said those rules would preclude them from continuing to feed the 60 to 120 people they assisted nightly for more than a year. The food had been donated from area businesses and prepared in various kitchens by volunteers or by his wife.

He and his wife became involved in the effort several years ago, when she would take leftover food from work to the homeless downtown. From there, it expanded into a full-time effort for her working through Eyes on Me, the Herrings' nonprofit organization that focuses on Christian-themed youth outreach efforts.

Nearly every day last year, they distributed food prepared or donated by volunteers or local stores at 6 p.m. at the corner of Commerce and San Jacinto, near the Harris County Jail, Bobby Herring said.

Looking for new solution

On Nov. 8, they were approached by Houston police officers and asked to provide food at another location under an overpass at Commerce and Travis streets adjacent to Buffalo Bayou, he recalled.

They were happy to move to the new location and continued to provide food there until Dec. 30, when a park ranger and two police officers told them they would have to stop until they could obtain a permit.

Because the new area to which they had moved is on city park land, they need permission and permits from both the parks department and health department.

Because city ordinances would prevent them from obtaining the needed permit, Bobby Herring said he is hoping to find a new solution, perhaps working through a church with a permit or finding a downtown location that would allow them to continue to help the homeless.

Amanda Herring said she was frustrated at the city's sudden stance.

"I'm just really sad," she said. "I can't believe for a year we were right out in the open and never had anybody tell us to leave, to stop, to tell us it was wrong. I'm blindsided with it."

'Designed to protect'

Connie Boyd, president and CEO of the Coalition for the Homeless of Houston/Harris County, applauded the Herrings' efforts but defended the city's stance.

"We absolutely need more people like them who care about this vulnerable population," Boyd said. "Even though their intentions are good, they ran into ordinances that are designed to protect the public. There are good reasons why they're in place."

Boyd said the Herrings, or any like-minded individuals, could use her organization to connect with more than 200 groups and agencies that provide aid to the homeless and possibly stake out a partnership.

Barton said city officials in the past had considered passing a "public feeding" ordinance that would make it easier for people like the Herrings to comply with rules designed to protect people's health and well being. The ordinance could involve easier and cheaper permitting processes, she said, although there had not been discussion of the matter for some time.

Ordinance review?

City Councilwoman Wanda Adams, who has been an advocate for the homeless during her tenure, said she planned to review the ordinance. She reiterated the importance of the city's rules but applauded the efforts of the Herrings.

"I'm very passionate about what they're doing," she said. "Somebody needs to make sure our homeless people are being taken care of. ... We have to look as a city to see if there are other ways we can partner with people like this who are trying to help."

bradley.olson@chron.com .

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7381016.html


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Ven 4 Mai - 17:42 (2012)    Sujet du message: EPA EQUATES SPILLED MILK TO OIL SPILL - NEW REGULATIONS KILL BUSINESS Répondre en citant

EPA EQUATES SPILLED MILK TO OIL SPILL - NEW REGULATIONS KILL BUSINESS

VIDEO : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqJzM1cKgx0


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Ven 4 Mai - 17:42 (2012)    Sujet du message: EMERGENCY! THE 'NEW' ROUNDUP READY PATHOGEN Répondre en citant

EMERGENCY! THE 'NEW' ROUNDUP READY PATHOGEN

VIDEO : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcFLbsXIfNg


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Ven 4 Mai - 17:43 (2012)    Sujet du message: HOW THE FOOD SAFETY MODERNIZATION ACT WILL DESTROY AMERICAN JOBS, FARMS AND LOCAL FOODS Répondre en citant

HOW THE FOOD SAFETY MODERNIZATION ACT WILL DESTROY AMERICAN JOBS, FARMS AND LOCAL FOODS

By Mike Adams – The Health Ranger
NaturalNews

How will the new Food Safety Modernization Act actually impact small, local farmers who grow food for CSA’s, local restaurants and grocers? To find out, I took a road trip to Texas and interviewed several small, local farmers to ask them, face to face, how the S.510 Food Safety Modernization Act would impact them.

I spoke to Farmer Brad from HomeSweetFarm.com and captured the conversation on video. You can watch it here http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=3F59F82202D42A6E9CEFA2D1EABBFC4E

Here
s a quick excerpt from our conversation about S.510 and the small farm exemption in the Tester Amendment:
Farmer Brad: To me, that
s so un-American to say hey, you
re going to stay in this box, and you can never grow your business bigger than that. $500,000 [in revenue] is your cap.

Health Ranger: It
s destroying farming jobs.

Farmer Brad: It has made us start to totally re-look at our business plans and how we
re going to sell our food. Were no longer going to sell wholesale, no longer going to sell to chefs or restaurants, it
s consumer direct only.

Health Ranger: So you
re actually pulling back from some of your expansion plans?

Farmer Brad: We are. We have actually, this last year as we
ve been watching this happen, weve been putting plans on hold, and pulling back our business so again, that
s how this is going to affect the local food system.

Health Ranger: Right.

Farmer Brad: Because we don
t want to get too successful.

If you ever wonder who is destroying America
s economy

The answer, of course, is the U.S. Congress. By slapping onerous new paperwork and reporting requirements on small farmers (who aren
t even the source of the food problem to begin with), the U.S. Congress is forcing farmers out of business and causing agriculture jobs to be shifted to Mexico and elsewhere.

When you hear American farmers saying they are going to
scale back their businesses because they dont want to get too successful
(to fall under the authority of expanded FDA tyranny over the food supply), you know the country is headed for economic disaster.

America was once founded on ideas of opportunity and that hard work is supposed to pay off. People who invest in their small businesses and grow them should be rewarded, not punished. But now, thanks to the U.S. Congress and the Food Safety Modernization Act, small farmers who find even a little bit of success selling food (because selling $500,000 worth of food is still a very small scale operation, and the actual profit on that might only be $50,000 for a full year of work) are about to find themselves punished for being successful.

So much for free enterprise in America. So much for local food production. Watch for food prices to skyrocket in the coming years, and watch as America
s local food security collapses under the iron fist of the FDA driving small farmers out of business.

But that
s what the empire wants, of course: Complete control over food production so that people are forced to buy their food from the sources Big Government tells them to. Those monopolistic sources are, of course, the powerful, centralized mega-corporations planting GMO crops and spraying them with chemical pesticides. Thanks to the FSMA, we are now living under a bona-fide system of food fascism.

But don
t take my word for it: Ask the farmers yourself! Thats what Ive been doing, and their answers reveal a disturbing truth: America
s food security is headed South.

And it might be a good idea to start buying some heirloom seeds while you still can, by the way. Before long, local food prices are going to skyrocket, and you
ll need to grow some portion of your own diet. That is, unless you want to eat mega-corporate food sprayed with Roundup and containing transgenic biotechnology
approved by the FDA.

I bet that makes you hungry just thinking about it. GMO corn, anyone?

(C) 2010 Mike Adams


http://farmwars.info/?p=5008


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Ven 4 Mai - 17:44 (2012)    Sujet du message: LIBYE : LE PAM CRAINT UNE CRISE DE GRANDE AMPLEUR ET APPELLE À UNE ACTION IMMÉDIATE Répondre en citant

LIBYE : LE PAM CRAINT UNE CRISE DE GRANDE AMPLEUR ET APPELLE À UNE ACTION IMMÉDIATE

Parlez-nous, madame la directrice du Programme du Codex Alimentarius, un des programmes des Nations Unies sur le contrôle alimentaire, des lois S-510 (USA) et C-36 (Canada) qu'on ne vous entend jamais dénoncer et qui est également poussé en Europe. Parlez-nous de la spéculation des prix partout dans le monde mise en place par vos petits amis corrompus qui s'en mettent plein les poches, du contrôle mondial de Monsanto et de leurs petits amis qui ont pris le contrôle agro-alimentaire et qui nous empoisonnent à petit feu. Chère madame la directrice, vous nous mentez en pleine face pendant que des milliers de personnes meurent dans le monde! Malheur à vous!


Josette Sheeran.

2 mars 2011 – En mission à la frontière tuniso-libyenne, la Directrice exécutive du Programme alimentaire mondial (PAM), Josette Sheeran, a appelé la communauté internationale à agir immédiatement pour empêcher une catastrophe humanitaire dans la région et spécialement en Libye.

« Il est clair que le monde doit augmenter son aide humanitaire pour empêcher une catastrophe en Libye. Nous appelons à bénéficier d'un accès humanitaire spécialement à l'ouest de la Libye. La pénurie de nourriture ne doit pas être utilisée comme une arme », a prévenu la chef du PAM, dans une déclaration publiée mercredi.

« Le PAM fait face à deux crises urgentes : le besoin d'aide alimentaire pour ceux qui fuient la Libye et traversent les frontières vers la Tunisie et l'Egypte et la menace qui pèse sur les systèmes de distributions de l'aide alimentaire spécialement en Libye où les stocks s'épuisent », a-t-elle précisé.

Le PAM a lancé une opération d'urgence afin de fournir une aide alimentaire à 2,7 millions de personnes en Libye, Egypte et en Tunisie. L'agence onusienne a planifié ses opérations pour les trois prochains mois afin de rétablir la sécurité alimentaire dans la région.

« La première cargaison de 80 tonnes de biscuits énergétiques, arrivée lundi, a été distribuée à la frontière. Nous avons également redirigé des cargaisons de blé et de farine de blé à la frontière tunisienne et au port libyen de Benghazi où des vivres ont été pré-positionnés en cas de besoin », a expliqué Josette Sheeran.

« Le PAM a une forte présence en Libye et nous sommes en train de mener des missions d'évaluation qui nous permettront de rapidement porter assistance aux personnes les plus vulnérables. Nous appelons le monde à agir immédiatement et à soutenir cet appel », a-t-elle conclu.
De leur côte, l'Organisation internationale pour les migrations (OIM) et le Haut Commissariat des Nations Unies pour les réfugiés (HCR) ont lancé mardi un appel d'urgence à tous les gouvernements pour l'évacuation humanitaire massive de dizaines de milliers d'Egyptiens et de ressortissants d'autres pays tiers ayant fui la Libye vers la Tunisie.

Le HCR et l'OIM, en consultation avec les gouvernements égyptien et tunisien, ont établi un programme d'évacuation humanitaire commun qui vise à accroître les efforts entrepris pour soulager la crise humanitaire à la frontière tunisienne.

Les deux organisations lancent un appel également aux gouvernements afin qu'ils soutiennent ce programme sans tarder, en offrant un soutien financier et logistique massif et en mettant à disposition du personnel expert ainsi que du matériel, dont des avions et des bateaux.

Plus de 75.000 personnes, dont la grande majorité est de nationalité égyptienne, ont franchi la frontière avec la Tunisie depuis le 19 février. Selon le HCR, 40.000 personnes attendent du côté libyen de pouvoir franchir la frontière. Les deux organisations considèrent que cette opération est essentielle car la situation de surpopulation à la frontière s'aggrave d'heure en heure.

Dans une déclaration, le Comité de l'ONU pour l'élimination de la discrimination raciale a appelé la communauté internationale et le système des Nations Unies à prendre des mesures urgentes pour protéger les travailleurs migrants, réfugiés et autres groupes minoritaires en Libye.


http://www.un.org/apps/newsFr/storyF.asp?NewsID=24606&Cr=Libye&Cr1=


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Ven 4 Mai - 17:46 (2012)    Sujet du message: U.E. NAZIE : OGM : LA CORRUPTION TOTALE DE L'AGENCE EUROPEENNE DE LA « SECURITE » DE L'ALIMENTATION (EFSA) !!! Répondre en citant

U.E. NAZIE : OGM : LA CORRUPTION TOTALE DE L'AGENCE EUROPEENNE DE LA « SECURITE » DE L'ALIMENTATION (EFSA) !!!

Chers amis,

L'article qui suit est hyper important, et nous démontre une nouvelle fois la CORRUPTION TOTALE DES INSTANCES EUROPEENNES, instances qui, comme nous l'avons vu, possèdent une structure juridique antidémocratique et dont les bases sont réellement et littéralement NAZIES (cf. http://www.relay-of-life.org/nazi-roots/chapter.html ).

Nous découvrons donc une nouvelle fois qu'une agence européenne, l'EFSA, est totalement gangrenée et VENDUE A L'INDUSTRIE MONDIALISTE, tout comme les nazis étaient vendus au cartel industriel IG Farben !

AINSI, NOUS APPRENONS QUE L'EFSA (European Food Safety Authority ou autorité européenne concernant la « sécurité » de l'alimentation) EST BOURREE DE MEMBRES COMPROMIS, DE CHAROGNARDS CORROMPUS ET NECROPHAGES QUI SONT DIRECTEMENT LIES A L'INDUSTRIE AGROALIMENTAIRE, ET NOTAMMENT A L'INDUSTRIE DES OGM (organismes génétiquement modifiés) !!!

Donc, CETTE AGENCE EUROPEENNE, qui est SUPPOSEE garantir la « sécurité » de l'alimentation, POSSEDE EN SON SEIN DES PERSONNES QUI FONT PARTIE DE LOBBIES OU DE GROUPES INDUSTRIELS QUI REPRESENTENT LES PESTICIDES, LES OGM, LA BIOTECHNOLOGIE etc.

L'on comprend donc qu'IL EST DONC TOTALEMENT IMPOSSIBLE QUE CETTE AGENCE EUROPEENNE PUISSE GARANTIR LA SECURITE DE NOTRE ALIMENTATION ! AU CONTRAIRE, elle n'est qu'un paravent qui sert à cacher le fait que c'est l'industrie ultralibérale qui décide de ce qui est « sûr » pour notre santé... Bien entendu, DANS CES CONDITIONS, TOUS LES PRODUITS DE CETTE INDUSTRIE, MEME TOXIQUES, SERONT PRESQUE TOUJOURS RECONNUS COMME ETANT PRETENDUMENT « INOFFENSIFS » !

Ceci est tellement vrai que les études « scientifiques » de l'EFSA sont menées par l'industrie, et sont donc délibérément orientées en faveur des produits – fussent-ils toxiques – de cette industrie (= CORRUPTION SCIENTIFIQUE) ! AUCUNE étude de l'EFSA n'est menée par des indépendants. Ceci nous permet donc de comprendre que L'EFSA EST UN ORGANE QUI SERT EN REALITE, SOUS LE FAUX OBJECTIF D'ASSURER LA « SECURITE DE L'ALIMENTATION », A FAIRE PASSER LES PIRES POISONS DE L'INDUSTRIE AGROALIMENTAIRE DANS NOS ASSIETTES ! ET TOUT CECI SERT, BIEN SUR, LES OBJECTIFS DE DEPOPULATION POURSUIVIS PAR LES INFAMES MONDIALISTES.

Bien entendu, c’est extrêmement grave : nous comprenons que VIA L'EFSA, L'INDUSTRIE MONDIALISTE ASSASSINE DECLENCHE DES MALADIES CHEZ DES MILLIONS DE PERSONNES, RIEN QU'EN EUROPE, CAR CES PERSONNES CONSOMMENT, EN DEFINITIVE, DES PRODUITS ALIMENTAIRES TOXIQUES !

Voilà donc comment les OGM sont reconnus comme étant soi-disant « inoffensifs » pour la santé des gens...

Le pire est encore que les enculés de l'EFSA OSENT encore dire que cette corruption est « normale », parce que cela « est prévu dans les statuts » (voir article ci-dessous). DES STATUTS JURIDIQUES QUI, BIEN SUR, ONT ETE CONCOCTES PAR D'ANCIENS JURISTES NAZIS, COMME WALTER HALLSTEIN (cf. http://www.relay-of-life.org/nazi-roots/hallstein/index.html ) !

Il apparaît donc de façon limpide que cette structure européenne nazie doit être démolie et disparaître. L'UNION EUROPEENNE DOIT ETRE DETRUITE ! Il en va de notre santé, de la démocratie, et du bien-être de notre génération ainsi que de celui des générations futures !

Reste alors une question à se poser : si la structure de l'U.E. est pourrie à ce point, qu'en est-il de nos responsables nationaux ? La réponse se trouve dans l'article que je vous posterai tout à l'heure...

En attendant, voici déjà l'article sur les conflits d'intérêt (= corruption) de l'U.E. et de l'EFSA.

BONNE REVOLUTION... OU BON ESCLAVAGE, BONNE TYRANNIE ET BONNE MORT ! Vic.

Source : http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2011/03/04/ogm-l-agence-de-securite-europeenne-a-nouveau-accusee-de-conflit-d-interets_1488673_3244.html

OGM : L'AGENCE DE SECURITE EUROPEENNE A NOUVEAU ACCUSEE DE CONFLIT D'INTERETS

LEMONDE.FR avec AFP | 04.03.11 | 19h54 • Mis à jour le 04.03.11 | 20h13

L'Observatoire de l'Europe industrielle (CEO) a dénoncé, vendredi 4 mars, un NOUVEAU PROBLEME DE CONFLIT D'INTERETS AU SEIN DU CONSEIL D'ADMINISTRATION DE L'AUTORITE EUROPEENNE CHARGEE DES AVIS SCIENTIFIQUES SUR LES OGM ET SUR LA SECURITE DES ALIMENTS (EFSA).

Le CEO, un groupe de réflexion qui milite pour la transparence au sein des institutions européennes, a adressé une lettre à la directrice de l'EFSA, Catherine Geslain-Lanéelle (cf. http://www.lemonde.fr/sujet/6d81/catherine-geslain-laneelle.html ), et au commissaire européen chargé de la santé et des consommateurs, John Dalli (cf. http://www.lemonde.fr/sujet/a407/john-dalli.html ), pour DENONCER LES LIENS DE QUATRE MEMBRES DU CONSEIL D'ADMINISTRATION DE L'AUTORITE AVEC L'INDUSTRIE AGROALIMENTAIRE, CE QU'ELLE ESTIME ETRE UN CONFLIT D'INTERETS NUISIBLE à la crédibilité des avis de cette agence de l'UE.

ELLE VISE L'ALLEMAND MATTHIAS HORST (cf. http://www.lemonde.fr/sujet/6bfd/matthias-horst.html ), EGALEMENT DIRECTEUR GENERAL DU LOBBY DE L'INDUSTRIE AGROALIMENTAIRE ALLEMAND BVE ; LE TCHEQUE JIRI RUPRICH (cf. http://www.lemonde.fr/sujet/d048/jiri-ruprich.html ), EGALEMENT MEMBRE DE LA FONDATION DANONE (cf. http://www.lemonde.fr/sujet/cac2/fondation-danone.html ) ; LE BELGE PIET VANTHEMSCHE (cf. http://www.lemonde.fr/sujet/e501/piet-vanthemsche.html ), MEMBRE DU COPA, LE LOBBY EUROPEEN DES AGRICULTEURS, ET LE SLOVAQUE MILAN KOVAC (cf. http://www.lemonde.fr/sujet/c4df/milan-kovac.html ), DIRIGEANT DE L'INTERNATIONAL LIFE SCIENCE INSTITUTE EUROPE (cf. http://www.lemonde.fr/sujet/9a67/international-life.html et http://www.lemonde.fr/sujet/a81f/science-institute.html ), UNE ORGANISATION REGROUPANT LA PLUPART DES GROUPES AGROCHIMIQUES ACTIFS DANS LES OGM.

"LE CONSEIL D'ADMINISTRATION DOIT REPRÉSENTER TOUTE LA CHAÎNE ALIMENTAIRE"

"La PRESENCE DE REPRESENTANTS DE L'INDUSTRIE AU SEIN DU CONSEIL D'ADMINISTRATION DE L'EFSA est normale, car elle est prévue dans les statuts. Le conseil d'administration doit représenter toute la chaîne alimentaire", a expliqué à l'AFP la Commission européenne.

Le CEO ne se satisfait pas de ces explications et estime que LES GROUPES DE PRESSION DE L'INDUSTRIE AGROALIMENTAIRE NE DEVRAIENT PAS SIEGER AU SEIN DU CONSEIL D'ADMINISTRATION DE L'EFSA.

La présidente du conseil d'administration de l'EFSA, la Hongroise Diana Banati (cf. http://www.lemonde.fr/sujet/aca0/diana-banati.html ), avait été contrainte de renoncer l'année dernière à toutes ses activités au sein de l'ILSI pour faire taire les critiques contre sa nomination.

L'EFSA a été créée en 2002 et a été chargée de donner des avis scientifiques à la Commission européenne sur tous les dossiers touchant à la chaîne alimentaire, dont les OGM, sujet devenu très sensible en Europe.

ELLE EST DEPUIS PLUSIEURS MOIS LA CIBLE DE CRITIQUES. LE GROUPE DES VERTS AU PARLEMENT EUROPEEN DENONCE SON NOYAUTAGE PAR LES GROUPES DE PRESSION. Une enquête menée par l'office statistique de l'UE a en effet montré que 47 % seulement des citoyens européens pensent que les avis scientifiques de l'EFSA sont indépendants des intérêts politiques ou commerciaux. MAIS AUCUN GOUVERNEMENT DE L'UNION EUROPEENNE N'OSE PARLER DE REFORMER SON MODE DE FONCTIONNEMENT, SA COMPOSITION ET SON MANQUE DE MOYEN. Les autorités françaises déplorent pourtant que SES AVIS SOIENT UNIQUEMENT FONDES SUR DES ETUDES PRESENTEES PAR L'INDUSTRIE, CAR ELLE N'A PAS LES MOYENS DE REALISER DES ETUDES INDEPENDANTES.


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Ven 4 Mai - 17:47 (2012)    Sujet du message: LIBERTÉ THÉRAPEUTIQUe - L'EUROPE CONTRE LES PLANTES MÉDICINALES........... Répondre en citant

LIBERTÉ THÉRAPEUTIQUe - L'EUROPE CONTRE LES PLANTES MÉDICINALES...........

Bonjour à tous

L'humanité a survécu au travers de l'histoire en utilisant les propriétés curatives des plantes. Des millénaires de traditions sont aujourd'hui menacés par la volonté de l'Europe de rendre leur utilisation impossible et illégale. C'est en plus une atteinte profonde à la liberté thérapeutique de chacun.

Merci de visionner cette courte VIDÉO ( http://www.defensemedecinenaturelle.eu/ )qui explique parfaitement les choses et apportez votre soutien en signant la pétition. Ce n'est effectivement qu'en mettant dans la balance le poids de la légitimité citoyenne au recours qui a été déposé, que nous avons encore une chance de faire reculer les autorités européennes. Toute signature est importante, n'hésitez pas et faite signer vos connaissances et amis.

Bien cordialement

Philippe Derudder

Reçu par courriel


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Ven 4 Mai - 17:48 (2012)    Sujet du message: UNION EUROPEENNE NAZIE : LA DIRECTIVE THMPD MENACE DE SUPPRIMER LES REMEDES NATURELS A BASE DE PLANTES ! A NOUVEAU, LES S.S. DE L’INDUSTRIE PHARMACEUTIQUE TOXIQUE NUISENT A LA SANTE DES POPULATIONS ! Répondre en citant

UNION EUROPEENNE NAZIE : LA DIRECTIVE THMPD MENACE DE SUPPRIMER LES REMEDES NATURELS A BASE DE PLANTES ! A NOUVEAU, LES S.S. DE L’INDUSTRIE PHARMACEUTIQUE TOXIQUE NUISENT A LA SANTE DES POPULATIONS !

Chers amis,

J’ai pris le temps, ci-dessous, de vous retranscrire l’ensemble de la vidéo disponible sur http://www.defensemedecinenaturelle.eu/ .

Pour rappel, l’Union européenne possède une structure juridique et des principes de fonctionnement qui ont été mis en place par d’anciens nazis (cf. http://www.relay-of-life.org/nazi-roots/chapter.html ).

En accord avec les affreuses décisions de la Commission du codex alimentarius (niveau mondial), nous pouvons constater que les salopards nazis de l’Union européenne sont à nouveau parvenus à favoriser l’industrie pharmaceutique, à laquelle ils sont liés et vendus !

En effet, UNE DIRECTIVE DRACONNIENNE ET HYPOCRITE NOMMÉE « DIRECTIVE THMPD » (pour « Traditional Health Medical Products Directive »), QUI DOIT ENTRER EN VIGUEUR LE 30 AVRIL 2011 (DANS UN TOUT PETIT PEU PLUS D’UN MOIS !), MENACE NOTRE DROIT À NOUS SOIGNER AVEC DES REMÈDES NATURELS, NON CHIMIQUES, NON TOXIQUES, ET QUI NE POSSÈDENT PAS LES EFFETS SECONDAIRES NOCIFS DES MÉDICAMENTS DE SYNTHÈSE ET DES VACCINS DE L’INDUSTRIE PHARMACEUTIQUE !

A NOUVEAU, NOTRE SANTE EST MENACEE !!!

VOUS ALLEZ POUVOIR VOUS RENDRE COMPTE QUE LES FUMIERS DE L’EUROPE METTENT TOUT EN ŒUVRE AFIN DE RENDRE ILLÉGAUX, VOIRE INTERDITS, LES REMÈDES SÉCULAIRES UTILISANT LES PLANTES, COMME ILS L’ONT FAIT PAR LE PASSÉ AVEC LES COMPLÉMENTS ALIMENTAIRES (vitamines, entre autres) !

PAR CONTRE, CES MÊMES CHAROGNARDS NE RESSENTENT AUCUNE HONTE LORSQU’ILS AUTORISENT LES DANGEREUX ORGANISMES GÉNÉTIQUEMENT MODIFIÉS ET BREVETÉS DES MULTINATIONALES DE LA BIOTECHNOLOGIE, OU LORSQU’ILS ACCEPTENT LES MÉDICAMENTS ET VACCINS TOXIQUES DE L’INDUSTRIE PHARMACEUTIQUE MONDIALE…

Les personnes qui ont réalisé la vidéo et qui ont rédigé le texte ci-dessous vous proposent donc de vous manifester de façon « active »… J’espérais donc qu’ils allaient nous inviter à prendre notre pétoire et à aller crever la panse de quelques-uns de ces nazis de l’U.E. Hélas, non ! Ils nous proposent simplement de… signer une pétition (= action molle et passive face à un système répressif et totalitaire) !

Je crois que les gens de ce Collectif pour la Défense de la Médecine Naturelle n’ont pas encore pris conscience (ou connaissance) qu’ils ont affaire aux descendants directs des nazis, qui fonctionnent exactement de la même manière que leurs prédécesseurs S.S. … Sans quoi, ils réagiraient peut-être de façon un peu plus virulente.

NEANMOINS, LA SITUATION EST TELLEMENT GRAVE, ET L’ÉCHÉANCE EST SI PROCHE ET SI URGENTE, QUE JE VOUS INVITE À SIGNER CETTE PÉTITION (QUE J’AI SIGNÉE MOI AUSSI), À LA DIFFUSER À TOUS VOS CONTACTS, ET À LA FAIRE SIGNER PAR VOS AMIS ET PAR VOS PROCHES !

Ce qui, bien sûr, ne vous empêche pas d’affûter vos lames, et de charger vos pétoires…

En outre, LA NATURE RÉPRESSIVE DE L’IGNOBLE DIRECTIVE THMPD NE FAIT ABSOLUMENT AUCUN DOUTE, et des exemples de cas abusifs et punitifs sont déjà donnés dans l’article qui suit.

Je vous laisse donc découvrir ce texte capital, ci-dessous…

BONNE RÉVOLUTION… OU BON ESCLAVAGE, BONNE TYRANNIE ET BONNE MORT ! Vic.


Source : http://www.defensemedecinenaturelle.eu/

Madame, Monsieur,

Imaginez votre enfant ou votre conjoint gravement malade…

Il existe un remède naturel sans danger ni effets secondaires qui pourrait peut-être le guérir… mais l’Union européenne vous interdit de l’utiliser.

Au contraire, les autorités vous obligent à lui administrer des médicaments chimiques aux effets secondaires potentiellement gravissimes.

Vous n’avez aucun choix.

Ce cauchemar absurde, c’est une réalité imminente qui menace l’Europe et tous ses habitants, vous et moi y compris.

Après des années de lobbying, les multinationales pharmaceutiques sont en train de parvenir à leur but.

Une directive draconienne de l’Union européenne est sur le point de nous interdire de nombreux remèdes médicinaux à base de plantes utilisées depuis des milliers d’années et sans les effets secondaires des médicaments modernes issus de la pétrochimie.

Des centaines de plantes européennes sont concernées, mais également toutes les plantes de la médecine traditionnelle chinoise (MTC) et toutes celles de l’Ayurveda (médecine indienne) !

Il s’agit de la NOUVELLE DIRECTIVE THMPD (Traditional Health Medical Products Directive), QUI DOIT ENTRER EN VIGUEUR LE 30 AVRIL 2011.
C’est une offensive sans précédent contre notre droit de nous soigner autrement.

Et le but est extrêmement clair : sécuriser des milliards d’euros de profits pour l’industrie pharmaceutique pour les années à venir, en obligeant les malades à recourir à leurs médicaments, faute d’alternative.

Mais il y a un espoir ! Une association très organisée et très active au niveau européen, the Alliance for Natural Health (L’Alliance pour la Santé Naturelle), ANH, est en train de déposer un recours.

Elle est soutenue par la
European Benefit Foundation (EBF) dans sa démarche.

L’ANH a réussi à recueillir des fonds (près de 110.000 €) pour payer des avocats et porter l’affaire devant les tribunaux.

Il est possible qu’elle parvienne à faire condamner l’Union européenne pour abus de pouvoir.

Cela permettrait de stopper la mise en application de cette directive.

Le problème, c’est qu’aucune initiative populaire de grande ampleur, aucun grand mouvement de citoyens européens ne s’est formé pour apporter son soutien à l’ANH.

C’est pourquoi des patients, des citoyens, ont décidé de former un Collectif de solidarité, et nous faisons appel à vous de toute urgence.

Je m’appelle Christelle et je fais moi-même partie de ce collectif.

Je me permets de vous demander :

Faites maintenant un geste symbolique fort en signant la pétition ci-dessous contre la nouvelle directive européenne, et pour la défense de la santé naturelle en Europe, en soutien à l’ANH.

Nous avons besoin de centaines de milliers de signatures pour contrer la directive THMPD.

Notre collectif s’organise pour lancer notre pétition dans d’autres pays européens.

Mais nous ne serons crédibles que si, déjà, nous parvenons à rassembler un très grand nombre de signatures en France contre la directive THMPD.

En quoi consiste la directive THMPD, et pourquoi est-elle si dangereuse ?

La directive THMPD, aussi appelée directive 2004/24/EC de l’Union européenne, impose une nouvelle procédure d’agrément pour les préparations thérapeutiques à base de plantes.

Toutes ces préparations, y compris celles qui sont d’un usage courant depuis des milliers d’années, devront suivre une procédure d’agrément similaire à celle des médicaments, à compter du 30 avril 2011.

Autrement dit, les fabricants devront réunir des rapports d’experts, des études, des dossiers qui coûtent des fortunes.

On parle de 105.000 à 180.000 € par plante.

Le problème, c’est que les producteurs d’herbes médicinales n’ont absolument pas les moyens des multinationales pharmaceutiques.

La plupart ramassent les plantes dans la nature à l’état sauvage, de façon artisanale.

Cette directive revient donc de facto à euthanasier un pan principal des médecines douces, basées sur les plantes : phytothérapie, herboristerie, plus l’intégralité des traditions chinoises, indiennes, amazoniennes et africaines accessibles aujourd’hui sur le sol européen.

L’Europe a déjà fait exactement la même chose avec les compléments alimentaires en 2006. Une nouvelle procédure d’agrément avait été créée par l’Agence Européenne des Aliments (EFSA).

La députée européenne Michèle Rivasi a témoigné du résultat le 14 décembre 2010 :

« A ce jour, plus de 95% des dossiers d’allégations déposés pour des produits à base de plantes ont reçu un avis négatif de l’EFSA. Trop rigoureuse, calquée sur des procédures propres aux médicaments, l’EFSA prend sa décision sur très peu de données et en rejette des allégations pourtant déjà autorisées dans plusieurs pays européens ».

Il n’y a aucun doute que la même chose va se produire pour les plantes médicinales.

Non seulement ce sera la fin de milliers de plantes européennes, chinoises et ayurvédiques en Europe, mais « seront jetés dans l’illégalité des multitudes de remèdes créoles, berrichons, tibétains, nigériens ou cévenols » qui ne justifieront pas des « éléments bibliographiques appropriés », selon l’expert herboriste Thierry Thévenin.

Le timing de cette directive ne doit rien au hasard. Il y a urgence, en effet. L’industrie pharmaceutique a besoin de cette directive pour conforter sa position dominante, à un moment où elle se trouve radicalement remise en cause.

Sa crédibilité a été fortement entamée par l’affaire du Vioxx, de l’Avandia, du Médiator et, maintenant, du Buflomédil. Des spécialistes parlent de dizaines, de centaines de médicaments toxiques qu’il faudrait interdire.

C’est pourquoi il est plus qu’urgent pour l’industrie pharmaceutique de nous couper toute alternative possible.

Et la nouvelle directive européenne représente pour elle le Saint-Graal, qui lui garantira ses milliards de profits annuels, pour des dizaines d’années.

Indignez-vous ! Signez la pétition ci-dessous.

Certains fabricants, bien entendu, ont tout de même essayé d’obtenir l’agrément, pour les plantes les plus répandues. L’expert herboriste Thierry Thévenin témoigne de la complexité kafkaïenne de la procédure :

« Il aura fallu près de deux ans de travail de plusieurs dizaines d’experts représentants des 27 pays – du 23/11/2005 au 07/09/2007 – pour que la Commission HMPC1 (The Committee on Herbal Medicinal Products) reconnaisse aux graines de fenouil commun (Foeniculum vulgare L. ssp.) ses indications de drogue antispasmodique, expectorante ou digestive, indications connues depuis des siècles dans les cultures populaires euro-méditerranéennes et chinoises.

Le cas de la feuille de vigne rouge (Vitis vinifera L. ssp.) aura pris 3 ans : entamé le 31 octobre 2007, il a abouti seulement le 15t juillet 2010.
Et ne vous avisez pas de vendre des produits inoffensifs sans l’aval de l’Europe !

Une association a été traînée en justice et poursuivie par l’Etat pour la « vente illégale » de simples graines de tomates et autres fruits et légumes… (semences de variétés anciennes conservées, répertoriées et distribuées par Kokopelli).

Un horticulteur a été perquisitionné et el contenu de son ordinateur saisi par la Répression des Fraudes parce qu’il fait la promotion du purin d’ortie pour soigner son jardin… (Eric Pétiot, co-auteur du livre « Purin d’Ortie et Compagnie », préparation plébiscitée par les jardiniers depuis des générations).

Une entreprise a été condamnée pour avoir vendu de la Prêle des champs sans autorisation de l’Union européenne.

Des agriculteurs bio ont été accusés de préconiser un « pesticide interdit »… c’était de l’huile de neem, un margousier, utilisée depuis des siècles par les Indiens comme antiparasitaire.

Et des remèdes aussi simples que l’ail en gélule et la tisane de romarin sont aujourd’hui sur la sellette.

Ce n’est pas de la paranoïa : au Canada, une loi a déjà été votée qui peut vous conduire en prison pour avoir fait pousser de simples herbes aromatiques dans votre jardin. Il s’agit du Bill-C51 qui criminalise l’usage des plantes médicinales, et qui est passé en 2008.

Moins de 200 médicaments traditionnels à base de plantes ont été pour l’instant approuvés par l’Europe. Or, selon le Pr. Fournier, il existe 1.500 espèces médicinales rien qu’en France métropolitaine, et plus de 20.000 espèces « couramment » utilisées à travers le monde.

La seule médecine traditionnelle chinoise emploie environ 17.000 formules composées différentes !

Or toutes les plantes avec indications thérapeutiques qui n’auront pas l’agrément devront être retirées de la vente après le 30 avril 2011, dans toute l’Europe.

C’est un gâchis indescrïptible : des milliers d’années d’un précieux savoir-faire qui risquent d’être définitivement perdues pour tout le continent européen, et ses habitants, si l’Europe arrive à imposer sa directive.

Combien de temps faudra-t-il, combien d’argent cela coûtera-t-il au contribuable européen pour valider et autoriser la diffusion légale des milliers de remèdes végétaux traditionnels potentiels ?

La réponse est simple : c’est impossible, et cela ne se fera jamais.

C’est pourquoi je compte vraiment sur vous pour signer notre pétition.
Il n’y a qu’en luttant activement pour nos droits que nous pouvons stopper l’initiative conjointe des multinationales pharmaceutiques et de l’Union européenne.

En politique, il y a un vieux dicton : « Qui ne dit mot, consent ».

Si vous ne faites pas entendre votre voix en signant la pétition, les bureaucrates européens en déduiront que personne ne se soucie de leur nouvelle directive. Ils penseront alors que cet énorme cadeau qu’ils font à l’industrie pharmaceutique n’a attiré l’attention, ni l’indignation, de personne.

Alors s’il vous plaît, exprimez-vous car maintenant, c’est le moment de vérité.

Votre signature donnera une légitimité démocratique décisive aux démarches que l’ANH a entreprises sur le plan juridique.

Et a près avoir signé votre pétition, transférez ce message à toutes les personnes que vous connaissez. Dites-leur qu’il est temps d’agir. Il n’y a vraiment pas de temps à perdre.

Un grand merci. Nous vous tiendrons informé des suites de nos démarches.

Christelle, pour le Collectif pour la Défense de la Santé Naturelle.


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Ven 4 Mai - 17:50 (2012)    Sujet du message: WET SPRING, LOUSY HARVEST MEAN HIGHER FOOD PRICES Répondre en citant

WET SPRING, LOUSY HARVEST MEAN HIGHER FOOD PRICES

Rain delays planting schedules and will likely diminish crops by harvest time



Rogelio V. Solis / AP

In this June 1, 2011 photograph acres of floodwater-destroyed corn glisten in the sun near Yazoo City, Miss. msnbc.com news services msnbc.com news services

updated 6/9/2011 7:59:31 PM ET 2011-06-09T23:59:31

Share Print Font: +-U.S. food prices are expected to stay high through 2012 because a wet spring will likely cut the size of this fall's corn harvest.

And cotton has woes of its own, but for the opposite reason: a drought in Texas.

The government said on Thursday that The United States will have a surplus of just 695 million bushels of corn next year, less than the 900 million estimated last month.

The Agriculture Department said rain delayed planting schedules and will likely diminish crops by harvest time in September. This followed a more optimistic forecast in May, which predicted a drop in corn exports that could have replenished U.S. food supplies and eased prices.


More expensive grain has led to food price increases this year. Manufacturers and grocery stores have passed higher costs on to consumers. For all of 2011, the USDA predicts food prices will rise 3 percent to 4 percent.

USDA also forecast a hefty increase in corn use by China, up 8 million tonnes, or 5 percent, this year and up 13 million tonnes, or 8 percent, in 2011/12. China will draw down its stocks rather than import corn, USDA said.

China and the United States are the largest corn growers.

Traders said corn futures prices would rise by 10-20 cents a bushel because of the forecast of tighter supplies.

"USDA must feel comfortable we are going to lose acres, based on satellite (imagery)," said Jack Scoville, analyst for The Price Group. "We know we're going to lose the acres; it just depends how much. They didn't put them in beans."

The corn stocks to use ratio, a measure of supply, would be 5.4 percent this marketing year and drop to 5.2 percent for 2011/12. Both are close to the 5 percent ratio of 1995/96 and represent razor-thin supplies.

"Planting delays through early June in the eastern Corn Belt and northern Plains are expected to reduce planted area, more than offsetting likely gains in the western Corn Belt and central Plains where planting was ahead of normal by mid-May," said USDA.

It projected corn plantings of 90.7 million acres, down 1.6 percent from farmers' intentions, and harvest area of 83.2 million acres, down 2.2 percent.

USDA estimated the winter wheat crop at 1.45 billion bushels, up 2 percent from May. Traders expected a 2 percent drop. "Improved weather conditions during the past month in the upper Great Plains resulted in higher forecasted yields," said USDA.

Reeling from the worst drought in a century, cotton farmers in Texas are on the brink of writing off their withered plants this year and collecting the insurance.

More on Food trends Satisfy your craving

Look for more exciting eats and foodie trends on the Bites blog

.."We cannot make this crop with no relief from hot temperatures and the wind," said Gary Evitt, a cotton farmer for over 40 years working on 2,000 acres of irrigated cotton outside Lubbock, Texas, in the heart of the Lone Star State's cotton area. "This is the worst (drought) I have seen."

The drought plaguing Texas, the biggest cotton growing state in the U.S., pushed up cotton futures this spring. Futures are hovering near $1.30 a lb, four times what they were in 2010 when cotton was the best performing commodity.

Carl Anderson, an influential economist with Texas A&M University, said farmers like Evitt may decide to just let their crop die so they can collect the insurance payments.

"They're very close to throwing in the towel on this season," he said. "It's looking very bleak."

Any word that farmers will tear out their plants and collect insurance money -- rather than ride out the drought -- could spark a fresh rally in a cotton market that saw a rally to historic highs in 2010.

That may put further strain on profits at clothes companies like Levi Strauss & Co and Guess Inc.

Some of these firms are already looking for alternatives to cotton, with Naturally Advanced Technologies Inc forging deals to sell its organic fiber to uniform maker Cintas and HanesBrands Inc.

Reuters and The Associated Press contributed to this report.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43338963/ns/business-retail/


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Ven 4 Mai - 17:51 (2012)    Sujet du message: RED ALERT: FDA SET TO BAN YOUR SUPPLEMENTS Répondre en citant

RED ALERT: FDA SET TO BAN YOUR SUPPLEMENTS

Posted By Dr. Mercola | September 13 2011

VIDEO :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZONcV4q5O9Q&feature=player_embedded

The FDA has issued a proposed mandate that represents the greatest threat to dietary supplements since 1994. Back in the early 1990s, consumers were so alarmed by FDA bullying that they staged a massive revolt. The result was that Congress passed a law prohibiting the FDA from banning popular nutrients (as the agency had threatened to do).

There was, however, a loophole in the 1994 law. The FDA was given authority to regulate ingredients introduced after October 15, 1994.

It has been 17 years, but the FDA just issued draconian proposals as to how it intends to regulate what it now calls "new dietary ingredients". You can find the FDA Draft Guidance on New Dietary Ingredients (NDI's) here. If implemented, some of the most effective nutrients you are taking will be removed from the market. This includes many fish oil formulas and natural plant extracts. A detailed analysis of the FDA Draft Guidance is available here.

These oppressive rules are exactly what the 1994 law (DSHEA) sought to prevent. The FDA is using its authority in direct violation of Congressional intent.

In order for these ingredients you are using today to return to the market, the FDA will require manufacturers to conduct outrageously expensive studies using absurdly high doses, in some situations multiplied by a "safety factor" up to 2,000-times the recommended dosage on a per product basis.

The FDA defines dietary supplements as being "new" if they were introduced after October 15, 1994. That means that even certain nutrients that have been safely used over the course of three decades will be subject to the FDA's oppressive policies that mandate costly animal testing.

The FDA Views Supplements in Same Light as Synthetic Food Preservatives

According to the new guidelines, the FDA believes that "new dietary supplements" must be regulated similarly to synthetic food preservatives. The FDA guidelines have modeled the outrageous safety thresholds after those in place for food additives. This appears to be in direct violation of DSHEA, the law enacted in 1994 to protect consumer access to dietary supplements, which classifies dietary supplements as foods, not food additives.

The FDA proposes that new dietary supplement ingredients should adhere to aggressive safety margins, which are typically reserved for chemical compounds known to be dangerous in all but the most miniscule concentrations.

Since food additives or preservatives such as aspartame, monosodium glutamate, and sodium nitrate are known to cause cancer or other severe health problems, the FDA has implemented safety guidelines which limit allowable concentrations of these food additives to levels that are supposed to be physiologically inert.

The fact that the FDA is trying to impose the same limits upon dietary supplements seems to be arbitrary and completely unfounded. In fact, when someone takes a dietary supplement, their intent is to positively affect the structure or function of their bodies in some way – limiting dosages of dietary supplements to physiologically inert levels defeats the entire purpose of supplementation with health-sustaining nutrients.

The FDA's new guidelines are so flawed that even nutrients shown to be completely safe in hundreds of human clinical studies would fail to accommodate the unreasonable safety margins.

To give you an example, each manufacturer of certain fish oils would have to conduct a one year study where animals would have to consume the human equivalent of 240,000 milligrams each day of fish oil.

Another option under the FDA's proposed mandates is to conduct a 90-day, 1,000 – fold safety margin study in which two species of animals, one being non-rodent – likely young beagle dogs, will theoretically consume the equivalent of 2.4 million milligrams of fish oil daily. We know of virtually no species can tolerate this high dose, so by default, FDA guidelines will make it impossible for certain omega-3 supplements to be sold. (Note typical dose of EPA/DHA people take each day is around 2,400 mg—100 times less than what the FDA proposes must be tested.)
Since these are not patented drugs, no supplement maker will be able to afford these "safety" studies, which means that many of the nutrients you now purchase at low prices will convert into high-priced drugs.

Pharmaceutical Industry Profit Threatened By Low Cost Supplements
It appears that the FDA is claiming that dietary supplements are unsafe, and in order to "protect consumers" the agency must place a stranglehold on the dietary supplement industry by requesting exorbitant safety testing. These ludicrous safety thresholds are in excess of those required by pharmaceutical drugs despite studies showing supplements are far safer than drugs.

According to the 2001 report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC), of the substances implicated in fatal poisonings in 2001, 84.6 percent were pharmaceutical drugs, with analgesics being implicated as the primary cause of death in 32 percent of fatalities or 341 deaths. This compares with 0.8 percent for all dietary supplements combined, even including substances such as dinitrophenol, a dangerous (and illegal) substance banned in 1938, as well as the central nervous system stimulant Ma Huang (Ephedra). Interestingly, the anti-asthma drug theophylline alone was responsible for 15 deaths, 66 percent more than all the available dietary supplements combined.

There is, however, a massive economic benefit for the drug industry if the proposed guidelines are enforced by the FDA. Health conscious Americans who properly supplement slash their risk of degenerative disease. The FDA's new rules, if enacted, will force the price of many supplements to surge upwards, while removing many effective ones altogether. That means that more aging people will have to rely on side effect laden prescrïption drugs to treat the degenerative diseases they will contract because they will be denied access to health-promoting nutrients.

What You Can Do to Stop this Impending Carnage!

No one can sit on the sidelines with an emergency of this magnitude about to befall everyone who depends on dietary supplements. As citizens, we have the constitutional right to petition the government to redress our grievances. In this case, the FDA proposals pose a direct threat to our health and longevity.

We therefore have to take extraordinary measures to defend our right to continue using supplements that our very lives depend on, and to gain access to new natural ingredients that demonstrate efficacy in scientific studies.

I ask each one of you contact your representatives by following this link:

https://secure3.convio.net/aahf/site/Advocacy?alertId=911&pg=makeACall

Recall how Consumers revolted back in 1994 and the result was a glorious victory over FDA tyranny!

Let your voice be heard by exercising your right to petition the government against these serious violations of the law and scientific principle. Please be sure to call, fax, or send a certified letter to your representative - emails can be easily dismissed.

Here is a set of talking points for your consideration:

•My name is [Name] and I am a constituent of [Congress Member's name].
•I am very concerned about the new FDA draft guidance on dietary supplements and new dietary ingredients.
•I request that Congress hold hearings and take action to review the FDA's draft guidance and stop their overreach of power.
•The FDA's draft guidance flies in the face of the original congressional intent of the Dietary Supplement Health Education Act: The guidance turns what was meant to be a simple notification system for new dietary ingredients into a preapproval scheme that Congress did not intend to create.
•Congress recognized that dietary supplements are natural ingredients and therefore inherently safer than drugs and chemical food ingredients. It did not intend that the FDA would have the power to approve or reject dietary supplements.
•The FDA's draft guidance creates unnecessary regulations that limit my access to dietary supplements I rely on. The expensive and burdensome process will force between 20,000 and 42,000 dietary supplements to be removed from the market and will increase the cost of those supplements that remain.

•The draft guidance hurts our economy. Expert analyses show that this guidance will cause a total economic loss of $21.2 billion to $39.8 billion annually.

•Thank you for your time.

Tips:

•Be courteous and respectful.
•Keep your comments brief and focused on the facts.
•Always thank the staff member for their time taking your call.

SAMPLE LETTER TO CONGRESS:
The Honorable _________________________ Washington, DC

In direct violation of the law, the FDA is threatening to ban my access to new dietary supplements.

The FDA defines dietary supplements as being "new" if they were introduced after October 15, 1994. That means that nutrients that I have been safely using over the course of three decades will be subject to FDA's oppressive policies that mandate costly animal testing, which translates into forced withdrawal from the market, and higher prices for me if the supplement is ever allowed to be sold again.

The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 states that:

"The Federal Government should not take any actions to impose unreasonable regulatory barriers limiting or slowing the flow of safe products and accurate information to consumers."

It says that Congress finds that:

"dietary supplements are safe within a broad range of intake, and safety problems with the supplements are relatively rare."

And it says that:

"legislative action that protects the right of access of consumers to safe dietary supplements is necessary in order to promote wellness."

This draft guidance does the exact opposite of what Congress intended. It imposes unreasonable barriers that limit and slow the flow of safe products and accurate information to consumers. I call upon Congress to:

1.Uphold the landmark legislation it passed seventeen years ago, and to direct the FDA to revise its New Dietary Ingredient draft guidelines to reflect DSHEA's (and Congress's) stated values and goals.
2.Vote against the newly introduced Dietary Supplement Labeling Act as this would give the FDA even greater arbitrary powers to remove safe dietary supplements from the market, and will profoundly impact this nations' health in a negative way.

All of these proposals result in wasteful federal spending, while at the same time impose a massive new "regulatory tax" on consumers and the vitamin industry.

Kindly let me know what actions you are taking in response to the urgent issues raised in this letter.

Sincerely,

Name________________________________________
Address______________________________________
City______________________ST____ Zip___________


http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/09/13/fda-to-ban-ne…


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Ven 4 Mai - 17:52 (2012)    Sujet du message: USDA SECRETARY: WE MUST ‘CREATE APPROPRIATE TRANSITION’ FOR WHAT AMERICANS EAT Répondre en citant

USDA SECRETARY: WE MUST ‘CREATE APPROPRIATE TRANSITION’ FOR WHAT AMERICANS EAT

By Penny Starr
September 20, 2011        


 


U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack speaking to the National Restaurant Association in Washington, D.C. on Sept. 19, 2011. (CNSNews.com Photo/Penny Starr)

(CNSNews.com) - U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack told members of the National Restaurant Association on Monday that Americans need to “adjust” their tastes so that they like the kind of food the government believes they should eat—and “we have to make sure that what we do is create the appropriate transition.”

“You know, as we deal with this issue of reducing sodium and sugar, it sounds simple to do, but you all know better than I do, it’s not as simple as it sounds,” said Vilsack.

“It’s going to take time for people’s taste to adjust and they will adjust over time, but it will take some time,” he said. “So, we have to make sure that what we do is create the appropriate transition.

"At the end of the day, though, we've got to deal with this," said Vilsack.

Vilsack’s remarks about Americans’ taste buds came in response to a question about the best way to deal with food waste. He said the Agriculture Department has ongoing research projects to determine how to make nutritious food more appealing so that less of it is wasted.

Vilsack mentioned visiting a Colorado school that was serving children brownies made with black beans. “The kids didn’t even know they were eating a healthier snack,” Vilsack said.

The restaurant trade group is working with the USDA to promote the government’s revised dietary guidelines for Americans.

Restaurants that participate in the voluntary Kids LiveWell program commit to offering healthful meal items for children, with a particular focus on increasing consumption of fruit and vegetables, lean protein, whole grains and low-fat dairy, and limiting unhealthy fats, sugars and sodium.

First Lady Michelle Obama has made childhood obesity her signature issue, launching the administration’s “Let’s Move” program which is dedicated to “solving the challenge of childhood obesity within a generation.”

On its website, the “Let’s Move” program says that: “Everyone has a role to play in reducing childhood obesity, including parents, elected officials from all levels of government, schools, health care professionals, faith-based and community-based organizations, and private sector companies.”

CNSNews.com is not funded by the government like NPR. CNSNews.com is not funded by the government like PBS.


http://cnsnews.com/news/article/usda-secretary-we-must-create-appropriate-t…


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Ven 4 Mai - 17:53 (2012)    Sujet du message: CANADA : LE PROJET DE LOI C-6 VA ENGENDRER UNE ÈRE DE TYRANNIE ALIMENTAIRE SANS PRÉCÉDENT Répondre en citant

CANADA : LE PROJET DE LOI C-6 VA ENGENDRER UNE ÈRE DE TYRANNIE ALIMENTAIRE SANS PRÉCÉDENT

Publié par cgelinas dans Démocratie et politique, Regard sur l'actualité le 26 avr, 2009

Si vous croyez que le gouvernement Conservateur veut votre bien, c’est que vous n’avez pas encore lu l’horrible projet de loi C-6 qu’ils tentent de faire adopter, aux Communes.

On se demande comment des Canadiens peuvent nous trahir de cette façon.

Le projet de loi C-6, c’est l’ancien projet de loi C-52 mais avec un nouveau « numéro ». Encore une supercherie des Conservateurs, censée mêler les Canadiens qui ont monté une opposition mur-à-mur contre les projets de loi C-51 et C-52… alors ils ont modifié le nom du C-52 pour C-6 en croyant que les Canadiens n’y comprendraient plus rien.

VIDÉO : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_loRuV_sOJk&feature=player_embedded

Malheureusement pour les Conservateurs, les Canadiens voient —encore une fois— dans leurs manigances.

TOUS les Canadiens doivent s’opposer avec insistance contre les projets de loi C-6 (véritable canevas pour la tyrannie alimentaire) et le C-51 (qui place la santé des Canadiens entre les mains des groupes pharmaceutiques étrangers).

Si vous avez le mal de cœur à regarder aller Jean Charest et ses épouvantables PPP où il DONNE, à toutes fins pratiques, nos autoroutes à des opérateurs Australiens et Espagnols qui vont nous taxer pendant (au moins) 35 ans avec des péages, alors préparez-vous, Stephen Harper fait l’impossible pour faire encore pire.

Le premier ministre Harper cache à peine son allégeance pro-mondialiste. Et les mondialistes, cette élite satanique qu’on désigne souvent sous le nom « NOUVEL ORDRE MONDIAL » est en train de tuer l’industrie des produits naturels partout dans le monde en forçant de tout petits producteurs à suivre des « protocoles » extrêmement complexes et hors de prix.

VIDÉO : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDeOnPnwjFQ&feature=player_embedded

VIDÉO : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Pl7vcof6Nc&feature=player_embedded

Avec le plan de Harper, son projet de loi diabolique C-6 (couplé avec le C-51), attendez-vous à voir mourrir quelques 50,000 entreprises de produits naturels, au Canada.

Ça va être épouvantable.

Les vitamines, uniquement disponibles via des transnationales pharmaceutiques étrangères, n’auront PLUS DE CONCURRENCE des produits naturels et pourront alors relever le prix des suppléments vitaminiques autant qu’ils le souhaitent.

En tant que citoyen Canadien qui aurez assisté à la mort de presque toutes les compagnies qui fabriquent des produits qui sont véritablement bons, pour vous, vous allez vous réveiller un bon matin avec des produits génétiquement modifiés, généreusement arosés de pesticides, testés dans des pays de tiers monde (et docilement approuvés par Santé Canada, le chien de poche servile des géants pharmaceutiques) et surtout, vous paierez une fortune pour tenter de rester en santé.

Santé Canada ne cherche pas à vous garder en santé, c’est plutôt le contraire. Et les Conservateurs sont dans le coup, en travaillant pour implanter le Codex Alimentarius, au Canada.

VIDÉO : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IY-HeFm1kVc&feature=player_embedded

Pour faire image, le Codex Alimentarius, c’est l’ADN des projets de loi C-6 et C-51. Ce projet « alimentaire » formenté par le nouvel ordre mondial est aussi une sorte d’anté-Christ alimentaire qui privera les humains de tout ce qui est naturellement bon pour eux.

Les géants pharmaceutiques veulent vous maintenir dans un état de maladie perpétuel — et ils comptent vous vendre leurs « médicaments approuvés » (par leur complice, Santé Canada qui devrait s’appeler Maladie Canada) pour vous « traiter » et non vous « guérir ». Il y a une GROSSE différence entre les deux mots.

À vous d’y voir.

Si vous voulez avoir un avenir alimentaire digne de ce nom, vous allez devoir vous battre pour les produits de santé naturelle qui sont, dans les faits, votre plus important rempart contre la tyrannie pharmaceutique. Les chimistes et les médecins veulent vous maintenir sur leurs drogues — ils ne veulent PAS vous savoir en santé. Un esclave malade est un esclave obéissant.

Réveillez-vous et informez-vous:

•Health Freedom USA
•Health Canada Exposed (très bien monté)
•Bill C-6 and the Dark Tower of Power
•NHPAA – Natural Health Protection
•Charter of Health Freedom
•HANS – Health Action Network Society
•Cannabis and Codex: Evil Legalized Lies
•The Freedom Canada Movement

Il y a présentement une guerre qui a cours contre vous, vos libertés et votre droit d’avoir accès à des aliments naturels qui vous gardent en santé.

Et ce ne sont PAS les Conservateurs qui nous défendent… en fait, c’est exactement le contraire.


http://blogue.quebecmetro.com/2009/04/26/le-projet-de-loi-c-6-va-engendrer-…


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Ven 4 Mai - 17:53 (2012)    Sujet du message: UPSETTING!! SWAT TEAMS EXECUTE MAN'S FARM ANIMALS WITH SHOTGUNS! THANK TO ledaOhio937 Répondre en citant

UPSETTING!! SWAT TEAMS EXECUTE MAN'S FARM ANIMALS WITH SHOTGUNS! THANK TO ledaOhio937

VIDEO : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1KD8ZmlXMQ


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Ven 4 Mai - 17:54 (2012)    Sujet du message: WISCONSIN: NO RIGHT TO PRODUCE OR EAT FOOD Répondre en citant

WISCONSIN: NO RIGHT TO PRODUCE OR EAT FOOD



WISCONSIN - GET RID OF YOUR COWS

VIDEO : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckYoyy2fVSo

27 septembre 2011 10:09:49
NONAIS.org

In scary legal news a Wisconsin judge had gone completely loopy declaring that citizens have no right to produce or eat the foods of their own choice.

In response to a request from the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, the judge issued a clarification of his decision last week regarding his assessment of the constitutionality of food rights. The judge expanded on his original statement that such constitutional issues are “wholly without merit.”

He explained that the FTCLDF arguments were “extremely underdeveloped.” As an example, he said the plaintiffs’ use of the Roe v Wade abortion rights case as a precedent does “not explain why a woman’s right to have an abortion translates to a right to consume unpasteurized milk… This court is unwilling to declare that there is a fundamental right to consume the food of one’s choice without first being presented with significantly more developed arguments on both sides of the issue.” Gee, I thought they both had to do with the right to decide what to do with your own body.

As if to show how pissed he was at being questioned, he said his decision translates further that “no, Plaintiffs to not have a fundamental right to own and use a dairy cow or a dairy herd;

“no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow;”

And in a kind of exclamation point, he added this to his list of no-nos: “no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice…”

You have to wonder if maybe even the regulators are getting a tad uncomfortable with the rulings coming from the nation’s judiciary on food rights. Many of these individuals, biased as they are against raw milk, dabble in farming to some extent, or grew up on farms. This judge has gone way beyond what many of them have come to assume–that everyone has the right to own a cow and consume its milk Even in places that ban raw milk sales, there’s nearly always a provision in state law that anyone who owns a cow has the right to consume its milk.

It seems Judge Fiedler is saying it’s not a “fundamental right,” but rather a right granted us by the state.
-The Complete Patient

The original judgement can be seen here. To quote from the main points:

1) no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to own and use a dairy cow or a dairy herd;

2) no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow;

3) no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to board their cow at the farm of a farmer;

4) no, the Zinniker Plaintiffs’ private contract does not fall outside the scope of the State’s police power;

5) no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume foods of their choice;

In other words: Put down that carrot and backup slowly. Anything you eat or grow can and will be held against you in a court of law. You have now entered the police state of 1984. Shut up.

Why is this happening?


Simple, Big Ag is scared that small producers are going to take away a little bit of the market share. They are using their lobbyist and regulatory minions to put the squeeze on small family farms that have found a niche outside the mainstream in order to scare consumers back into buying at the big teats. When that doesn’t work they resort to government raids and insane judicial judgments against the small producers because Big Ag isn’t able to compete on a level playing field even with the help of all the subsidies they get.

What can you do?


Make a stink. Publicize these issues. Write about them on your blogs, web comments, to your representatives and in letters to the newspapers (you know, the crinkly things you fold that has the black ink - still a great tool of free speech as there are plenty of independents left.)

Most of all, support your local small farmers. Fight back with your pocket book. Hurt Big Ag where they feel the pain, in their wallets. Spend your dollars locally and as directly as you can to small stores and small family farms so that money flows back into your local economy.

You can make a difference. Do it.


http://beforeitsnews.com/story/1152/451/NL/Wisconsin:_No_Right_to_Produce_o…


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Ven 4 Mai - 17:56 (2012)    Sujet du message: NOW THAT THERE'S A HALAL COLA, IT'S TIME TO GET THE HALAL THE HELL OUT OF COCA COLA Répondre en citant

NOW THAT THERE'S A HALAL COLA, IT'S TIME TO GET THE HALAL THE HELL OUT OF COCA COLA

Posted: October 3, 2011 | Author: barenakedislam | Filed under: Islamization of the West      



Enjoy an ice-cold Haji in your hot sweaty Hijab. Ali Eghbal, the Hamburg businessman behind the new venture, believes the halal-certified cola will act as “a bridge between East and West.” (No it won’t. East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet)

Islam vs Europe According to Muslims, for one of the most successful beverages of the modern era, cola has an astonishingly bad image (only if you’re a Muslim asslifter). This has many reasons: from multinational soft drinks giants to questionable lifestyle choices and traditional, outdated production methods, cola is far from being linked to any curative effect.

How rude, and after Coca Cola tried so hard to change its ‘bad’ image just for Muslims. In 2008, COCA COLA jumped on the bandwagon of faith…in Allah! For Ramadan (to coincide with Sept. 11th), Coke released a can design with the internationally known symbol of Islam: The Star and Crescent. Adorning the national flags of at least 11 Islamic countries, these symbols have become part of Coca-Cola’s marketing scheme to appeal to Muslims only, but not any other faith group.



In haji cola, an alternative has been created that is unique. It is not haji that is special, but rather the haji drinker. It is the long overdue alternative for enlightened people (7th Century throwbacks who never make up their own minds and live their lives according to the crazed dictates of a paedophile prophet)



On the company’s website can be found a potted history of the term ‘haji’:

What is behind this mysterious name haji? In its original form, Haji is a courtesy title for a Muslim who has fulfilled his religious duty and made the pilgrimage to Mecca. Haji also stands for a person who is honest and good-tempered and whose company is highly sought after. The word Haji can also be found in the West, (most often in reference to Haji Hillary Clinton, known for her appeasement of Muslim radicals)

In this respect, the name evokes togetherness and transcends national and religious differences. Visually, the name connects Orient and Occident and is thus the perfect symbol to represent a blending of cultures and nations. True to the original meaning, haji cola and haji water will not polarise or separate people, but build bridges and bring people together. (In your dreams)

http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/10/03/now-that-theres-a-halal-cola…


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Ven 4 Mai - 17:58 (2012)    Sujet du message: CANADA - QUÉBEC : À LA DÉFENSE DE LA FERME FAMILIALE Répondre en citant

CANADA - QUÉBEC : À LA DÉFENSE DE LA FERME FAMILIALE

Tout ce que Christian Lacasse, président de l'Union des producteurs agricoles (UPA), se propose de faire semble bien beau, mais remarquez qu'il ne parle nullement des projets de loi C-36 (interdiction de se faire un jardin) et du C-6 (interdiction des plantes naturelles qui seront considérées comme possession de drogue, pour ceux qui en auront, dans un avenir rapproché). Il continue de donner de l'espoir à tous ces gens qui travaillent dans l'agroalimentaire sans vraiment leur dire ce qui se passe vraiment et les buts réels du programme Codex Alimentarius des Nations Unies. L'UPA a aussi servi, au cours de ces dernières décennies, à endetter énormément les agriculteurs en mettant en place des programmes "d'aide" pour soi-disant les aider. Combien ont perdu leur ferme depuis, dû à cette mondialisation et le jeu des prix, qui n'a cessé de les étouffer? Des milliers.

Voilà comment le gouvernement, qui place ses pions dans tous les domaines, contrôlent et font miroiter aux masses, un avenir trompeur, alors que la ruine, la fermeture et le contrôle des fermes continue d'avancer. Nos terres canadiennes sont de plus en plus vendues à d'autres pays qui soutiennent la culture des OGM, au détriment de la santé et du futur des citoyens.


Publié le 05 octobre 2011 à 06h34 | Mis à jour le 05 octobre 2011 à 06h34

Seulement le tiers des aliments consommés par les Québécois proviennent des fermes d'ici, déplore Christian Lacasse. «La mondialisation nous rentre dans le corps», dit-il.



Photo: André Pichette, La Presse
Marie Allard
La Presse

Livrer bataille pour défendre la ferme familiale, c'est ce que fera à Québec Christian Lacasse, président de l'Union des producteurs agricoles (UPA). «C'est ici qu'on trouve les plus petites fermes en Amérique du Nord, a-t-il dit en rencontre éditoriale à La Presse. On a un modèle d'agriculture qui fonctionne, qui n'est pas parfait, mais qui est collé sur les valeurs du Québec.»

M. Lacasse ira bientôt présenter le mémoire de l'UPA à la commission parlementaire sur la politique bioalimentaire. Ses demandes: assurer l'avenir de la ferme familiale, mais aussi réintroduire un cours de cuisine obligatoire au secondaire, mieux indiquer la provenance des aliments et exiger des produits étrangers qu'ils satisfassent aux normes canadiennes.

L'objectif n'est pas de ressembler aux États-Unis, «où il y a de très petites fermes et des multinationales», a indiqué M. Lacasse. Une grosse ferme de bouvillons américaine «peut faire la production totale du Québec» à elle seule. «Ici, on n'a pas cette agriculture à deux vitesses», a-t-il précisé.

Mais nos fermes familiales sont en danger, selon le président de l'UPA. «Si on remet en question la mise en marché collective, qu'on enlève la réglementation, la ferme familiale sera la première à écoper, a-t-il prédit. Ces grandes tendances existent, même si elles n'ont pas tant trouvé écho dans le livre vert.»

Les agriculteurs perdront des revenus s'ils sont isolés, a-t-il averti. «Je suis producteur laitier, est-ce moi qui vais aller négocier avec Agropur ou Saputo, si on enlève la mise en marché collective? a-t-il demandé. Je n'aurai aucun rapport de force.»

Or, s'assurer que les fermes procurent «des revenus suffisants pour faire vivre une famille» est essentiel, selon lui.

275 millions de plus

Cela implique un soutien de l'État. L'UPA estime les besoins à 1,35 milliard par an, 275 millions de plus qu'en 2010. «L'agriculture et la transformation alimentaire, c'est 174 000 emplois directs et indirects au Québec, a fait valoir M. Lacasse. C'est 13 milliards du PIB. L'agriculture est un investissement rentable.»

Subventionner l'agriculture, c'est aussi assurer notre autonomie alimentaire, a-t-il plaidé. Seulement le tiers des aliments consommés par les Québécois proviennent des fermes d'ici. «En dessous de 50%, pour moi, c'est un problème», a indiqué M. Lacasse.

Pour favoriser l'achat local, l'UPA demande à Ottawa que la mention «Produit du Canada» s'applique dès que 85% des ingrédients sont canadiens. Cela permettrait notamment de mettre du sucre - produit d'ailleurs - dans une recette canadienne. Actuellement, il faut 98 % d'ingrédients canadiens, ce qui exclut confitures et gâteaux.

Respect de la réglementation

S'assurer que les produits importés respectent des normes environnementales et de salubrité aussi strictes qu'ici est urgent, a ajouté M. Lacasse.

«Les producteurs de fraises de Californie utilisent le bromure de méthyle, un pesticide très fort qui n'est pas homologué par Santé Canada, a-t-il dit. Ils nous exportent ensuite ces fraises. Il y a plein d'exemples comme celui-là. Chaque fois, on donne un avantage concurrentiel aux produits de l'extérieur.»

Pour informer les futurs citoyens de ces enjeux, l'UPA propose d'instaurer un cours «d'alimentation raisonnée» au secondaire, qui traiterait de santé, d'art culinaire, mais aussi de culture, d'environnement et d'économie.

«Le livre vert met le produit au centre de la future politique bioalimentaire, a rappelé M. Lacasse. J'ai un problème avec ça. L'aliment peut venir de partout ailleurs dans le monde! Notre agriculture, quelle place va-t-elle avoir dans la future politique?»


http://www.cyberpresse.ca/actualites/quebec-canada/national/201110/05/01-44…


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Ven 4 Mai - 18:00 (2012)    Sujet du message: AUTHORITARIAN GOVERNMENTS START STOCKPILING FOOD TO FIGHT PUBLIC ANGER Répondre en citant

AUTHORITARIAN GOVERNMENTS START STOCKPILING FOOD TO FIGHT PUBLIC ANGER

Authoritarian governments across the world are aggressively stockpiling food as a buffer against soaring food costs which they fear may stoke popular discontent.


Riots started in Tunisia initally over the price of staple food like sugar, salt and grain Photo: AP

By Ben Farmer in Islamabad 4:11PM GMT 28 Jan 2011

Commodities traders have warned they are seeing the first signs of panic buying from states concerned about the political implications of rising prices for staple crops.

However, the tactic risks simply further pushing up prices, analysts have warned, pushing a spiral of food inflation.

Governments in Asia, the Middle East and North Africa have recently made large food purchases on the open market in the wake of unrest in Tunisia which deposed president Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali.

Resentment at food shortages and high prices, as well as repression and corruption, drove the popular uprising which swept away his government.

Youths reportedly chanted "bring us sugar!" in the demonstrations which toppled his regime.


Citation:
Citation :
Related Articles

Food hoarding by governments keen to keep prices low is pushing prices higher 28 Jan 2011
Why Egypt's government is stockpiling food 28 Jan 2011
Authoritarian governments start stockpiling food to fight public anger 28 Jan 2011
New age of intervention in food prices 17 Jan 2011
Why commodities are soaring in price 30 Dec 2010





Nouriel Roubini, the New York University economics professor who predicted the financial crisis, this week told the World Economic Forum in Davos that high prices were "leading to riots, demonstrations and political instability." "It's really something that can topple regimes, as we have seen in the Middle East," he said.

Algeria purchased 800,000 tonnes of milling wheat on Wednesday and Saudi Arabia has said it will purchase enough wheat for a 12 month reserve.

Egypt, which has seen several days of unrest in part provoked by high food prices, is expected to follow.

Bangladesh has tripled its rice import target and Indonesia this week bought 820,000 tonnes of Thai rice.

Jim Gerlach, of commodity brokerage A/C Trading, said: "Sovereign nations are beginning to stockpile food to prevent unrest." "You artificially stimulate much higher demand when nations start to increase stockpiles."

"This is only the start of the panic buying," said Ker Chung Yang, commodities analyst at Singapore-based Phillip Futures. "I expect we'll have more countries coming in and buying grain."

Prices have not hit the peaks seen in 2008 when inflation caused a food price crisis, but economists have warned they still have the power to topple regimes.

Hamza Alkholi, chairman and chief executive of the Saudi Alkholi Group, a holding company investing in industrials and real estate, said protest would not stop in North Africa. "It will spread in many countries because of high unemployment and increasing food prices," he warned.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/8288555/Authoritarian-…


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Ven 4 Mai - 18:00 (2012)    Sujet du message: IGNORING NON-ISLAMIC CULPRITS IN SOMALIA FAMINE Répondre en citant

IGNORING NON-ISLAMIC CULPRITS IN SOMALIA FAMINE

Hunger from harmful aid and agriculture policies

By Julie Hollar

As Somalia sank deeper into famine in late summer, with 63 percent of southern Somalia’s population at risk of starvation, U.S. media coverage focused on stories of misery and resilience. Measuring children’s emaciated arms and describing the scraps of dignity people struggled to maintain in refugee camps substituted for investigation of causes, or discussion of remedies beyond appeals for donations.

A typical report came from CBS Evening News (8/8/11): “The faces dusted with the desert and...the eyes that have seen too much,” with an interview with a woman “who had fought to save her children in an unforgiving land.” The next day (8/9/11), the network brought us “people with lessons to teach about life and death in an unforgiving land.”

While drought can be a natural phenomenon, famine in the modern era is political—and avoidable. A variety of factors play into the current Somalia famine, but media could only seem to find one culprit: Islamic terrorists. Al-Shabaab, the militant youth group that controls much of Somalia and has been labeled a terrorist organization by the U.S. government, “is widely blamed for causing a famine in Somalia by forcing out many Western aid organizations,” explained the New York Times (8/2/11).

And nearly all of the rest of the media agreed. “Terror Group Blocking Aid to Three Million Starving Somalis” blared a USA Today headline (8/15/11). “The spread of Islamic terrorism has turned a drought into a famine that didn’t have to happen,” reported NBC Nightly News’ Ann Curry (8/16/11) from Mogadishu. Curry’s colleague Richard Engel (NBC, 8/5/11) argued earlier: “But what may be most tragic of all, the famine here is largely man-made. Somalia is a failed state and a war zone. Peacekeepers from Uganda and Burundi are fighting to drive out Al-Qaeda backed militants called Al-Shabaab. The militants control half the country.”

While Al-Shabaab certainly bears responsibility for any of its actions that prevented food from reaching people in need, other major pieces are missing from this story of man-made disaster—including climate change, agricultural policy and the history of U.S. foreign policy in Somalia.

Scientists have long warned that a warming planet would lead to more dramatic weather patterns, including droughts. And in recent years, drought has hit the Horn of Africa much more frequently than the historical average (Guardian, 8/8/11). On prominent TV news programs, though, climate change simply wasn’t considered in reports on Somalia’s famine. In newspapers, climate change was relegated almost exclusively to opinion pages, either in print (e.g., San Francisco Chronicle, 7/23/11; Baltimore Sun, 8/1/11) or web-only (e.g., New York Times Dot Earth Blog, 8/3/11).

Weather effects are compounded by poor agricultural policies. A lonely Washington Post op-ed (7/29/11) by Macalester College professor William G. Moseley pointed out that a market-based agricultural agenda, pushing cash crops and large-scale commercial farming, started under colonial rule and was ramped up by development banks. These policies, Moseley explained, left people more vulnerable to drought years than in the past, when they grew and stored food for consumption. Understanding this has important implications, he argued:

The problem is that the USAID plan for agricultural development in Africa has stressed a “New Green Revolution” involving improved seeds, fertilizers and pesticides. While this energy-intensive approach may make sense in some contexts, it is financially out of reach of the poorest of poor farmers, who are the most likely to face food shortfalls. A more realistic approach would play down imported seeds and commercial agriculture in favor of enhanced traditional approaches to producing food for families and local markets.

U.S. foreign policy was perhaps the hardest to find catching blame except in alternative media. One prominent exception, an excellent September 5 piece in Time magazine by Alex Perry—“A Famine We Made?”—stood as a rare corporate media investigation of how U.S. aid policy exacerbated the famine. Generally, however, when any fault was laid at the U.S. government’s doorstep, it was simply framed as a lack of efficacy: The New York Times editorial board (8/12/11) argued that the problem with U.S. policy toward Somalia for the past decade has been “a lack of focus and internal battles.”

Elsewhere in the Times (8/2/11), Somalia was simply “a lawless cauldron... dominated by chaos since 1991, when clan warlords overthrew the central government and then tore apart the country.” At the very end of the long report on the famine, almost as an aside, the paper mentioned that another problem with getting famine aid to Somalis is “American government restrictions,” which since 2008 have made it a crime to “provide material assistance” to Al-Shabaab. “Aid officials say the restrictions have had a chilling effect,” the Times reported, “because it is nearly impossible to guarantee that the Shabaab will not skim off some of the aid delivered in their areas.”

As Lauren Sutherland pointed out in a much more detailed report in the Nation (8/15/11), U.S. aid to Somalia plummeted from $237 million in 2008 to $29 million in 2010 as a result of those tightened sanctions against Al-Shabaab. Those sanctions have also “virtually prevented U.S. or U.S.-funded agencies from operating in Al-Shabaab controlled territory.”

That means that even though this famine had been predicted since last August (SciDev.net, 7/14/11), U.S. counterterrorism policy kept preventative or emergency measures from being put into place until thousands had already started dying. And even once aid started flowing, the organizational infrastructure wasn’t there to distribute it as quickly and effectively as it could have.

Furthermore, talk of Somalia as a “lawless cauldron...dominated by chaos since 1991” neatly erases a critical piece of recent Somali history and the U.S. role in destabilizing the country, which has led to the rise of Al-Shabaab. One of the only mentions of this U.S. role turned up by a Nexis search of U.S. newspapers and wires was an op-ed by University of Minnesota professor Abdi Ismail Samatar that appeared in a few smaller papers (e.g., Contra Costa Times, 8/20/11), courtesy of the Progressive Media Project, which works to place diverse and dissenting viewpoints on newspaper opinion pages. Wrote Samatar:

The American-supported Ethiopian invasion of Somalia in 2006 dashed Somalia’s only chance in 16 years to restore a national government of its own. The invasion displaced more than 1 million people and killed 15,000 civilians. Those displaced are part of today’s famine victims.

That invasion was prompted by the great reduction in Somalia’s chaos by people the U.S. government didn’t approve of
: the Islamic Courts Union, an Islamist group that rose to power in opposition to much-hated warlords who were receiving backing from the U.S. The Islamic Courts gained control of much of the country and had brought stability with their rule, which was largely (though not uniformly) moderate. Their overthrow essentially cast the moderates out of power and drove their more radical youth wing, Al-Shabaab, into hiding to launch an insurgency that has led to the current situation (Extra!, 3–4/08).

And that Al-Qaeda connection? There’s no evidence any substantial connection existed prior to the U.S.-backed overthrow of the Islamic Courts, but it served as useful propaganda to sell that invasion (Extra!, 3–4/08).

When NBC’s Ann Curry (8/16/11) calls Somalia “the capital of chaos, torn to ruins by decades of war and anarchy,” she forgets to note who, exactly, was partly behind that war and anarchy.


http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4410


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Ven 4 Mai - 18:01 (2012)    Sujet du message: OBAMA DOJ TARGETING COMPANIES RUNNING ADVERTISEMENTS MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES Répondre en citant

OBAMA DOJ TARGETING COMPANIES RUNNING ADVERTISEMENTS MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES

VIDEO : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmG6AAxh-0M


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Ven 4 Mai - 18:02 (2012)    Sujet du message: UN AGENCIES TO PRESENT PLAN FOR SUSTAINABLE FUTURE OF OCEANS Répondre en citant

UN AGENCIES TO PRESENT PLAN FOR SUSTAINABLE FUTURE OF OCEANS

Just remember overfishing, food control. The rest is bla-bla-bla...



27 October 2011 – Four United Nations agencies have prepared a plan to limit the degradation of oceans and address issues such as overfishing, pollution and declining biodiversity to encourage countries to renew their commitment to improve oceans’ governance, the UN announced today.

The plan, Blueprint for Ocean and Coastal Sustainability, seeks to highlight the opportunity that countries have to set up more effective institutional mechanisms to protect both the ocean and coastal areas ahead of the UN Conference on Sustainable Development, Rio+20 in June next year, where world leaders will meet to asses their progress on SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT and address new challenges.

According to a news release issued by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the plan will be presented by its Director-General Irina Bokova at the headquarters of the agency in Paris on Tuesday. The event will be one of the highlights of the 36th session of UNESCO’s general conference.

The plan was produced jointly by UNESCO, UN Development Programme (UNDP), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the International Maritime Organization (IMO), who will present the ten recommendations featured in the plan at the event.

According to UNESCO, oceans account for 70 per cent of the Earth’s surface, but only one per cent of their area is protected. In addition, 60 per cent of major marine ecosystems are damaged or over-exploited, having negative effects on mangroves and coral reefs.

The ocean also absorbs close to 26 per cent of carbon dioxide emission in the atmosphere, increasing acidification, which affects plankton, and these in turn affect the entire food chain, significantly increasing the impact oceans have on all ecosystems.


http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=40222&Cr=sustainable devel…


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Ven 4 Mai - 18:03 (2012)    Sujet du message: LE RÊVE BRISÉ D'UN COUPLE D'AGRICULTEURS, VICTIME D'UNE POLLUTION AUX PCB. Répondre en citant

LE RÊVE BRISÉ D'UN COUPLE D'AGRICULTEURS, VICTIME D'UNE POLLUTION AUX PCB.

Posted 19 novembre 2011 by realinfos in BILLET D'HUMEUR.



GREZ-EN-BOUERE (Mayenne) – Jean-Pierre et Laure Reigner avaient réussi à se reconvertir dans l’élevage de veaux sous la mère à Bouère (Mayenne), mais leur projet de vie s’est écroulé quand ils ont appris que leur cheptel était contaminé par une pollution aux PCB attribuée à l’usine Aprochim.

Les bêtes sont impropres à la consommation, ils survivent aujourd’hui grâce au RSA en espérant obtenir réparation et connaître la vérité sur cette pollution.

C’est un énorme gâchis. Pour nous, c’était un projet de vie, disent Laure, 41 ans, et Jean-Pierre, 40 ans.

Comme la leur, depuis janvier, dix autres fermes situées dans un rayon de 3 km autour de l’usine de Grez-en-Bouère, le village voisin, ont été placées sous séquestre totale ou partielle après la détection de taux anormalement élevés de concentration en PCB (polychlorobiphényles) dans leurs productions – lait, viande et oeufs. Cette semaine, un producteur de fromages de chèvre a vu à son tour sa production interdite à la vente.

Avant, jamais personne ne nous avait parlé de l’activité de cette usine spécialisée dans le traitement de déchets industriels chargés en PCB (transformateurs, condensateurs), raconte Laure.

Tout est allé très vite, les services vétérinaires, les prélèvements et la prise de conscience… Mais le jour où on a reçu les résultats d’analyse de nos veaux, on a tout de suite compris dit-elle, ponctuant son récit d’un long silence.

Des tests sur leur bétail ont révélé des taux d’imprégnation en PCB de 5 et jusqu’à 30 picogrammes par gramme de matière grasse, soit jusqu’à six fois la norme maximale autorisée. Les animaux se révèlent invendables.

Quand ça vous tombe dessus, il vaut mieux être solide psychologiquement. Ces veaux, élevés sous la mère, formaient l’essentiel de nos revenus, 60% du chiffre d’affaire, précise Jean-Pierre.

Pour cet ancien salarié agricole et son épouse, ex-enseignante en sciences, le coup est rude. Ils voulaient s’installer dans l’Ouest, ont trouvé en janvier 2002 cette ferme à louer et ont tout quitté pour se lancer dans l’élevage de limousines, leur passion.

Ils avaient obtenu le label rouge pour leurs veaux sous la mère – nourris exclusivement au lait jusqu’à leur abattage à quatre mois -, très prisés par les boucheries et les restaurants. Aujourd’hui, 200 de leurs bêtes sont sous séquestre.

Après les veaux, de nouveaux tests ont en effet révélé que des génisses étaient contaminées.

Le couple a plongé dans l’abattement, puis la colère. On nous a laissé penser que nous pourrions nous reconvertir en produisant des broutards (jeunes bovins). Mais à quoi bon remettre un troupeau sain si les terres sont polluées’, dit Jean-Pierre.

Au sein du monde agricole mayennais, personne ne s’illusionne sur la possibilité de décontaminer les bêtes intoxiquées et chacun s’interroge sur la persistance de la présence des PCB dans les eaux et les terres. Trois troupeaux des environs de l’usine ont été abattus pour contamination aux PCB et trois autres devaient l’être lundi.

Faute de revenus et pour assumer leurs charges, les Reigner ont sollicité en référé une provision auprès d’Aprochim.

Mais le juge a rejeté leur demande en faisant valoir l’absence de certitude sur l’origine de la pollution.

Quelques semaines plus tôt, un autre juge avait estimé au contraire qu’Aprochim se trouvait en première ligne de la liste d’accusation et accepté la même demande d’un voisin dont le troupeau a été depuis abattu. Une décision confirmée récemment en appel.

Aprochim, qui continue de contester sa responsabilité, a été contraint au printemps de réduire de 50% son activité et d’améliorer ses dispositifs de confinement et d’aspiration.

En juin, malgré les protestations des riverains, le site a été autorisé à fonctionner à pleine capacité, de nouveaux tests de pollution doivent être publiés mi-décembre.

AFP


http://realinfos.wordpress.com/2011/11/19/le-reve-brise-dun-couple-dagricul…


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Ven 4 Mai - 18:05 (2012)    Sujet du message: NOUVELLE ZELANDE: INTERDIT D'AVOIR DES POTAGERS/NEW FOOD BILL IN NEW ZEALAND TAKES AWAY HUMAN RIGHT TO GROW FOOD Répondre en citant

NOUVELLE ZELANDE: INTERDIT D'AVOIR DES POTAGERS

du 21 au 24 novembre 2011... : Les lois qu'on a vue votées aux US sont arrivées en Nouvelle Zélande où il serait bientôt interdit de faire pousser des tomates, pommes de terre, etc. sans permission: "The new Food bill will make it a privilege and not a right to grow food. I find two aspects of this bill alarming. The first is the scope and impact the new bill has, and secondly that it has all happened so quietly. There has been VERY little media coverage, on a bill which promises to jeopardise the future food security of the country". Merci à Martin. Revue de Presse par Pierre Jovanovic ©
http://www.jovanovic.com/ 2008-2011

http://www.jovanovic.com/blog.htm

NEW FOOD BILL IN NEW ZEALAND TAKES AWAY HUMAN RIGHT TO GROW FOOD

September 21st, 2011

I was shocked to learn from a friend on the weekend that a new Food Bill is being brought in here in New Zealand. The new bill will make it a privilege and not a right to grow food.

I find two aspects of this bill alarming. The first is the scope and impact the new bill has, and secondly that it has all happened so quietly. There has been VERY little media coverage, on a bill which promises to jeopardise the future food security of the country.

I read that the bill is being brought in because of the WTO, which of course has the US FDA behind it, and of course that is influenced by big business (Monsanto and other players). It looks like this NZ food bill will pave the way to reduce the plant diversity and small owner operations in New Zealand, for example by way of controlling the legality of seed saving and trading/barter/giving away; all will be potentially illegal. The best website to read about the problems with the new bill is http://nzfoodsecurity.org/ (I have no connection with this website)

Here are some snippets:

- It turns a human right (to grow food and share it) into a government-authorised privilege that can be summarily revoked.

- It makes it illegal to distribute “food” without authorisation, and it defines “food” in such a way that it includes nutrients, seeds, natural medicines, essential minerals and drinks (including water).

- By controlling seeds, the bill takes the power to grow food away from the public and puts it in the hands of seed companies. That power may be abused.

- Growing food for distribution must be authorised, even for “cottage industries”, and such authorisation can be denied.

- Under the Food Bill, Police acting as Food Safety Officers can raid premises without a warrant, using all equipment they deem necessary – including guns (Clause 265 – 1).

- Members of the private sector can also be Food Safety Officers, as at Clause 243. So Monsanto employees can raid premises – including marae – backed up by armed police.

- The Bill gives Food Safety Officers immunity from criminal and civil prosecution.

- The Government has created this bill to keep in line with its World Trade Organisation obligations under an international scheme called Codex Alimentarius (“Food Book”). So it has to pass this bill in one form or another.

- The bill would undermine the efforts of many people to become more self-sufficient within their local communities.

- Seed banks and seed-sharing networks could be shut down if they could not obtain authorisation. Loss of seed variety would make it more difficult to grow one’s own food.

- Home-grown food and some or all seed could not be bartered on a scale or frequency necessary to feed people in communities where commercially available food has become unaffordable or unavailable (for example due to economic collapse).

- Restrictions on the trade of food and seed would quickly lead to the permanent loss of heirloom strains, as well as a general lowering of plant diversity in agriculture.

- Organic producers of heirloom foods could lose market share to big-money agribusiness outfits, leading to an increase in the consumption of nutrient-poor and GE foods.



The key factor is seeds. In many cases they specifically are food, of course. Grain seed, seed potatoes, rice, maize, quinoa, many staples etc etc – as the bill stands all these will explicitly be controlled substances, with similar penalties for possession as DRUGS.

This being so, the unenforceability of prohibiting people from growing food for local distribution becomes a moot point. No good seeds means no good food (if any food at all) to distribute.

One of the few newspaper articles that I’ve seen, highlighting some of the problems with the bill. This from the Timaru Herald newspaper

URL http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/new…

Some snippets:

The woman behind the Oamaru community gardens is concerned a bill going through Parliament could jeopardise the project.

Gardens co-ordinator Annie Beattie said the Food Bill, which passed its first reading on July 22, was more commercially driven than about food safety. “It’s all about big companies wanting sole rights to seeds because they don’t produce seeds and you have to buy them again each year. They are contaminated seeds. “I have to say I am furious about these bullying tactics.”

She has signed an online petition opposing the bill. “This to me is a dictatorship and certainly not a democratic society. “I think its time for people to open their eyes be responsible and stand up for their rights. “I would go to jail if I had to and will be defending the right to have community gardens and share our food and our knowledge of the importance of good, safe, real food.”

I found the website for the gardens: http://www.marketground.co.nz/waitakicom… and waicomgardens at hotmail.com for E-Mail.

I have been a member of this site for over a year, and this is my first post. I did not think it would come to this in little old New Zealand, literally at the ends of the earth. Very serious stuff indeed.

Here is the bill:
Recommendation


The Primary Production Committee has examined the Food Bill and recommends that it be passed with the amendments shown.

Introduction

This bill would on commencement replace the Food Act 1981 and over time the Food Hygiene Regulations 1974 and the Food (Safety) Regulations 2002. It would also make consequential amendments to the Animal Products Act 1999 and the Wine Act 2003. It seeks to provide an efficient, risk-based regulatory regime that places a primary duty on persons trading in food to ensure that what is sold is safe and suitable.

This commentary focuses on the main amendments we recommend and does not address minor technical amendments.

Relationship with other Acts

We recommend amending clause 5 by dividing it into two clauses, clause 5 and clause 5A. Clause 5 would retain the explanation of the application of the bill. Clause 5A would clarify and provide certainty about the relationship between the bill and the Animal Products Act 1999 and the Wine Act 2003. We also recommend adding a subclause to clause 5A stating that if there is any conflict, duplication or inconsistency between a power or other form of authority conferred under the bill and those in the Animal Products Act or Wine Act in relation to an animal product or wine, then the powers or authorities conferred in the latter Acts would prevail.

Meaning of food business

We recommend that subclause 9(b)(iii) be deleted. In this subclause as introduced the definition of “food business” would capture people who do not trade in food, but are directly or peripherally involved in facilitating the trade of food, such as organisers of food markets or events.

Meaning of safety and suitability

We recommend that clause 11(5) be amended to clarify the definition of suitability as it relates to the “condition” of food. The proposed amendment would replace subclause (5) to make it clear that food is unsuitable if it is decomposed or rotten, contaminated or tainted, contains foreign objects, or is offensive in some other way. To avoid challenge to a food’s suitability on the basis of offensiveness in circumstances where the food is entirely lawful in terms of its composition (for example a vegetarian finding gelatine in a confectionery item “offensive”) we recommend the inclusion of new subclause (5A), to make it clear that a moral, religious, or ethical aversion to a particular food or ingredient would not make the food unsuitable for the purposes of the bill.

We note that in circumstances where the composition of a food is misrepresented (for example, if a café meal were described as vegan but was found by the vegan purchaser to contain animal product, or a product were incorrectly labelled as vegetarian), recourse would be available through the bill’s provisions for “truth in labelling” and through other statutes, such as the Fair Trading Act 1986.

Winemaking operations

We recommend inserting new clause 24A, which is currently clause 43, and amending it to widen the scope of the risk management tool under which winemakers can apply to have their operations included. The amendment would acknowledge that some activities that winemakers undertake will be subject to national programmes rather than food control plans. The amendment would also clarify that such operators would be required to meet Wine Act standards in relation to their winemaking activities.

Food control plans

We recommend inserting new clause 35A to specify the purposes for which regulations about food control plans could be made. Clause 35A would replace clause 347(1).

This clause would also include specific regulation-making powers, which would clarify the scope of potential regulations in respect of such matters as verification intensity and frequency, and training and competency requirements.

For the sake of clarity, we recommend replacing clauses 36–40 and replacing them with clauses covering the following matters: a chief executive’s power to amend a template food control plan; the circumstances in which a food operator may amend a template food control plan (and the process to be followed in doing so); a chief executive’s ability to register a food control plan template amended by a food operator; a food operator’s ability to amend a food control plan developed by a third party; and a food operator’s ability to amend a food control plan not based on an official template.

We recommend deleting clause 42. It was intended to provide for a person who carries out secondary processing of animal product to incorporate these activities into a registered food control plan in certain circumstances. However, this option is already available under the bill and clause 42 does not provide anything additional.

We recommend amending clause 45(1)(f) to make it clear when a food control plan would have to be verified, by adding the words “after commencement of the operations to which the registered food control plan relates”.

Regulations about national programmes

We recommend amending clause 73(1)(l) to allow national programme regulations to be more specific on the training and competency requirements for persons who are required to operate under those regulations. The amended wording would allow the regulations to require such people to undergo appropriate training, or to demonstrate competency, regarding the safety and suitability of food, food production, and food processing and handling, and to provide training for staff as appropriate.

We also recommend that clause 73(1)(c) be amended to allow regulations to prescribe the intensity of verification. This affects the cost of verification, and we consider it appropriate that this aspect of verification also be regulated.

Horticulture New Zealand and various other submitters were concerned about the potential for duplication and increased compliance costs resulting to their own certification programmes, and that the requirements of the bill could be onerous for their members. We have sought to address this matter and will monitor this closely.

Food handler guidance

A number of submitters were concerned that some of the provisions in the bill were too bureaucratic and costly. Small operators and charitable organisations were particularly concerned about this matter.

We recommend amending clause 92(2) by removing “community-based fund-raising events”, and adding two new subclauses to specify that food handler guidance applies to persons or organisations trading in food for a charitable purpose, and persons or groups trading in food for personal development. This would align this clause with proposed amendments to clauses 94 and 94A.

Charitable purpose

We recommend amending clause 94 to clarify the definition of trading in food for charitable purpose, by replacing “community-based fund-raising activities” with “charitable purpose”. The section would apply to a person or persons or organisation trading in food for a “charitable purpose”. Charitable purpose is defined in clause 94(4) of the bill. Such persons or organisations trading in food for a charitable purpose would therefore be exempt from the requirement to operate under a food control plan or national programme. The food operator would still have to operate under any food handler guidance that applies to the trade in food concerned. We also recommend requiring that the trade in food for a charitable purpose either occur not more than 20 times in one calendar year or, if it is more frequent, that it be ancillary or incidental to the main activity taking place at that location.

Schedule 3 of the bill further details the specific food sectors and food-selling activities subject to food handler guidance. We recommend a number of amendments to the schedule to make it clear who and what is covered by Schedule 3.

We recommend amending part 1(f) of Schedule 3 by deleting “infrequent” and adding “organisations, and societies (internal)”. This would cover members of a club, organisation, or society selling food to other members where the trade in food was not the purpose of the event or gathering. Along with amended clause 94 this would allow, for example, a church or religious congregation selling food to its members to be subject only to food handler guidance.

We recommend inserting new part 1(fa) into Schedule 3, “Food service sector: clubs, organisations, and societies (external)”. This would cover members of a club, organisation, or society selling food to members and guests where the trade in food was not the purpose of the event or gathering. This is intended to cover events such as a sausage sizzle at a sports match.

We also recommend that part 1(c) of Schedule 3 be amended to include the sector descrïption “fishing vessel operators who supply food for crew”. By virtue of supplying food to crew (which is part of a remuneration package), a vessel operator would fall within the meaning of a food business and thus be captured by this bill. While the hazards associated with such food provision warrant some form of control, we felt the low risk involved and the impracticality of verifying such operations means that the best solution would be to make such activities subject to food handler guidance.

Personal development

We recommend inserting new clause 94A to provide for exemption from operating under a food control plan or national programme in circumstances where food is sold for a specified fund-raising purpose which would fall outside the scope of clause 94. The purpose must be to provide financial support required by the person selling the food, or a named other person (or group of persons), to achieve a specific purpose or goal. The trade in food would be on a non-commercial scale and on an infrequent basis, that is, no more than 20 times in one calendar year. The person or group would still be required to operate under any food handler guidance that applied to the trade in food concerned.

Small scale businesses

We recommend amending clause 95 by inserting new subclause 95(5) to provide an example of a person to whom the chief executive might grant an exemption from the requirement to operate under a registered food control plan or national programme. This example concerns someone who produces in his or her own home any food for sale, and sells the food to a consumer only, and does not employ or engage anyone else to assist in the production or sale of the food, and does not otherwise sell or distribute the food.

The treatment of very small-scale food businesses has emerged as a matter of particular interest in our consideration of the bill. Very small-scale food traders, or “cottage industries” are not distinguished in the bill. It would be difficult to quantify “small-scale” in terms of profit, quantity of product, or number of people involved in the operation, and it is also difficult to define a “cottage” food industry. Doing so could have the effect of inappropriately including or excluding particular food-trading activities. Therefore we do not recommend a generic “cottage industry” provision, and propose instead that any exemption from the requirement to operate under a food control plan or national programme regulations could be made on a case-by-case basis through the exercise of the chief executive’s exemption power under this clause.

Delegation to territorial authorities

We recommend amending clause 96 by adding subclause 96(7) and 96(8). The chief executive should be able to delegate functions, duties, or powers to territorial authorities. However, delegation of the chief executive’s power to grant an exemption from the requirement to operate under a food control plan or national programme would be limited. Subclause 96(8) would require a territorial authority acting under delegation to grant, amend, or revoke an exemption under clause 95 in accordance with the special consultative procedure specified in section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Exclusivity of verification functions and activities granted to territorial authorities

We recommend inserting new clause 127A to preclude the chief executive from recognising anyone other than a territorial authority as a verifier for businesses that operate under a template or model food control plan issued under clause 32, and operate exclusively within the district of a single territorial authority, and sell food directly to consumers.

The bill as introduced does not include express provision for territorial authorities to be exclusive verifiers of any food sector. Clause 126 provides that any person or body can apply for recognition as a verifier and can be recognised as such, provided the chief executive is satisfied they are a fit and proper person. It was originally expected that territorial authority verification exclusivity would be given effect through transitional regulations made under clause 397 of the bill; however this is no longer considered appropriate because territorial authority exclusivity may not be a transitional or temporary arrangement. It would have to be determined by the outcome of a review as per new clause 127B.

However, we consider it important that the chief executive’s power to monitor the performance of territorial authorities and the Minister’s powers of review persist during the exclusivity period.

Review of operation

We recommend inserting new clause 127B to provide for a review of the operation of the new clause 127A as soon as practicable after the expiry of the legislation’s introductory period as set out in clause 375.

We consider that the advantages of territorial authorities being granted verification exclusivity outweigh the disadvantages. However, new clause 127B would ensure the arrangement was reviewed by the chief executive as soon as practicable after the expiry of the legislation’s introductory period. This review could determine whether the arrangement could still be justified once the new regime was fully implemented.

Power to issue improvement notice

We recommend inserting new clauses 267A and 267B, to give a food safety officer the authority to issue an improvement notice, and provide a right of review for a person to whom an improvement notice has been issued. The chief executive would also be allowed to initiate a review of a food safety officer’s decision to issue an improvement notice.

We felt an improvement notice regime would be a useful addition to the enforcement tools available to encourage compliance with the requirements of the bill. An improvement notice would require corrective actions to be undertaken. This could be used to provide an opportunity to correct any non-compliance, instead of an infringement notice being issued or proceedings being commenced.

Green Party minority view

The Green Party is concerned that the bill deals with the issue of food safety inconsistently and even arbitrarily.

We are concerned about the narrow definition of food safety in the bill, which allows hazards to remain in food provided they can be managed, eliminated, or minimised. We think the definition is way too wide.

The Green Party is particularly concerned at the definition of food safety, given the narrow focus by the New Zealand Food Safety Authority on managing food safety risks of microbial contamination, and the way it consistently ignores contamination by pesticides and other chemicals such as Bisphenol A, and heavy metals.

Finally, we are pleased that this bill will require importers to be registered in New Zealand and that importers will have a duty to be able to trace imported foods back to their source. We would like to see this ability to trace foods back to their source, used as the basis for mandatory country of origin labelling, and full traceability in the food supply, as is being introduced in other countries.

Appendix
Committee process

The Food Bill was referred to the committee on 22 July 2010. The closing date for submissions was 2 September 2010. We received and considered 66 submissions from interested groups and individuals. We heard 26 submissions.

We received advice from the Food Safety branch of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (formerly the New Zealand Food Safety Authority.) The Regulations Review Committee reported to the committee on the powers contained in clauses 21, 178, 180, 346, 367 and 403.

Committee membership
Shane Ardern (Chairperson)

Hon Jim Anderton

Brendon Burns

Dr Ashraf Choudhary

Craig Foss

Sandra Goudie

Colin King

Hon Damien O’Connor

Sue Kedgley was a non-voting member for this item of business.

-Martin


http://investmentwatchblog.com/new-food-bill-in-new-zealand-takes-away-huma…


Revenir en haut
Contenu Sponsorisé






MessagePosté le: Aujourd’hui à 19:43 (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, 3, 4, 5, 613, 14, 15  >
Page 5 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