How do you feel about the impending approval of AquaAdvantage Salmon?

[Sylvia Bernstein]

The U.S. government just got closer to approving the world's first genetically engineered animal - a fast growing salmon called AquaAdvantage.  

Here is the article I just read about the latest on this in the NY Times - http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/22/business/gene-altered-fish-moves-...

I'd love to know what this community thinks about this, especially since we are so tied to the growing of our own food and our own fish,  Personally I'm deeply suspicious of claims of "safety" when it comes to our current inventory of genetically engineered food products, from both their potential impact on human health and their impact on the environment.  Given this, when I read this article and it claims that there will be no impact on the nutritional value or safety of the AquaAdvantage salmon nor any environmental impact, alarm bells are going off in my head.  

Anyone else having that reaction?  

[tilly the tilapia]

I dont know if people are aware that there is 32 new animals ready for the food chain as soon as these frankenfish pass

The reason that the fda is involved is because they are illegal in canada for food

but once the fda passes  them then we in canada will have to take them throught the free trade agreement

Also there is another part that most are not aware and that is the ownership of the gene bank

If one gets loose the that company will own all the offspring

the same that monsanto has done

And by the way there is no organic salmon

 

[TCLynx]

Yea, that is how monsanto is able to "contaminate" other farmer's fields and then sue them for growing the GMO corn without paying the royalties.

[Mike Sangrey]

The allegation is more general.  And, in a way, you've put your finger on it. 

Companies have the resources (we don't) to do the scientific studies[1].  So, there's peer reviewed studies on their side.  I don't have these studies ready-at-hand, but I easily believe of their existence given the fact that the FDA has been considering such things since the mid-90s (at least).  On our side, we have "we want to see more research."  The problem, as I see it, is we're trying to prove a negative.  I have a mathematical bent, so I know that "proving a negative" is impossible (one has to exhaust an infinite number of possibilities).  This whole thing is a very lop-sided power-play--it's like a chess game where the GMO companies control the center of the board.

In other words, they have the money to do the relatively "little" amount of research needed.  We don't have the money to do the relatively substantial amount of research needed.  This is one of the reasons I expressed in an earlier reply my concern that the science is dealing with a VERY fundamental building block (a protein)--that is, it will have far reaching impact.  And the impact will proceed along pathways not easily seen.  So, it's an impact we do not understand at this point.

---

[1] Everyone should have here in mind that a chosen methodology substantially steers the science toward a given result.  For example, there's no pharmaceutical research being done for medical solutions around which one can NOT wrap a profitable business model. So, methods to produce such solutions, no matter how humanly beneficial are not even utilized, not even thought of.

[Jim Fisk]

Thank you Tilly for your Canadian view on this. You guys seem to have your act together a little better than down S here in the US. The FDA is so busy raiding health food stores, raw milk farms and organic farms and family farms with assault weapons that they don't have time or incentive for the real issues that are actually life threatening. Why would they when they are nothing more than a tool of big pharma, big ag, etc. and rely on studies done by the likes of Monsanto themselves and make sure they destroy any scientists who dare expose the truth. We are so screwed. Anyone versed on Agenda 21? Now there's a real upper

Going to shut down this laptop and enjoy some old Christmas movies now, Aahh for the good old days,

Merry Christmas Everyone

tilly the tilapia said:

I dont know if people are aware that there is 32 new animals ready for the food chain as soon as these frankenfish pass

The reason that the fda is involved is because they are illegal in canada for food

but once the fda passes  them then we in canada will have to take them throught the free trade agreement

Also there is another part that most are not aware and that is the ownership of the gene bank

If one gets loose the that company will own all the offspring

the same that monsanto has done

And by the way there is no organic salmon

 

[tilly the tilapia]

Who has eaten this critter

There was no permission that I could find that allowed any human to consume even on a trial basis in canada .

the amount of canadian tax dollars spent on this experiment are huge

Tax dollars were used to lobby in the us to get this to market

[robbie]

together we might be heard?  thanks

http://www.avaaz.org/en/stop_frankenfish_r/?bugIZcb&v=21102

[matthew ferrell]

No, I grow "engineered" animals.  In fact the dnr has been stocking these things in the wild for years, as well as hybrids, and other odd ball things.  Let's face it, all domesticated animals are genetically engineered by line and selective breeding, this is just another tool.

I am also insulted by the accusations  that I and all researchers work for big anything.  We aren't even funded at this point and are living off the proceeds of our farm sales.  The only focus group we have is for the people at my current location.  Specifically small trout farmers.  We decided in our group what we want to study, not the other way around.  And it has been like that at every institution I have worked for. 

Additionally I had the pleasure of handing back a report to a company that was paying us to do work one time telling them their claims were BS.  And that we could not endorse their claims.

[matthew ferrell]

And yes Monsanto are a bunch of tools sometimes, but by their own words in court, have effectively promised not to sue farmers again, even admitting it was a stupid pr mistake to do so in the first place.

[Jim Fisk]

Thanks matthew, there is hope!?!

We need to hear more from folks like you. Unfortunately big money will do as they please and the good folks who give a damn in my experience will be for the most part silenced. Of course the Monsantos will lose a battle here and there but they will win the war unless the one thing they never counted on, the internet, educates enough caring folks to turn the tide. BTW, bombarding DNA and gene splicing is a far cry from selective breeding as far as this laymen can tell. BWDIK.

Have you read up on what "M" has done to farmers in poor countries like India with their wonderful GMO's and the mass suicides by thousands of farmers who's lives have been destroyed? "Tools" Really? "Monsters" might be a better term.

Time to sign off. I am getting wound up. Peace. We are on the same side. Stop grouping yourself in with these sobs. They are not like us. PR is all they care about because it might effect their pocket book in the long run. Please keep up your good work. We need you.

matthew ferrell said:

And yes Monsanto are a bunch of tools sometimes, but by their own words in court, have effectively promised not to sue farmers again, even admitting it was a stupid pr mistake to do so in the first place.

[tilly the tilapia]

Brrrrrr cold here ,had to get some fish sweaters made

There should be no impact for a while due to the fact that the eggs will be grown in canada and the fish grown in Panama,

But once they get out of their nets ,well thats another story

The next fish inline is the gift tilapia ,check it out

 

[Roger Baldwin]

GMO is definitely "a far cry from selective breeding," it is a huge step forward in scientific technology.  With all new technologies there is amount of trial and error to achieve advancement.  Just because it is a new technology and there are a lot of unknowns involved with its advancement, does that mean that we should thwart progress?  I think not, if man-kind continues down its current path without advancing technology to make us more efficient we will surely ruin the Earth. 

Most of the issues that have been brought up in this discussion have little to do with genetically engineered food, "Big Money" manipulating politics for profit,  Environmental problems with current techniques for farming, including fish farming;  Nutritional value of livestock raised on a mono diet of primarily corn and soy, The lack of connection that people have with their food, and the exploitation of the "organic" movement.  Let alone chem-trails and fluoride poisoning, Jim you make me smile.  There are many more problems with our food production than mentioned here and there are many possible solutions.  GMO technology is a solution, although we have not realized  its full potential because it is such a new technology.

As far as Monsanto goes.  They may have done some people wrong, but they have only been trying to protect the billions of dollars they have invested into the research they have done to bring technology forward.    I don't know how I feel about companies being able to patent seeds, but it is the current law and these companies need someway to re-coop their investment into technology.  Espionage has been a huge problem for companies throughout history, and most of the people that have been sued by Monsanto have had intentions of theft despite what they say when interviewed by an independent film crew making a documentary about "Evil Monsanto".  Doesn't it stand to reason that if pro Monsanto publicity is so skewed and manipulated that anti Monsanto publicity would be the same? 

[Jim Fisk]

This makes for some interesting reading. Sounds to me like they're here to help us:

"Codex Alimentarius: An Introduction to Soft Kill Eugenics

By Daisy Luther
The Organic Prepper
December 6, 2012

The world as we once knew it is gone.  The rosy cheeked children, bursting with energy, that once climbed trees and got up to mischief, are extinct.  

The people are still here, but they are pale, lethargic and slowly dying.

Every bite of food provided to these people is the product of a laboratory – the genetically modified spawn of Big Agri and Big Pharma.  

The food looks incredible – huge, radiant tomatoes such a vivid red that one would think the lycopene was virtually emanating from the skin of the fruit.  Inside that appealing package is a food-like substance, utterly raped of nutrients.

The people are unable to go to a health-food store and purchase vitamins or an herbal tonic to put the spring back in their step.

  Herbs, vitamins and nutrients in general have been labeled “toxins” and are only available via prescription at high prices and low doses.

If the people are caught hoarding treasured fertile heirloom seeds, and heaven forbid, planting them to grow their own food, punishment is swift and sure. The bounty is taken and the people starve again.

Amidst the abundance of burgeoning supermarket shelves, the majority of the world’s population is slowly starving to death.

The world according to Codex Alimentarius looks grim indeed.  Codex Alimentarius (Latin for “food code”) is a global set of standards created by the CA Commission, a body established by a branch or the United Nations back in 1963.

The CA Commission’s purported mission, like all Agenda 21 missions, sounds so wonderful that it might have been created by a committee from heaven above.

The main purposes of this Programme are protecting health of the consumers and ensuring fair trade practices in the food trade

Don’t you wonder what could possibly be wrong with that? The UN wants us to be healthy and wants everyone to be paid fairly.

Codex Alimentarius sounds great!  Let’s institute these standards right away!

As with all globally stated agendas, however, CA’s darker purpose is shielded by the feel-good words.

Global committees have been established to regulate the following topics, to name a few.

· fruits and vegetables

· fruit and vegetable juices

· fats and oils

· meat, poultry and fish

· cereals, pulses (used for food and animal feed) and legumes

· milk and milk products

· natural mineral waters

· sugars

· cocoa products and chocolate

· food hygiene

· food labeling (as a way not to disclose GMO foods and ingredients)

· pesticide residues;

· residues of veterinary drugs found in foods

· food additives

The unfortunate thing is, the regulations ensure money, not safety. They guarantee profit, not health benefits.

“Codex Alimentarius is a dark marriage between pharmaceutical and chemical industries and the WTO, conceived to exact complete and regimented control over all food products and nutrients worldwide.” ~ writes Chantal Boccaccio of The People’s Voice.

Follow the Money

So if all of these regulations don’t benefit the consumers, who do they benefit?  Dr. Rima Laibow, of Health Freedom USA estimated that for every dollar spent on natural health solutions and supplements, Big Pharma loses $40.  Therefore, if people have the option to chose vitamins over valium, Big Pharma loses billions per year.

The medical establishment benefits.  When people are able to manage chronic conditions and avoid surgery through carefully choosing what they eat or what supplements they take, the medical establishment loses out on those costly visits that people must undertake in order to “manage” their conditions.

Pesticide manufacturers benefit.  GMO foods require greater pesticide use, thus manufacturers of pesticides like Round-up (Monsanto) reap the financial rewards while being allowed to poison the environment.

Food processors benefit.  CA requires food to be irradiated, a low cost (and nutrient-destroying) practice to require lower standards of hygiene and sanitation.

Big Pharma benefits.  CA mandates that nutrients be classified as drugs; therefore the purchase of vitamins will eventually require a prescription. Prescription drugs, of course, are monitored by the FDA, which means only the Big Pharma companies will be able to manufacture and supply them.

Maybe, then, the United States should just refuse to take part in CA.

That’s not going to happen, because all members of the World Trade Organization are legally bound under global guidelines, including CA standards.  CA standards override all national laws.

Lack of compliance to these standards may result in fines and/or crippling trade sanctions.  If a country wants to play the global trading game, that country has no option whatsoever but to comply with CA.

Those who do not comply automatically forfeit the judgment in any global trade dispute regarding food or nutrients.

It’s Already Here

In 2010, during the distraction of the BP Oil Spill, Barack Obama signed an Executive Order (#13544) to implement CA in the US over the course of the next few years.

More akin to a royal decree than a constitutionally acceptable legislation, Obama proved his arrogance once again: he does NOT require the approval of Congress to make sweeping legislation’s.

n the United States, the FDA is in charge of implementing the standards. Over the next two years, with the Food Safety Modernization Act, they will be doing just that.

According to a Natural News article by Dr. Gregory D’Amato, these irrevocable standards are on their way of being implemented to allow the US to “harmonize” with Codex.

* All nutrients (vitamins and minerals) are to be considered toxins/poisons and are to be removed from all food because Codex prohibits the use of nutrients to “prevent, treat or cure any condition or disease”

* All food (including organic) is to be irradiated, removing all toxic nutrients from food (unless eaten locally and raw).

* Nutrients allowed will be limited to a Positive List developed by Codex which will include such beneficial nutrients like Fluoride (3.8 mg daily) developed from environmental waste. All other nutrients will be prohibited nationally and internationally to all Codex-compliant countries [2].

* All nutrients (e.g., CoQ10, Vitamins A, B, C, D, Zinc and Magnesium) that have any positive health impact on the body will be deemed illegal under Codex and are to be reduced to amounts negligible to humans’ health [3].

* All advice on nutrition (including written online or journal articles or oral advice to a friend, family member or anyone) will be illegal.

* All dairy cows are to be treated with Monsanto’s recombinant bovine growth hormone.

* All animals used for food are to be treated with potent antibiotics and exogenous growth hormones.

* The reintroduction of deadly and carcinogenic organic pesticides that in 1991, 176 countries (including the U.S.) have banned worldwide including 7 of the 12 worst at the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pesticides (e.g., Hexachlorobenzene, Toxaphene, and Aldrin) will be allowed back into food at elevated levels [4].

* Dangerous and toxic levels (0.5 ppb) of aflotoxin in milk produced from moldy storage conditions of animal feed will be allowed. Aflotoxin is the second most potent (non-radiation) carcinogenic compound known to man.

* Mandatory use of growth hormones and antibiotics on all food herds, fish and flocks

* Worldwide implementation of unlabeled GMOs into crops, animals, fish and trees.

We’ve already seen incidences of health food stores being raided as though they were selling crystal meth instead of Vitamin C and organic vegetables.

Family farms are being driven out of business because they can’t afford to keep up with the ever-increasing regulations.

Natural healers have been criminalized throughout Europe, and that criminalization is on its way to North American shores.

Death by Codex

If it was only about the almighty dollar and the building of monopolies, one could almost comprehend the corporate greed behind Codex Alimentarius.  The plot is more sinister than even greed could create.

Codex Alimentarius, quite simply, is an instrument of depopulation and control.

Many prominent eugenicists, such as Bill Gates and David Rockefeller have openly promoted depopulation as a positive goal for the future.

Sickly people die off at a faster rate, dropping health care costs.  Dwindling populations consume fewer resources and leaving more for the Elite.

Morally, this soft kill approach is more palatable than outright attacks, like the release of viruses.  There is the risk that biological attacks could also affect the Elite.

Military attacks, like nuclear war, could have a devastating effect on the environment, which would also negatively affect the elite. Subtly starving the masses, without them even realizing it, is the simplest method, and also the least likely to harm the NWO puppet masters that are in control of the United Nations.

As the attack on the world’s people becomes more obvious, the decision makers also risk being the victims of violent revolution.  Codex also helps to cover that aspect.

If people are malnourished, they are unable to resist tyranny with the same enthusiasm as a healthy population.  They are also far more susceptible to disease, should biological warfare be one day in the best interests of the Elite.

It’s win-win, if you happen to be a member of the Elite.  The outcome doesn’t look so great for the rest of us.

Henry Kissinger, the eugenicist poster child for the NWO, said it best.

If you control food, you control the population.

SOURCES:

Codex Alimentarius: Rated Rx

Health Freedom USA

Official Codex Alimentarius website

Codex Alimentarius: Population Control Under the Guise of Consumer Protection

This post was previously published by Daisy Luther at Inalienably Yours on May 2, 2012.

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple"