On Thanksgiving, Native Americans Should Have Used Food As a Weapon-The Deep State Won’t Make the Same Mistake

thanksgiving

 

The Common Sense Show sincerely hopes you and your family are blessed with a great Thanksgiving, complete with all the turkey, stuffing  and pumpkin pie that you can eat and of course you should pray that the Lord protects you from the GMO’s. Thanksgiving’s days may be numbered. If the Deep State is not able to quell Trump’s brand of nationalism, the people of America may very well look back at this Thanksgiving as the good ‘ole days  because the Deep State will indeed not hesitate to use food as a weapon.

As you prepared your feast, did you think about the fact that we in America throw away more food than many countries have an opportunity to eat? As you pulled your chair up to your Thanksgiving table, will you think about the fact that half the world goes to bed hungry? Please say a prayer for those who are not as lucky as most of us.

Since the end of WWII, most Americans have been blessed with plenty to eat, so much so, that we simply take our overflowing of Thanksgiving blessings for granted.

If you think an 800 number begging you to feed a hungry child is going to appear, you would be mistaken. However, there are people, who have power over us (ie the Deep State), who would like to make this the last Thanksgiving by making food into a weapon and to use that food as a weapon against the people who are participating in the rising tide of American populism to “Make America Great Again”.

A Global Awakening

The late despot globalist, Z. Brzezinski, was one of the most hated and well-known globalists, lamented back in 2011, that there is a global awakening to the source of the tyranny on this planet and that “they” must accelerate their timetable for the completion of a global takeover. And the full-court press has subsequently been placed on humanity as we are under assault in ways never witnessed before.

One of the most popular methods of subjugation has to do with controlling who eats and who starves to death. Historically, food has been one of the most effective tools of subjugation. If we, the Trump supporting Constitutionalists, think that the Deep State is not about to pull out all stops, including the using of food as a weapon against the people, you obviously have not heard of Venezuela and how food is being used to quell all political opposition by Madura.

The Historical Precedent of Subjugating Through Starvation

The lessons of history clearly demonstrate that dictatorial regimes, whether they be Socialists, Communists, and/or Marxists will not hesitate to use food as a weapon against their own people in order to solidify power and impose absolute autocratic control. Food can be withheld from the masses by preventing it from being grown and harvested, by contaminating it and rendering it unfit for human consumption or by simply preventing food from being distributed to a targeted population.

The two most notable examples of dictators using food a weapon in order to destroy the free will of their people comes from the regimes of Stalin and Hitler.

Josef Stalin engaged in his own Soviet style Holocaust when, in 1932 and 1933, and estimated six to 20 million people in the Ukraine died from starvation when Stalin implemented his prescription of “hope and change” policies in order to eliminate the Ukrainian’s desire for becoming their own nation-state.

Upon assuming power, the Stalinist Communist regime rapidly nationalized the food industry and forced all of the region’s farms into collectives. Thus, Stalin’s version of the Holocaust came to fruition in what history has dubbed, the “Holdomor,” in which millions perished in only a two year period when the Soviet government began to exterminate the Ukrainian population by taking control of food and food production.

Hitler proclaimed that food could be used as a tool “…to discipline the masses” and he did not hesitate to use the control of food as a type of carrot and stick in which he would reward accomplishment and punish failure as well as to promote preferential class distinctions in which his armed forces received the largest food ration cards and this is exactlywhat happens in North Korea in 2017. Skilled workers who were engaged in industries critical to the building of the German war machine, received food ration cards which were slightly less in value. And, finally, the prisoners and the Jews received the lowest valued Nazi food ration cards. Food ration cards were also utilized as incentives to increase industrial production and were also increased in value when productive Nazi workers would be promoted. Food ration cards were diminished in value for the failure to meet Nazi production goals. Hitler’s use of what psychologists refer to as classical conditioning techniques reduced the will of the German population to a pack of Pavlovian dogs who were conditioned to be totally dependent upon the government for their survival.In recent times Most recently, Somalia thug, Farah Aideed, systematically starved his people into submission as a brutal civil war raged in both Darfur and Rwanda where the Islamic regimes sought the annihilation of ‘infidels’ and the use of food was one of the primary weapons designed to force compliance. And of course, Pol Pot, Castro and Mao all used food deprivation to quarantine their political opposition and exact absolute allegiance to their respective dictatorial regimes. After reviewing this brief history lesson, does any reasonable person not believe that the Deep State, who is losing control of the national narrative, will not resort to these extreme measures?

It is safe to say that the above mentioned dictators did not rule over countries that enjoyed a Thanksgiving feast similar to what you and I are enjoying in the present time.

The US Government and Its Mass Starvation Policies

It may surprise the readers to know that the use of food by the U.S. government has been a matter of official U.S. governmental covert policy since 1974-1975.

In December, 1974, National Security Council directed by Henry Kissinger completed a classified study entitled, “National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests.” The study was based upon the unproven claims that population growth in Lesser Developed Countries (LDC) constituted a serious risk to America’s national security.

In November 1975 President Ford, based upon the tenets of NSSM 200 outlined a classified plan to forcibly reduce population growth in “Lesser Developed Countries (LDC)” countries through birth control, war and famine. Ford’s new national security adviser, Brent Scowcroft, in conjunction with CIA  Director, George H. W. Bush, were tasked with implementing the plan and the secretaries of state, treasury, defense, and agriculture assisted in the implementation of these insane genocidal plans.

NSSM 200 formally raised the question, “Would food be considered an instrument of national power here in the United States? … Is the U.S. prepared to accept food rationing to help people who can’t/won’t control their population growth?” Worse yet, could food be used a manipulative political tool within the United States? Kissinger has answered these questions when he stated that he was predicting a series of contrived famines, created by mandatory programs and this would make exclusive reliance on birth control programs unnecessary i order to control population, in this modern day application of eugenics in a scheme that would allow Henry to have his cake and eat it too in that the world would finally be rid of the “useless eaters!” The term “use eaters” is derived from the Fabian Socialist notion that if one consumes more than they produce, they should be exterminated. Subsequently, we should all be asking the following question:

With automation looming, and the demise of most occupation likely prior to 2030, should the American people be concerned about being labeled a bunch of useless eaters”?

Before you answer know, perhaps you might want to consider some other very salient factors.

The American Government’s Blueprint to Starve the Masses Into Submission

Third world population control, using food as one of the primary weapons, has long been a matter of official covert national policy and a portion of President Obama’s Executive Order 13603 (EO), National Defense Resources Preparedness is a continuation of that policy. Only now, the intended target are not the LDC’s but, instead, the American people and after Obama declares martial law, food will undoubtedly be used to subjugate the more resistant regions of our country.

Obama Tried to Become the Next Stalin?

On the surface, it seems unlikely that any US president, particularly………………………………………………………………………………………… President Trump, would ever starve any segment of the American people to death. However, when one considers the implications of former President Obama’s EO 13603, there can be no doubt that a future president, which would replace Trump in an act of illegitimate impeachment over the bogus Russian allegation, or by direct assassination, would not hesitate to make this Thanksgiving, the last Thanksgiving.

The blueprint has been laid, America, as the above mentioned Executive Order states:

e)  “Food resources” means all commodities and products, (simple, mixed, or compound), or complements to such commodities or products, that are capable of being ingested by either human beings or animals, irrespective of other uses to which such commodities or products may be put, at all stages of processing from the raw commodity to the products thereof in vendible form for human or animal consumption.  “Food resources” also means potable water packaged in commercially marketable containers, all starches, sugars, vegetable and animal or marine fats and oils, seed, cotton, hemp, and flax fiber, but does not mean any such material after it loses its identity as an agricultural commodity or agricultural product.

(f)  “Food resource facilities” means plants, machinery, vehicles (including on farm), and other facilities required for the production, processing, distribution, and storage (including cold storage) of food resources, and for the domestic distribution of farm equipment and fertilizer…”

These passages represent the intent of the Deep State to control all food and to starve any targeted people for political purposes. Even if this executive order was to be repealed, a new one, just like it, could be reinstated based on the whim of the next globalist-orientated president.

How will farmers maintain the nation’s food supply when all fertilizer, their farm equipment and all of their vehicles are under the control of this sociopathic  President or the next power-hungry President?

The term “all food storage facilities” includes your refrigerator, your pantry and even the very food in your cabinets as well as what is on your kitchen table. In short, anywhere you keep food is now under the control of the government and can be redistributed.

Even though Obama is no longer President, the globalists tipped their hand in EO 13603.

Senator Feinstein’s Husband Is Becoming the Next Obama

Were you scratching your head in bewilderment as you watched on the news as the Amish have had their farms raided, raw milk producers have been jailed and the kids running lemonade stands have been shut down and ticketed? Now you know why these abuses are being perpetrated by the government in that it represents a mere conditioning process designed to get all U.S. citizens used to the idea that the government owns all food and food production.

The most clever aspect of this EO is that no Hegelian Dialectic (i.e., false flag event) is needed as a pretense to seize food and imperil survivability. Section 201(b) of the Obama EO clearly states that this EO is enforceable under both emergency and non-emergency conditions.”

Diane Feinstein’s husband, Richard Blum has positioned himself to be the Stalin of California. After Obama’s EPA denied water to California’s ranchers and farmers, they went broke. Richard Blum, Feinstein’s husband bought up the distressed properties are bargain basement rates and sold the land to the Chinese at a greatly increased price.. The water restrictions were subsequently lifted and these Chinese owned farms began to send the food to China where they have a food shortage.

The World-Wide Conversion of Private Farms to Corporate Farms

In a previous interview on The Common Sense Show, Patrick Wood revealed how China is forcibly moving millions of peasants from their small farms into the previously vacant ghost cities. This is all being accomplished with a rifle pointed at the faces of the peasants in order to ensure their cooperation. Should America be concerned? Well, Hank Paulson as well as Goldman Sachs devised this plan to seized private farmland and convert land into a series of corporate farms. We already see this plan taking shape in Northern California and Southern Oregon as the BLM and the EPA are literally forcing ranchers and farmers off of their land.

George Soros, though one of his newest creations, Antifa, and its MS-13 and ISIS allies is in the midst of promoting instability through false flag attacks. IF enough false flag attacks take place and enough instability is artificially created, the “just-in-time” deliveries that visit your grocery store 3 to 6 times per day, will stop and you will find that during times like these, your grocery store will be ramsacked and will be emptied in a day. Where will you go for food then? Don’t worry, your friends from the Deep State will have set up camps all across the country to accommodate you and your family.

I sincerely hope that you will enjoy your Thanksgiving dinner, and I further hope you have lots of store-able food, because if the Deep State ever becomes desperate enough, you may find yourself desperate enough to “cross the line” into a FEMA camp in order to feed yourself and your family. (Click to Source)

Happy Thanksgiving America from The Common Sense Show.

 

TELEMEDICINE 1

Sad, yet not surprising: Politifact is all pro-vaccine and pro-GMO

vaccineslies

(NaturalNews) It’s become increasingly difficult to find the truth in modern news media, with so many of the typical outlets being biased, deceptive, manipulative and dishonest. Thus, it isn’t too surprising that the website Politifact is decisively pro-vaccine and pro-GMO. The organization says it fact checks what politicians and others with political opinions say, and then uses its “Truth-O-Meter” scale to rate how accurate the statements are. Ratings range from “True” and “Half True” to “Mostly False” and “Pants on Fire!” Although this may sound good in theory as a way to rate information, the website actually hires “fact checkers” who are completely biased in favor of vaccines and GMOs. (Click to Article)

Podesta email bombshell: Clinton campaign was heavily funded by Monsanto

email-button-on-keyboard

(NaturalNews) Julian Assange’s sacrificial effort to expose the vast corruption behind the Clinton Machine through his “WikiLeaks” releases, has done so much over the past year to change the course of both the nation and the world for the better – most notably with the recent election of outsider Donald J. Trump as America’s next president-elect. But what else do these WikiLeaks releases reveal that hasn’t been covered by the media, particularly with regards to food policy?

A simple search for the word “Monsanto” in The Podesta Emails batch of leaked email documents shows that the biotechnology giant is a close friend of Hillary Clinton and her family’s Clinton Foundation – big surprise, right? Dozens of emails and email chains speak about the world’s most evil corporation, several discussing its many contributions to what has now been exposed as a massive money-laundering “charity” scam that the Clintons used to line their own pockets. (Click to Article)

Grocery Manufacturers Association sues the state of Washington over GMO labeling fight: GMA more evil than Monsanto

(NaturalNews) Monsanto has for years now been referred to as the most evil and hated company on the planet to those in the know. But before Monsanto, junk food companies were already peddling their wares to Americans and influencing the American diet. Junk food companies are represented by a single entity called the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA). The GMA represents leading junk food producers such as Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Kraft, Kellogg’s, General Mills, Nestle and Monsanto. As you might guess from seeing this list of Big Ag names, the GMA is loyal to its members and cares little about human health and human rights issues. After GMO labeling ballot measure I-522 failed to pass in Washington State by a narrow margin, a list of the companies paying to defeat the measure was released. And as you might be able to guess, these same companies were on that list.

GMA’s long-term plans to combat GMO labeling: label GMO food ingredients as “natural”

The GMA’s primary objective is really to keep consumers as uninformed about GMOs as possible. A key aspect of the GMA’s plan for fighting GMO labeling efforts in the US is the pursuit of statutory federal preemption. This preemption, once passed, would prevent a labeling requirement.

According to documents released through the Attorney General, the GMA has made long-term plans to quench GMO transparency issues in order to keep consumers uninformed about what’s in their food. Another section in the documents revealed details about the Association’s “Industry Image Efforts” which are related to the GMA’s plan for dealing with “attackers,” i.e., organizations and people working toward food ingredient transparency.

On December 5, 2013, the GMA sent a letter to the Chief Counsel of the FDA, Elizabeth Dickinsin. The letter informed her that the “GMA will be filing a Citizen Petition early in 2014 that asks the FDA to issue a regulation authorizing foods containing ingredients derived from biotechnology to be labeled ‘natural.'” The GMA also wants to shut down any potential state lawsuits regarding the the legal interpretation of the “natural” label. 65 class action suits have previously been filed against food manufacturers who use GMOs in “natural” products.

GMA sues the State of Washington

On January 13, 2013, the GMA sued the state of Washington. The Association sued for the right to hide corporate campaign fund sources. Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson declared that the GMA broke Washington State’s campaign finance disclosure laws. As a counterpunch move, the GMA sought to have the campaign finance laws declared unconsitutional! The Attorney General stated after this that he “looked forward to defending transparency in Washington elections.”

Having an answer to everything, the GMA has laid out a clear strategy for dealing with any state in the union that implements a GMO labeling law: They will sue. The GMA states, “The first state to implement a GMO labeling law will be sued on the constitutional grounds seen in IDFA v. Amestoy.” The GMA use threats of costly litigation and bully anyone in their way to protect its interests and agenda, the agenda to keep consumers in the dark about the dangers of GMOs and heavily processed junk foods by any means possible. However, as consumers become more aware, the GMA’s attempts at passing unpopular bills will likely meet with increasingly greater and more expensive public resistance.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org

www.news-beacon-ireland.info

www.politico.com

http://science.naturalnews.com

Click to http://www.naturalnews.com/043937_Grocery_Manufacturers_Association_GMO_labeling_Washington_State.html

TeshuvahRoad

Where do religions stand on genetically modified foods? Ethics and Religion Talk

This week’s Ethics and Religion Talk column probes the issue of genetically modified organisms, which are used in food and are a point of contention as to their perceived threats to public health.

By Rabbi David Krishef

“Dennis” writes: I’m wondering about what religions think about Genetically Modified Organisms, particularly for food, when the modification makes it “unnatural” but it also holds out some promise of helping alleviate hunger in the world.

Sandra Nikkel, Ministry Coordinator of the Grand Rapids East Classis and Pastor of the multicultural Ministry at Eastern Avenue Christian Reformed Church, responds:

“Even though there are a lot of benefits that have come to us from genetically modifying organisms, specifically food, I believe that there are great risks involved. No matter how much we have advanced, our knowledge is partial. We do not know all the ways in which this ‘new food’ will affect our bodies. We take something out and put something, we twist and tweak, the quicker the better, and it might take us years to discover how it’s affecting us. The other problem I see is that often it is not any kind of ethical code that rules this practice but the desire to make money—at any cost.”

Sister Mary Timothy Prokes, a member of the Franciscan Sisters of the Eucharist, responds:

“Obviously, Sacred Scripture and Tradition do not address “genetically modified organisms” as such. They do, however, provide principles for evaluating them. Among these principles are justice, truthfulness, reverence for creation, and charity. The genetic modification of foods is complex and calls for the application of each of these principles.
In justice, human persons have the right to know that what is presented/sold as food is eatable and if dangers or risks accompany their consumption. In the US, there are no requirements to label foods that contain genetically modified ingredients. Milk, bacon, beef, chicken, cereals, and many processed foods already contain genetically modified ingredients.

“Major seed companies (who hold patents on modifications developed and employed by them) need to be truthful concerning the impact their products have on farmers, consumers, the seeds of the world, and the environment. Sadly, a major portion of the world’s foods has already been penetrated by GMOs without determining their long term effects on humanity or the earth. Eliminating so-called ‘superweeds’ and ‘superbugs’ that result from the use of pesticides and herbicides containing GMOs requires an increased use of toxic poisons. Reverence for creation requires careful determination of the long term consequences of artificially-contrived seeds and foods, a responsibility that is often dismissed in the struggle for commercial dominance.

“Charitable concern for farmers who want to protect organically grown crops is lost when there is insufficient distance between their fields and GMO-penetrated land, causing cross-pollination. Although commercial firms seek fruits and vegetables of ideal size and color, the natural tastes and textures of GMO-produced foods are altered. In sum, the ethical issues surrounding GMO’s and food are immense.”

Aly Mageed, a physician and Shura member (roughly equivalent to an elder or a member of the Board of Trustees) of the Islamic Mosque and Religious Institute of Grand Rapids, responds:

“[Regarding] GMO’s, I believe that the field is very vast and very rapidly growing and therefore would be difficult to have a general statement. It is also growing faster than bioethicists can have a chance to study all its implications. Without systematically studying all the potential harms and benefits, an opinion will not be truly objective. I would like to see it regulated at least with demanding specific labeling so that the issue can begin to be appropriately studied.”

Fred Wooden, the senior pastor of Fountain Street Church, responds:

“Long before modern science we had genetically modified species. Corn and wheat and other natural plants were once inedible. They were slowly modified by cross breeding and selective fertilization to be the staples we now enjoy. Animals from the horses to the chickens have been bred by humans to suit our needs more than theirs. If we were to be perfectly natural, meaning not interfering with nature in any way, we would have to abandon vaccinations, most drugs, most manufacturing mining and even farming. Clearly, we all ok with modifying nature.

“As saying an absolute no is not possible, we should ask if there is a moral or ethical principle that can prevent us from making a terrible mistake? No, sadly, but there are several principles that can help. One is the principle of stewardship, articulated in Genesis as the responsibility to ’till the garden and keep it.’ Another would be compassion, making choices that avoid causing suffering or permitting it when we can alleviate it. Your question reveals how ethical rules can come into conflict as stewardship would say no to GMO and compassion would say yes.

“What makes us uneasy is not deliberate evil, but unwitting evil. What if some of these changes bring about unknowable horrors in the future? Robert Oppenheimer thought that exact thought when watching the first atomic bomb. And I expect that GMO could be like that – a tremendous blessing and a terrible risk.”

Click to http://www.mlive.com/opinion/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2014/01/where_do_religions_stand_on_ge.html

Grocery Manufacturers Association pushing FDA to allow GMOs to be labeled ‘natural’

(NaturalNews) Not content with just hiding unlabeled genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in thegeneral food supply, the biotechnology industry now wants to freely add GMOs to food products bearing the “natural” label as well, according to new reports. The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) back in December reportedly sent a letter to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) asking for permission to basically trick health-conscious individuals into buying transgenic foods by deceitfully hiding them behind “natural” labels.

Though quite a few so-called “natural” food products already contain GMOs due to the fact that the FDA has never issued definitive guidelines as to the legal definition of the term “natural,” the GMA wants this regulatory failure to become official policy. According to The New York Times, the GMA is pushing the FDA to allow biotech “frankenfood” to bear the “natural” label in grocery stores — “natural” foods, as you may already know, typically fetch a higher price than conventional foods.

“Last month, ‘Big Food,’ in the form of the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), a trade organization that represents more than 300 businesses, sent a letter to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advising that it intends to petition the agency to allow foods containing GMOs to be labeled as ‘natural,'” writes Cookson Beecher for Food Safety News about the issue.

The letter comes as public awareness about GMOs is soaring, with consumers increasingly keeping an eye out for all those transgenic lurkers hiding throughout the food supply. Many food manufacturers are now being exposed for taking advantage of the loosely regulated “natural” label, which has become something of a crafty inroad for mass biotech deception, hence GMA’s sudden interest in altogether redefining the word “natural.”

“Audacious” is the word chosen by Scott Faber, vice president of the Environmental Working Group, to describe the situation. “It’s like they’re trying to get the government to say night is day and black is white.”

Biotech industry claims GMOs are ‘natural’ while hypocritically insisting they are unnatural enough to be patented

This is hardly an exaggerated assessment, of course, as there is literally nothing natural about GMOs. Their entire genetic blueprint, as you probably already know, has been reorganized in a laboratory to express certain unnatural traits while subduing other natural ones. GMOs are the antithesis of natural, in other words, which is why biotech companies claim to hold patents on them.

But somehow, in the eyes of the industry, GMOs magically become “natural” when it comes to the rest of us eating them unlabeled in our food supply.

“Earlier this year, more than 200 members of the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility signed a statement declaring that there is no scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs,” stated Katherine Paul, director of communications for the Organic Consumers Association to Food Navigator USA about the issue.

“Yet the FDA continues to put consumers at risk by siding with industry. Fortunately, consumers are having a direct impact on the sales and brand images of manufacturers who continue to put GMO ingredients, unlabeled, into their products.”

As far as public pushback against this latest affront to truth in labeling, the GMA admits that at least 65 class-action lawsuits have been filed against food companies for deceptively using the term “natural” on GMO-containing food products. If GMA has its way, however, these lawsuits will ultimately be struck down, and consumers looking for truly natural food will be forced to ditch all those “natural” imposters in favor of their certified organic and non-GMO counterparts.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.foodsafetynews.com

http://www.care2.com

http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com

http://science.naturalnews.com

Click to http://www.naturalnews.com/043435_Grocery_Manufacturers_Association_GMOs_natural_label.html

The globalization of GMOs: How genetic engineering is destroying the developing world

monsanto

Globalization affects everyone. The shrinking world brings people in the United States closer to ideas and cultures from all corners of the earth. Likewise, other countries are introduced to many facets of the American life and that way of life includes genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The use of GMOs in food originated in America and while much of the West has banned their use, the developing world is taking part – to their detriment.

GMO introduction

Genetically engineered crops came to the market in America in the mid 90s. With much help from the FDA, who didn’t require additional labeling, due to their concept of “substantial equivalence,” the consumer was none the wiser. Basically, the FDA didn’t find it necessary to inform consumers of GMO use through labeling because they didn’t see any significant difference between GMOs and conventional crops.

GMOs today

Fast forward to modern day. The use of GMOs in food has been problematic. Super weeds are destroying farmers’ fields; only a handful of multinational corporations own the patents to these crops; biodiversity is diminishing. What’s more, these crops have yet to be found safe for long-term human consumption in any independent studies. This is because the studies are done by the corporation responsible for the technology which allows for a severe bias. America is exceedingly at the whim of these mega-conglomerates who are making very large claims. Genetic engineering is the future of food; it is supposed to help alleviate world hunger, produce larger yields, resist pests without a lot of pesticides, and help reduce farmers’ labor. The technology is now being pawned off to the developing world as a solution to their poverty and hunger. How do these claims stack up? And are these corporations really helping the third world?

GMOs in Haiti

To get a better understanding of how the developing world is grappling with the GMO debacle, let’s look at how several developing countries have adapted. One biotech corporation donated 475 tons of hybrid vegetable seeds, some treated with chemicals so toxic that agricultural workers have to wear special protective clothing, to impoverished Haiti. You would imagine that such a poor country would be grateful for donated seeds. In fact, the opposite holds true. Intense opposition ensued; with the promise to burn the seeds as they are, “a very strong attack on small agriculture, on farmers, on biodiversity, on Creole seeds … and on what is left our environment in Haiti,” claims a Haitian peasant farmer and activist.

Bt cotton in China and Indonesia

The claims weren’t substantiated in China either. According to one study, their use of Bt cotton over seven years has increased the need for fertilizer and irrigation water; additionally, “Bt cotton is expected to increase the incidence of primary pest bollworms, which could develop resistance and develop secondary pests like caterpillars,” one study claims.

Indonesia, also using Bt cotton, pulled the plug on the crop and switched to a non-GMO variety when it didn’t produce the promised yields. In addition to smaller yields, a significant amount of the planted crop experienced total harvest failure. As if this weren’t enough to put the farmers into debt, the company selling the seeds raised the prices, and trapped in a contract, as is the norm when using GMO seeds, the farmers had to acquiesce.

African sweet potatoes

GMO sweet potatoes were introduced into Africa with the claim they were resistant to a specific type of virus. In fact, they were just as susceptible to the virus as conventional sweet potatoes and contrarily, a sweet potato was produced through cross-breeding that actually resisted the virus.

Sources for this article include:

http://archive.truthout.org

http://fbae.org

http://www.greens.org/s-r/35/35-03.html