Créer un compte
(Pour toutes vos activités sur le site)
Perdu votre mot de passe?
Au début de la semaine, les institutions européennes, sous la forme d’une de ses myriades d’“Autorités” largement encadrées par le lobbying qui importe (il s’agit de l’EFSA, ou European Food Safety Authority, pour conserver le langage de la raison), ont décidé que la France devrait lever le blocage au moins temporaire à l’encontre des OGM, c’est-à-dire essentiellement à l’encontre du trust Monsanto. Il s’agit d’un cas excellent qui met en lumière le conflit entre la souveraineté nationale et les prétentions de la bureaucratie supranationale à son encontre. Eventuellement, cela pourrait constituer un test pour la nouvelle présidence Hollande, par rapport à la protection des prérogatives de souveraineté, et éventuellement un sujet de tension à l’intérieur des différents courants et partis, voire à l’intérieur du gouvernement, de cette présidence.
Pour bien étoffer le dossier, le site NaturalSociety.com expose les dessous et divers avatars qui entourent cette affaire, et surtout les mœurs de Monsanto par rapport aux autorités politiques US, ou le contraire après tout, à la lumière notamment de documents diffusés par WikiLeaks. (Le 24 mai 2012, sur NaturalSociety.com.)
«Just after France legislators and officials moved to ban Monsanto’s genetically modified strain of GMO maize over environmental and health concerns, the European Union has decided to step in and re-secure Monsanto’s presence in the country — against the very will of the nation itself. This should come as no surprise when considering the fact that the United States ambassador to France, a business partner to George W. Bush, stated back in 2007 that nations who did not accept Monsanto’s GMO crops will be ‘penalized’. In fact, ambassador Craig Stapleton went as far as to say that the nations should be threatened with military-styled trade wars.
»That’s right, it appears the reason for the unprecedented move to maintain Monsanto’s deeply-rooted foothold in France has to do with the fact that the United States and other nations are continually pushing Monsanto’s agenda — even going as far as to threaten military-styled trade wars to those who oppose the company. Monsanto has major connections with political heads that have actually threatened trade wars against nations opposed to GMOs on record. As I reported back in January, WikiLeaks cables surfaced revealing and startling information concerning Monsanto’s deep involvement with back-end politics.
»One of the most telling details involves a statement made by Craig Stapleton, in which he said: “Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits. The list should be measured rather than vicious and must be sustainable over the long term, since we should not expect an early victory. Moving to retaliation will make clear that the current path has real costs to EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voices.”
»And that is not even the most shocking part. WikiLeaks cables go on to state that United States diplomats actually work directly for Monsanto, furthering the agenda of the company across the globe. Is it any wonder that France is being assaulted by the EU over its decision to secure the health of its citizens?
»It becomes even more obvious when examining the ridiculous reasoning as to why the EU had to step in and block France’s in-house legislation. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) rejected the ban on the grounds that “there is no scientific evidence” that shows “risk to human and animal health or the environment.” Of course there is an overwhelming amount of research showing that Monsanto’s creations do in fact threaten not only human health, but the planet as a whole. Even the EPA has warned over the fact that Monsanto’s GMO crops are spawning ‘mutant’ resistant insects and subsequently requiring substantially more pesticides.
»Consumers are waking up to Monsanto’s agenda and the dangers associated with their modified creations. Over 45,000 comments were submitted on the USDA website in opposition to Monsanto’s new genetically modified strain, and only 23 in favor. The corruption of Monsanto is now out in the open, and only serves to show how deeply rooted the company is within the United States government. Is it any coincidence that a major head of the FDA [Department of Agriculture] was a leading employee of Monsanto?»