Is it possible that the use of genetic engineering in agriculture is referred to in Scripture? And if so, just what are the consequences of this practice?
Even if you do not believe in a Creator, one thing that cannot be overlooked is the following section of Isaiah from the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible:
Isa 17:10 Because thou hast forgotten the God of thy salvation, and hast not been mindful of the rock of thy strength, therefore shalt thou plant pleasant plants, and shalt set it with strange slips:
Isa 17:11 In the day shalt thou make thy plant to grow, and in the morning shalt thou make thy seed to flourish: but the harvest shall be a heap in the day of grief and of desperate sorrow.
Now let’s go to the Strong’s Concordance and look up “set,” “strange,” “slips” and “heap:” Read the rest of this entry »
If you had any doubt about the boldfaced sham that “democracy” is, that doubt should be completely alleviated now. The people in Hawaii County voted that they did not want GMOs.
…in addition to banning any new GMO crops. The bill forbids any open-air testing or production of genetically modified crops. It also prohibits farmers from growing any new GMO crops but grandfathers in those that are already being grown, such as the Rainbow papaya.
The court overruled that vote in favor of the biggest pro-GMO agricultural corporation of all – state and federal biotech interests. Read the rest of this entry »
Look out people, here come da SHAFT!
Aaaahhh… trade deals. An opportunity for the corporate leaders of the world to stick it to the little guys once again.
In this case the latest contender in the battle against food freedom in the form of “free trade agreements,” is the TTIP, or as it should be termed, the “eat, breathe and drink our poison or we will sue for loss of profits” deal.
Europe’s fears over the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) are not abating, while America is beginning to show signs of impatience. Europe and the United States have reached a standoff in the TTIP negotiations, over the question of the Investor State Dispute Settlement.
This mechanism could give companies the opportunity to take legal action against a state whose legislation has a negative impact on their economic activity.
“France did not want the ISDS to be included in the negotiation mandate,” Matthias Fekl told the French Senate. “We have to preserve the right of the state to set and apply its own standards, to maintain the impartiality of the justice system and to allow the people of France, and the world, to assert their values,” he added.
German opposition to the ISDS mechanism is also very strong. The German Minister for Economic Affairs has often expressed his support for the trade deal with the United States, on the condition that it does not include the ISDS.
And just what is this contentious ISDS?
Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) is an instrument of public international law, that grants an investor the right to use dispute settlement proceedings against a foreign government. Provisions for ISDS are contained in a number of bilateral investment treaties, in certain international trade treaties, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (Chapter 11) and in international investment agreements, such as the Energy Charter Treaty. If an investor from country “A” (“Home State”) invests in country “B” (“Host State”), both of which have agreed to ISDS, and the Host State violates the rights granted to the investor under public international law, then that investor may bring the matter before an arbitral tribunal. While ISDS is often associated with arbitration under the rules of ICSID (the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes of the World Bank), it in fact often takes place under the auspices of international arbitral tribunals governed by different rules and/or institutions, such as the London Court of International Arbitration, the International Chamber of Commerce, the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre or the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules.
So, let’s get this straight. If a country does not want to import another country’s genetically engineered food/feed (GMOs), it can be sued for putting up a barrier to trade, is that correct? Read the rest of this entry »