Wednesday, December 23, 2009

DEMOCRACY vs MERITOCRACY



The "democratic" electoral process is inherently flawed

The principle upon which (so-called) democracy is based – elections – is inherently flawed. In fact, just because people vote in an election does not make the political process democratic.

In fact, as Arudhanti Roy rightly stated: “It isn’t how many people who vote that count in an election; rather it is how the votes are counted.”

Consider the following:

Only a small minority of the total population actually takes part in the voting process during an election. Let us assume that for the purpose of our analysis, that out of a total population of 10 million, 50% are “eligible” to vote under the electoral rules. Now let us assume that out of the 5 million who are declared “eligible” to vote, only 50% (2.5 million) actually bother casting their votes. Now let us further assume that out of the 2.5 million voters, 51% - the (so-called) “majority” - vote for presidential candidate A. Thus, out of a total population of 10 million, only 1.25 million people (12.5%) have voted in favor of presidential candidate A.

How does 12.5% of the total population constitute the “majority”...? And how can candidate A claim to have "democratically" won the elections by the vote of the “majority”, when in fact only 1.25 million people - out of 10 million - cast their vote in his favor? And what about the opinions and voices of the REAL majority of the population (8.75 million /87.5%) who did NOT vote for presidential candidate A, but who nevertheless will have to pay taxes and bear the consequences of the policies pursued by the candidate A during his reign...?

As the above illustration clearly demonstrates, the entire election process is (purposely) inherently flawed and must be entirely reformed. In fact, under the current electoral rules, the majority of inhabitants who are excluded from the electoral process and/or chose not to vote will always be excluded from the political process, since only the “voices” of those who are eligible to vote and actually exercise that right are taken into account. People who chose not to vote for any of the running candidate (out of a lack of credible alternative)should also have a right to vote AGAINST any of the running candidates, and their expressed voices should be accounted for and reflected in the overall electoral results.

The current electoral process and rules are inherently biased against the true majority since they exclusively take into account the “majority” of the minority that actually vote. To illustrate my point, considering the following:

Let us assume that out of the 5 million eligible voters, only 1 million actually bother to vote. And out of the 1 million voters, candidate A obtains 51% of the votes. Under the current electoral process and rules, Candidate A will have won the election by obtaining the “majority” of the votes with only 510,000 votes, out of total population of 10 million, representing a mere 5.1% of the total population! The same example can be repeated ad infinitum with the same biased results.

Thus, it is clear from the above illustrations, that the (so-called) “democratic” electoral process is inherently flawed and biased against the true majority of the people and thus entirely un-democratic. It follows that all political appointees holding office through the above described fraudulent and anti-democratic electoral process are in fact illegitimate, and must therefore be removed from office.

Meritocracy vs Democracy

Furthermore, (so-called) democracy MUST be replaced by MERITOCRACY. In fact, government representatives must be hired based on merit and competence, and be directly accountable to the people, just like company executives are hired based on merit and accountable to their shareholders.

Countries must be managed like corporations by competent individuals based on merit, competence, accountability and transparency. Countries contain vast amount of resources (natural, mineral, human, etc.) which must be intelligently exploited for the development of the country as a whole and the welfare of its inhabitants. This can only be accomplished under a political system based on meritocracy, accountability and transparency.

MAIS DE MONSANTO PRESENTE "PLUS D'INCONVENIENTS QUE D'AVANTAGES" SELON LE HAUT CONSEILS DES BIOTECHNOLOGIES ( France)


AP | 22.12.2009

La culture du maïs génétiquement modifié Mon810 du semencier américain Monsanto, suspendue en 2008 en France, "présente plus d'inconvénients que d'avantages", estime le Haut conseil des biotechnologies (HCB) dans un avis rendu mardi (22/12/09) à la demande du gouvernement.

L'Agence française de sécurité sanitaire des aliments (Afssa) avait de son côté conclu à l'absence de risque pour la santé dans un avis rendu en février 2009.

Le HCB et l'Afssa ont été saisis par le gouvernement pour expertiser l'avis rendu le 30 juin par l'Agence européenne de sécurité des aliments (EFSA) en faveur de l'autorisation de cet organisme génétiquement modifié (OGM). L'Afssa et le HCB émettent tous deux dans leurs avis des réserves sur les statistiques sur lesquelles se fonde l'avis de l'Agence européenne de sécurité des aliments.

Six pays de l'Union européenne ont fait valoir leur clause de sauvegarde pour interdire la commercialisation du Mon810, conçu pour résister à la pyrale du maïs: la France, le Luxembourg, l'Allemagne, l'Autriche, la Grèce et la Hongrie.

Le comité scientifique du HCB note pour sa part que la culture du Mon810 n'a probablement "pas d'effet majeur sur l'environnement", mais son comité économique, éthique et social (CEES) conclut à la majorité de ses membres que son éventuelle mise en culture ne devrait être autorisée qu'avec "des conditions préalables et simultanées d'accompagnement".

Constatant que les questions environnementales sont surtout liées à la fonction insecticide de cet OGM, le comité scientifique du HCB juge nécessaire de renforcer les réseaux de surveillance des effets non désirés des pratiques agricoles sur les écosystèmes.

S'appuyant sur les avis de l'Afssa et du HCB, le gouvernement français souhaite dans un communiqué commun des ministères concernés la mise en oeuvre rapide des conclusions du Conseil européen de décembre 2008, et un bilan d'étape d'ici un an. A l'époque, les Vingt-sept avaient notamment demandé le renforcement de l'expertise scientifique de l'EFSA par la création d'un réseau de scientifiques mis à sa disposition par les Etats-membres, et la révision des méthodes d'évaluation.

Monsanto a dénoncé mardi les conclusions du CEES du Haut conseil des biotechnologies. Elles "nous semblent complètement éloignées de toute réalité agricole", écrit le groupe agro-alimentaire américain dans un communiqué, soulignant qu'il n'a "pas été invité à présenter son dossier".

"Il sera intéressant d'analyser la posture française qui, après avoir avancé des raisons scientifiques pour justifier la suspension de la culture sur son territoire en février 2008, pourrait invoquer désormais des raisons socio-économiques", estime Olivier Soulié, responsable de la commercialisation du Mon810 en Europe du Sud.

Greenpeace de son côté s'appuie sur l'avis du HCB pour souhaiter "que la culture du maïs génétiquement modifié Mon810 soit définitivement interdite dans l'Union européenne". L'organisation environnementale demande à la Commission européenne de se prononcer en ce sens lors de ses prochains travaux sur le renouvellement de l'autorisation de cet OGM début 2010. AP

http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/depeches/societe/20091222.FAP9357/le_mais_ogm_mon810_presente_plus_dinconvenients_que_dav.html

MAIS (OGM) DE MONSANTO TOXIQUE




Une étude prouve la nocivité pour l'organisme de trois maïs Monsanto

lemonde.fr avec AFP | 11.12.09

Une étude publiée dans la revue International Journal of Biological Sciences démontre la toxicité de trois maïs génétiquement modifiés du semencier américain Monsanto, a annoncé vendredi 11 décembre le Comité de recherche et d'information indépendant sur le génie génétique (Criigen, basé à Caen), qui a participé à cette étude.

"Nous avons prouvé pour la première fois au monde que ces OGM n'étaient pas sains, ni suffisamment corrects pour être commercialisés. […] A chaque fois, pour les trois OGM, les reins et le foie, qui sont les principaux organes réagissant lors d'une intoxication alimentaire chimique, ont des problèmes", a indiqué Gilles-Eric Séralini, expert membre de la Commission pour la réévaluation des biotechnologies, créée en 2008 par l'UE.

Universitaires de Caen et Rouen et chercheurs du Criigen se sont basés sur les relevés fournis par Monsanto aux autorités sanitaires pour obtenir le feu vert à la commercialisation, mais ils en tirent des conclusions différentes après de nouveaux calculs statistiques. Selon le Pr Séralini, les autorités sanitaires se basent sur la lecture des conclusions présentées par Monsanto et non sur celles de l'ensemble des chiffres. Les chercheurs ont, eux, pu obtenir l'intégralité des documents après décision de justice.

"Les tests de Monsanto, réalisés sur quatre-vingt-dix jours, ne sont à l'évidence pas assez longs pour pouvoir dire si cela déclenche des maladies chroniques. C'est pourquoi nous demandons des tests d'au moins deux ans", a expliqué un chercheur. Les scientifiques demandent en conséquence la "ferme interdiction" de l'importation et de la culture de ces OGM.

Ces trois OGM (MON810, MON863 et NK603) "sont approuvés pour la consommation animale et humaine dans l'UE et aux Etats-Unis" notamment, précise ke Pr Séralini. "Dans l'UE, seul le MON810 est cultivé dans certains pays (surtout en Espagne), les autres sont importés", ajoute-t-il encore. Une réunion des ministres de l'UE est prévue au sujet des MON810 et NK603 lundi.

http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2009/12/11/une-etude-prouve-la-nocivite-pour-l-organisme-de-trois-mais-monsanto_1279552_3244.html

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

THE EURO or the ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ENSLAVEMENT OF EU CITIZENS...



The Maastricht Treaty & the Economic and Financial enslavement of European Citizens

The (hidden) objective behind the formation of the European Union (EU) is to centralize and to take over complete control over the money supply of sovereign states in Europe through the European Central Bank (ECB), which if of course entirely owned and controlled by the same private banksters that control the Federal Reserve Bank (FED) in the US and the World Bank/IMF in the (so-called) Third World.

Please read the following Open Letter I addressed to B. Obama on the fraudulent US banking architecture and the FED: http://yajnacentre.blogspot.com/2008/11/open-letter-to-barrack-obama-regarding.html

In fact if you read through the EU constitution (Treaty of Maastricht), European states are explicitly forbidden from printing and issuing their own currencies ( the inviolable constitutional right of any sovereign nation) Instead, they MUST “borrow” all of their (fiat)money from the privately-owned European Central Bank (ECB) as “debt” at interest - which the Europeans are coerced to repay through taxation- thus economically enslaving all hard-working Europeans to the private banksters…(Modern-day form of slavery, based on "debt", fiat currency, private Central Banking and Fractional Reserve Banking, as in the US through the FED, and in the rest of the world through the World Bank and the IMF)

I encourage all Europeans who wish to live as free Men - and indeed all human beings globally - to carry out their own research into the fraudulent global banking and financial architecture which has enslaved the entire world. Please research Fractional Reserve Banking & (private) Central Banking)

As Goethe said:

” None are more enslaved than those who falsely believe to be free.”

And as Henry Ford prophetically stated:

” It is good that people do not understand the workings of the banking system. For if they did, there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning…”

That “morning” is not far…

Following are the clauses in the EU Constitution ( Maastricht Treaty ) that (legally) financially & economically enslave all European citizens to the private international banksters:

EU CONSTITUTION

ECONOMIC AND MONETARY POLlCY

Chapter 2

Monetary policy

Article 105a

1. The European Central Bank shall have the
exclusive right to authorize the issue of bank
notes within the Community.

The ECB and the national central banks may
issue such notes. The bank notes issued
by the ECB and the national central banks shall
be the only such notes to have the status of legal
tender within the Community.

Chapter 1

Economic policy

Article 104

1. Overdraft facilities or any other type of credit
facility with the ECB or with the central banks of
the Member States (hereinafter referred to as
“national central banks”) in favour of Community
institutions or bodies, central governments, regional,
local or other public authorities, other bodies
governed by public law, or public undertakings of
Member States shall be prohibited, as shall the
purchase directly from them by the ECB or national
central banks of debt instruments.

2. Member States may issue coins subject to
approval by the ECB of the volume of the issue…

Thus, European citizens have been enslaved with just these 2 paragraphs enshrined in the EU Constitution...Unfortunately, the vast majority of EU citizens have never read the EU constitution, and even those that did surely do not understand the tragic implications of these 2 articles…(i.e. economic & financial enslavement to the banksters)

Full EU Constitution can be downloaded at the
following link:

http://www.ecb.int/ecb/legal/pdf/maastricht_en.pdf

In fact the exact same looting mechanism which operates in the US through the privately-owned and controlled Federal Reserve BAnk (FED), worldwide through Central Banking and throughout the (so-called) Third Word countries through the IMF and the World Bank using the (so-called) “debt” as a weapon and an instrument of global economic and financial enslavement, is now (legally) operating in the EU through the European Central Bank (ECB), with the active support and (criminal) complicity of European governments.

As Tolstoy rightly stated:

” Money is a new form of slavery, distinguishable from chattel slavery simply from the fact that it has no visible master-slave relationship.”

Breaking free from this vicious and impoverishing trap cycle of economic & financial enslavement is a real “David vs Goliath” struggle for the entire world.

However, this deadly trap cycle MUST be broken to liberate humanity from perpetual economic slavery, oppression and mass poverty. Nothing less than the future of the entire human civilization is at stake.

“A chain is only as strong as its weakest link…”

There IS a solution to put an end to this enslavement: Peaceful, non-violent, non-cooperation with the system…

Monday, December 21, 2009

LE FRANC DES COLONIES FRANCAISES D'AFRIQUE (FCFA) et LE COLONIALISME MONETAIRE



"L'argent est une nouvelle forme d'esclavage. Ce qui les différencies, c'est que dans l'esclavage monétaire il n y a pas de relation visible entre maître et esclave." Tolstoy

Et comme disait Goethe:

"Nul n'est plus asservit que celui qui se croit libre..."


Préface de la nouvelle édition du livre « Le Franc CFA et l’Euro Contre l’Afrique » par François Ndengwe

Le professeur Nicolas Agbohou a donné à son livre un titre qui résume la réalité qu’il décrit et annonce le combat qu’il mène : « Le Franc CFA et l’Euro Contre l’Afrique ».

Quelle est cette réalité ? C’est d’abord la servitude de quinze pays africains à la monnaie française. Un système de parité fixe, sans équivalent dans l’histoire monétaire, ligote la monnaie de ces pays, à la monnaie française, hier le franc français, aujourd’hui l’euro. La singularité de ce système, c’est l’arsenal légal et statutaire qui régit le fonctionnement de la zone franc. Le lecteur est vivement invité à lire avec attention l’analyse que fait Nicolas Agbohou de cet arsenal. A ce jour et à notre connaissance, seuls deux auteurs ont consacré leur ouvrage à cette analyse : feu le professeur Joseph Tchundjang Pouémi, dans un livre paru au début des années 1980s, Monnaie, servitude et liberté – La répression monétaire de l’Afrique [1] et Nicolas Agbohou, dans le livre que vous tenez en mains. C’est dire l’importance de ce livre et l’exceptionnelle valeur du travail qu’a accompli Nicolas Agbohou.

Livre Le Franc CFA et l’Euro contre l’Afrique

La réalité du franc CFA et de la zone franc, c’est aussi et peut-être surtout, le nazisme monétaire. Mettre en lumière cette autre réalité est l’un des intérêts majeurs de la présente et nouvelle édition du livre de Nicolas Agbohou. Le franc CFA, ou franc des Colonies Françaises d’Afrique, est créé le 25 décembre 1945 par un décret signé par trois Français [2] qui ont en commun un double caractère : ils sont imbus de la suprématie blanche ; ils sont de fervents acteurs de l’agression coloniale contre l’Afrique. Surtout, leur pays, la France, vaincue et conquise par l’Allemagne hitlérienne en mai 1940 vient de subir cinq années d’occupation nazie. Or cette occupation n’avait pas que le caractère spectaculairement bestial des hordes de soldats allemands soumettant les Français, pillant et versant le sang. L’occupation allemande de la France fut aussi un formidable champ d’exécution du nazisme monétaire externe.

Conçu par Herman Goering, ministre de l’économie de Hitler, et appliqué aux territoires conquis par les troupes allemandes, le nazisme monétaire externe allemand n’avait que deux objectifs : soumettre et piller. Parce qu’elle était, et de loin, le plus gros des territoires conquis par l’Allemagne, la France a subi le nazisme monétaire allemand avec beaucoup plus de rigueur que les autres territoires eux aussi conquis par l’Allemagne, par exemple la Belgique et la Pologne. Curieusement, alors qu’il existe des tonnes de livres, de mémoires, de thèses de doctorats et d’articles sur l’occupation nazie de la France, et que chaque année apporte de nouvelles publications sur le sujet, il n’existe quasiment rien sur le nazisme monétaire infligé par les Allemands aux Français. Pourquoi ?

La grande surprise ici, c’est le silence des Français, de leurs historiens et de leurs universitaires, d’habitude si diserts, sur ce qui est sans doute l’épisode le plus saignant de l’histoire contemporaine de leur pays. Il faut remonter soixante trois ans plus tôt, pour trouver un Français écrivant sérieusement sur ce sujet : René Sédillot, qui publie en 1945, son livre intitulé Le Franc enchaîné – Histoire de la monnaie française pendant la guerre et l’occupation. Sédillot constate : « Avec les siècles, les formes de pillage sont devenues plus savantes. Les anciens Germains dévastaient en toute simplicité les pays qu’ils avaient conquis. Leurs descendants, en 1940, ont recouru à une méthode de rapine plus subtile et plus fructueuse : ils ont mis le mark à 20 francs ».

Cette manipulation du taux de change, à l’avantage exclusif du conquérant est l’une des caractéristiques du nazisme monétaire appliqué à la France, nazisme monétaire que celle-ci, une fois libérée du joug hitlérien, appliquera aussi, intégralement et même en l’accentuant à l’Afrique. Ce n’est pas une surprise, les Français créent le CFA en 1945, après l’occupation nazie, la même année où Sédillot publie son livre. Pour cette création, ils ont au préalable récupéré l’arsenal statutaire du nazisme monétaire que leur a infligé l’Allemagne et qui fut entre autres inclus dans la convention d’armistice signée le 22 juin 1940 entre la France conquise et l’Allemagne conquérante. Les Français ont alors fait du copier-coller : à leur tour, ils ont retourné l’arsenal nazi contre les Africains, de sorte que le franc CFA et la zone franc, c’est du nazisme monétaire.

Parmi les nombreux mérites de la présente édition de Le Franc CFA et l’Euro Contre l’Afrique, l’un des plus instructifs est donc que Nicolas Agbohou, ici, est l’un des premiers auteurs à jeter la lumière sur le caractère foncièrement nazi de la zone franc. Du coup, il montre aussi la transmutation par laquelle, la France, d’opprimée et exploitée par l’Allemagne hitlérienne, est devenue oppresseur et exploiteuse de l’Afrique, en usant du nazisme monétaire. Nicolas Agbohou ouvre ainsi un vaste domaine de recherches que devront explorer historiens, économistes et divers chercheurs.

Nicolas Agbohou n’est pas qu’un chercheur. Il est aussi un combattant pour la justice. Son livre est un outil de ce combat. Combat contre le double caractère malsain des pères fondateurs du franc CFA : suprématie blanche, agression coloniale de l’Afrique. Double caractère qui est hélas une immuable constante de la zone franc et qui permet à l’Etat français de réussir l’exploit de maintenir intact son système de domination monétaire des pays CFA, malgré les « indépendances » qu’elle leur a accordées dans les années 1960s. Rien n’a changé, pas même le sigle : on a gardé CFA, qui signifie désormais quelque chose comme Communauté Financière d’Afrique.

Combat contre l’infantilisation dans laquelle la zone franc maintient l’Afrique, infantilisation qui relève du syndrome « Ne-le-faîtes-pas-vous-même, nous-nous-en-chargeons-pour-vous » . Au lieu de gérer eux-mêmes leurs réserves, les États CFA les confient au Trésor français. Au lieu de fixer eux-mêmes leurs objectifs de taux d’inflation, ils se contentent de singer ceux de la France et aujourd’hui de l’eurogroupe. Au lieu de favoriser et intensifier les échanges entre eux, les États CFA miment les « critères de convergence » définis par la France et l’eurogroupe. Au lieu de se doter des moyens techniques pour fabriquer eux-mêmes leur monnaie, ils se contentent de tout sous-traiter aux imprimeries de la Banque de France, qui facturent au prix fort. Au lieu d’encourager l’émergence d’une élite africaine d’économistes et financiers compétents et indépendants, capables de défendre les intérêts africains, de promouvoir le point de vue africain et de le faire entendre dans le monde, les Etats CFA, s’en remettent aux « experts » de la Banque de France et du Trésor français ou à ceux des institutions multilatérales comme le FMI ou la Banque Mondiale.

Toute politique sans contradicteurs est corrompue. C’est précisément le cas de la zone franc et du franc CFA en Afrique. Dans cette zone, les questions monétaires sont un sujet tabou, la répression sévère, parfois meurtrière, comme ce fut probablement le cas concernant le décès, certains disent l’assassinat de Tchundjang Pouémi. Les premiers responsables de cette situation sont les dirigeants africains. Au lendemain des « indépendances », ils ont embarqué leurs populations dans l’impasse du franc CFA, lequel n’est rien d’autre que la prolongation de l’agression coloniale et raciale contre l’Afrique. Cette monnaie a admirablement servi le but pour lequel il fut créé : être l’instrument de « l’appauvrissement automatique de l’Afrique et de l’enrichissement automatique de la France » , pour paraphraser René Sédillot. Il y avait d’autres voies. Par exemple celle choisie par les pays du Maghreb, dès qu’ils se sont libérés du joug colonial français. Ces pays se portent aujourd’hui infiniment mieux que les pays CFA. Toutes les études le montrent, la décision de quitter la zone franc est pour beaucoup dans la meilleure santé économique de ces pays maghrébins.

Le travail de Nicolas Agbohou peut donc être considéré comme une œuvre salutaire contre la corruption en Afrique. En déchirant le voile du tabou, en mettant le débat sur la place publique, en présentant aussi objectivement que possible tous les termes du débat, il rend un grand service à l’Afrique entière. S’il vise les décideurs qui, par leurs fonctions dans l’appareil d’État, sont capables de prendre les mesures nécessaires à la libération monétaire de l’Afrique, Nicolas Agbohou s’adresse d’abord au plus commun des citoyens africains : bien informés, ceux-ci seront mieux armés pour obliger leurs dirigeants à prendre les meilleures décisions. Ici encore, il faut rendre hommage à Nicolas Agbohou : il a abandonné le jargon des hommes de sa profession, les économistes, pour utiliser une langue simple, que peut comprendre tout Africain qui accepte de faire le moindre effort personnel.

Au livre de Tchundjang Pouémi publié voici bientôt trente ans, les adeptes du statu quo néocolonial et les bénéficiaires du nazisme monétaire français ont répondu par un silence. Total black out. Ils ont refusé le débat. Il n’y a pas eu débat. Ils ont été imités par leurs relais dans les cercles influents, en l’occurrence le Fonds Monétaire International, la Banque Mondiale et la Banque Africaine de Développement, qui ont la mainmise sur les questions économiques ou stratégiques concernant l’Afrique. Les banques centrales des pays CFA ont réagi exactement comme ces adeptes et ces bénéficiaires. A la première édition de Le Franc CFA et l’Euro contre l’Afrique, publiée en 1999, l’année de l’introduction de l’euro, on a observé encore la même réaction de ces adeptes, de ces bénéficiaires et de ces banques centrales. Jusqu’ici, cette réaction, ainsi que la répression et l’intimidation contre la pensée libre en Afrique ont bloqué tout débat sur ce qui est sans doute le plus grand scandale monétaire de toute l’histoire et aussi la principale cause de l’appauvrissement de centaines de millions d’Africains.

Les choses pourraient être différentes avec la présente édition. Deux éléments nouveaux poussent à le croire. D’abord, l’euro n’a apporté aux Africains aucun des nombreux bienfaits qu’on leur avait promis lors de l’introduction de cette monnaie et de l’arrimage du franc CFA à elle. Au contraire, les populations africaines souffrent aujourd’hui plus que jamais de l’asservissement du franc CFA à l’euro : l’appréciation considérable de l’euro par rapport au dollar a pour conséquence l’appréciation automatique du franc CFA et donc aussi une dévastatrice perte de compétitivité des pays CFA.

Second élément, le plus important, la guerre en Côte d’Ivoire. La guerre que les bénéficiaires du nazisme monétaire français ont provoquée en Côte d’Ivoire ces cinq dernières années, a permis à grand nombre d’Africains, en premier lieu les Ivoiriens, d’identifier clairement les ennemis de l’Afrique. Des millions d’Africains sont descendus dans la rue pour affronter les chars ennemis et protéger les responsables Ivoiriens décidés à défendre l’intérêt Africain et à mettre fin au néocolonialisme dont le franc CFA n’est qu’un aspect. Un nombre considérable d’Africains, souvent des jeunes, sont morts dans ce combat pour la libération de la Côte d’Ivoire et celle de l’Afrique.

Une responsabilité particulière est donc placée sur les épaules des dirigeants actuels et futurs de la Côte d’Ivoire. Toutes ces victimes, tous ces jeunes, sont-ils morts pour rien ? Le débat pour la libération définitive de l’Afrique ne peut plus être interdit. Or cette libération passe, à notre avis, par un rejet du franc CFA. Il ne peut donc plus y avoir tabou, et aujourd’hui, l’on ne peut plus répondre à Nicolas Agbohou par le black-out.

Mieux, les dirigeants de Côte d’Ivoire, ont pour ainsi dire l’obligation d’aller de l’avant sur le chemin de la libération. Or il se trouve que, malgré la guerre qui a considérablement affaibli ce pays, économiquement, politiquement et administrativement, le divisant en deux territoires antagonistes, l’un aux mains des rebelles et de leurs commanditaires étrangers, la Côte d’Ivoire demeure et de loin, la plus importante économie de l’UEMOA, représentant à elle seule près de 40% du PIB de cette union. La sortie de la Côte d’Ivoire de l’UEMOA sonnerait le glas de la zone franc.

Tout ceci souligne l’importance exceptionnelle aujourd’hui de la Côte d’Ivoire pour le progrès en Afrique. L’année 2008, est annoncée comme aussi l’année des élections en Côte d’Ivoire. Les Ivoiriens, quel que soit leur niveau de responsabilité, doivent bien saisir la portée des choix qu’ils auront à effectuer lors de ces élections. Tout mouvement vers la libération étant pour l’instant invisible dans la zone CEMAC soumise à des autocrates s’éternisant au pouvoir, totalisant près de deux siècles d’exercice continu de dictature, c’est à l’UEMOA que revient la tâche de lancer la marche vers l’émancipation de l’Afrique. Et à l’intérieur de l’UEMOA, c’est au leader de cette union, la Côte d’Ivoire, de donner le cap.

Il se trouve que Nicolas Agbohou, patriote panafricain convaincu, est aussi Ivoirien. Il se trouve aussi que c’est en Côte d’Ivoire que Tchundjang Pouémi a élaboré sa théorie et rassemblé les éléments qui lui ont permis d’écrire son livre. Nicolas Agbohou, en digne successeur de Tchundjang Pouémi, est un Ivoirien conscient des responsabilités qui incombent à son pays dans le combat sans merci contre le nazisme monétaire français en Afrique. Les dirigeants ivoiriens pourraient-il l’écouter ? Les dirigeants Africains pourraient-ils lui prêter l’oreille ?

Voir l'entrevue-video suivante de Nicolas Agbohou en cliquant sur le titre du blog ci-haut.

source: http://www.africamaat.com/Realite-du-Franc-CFA-Le-nazime

LE FRANC DES COLONIES FRANCAISES D'AFRIQUE (FCFA) ET L'ESCLAVAGISME MONETAIRE



"L'argent est une nouvelle forme d'esclavage. Ce qui les différencies, c'est que dans l'esclavage monétaire il n y a pas de relation visible entre maître et esclave." Tolstoy

Et comme disait Goethe:

"Nul n'est plus asservit que celui qui se croit libre..."


MONNAIE OU RELIQUE COLONIALE: COMMENT LE FRANC CFA RETARDE LES PAYS DE LA ZONE FRANC

*Sanou Mbaye

Face à une Amérique en crise et à la panique qui règne sur les marchés financiers mondiaux, les gardiens du Temple de la Banque Centrale Européenne se veulent les garants d’une stabilité monétaire et d’un euro fort. Leur attitude s’inscrit en faux contre celle des dirigeants des deux économies les plus puissantes de l’Europe, à savoir la chancelière allemande, Angela Merkel, et le président français, Nicolas Sarkozy, qui craignent que le maintien d’un Euro fort mène les économies européennes à la ruine. A leur inquiétude devrait faire écho, en théorie, le désarroi de leurs collègues des pays d’Afrique membres de la zone franc. En effet, leur monnaie, le franc CFA, étant ancrée à la monnaie européenne à un taux fixe surévalué, on est en droit de penser qu’ils ne pouvaient manquer de s’interroger sérieusement sur l’avenir, sinon sur le destin du franc CFA. Cette monnaie, dont la convertibilité fait les choux gras des spéculateurs, est une source majeure de perte de compétitivité, d’évasion de capitaux et de controverses quant à son rôle, supposé ou réel, dans la crise qui continue de plomber les économies des pays de la zone franc dans un contexte de turbulence économique, notamment financière, à l’échelle mondiale.

L’histoire du CFA est étroitement liée à celle de la colonisation des pays africains. Durant la période coloniale, Français et Anglais, deux des pays colonisateurs de la région, avaient mis respectivement sur pied la zone franc et le « board of currency » pour doter leurs empires africains d’un système monétaire unifié. Ce système était subordonné au franc français et à la livre sterling.

Au lendemain de la proclamation des indépendances nationales à partir de la fin des années 1950, les ex-colonies anglaises ont démantelé leur zone monétaire commune pour mener des politiques monétaires souveraines et autonomes.

• En revanche, dans la zone franc, seuls quelques pays en ont fait de même la Guinée, la Mauritanie, Madagascar, le Mali (provisoirement), l’Algérie, le Maroc, la Tunisie, le Cambodge, le Laos et le Vietnam.
• Les pays qui ont choisi de demeurer dans le giron de la France en conservant leur monnaie unique, le Franc CFA, sont : Djibouti, le Bénin, le Burkina Faso, le Cameroun, la République Centrafricaine, les Comores, le Congo, la Côte-d’Ivoire, le Gabon, le Mali, le Niger, le Sénégal, le Tchad et le Togo. La Guinée Equatoriale et la Guinée-Bissau se sont jointes à eux.

La France a doté cette monnaie d’une convertibilité qu’elle s’est engagée à garantir sous réserve de la rétention de tout ou partie des avoirs extérieurs en devises de ces pays dans un « COMPTE D’OPERATION » ouvert auprès du Trésor Public français par les banques centrales de la zone franc:

1. la Banque centrale des Etats de l’Afrique de l’Ouest (BCEAO)
2. la Banque des Etats de l’Afrique Centrale (BEAC) .

LA FRANCE S’EST EGALEMENT ARROGEE UN DROIT DE VETO DANS LA GESTION DE CES BANQUES CENTRALES. DE MEME, TOUT CHANGEMENT DES REGLES DU JEU AU SEIN DE LA ZONE MONETAIRE FRANCOPHONE NECESSITE UN ACCORD PREALABLE AVEC LA FRANCE.

On devine aisément les implications qui s’attachent au corset ainsi créé quand on connaît l’importance de la monnaie dans la marche d’une économie.

Celle-ci a, en effet, trois fonctions traditionnelles:

1. Elle est, d’abord, une unité de compte,
2. ensuite un moyen de paiement,
3. et enfin un instrument de réserve.

Son émission ayant constitué de tout temps un droit régalien réservé aux seuls dirigeants des territoires indépendants, les détracteurs de la zone, qualifiant ces accords monétaires de relique coloniale, ont demandé leur abrogation. Les tenants du système, quant à eux, pour justifier le maintien du franc CFA, arguent du privilège de disposer d’une monnaie unique convertible et la capacité des pays de la zone à satisfaire les trois critères sur lesquels doit reposer une politique monétaire durable, à savoir la stabilité interne et externe et la croissance économique.

Tout Etat réglemente comme il l’entend la sortie de sa monnaie nationale et l’entrée des monnaies étrangères sur son territoire par le biais de sa politique de change, sa monnaie pouvant être transférable, c’est-à-dire convertible sur le marché international des changes. La convertibilité d’une monnaie réside dans sa capacité à être échangée contre une autre devise. Par exemple, des dollars peuvent s’échanger contre des euros et vice versa. Ces monnaies sont convertibles entre elles et cette convertibilité signifie que les banques centrales qui les ont émises s’engagent à les racheter. Lorsqu’une monnaie est convertible, le gouvernement qui l’émet en autorise la sortie. C’est généralement le cas des pays développés à économie de marché. LA CONVERTIBILITE N’EXCLUT PAS L’EXISTENCE D’UN CONTROLE DES CHANGES PLUS OU MOINS COERCITIF, EN PARTICULIER POUR LES RESIDENTS QUI PEUVENT ETRE SUJETS A DES RESTRICTIONS DANS L’USAGE DES MONNAIES ETRANGERES ET DANS LES MONTANTS QU’ILS PEUVENT TRANSFERER. C’EST LE CAS DU FRANC CFA DONT LA CONVERTIBILITE EST RESTREINTE A L’EURO ET LE LIBRE TRANSFERT A LA FRANCE.

LE FRANC CFA, MONNAIE COMMUNE, EST SUPPOSE CONTRIBUER A UNE PLUS GRANDE TRANSPARENCE DES PRIX, A L’ELIMINATION DES DISTORSIONS LIEES AU RISQUE DE CHANGE ENTRE MONNAIES NATIONALES ET DE FRAIS BANCAIRES INUTILES. SON OBJECTIF THEORIQUE EST AUSSI DE CREER UNE DISCIPLINE MONETAIRE ET BUDGETAIRE SAINE. CETTE MONNAIE DEVAIT ASSURER A LA FOIS UNE STABILITE DES PRIX, UNE ABSENCE DE DEVALUATIONS COMPETITIVES ENTRE PAYS MEMBRES DE L’UNION MONETAIRE ET L’OBTENTION DE TAUX D’INTERET REELS BAS ET STABLES FAVORABLES A LA CROISSANCE ET A L’EMPLOI.

Mais, force est de constater que la convertibilité et le libre transfert du franc CFA favorisent une sortie massive des capitaux à travers le transfert, sans risque de change des bénéfices des entreprises du secteur privé, françaises dans leur très grande majorité. Elle encourage également l’exode des revenus des ménages expatriés vers leur pays d’origine. Ces flux monétaires et commerciaux qui passent tous par le filtre des banques centrales ont pour seule destination l’Hexagone. C’est le cas depuis la mise en place, en 1993, du régime de contrôle de change par la France. ENTRE 1970 ET 1993, LE RAPATRIEMENT DES BENEFICES ET DES REVENUS D’EXPATRIES S’EST ELEVE A 6,3 MILLIARDS DE DOLLARS ALORS QUE LES INVESTISSEMENTS ETRANGERS S’ELEVAIENT A 1,7 MILLIARDS DE DOLLARS. LES RAPATRIEMENTS ONT DONC ETE QUATRE FOIS SUPERIEURS AUX INVESTISSEMENTS. De même, anticipant une dévaluation qui était devenue inéluctable eu égard à la détérioration des comptes dans les années 1990 et le refus de la France de soutenir les budgets africains, les placements spéculatifs effectués en francs CFA en France entre janvier 1990 et juin 1993 s’étaient élevés à 928,75 milliards de francs CFA soit environ 1,416 milliards d’euros .

De surcroît, en contrepartie de la garantie de convertibilité du CFA, d’abord en franc français puis en euro, la France exige depuis 1960 que les pays de la zone déposent leurs réserves de change sur un compte du Trésor Public français. A l’aube des indépendances le dépôt exigé était de 100%. Il a été réduit à 65% en 1973, puis plafonné à 50% depuis septembre 2005, le reliquat devant servir au remboursement de la dette extérieure des pays membres. Mais, hormis les « gourous » des finances françaises, nul ne sait ce que recèle en réalité ce compte d’opérations et ce que la France fait des très importantes sommes qui y sont déposées.

D’après la convention sur ce compte, signée en 1962 entre le ministère français de l’Économie et ses ex-colonies membres de la zone franc, le Trésor français perçoit, en cas de découvert, des agios payés par les banques centrales. En revanche, il leur verse des intérêts si les comptes sont créditeurs. Depuis la mise en œuvre des accords de coopération monétaire, le compte d’opération n’a été débiteur temporairement qu’à cinq reprises depuis 1973, le solde étant créditeur de manière ininterrompue depuis janvier 1994. Le rapport 2005 de la zone Franc montre que les banques centrales détiennent des records de réserves au Trésor français estimées à 6300 milliards de FCFA, équivalents à 9,6 milliards d’euros soit un taux de couverture de l’émission monétaire supérieur à 110 %, alors que la convention de 1962 n’exige qu’un taux de couverture de 20 %. Entre janvier et décembre 2006, les avoirs extérieurs nets de la Banque centrale des Etats de l’Afrique de l’ouest avaient progressé de 544,3 milliards de F CFA (830 millions d’euros) pour se situer à 3 710 milliards de F CFA (5,7 milliards d’euros). Sur la même période, ceux de la Banque des Etats de l’Afrique centrale avaient augmenté de 1757 milliards (2,7 milliards d’euros) pour atteindre 4382 milliards de FCFA (6,7 milliards d’euros).

Les pays membres de la zone franc, dont certains sont classés parmi les plus pauvres du monde, selon leur indice de développement, se voient ainsi privés par la France d’énormes ressources financières qui auraient pu être investies dans les secteurs clés de leurs économies (production vivrière, éducation, santé, logements et infrastructures). LE PLUS REVOLTANT DANS CE MARCHE DE DUPES EST QUE LA FRANCE SE SERT DE L’ARGENT DE CES PAYS POUR LEUR CONCEDER DES PRETS A DES TAUX PROHIBITIFS. LE COMBLE EST QUE LES PAYS DE LA ZONE, NON CONTENTS DE SE VOIR AMPUTER D’UNE PART IMPORTANTE DE LEURS REVENUS, S’ENDETTENT AUPRES DE LA BANQUE MONDIALE ET DU FMI AUX CONDITIONS DRASTIQUES QUE L’ON SAIT AU LIEU D’USER DE LEURS PROPRES AVOIRS CONFISQUES PAR LA FRANCE. En se comportant comme des victimes consentantes, lesdits pays n’ont fait que traduire une attitude éminemment freudienne des Noirs qui confine à l’auto-flagellation.

En ce qui concerne la stabilité interne de la zone franc, le rattachement du franc CFA au franc Français et aujourd’hui à l’euro était censé permettre aux autorités monétaires de la zone franc d’imposer la discipline anti-inflationniste de la Banque de France et maintenant de la Banque européenne. La zone s’est toutefois révélée impuissante à contrecarrer la flambée des prix du pétrole, des matières premières et des denrées alimentaires provoquées en partie, par la progression de la demande des Asiatiques en matières premières, particulièrement des Chinois. L’augmentation des prix des denrées alimentaires a donné naissance à des émeutes de la faim dans nombre de pays d’Afrique parmi lesquels figurent des pays de la zone franc tels que la Côte d’Ivoire, le Cameroun, le Burkina Faso et le Sénégal.

Quant à la stabilité externe, c’est à dire la stabilité d’une monnaie sur les marchés des changes, elle est étroitement liée à la politique de change qui la sous-tend. Les pays de la zone franc ont opté pour une politique de taux de change fixe alors que le taux de change de l’euro sur lequel il est arrimé est flottant et ne cesse de s’apprécier . La politique d’un euro fort et de taux d’intérêts élevés poursuivie par la Banque Centrale Européenne (BCE) pour juguler tout risque d’inflation et attirer les capitaux étrangers en Europe prive les pays de la zone franc de compétitivité. Le franc CFA est surévalué par rapport aux autres monnaies des pays du Sud avec lesquels il est en concurrence. LES PRODUITS LIBELLES EN FCFA DEVIENNENT TROP CHERS ET LES PAYS DE LA ZONE SE RETROUVENT AINSI EXCLUS DES MARCHES DU SUD. La politique d’un euro fort est préjudiciable aux économies de la zone franc comme l’a été auparavant la politique d’un franc fort menée par l’ex ministre de l’économie et des finances, Pierre Bérégovoy, sous le gouvernement socialiste de François Mitterrand. L’appréciation de l’euro par rapport au dollar ruine les économies des pays de la zone Franc. De janvier 1999 à mai 2008, l’euro est passé de 1,17 à 1,59 dollars, ce qui signifie que le franc CFA, monnaie des économies jugées parmi les plus indigentes du monde, s’apprécie par rapport au billet vert. Cela ne manque pas de poser problème, car les prix des principaux produits d’exportation de la zone comme le café, le cacao et le coton sont libellés en dollars, tandis que ceux de leurs plus gros volumes d’importation le sont en euros. EN EFFET, SE FAIRE PAYER SES EXPORTATIONS EN MONNAIE FAIBLE ET REGLER SES IMPORTATIONS EN MONNAIE FORTE NE PEUT QUE PROVOQUER UNE INCIDENCE NEGATIVE TRES HANDICAPANTE SUR LES BALANCES COMMERCIALES, AU POINT QUE LA QUESTION D’UNE NOUVELLE DEVALUATION DU FRANC CFA, A SEULE FIN D’ACCROITRE ARTIFICIELLEMENT LA COMPETITIVITE DES EXPORTATIONS DE LA ZONE FRANC, SE POSE A NOUVEAU. Quel contraste avec la Chine qui, depuis le 1er Janvier 1994, a ancré sa monnaie, le yuan, au dollar à un taux de change extrêmement bas, ce qui lui donne un avantage compétitif par rapport à ses concurrents occidentaux et des possibilités d’exportation accrues.

La zone franc a également été promue comme étant un espace propice à la croissance économique de ses membres. La croissance économique est sujette au niveau des taux d’intérêt et des liquidités mises en circulation par la Banque centrale, au volume des investissements et des échanges commerciaux. La masse monétaire en circulation dans la zone franc se mesure à l’aune des seuls échanges entre la France et ses alliés africains, aux transferts des travailleurs émigrés, au rapatriement des capitaux spéculatifs et aux décaissements des bailleurs de fonds. Dans un tel contexte, les taux d’intérêt demeurent toujours élevés. Leur haut niveau est préjudiciable à tout essor économique et prive les entrepreneurs de ces pays des crédits bon marché sans lesquels il n’y a point d’existence pour les petites et moyennes entreprises ni de classe moyenne vecteur de développement.

La convertibilité du franc CFA et son arrimage à l’euro éliminant tout risque de change entre les zones franc et euro, cela était censé faciliter l’afflux des investissements productifs créateurs d’emplois, en provenance d’Europe. En réalité, les investissements dont ont bénéficié les pays d’Afrique se sont portés quasi exclusivement dans l’exploitation des ressources naturelles. Les investissements directs étrangers (IDE), en Afrique, ont atteint 38 milliards de dollars US en 2007 contre 126 milliards de dollars en Amérique latine et aux Caraïbes, 224 milliards de dollars pour les pays d’Asie du sud et d’Océanie, 98 milliards de dollars pour les pays de l’Europe du sud-est et de la Communauté des États Indépendants (CEI). Durant la période 2002 - 2004, les IDE en Afrique avaient seulement été de 1,2 milliards de dollars . L’accroissement enregistré est essentiellement dû aux investissements en provenance des pays émergents d´Asie : Hong-Kong, République de Corée, Chine, Inde et Malaisie et non d’Europe. Ils sont concentrés dans les industries extractives et ne bénéficient qu’à un nombre limité de pays tels que le Nigeria, l’Angola, le Mozambique, le Soudan, le Congo Brazzaville, la Guinée Equatoriale ou la République démocratique du Congo. CES INVESTISSEMENTS DANS L’EXPLOITATION DES RESSOURCES NATURELLES, PARTICULIEREMENT LE PETROLE ET LES MINERAIS, PERPETUENT LA DEPENDANCE DE LA REGION ET SON APPAUVRISSEMENT RESULTANT D’UNE EXPLOITATION SYSTEMATIQUE DE SES RESSOURCES SANS LA CONTREPARTIE D’INVESTISSEMENTS PRODUCTIFS, DE CREATIONS D’EMPLOIS ET D’EXPORTATIONS DE BIENS MANUFACTURES. IL EN EST DE MEME DES FLUX COMMERCIAUX ENTRE LES PAYS DE LA ZONE FRANC ET CEUX DU RESTE DU MONDE QUI SE REDUISENT A L’IMPORTATION DE PRODUITS MANUFACTURES ET A L’EXPORTATION DE PRODUITS DE BASE, CE QUI EXCLUT TOUT DEVELOPPEMENT INDUSTRIEL AUTONOME. Ceci devrait inciter les Africains à promouvoir la diversification des investissements, à renforcer leurs capacités productives dans leurs autres secteurs économiques et à développer un espace légal régissant les partenariats entre les filiales étrangères et les entreprises locales pour favoriser le transfert de la technologie dont la région a besoin pour s’industrialiser.

L’EXISTENCE D’UN MARCHE UNIQUE DEPOURVU DE BARRIERES COMMERCIALES OU FINANCIERES ET D’ENTRAVES A LA LIBRE CIRCULATION DES BIENS ET DES CAPITAUX SONT LES CONDITIONS SINE QUA NON POUR TIRER LE MAXIMUM DE BENEFICES D’UNE MONNAIE UNIQUE. POURTANT, CE MARCHE UNIQUE DANS LEQUEL LES PAYS DE LA ZONE FRANC SONT SUPPOSES EVOLUER N’A D’EXISTENCE QUE DE NOM. ILS EN SONT ENCORE, DEPUIS PRES DE DEUX DECENNIES, A S’ECHINER A METTRE EN PLACE UNE UNION DOUANIERE AU SEIN DE L’UNION ECONOMIQUE ET MONETAIRE OUEST AFRICAINE (UEMOA) ET DE LA COMMUNAUTE ECONOMIQUE ET MONETAIRE DE L’AFRIQUE CENTRALE (CEMAC), LES DEUX ORGANISATIONS CHARGEES DE LA MISE EN PLACE DE L’HARMONISATION DES REGIMES FISCAUX ET DES POLITIQUES DE CONVERGENCE ECONOMIQUE DE LEURS MEMBRES. Il faut se souvenir que de 1945 à 1960, la coopération monétaire et la coordination des politiques économiques avec la France, dans le cadre de la zone franc, s’étaient en effet appuyées sur une intégration politique, économique et monétaire complète ainsi qu’une libre circulation des personnes, des biens et des services. Le choix des pays africains qui ont décidé de rester sous la tutelle monétaire de la France aurait donc été justifié si ces mêmes pays avaient maintenu le marché commun et les structures fédérales dans lesquels ils opéraient sous le régime colonial. Mais ils n’en ont rien fait. BIEN AU CONTRAIRE, ILS SE SONT EMPLOYES A LES DEMANTELER DES LEUR ACCESSION A L’INDEPENDANCE. EN ERIGEANT DES BARRIERES DOUANIERES ENTRE EUX, LES AFRICAINS SE SONT DELIBEREMENT COUPES LES UNS DES AUTRES, CREANT DE FACTO UN ENVIRONNEMENT ECONOMIQUE IMPROPRE A L’ADOPTION D’UNE MONNAIE UNIQUE. De plus, les banques centrales de la zone franc n’ont aucune existence juridique sur le marché des changes. Il revient donc à la Banque Centrale Européenne (BCE), qui a hérité des accords franco-africains, d’agir en leurs noms. MAIS QUAND LA BCE INTERVIENT SUR LE MARCHE INTERNATIONAL DES DEVISES, C’EST POUR DEFENDRE L’EURO ET NON LE FCFA. CETTE SOUS-TRAITANCE DE LA GESTION DU FRANC CFA A LA BCE CONSTITUE UN FREIN SUPPLEMENTAIRE AU PROCESSUS D’INTEGRATION DES ECONOMIES DES PAYS DE LA ZONE ET A L’ACCROISSEMENT DE LEURS ECHANGES INTRA-COMMUNAUTAIRES.

Dans ces circonstances, il y a quelque chose de kafkaïen dans cette démarche qui consiste à démanteler des structures pour ensuite essayer de les remettre en place à rebours. Cela engendre des distorsions structurelles, institutionnelles et économiques dont les dirigeants et les élites francophones d’Afrique noire n’ont cure, d’autant qu’ils en tirent des intérêts personnels. En effet, la convertibilité du FCFA est un moyen bien commode pour eux de disposer de fortunes considérables et d’immenses domaines immobiliers dans l’Hexagone.

Les crises économiques et financières qui affectent les pays de la zone franc depuis les années 1990 sont les manifestations les plus éloquentes de l’échec des politiques et des choix qui ont prévalu en son sein. Elles ont conduit à la dévaluation de 100% du franc CFA en janvier 1994 et à la paupérisation qui a conduit aux désordres que l’on sait et qui vont aller s’aggravant A MOINS QUE L’ON METTE FIN AU SYSTEME D’EXPLOITATION INSTITUTIONNALISEE QUE REPRESENTE LA ZONE FRANC.

En l’état actuel du développement des économies africaines, la norme, en matière de politique de change devrait reposer sur l’inconvertibilité et l’intransférabilité des monnaies nationales. Lorsqu’un Etat interdit la sortie de sa monnaie nationale, cette monnaie est dite non convertible donc non transférable. Dans ce cas, un contrôle des changes hermétique donne le monopôle des monnaies étrangères aux autorités monétaires qui contrôlent toutes les opérations de change avec l’extérieur. Cette restriction légale assure une gestion rigoureuse des rentrées et des sorties de devises, ce qui permet de les allouer en priorité au développement des secteurs clé des économies concernées. Cette situation est d’ailleurs fréquente dans le monde en particulier dans les pays en voie de développement (PED) très déficitaires qui connaissent de graves difficultés de paiements. C’est également le cas des économies régulées de type semi-étatique où l’Etat prend en charge le contrôle des secteurs essentiels de l’économie comme en Chine, en Inde ou au Vietnam. Rappelons également que pendant longtemps l’échange de francs français contre des devises n’était pas libre mais réglementé. Une convertibilité externe du franc, rétablie en 1958 pour les non-résidents, n’était pas totale pour les résidents. Par exemple, ceux-ci ne pouvaient pas sortir des capitaux hors des frontières sans autorisation administrative. Quant au géant chinois, soucieux de ne pas faire peser des risques importants sur sa croissance économique par une sortie incontrôlée de devises, il n’autorise pas la libéralisation de son marché des changes et sa monnaie, le yuan, n’est pas librement convertible.

AU VU DE CE QUI PRECEDE, LES AVANTAGES AVANCES POUR LE MAINTIEN DE LA CONVERTIBILITE DU FRANC CFA SE REVELENT ETRE UN SUBTERFUGE QUI INSTITUTIONNALISE L’APPAUVRISSEMENT SOCIO-ECONOMIQUE DES PAYS DE LA ZONE FRANC. ILS SE DOIVENT D’Y METTRE FIN, DE RECOUVRER LA GESTION DE LEURS RESERVES DE CHANGE, D’INSTITUER UN STRICT REGIME DE CONTROLE CHANGE ET D’ETENDRE LES POLITIQUES D’HARMONISATION FISCALE ET DE CONVERGENCE ECONOMIQUE QU’ILS MENENT AU SEIN DE L’UEMOA ET DE LA CEMAC A L’ENSEMBLE DES PAYS MEMBRES DE LA COMMUNAUTE ECONOMIQUE DES ETATS DE L’AFRIQUE DE L’OUEST (CEDEAO), L’ORGANISATION MANDATEE PAR L’UNION AFRICAINE (UA) POUR COORDONNER LES POLITIQUES D’INTEGRATION DANS LA SOUS-REGION.

*SANOU MBAYE,
économiste, ancien fonctionnaire international, auteur de l’Afrique au secours de l’Afrique, à paraître en janvier 2009, aux Editions de l’Atelier.

Source: 20mai.net

Saturday, December 05, 2009

GMO's: PANACEA TO FIGHT WORLD HUNGER OR TROJAN HORSE ?




If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.
~Thomas Jefferson, president of the USA.

THE REAL HEALTH, ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC HAZARDS OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS (GMO) AND THE (hidden) GEOPOLITICAL AGENDA AND OBJECTIVES OF THE US ADMINISTRATION AND THE BIOTECH COMPANIES...


"If the facts don't support the theory, change the facts..." Albert Einstein

Barrack Obama and the US administration, Bill Gates, Rockfeller, Kofi Annan, Monsanto and other agrochemical and biotech multinationals have been fraudulently telling the world that they are on a philanthropic mission to “fight hunger and poverty” in Africa and to "feed the world" in a context of rapid population growth and climate change. However, beyond the deceitful rhetoric and fraudulent claims made by the above self-proclaimed saviors of Africa and the world, the facts and scientific and empirical evidence reveal a different picture altogether.

Monsanto and the other “Big Five” agro-chemical and biotechnilogy companies ( Monsanto, Syngeta, Dow Agro Chemical, Dupont, Bayer, BASF ) and their minions, cronies and butlers falsely claim that their genetic “technology” will be able to “feed the world” and “fight global hunger and poverty” by increasing agricultural yields and reducing pesticides usage - through genetic manipulation of plant DNA (in other words by changing the essence of Life (DNA) and the Laws of Nature)– thus increasing global food production, while decreasing production costs.

However, the following recently published independent scientific reports – based on scientific facts and empirical evidence - clearly rebuke these fraudulent claims.

Do GMO’s REALLY increase yield…?

According to a recently published scientific report - Failure to Yield: Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops - written by Doug Gurian-Sherman
and published by the Union of Concerned Scientists in March 2009, the scientific and empirical evidence does not support that claim.

Doug Gurian-Sherman writes:

“For years the biotechnology industry has trumpeted that it will feed the world, promising that its genetically engineered crops will produce higher yields. That promise has proven to be empty. Despite 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialization, genetic engineering has failed to significantly increase U.S. crop yields.”

Failure to Yield is the first (independent) scientific report to closely evaluate the overall effect genetic engineering has had on crop yields in relation to other agricultural technologies. It reviewed two dozen academic studies of corn and soybeans, the two primary genetically engineered food and feed crops grown in the United States.

Based on those studies, the UCS report concluded that genetically engineering herbicide-tolerant (HT) soybeans and herbicide-tolerant corn has not increased yields. Insect-resistant (bt) corn, meanwhile, has improved yields only marginally. The increase in yields for both crops over the last 13 years, the report found, was largely due to traditional breeding or improvements in agricultural practices.

Failure to Yield makes a critical distinction between potential—or intrinsic—yield and operational yield, concepts that are often conflated by the industry and misunderstood by others. Intrinsic yield refers to a crop’s ultimate production potential under the best possible conditions. Operational yield refers to production levels after losses due to pests, drought and other environmental factors.

The study reviewed the intrinsic and operational yield achievements of the three most common genetically altered foods and feed crops in the United States: herbicide-tolerant soybeans, herbicide-tolerant corn, and insect-resistant corn (known as Bt corn, after the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, whose genes enable the corn to resist several kinds of insects).

Herbicide-tolerant soybeans, herbicide-tolerant corn, and Bt corn have failed to increase intrinsic yields, the report found. Herbicide-tolerant soybeans and herbicide-tolerant corn also have failed to increase operational yields, compared with conventional methods.

In addition to evaluating genetic engineering’s record, Failure to Yield suggest that it makes little sense to support genetic engineering at the expense of technologies that have proven to substantially increase yields, especially in many developing countries. In addition, recent studies have shown that organic and similar farming methods that minimize the use of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers can more than double crop yields at little cost to poor farmers in such developing regions as Sub-Saharan Africa.

The report concludes that genetic engineering is unlikely to play a significant role in increasing food production in the foreseeable future. The biotechnology industry has been promising better yields since the mid-1990s, but Failure to Yield documents that the industry has been carrying out gene field trials to increase yields for 20 years without significant results

“If we are going to make headway in combating hunger due to overpopulation and climate change, we will need to increase crop yields,” said Gurian-Sherman. “Traditional breeding outperforms genetic engineering hands down.”

The complete report can be downloaded/read at the following link:

http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/science/failure-to-yield.html

Moreover, another major U.S. study published in 2008 found that GM soya produced by Monsanto actually produces 10 per cent less food than its conventional equivalent, thus undermining the oft-repeated claim that the use of GM technology is essential to solve the growing world food crisis.

Carried out over a three-year period at the University of Kansas, the study confirmed the findings of researchers from the University of Nebraska, who had previously found that another GM soya produced by Monsanto generated 6 per cent less food than its closest conventional relative, and 11 per cent less than the best non-GM soya available.

source: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/exposed-the-great-gm-crops-myth-812179.html

The findings of this study were echoed in a separate report, published by the UK’s Soil Association, which examined the latest available research on GM crop yields over the last ten years. In contrast to the widely trumpeted claims of GM companies that they have the answer to world hunger, the report showed that the yields of all major GM crop varieties in cultivation are lower than, or at best, equivalent to, yields from non-GM varieties.

source: http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/aweb.nsf/848d689047cb466780256a6b00298980/3cacfd251aab6d318025742700407f02!OpenDocument

Last but not least, a 2008 draft report produced by the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology project – an ambitious, 4-year, US$10-million undertaking involving 4,000 scientists and experts from around the world – raised still further serious concerns about the environmental, human health and economic impacts of GM crops. As well as stating that there is no evidence that GM crops increase yields, the report specifically warned that use of the technology in the developing world could concentrate "ownership of agricultural resources" in the hands of the companies involved and cause problems with patents. Significantly therefore, following the report’s failure to back GM as a tool to reduce poverty and hunger, the biotech companies Monsanto, Syngenta and BASF promptly withdrew from the project.

http://www.agassessment.org/docs/SR_Exec_Sum_280508_English.htm

Do GMO’s REALLY decrease pesticide usage…?

Monsanto and other chemical and biotech companies have also fraudulently been claiming that GMO’s decrease the usage of *pesticides ( * herbicides, insectides and other chemicals used in industrial agriculture),thereby increasing farmers’ income by decreasing production costs while reducing environmental and ecological pollution from agricultural chemical pesticides.

However, once again scientific and empirical evidence debunk that claim.

According to the following (independent) scientific report published in November 2009 - "Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use: The First Thirteen Years" – authored by Charles Benbrook, Ph.D., Chief Scientist at The Organic Center:

"GE crops are pushing pesticide use upward at a rapidly accelerating pace. Farmers applied 318 million more pounds of pesticides over the last 13 years as a result of planting GE seeds."

The report is based on official, U.S. Department of Agriculture pesticide use data to estimate the differences in the average pounds of pesticides applied on GE crop acres, compared to acres planted to conventional, non-GE varieties.

The basic finding is that compared to pesticide use in the absence of GE crops, farmers applied 318 million more pounds of pesticides over the last 13 years as a result of planting GE seeds. This difference represents an average increase of about 0.25 pound for each acre planted to a GE trait.
GE crops are pushing pesticide use upward at a rapidly accelerating pace. In 2008, GE crop acres required over 26% more pounds of pesticides per acre than acres planted to conventional varieties. The report projects that this trend will continue as a result of the rapid spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds.

link to the full report: http://www.organic-center.org/science.pest.php?action=view&report_id=159

Pesticide treadmill...

Moreover, according to a report published in 2009 by Friends of the Earth titled "Who benefits from GM crops", the widespread adoption of GM "Roundup Ready" crops combined with the emergence of glyphosate-resistant weeds has driven a more than 15-fold increase in the use of glyphosate on major field crops from 1994 to 2005. The trend continues. In 2006, the last year for which data is available, glyphosate use on soybeans jumped a substantial 28%, from 75,743 million lbs in 2005 to 96,725 million lbs in 2006.

More and more farmers are being told – by agronomists and by Monsanto - to combat glyphosate-resistant weeds by applying other chemicals, such as paraquat, diquat and atrazine, often in combination with higher rates of glyphosate. USDA pesticide data confirm this trend: rising glyphosate use even while use of other more toxic herbicides also increases, or at best remains constant.

The widespread adoption of Roundup Ready GM crops in the US has driven a more than 15-fold increase in the use of glyphosate on soybeans, maize and cotton from 1994 to 2005. In 2006, the last year for which data are available, glyphosate use on soybeans jumped by a substantial 28%.

Increasing glyphosate use has driven an epidemic of glyphosate-resistant weeds, which in turn has led to rising use of other herbicides to control them. For instance, the amount of 2,4-D (a component of Agent Orange) applied to U.S. soybeans more than doubled from 2002 to 2006. The use of atrazine (banned in the EU due to links to health problems) on corn/maize increased by 12% between 2002 and 2005.

Brazilian government authorities have documented an 80% increase in glyphosate use from 2000 to 2005, together with the rapid emergence of weeds that are resistant to the chemical. Use of glyphosate grew 79.6% during this period, much faster than the increase in area planted to Roundup Ready soya.

In Argentina, overall glyphosate use has more than tripled from 65.5 million litres in 1999/2000 to over 200 million litres in 2005/6.17 In 2007, agricultural experts reported that a glyphosate-resistant version of Johnsongrass (Sorghum halapense) was infesting over 120,000 ha of the country’s prime cropland. Johnsongrass, an extremely damaging perennial, is a monocot weed that is considered one of the worst weeds in the world, and resistance to glyphosate will make it all the more harder to control. The emergence of glyphosate-resistant Johnsongrass is directly attributable to the huge increase in glyphosate use associated with near total dependence on Roundup Ready soybeans in Argentina.

The main recommendation to control resistant weeds is to use a cocktail of herbicides other than glyphosate, including more toxic weedkillers such as paraquat, diquat and triazine herbicides such as atrazine.18 It is estimated that an additional 25 million litres of herbicides will be needed each year to control resistant weeds, resulting in an increase in production costs of between $160 and $950 million per year.

source: Friends of the Earth report: "Who benefits from GM crops"

As Einstein rightly stated: " Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Pest resistance to GM Bt crops

Moreover, pests are also developing resistance to GM Bt crops, forcing farmers to use more insecticides.

Steve Connor, Science Editor of the UK based Independent newspaper write:

"An insect pest that is supposed to be killed by a type of genetically modified cotton crop with an in-built toxin gene has developed resistance and is beginning to spread in parts of the United States, a scientific study has found.

It is believed to be the first documented example in the wild of an insect pest becoming resistant to this particular type of GM crop, which was thought to be immune from the problems that have plagued conventional pesticides. The bollworm moth is one of the most destructive pests of cotton crops. The resistant form of the moth's caterpillar was found in a dozen fields in the southern states of Mississippi and Arkansas between 2003 and 2006, when the surveys were conducted.

The GM cotton was developed by inserting a gene into the plant that is normally found in a bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). The bacterial gene produces a protein toxin that is poisonous to certain insects, but normally harmless in other animals.

Bruce Tabashnik of the University of Arizona, who led the research team, said: "What we are seeing is evolution in action. This is the first documented case of field-evolved resistance to a Bt crop."

In the case of the GM cotton crop, the bollworm insect developed resistance because of the huge area of land in America and elsewhere where GM crops modified with Bt genes are now grown.This has generated one of the largest forces of natural selection for insect resistance that the world has ever known, according to the researchers, whose study will be published in the journal Nature Biotechnology.


Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/pest-evolves-resistance-to-gm-crops-779794.html

LATEST UPDATED NEWS (Decembre 2010)

Pests "thriving and reproducing" on Bt cotton fields in India and China

An article in the latest issue of the journal Current Science raises serious questions about the long-term viability of genetically-modified Bt cotton to actually do what it's intended to do, increase pest resistance. Scientists have found for the first time bollworms not only living and surviving on GM cotton, but having offspring that can complete their full lifecycle there.

Looking at two varieties of Bt cotton in commercial use, containing both single and double genes intended to be toxin to the bollworms, the scientists found that the pests were able to survive.

Report co-author Aralimarad Prabhuraj told Kolkata's The Telegraph:

"We saw virtually no differences between the biology of insect populations reared on the GM cotton and the non-GM cotton ... We have indeed seen a dramatic boost to India's cotton, but we had always anticipated that at some point in time, we'll encounter pests that can withstand the modified plants. No one knew when it would happen."

source: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/12/gm-cotton-fails-pests-thriving-when-they-should-be-dead.php

links to the scientific study:

Survival and reproduction of natural populations of Helicoverpa armigera on
Bt-cotton hybrids in Raichur, India


http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/10dec2010/1602.pdf

Bt cotton boosting pesticide use

GM WATCH, Tuesday, 16 February 2010

GM lobbyists have tried to paint Bt cotton in India as a massive success story that's cut insecticide use and boosted productivity. Now Keshav Kranthi, a leading Indian entomologist and acting director of India's Central Institute of Cotton Research (CICR)] has told the Indian government that the rapid adoption of GM cotton by farmers across the country has coincided with:

*the rise of hitherto unknown insect pests

*increased pesticide applications by farmers

*declining cotton productivity over the past three years


The picture of what's been happening in India emerging from the research of this pro-GM scientist, ties in with the findings of research in China (also undertaken by GM supporters) which showed that seven years after the commercialization of Bt cotton there, the expenditure on pesticides by Bt cotton farmers was more or less the same as for conventional (non-GM) growers, despite the extra expenditure the Bt farmers were making on GM seeds in order to reduce (supposedly) their need to spray.

In India the picture appears to be even worse with pesticide applications on Bt cotton significantly overtaking those on conventional cotton.

EXTRACT: Kranthi says 90 per cent of the current GM cotton hybrids appear susceptible to mealybugs and whiteflies. Insecticide use in cotton appears to have increased from Rs 640 crore [6,400,000 rupees] in 2006 to Rs 800 crore [8,000,000 rupees] in 2008, his report said.

http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11944:bt-cotton-boosting-pesticide-use

Scientific study by PRO-GMO scientists reveal exponential increase in secondary cotton pests pests and pesticide use/expenditure on Bt cotton fields in China
"Seven years after the initial commercialization of Bt cotton in China, we show that total pesticide expenditure for Bt cotton farmers in China is nearly equal to that of their conventional counterparts, about $101 per hectare. Bt farmers in 2004 on the average, have to spray pesticide 18.22 times, which are more than 3 times higher compared with 6 times pesticide spray in 1999.

Detailed information on pesticide expenditures reveals that, though Bt farmers saved 46% Bollworm pesticide relative to non-Bt farmers, they spend 40% more on pesticides designed to kill an emerging secondary pest. These secondary pests (one example is Mirid) was rarely found in the field prior to the adoption of Bt cotton, presumably kept in check by bollworm populations and regular pesticide spraying. The extra expenditure needed to control secondary pests nearly offsets the savings on primary pesticide frequently cited in the current literature


link to the study:

Tarnishing Silver Bullets: Bt Technology Adoption, Bounded Rationality and the Outbreak of Secondary Pest Infestations in China (Shenghui Wang, David Just, Jul-2006)

http://www.grain.org/btcotton/?id=374

http://www.grain.org/research_files/SWang_tarnished.pdf

Thus, it is crystal clear from both the scientifc and empirical evidence and conclusion from the above (independent) scientific reports that genetic “technology” applied in agriculture (GMO’s) can neither increase crop yields nor reduce pesticides usage, thus directly contradicting the fraudulent claims made by Monsanto and the other agrochemical & biotechnology companies, that GMO’s can “feed the world” by increasing crop yields and reducing pesticides usage, thus increasing both food production and farmers’ revenue while preserving the soil and environment from chemical pollution.

HUMAN HEALTH CONSEQUENCES OF GMO’s

"Let food be thy medicine and let thy medicine be thy food." Hippocrates

Monsanto's Round-Up-Ready herbicide “ causes birth defects, malformations, miscarriages, hormonal problems, reproductive problems, and different types of cancers.”

An (independent) scientific study written by an Argentine scientist earlier this year reports that glyphosate, patented by Monsanto under the name "Round Up "causes birth defects when applied in doses much lower than what is commonly used in soy fields.”

The study was directed by a leading embryologist, Dr. Andres Carrasco, a professor and researcher at the University of Buenos Aires.

The study reports that glyphosate causes birth defects. Frog embryos injected with glyphosate developed obvious defects which would compromise their ability to live in their normal habitats. The frog embryos grown in petri dishes in the photos looked like something from a futuristic horror film, creatures with visible defects—one eye the size of the head, spinal cord deformations, and kidneys that are not fully developed.

"We injected the amphibian embryo cells with glyphosate diluted to a concentration 1,500 times than what is used commercially and we allowed the amphibians to grow in strictly controlled conditions." "On the side where the contaminated cell was injected you can see defects in the eye and defects in the cartilage."
For the past 15 months, Dr. Carrasco's research team documented embryos' reactions to glyphosate. Embryological study is based on the premise that all vertebrate animals share a common design during the development stages. This accepted scientific premise means that the study indicates human embryonic cells exposed to glyphosate, even in low doses, would also suffer from defects.

"When a field is fumigated by an airplane, it's difficult to measure how much glysophate remains in the body," says Dr. Carrasco. "When you inject the embryonic cell with glysophate, you know exactly how much glysophate you are putting into the cell and you have a strict control."

Furthermore, one need not be a scientist to realize what effect eating herbicides-sprayed crops ( HT corn, soya, etc.) and insecticide producing food crops( bt crops that have genetically “engineered” to produce a toxin) will have on animal and human health…

Inhabitants living in proximity of GM soya fields in Argentina have reported that "We have had children born with only two thumbs and no fingers, malformed kidneys, children with six fingers. We have had babies born without an anus, or with malformations in the intestines."
Source: http://americas.irc-online.org/am/6254

Roundup/glyphosate is the top selling herbicide in the world and is widely used on soy crops in Argentina and other food crops (i.e. GM corn, soya, canola, cotton, etc.) in more than 160 countries & used for both livestock feed ( which are then eaten by humans...) and direct human consumption (note: almost all industrially-processed foods contains at least one or more of GMO ingredients.)

GM Soy: Sustainable? Responsible? - New report (2010)

"The cultivation of GM RR soy endangers human and animal health, increases herbicide use, damages the environment, reduces biodiversity, and has negative impacts on rural populations. The monopolistic control by agribusiness companies over GM RR soy technology and production endangers markets, compromises the economic viability of farming, and threatens food security."

A group of international scientists have recently ( sept 2010) released a report detailing health and environmental hazards from the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) Roundup Ready soy and the use of glyphosate (Roundup®) herbicide.

The report, GM Soy: Sustainable? Responsible?,[1] highlights new research by Argentine government scientist, Professor Andrés Carrasco,[2] which found that glyphosate causes malformations in frog and chicken embryos at doses far lower than those used in agricultural spraying.

The findings in the lab are compatible with malformations observed in humans exposed to glyphosate during pregnancy,” said Carrasco.

Carrasco, director of the Laboratory of Molecular Embryology, University of Buenos Aires Medical School and lead researcher of the National Council of Scientific and Technical Research (CONICET), Argentina, is a co-author of the new report. The report is released with testimonies of Argentine villagers whose lives have been radically disrupted by the cultivation of GM soy.[3]

In Argentina and Paraguay, doctors and residents living in GM soy producing areas have reported serious health effects from glyphosate spraying, including high rates of birth defects as well as infertility, stillbirths, miscarriages, and cancers. Scientific studies collected in the new report confirm links between exposure to glyphosate and premature births, miscarriages, cancer, and damage to DNA and reproductive organ cells.

Residents have also reported environmental damage from glyphosate, including damage to food crops and streams strewn with dead fish. These accounts are backed by studies in the report that show glyphosate is toxic to the environment.
Link to the full report:

http://www.gmwatch.eu/images/pdf/gmsoy_sust_respons_full_eng_v14.pdf

OTHER SCIENTIFIC & MEDICAL REPORTS CONFIRMING THE NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF GMO CONSUMPTION ON ANIMAL & HUMAN HEALTH

Monsanto's Round-Up-Ready herbicide causes cells to die in human embryo...
The study in Argentina is not the only research concluding that Monsanto’s Roundup and other herbicides containing glyphosate as their active ingredient is harmful to human health. Gilles-Eric Seralini, professor at the University of Caen and specialist in molecular biology, led a study that concluded the herbicides in the Round Up Ready package causes cells to die in human embryos.
"Even in doses diluted a thousand times, the herbicide could cause malformations, miscarriages, hormonal problems, reproductive problems, and different types of cancers," said Dr. Seralini

Below is the official press-release statement from the Committee for Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN) www.criigen.org

Press Release CRIIGEN - May 2007

Effects of the herbicide Roundup on human embryonic cells

Professor Séralini’s group (1), in the University of Caen, France, just published a study on the previously unknown toxic effects of Roundup on human embryonic cells.
Roundup is the major herbicide in use worldwide, including on GMOs for food and
feed. The embryonic cells are from a line cultivated in the laboratory and their use does not necessitate embryo destruction. The group wanted to confirm and detail the understanding of the effects already observed on placental cells, as published by Séralini’s group in 2005.

Following comparison, it appears that embryonic cells are far more sensitive. The
deleterious results of Roundup are noticed at very week doses (the product sold in stores is diluted up to 10,000 times). Sensitivity is confirmed in particular for the disruption of sexual hormones at non toxic levels, especially on fresh placental extracts. The maximal active dilutions correspond to less than the residues in discussion to be authorized in GMO feed in the United States.

It is evidenced that the herbicide Roundup, as sold on the market, is far more toxic than the product which is known and approved to be its active ingredient: glyphosate. The gaps in European legislation to study the effects of mixtures and hormonal disruptions are underlined.

This work may be of help in better understating the problems of miscarriages, premature births or sexual malformations of babies, in particular in agricultural workers families.

The paper published on line first (1) on the website of the journal « Archives of
Environmental Contamination and Toxicology » directed by Dr. Doerge from the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) in USA, will appear in the July 2007 issue.

Contact : Pr Gilles-Eric Séralini, Biochemistry, Institute of Biology, University of Caen,
Esplanade de la Paix, 14032 Caen, France. Telephone: 33(0)2-31-56-56-84. Fax: 33(0)2-31-56-53-20. Corinne Lepage President of CRIIGEN. E-mail: criigen@unicaen.fr.

(1) Time and Dose-Dependent Effects of Roundup on Human Embryonic and Placental Cells
by Nora Benachour, Herbert Sipahutar, Safa Moslemi, Céline Gasnier, Carine Travert, Gilles-Eric Séralini.

(http://www.springerlink.com/content/d13171q7k863l446/fulltext.html)

The complete report can be downloaded at the following link:

http://www.criigen.org/content/view/185/85/

MONSANTO'S GM CORN LINKED TO ORGAN DAMAGE, reveals scientific study

In what is being described as the first ever and most comprehensive study of the effects of genetically modified foods on mammalian health, researchers have linked organ damage with consumption of Monsanto’s GM maize.

Three varieties of Monsanto’s GM corn – Mon 863, insecticide-producing Mon 810, and Roundup® herbicide-absorbing NK 603 – were approved for consumption by US, European and several other national food safety authorities. The data used for this approval, ironically, is the same data that independent researchers studied to make the organ damage link.

The Committee of Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN) and Universities of Caen and Rouen obtained Monsanto’s confidential raw data of its 2002 feeding trials on rats after a European court made it public in 2005.

The data “clearly underlines adverse impacts on kidneys and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, as well as different levels of damages to heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system,” reported Gilles-Eric Séralini, a molecular biologist at the University of Caen.

Although different levels of adverse impact on vital organs were noticed between the three GMOs, the 2009 research shows specific effects associated with consumption of each, differentiated by sex and dose.

Their December 2009 study appears in the International Journal of Biological Sciences (IJBS). This latest study conforms with a 2007 analysis by CRIIGEN on Mon 863, published in Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, using the same data.

link to the study: http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm#headingA11

The American Academy of Environmental Medicine warns of adverse health effect of GM foods on human health

Furthermore, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) has recently issued and published an alarming statement which states that there is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects.

The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies.” Specificity of the association of GM foods and specific disease processes is also supported. Also, because of the mounting data, it is biologically plausible for Genetically Modified Foods to cause adverse health effects in humans.

Excerpts from the AAEM statement:

Safety assessment of GM foods has been based on the idea of "substantial equivalence" such that "if a new food is found to be substantially equivalent in composition and nutritional characteristics to an existing food, it can be regarded as safe as the conventional food."

However, several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signaling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system.”

There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation as defined by Hill's Criteria in the areas of strength of association, consistency, specificity, biological gradient, and biological plausibility. The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies.

Specificity of the association of GM foods and specific disease processes is also supported. Multiple animal studies show significant immune dysregulation, including upregulation of cytokines associated with asthma, allergy, and inflammation. Animal studies also show altered structure and function of the liver, including altered lipid and carbohydrate metabolism as well as cellular changes that could lead to accelerated aging and possibly lead to the accumulation of reactive oxygen species (ROS. Changes in the kidney, pancreas and spleen have also been documented.
A recent 2008 study links GM corn with infertility, showing a significant decrease in offspring over time and significantly lower litter weight in mice fed GM corn. This study also found that over 400 genes were found to be expressed differently in the mice fed GM corn. These are genes known to control protein synthesis and modification, cell signaling, cholesterol synthesis, and insulin regulation. Studies also show intestinal damage in animals fed GM foods, including proliferative cell growth and disruption of the intestinal immune system."

Precautionary Principle

" Therefore, because GM foods pose a serious health risk in the areas of toxicology, allergy and immune function, reproductive health, and metabolic, physiologic and genetic health and are without benefit, the AAEM believes that it is imperative to adopt the precautionary principle, which is one of the main regulatory tools of the European Union environmental and health policy and serves as a foundation for several international agreements. The most commonly used definition is from the 1992 Rio Declaration that states: "In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation."

Another often used definition originated from an environmental meeting in the United States in 1998 stating: "When an activity raises threats to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken, even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context, the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof (of the safety of the activity)."

With the precautionary principle in mind, because GM foods have not been properly tested for human consumption, and because there is ample evidence of probable harm, the AAEM asks:

Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks.

Physicians to consider the possible role of GM foods in the disease processes of the patients they treat and to document any changes in patient health when changing from GM food to non-GM food.

Our members, the medical community, and the independent scientific community to gather case studies potentially related to GM food consumption and health effects, begin epidemiological research to investigate the role of GM foods on human health, and conduct safe methods of determining the effect of GM foods on human health.

For a moratorium on GM food, implementation of immediate long term independent safety testing, and labeling of GM foods, which is necessary for the health and safety of consumers.
(This statement was reviewed and approved by the Executive Committee of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine on May 8, 2009.)

Submitted by Amy Dean, D.O. and Jennifer Armstrong, M.D.

Complete/official statement available at:

http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html

And the Truth Shall...get you fired!

The first ever (independent) scientific study to look into the effects of GMO food consumption on human health was conducted by the world's leading lectins and plant genetic modification expert, UK-based Arpad Pusztai from the prestigious Scotland's Rowett Research Institute.

Arpad Pusztai - the world's foremost expert in the field - became alarmed by his findings, and was subsequently vilified and fired from his research position at Scotland's Rowett Research Institute for publishing "industry-unfriendly" data ( i.e the Truth) he was commissioned to produce on the safety of GMO foods. His results were startling and considered the implications for humans eating genetically engineered foods.

Rats fed GMO potatoes had smaller livers, hearts, testicles and brains, damaged immune systems, and showed structural changes in their white blood cells making them more vulnerable to infection and disease compared to other rats fed non-GMO potatoes. It got worse. Thymus and spleen damage showed up; enlarged tissues, including the pancreas and intestines; and there were cases of liver atrophy as well as significant proliferation of stomach and intestines cells that could be a sign of greater future risk of cancer. Equally alarming - this all happened after 10 days of testing, and the changes persisted after 110 days that's the human equivalent of 10 years.

Safety of meat, dairy products and eggs from GM-fed livestock

Jeffrey Smith, Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology makes the following observations in an article written in the Huffington post on the observed detrimental health effects of GM foods on animals and humans.

Dairy cows are usually fed GM feed and sometimes injected with GM bovine growth hormone. Although no studies have looked at the impact of eating meat or milk from GM-fed animals, secret FDA documents(1) made public from a lawsuit revealed that their Center for Veterinary Medicine was very concerned that toxins from GM foods might bioaccumulate in the livestock. If so, their milk and meat may be even more dangerous than the GM plants.

(1) http://biointegrity.org/FDAdocs/08/OGG1V.GIF

Studies on the impact of bovine growth hormone on the cows' milk are less ambiguous.(2) The dairy products from treated cows contain higher amounts of puss, antibiotics, bovine growth hormone, and insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1). The last on the list is considered most dangerous. IGF-1 is linked to a much higher risk of cancer, and according to one study, may also be responsible for the high rates of fraternal twins born in the US.

2)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/governor-sebelius-must-ve_b_183838.html

Digestive disorders
According to GMO safety expert Arpad Pusztai, PhD, the digestive tract is the first and largest point of contact with GM foods and can reveal reactions to various toxins. Lab animals fed GM feed developed lesions in the stomach, damage intestines, and abnormal and proliferative cell growth in the walls of the stomach and intestines.

Toxic intestinal bacteria

The beneficial bacteria living inside our digestive tract is used for digestion and immunity. Excessive herbicide residues on herbicide-tolerant GM crops may kill beneficial gut flora. More importantly, the only published human feeding experiment revealed that the genetic material inserted into GM soy transfers into bacteria living inside our intestines and continues to function. This means that long after we stop eating GM foods, we may still have dangerous GM proteins continuously produced inside us. Consider, for example, if the gene that creates Bt-toxin in GM corn were also to transfer. It might turn our intestinal bacteria into living pesticide factories.

FDA scientists were also quite concerned about the possibility of inserted genes spontaneously transferring into the DNA of bacteria inside our digestive tract. Although the biotech industry confidently asserted that gene transfer from GM foods was not possible, the only human feeding study on GM foods later proved that it does take place. The genetic material in soybeans that make them herbicide tolerant transferred into the DNA of human gut bacteria and continued to function. That means that long after we stop eating a GM crop, its foreign GM proteins may be produced inside our intestines. It is also possible that the foreign genes might end up inside our own DNA, within the cells of our own organs and tissues.

Compromised immune system
Virtually every animal feeding study that looked for immune changes from GMOs found them. GM-fed animals had a sluggish immune responses, damaged organs associated with immunity, altered parameters in the blood, and dangerous inflammatory and immune reactions.
Allergies

No tests can guarantee that a GMO will not cause allergies. Although the World Health Organization recommends a screening protocol, GM soy and corn fail those tests--because their GM proteins have properties of known allergens.

It is noteworthy that children with autism are often allergic to corn and soy. Both are genetically engineered. Many are also allergic to dairy.

Soon after GM soy was introduced in the UK, soy allergies skyrocketed by 50 percent. A skin prick allergy test verified that some people react to GM soy, but not to natural soy. GM soy contains as much as 7-times the amount of a known soy allergen. Both GM soy and corn contain at least one new unexpected allergen, not found in natural crops.

The biotech industry claims that Bt-toxin is harmless to humans and mammals because the natural bacteria version has been used as a spray by farmers for years. In reality, hundreds of people exposed to natural Bt spray had allergic and flu-like symptoms. Now, farm workers throughout India are getting those same symptoms from handling Bt cotton. Likewise, mice fed natural Bt had powerful immune responses; now mice and rats fed Bt corn also show immune responses.

GMOs may make you allergic to non-GM foods

Since GMOs were introduced in the US, food allergies have become a huge problem, especially for kids. Some of the foods that trigger reactions, however, are not genetically engineered. But studies show how GM foods might create sensitivity to other foods, and may in fact be contributing to this national epidemic.

GM soy, for example, drastically reduces digestive enzymes in mice. If our ability to breakdown proteins was impaired, we could become allergic to a wide variety of foods.

Mice fed Bt-toxin not only reacted to the Bt itself, they started having immune reactions to foods that were formerly harmless. The Bt-toxin in the corn we eat may have a similar impact. Mice fed experimental GM peas also started reacting to a range of other "safe" foods. The allergen responsible for this reaction may be found in GM foods on our supermarket shelves.

GMOs and liver problems
The liver is a primary detoxifier. Its condition can indicate if there are toxins in our food. Mice and rats fed GM feed had profound changes in their livers. In some cases, livers were smaller and partially atrophied. Some were significantly heavier, possibly inflamed. And certain cellular changes indicated a toxic insult from the GM diet.

Reproductive problems and infant mortality
Both male and female animals showed horrific problems when fed GM soy. More than half the babies of mother rats fed GM soy died within three weeks, compared to 10 percent of the non-GM soy controls. The GM babies were also considerably smaller, and were unable to conceive in a subsequent study. Male rats and mice fed GM soy had changed testicles, including altered young sperm cells in the mice. And when both mouse parents ate GM soy, the DNA of their embryos functioned differently. GM corn also had an impact. The longer mice were fed the corn, the fewer babies they had and the smaller their babies were.
Livestock sterility, disease, and death
Many of the problems seen in laboratories are also reported by farmers and investigators in the field. Thousands of sheep, buffalo, and goats in India died after grazing on Bt cotton plants after harvest. Others suffered poor health and serious reproductive problems.

Farmers in Europe and Asia say that cows, water buffaloes, chickens, and horses died from eating Bt corn varieties. About two dozen US farmers report that GM corn varieties caused widespread sterility in pigs or cows.


source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/lymeautism-group-blasts-g_b_268580.html

In June, a report published by the US-based Institute for Responsible Technology drew together the findings from more than 100 research papers. Entitled "State-of-the-Science on the Health Risks of GM Foods," it described the conflict of interest among regulators that allowed GM foods on the market; the wide range of adverse findings from animal feeding studies such as higher death rates, organ damage, reproductive failures, and infant mortality; reports by farmers of thousands of sick, sterile, and dead livestock; toxic and allergic properties of GM foods; numerous scientific assumptions used as the basis for safety claims that have since proven false; inadequate regulatory oversight; biased industry safety studies; manipulation of public opinion; and the mistreatment of scientists critical of the technology. In sharp contrast to the claims of those who disingenuously allege that there is a scientific consensus in favour of GM crops, the report’s contents prove that there are in fact a large number of research scientists who have serious concerns regarding the safety of these products.

GENETIC ENGINEERING PROCESS FLAWED & DANGEROUS

Furthermore, Jeffrey Smith states that in addition to the detrimental health effects of GM foods consumption for humans & animals, the process of genetic engineering itself creates unpredicted alterations, irrespective of which gene is transferred. The gene insertion process, for example, is accomplished by either shooting genes from a “gene gun” into a plate of cells, or using bacteria to infect the cell with foreign DNA. Both create mutations in and around the insertion site and elsewhere.11 The “transformed” cell is then cloned into a plant through a process called tissue culture, which results in additional hundreds or thousands of mutations throughout the plants’ genome. In the end, the GM plant’s DNA can be a staggering 2‐4% different from its natural parent.12 Native genes can be mutated, deleted, or permanently turned on or off. In addition, the insertion process causes holistic and not‐well‐understood changes among large numbers of native genes. One study revealed that up to 5% of the natural genes altered their levels of protein expression as a result of a single insertion.

The Royal Society of Canada acknowledged that “the default prediction” for GM crops would include “a range of collateral changes in expression of other genes, changes in the pattern of proteins produced and/or changes in metabolic activities.”13 Although the FDA scientists evaluating GMOs in 1992 were unaware of the extent to which GM DNA is damaged or changed, they too described the potential consequences. They reported, “The possibility of unexpected, accidental changes in genetically engineered plants” might produce “unexpected high concentrations of plant toxicants.”14 GM crops, they said, might have “increased levels of known naturally occurring toxins,” and the “appearance of new, not previously identified” toxins.15 The same mechanism can also produce allergens, carcinogens, or substances that inhibit assimilation of nutrients.

The complete report can be downloaded & read at the following link:( highly recommended)

http://www.seedsofdeception.com/DocumentFiles/145.pdf

Similarly, in an article published in the New York Times in july 2007 titled "Change to gene theory raises new challenges for biotech", Denise Caruso writes:

"The $73.5 billion global biotech business may soon have to grapple with a discovery that calls into question the scientific principles on which it was founded.

Last month, a consortium of scientists published findings that challenge the traditional view of the way genes function. The exhaustive, four-year effort was organized by the United States National Human Genome Research Institute and carried out by 35 groups from 80 organizations around the world. To their surprise, researchers found that the human genome might not be a "tidy collection of independent genes" after all, with each sequence of DNA linked to a single function, like a predisposition to diabetes or heart disease.

Instead, genes appear to operate in a complex network, and interact and overlap with one another and with other components in ways not yet fully understood. According to the institute, these findings will challenge scientists "to rethink some long-held views about what genes are and what they do."

Biologists have recorded these network effects for many years in other organisms. But in the world of science, discoveries often do not become part of mainstream thought until they are linked to humans.

With that link now in place, the report is likely to have repercussions far beyond the laboratory. The presumption that genes operate independently has been institutionalized since 1976, when the first biotech company was founded. In fact, it is the economic and regulatory foundation on which the entire biotechnology industry is built.

The principle that gave rise to the biotech industry promised benefits that were equally compelling. Known as the Central Dogma of molecular biology, it stated that each gene in living organisms, from humans to bacteria, carries the information needed to construct one protein. The scientists who invented recombinant DNA in 1973 built their innovation on this mechanistic, "one gene, one protein" principle.
Because donor genes could be associated with specific functions, with discrete properties and clear boundaries, scientists then believed that a gene from any organism could fit neatly and predictably into a larger design - one that products and companies could be built around, and that could be protected by intellectual-property laws.

This presumption, now disputed, is what one molecular biologist calls "the industrial gene."

source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/03/business/worldbusiness/03iht-biotech.4.6471136.html?_r=1

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF GMO’S

Monsanto’s Roundup: “Biodegrable & Environmentally friendly…?
Supreme Court of France finds Monsanto guilty of fraud.
Monsanto fraudulently claimed that its herbicide (Roundup) was “biodegrable” and it “left the soil clean…”

However, the Supreme Court of France has ruled that Monsanto had lied about the safety of its best-selling weed-killer, Roundup. The court confirmed an earlier judgment in 2009 that Monsanto had falsely advertised its herbicide as "biodegradable" and claimed it "left the soil clean."

French environmental groups had brought the case in 2001 on the basis that glyphosate, Roundup's main ingredient, is classed as "dangerous for the environment" by the European Union.

In the latest ruling, France's Supreme Court upheld two earlier convictions against Monsanto by the Lyon criminal court in 2007, and the Lyon court of appeal in 2008, the AFP news agency reports.

Genetic pollution & environmental destruction

Superweeds

Since 2004, “super weeds” (pigweed, horse weed, ragweed, etc. ) have developed a resistance to glyphosate/Roundup and have rapidly spread across Sun Belt states and other grain basket states of the US (Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky and Missouri).

Today, 100,000 acres in Georgia are severely infested with pigweed and 29 counties have now confirmed resistance to glyphosate, according to weed specialist Stanley Culpepper from the University of Georgia. In 2007, 10,000 acres of land were abandoned in Macon country, the epicenter of the super weed explosion, North Carolina State University’s Alan York told local media.

Pesticides treadmill…

Over time, weeds develop resistance to herbicides, explains Javier Souza Casadinho, professor at the University of Buenos Aires and regional coordinator of the Latin American Action Network for Alternative Pesticides. "Producers must use more applications, and in higher doses with higher toxicity—the application has gone from three liters in 1999 to the current dose of 12 liters, per hectare," says Souza.

According to the UK-based Soil Association, which campaigns for and certifies organic food, Monsanto was well aware of the risk of super weeds as early as 2001 and took out a patent on mixtures of glyphosate and herbicide targeting glyphosate-resistant weeds.

“The patent will enable the company to profit from a problem that its products had created in the first place,” says a 2002 Soil Association report.

Monsanto’s technical development manager, Rick Cole, said he believed super weeds were manageable. “The problem of weeds that have developed a resistance to Roundup crops is real and [Monsanto] doesn’t deny that, however the problem is manageable,” he said.

“Solution” offered by Monsanto: Use more toxic pesticides…
Indeed, according to Monsanto press releases, company sales representatives are encouraging farmers to mix glyphosate and older herbicides such as 2,4-D, a herbicide which was banned in Sweden, Denmark and Norway over its links to cancer, reproductive harm and mental impairment to combat weeds resistance to glyphosate, the main active ingredient in Roundup. 2,4-D is also well-known for being a component of Agent Orange, a toxic herbicide which was used in chemical warfare in Vietnam in the 1960s.

As Einstein rightly said:

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"

It is clear that the widespread and growing weed-resistance to Roundup seriously threatens food security in both the US and around the world (US is the largest exporter of grain). Moreover the “solution” offered by Monsanto to combat weed-resistance to Roundup ( using more toxic pesticides) further pollutes and endangers both the environment & the entire ecosystem as well as human health, thus directly contradicting Monsanto’s official stated objective mission to“ feed the world" with abundant, healthy & nutrutious food while preserving the environment...

GMO’S EFFECT ON THE SOIL
Bt cotton kills the soil as well as farmers…
Over 200,000 cotton farmers have committed suicide in India since 2003 as a result of planting Monsanto's GM Bt cotton. Monsanto's false promises and fraudulent claims of higher yields, lower insecticide use and costs and higher revenue never materialized; instead, farmers were debt-trapped, lost their lands and committed suicide out of desperation...

Bt cotton kills the soil...
A recent scientific study carried out by Navdanya, compared the soil of fields where Bt-cotton had been planted for 3 years with adjoining fields with non GMO cotton or other crops. The region covered included Nagpur, Amravati and Wardha of Vidharbha which accounts for highest GMO cotton planting in India, and the highest rate of farmers suicides (4000 per year).

In 3 years, the study found that Bt-cotton has reduced the population of Actinomycetes by 17%. Actinomycetes are vital for breaking down cellulose and creating humus. Bacteria were reduced by 14%. The total microbial biomass was reduced by 8.9%.

Vital soil beneficial enzymes which make nutrients available to plants have also been drastically reduced. Acid Phosphatase which contributes to uptake of phosphates was reduced by 26.6%. Nitrogenase enzymes which help fix nitrogen were reduced by 22.6%.

At this rate, in a decade of planting with GM cotton, or any GM crop with Bt genes in it, could lead to total destruction of soil organisms, leaving dead soil unable to produce food, concludes the report..
How does Monsanto plan to "feed the world" by killing farmers and the soil...?

The ISAAA in its recent release has stated that there are 7.6 mha of Bt-cotton in India. This means 7.6 mha of dying soils.


The impact of GMO’s on soil organisms is not commonly studied. This is a vital lacunae because Bt toxin crops such as Mon 810 corn or Bt-cotton or Bt Brinjal have serious impact on beneficial soil organisms.

The Navdanya study the first that has looked at the long term impact of Bt cotton on soil organisms is a wake up to regulators worldwide. It also shows that the claims of the Biotechnology industry about the safety of GM crops are false.

To obtain a copy of the report, please contact -

Navdanya A-60, Hauz Khas New Delhi - 110 016
Phone : 91-11-26535422 / 26532124
Email : vandana@vandanashiva.com Website : www.navdanya.org

Chemical pollution & deforestation

As we have seen above, Monsanto fraudulently claimed that genetic engineering will preserve the environment by decreasing the amount of pesticides used in GMO agriculture. Scientific evidence provided above clearly contradicts and debunks this fraudulent claim.

Furthermore, millions of hectares of forests and other natural landscapes are being savagely and irreversibly destroyed at an alarming rate every day around the world to plant Genetically modified crops to feed cattle and other livestock for consumption in affluent countries and for agrofuel production.

"Soy cultivation has already resulted in the deforestation of 21 million hectares of forests in Brazil, 14 million hectares in Argentina, two million hectares in Paraguay and 600,000 hectares in Bolivia.

Since 1995, total land dedicated to soybean production in Brazil has increased 3.2 percent per year (320,000 hectares per year). Soybean—along with sugar cane—currently occupies the largest area of any crop in Brazil at 21 percent of the total cultivated land. The total land used for soybean cultivation has increased by a
factor of 57 since 1961, and the volume of production has multiplied 138 times. Fifty-five percent of the soy crop, or 11.4 million hectares, is genetically modified. In Paraguay, soybeans occupy more than 25 percent of all agricultural land. Extensive land clearing has accompanied this expansion; for example; much of Paraguay’s Atlantic forest has been cleared, in part for the soy
production that comprises 29% of the country’s agricultural land use."1


1. source: Agrofuels in the Americas, Edited by Richard Jonasse, PhD.
Copyright © 2009 Institute for Food and Development Policy.

Thus, GMO’s are directly & irreversibly destroying the environment and killing the soil – through chemical pollution, deforestation, etc - contrary to the fraudulent claims made by Monsanto and other biotech companies that GMO’s help preserve the environment.

Social consequences

Moreover, small holders’ farmers are often driven off their lands by biotech companies, thereby worsening global hunger and poverty.

As Marie Trigona writes:

Research shows that the mostly rural communities that suffer the negative health effects of fumigations have not benefited from the soy explosion. On the contrary, in most regions families have been pushed off land taken over by soy farming, leading to a loss of livelihood in addition to the severe health risks. According to a 2002 agricultural census, in four years more than 200,000 families were driven from their traditional farms, and most of the families relocated in working class belts outside of major cities.

So on the one hand Monsanto claims to be on a philantrophic mission to "fight global hunger & poverty", and on the other it drives off poor subsistance farmers off their farmland to produce GM crops for livestock feed and for agrofuel production...?

Source: http://americas.irc-online.org/am/6254

Genetic contamination

Worse, GMO seeds will INEVITABLY and IRREVERSIBLY contaminate and destroy all traditional (non-GMO) seeds worldwide through genetic contamination. This is THE most serious economic, social, human and environmental threat and hazards that GMO’s pose to the future survival of human civilization. Over time all non-GMO seeds will be contaminated, sterilised and patented leaving the entire world exclusively and dangerously dependent on Monsanto and a handful of other biotech companies to buy their GM patented seeds, and thus...to eat & to live!

Terminator Technology
Worse yet, Monsanto’s macabre “Terminator Technology” will sterilise all contaminated seeds thereby making farmers and the entire world entirely and dangerously dependant on Monsanto and a handful of biotech companies to eat and thus to live...
As Dr. Mercola writes:

"Perhaps their biggest assault to your food supply is what’s known as Terminator Technology. These are seeds that have been genetically modified to “self-destruct.” In other words, the seeds (and the forthcoming crops) are sterile, which means farmers must buy them again each year.

The implications that terminator seeds could have on the world’s food supply are disastrous: the traits from genetically engineered crops can get passed on to other crops. Once the terminator seeds are released into a region, the trait of seed sterility could be passed to other non-genetically-engineered crops, making most or all of the seeds in the region sterile. If allowed to continue, every farmer in the world could come to rely on Monsanto for their seed supply!"

source: http://www.foodconsumer.org/newsite/Politics/Politics/france_finds_monsanto_guilty_of_lying_211120090805.html

How does Monsanto plans to "feed the world" and to "fight global hunger & poverty" by killing the farmers and the soil and sterilising and patenting all traditional seeds..?

It becomes crystal clear from the above scientific and empirical evidence that the true objectives and agenda of Monsanto and the biotech industry are NOT to “feed the world…” and to " fight global hunger and poverty".

The root causes of poverty and hunger
Hunger - the worst form of violence - is a direct result of unfair global trading rules and exploitative economic practices and suicidal economic policies imposed on Africa by the IMF, the World Bank and the World Trade Organisation, blindly followed by so-called african "leaders" and governements which result in abject human poverty and hunger.

There is more than sufficient food to feed everyone in Africa and around the world. The problem lies in its inequitable distribution and in the lack of financial resources required to purchase it by the vast majority of the human population.
Thus, simply increasing food production without addressing the root economic, political and structural causes of poverty and hunger and without distributional justice will NOT resolve hunger poverty and hunger in Africa and in the world.
As Mahatma Gandhi rightly stated:

"There is enough food in the world to satisfy everyone's needs but not everyone's greed."

THE REAL (hidden) GEOPOLITICAL OBJECTIVES and AGENDA OF THE US ADMINISTRATION AND THE BIOTECH COMPANIES
CONTROL OIL AND YOU CONTROL NATIONS
CONTROL FOOD AND YOU CONTROL PEOPLE

Henry Kissinger, Secretary of State under Nixon ( and Nobel Peace Price laureate!)

Of course, the REAL (hidden) objectives and agenda of the US, Monsanto and the biotech industry are are NOT to "fight global hunger & poverty and feed the world"...

On the contrary...

Food used as a weapon

In fact, GMO’s are used as a “weapon” and a Trojan horse by the US and the biotech industry to serve their own economic & financial interests and achieve their (hidden) geopolitical agenda.

(Hidden) geopolitical objectives:

GMO's: Trojan Horse...

1) Total control over the supply of seeds/food worldwide

The first (hidden) geopolitical objective and agenda of the US and the biotech companies is to take total control over the global supply of seeds/food through the following mechanisms:

a)INEVITABLE & IRREVERSIBLE GENETIC CONTAMINATION of traditional seeds in Africa & worldwide

b)STERILISATION of contaminated seeds by using their macabre "Terminator Technology" which renders contaminated seeds sterile

c) PATENTING of contaminated and GMO seed - enforced through (so-called) "intellectual property" laws by the WTO.

2) Energy independence from oil

- Production of biofuels using patented GMO "food" crops on vast industrial plantations in Africa and other so-called " Third World" countries around the world.

In fact, GMO's will be used to produce agrofuels, industrial and pharmaceutical raw materials, livestock feed, etc. on vast seized tracks of land in Africa and in other so-called Third World countries for consumption in affluent countries and NOT food to " feed the hungry in Africa" or to " fight global hunger and poverty."

3) Eugenism and depopulation:
Total global control over the supply of seeds and thus of food will be used as a "weapon" for the massive reduction (genocide) of the world population and of so-called "inferior" races in so-called "overpopulated" Third World countries through famine...

4) Take over & total control over mineral and other natural resources in Africa & "overpopulated Third World" countries

This in turn, will enable the US to secure its geopolitical interests over minerals and other natural ressources in so-called "overpopulated" Third World countries around the world.

THUS, GMO's will lead to the largest GLOBAL FAMINE in the history of human civilisation and the GENOCIDE of both humanity and the planet...

*Pls read Henry Kissinger’s National Security Study Memo 200 NSSM 200 - the official (declassified) US government national policy which clearly outlines these geopolitical and genocidal objectives (blueprint for the genocide of the human population)

Also read the following excellent book and articles that clearly expose the (hidden) geopolitical & genocidal agenda of the US & the biotech companies:

Seeds of Destruction - The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation, by F. William Engdahl, available at the following link: http://globalresearch.ca/books/SoD.html

In her review of Engdhal’s book, Arun Shrivastava writes:

“The central question that dominated the minds of the ruling clique was population reduction in resource rich countries but the question was how to engineer mass culling all over the world without generating powerful backlash as it was bound to happen. He traces how the field of Eugenics was renamed "genetics" to make it more acceptable and also to hide the real purpose.

When the US oil reserves peaked in 1972 and it became a net oil importer, the situation became alarming and the agenda took the centre stage. Kissinger, one of the key strategists of Nixon, nurtured by the Rockefellers, prepared what is known as National Security Study Memo (NSSM#200), in which he elaborated his plan for population reduction. In this Memo he specifically targets thirteen countries: Bangladesh, Brazil, Colombia, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Turkey, Thailand, and The Phillipines.

The weapon to be used was food; even if there was a famine food would be used to leverage population reduction. Kissinger is on record for stating, "Control oil, you control nations; control food and you control the people." How a small group of key people transformed the elitist philosophy, of controlling food to control people, into realistic operational possibility within a short time is the backdrop of Engdahl's book, the central theme running from the beginning till the end with the Rockefellers and Kissinger, among others, as the key dramatis personae.

Engdahl writes, "It was not surprising that the Pentagon's National Defense University, on the eve of the 2003 Iraq War, issued a paper declaring: 'Agribiz is to the United States what oil is to the Middle East.' Agribusiness had become a strategic weapon in the arsenal of the world's only superpower."

Engdahl provides hard evidences for these seeds of final destruction and utter decimation of world civilizations as we have known.”


The entire book review available at the following link:

Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation
Review of F. William Engdahl's book published by Global Research

by Arun Shrivastava

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9379

Moreover,Bill Gates, Rockfeller, Monsanto and the biotech companies are collecting and storing seeds from around the world in a giant underground seed vault they have built on an isolated island in the Arctic near the north pole...

To find out why, please read the following article by F. William Engdahl


"Doomsday Seed Vault" in the Arctic:
Bill Gates, Rockefeller and the GMO giants know something we don’t

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7529

It thus becomes crystal clear from all of the above scientific and empirical evidence that GMO’s will NOT "fight hunger and poverty in Africa" or "feed the world..." Rather, GMO's will lead to the greatest human, animal, economic, social and environmental GENOCIDE in the history of human civilization.
HOW TO AVOID THIS PLANNED & ORCHESTRATED GENOCIDE…?

“A chain is only as strong as its weakest link…”

What can we do individually & collectively to stop this GENOCIDE?

The solution is literally in your hands and in your wallet.

In fact, all we need to do is to stop purchasing and consuming foods that contains GMO’s. That includes almost all industrially processed foods, except for those that have a “GMO-FREE label on them. ( Not applicable in US because labeling of GMO foods is not required) (i.e. all products containing GM corn, soya, canola (oil, processed foods, etc.) GM fruits & vegetables, meat and other livestock fed with GM soya & corn and injected with GM growth hormones, dairy and other poultry produce such as milk, eggs, cheese, etc.

STOP buying & eating industrially processed foods

STOP buying & eating meat and other livestock - and their produce - which are all fed with GM soya and GM corn and injected with GM growth hormones.

STOP buying & eating GM & conventionally/industrially grown fruits & vegetables

BUY ONLY CERTIFIED ORGANIC FOOD DIRECTLY FROM LOCAL ORGANIC FARMERS IN YOUR AREA ( Build & support “Community Shared Agriculture” networks in your area)

GROW as much of your own food as possible, while you still "legally" can...( research Codex Alimentarius)

All we need to do individually and collectively is to stop purchasing and consuming GMO foods.

Then the whole system will collapse under its own weight...

PEACEFUL, NON-VIOLENT, NON-COOPERATION…

Truthfully,

Arya.

" In a time of universal deceit, telling the Truth is a revolutionary act." George Orwell