Welcome to the post that will probably get me labeled as paranoid and crazy!
I expect this post to get me criticized for being just another crazy right-winger spreading fear. (For the record, I’m not right or left wing). I also fully expect to loose subscribers over this post, so that should say something about how important I feel this information is.
So let’s start at the beginning. Anyone who reads this blog knows how strongly I feel about sustainable and environmentally-friendly ways of life. Anyone who reads this blog also knows how anti-Monsanto I am. I am doing everything I can in every way I know how to fight Monsanto, because Monsanto is destroying our environment (not to mention human health), quite possibly beyond repair.
Two weeks ago, I watched for the first time a YouTube video entitled “Agenda 21 for Dummies.” I dismissed it as craziness. Just another conspiracy theory. You can watch it here:
Do you want to know the main reason I dismissed it? Because the video claims that the U.N. is working with world governments to control the world for the purpose of forcing environmental sustainability. Apparently George H. W. Bush signed us onto Agenda 21 in 1992. So if Agenda 21 is all about saving the environment, why is the U.S. Government so obviously supportive of Monsanto? “Even if Agenda 21 is for real, we’re not going to have to worry about it for a good long time, because right now everyone is pushing further development of GMO ‘biotechnology,’ which is anything but environmentally friendly,” I thought.
One thing confused me though. In the video above, at 1:37, the “green goal” is referenced, in which is listed everything that will be done away with under the new world regime, things which Agenda 21 does not perceive to be “sustainable.” Included in this list are: commercial farms, herbicides, pesticides, irrigation, farmlands, pastures, and grazing of livestock. This list rules out both commercial agriculture (herbicides, pesticides, irrigation), and sustainable agriculture (farmlands, pastures, grazing of livestock). So how do they intend to feed everyone? It didn’t make sense, so I dismissed it.
I wish I could say that was the end of it, but Agenda 21 kept popping up on my radar.
Finally I decided I needed to research it for myself. Here’s what I learned:
“Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.”
(Straight From the United Nations Website)
Agenda 21 is the “agenda for the 21st century,” put together by the United Nations and signed by over 178 of the worlds’ governments.
The original draft was and still is soft law, which means it is completely voluntary. It is a plan for “sustainable development,” agreed upon and signed at the United Nations meeting of 1992. George H.W. Bush signed the United States on at this time, and was able to do so without approval from Congress because Agenda 21 is soft law. During this U.N. meeting, specific plans of implementation were agreed upon and put into effect. In 2002, at the World Summit for Sustainable Development, progress was monitored and evaluated. Further implementation was put into effect.
If you Google search Agenda 21, here’s what you will find:
Agenda 21 has infiltrated our entire culture, without our awareness. Public programs that have anything to do with sustainability are almost always part of Agenda 21, including the Reduce, Re-use, Recycle movement, the movement to Go Green, and the phraze “Think Globally, Act Locally.” Here are a few more things that are part of Agenda 21: smart growth, government-subsidized housing, bike boulevards, neighborhood summits, and neighborhood revitalization and stabilization projects.
The goal of Agenda 21 is to push farmers off their land, push people out of the country and into the city, push people out of privately owned-homes and into government-susidized housing, push people out of privately-owned cars and into public transportation or onto bikes, ect. The ultimate goal is to see the collapse of free market so that the wealth of developed countries can be distributed to developing countries. Also, to turn 50% of the world’s land mass into designated wilderness areas which will be untouched by human activity. These wilderness areas will be surrounded by buffer zones, and the remaining 25% of the land mass with be “human settlements,” where all the world’s population will be crammed into government housing, with quarters stacked for stories upon stories so as to use space responsibly.
All of this will be done under the guise of sustainability: to stop the destruction of the environment that is caused by free market, urban sprawl, waste, and consumerism in developed countries that value individual rights.
Crazy huh? Now can you see why I dismissed this at first?
I decided to read the actual Agenda 21 documents for myself.
Here’s what I found: The Agenda 21 documents lay out a detailed plan for the U.N., in cooperation with world governments, to be implemented globally, nationally, and locally. To be specific, the Agenda 21 documents lay out a very clear plan for government to slowly seize control of land, the water supply, energy, electricity, and all of the world’s resources, under the guise of making sure nothing goes to waste.
It’s all written as if the writers have the best interest of humans and the environment at heart, but humans under this plan would have no liberty and no rights other than basic rights such as food and shelter (hence the government-subsidized housing.) This is very obviously socialism/communism. I haven’t read the entire documents yet, and I can’t substantiate all the claims that can be found on the internet. I have seen references to “human settlements” and “designated wilderness areas,” but no details yet on how these things would be implemented. To read the documents for yourself, click here for Division for Sustainable Development Agenda 21 or here for the Draft International Covenant on Environment and Development.
Reading all of these things for myself was scary, I’ll be honest. On the one hand, I absolutely know that the environment cannot continue to sustain urban sprawl, consumerism, pollution from cars and materials used to build homes, and the waste of energy and resources by developed countries. That’s why I have been working literally around the clock on this blog, in the hopes of effecting change on the individual level. The last thing I want is for sustainability to be forced on everyone by the government. We have history to show us what happens when people are enslaved by the government. It’s hard to believe that something like this could happen again, here in Amercia, the Land of the Free.
When I went to read the documents I was hoping to have these fears put to rest – to see that as usual, things read on the internet had been exaggerated. Instead, I saw what is happening in the world right before my eyes carefully planned out in a 1992 document written by the U.N. Farmers ARE being pushed off their land. People ARE loosing their homes. Government-subsidized housing IS being built in certain areas. Small businesses have been closing for years, but now we have large businesses also closing their doors. Our free market has become very unstable. All of these things could just be coincidence, of course, and that’s what I kept telling myself. “After all…Monsanto,” I would remind myself. Monsanto is the exact opposite of sustainable farming. It’s a menace to environmental sustainability, and our government endorses it.
And that’s when it all came together in my mind.
What was that everyone was complaining about the week after elections when Prop 37 didn’t pass? “I don’t know how Monsanto can call themselves ‘sustainable agriculture!’” It was all over the internet. “Go look at Monsanto’s website! They have the nerve to call themselves sustainable agriculture!”
It dawned on me this morning and I decided to jump ahead in my reading. I scanned the Agenda 21 chapter titles, looking for something I desperately hoped I would not find. But find it I did: Agenda 21, Chapter 16: Environmentally Sound Management of Biotechnology.
Biotechnology.
Anyone who knows anything about Monsanto can back me up. Biotechnology is the word Monsanto uses to refer to their practices of genetic modification.
Here are some quotes from Monsanto’s website: (I’m not going to link to Monsanto’s website and increase their Google rankings. You can read these and other quotes at Monsanto.com)
“In the hands of farmers, better seeds can help meet the needs of today while preserving the planet for tomorrow.”
“But it’s important to note: the world doesn’t just need more food. It also needs better food that’s more nutritious. And it needs to find ways to make the process of growing food more efficient and aligned with our environmental needs, so farmers use less water and land, and better utilize things like fertilizer, herbicides and pesticides.”
“Right now, there is a big debate over how agriculture should work, and we understand why. Agriculture affects all of us, directly and indirectly. It affects us directly through the food we eat and it affects us indirectly through its relationship to the environment, the use of natural resources and the global economy. Even though farmers grow a lot more than food (such as cotton for clothes and corn and grass for fuel), we think it’s a good thing consumers are increasingly interested in understanding where their food comes from. It’s the first step to understanding how agricultural systems work, and what’s at stake.”
“Some people believe the correct answer to our challenges is to move backwards in time toward an agricultural system that relies less on human innovations and more on human labor. While we respect that opinion, we don’t share it. Agriculture has benefited from technology and the people who grow our food have sought new ways to improve their own lives—and ours—by producing more with less.”
Sound like Agenda 21 much? This could have come right out of Agenda 21 itself. Don’t believe me? Here are some quotes from Agenda 21, Chapter 16: Environmentally Sound Management of Biotechnology:
“Biotechnology is the integration of the new techniques emerging from modern biotechnology with the well-established approaches of traditional biotechnology. Biotechnology, an emerging knowledge-intensive field, is a set of enabling techniques for bringing about specific man-made changes in deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), or genetic material, in plants, animals and microbial systems, leading to useful products and technologies. By itself, biotechnology cannot resolve all the fundamental problems of environment and development, so expectations need to be tempered by realism. Nevertheless, it promises to make a significant contribution in enabling the development of, for example, better health care, enhanced food security through sustainable agriculture practices, improved supplies of potable water, more efficient industrial development processes for transforming raw materials, support for sustainable methods of afforestation and reforestation, and detoxification of hazardous wastes. ” [emphasis mine]
” To meet the growing consumption needs of the global population, the challenge is not only to increase food supply, but also to improve food distribution significantly while simultaneously developing more sustainable agricultural systems. Much of this increased productivity will need to take place in developing countries. It will require the successful and environmentally safe application of biotechnology in agriculture, in the environment and in human health care. ” [emphasis mine]
“The following objectives are proposed, keeping in mind the need to promote the use of appropriate safety measures based on programme area D:
(a) To increase to the optimum possible extent the yield of major crops, livestock, and aquaculture species, by using the combined resources of modern biotechnology and conventional plant/animal/micro-organism improvement, including the more diverse use of genetic material resources, both hybrid and original. 2/ Forest product yields should similarly be increased, to ensure the sustainable use of forests; 3/
(b) To reduce the need for volume increases of food, feed and raw materials by improving the nutritional value (composition) of the source crops, animals and micro-organisms, and to reduce post-harvest losses of plant and animal products;
(c) To increase the use of integrated pest, disease and crop management techniques to eliminate overdependence on agrochemicals, thereby encouraging environmentally sustainable agricultural practices…” [emphasis mine]
I bolded all the areas that are obvious references to GMOs. You can read the entire chapter here.
Monsanto and GMO “Biotechnology” is part of Agenda 21
Apparently the U.N.’s plan to save the environment includes “sustainable” GMO biotechnology. How can this be possible?
Because GMOs need less water and less nutrients. They yield far more result per acre than non-GMO crops. They don’t require use of pesticides and herbicides, because, well, they ARE their own pesticide. (One bite of GMO corn will kill pests.)* This is Agenda 21′s plan to feed the world without pesticides, herbicides, farmland, pastures, or grazing of livestock.
This is Agenda 21′s plan for sustainable development, for saving and reversing damage done to our environment, for preserving the world for future generations.
This is why our government is pushing GMOs, why elected officials have appionted former Monsanto-employees to prominent places in the FDA and ect. This is why it seems the powers that be are hell-bent on advancing GMO biotechnology. It’s all part of Agenda 21.
Agenda 21 is real, it is in effect, and it will not be voluntary forever.
Most people who are aware of Agenda 21 dismiss it as being voluntary and see no harm in it. What most people fail to realize is that Agenda 21 was written with full intentions of eventually being turned into a binding, legal document. From the Draft International Covenant on Environment and Development, page xix:
“The progression of legal principles from recommendatory “soft” to legally clear “hard” is well known in international law. For example, the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a “soft-law” instrument was the precursor to the two 1966 UN Covenants on Human Rights. Those treaties elaborated in legally-binding form the principles enunciated in “soft -law” form in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. For this reason, the proposed text on environment and development should be called a “Covenant”, as well as to signal the special importance of such a treaty. Also, the UN Secretary-General in 1990 proposed the same sequence (see above). Accordingly, with the Stockholm Declaration, the World Charter for Nature, and later the Rio Declaration behind them, the consensus within the IUCN Commission on Environmental Law was that a general framework treaty on the environment was the next step. Once the World Charter for Nature was adopted and solemnly proclaimed by the UN General Assembly in 1982, the CEL Working Group which had draft that instrument in 1975 perceived the necessity of exploring whether the World Charter for Nature should be followed by a “hard law” instrument. This idea was also taken up by the World Commission on Environment and Development (“Bruntland Commission”), which was established in 1983 along with an associated Experts Group on Environmental Law. The Experts Group recommended that the United Nations prepare a new and legally binding universal Convention on environmental protection and sustainable development. The World Commission itself in 1986 recommended the preparation of a Universal Declaration and a Convention on environmental protection and sustainable development. Then, in 1988, expressly taking into account the many “soft-law” instruments already existing, the IUCN General Assembly in San Jose, Costa Rica, expressed its formal support for CEL to continue what it had by then already begun, in preparing elements for an international convention on environmental protection and sustainable development.“ [emphasis mine]
I’ll tell you one thing. I am all for sustainable agriculture, but Agenda 21 and I have very different ideas of what defines “sustainable agriculture.” We need to fight Agenda 21 right now, while we still can!
What Can We Do?
1. Share this Information With Everyone You Know!
Share this post if you want to. I’ve made it easy to understand by explaining everything as clearly as I can, and using sources to back up what I’m saying, including links to the actual documents.
I’m sure there are others who have connected the dots between Monsanto and Agenda 21, but they are probably few and far between. Our greatest weapon right now is to spread information. People need to know what is going on. We still live in a free country and we cannot take for granted our ability to fight for a safe, free, and healthy life for our children. I thought we were going up against huge odds before when it was just Monsanto, but now I know that the odds are astronomical. PLEASE HELP ME SPREAD THE WORD!
2. Fight Agenda 21 at the Local Level!
I said it above and I’ll say it again: We still live in a free country. We have a choice as to whether or not Agenda 21 is adopted into our communities. Now, while it is still soft law and voluntary, we need to fight it! Pay attention to what is going on in your local elections, find out whether your community has adopted Agenda 21, and what their plan for implementation is.
3. Continue to Spread the Word About True Sustainable Living.
On the one hand, destruction of our environment and waste of our resources absolutely cannot continue. Taking away human freedom to force environmental sustainability is also not the answer. Especially because Monsanto is not sustainable agriculture.
What we need is people to choose, on their own, to live in environmentally responsible ways. We need to fight to keep our small farmers in business. True, old-fashioned sustainable farming will save our environment. Local farmers need our support now more than ever before, because they are going up against Monsanto and Agenda 21! We can support them with our money and votes. Let’s keep our small farmers in business. Together, we can do this but we need all of us! Help me spread the word!
* UPDATE: Several of my readers have pointed out that this statement is not true. This is what Monsanto would have us to believe. See the comments for more details and sources.
A while ago I read Eating and Healing by Andrea Pieroni, looking at cultural traditions of food. One thing that stood out was how people (in some African countries) coped with regularly occurring droughts: elders knew which plants were hardy enough to survive and were nutritious enough to ensure survival until growing conditions were better. They knew where these plants grew and when to harvest. Most disturbing was the observation that corporate farms that are an increasingly common feature of developing countries (foreign owned) devastate this vital drought food source by (1) barring people from going on their land, and (2) spraying of herbicides.
Local people must then rely on aid for food–paid to the corporations that own these farms by struggling governments. Not only is the food provided inferior nutritionally, people must travel great distances to obtain it. Add in the destruction of families caused by disease and warfare, tribal knowledge that can mean the difference in survival is increasingly lost and people are no longer self-reliant.
I share your fear that being alarmed by the bogeyman of corporate & government control of food is perceived as nutty. Everyone I know is ‘meh’ about this; maybe until it affects what they want to eat.
This is so sad to me…generations of sustainable farming and living are being destroyed in countries around the world. Wisdom is being lost, just like it was in Weston Price’s day. I’m glad I’m not the only one who cares about this!
This is one subscriber that you will not lose. I’m so excited to see this post in the health/wellness realm. Usually only see it in the political world. This is a very real problem. I live in Mississippi. After Hurricane Katrina, there has been a real push toward Agenda 21 goals during the rebuilding. Since our coastal areas were decimated, this was a prime opportunity. Luckily, we’ve had very educated citizens fighting back locally. This is a fight we all must take on. Our liberties and our lives depend on it. Get familiar with the Agenda 21 documents, the goals and methods, and watch locally for legislation that promote them. There has never been anything the government has tried to do “for us” that we couldn’t do better ourselves. Thank you for your post!
I am so glad that there are educated citizens fighting back in your area. I hope there are enough of us! Thanks for the encouragement!
Not a plug, and I don’t wish or need to sell anyone anything, but please take a read of my website, soilminerals.com. It is my answer to how we win, by growing the best food that has ever been grown.
Best-
Michael Astera
Thanks for sharing Michael. I like what you have to say and I’ve thought about this a lot recently. I agree that we could solve so many problems by replenishing the nutrients in our soil. How do we expect our food to have any nutrition if we continue to strip everything out of the soil? No wonder they are saying now that organic food is no different nutritionally than non-organic. The soil makes all the difference.
I have always known this was happening… thank you for giving it a name. A person is compassionate but can also be bought ALL people can. People as a whole are stupid sheep that believe ANYTHING they are told. So it is completely plausible that this is occurring under our noses. Media would NEVER let this leak they are paid way 2 well to keep their trap zipped. Keep on Keeping on my friend.
Thank you Cheryl!
Please consider editing your post, regarding the following comment: “Because GMOs need less water and less nutrients. They yield far more result per acre than non-GMO crops. “.
That is simply not true. GMOs do not ‘need’ less nutrients, they CONTAIN less nutrients! Roundup works by disturbing the trace mineral uptake of plants and leaving them vulnerable to naturally ocurring disease. Also, the drought resistance of GMO plants has been one-upped by traditional breeding time and again. I can find source articles if you are interested.
Other than that, great post, and I will have to look into this more.
Well said Alyssa. I just want to add a thank you to Melissa for writing this, as well as a suggestion to check out the Union of Concerned Scientists report “Failure to Yield”. It debunks the marketing hype about GMOs yielding more (they don’t). Also, all over the news there are reports about “super weeds” and “super bugs” that have evolved to be resistant to the Bt and Roundup–which is driving up herbicide use http://www.enveurope.com/content/24/1/24/abstract. Lastly, according to Dr Don Huber, GMO crops take TWICE the water as conventional crops to keep them from wilting!
Thank you Alyssa and Rosa- I’m so glad that what I wrote was wrong and that you pointed it out! Yes, I would love to see any sources you have so I can read more about it.
Watch the movie Genetic Roulette (geneticroulettemovie dot com), or read Seeds of Deception by Jeffrey Smith. Visit the Institute for Responsible Technology (responsibletechnology dot org) for more info on GMOs. GMOs do not increase yields, actually they are decreased. There have been over 250,000 (not a typo) suicides in India from cotton farmers due to GMOs not living up to their promises. Also, GMOs are very dangerous to human health. The “elite” eat organic, we should too. Google “Bill Gates Vaccine depopulation” for info on another way they are killing people. Scary times we live in.
Thank you Joy. This is great news to me (not the suicides of course -that is horrible). I would love nothing more than to see GMOs fail.
Agenda 21 is certainly real, but the documents are not entirely honest. The *unstated* goal, but one well known to the Elites, is to reduce the global population to under one billion. As rapidly as possible, by any means that can be arranged. This is why you’ll find everything about Agenda 21 acts to dis-empower individuals – because eventually people will come to understand what is being done to them, but the Elites hope by the time that happens the ordinary people will be completely unable to fight back.
There are many examples of highly placed people mentioning the population cull in public. Google ‘global cull’, if you think reading the published Agenda 21 documents was scary. ‘Desirable final population’ figures from 500 to 800 million are typical. Also unstated is that the ‘desired political power structure’ will consist of 500 to 800 million low-tech lifestyle serfs (slaves) and the same 0.001% of powerful Elite families as today.
Thank you for mentioning this Terra – this has come up quite a bit in my reading. We’ve got to beat them at their own game and fight back NOW! I have hope!
Incidentally, there’s a bug in your html reply code – type more than I did above, and the ‘post comment’ button scrolls down below the bar and becomes invisible and unreachable.
I also wanted to add, that to everyone involved in pushing Agenda 21 ‘sustainable’ means ‘under one billion population. The published details of Agenda 21 are simply steps towards that aim. Not an attempt to achieve a sustainable civilization of over seven billion on Earth. But of course it’s a little bit risky for them to advertise that detail.
Just in the last few days I’ve personally encountered a typical Agenda 21 mechanism for destroying productive small businesses in Australia. And not one of the people involved has any idea of why it’s happening. It’s very depressing.
http://nord.twu.net/acl/research/agenda21.html
http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/
http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=about
http://www.vlrc.org/articles/110.html
I have been studying this topic for years. It seems that people living in reasonable conditions are increasing by 3 IQ points every decade. As people are getting smarter it is getting harder and harder for the elite to continue their abusive practice of farming humanity, and they do. People are waking up more and more as to what the elite in our countries really are, slave traders. The elite want to drastically reduce the population to a more managable number and this is being implemented via Agenda 21/sustainable development, and climate change. Research shows that the damage that has occurred to this planet is mainly due to war, induced by the elite multi industrial war complex, so they can acquire other countries resources cheap, and by the criminal negligent environmental rape of these countries in the process of getting the resources out for the least money. If humanity does not wake up soon to the fact that many of the elite are psychopathic parasites it will be too late for us all. Sorry if that sounds paranoid but when you consider the affects of sodium flouride, GM foods, arial spraying, and vaccinations that are laced with formaldehyde, mercury, aluminium and MSG, none of which should ever be introduced into a human body, it becomes glaringly obvious that the elite are trying to drastically reduce humanities numbers, especially in the West. The cancer rates, and large increases in alzheimers, dementia and other diseases are increasing exponetially for these very reasons.
Well said.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LpBV0LGhGM&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Djgsg8pik20
9/11 was merely a false flag to give them reason to invade the middle ea, to gain access to resources and kill off more people with war, and to remove our rights with the Patriot Act in the US and the ASIO Act 2003 in Australia, both of which remove habeaus corpus (due process). The truth is we have no land rights and we have no habeaus corpus, which means we are under totalitarian rule. Wake up before it is too late. Spread the word.
MUST WATCH
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LpBV0LGhGM&NR=1
Sorry this would not fit in with the other video.
Thanks for your well researched post and I would just like to add, you haven’t lost but gained a new subscriber. I appreciate your input and your effort to look beyond the comfort zone and to touch upon areas that aren’t easy to deal with and might prompt much resistance and opposition. Much like you I support greener and healthier ways of living and action on small scale, I try to do my bit and I generally believe in the good versus the bad lurking at every corner. So naturally it was not easy for me to digest much of the information I have come to learn about in recent months, but I have realized that a change to the positive cannot come from focuing on teh positive only. This is only half of the story and won’t bring the desired results because ignoring something won’t make it disappear (this is how we got into this mess in the first place). I believe knowing the facts and pairing them with a positive vision and positive action is the most efficient way to transform things for the better. Keep up the good work! You might also be interested in this article I came across yesterday. It also ties in with the topic and some familiar names crop up again: http://www.globalresearch.ca/doomsday-seed-vault-in-the-arctic/23503
Thank you for the encouragement!
” I believe knowing the facts and pairing them with a positive vision and positive action is the most efficient way to transform things for the better. ”
YES! What you said!
I can certainly understand your concern after seeing all that. Here is some interesting information I came upon yesterday, though, that would appear to suggest that there is another large international force that DOES not equate sustainability with Biotech. Check out IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). They meet every 4 years with world government and NGO members to set the world’s environmental policy for the next 4 years –
http://www.iucnworldconservationcongress.org/member_s_assembly/
They appear to have a commanding presence around the world as well as the attention of world leaders. For one, here is Prince Charles of Wales giving the key note address at their recent world meeting –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZhep_8aCNQ&feature=share
In particular, he specifically mentioned the need to eliminate industrialized farming, and to return farm animals to the land; as well as the overall urgent and dire need to reunite Agriculture with Conservation! I was SHOCKED to see what a command he had of this issue and how committed he was to it. I truly believe if all the NGOs in the U.S. banned together and joined forces with this group — http://iucn.org/about/union/members/join/ — that we might actually have a fighting chance to overcome the Monsanto’s of the world, protect our children’s future, and restore sanity to this planet.
It’s been the first uplifting and encouraging piece of information I’ve read concerning this issue in a LONG time.
Thank you so much for sharing this. The IUCN is tied in with Agenda 21. As I understand it, they helped write it. So this is very encouraging. It’s hard to know the truth about everything that is going on sometimes. It’s good to know that there are good people in power as well. You’re right – we might have a fighting chance – I believe that!
Last one I promise
Your ideas about GMO foods are incorrect. GMO plants allow for the increased use of herbicides not a decrease. They are designed to be herbicide resistant. Consequently you get more toxins in the food chain. Also your idea that science has provided us ways to get more with less is incorrect. A wheat tassle from an non-hybridized plant produces just a few grains but each grain is highly nutritious. Hybridized wheat produces far more grains and so creates more income but the nutrition provided by the plant must now be divided among many more seeds. Consequently each seed is much less nutritious and more seeds must be consumed to get the same amount of nutrition. I could go on but in the interest of brevity….
Thank you EW Zuber. I’ve had some other people point this out as well. I’m glad that what I wrote was not correct. If GMOs are not “sustainable” (as in producing more with less) like we are led to believe, chances are they will not be able to keep it up long term. They will find sooner or later that it is no solution for feeding the world.
[...] My Post: Monsanto and Agenda 21: The Shocking Truth That is Hiding in Plain Sight. [...]
[...] Monsanto and Agenda 21: The Shocking Truth That is Hiding in Plain Sight [...]
… [Trackback]…
[...] Read More Infos here: unmistakablyfood.com/monsanto-and-agenda-21-the-truth-that-is-hiding-in-plain-sight/ [...]…
[...] Monsanto and Agenda 21: The Shocking Truth That is Hiding in Plain Sight (unmistakablyfood.com) [...]
I am a seed saver, have watched GMO’s come onto the market over decades, shocked that farmers would fall for Monsanto’s ploys. For everybody’s info, studies show that GMO crops yield LESS than conventional, as long as the grower uses proper growing and fertilizing methods. This has been shown over and over. All the claims are lies, cut and dried. And farmers go bankrupt because they can’t afford the seed that costs twice as much as conventional, and they can’t save their own seed because it’s GMO. That, plus the fear of neighbor farmers that they will be sued if rogue genes pollinate their fields! And current studies that PROVE that GMO’s and Roundup cause huge tumors in lab animals, when long-term studies are done. This is pitiful.
I can’t say I read the entire agenda 21 document. But I skimmed some sections. It seems to me to be consistent with most UN thinking on sustainable development, agriculture, forestry, etc. It openly and clearly identifies many of the issues we face… climate change, depleting resources, toxins, overpopulation, water shortages. The solutions and titles I read are consistent with alot of the thinking in the enviornmental community (generally speaking). I ran into nothing that suggested a top-down fascistic approach to outlawing private ownership or limiting family size by law.
The video you linked to at the start of your writing seemed to be full of people who deny the the problems we face when we turn to sustainable development. Rather they are railing against percieved threats to their individual “rights” to consume, own, pollute or do whatever they want.
I’m generally against using top-down solutions to sustainability that embrace one-solution-fits all approaches or rules that limit local democracy and problem-solving. On the other hand, if we are going to solve these issues.. we are going to have to be more cooperative, we’re going to have to more collectively face this issues together. Not communism… community. Not forced compliance… sharing.
I don’t think the best solutions will come from the top… but railing against the UN for promoting sustainable development seems rooted in too much conspiracy theory. I just don’t see it.
It may be that Agenda 21 mentions biotechnology as one avenue to feed a world population…. that does not mean it embraces all genetic manipulation or does not mix some GMO use with local organic techniques. I’ll totally agree that Monsanto and most GMO techniques are not good for agriculture, people or the planet, but until you pull out line and verse from the document showing where Agenda 21 steals our rights for big govt. and big corporations, and promotes wide-ranging GMO use, I would be skeptical of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
By that I mean sustainable development, done right, is good for people and the planet.
I did read the book agenda 21 out of the un, to put it bluntly it means nothing, all their ideas and terms are ambiguous at best and not really clear at best. it really didn’t tell me anything except they are going to implement all this stuff without my consent,as for sustainability and fear of reduced resources it has to be remembered many resources we have now did not exist in the past, they probably thought resources were limited too, but technology proves that wrong what they fail to tell you is that the main driver of scarce resources is war (economic war, carnal war, wars on poverty, war on freedom etc), also by outlawing the use of pesticides and such they are really saying they want the farmers who wont or cant afford monsantos stuff to go out of business so big agri can take over who can afford the extra costs, so that monsanto will basically have a monopoly on food reserves which translates into lots of profits for the corporations, and starvation for the rest (who can afford the higher grocery bills except the rich?) another thing you missed in your aricle is codex almentarious, it is part of agenda 21 tho not connected to the books, I guess to hide it’s real intentions, in there (didn’t read it myself but I am thinking about finding a copy) that vitamines and minerals found in food aer classified as poisen or toxins and must be removed (irradiation perhaps?), which translates again to toxic because it preserves human life. what they are doing is creating their own language you and I are not to understand why they define words like they do. so carbon is pollution (you and i are brimming with the stuff)so humans are pollution, somehow they forgot to mention animals for some reason, hence they have their own vocabulary. i would say agenda 21 is really teh elites attempt at taking over the world for thier own enrichment, their own peace and most of us stand in their way of acheiving thier idea of a garden of eden. but they cant just come out and say that people would riot and fight back, what they have to do is make you feel guilty for your prosperity and life and thus be passive in not fighting back as they kill you slowly in some cases.