pillar to the multi-decade dollar Ponzi scheme run by the Treasury’s Exchange
Stabilization Fund is cheap food (see video series about the
ESF and its history). To understand just how crucial this is, just
look at what has happened since food prices started soaring in the middle of
Soaring food prices have lead to riots
across the globe, and Pro-US dictators (who help prop up the dollar by
buying billions of US weapons and treasuries year after year) like Egypt’s
Mubarak got overthrown. Likewise, Nations like China, dealing
with nasty food inflation, are appreciating their currency (selling
dollars) in an effort to contain the situation. Finally, higher food
prices mean higher inflation putting upward pressure on interest rates (and a
government 14+ trillion in debt can’t afford higher interest rates).
So in order to keep the dollar alive little longer, the Treasury’s ESF
has been using all the resources at its disposal (the propaganda network it
controls and the executive branch that it dominates) to keep food prices
down. Below are ten ESF schemes behind cheap food.
substitution of inferior food (Fish Fraud, Fabricated Steak, etc)
Fake Designer Bags are cheaper than the real thing. The same applies to
food. When inferior food is substituted at every layer
of the supply chain and sold the unsuspecting consumers, the result is lower
The Sun-Sentinel reports that Fish fraud means what’s on your plate may be an impostor.
(emphasis mine) [my comment]
Fish fraud means what’s on your plate may be an impostor
June 16, 2011|By Peter Franceschina, Sun Sentinel
… "seafood fraud," [is] the substitution of one species of fish — usually of inferior quality — for another. The deception can be carried out anywhere
in the international supply chain…
Seafood fraud is a problem in some parts
of the industry, according to a recent report, "Bait and Switch: How Seafood Fraud Hurts Our Oceans, Our Wallets
and Our Health," issued by the national conservation group
Oceana. The report cites recent studies showing that 25 PERCENT TO 70 PERCENT OF THE TIME, FISH SOLD IN THE UNITED STATES AS
RED SNAPPER, WILD SALMON AND ATLANTIC COD IS ACTUALLY LESS DESIRABLE, CHEAPER
is more readily available.
ONLY TWO OUT OF 20 SAMPLES OF RED SNAPPER
WERE THE REAL THING. That delectable fish – Lutjanus campechanus, native to
the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic waters – is
one of the most frequently impersonated by a fake.
After 35 years in the restaurant, retail and wholesale seafood business, Hugh
Ganter … knows his fish, and how
to sniff out seafood fraud. …
That’s how he once discovered 3,000 pounds
of "grouper" he had bought was actually farm-raised catfish from
Southeast Asia. There were clues: The fillets were not as
thick as they should have been, and the flesh didn’t have
grouper’s characteristic reddish tinge.
… when Shivji’s students recently tested fish advertised as white tuna from 10 sushi restaurants in Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties, they found eight had been improperly labeled. Escolar, an oily fish that can cause diarrhea, is
frequently substituted for white tuna on sushi menus…
"It is true in today’s world WE HAVE
SUBSTITUTION, NOT ONLY IN SEAFOOD ITEMS BUT MANY TIMES IN OTHER FOOD
PRODUCTS," she said. …
Fish substitutions can pose health risks, potentially exposing consumers to naturally occurring toxins — such as ciguatera in reef fish — that cause illness,
according to the Oceana report. And
if a less costly fish is substituted, CONSUMERS ARE PAYING A HIGHER PRICE FOR
SOMETHING THEY ARE NOT GETTING.
If you find cheap prices on seafood … , there
could be a good reason — a
lesser fish is masquerading as a pricier cousin.
ABC News reports that Ingredients
in Taco Bell Beef and Fast Food Meat.
Ammonia-Treated Meat Scraps?
By ALAN FARNHAM
Feb. 7, 2011
much meat is in your Taco Bell taco filling? How much is in your
McDonald’s Quarter Pounder or your Burger King Whopper? And is this meat really
meat–OR SOMETHING ELSE?
These questions took center stage in January when a
California woman sued Taco Bell, claiming its taco filling is only
35 percent ground beef. The rest, she alleges in her class action suit, consists of edible
padding: binders, extenders, preservatives, additives and other
non-meat ingredients. …
Kantha Shelke, chief science officer of Corvus Blue LLC, a Chicago food
science and nutrition research firm, says it’s frankly
impossible for a consumer to know how much meat is in a food item at Taco Bell, McDonalds,
Burger King or any other fast food restaurant. That’s because such
disclosure is not required. Even when an item is touted as being "all-beef," it
may be only 70 percent meat and not run afoul of regulations.
ingredients in meat items include ones that add flavor or promote
consistency, and binders. "American consumers think they’re being cheated out
of their money when they hear that term," says Shelke. …
for the meat itself, some of it can be…well, not exactly what you
think of when you think of meat.
Bill Marler, an plaintiffs’ attorney specializing in food safety
lawsuits, says that it’s common for up to 10 percent to 12 percent of that
juicy burger you’re about to pop into your mouth to be "ammoniated
beef product"—scraps and trimmings left over from slaughter THAT USED
TO BE RELEGATED FOR USE IN PET FOOD.
no longer are, thanks to a treatment process that uses ammonium hydroxide to
protect meat made from scraps against bacterial contamination, thus rendering it fit–at least according to
regulators–for human consumption.
The product is produced by Beef Products
Inc. of South Dakota, whose website says that if you’re eating a
hamburger in a "quick-service restaurant" (the food industry’s
preferred term for fast food), "…chances are you’ll be
eating product produced by BPI."
fast-food industry’s meat magic doesn’t stop at burgers: The
steak you’re eating may not be what you expect.
Shelke says some middle-market steak house chains serve "FABRICATED
STEAK"—an FDA term referring to steak-like objects
formed from pulverized flesh. "The end result looks like a
beefsteak but in reality has been extruded. Meat is broken down into
its components and then re-formed to look like the original. You think you’re
getting the same steak as if you were at a real Texas steakhouse."
telltale sign that you’re not is the meat’s uniformity: all the
steaks have the same look, size and same consistency. Another clue: Steaks right off the
steer have marbling; they have tendons. Fabricated steaks have neither.
Shelke sees such products as the result of the public’s demand for CHEAPNESS
and consistency. …
Achieving consistency the old fashioned way is labor intensive and expensive.
… Fabricating them is easier and CHEAPER.
Independent Online explains The
truth about food fraud.
The truth about food fraud
20 2006 at 10:40am
By Kate Ravilious
fraud is big business. The UK Food Standards Agency believes that around 10 per cent
of our weekly shopping may be counterfeit. Many of the everyday
goods that we buy – honey, orange juice, ham, butter and coffee – generate serious money
for the food criminals. From printing misleading labels to diluting or modifying the
food itself, it’s easier than ever for suppliers to dupe consumers.
… Are you still sure that you know exactly what you’re buying?
tuna and there’s tuna – and then there’s bonito. Bonito …
due to its average quality … , is significantly cheaper
than its chunky cousin, tuna. The trouble is, in products that
are generically labelled "tuna", some manufacturers exchange
cheaper species for more expensive ones. This is especially
prevalent in processed tinned tuna…
up a chicken breast with water is an old supplier’s trick, but the FSA had not
how widespread the problem was until it conducted a
snap survey in 2001. Its investigation found that almost half the frozen
chicken breasts they examined had a meat content of between 5 and 26 per cent
less than appeared on packaging, and that some chicken breasts
contained as much as 43 per cent added water.
Breakfasts around the country were spoilt by two recent announcements
from Defra. The first was that, following an investigation of imported eggs
in north London, one in 30 boxes was found to contain salmonella. The second was that
around 30 million eggs may have been wrongly labelled as free range.
Watch out, bolognese enthusiasts: that extra-lean mince might not be so
low-fat after all. The Association of Public Analysts’ recent survey
suggests that much of the minced beef, lamb, pork, turkey and chicken that
claims to be a reduced-fat alternative is, in fact, just as unhealthy as
"standard" mince. A total of 27 per cent of all mince types are
now labelled as "lean" and "extra lean".
A 2002 survey by the FSA found worryingly high levels of water in raw
scallops and peeled scampi tails – nearly half the scallops
contained 10 per cent added water or more, while some contained as much
as 54 per cent. The situation with scampi was far worse – 86 per cent of ice-glazed
peeled scampi had more than 10 per cent added water. …
An investigation revealed a world of shady dealings in the honey industry. Some farmers, for
instance, were administering too many antibiotics to poorly bees. More
significantly, the quality of imported honey was put under a harsh
spotlight. Whole batches from India and China were found to be
contaminated with chloramphenicol, an antibiotic banned in food production
the world over. …
… Recently, the FSA took samples from shops, wholesale markets and
catering suppliers and found that 35 per cent of its samples had been wrongly
labelled King Edward. …
modified rice should not be on sale in Britain. It is illegal here, just
as it is in all EU countries. But in September, several types of GM rice were
found in British supermarkets. The problem started when the Bush administration
admitted it had found genetically modified material in some American
long-grain rice that was ready for export. This GM rice had been
developed by Bayer CropScience to tolerate weedkiller and had spread around
the US as a result of cross-pollination. The European Commission has since
stated that this GM rice has been found in 33 out of 162 samples of
imported US rice.
… An investigation launched into the sale of bogus organic
meat carried out earlier this year revealed that many farmers and traders
are passing off non-organic meat as the more expensive organic variety.
what-used-to-be-dog-food being sold at fast food restaurants around the
world, food is prices are cheaper.
2) Distructive, unsustainable
As with anything, it is possible to go over the limit to achieve short
gains at the expense of sacrificing the future (for example: an athlete can
ignore an injury to win a tournament, but do permanent damage to his body in
the process). The same is true in agriculture.
To keep food cheap, the ESF has promoted the use of high-yielding,
destructive farming techniques in arid regions which could not support
them. This increases production initially, but then slowly turns the
land into a desert where nothing will grow.
Treasury interference in US market corrupted corporate culture. Bankers
started behaving like there was no tomorrow because they knew something was fundamentally
wrong with the system. They started pursuing business practices which
can only be described as "picking up pennies in front of a
Most the world has adopted intensive farming techniques which is degrading
farmland. I have already written about how disaster
is Feared As Desertification Spreads.
is the degradation of dryland ecosystems through a
combination of natural and human causes.
2) Desertification occurs when human beings try to take too many
resources from land that can sustain very little human life. When too many people
try to plant crops, graze cattle and harvest firewood in a fragile dryland
ecosystem, they tip the balance of sustainability.
3) When we talk about desertification, we’re not only talking
about the slow spread of existing deserts, but the creation of entirely new ones.
1930′s Dust Bowl is a perfect
example of desertification
1) In the 1920s, when the United States entered an economic recession, farmers in Western states tried to raise profits by
plowing and planting more acreage with new mechanized farming methods.
2) Within a decade, a massive drought hit the entire country. Strong
winds swept across the Great Plains, stirring up loose topsoil that had been displaced
by overplowing and overgrazing of cattle. The results were dozens of epic dust storms that swallowed whole
cities in blinding black clouds. The
semiarid soil of the plains, which had fed generations with its fertile soil, was now A LIFELESS DESERT KNOWN AS THE DUST BOWL.
Disaster Feared As Desertification
1) New deserts are growing at
a rate of 20,000 square miles
(51,800 square kilometers) a year.
2) Save for the Antarctica, desertification
affects all continents.
3) Nearly half of the world’s
total land mass is composed of dryland ecosystems (areas defined by low annual rainfall and high
temperatures), and 10 to 20 percent
of these regions are already degraded –
unsuitable for human, animal or plant life.
4) Dryland regions are also home to billions of the world’s
poorest, most marginalized populations. As these people are displaced by new
deserts, they are forced into even more unstable regions, where the
desertification process continues.
5) More than 70 percent
of drylands in Africa, Asia and Latin America that are being used
for agricultural purposes are
already experiencing the effects of desertification.
6) Desertification was one the
sources of the global food crisis of 2008.
Degradation of available farmland contributes to less food production and
higher prices for staple crops like rice, wheat and corn.
7) Desertification leads to
famine, mass starvation and unprecedented
Desertification will created
1) The UN is warning that parts
of the world may have to be abandoned because severe water shortages will
leave them uninhabitable
Lets first be clear about something: the desertification
happening around the world isn’t the result of global warming (thought
it is possible global warming is making it worse). The desertification we
are seeing, in every case, is clearly the result of reckless and
extensive overuse of drylands around the world.
Even if the world miraculously cuts carbon emissions to a fraction of their
current level, desertification will continue as long as rampant farming and
wasteful irrigation practices remain common in regions that do not support
means lower food production in the near future
Governments have two choices:
A) Do nothing and let food output slowly drops as agricultural land turns into
Restrain rampant farming, wasteful irrigation, and other harmful practices, stemming desertification
at the cost of a drop in production
No matter what actions governments take, the only certainty is
that global grain output will drop significantly.
Treasury’s ESF is directly responsible for the destructive farming
techniques wrecking havoc in the world today. Take, for example, ESF’s intervention (through
the CIA) in Indian agriculture.
Appendix I: Ford Foundation
– A Case Study of the Aims of Foreign Funding
"Someday someone must give the
American people a full report of the work of the Ford Foundation in India. The several million dollars in total Ford expenditures in
the country do not tell one-tenth of the story." – Chester Bowles
(former US ambassador to India).
Ford and the CIA
The fact is that the
US Central Intelligence Agency has long operated through a number of
philanthropic foundations; most prominently Ford Foundation. …
The CIA’s infiltration of US
foundations in general was massive.
A 1976 Select Committee of the US Senate discovered that during 1963-66, of
700 grants each of over $10,000 given by 164 foundations, at least 108 were
partially or wholly CIA-funded. According to Petras, "The ties between the top officials of the FF and
the U.S. government are explicit and continuing. A review of recently funded projects reveals that the FF has never funded any major project that
contravenes U.S. policy."
Ford Foundation intervention in Indian
Given the background of the Chinese revolution and
the Telangana struggle, the US priority in
India was to find ways to head off agrarian unrest. …
In 1959, a
team led by a US department of agriculture economist produced the Ford Foundation’s Report on India’s Food Crisis and Steps to Meet
It. In place of institutional change
(ie redistribution of land and other rural assets) as the key-stone to
agricultural development, this report
stressed technological change (improved
seeds, chemical fertilisers, and pesticides) in
small, already irrigated, pockets. This was the ‘Green Revolution’ strategy. Ford even funded the
Intensive Agricultural Development Programme (IADP) as a test case of the
strategy, providing rich farmers in
irrigated areas with subsidised inputs, generous credit, price incentives,
and so on. The World Bank too put its weight behind this strategy.
Soon it was adopted by the Indian government, with far-reaching effects. Agricultural production of rice and wheat in the
selected pockets grew immediately. …
Revolution’ strategy has lead to disaster in India. The Wall
Street Journal reports that Green
Revolution in India Wilts as Subsidies Backfire.
FEBRUARY 23, 2010
Green Revolution in India Wilts as Subsidies Backfire
By GEETA ANAND
Green Revolution is withering.
In the 1970s, India dramatically increased food
production, finally allowing this giant country to feed itself. But government efforts to continue that miracle by encouraging farmers to use fertilizers have backfired, forcing the
country to expand its reliance on imported food.
Popularized during the Green Revolution of the
1960s and 1970s, fertilizers helped boost crop yields and transformed
India into a nation that could feed itself. But
now their overuse is degrading the farmland.
India has been providing farmers with heavily subsidized fertilizer
for more than three decades. The overuse of
one type—urea—is so degrading the soil that yields on some crops
are falling and import levels are rising. So are food prices, which jumped 19% last year.
The country now produces less rice per hectare
than its far poorer neighbors: Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.
Farmers spread the rice-size urea granules by
hand or from tractors. They pay so little for it that in some areas
they use many times the amount recommended by scientists, throwing
off the chemistry of the soil, according to multiple studies by Indian
Like humans, plants need balanced diets to thrive. Too much urea oversaturates plants with nitrogen
without replenishing other nutrients that are vitally important,
including phosphorus, potassium, sulfur, magnesium and calcium.
As the soil’s fertility has declined, farmers under pressure to increase output have spread
even more urea on their land.
Kamaljit Singh is a 55-year-old farmer in the town of Marauli Kalan in the
state of Punjab, the breadbasket of India. He says farmers feel stuck. "The soil health is deteriorating, but we don’t know how to make it
better," he says. "As
the fertility of the soil is declining, more fertilizer is required."
India’s “Green Revolution”]
In the early years after India gained independence in 1947, the country couldn’t even dream of feeding its
population. Importing food wasn’t possible because India lacked
the cash to pay. India relied on food donated by the U.S. government.
“Green Revolution” begins in 1967]
In 1967, then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi imported 18,000 tons of hybrid
wheat seeds from Mexico. The effect was miraculous.
The wheat harvest that year was so bountiful that grain overflowed
Those seeds required chemical fertilizers to maximize yield. …
“Green Revolution” today]
In the northern state of Punjab, Bhupinder Singh, a turbaned, gray-bearded
55-year-old farmer, stood barefoot in his wheat field in December and pointed
to the corner where he had just spread a 110-pound bag of urea.
"Without the urea, my crop looks
sick," he said, picking up a few stalks of the young
wheat crop and twirling them in his fingers. "THE
SOIL IS GETTING WEAKER AND WEAKER OVER THE LAST 10 TO 15 YEARS. We need MORE AND MORE UREA TO GET THE SAME
Mr. Singh farms 10 acres in Sohian, a town about 25 miles from the industrial
city of Ludhiana. He said his yields of rice have fallen to three tons per
acre, from 3.3 tons five years ago. By using
twice as much urea, he’s
been able to squeeze a little higher yield of wheat from the soil—two
tons per acre, versus 1.7 tons five years ago.
He said both the wheat and rice harvests should be bigger, considering that
he’s using so much more urea today than he did five years ago. ADDING UREA DOESN’T HAVE THE EFFECT IT DID IN THE
PAST, he said, but it’s so
cheap that it’s better than adding nothing at all.
"The future is not good here,"
he said, shaking his head.
Deteriorating soil health had lead to
desertification in India. Caritas.org reports about desertification
Desertification in India
Half the land in India is now
affected by desertification and
this impairs the ability of land to support life.
It is particularly devastating because
of its self-reinforcing nature.
The causes of desertification are extensive cultivation
of one crop, use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides, shifting cultivation
without adequate period of recovery, industrial and mining
activities, overgrazing, logging and illegal felling, forest fires and
unsustainable water management.
Gentledude.blogspot.com reports about Desertification
In South India.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
In South India
Kannekal and Bommanahal are like any other village in South India 150
years ago. A fertile soil that yielded two crops a year, abundant rainfall,
and plentiful of grass for the livestock. Centuries
ago wars have been fought for the fertile lands. But Hagari,
the river that flows by the villages had severe floods for a couple of years.
And with the floods came sand. The sand dunes
spread across the area pretty quickly, thanks to strong winds in the
area. Thus started the process of
desertification. Soon rainfall
decreased in the area and the sand dunes started spreading quickly. The
inhabitants of these villages continued with indiscriminate use of water and instead of taking steps to conserve water, used
up even more water for irrigation using bore wells. This resulted in an even
faster spreading of sand dunes. Now
thousands of acres of land is covered by these sand dunes.
As I have written before, India faces a
The Chart below shows
worldwide growth in fertilizer use. Notice India’s
54 percent increase in fertilizer use over the last ten years.
Chart below shows India’s wheat output. The red bar highlights
the last ten years (where India’s fertilizer use increase 54
percent). The green bar highlights the start of India’s
Now look at what happened with India’s population since the Green Revolution
Seems like India has two choices:
1) Switch to more sustainable farming methods and try to feed twice the
population with pre-“green revolution” grain production levels.
Continue “green revolution” farming methods and watch deteriorating soil
health and desertification slowly eat away at grain production.
of these choices involve a lot of people not having food any more. Seems India is
For more on this, try googling overshoot-and-collapse
3) Boosting supply by exausting
By tapping your savings, it is possible to live above your means, temporarily.
In its quest for cheap food, The ESF has promoted the use of nonreplenishable
resources (the world’s “savings”) to boost agricultural
production. Two examples of this are the overpumping aquifers and the
use natural gas (fossil fuel) to produce nitrogen fertilizer.
Like most ESF schemes, this is now reaching the breaking point. The Encyclopedia
Of Earth reports about aquifer depletion.
Last Updated: September 14, 2006
Scores of countries are overpumping aquifers as they struggle
to satisfy their growing water needs, including each of the big three
grain producers-China, India, and the United States. These
three, along with a number of other countries where water tables are falling,
are home to more than half the world’s people. (See Table at end of
There are two types of aquifers: replenishable and nonreplenishable (or fossil)
aquifers. Most of the aquifers in India and the shallow aquifer under
the North China Plain are replenishable. When these are depleted, the maximum
rate of pumping is automatically reduced to the rate of recharge.
For fossil aquifers—such
as the vast U.S. Ogallala aquifer, the deep aquifer under the North China
Plain, or the Saudi aquifer—DEPLETION
BRINGS PUMPING TO AN END. Farmers who lose their irrigation
water have the option of returning to lower-yield dryland farming if rainfall
permits. In more arid regions, however, such as in the southwestern United States or the Middle
East, THE LOSS OF IRRIGATION WATER MEANS THE END OF AGRICULTURE.
Falling water tables are already adversely
affecting harvests in some countries, including
China, the world’s largest grain producer. A groundwater survey released in Beijing in
August 2001 revealed that the water table under the North China Plain, which
produces over half of that country’s wheat and a third of its corn, is
falling faster than earlier reported. Overpumping has largely depleted the
shallow aquifer, forcing well drillers to turn to the region’s deep
fossil aquifer, which is not replenishable.
The survey, conducted by the Geological Environmental Monitoring Institute
(GEMI) in Beijing, reported that under Hebei
Province in the heart of the North China Plain, the average level of the deep
aquifer was dropping nearly 3 meters (10 feet) per year. Around some
cities in the province, it was falling twice as fast. He Qingcheng, head of
the GEMI groundwater monitoring team, notes that as
the deep aquifer is depleted, the region is losing its last water reserve-its
only safety cushion.
He Qingcheng’s concerns are mirrored in a World Bank report:
"Anecdotal evidence suggests that deep wells
[drilled] around Beijing now have to reach 1,000 meters [more than half a
mile] to tap fresh water, adding dramatically to the cost of
supply." In unusually strong language
for a Bank report, it foresees "CATASTROPHIC
CONSEQUENCES FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS" unless water use and supply can quickly be brought
back into balance.
The U.S. embassy in Beijing reports that wheat
farmers in some areas are now pumping from a depth of 300 meters, or nearly
1,000 feet. Pumping water from this far down raises pumping costs so
high that farmers are often forced to abandon irrigation and return to less
productive dryland farming.
Falling water tables, the conversion of cropland to nonfarm uses, and the
loss of farm labor in provinces that are rapidly industrializing are
combining to shrink China’s grain harvest. The wheat
crop, grown mostly in semiarid northern China, is particularly vulnerable to
water shortages. After peaking at 123 million
tons in 1997, the harvest has fallen in five of the last eight years,
coming in at 95 million tons in 2005, a drop of 23 percent.
The U.S. embassy also reports that the recent
decline in rice production is partly a result of water shortages.
After peaking at 140 million tons in 1997, the harvest dropped in four of the
following eight years, falling to an estimated 127 million tons in 2005. Only corn, China’s third major grain, has thus
far avoided a decline. This is because corn prices are favorable and
because the crop is not as irrigation-dependent as wheat and rice are.
Overall, China’s grain production has fallen from its historical peak
of 392 million tons in 1998 to an estimated 358 million tons in 2005. For
perspective, this drop of 34 million tons
exceeds the annual Canadian wheat harvest. China largely
covered the drop-off in production by drawing down its once vast stocks until
2004, at which point it imported 7 million tons of grain.
A World Bank study indicates that China is
overpumping three river basins in the north–the Hai,
which flows through Beijing and Tianjin; the Yellow; and the Huai, the next
river south of the Yellow. Since it takes 1,000
tons of water to produce one ton of grain, the shortfall in the Hai
basin of nearly 40 billion tons of water per year (1 ton equals 1 cubic
meter) means that when the aquifer is
depleted, THE GRAIN HARVEST WILL DROP BY 40 MILLION TONS–enough to feed
120 million Chinese.
Of the leading grain producers, only China has thus
far experienced a substantial decline in
production. Even with a worldwide grain crunch and climbing grain
prices providing an incentive to boost production, it
will be difficult for China to regain earlier grain production levels, given
the loss of irrigation water.
Serious though emerging water shortages are in
China, they are even more serious in India simply
because the margin between actual food consumption and survival is so
precarious. In a survey of India’s water situation, Fred Pearce
reported in the New Scientist that the 21 million wells drilled in this
global epicenter of well-drilling are lowering water tables in most of the
country. In North Gujarat, the water table
is falling by 6 meters (20 feet) per year.
In Tamil Nadu, a state with more than 62 million people in southern India,
wells are going dry almost everywhere. According to Kuppannan Palanisami of
Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, falling water
tables have dried up 95 percent of the wells owned by small farmers,
reducing the irrigated area in the state by half over the last decade.
As water tables fall, well drillers are using
modified oil-drilling technology to reach water, going as deep as 1,000 meters in some locations.
In communities where underground water sources have dried up entirely, all
agriculture is rain-fed and drinking water is trucked in. Tushaar Shah, who heads
the International Water Management Institute’s groundwater station in
Gujarat, says of India’s water situation: "When
the balloon bursts, untold anarchy will be the lot of rural India."
At this point, the harvests of wheat and rice, India’s principal food
grains, are still increasing. But within
the next few years, [in 2011 (five
years since article was written, it has already begun] the loss of irrigation water could
override technological progress and start
shrinking the harvest in some areas, as it is already doing in
In the United States, the USDA reports that in
parts of Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas–three leading
grain-producing states–the underground water table has dropped by more
than 30 meters (100 feet). As a result, wells have gone dry on
thousands of farms in the southern Great Plains. Although
this mining of underground water is taking a toll on U.S. grain production, irrigated
land accounts for only one-fifth of the U.S. grain harvest, compared
with close to three-fifths of the harvest in India and four-fifths
Pakistan, a country with 158 million
people that is growing by 3 million per year, is also mining its underground
water. In the Pakistani part of the fertile Punjab plain, the drop in
water tables appears to be similar to that in India. Observation wells near
the twin cities of Islamabad and Rawalpindi show a fall in the water table
between 1982 and 2000 that ranges from 1 to nearly 2 meters a year.
In the province of Baluchistan, water tables around the capital, Quetta, are
falling by 3.5 meters per year. Richard Garstang, a water expert with the
World Wildlife Fund and a participant in a study of Pakistan’s water
situation, said in 2001 that "within 15
years Quetta will run out of water if the current consumption rate
continues." [It is now 2011.
About four years left]
The water shortage in Baluchistan is
province-wide. Sardar Riaz A. Khan, former Director of
Pakistan’s Arid Zone Research Institute in Quetta, reports that six basins have exhausted their groundwater supplies, leaving
their irrigated lands barren. Khan expects that within 10-15
years virtually all the basins outside the canal-irrigated areas will have
depleted their groundwater supplies, depriving the province of much of its
Future irrigation water cutbacks as a
result of aquifer depletion will undoubtedly reduce Pakistan’s grain
harvest. Countrywide, the harvest of wheat–the principal
food staple–is continuing to grow, but more slowly than in the past.
Iran, a country of 70 million
people, is overpumping its aquifers by an average of 5 billion tons of water
per year, the water equivalent of one-third of its annual grain
harvest. Under the small but agriculturally rich Chenaran
Plain in northeastern Iran, the water table was falling by 2.8 meters a year in the late 1990s. New wells being drilled both for
irrigation and to supply the nearby city of Mashad are responsible. Villages in eastern Iran are being abandoned as wells
go dry, generating a flow of
Saudi Arabia, a country of 25 million people, is as water-poor as it is
oil-rich. Relying heavily on subsidies,
it developed an extensive irrigated agriculture based largely on its
deep fossil aquifer. After several years of using oil money to
support wheat prices at five times the world market level, the government was
forced to face fiscal reality and cut the subsidies.
Its wheat harvest dropped from a high of 4.1 million tons in 1992 to 1.2
million tons in 2005, a drop of 71 percent. [Saudi Arabia is phasing out wheat production entirely
Craig Smith writes in the New York Times, “From
the air, the circular wheat fields of this arid land’s breadbasket look
like forest green poker chips strewn across the brown desert. But they
are outnumbered by the ghostly silhouettes of fields left to fade back into
the sand, places where the kingdom’s gamble on agriculture has sucked
precious aquifers dry.” Some Saudi
farmers are now pumping water from wells that are 4,000 feet deep,
nearly four-fifths of a mile (1 mile equals 1.61 kilometers).
A 1984 Saudi national survey reported fossil
water reserves at 462 billion tons. Half
of that, Smith reports, has
probably disappeared by now. This suggests that irrigated agriculture could last for another decade or
so and then will largely vanish [Saudi
Arabia is phasing out wheat production by 2016], limited to the small
area that can be irrigated with water from the shallow aquifers that are
replenished by the kingdom’s sparse rainfall. It
is a classic example of an overshoot-and-collapse food economy.
In neighboring Yemen, a nation of 21 million, the water table under most of
the country is falling by roughly 2 meters a year as water use outstrips the
sustainable yield of aquifers. In western Yemen’s Sana’a Basin,
the estimated annual water extraction of 224 million tons exceeds the annual
recharge of 42 million tons by a factor of five, dropping the water table 6
meters per year. World Bank projections indicate the Sana’a Basin-—site of
the national capital, Sana’a, and home to 2 million people—-will be pumped dry by 2010.
In the search for water, the Yemeni government
has drilled test wells in the basin that are 2 kilometers (1.2 miles)
deep-—depths normally associated with the oil industry—-but they have failed to find water.
Yemen must soon decide whether to bring water to Sana’a, possibly by
pipeline from coastal desalting plants, if it can afford it, or to relocate
the capital. Either alternative will be costly and potentially traumatic.
With its population growing at 3 percent a year and with water tables falling
everywhere, Yemen is fast becoming a hydrological basket case. Aside from the effect
of overpumping on the capital, World Bank official Christopher Ward observes
that “groundwater is being mined at
such a rate that parts of the rural economy could disappear within a
Google Archive News results for Yemen
Israel, even though a pioneer in raising
irrigation water productivity, is depleting both
of its principal aquifers—-the coastal aquifer and the mountain
aquifer that it shares with Palestinians. Israel’s
population, whose growth is fueled by both natural increase
and immigration, is outgrowing its water
supply. Conflicts between Israelis and Palestinians
over the allocation of water in the latter area are
ongoing. Because of severe water shortages, Israel
has banned the irrigation of wheat.
In Mexico-—home to a population of
107 million that is projected to reach 140 million by 2050—-the demand for water is outstripping supply.
Mexico City’s water problems are well known and rural areas are also
suffering. For example, in the agricultural state of Guanajuato, the water
table is falling by 2 meters or more a year. At the national level, 51
percent of all the water extracted from underground is from aquifers that are
Since the overpumping of aquifers is occurring in
many countries more or less simultaneously, the depletion of aquifers
and the resulting harvest cutbacks could come AT ROUGHLY THE SAME TIME.
And the accelerating depletion of aquifers means this day may come soon,
creating potentially UNMANAGEABLE FOOD
The New York Times reports about the
shortages threaten farmers’ key tool: fertilizer.
April 30, 2008
Shortages Threaten Farmers’ Key Tool: Fertilizer
By KEITH BRADSHER and ANDREW MARTIN
… the widespread use of inexpensive chemical fertilizer, coupled with market
reforms, helped power an agricultural explosion here that had already
occurred in other parts of the world. Yields of rice and corn
rose, and diets grew richer.
those gains are threatened in many countries by spot shortages and soaring
prices for fertilizer, the most essential ingredient of modern agriculture.
kinds of fertilizer have nearly tripled in price in the last year, keeping farmers from buying
all they need. That is one of many factors contributing to a rise in food
prices that, according to the United Nations’ World Food
Program, threatens to push tens of millions of poor people into malnutrition.
over high food prices have erupted across the developing world, and the stability of
governments from Senegal to the Philippines is threatened.
In the United States, farmers in Iowa eager to replenish nutrients in the
soil have increased the age-old practice of spreading hog manure on fields.
In India, the cost of subsidizing fertilizer for farmers has soared, leading
to political dispute. And in Africa, plans to stave off hunger by increasing crop yields
are suddenly in jeopardy.
squeeze on the supply of fertilizer has been building for roughly five years. Rising demand for food and
biofuels prompted farmers everywhere to plant more crops. As demand grew, the fertilizer mines and
factories of the world proved unable to keep up.
dealers in the Midwest ran out of fertilizer last fall, and they continue to
restrict sales this spring because of a limited supply.
you want 10,000 tons, they’ll sell you 5,000 today, maybe 3,000,” said W. Scott Tinsman Jr.,
a fertilizer dealer in Davenport, Iowa. “The rubber band is
stretched really far.”
Agriculture and development experts say the world has few alternatives to its
growing dependence on fertilizer. As population increases and a rising
global middle class demands more food, fertilizer is among the
most effective strategies to increase crop yields.
fertilizer on the ground on a one-acre plot can, in typical cases, raise an
extra ton of output,” said Jeffrey D. Sachs, the Columbia University economist who
has focused on eradicating poverty. “That’s the difference between
life and death.”
Fertilizer is plant food, a combination of nutrients added to soil to help
plants grow. The three most important are nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium.
The latter two have long been available. But nitrogen in a form that plants can absorb is scarce, and the lack of
it led to low crop yields for centuries.
That limitation ended in the early 20th century with the invention of a procedure, now
primarily fueled by natural gas, that draws chemically inert nitrogen
from the air and converts it into a usable form.
As the use of such fertilizer spread, it was accompanied by improved plant
varieties and greater mechanization. From 1900 to 2000, worldwide food production
jumped by 600 percent. Scientists said that increase was the fundamental reason
world population was able to rise to about 6.7 billion today from 1.7 billion
Vaclav Smil, a professor at the University of Manitoba, calculates that WITHOUT NITROGEN
FERTILIZER, THERE WOULD BE INSUFFICIENT FOOD FOR 40 PERCENT OF THE WORLD’S
POPULATION, at least based on today’s diets. [KEY POINT]
is a basic problem, to feed 6.6 billion people,” said Norman Borlaug, an
American scientist who was awarded a Nobel Peace
Prize in 1970 for his role in spreading intensive agricultural practices to
poor countries. “Without chemical fertilizer, forget it. THE GAME
The thing about living beyond your
means by tapping your savings is that it is very painful when those
savings run out.
4) GM Technology
GM Technology is an integral part of the ESF cheap food strategy (it is an
extension of the “green revolution”). If you don’t
have a negative opinion of GM food, that is thanks to the ESF.
Below is a video showing how the news about GM Technology is controlled.
Media Corruption & The "Big Six"
For the truth about GM Technology, watch the documentary below.
Must-see documentary about GMO ~~ Part 01 of 10
Must-see documentary about GMO ~~ Part 02 of 10
Must-see documentary about GMO ~~ Part 03 of 10
Must-see documentary about GMO ~~ Part 04 of 10
Must-see documentary about GMO ~~ Part 05 of 10
Must-see documentary about GMO ~~ Part 06 of 10
Must-see documentary about GMO ~~ Part 07 of 10
Must-see documentary about GMO ~~ Part 08 of 10
Must-see documentary about GMO ~~ Part 09 of 10
Must-see documentary about GMO ~~ Part 10 of 10
5) Encouraging the consumption of
Whenever a food source is contaminated by some sort of disaster, there are
1) Close down production from the contaminated source, reducing the
food supply and raising prices.
2) Allow production to continue, letting contaminated produce into the
food supply and keeping prices cheap.
Guess which one the ESF encourages?
Below are two recent/current example (out of many) where the sales of
significant quantities of tainted food has been allowed (and encouraged)
Example #1: contaminated seafood from the Gulf of Mexico
Fishermen harvest some 1.3 billion lb per year of fish, crabs, oysters, and
shrimp from the Gulf of Mexico—about 20% of US commercial seafood
production. It is easy to understand that if seafood production
was shut down for a long period of time, it would drive prices higher.
Now, on the April 20, 2010, the explosion of BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil
rig caused millions of barrels of oil to be dumped into the Gulf of
Mexico. This made worse by BP dumped millions of gallons of extremely
toxic dispersant (COREXIT) to make the oil dissolve (when you put sugar in
tea, it dissolves, but it’s still there).
Of course, within two weeks of the disaster the National Oceanic &
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) began closing federal waters to
fishing. As long as miles of oil was visibly floating on the
water’s surface, no one could be tricked into eating toxic gulf
seafood. However, once BP started pouring its incredibly lethal toxic
dispersant into the gulf, making the oil “disappear”, NOAA began
to reopening large areas, and, by April 19, 2011, the entire gulf was
open to fishing. While this helped the ESF keep seafood cheap,
it should never have happened.
Stuarthsmith.com reports that the fish in the Gulf of
Mexico are very sick (and you will be too if you eat them).
Gulf Update: Sick Fish,
Human Risks and a Federal Agency Trying to Keep the Lid on a Crisis
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has confirmed – for the first time
since the BP disaster – that fish are sick in the Gulf of Mexico. In fact, the number of “sick
fish” sightings has risen so dramatically, primarily in federal waters
off Alabama, and the risks to humans are becoming such a serious concern that NOAA has released
guidelines on what anglers should do when they come across visibly sick fish, including a “minimal
to no handling” warning.
of the reports describe large lesions on the fish, particularly red snapper. And with the June 1
opening of recreational red snapper season, the reports of sick fish
are bound to keep rolling in and the risk of human exposure will grow
Some experts, including many with whom I work, suspect the BP oil spill is
connected to the spike. Not much of a surprise there. We’ve been seeing AN
UNDENIABLE TREND TOWARD "UNEXPLAINED" OCCURRENCES OF SICK, STRANDED
AND DEAD MARINE LIFE – like record numbers of dead dolphins and sea turtles
– for months now. The prime suspect, of course, is the 200 MILLION GALLONS OF CRUDE AND THE 2 MILLION
GALLONS OF THE TOXIC DISPERSANT COREXIT that continue to foul
the Gulf of Mexico.
From a May 25 article in the Pensacola News Journal (PNJ):
reports of sick fish correlate with areas most impacted by the BP oil spill, said Jim Cowan Jr., the
Louisiana State University Department of Oceanography and Coastal Sciences
scientist who is at the center of the sick fish studies off the Alabama
“sick fish” sightings first raised eyebrows nearly two months
April 17 article in the St. Petersburg Times describes the severity of the deformities:
fish had dark lesions on their skin, some the size of a 50-cent
piece. On some of them, the lesions had eaten a hole straight
through to the muscle tissue. Many had fins that were rotting away and discolored or even
striped skin. Inside, they had enlarged livers, gallbladders, and bile ducts.
The St. Pete Times quoted Professor Cowan as saying: “The fish have a
bacterial infection and a parasite infection that’s consistent with a
compromised immune system. There’s no doubt it’s associated with a chronic
exposure to a toxin.” Hmmmm, I wonder what that could be? Any
In September 2010, my research team sampled red snapper caught off the coast
of Pensacola – and the results are very much in line with the “sick
fish” epidemic we’re seeing now. The certified lab results
show (see link to my previous post below) the viscera, or internal
organs, to be contaminated with nearly 3,000 PPM of total petroleum
hydrocarbons. That’s a dangerous level by any standard.
Although NOAA is sticking by its claim that Gulf seafood is safe to eat (see link to HuffPo
article below), the agency is recommending the following steps be taken if
you catch a sick fish:
the fish back into the water with minimal to no handling. Use a
fishhook-remover device. Avoid contact with skin, especially if you have cuts
or sores on your skin.
Document where you caught the fish, and if possible, photograph it. A website
is being developed on which anglers may post their findings.
are not advised to keep the sick fish because of the risks of
the fish transmitting disease to humans.
If you bring in a red snapper with lesions, it does count toward your fishing
“minimal to no handling” recommendation should concern us all, signaling that it may be time take
another look at NOAA’s “all clear” declaration on seafood
safety. After all, the agency has publicly admitted that the fish shouldn’t
be handled, and they may pose health risks if eaten raw.
Although Professor Cowan cautions that more research needs to be conducted
before a definitive connection can be established, he doesn’t hide his
concern: “I’m very worried because I’ve talked to
both commercial and recreational fishermen who have been in the business 30
to 40 years and no one has seen anything like this.” One such fishermen is
Donnie Waters: “I’m seeing things I’ve never seen before. I’m deeply concerned
about the long-term impact of the fishery of the eastern Gulf.”
Like Waters, Professor Cowan also believes there are sick fish, not
just off Alabama, but across the entire area of the Gulf hit by the BP spill. Research is taking place
now to determine if the problem is, in fact, that widespread.
From the PNJ article:
The Sea Lab is collecting fish samples this week for further scrutiny by
the FDA. A broader survey is poised to begin to determine whether the sick
fish extend to areas beyond Alabama coastal waters. And NOAA is setting up a
website on which recreational anglers can report any sick fish they find.
My guess is that NOAA and the FDA will ultimately confirm that there are sick,
contaminated fish all over the northeastern quadrant of the Gulf of Mexico. This is a serious issue
that has obvious implications for seafood safety as well as for the overall
post-spill health of the Gulf. A highly contaminated link in the food chain
can wreak havoc on the rest of the ecosystem.
the government finally comes around to addressing these marine life issues
this is all through, we could very well see the re-closing of waters once deemed
“all clear” for fishing. Stay tuned…
Catch up on NOAA’s “sick fish” guidelines here: http://www.pnj.com/article/20110525/NEWS01/10...-sick-fish-Gulf
Read my previous post on the most urgent problems, including seafood safety,
that must be resolved before the Gulf Coast can realize a full recovery: target="_blank" http://www.stuarthsmith.com/a-year-into-th...-the-gulf-coast
Read my Dec. 16 post on exclusive test results that show red snapper samples
taken off the coast of Pensacola to be highly contaminated with petroleum
hydrocarbo target="_blank"ns: http://www.stuarthsmith.com/exclusive-t...um-hydrocarbons
See the St. Pete Times story on sick fish target="_blank" here: http://www.tampabay.com/news/environ...ng-gulf/1164042
Read a good seafood testing story here a target="_blank"t HuffPo: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sus...c_b_820002.html
Example #2: Radiation-Tainted food
Again, as with the Gulf of Mexico, if all the food contaminated by Fukushima
nuclear meltdown was removed from the market, it would significantly drive up
prices. This is why ESF is encouraging the distribution and consumption
of as much radioactive food as possible.
While US media like the New York Times have reported on radioactive food in
target="_blank" Japan (see Radiation-Tainted
Beef Spreads Through Japan’s Markets), there has been little
target="_blank"reporting on radiation
in the US food supply.
Radiation in Our Food
By Chris Kilham
Published June 30, 2011 | FoxNews.com
Though the horrendous tsun target="_blank"ami that hit Japan on March
12, 2011 seems like old news in the midst of today’s headlines, the crippled nuclear power plants at Fukishima Daichi continue to
spew radiation into water, air and soil, with no end in sight.
Even as thousands of Japanese workers struggle to contain the ongoing nuclear
disaster, low levels of radiation from those power
plants have been detected in foods in the United States. Milk, fruits and vegetables show trace amounts of radioactive isotopes
from the Fukushima Daichi power plants, and THE MEDIA APPEARS TO BE PAYING SCANT ATTENTION, IF ANY ATTENTION AT ALL. It is as if the problem only involves Japan, not the vast Pacific Ocean,
into which highly radioactive water has
poured by the dozens of tons, and not into air currents and rainwater that
carry radiation to U.S. soil and to the rest of the world. And while both Switzerland and Germany have come out against any further
nuclear development, the U.S. the nuclear
power industry continues as usual, with AGING AND CRUMBLING POWER PLANTS RECEIVING EXTENDED OPERATING
LICENSES FROM THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, as though it can’t happen here. BUT
IT IS HAPPENING HERE, ON YOUR DINNER PLATE.
Taking a page from the BP public relations handbook, TEPCO (Tokyo Electric Power Company) and the Japanese government have downplayed the extent of the nuclear
disaster at Fukushima Daichi, in
which three of six nuclear reactors are in ongoing meltdown. According to
Japanese nuclear engineer Naoto Sekimura, nuclear
fuel rod meltdown at the damaged plants began only hours after the tsunami,
and the situation has not been contained. There is still an ongoing threat of a total “China
Syndrome” meltdown, and
Japanese officials now say that THE
THREE DAMAGED PLANTS MAY POSSIBLY CONTINUE TO EMIT UNCONTROLLED RADIATION FOR
According to Greenpeace, the ocean around large
areas of Japan has been contaminated by toxic radioactive agents including
cesium, iodine, plutonium and strontium. These
radioactive agents are accumulating in sea life. Fish, shellfish and sea vegetables are absorbing this radiation, while
airborne radioactive particles have contaminated land-based crops in Japan,
including spinach and tea grown 200 miles south of the damaged nuclear
plants. Meanwhile, on U.S. soil, radiation began to show up
in samples of milk tested in California, just one month after the plants were
Radiation tests conducted since the nuclear disaster in Japan
have detected radioactive iodine and
cesium in milk and vegetables produced in California. According to tests conducted by scientists at the UC Berkeley Department
of Nuclear Engineering, milk from grass fed cows in Sonoma County
was contaminated with cesium 137 and cesium 134. Milk
sold in Arizona, Arkansas, Hawaii, Vermont and Washington has also tested
positive for radiation since the accident.
Additionally, drinking water tested in some U.S.
municipalities also shows radioactive contamination. Is the fallout from Fukushima Daichi
falling on us? Yes, it is.
Thanks to the jet stream air currents that flow across the Pacific Ocean, the U.S. is receiving a steady flow of radiation from Fukushima Daichi. And while many scientists say that the levels of contamination in food
pose no significant threat to health, scientists are unable to establish any
actual safe limit for radiation in food. Detection of radioactive iodine 131,
which degrades rapidly, in California milk samples shows that the fallout from
Japan is reaching the U.S. quickly.
Though California is somewhat on the ball
regarding testing for radiation in foods, other states appear to be asleep at the switch with this issue. Yet broad-leaf vegetables including spinach and kale are accumulating
radiation from rain and dust. Some
spinach, arugula and wild-harvested mushrooms have tested positive for cesium
134 and 137 according to UCB, as have strawberries.
According to the U.S.-based group of medical doctors Physicians for Social
Responsibility (PSR), NO AMOUNT OF MAN-MADE
RADIATION IN WATER AND FOOD IS SAFE [KEY POINT]. “There is NO SAFE LEVEL OF
RADIONUCLIDE EXPOSURE, WHETHER FROM FOOD, WATER OR OTHER SOURCES,
PERIOD,” [KEY POINT] said
Jeff Patterson, DO, immediate past president of PSR, in late March. “Exposure to radionuclides, such as iodine 131 and cesium 137,
INCREASES THE INCIDENCE OF CANCER. For
this reason, every effort must be taken to minimize the radionuclide content
in food and water.”
Doctor Alan Lockwood MD echoes this. “Consuming
food containing radionuclides is particularly dangerous. If an individual ingests or inhales a radioactive particle, it continues to irradiate the body as long as it remains radioactive and
stays in the body.”
“Children are much more susceptible
to the effects of radiation and stand a much greater chance of developing
cancer than adults,” states Andrew Kanter, MD,
president of PSR’s board. “So it is particularly dangerous when
they consume radioactive food or water.”
… For while none of the 104 nuclear power plants in the U.S. are
melting down at present, we have had our own nuclear acciden target="_blank"ts. Remember Three
Mile Island? RADIATION HAS MADE ITS WAY TO THE
AMERICAN DINNER TABLE. …
Allowing the sale of lethal
food, again, keeps prices cheap.
6) Letting the powerless starve
Feeding the starving, of course, requires food. Aid agencies, who are
trying to save the hungry, drive food costs up when they raise donations and
buy grain on the international market. This is why, whenever there are
millions people dying of famine, the ESF uses every tool at its
disposal to thwart aid agencies and let the powerless starve.
One of the MANY examples of this is North target="_blank" Korea where the
US is leading the effort to starve 6 million people.
Korea’s looming famine
The secretive rogue nation is reportedly facing its deadliest food
shortage in years. Why can’t Pyongyang feed its people?
posted on July 18, 2011, at 4:34 PM
An undated North Korean poster encourages agricultural production: The secretive Asian nation is reportedly facing one of
its most lethal food shortages in years. Photo: KCN target="_blank"A/CORBIS SEE
ALL 14 PHOTOS
As f target="_blank"ears of famine
spread, desperate North Koreans are risking their lives to escape over
the border to China. …
Is North Korea’s food shortage really
The situation is bad,
and getting worse. The U.N.’s World Food Program says as many as
6 MILLION OF THE COUNTRY’S 24 MILLION
CITIZENS ARE AT RISK OF MALNUTRITION. Government
rations have been slashed to give people just 10 percent of what they need
for a healthy diet. The European Commission last week offer target="_blank"ed Pyongyang $14
million in emergency provisions, saying that 500,000
people, many of them already malnourished children, could die of starvation.
But THE U.N. SAYS IT WOULD TAKE $210
MILLION IN AID TO PREVENT DIRE SHORTAGES.
How are the poor coping?
Increasingly, desperate families are risking their lives to cross the border
into China. "You see more people out
in the fields and on the hillsides digging roots, cutting grass or
herbs," says Katharina Zellweger, head of the Swiss
Agency for Development & Cooperation in Pyongyang. Others are even more desperate. "Some people
are having to eat manure when they cannot get rice
or corn," said one refugee, 68-year-ol target="_blank"d Kim Yeong, as
quoted by Britain’s Telegraph.
Why can’t the country’s
"dear leader," Kim Jong Il, feed his people?
There are many contributing factors. The country’s "Soviet-style
planned econ target="_blank"omy" is a
disaster. MANY COUNTRIES, INCLUDING THE
U.S., HAVE STOPPED SENDING FOOD AID IN THE LAST FEW YEARS.
… And to make matters worse, North
Korea has been through a series of harsh winters and floods,
and harvested an unusually weak potato crop this spring.
According to video captured by a North Korean man over the course of several months, even
the target="_blank" military has joined
the ranks of the starving.
Korean children begging, army starving
North Asia correspondent Mark Willacy
Updated July 15, 2011 09:10:17
Footage shot inside North Korea and obtained by the
ABC has revealed the extent of chronic food
shortages and malnutrition inside the secretive state.
The video is some of the most revealing
footage ever smuggled out of the impoverished North Korean state.
The video shows YOUNG CHILDREN CAKED IN
FILTH BEGGING IN MARKETS, PLEADING FOR SCRAPS FROM COMPATRIOTS WHO HAVE
NOTHING TO GIVE.
"I am eight," says one boy. "My father died and my mother left me. I sleep
Many of the children are orphans; their parents victims of starvation or the gulag.
… the all-powerful army
– once quarantined from food shortages and famine – is starting to go hungry.
"Everybody is weak," says one
young North Korean soldier. "Within my troop
of 100 comrades, half of them are malnourished," he said.
-Editor’s note: The
ABC had 24-hour rights to publish the North Korean footage online, so it has now been removed from this story.
anyone knows where I can find a copy of this video, please let me know.]
Things are so bad that
people are a target="_blank"pparently resorting
The Stream – North Koreans Reportedly in Danger of Mass Starvation -
Christine Ahn [1 of 2]
The Stream – North Koreans Reportedly in Danger of Mass Starvation -
Christine Ahn [2 of 2]
Wavers while North Koreans Starve.
North Koreans Starve while Washington Wavers
July 12, 2011
… we hear that North Korea
does not need food aid, or it will be siphoned off by the military, or we
can’t monitor it, or the regime has funds to take care of any food needs
itself, or the problem is perennial because the North Korean
agricultural system is awful or
(most recently) that the problem is
inflated—often all of these
claims at once. To be sure, even if lots of kids get stunted and many
more women produce defective babies, we will never hear much about it or see
it on the tube. We can rest easy.
The U.S. government performance on this
issue the past three months is noteworthy
and deserves some recounting. In
April a group of American NGO officials with long humanitarian
experience in North Korea came back after investigating the food situation in
a number of provinces. They concluded that the situation was dire and that its
effects on the most vulnerable elements of the population could be disastrous. … Officials
back in Washington heard all this and—whatever
the internal debate—took no
action. The concerns of American
NGOs were echoed in the next few months by the World Food Program (WFP), who
saw an even larger danger affecting six
million people. …
… So far, Washington has not
agreed to provide aid or dispatch a team to negotiate
monitoring requirements, citing press reports
that the food problem is inflated and can be managed by the North Korean
regime. … Other than a few in Congress
like Senator Kerry and a few editorials urging food aid, THERE HAS BEEN LITTLE PUBLIC DISCUSSION. …
IT ISN’T JUST NORTH KOREA THAT IS
The Telegraph rep target="_blank"orts that UN
DECLARES FIRST FAMINE IN AFRICA FOR THREE DECADES.
UN declares first famine in Africa for three decades as US withholds aid
Tens of millions of dollars in urgently-needed US aid for Somalia are being
withheld even as parts of the country are set on Wednesday to be declared a
By Mike Pflanz, Nairobi
12:01AM BST 20 Jul 2011
The UN declaration will be the first in a series of
‘food crises’ in the Horn of Africa Photo: AFP/GETTY
Conditions in the country, hit first by war and then by drought, are
so severe in some places what was an "emergency" has now tipped
into a "catastrophe", the
UN will say.
In parts of one of the two regions to be officially certified, 10 TIMES THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE ARE DYING THAN THE OFFICIAL THRESHOLD
CLASSIFYING FAMINE. Tens of thousands are
believed to have already have died in the south of the country.
The UN declaration will be the
first in a series of "food crises" in the Horn of Africa, and the
first time the term famine has officially been used since almost a million
Ethiopians starved to death in 1984.
But Washington, the world’s biggest
donor to Somalia until 2009, is now barred from funding food appeals if its money risks
"materially benefiting" terrorists.
The new rules, FROM THE US TREASURY’S
OFFICE OF FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL [The treasury is leading
the campaign to let the poor starve],
came into force after reports that al-Shabaab,
Somalia’s al-Qaeda-linked insurgents, were taxing food convoys,
stealing supplies and threatening agencies’ workers.
Since then, US aid spending in Somalia has fallen by
88 per cent, from more than £150m in 2008 to
£13m this year.
"Avoiding aid diversion is important, but THE US’S OVERZEALOUS APPROACH LED TO A DAMAGING COLLAPSE IN US
HUMANITARIAN SUPPORT TO SOMALIA," he
"This has undermined humanitarian
response and preparedness and other donors have been unable pick up the
The Government has pledged another £90m for what David Cameron called "the most catastrophic situation for a generation" in the Horn
The scale of the outstanding need, however, meant that even "something
very creative that has not happened before, like Live Aid" will not be
enough, said a senior adviser to one British
"It is only government level responses, from
across all of the international community, that will have an impact
now," he said.
The withdrawal of US funds for southern
Somalia, coupled with al-Shabaab’s long-held
belligerence towards foreigners, were
"now costing lives", said Mr Konyndyk of Mercy Corps.
Under international law, there is no mandated extra response which
must follow from an "official" declaration of famine.
But it is hoped that the first official use
of the term in Africa since Band Aid 27 years ago will stand as a
"wake-up call" to governments,
including some in Europe and almost all in Africa, who have so far failed to respond.
The Telegraph target="_blank"reports that world’s
richest countries guilty of ‘wilful neglect’.
famine: world’s richest countries guilty of ‘wilful
The world’s richest countries are guilty of "wilful
neglect" in failing to fund appeals to save millions of Africans from
falling into famine, aid agencies said on Wednesday.
Less than a fifth of the £650m
urgently needed for the Horn of Africa has been pledged, Oxfam
said, with the response from most of Europe "surprisingly slow".
"THERE HAS BEEN A CATASTROPHIC
BREAKDOWN OF THE WORLD’S COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY TO ACT,"
said Fran Equiza, Oxfam’s director in the Horn of Africa.
"Several rich governments [ie: the US] are guilty of wilful neglect as the aid effort to avert catastrophe in
East Africa limps along.
"THE WARNING SIGNS HAVE BEEN SEEN FOR
MONTHS, and the world has been slow to act. By the time the UN
calls it a famine it is already a signal of large
scale loss of life."
Aid agencies have taken out full-page advertisements in newspapers and
launched appeals on television and radio, as 11
MILLION PEOPLE ACROSS KENYA, ETHIOPIA AND SOMALIA FACE THE THREAT OF
"It is time for the world to help but sadly
the response from many countries has been derisory and dangerously
inadequate," said Andrew Mitchell, the International
Development secretary. …
Mark Bowden, the head of the UN’s operations in Somalia, said as he
announced the first official famine in
Africa since Live Aid that "tens of thousands" of people had
"I’m not going to say it’s
not going to deteriorate further, it will," he said in
Nairobi, Kenya’s capital and the headquarters of the aid effort across
the Horn of Africa.
"Even if the world starts acting as
must, now, lives will be lost. But there are many more lives
that can be saved if we see the level of response that is desperately
Aid workers point out that weather reports
and famine early warning systems operating in Somalia had predicted extreme
shortages of food as long ago as January.
"The announcement of a famine across
much of east Africa is as tragic as it is predictable," said
Jeremy Hulme, chief executive of the Society for the Protection of Animals
"It’s scandalous that
we’re seeing this AVOIDABLE tragedy unfolding across the region,"
Mr Hulme added.
Using its Wurlitzer (propaganda
machine), the ESF censures and downplays all news of famine to the best of
its ability. This is highly effective: people don’t donate to or
urge their governments to support a cause they don’t know exists.
The result is that millions starve while aid agencies bemoan the
tragedy. It also makes global food prices a little cheaper.
7) Squeezing Farmers (The
"cheap food policy")
One easy way for the ESF to keep food cheap is the squeezing farmers.
And so the US has had a "cheap food
policy" for a very long time.
(Google Archive News target="_blank" results for "cheap
For a modern example of the continuing practice of
squeezing farmers, The Guardian target="_blank"reports that British
farmers forced to pay the cost of supermarket price wars.
British farmers forced to
pay the cost of supermarket price wars
soar at the supermarkets, food producers say they are being forced out of
business by unfair buying practices
guardian.co.uk, Saturday 2 July 2011 19.51 BST
are being forced out of business by what they say are the unfair practices of
major supermarkets. Photograph: David Sillitoe for the Guardian
can pick up a punnet of British raspberries – at their best this weekend
a two-for-one offer in most supermarkets. But as shoppers reach for
that quintessential summer treat, they should perhaps ponder the fact that it is the farmer, not the supermarket, who is paying for the
farmer may well be making no profit at all, with no choice in the
pricing and little or no idea, when he picked and shipped the raspberries,
how much he would get for them. Or that the packaging would be
paid for by the farm, but done by a company chosen
by the supermarket – at up to twice the cost of it being packaged
do not talk about these things. Many of them, during a month-long investigation, told the Observer
that in the midst of the downturn they dare not risk
annoying the big processors and shops. There is a "climate
of fear" – the National Farmers Union’s phrase – in the monopolistic world
of modern food retail: small producers are too frightened to speak out about the
abuses that are impoverishing them because they risk "reprisals",
which may mean losing the only customers there are. Very few felt able to
speak to us on the record.
Henry Dobell runs a fruit farm near Stowmarket in Suffolk. …
"One year Sainsbury’s refused all my raspberries after we’d
picked and packaged them," he said. "So the producer organisation
[the intermediary the supermarkets insist on dealing with] sold them to
Somerfield and we had to buy new packaging. But they all went on as a two-for-one offer: we had no say. At one point we were
being paid less per punnet than it cost to put a lid on it.
"I used to grow tree-matured Cox for Waitrose – in the last year with
them the fruit got lost in the organisation’s system and I got a much lower
price than I’d been promised. It took nine months to get paid. So I said I wanted to
"There was no written contract, but the producer organisation
threatened legal action. They wanted a £30,000-£40,000
payment if I didn’t stay with them for another year, and said I had to sign a
confidentiality agreement. …
and many more restrictive and potentially illegal practices are blamed for
driving 3,000 small and medium-scale farmers in Britain into poverty or out
of business over the past decade. …
least one dairy farmer has gone out of business in Britain every day for the past
decade, as supermarkets have more than doubled their share of the price
of a pint of milk. As many as 30 pig farmers have gone bust in the past year, according to the National
the heart of the problem, say campaigners, is public ignorance of how supermarkets buy
produce and the system that allows them to offer lower prices while
increasing their profits. Tesco’s profits were above £3.5bn for the first
time last year, and Sainsbury’s rose by nearly 13%.
results – despite the supermarkets’ endless price wars
– are achieved largely by getting suppliers to reduce their
prices. Most sectors of British farming, from eggs to fruit,
vegetables and pork, have seen farm-gate prices drop in the past year, despite
record increases in costs. "Supermarkets have handed the risk back
to us: they charge ever-increasing markups, force us to take part in
promotions," one Welsh farmer in vegetables and dairy told the Observer. "The farmer
takes all the risk, pays all the costs and gets virtually nothing above the
price of production."
such as "buy one get one free" are not a generous gift from the
supermarket. What they mean is that the farmer will be paid less – but he or she has
no ability to negotiate or even be informed if their crop is put on special
a crop has been over-ordered and doesn’t sell, the supplier may have to
pick up the cost of disposal.
farmers contacted by the Observer said they had seen their produce on
sale in supermarkets FOR LESS THAN IT WOULD HAVE FETCHED ON THE SAME DAY AT
THE WHOLESALE MARKET. … Yet contracts still oblige them to continue supplying.
(For more, see Google Archive News
target="_blank" results for Squeezing
far target="_blank"mers and Squeezing
farmers "cheap food")
Right now, the food consumers buy at the supermarket is artificially cheap,
thanks to the continuing “cheap food policy”. When the
ESF’s dollar Ponzi scheme collapses, this will end and farming will
become more profitable.
8) Naked short selling
Prices are set by supply and demand, and there are two types of demand for
agricultural commodities, end user demand and investment demand. In
other words, both soybean crushers (user demand) and pension funds
(investment demand) both “buy” for example soybeans (although
they do it for different reasons). The demand from soybean crushers
(they actually want delivery of soybeans) can’t be negated by financial
means, but the investment demand from pension can.
By naked short selling (commodity IOUs) agricultural and other commodities,
the ESF unnaturally removes the investment demand from the market, lowering
As an example of how the government is shorting agricultural commodities,
watch target="_blank" my video on AIGFP’s
Massive Short Position In Commodities (which now belongs to the government).
This naked short selling is reaching ridiculous levels. For example,
look below at the amount of soybean export sales outstanding (which is at absurd
levels for this time of year). There is a huge, growing backlog of
unfilled orders for US soybeans (soybean IOUs).
(th target="_blank"e data comes straight
from the USDA)
9) Distorting Perception of supply
The price of anything is heavily influenced by perception. It is really
simple to understand:
1) If people believe that there is a looming oversupply of something
(housing, oil, food, etc…), they will sell right way and hold off on
buying in anticipation of lower prices. This immediate selling and
delayed buying has an effect on supply and demand, lowering prices.
2) If people believe that there is a looming shortage of something
(housing, oil, food, etc…), they will buy right way and hold off on
selling (hoarding) in anticipation of higher prices. This immediate
buying and delayed selling has an effect on supply and demand, raising
In its desperation to keep food prices down, the ESF, through the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA), has been badly distorting the
perception of supply and demand in agricultural markets. This temporarily
delayed a rise in food prices but guaranteed a worse
crisis later. I described this dynamic in my ar target="_blank"ticle on the *****2010 Food
Crisis for Dummies*****.
Dynamics behind 2010 Food
Early in 2009, the supply and demand in
agricultural markets went badly out of balance. The world was
experiencing a catastrophic fall in food production as a result of the
financial crisis (low commodity prices and lack of credit) and adverse
weather on a global scale. Meanwhile, China and other Asian exporters,
in effort to preserve their economic growth, were unleashing domestic
consumption long constrained by inflation fears, and demand for raw
materials, especially food staples, was exploding as Chinese consumers worked
their way towards American-style overconsumption, prodded on by a flood of
cheap credit and easy loans from the government.
Normally, food prices should have already shot
higher months ago, leading to lower food consumption and bringing the
global food supply/demand situation back into balance. This never happened, because the USDA, instead of
adjusting production estimates down to reflect decreased production, has been
adjusting estimates upwards to match increasing demand from china.
In this way, the USDA has brought supply and demand back into balance (on
paper) and temporarily delayed a rise in
food prices by ensuring a catastrophe in 2010.
Overconsumption is leading to disaster
The USDA, by manufacturing the data needed
to keep supply and demand in balance, has ensured
that agricultural commodities are incorrectly priced, which has lead to
overconsumption and has guaranteed disaster next year when
supplies run out.
USDA estimates for 2009/10 make no sense
All someone needs to do to know the world is headed is for food crisis is to
stop reading USDA’s crop reports predicting a record soybean and corn
harvests and listen to what else the USDA
Specifically, the USDA has declared half the
counties in the Midwest to be primary disaster areas this year,
including 274 Midwest counties in the last 30 days alone. These
designated are based on the criteria of a
minimum of 30 percent loss in the value of at least one crop in a county.
The chart below shows counties declared primary disaster areas by the
Secretary of Agriculture and the president of the United States.
The same USDA that is predicting record harvests is also declaring disaster
areas across half because of catastrophic crop losses! To eliminate any
doubt that this might be an innocent mistake, the
USDA is even predicting record soybean harvests in the same states (Oklahoma,
Louisiana, Arkansas, and Alabama) where it has declared virtually all
counties to have experienced 30 percent production losses. It isn’t rocket scientist to
realize something is horribly wrong.
food crisis began last June, and food prices have been going straight up
ever since (look at graph at the top of this entry).
been tracking USDA dishonesty since the middle of 2009. Here are list
of some of my entries on the subject:
Deliberately Misleading Investors To Hide Looming Food Shortage (June 17,
More USDA Propaganda (June 30,
Divide Between USDA Estimates And Reality Grows Again***** (October 13,
Are Wrong***** (October 18, target="_blank"2009)
From Hell VS USDA’s “Biggest Crop Ever” (November 6,
Adds Misery To 2009 Harvest While USDA Commits Fraud***** (November 10,
Response To USDA Crop Report (November 12, target="_blank"2009)
Waking Up To Miserable 2009 Harvest (November 23, target="_blank"2009)
Ag Disaster Areas, Emergency Aid For Farmers, And Latest USDA Propaganda
(December 1, target="_blank"2009)
Placed USDA Disaster Declarations***** (December 7, target="_blank"2009)
Supply/Demand Numbers For 2009/10 Don’t Add Up***** (December 8,
Argentina Soybean Crop Estimates? See The Madness
(December 19, target="_blank"2009)
Insanity Reaches New Heights***** (January 12, target="_blank"2010)
Florida Freeze VS USDA
Optimism (February 12, target="_blank" 2010
USDA Propaganda And The Reality***** (April 12, target="_blank"2010)
PROPAGANDA: The U.S. is an island of supply for world grain demand
(August 17, target="_blank"2010)
is not restrained by second grade math rules” (September 10,
Again, No Record Crops
This Year (September 12, target="_blank"2010)
Has Succeeded In Losing All Credibility***** (October 5, target="_blank"2010)
spread as global food shortage worsens***** (January 20, 2011)
USDA Estimates kept prices cheap for a while until physical shortages
started showing up in the middle of 2010.
10) Propaganda to change our diets
Lets start with a recent example. Earlier this year every major media
(controlled by th target="_blank"e ESF) began blasting
a study linking diet soda to stroke and heart attacks.
CBS News target="_blank"reports that we
should all drink water.
February 10, 2011 5:19 PM
Diet Soda Stroke Risk? Will Health Police Let Us Drink ANYTHING?
By David W Freeman
diet soda is a healthy alternative to sugar-sweetened pop? Think again. The health police are out
with a new study showing that people who drink diet soda are much more likely to have a
heart attack or stroke than are people who don’t drink soda of any
her findings – and given the fact that diet soda has no nutritional
value – the study’s lead author said GIVING UP SODA MAKES
it from your diet isn’t necessarily a bad idea," Dr. Hannah Gardener, an
epidemiologist at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, tells
So what else is there left to drink?
Says Gardener, "I’m a big fan of WATER."
Of course, the link between Diet Soda
a target="_blank"nd stroke is utter
Diet Soda and Stroke Study
is Seriously Flawed
ATLANTA (February 10, 2011) – The Calorie Control Council stated today
that research findings presented during a poster session at the International
Stroke Conference claiming an association between diet soft drink consumption and
increased risk of stroke and heart attack are critically flawed.
"The findings are so speculative and preliminary at this point that they
should be considered with extreme caution. In fact, the study has not been
peer reviewed by any independent scientists and has not been published in a
scientific journal," stated Beth Hubrich, a registered dietitian with the Council.
research, as well as the publicity regarding the study abstract, is drawing a growing body
of criticism and skepticism from experts in the field of nutrition
have to say, this is one of the worst studies I’ve seen capturing
headlines in a long time,” said Dr. Richard Besser, Chief Health and
Medical Editor at ABC News, commenting during a February 10 segment on Good
Morning America. "It’s bad because of the science, but it’s also bad
because of the behavior that it can induce and the fear that people have. I DON’T THINK
PEOPLE SHOULD CHANGE BEHAVIOR BASED ON THIS STUDY."
Pointing out some of the flaws in the study, Besser added, "They
didn’t look at how much salt they took in,
they didn’t look at what other foods they ate. Those things we
know are associated with stroke and heart attack. They didn’t even
look at obesity over time. And so to conclude from this, that it’s
all from the diet soda, just makes no sense whatsoever."
The diet soda is target="_blank"sweetened by high fructose corn syrup
and target="_blank" corn prices were
hitting record highs when "diet soda=stroke" propaganda was
launched. Getting Americans to switch from diet soda to water would
lower demand and help bring down soaring corn prices.
Another larger and ongoing example of the effort to contain food prices
through propaganda is the vegan movement. Since livestock production
requires more resources to feed the same number of people that crops do,
anyone switching to target="_blank"a vegan diet is
helping the ESF lower food prices.
How does going vegetarian
save animals? – Yahoo! Answers
producers (farmers) operate with a high fixed-cost, low variable-cost
business model. In other words, their profits are volume driven, and are
usually constrained primarily by the size of their facility. As a result,
their profits are highest when they produce as much livestock as possible.
Since livestock is a commodity, the individual producers have little control
over price, but they have buyers for as much as they can produce. Therefore, they will not reduce
output in response to demand fluctuations. THEY WILL, however, SELL AT A LOWER PRICE if
necessary, to sell all of their output.
IF COLLECTIVELY VEGETARIANS REDUCE DEMAND FOR MEAT, production is not lowered, PRICES ARE. However, meat prices
continue to rise, as demand increases.
So no, vegetarians do not save animals by reducing demand. …
Besides, even if they DID reduce output, you cannot save something
that never existed. That would be like me saying that I have saved children from
miserable lives by wearing a condom.
long as farmers aren’t providing care for unsold livestock until their
natural death, vegetarians aren’t saving animals.
Like so much of what t target="_blank"he ESF does, the
consequence of its vegan propaganda are deadly.
Death by Veganism
By NINA PLANCK
Published: May 21, 2007
WHEN Crown Shakur died of starvation, he was 6 weeks old and weighed 3.5
pounds. His vegan parents, who fed him mainly soy
milk and apple juice, were convicted in Atlanta recently of murder, involuntary
manslaughter and cruelty.
Skip to next paragraphThis particular
— AT LEAST THE THIRD SUCH CONVICTION OF VEGAN PARENTS IN FOUR
YEARS — may be largely due to ignorance. But it should prompt frank
discussion about nutrition.
I was once a vegan. But well before I became pregnant, I concluded that a vegan pregnancy was irresponsible. You cannot create and
nourish a robust baby merely on foods from plants.
Indigenous cuisines offer clues about what humans, naturally omnivorous, need
to survive, reproduce and grow: traditional vegetarian diets, as in India,
invariably include dairy and eggs for complete protein, essential fats and
vitamins. THERE ARE NO VEGAN SOCIETIES FOR A SIMPLE REASON: A VEGAN DIET
IS NOT ADEQUATE IN THE LONG RUN.
Protein deficiency is one danger of a vegan diet for babies. Nutritionists
used to speak of proteins as “first class” (from meat, fish, eggs
and milk) and “second class” (from plants), but today this is
considered denigrating to vegetarians.
The fact remains, though, that HUMANS PREFER ANIMAL PROTEINS AND FATS TO
CEREALS AND TUBERS, because they contain all the essential amino acids needed for
life in the right ratio. This is not true of plant proteins, which are inferior in
quantity and quality — even soy.
A vegan diet may lack vitamin B12, found only in animal foods; usable
vitamins A and D, found in meat, fish, eggs and butter; and necessary
minerals like calcium and zinc. When babies are deprived of all these nutrients, they will
suffer from retarded growth, rickets and nerve damage.
Responsible vegan parents know that breast milk is ideal. It contains many
necessary components, including cholesterol (which babies use to make nerve
cells) and countless immune and growth factors. When breastfeeding
isn’t possible, soy milk and fruit juice, even in seemingly sufficient
quantities, are not safe substitutes for a quality infant formula.
Yet even a breast-fed baby is at risk. Studies show that vegan breast milk lacks
enough docosahexaenoic acid, or DHA, the omega-3 fat found in fatty fish. It is difficult to
overstate the importance of DHA, vital as it is for eye and brain
vegan diet is equally dangerous for weaned babies and toddlers, who need
plenty of protein and calcium. Too often, vegans turn to soy, which actually
inhibits growth and reduces absorption of protein and minerals. That’s
why health officials in Britain, Canada and other countries
express caution about soy for babies. (Not here, though —
perhaps because our farm policy is so soy-friendly.)
diet honored tradition: we ate the foods that our mothers, and their mothers,
your neighbor or sibling may be a meat-eater or vegetarian, may ferment his
foods or eat them raw. This fragmentation of the American menu reflects
admirable diversity and tolerance, but food is more important than fashion.
Though it’s not politically correct to say so, ALL DIETS ARE NOT CREATED
An adult who was well-nourished in utero and in infancy may choose to get by
on a vegan diet, but babies are built from protein, calcium, cholesterol and
fish oil. Children fed only plants will not get the precious things they
need to live and grow.
Thanks to ESF propaganda, the diets of
millions have been artificially distorted with tragic consequences.
This has helped lower food prices.
My reaction: If you have read and understand the
ten “cheap food” schemes outlined above, a few things should be
1) The dollar’s collapse is imminent. The current food
crisis (remember millions are starving) will only grow worse, and it will
ultimately force a mass liquidation of foreign
reserves (selling of dollars) by central banks (like China) who are desperate
to contain domestic unrest (food riots).
2) Once the ESF’s dollar Ponzi scheme is over and its
frauds/propaganda exposed, the effects of all its “cheap food”
schemes will begin to reverse. There will be a crackdown on food
substitution, a switch to more sustainable farming practices, contaminated
food will be taken off the market, etc… This will drive
food prices much higher on a permanent basis.
3) This will have a drastic effect on the global economy (separate from
the effects of the dollar’s collapse). You see, when food prices
go up, demand for everything else goes down. Sales of all types of
consumer goods will suffer as the world goes back to spending a lot more
money on food. Farming will become much more profitable.
4) Of all the ESF frauds, nothing rivals the harm it has done through
its “cheap food” scheme. The world has 6.9 billion people
BECAUSE food has been artificially cheap and plentiful. Once food
prices and availability go back to normal, there is going to be an
unbelievable loss of life.
Eric de Carbonnel