March 09, 2009

Have we been lied to about food safety?

According to Lisa Cohen-Cole at, we have been repeatedly lied to by both the American government and the largest, most influential international agribusiness conglomerates. In her latest attack on Monsanto and others she specifically accuses Michael Taylor of being an agribusiness puppet with a career that spans numerous rotations between government service and private employment at Monsanto. This much is certain, if Monsanto is happy enough with him to keep rehiring him, then we definitely have a case for a serious conflict of interest.

Her specific targets are H.R. 875, H.R. 814, H.R. 759, and S.425. In an earlier piece at, she makes a very good case that these and other regulations have a single, hidden purpose: the replacement of all small-scale family farms with gigantic multinational agribusiness conglomerates. I am inclined to agree with her, even though I do not have her background in researching this subject. One point that settled the debate in my own mind was the title of H.R. 759, "The FDA Globalization Act".

Unfortunately, I have been unable to locate the text of S.R. 425 online. If it relates to the others, then Based on these resolutions, I have to conclude that it is safe to assume her point has gone way beyond a wild conspiracy theory and into the realm of "hidden agenda intended to enrich those who already have more money than they can spend."

We in the Second Amendment Advocacy world need to start forming alliances with people like Lisa Cohen-Cole and the Slow Food Initiative. Although some of us in the Second Amendment movement are allied with American gunmakers like Colt and Remington, we need to recognize that the growing drive toward globalization is not being conducted in a way that will benefit anyone who believes in freedom. All international conglomerates, whether the automotive firm of GM or the agribusiness of Monsanto, are driven by one and only one ideology, making money for their stockholders. They are unconcerned with the destruction of family farms, the ruination of prime hunting grounds, the polluting of natural fish runs, or even the health of the consumers they depend on for revenue.

A tyrant, by definition, has no concern for the people he rules. International conglomerates of all stripes and styles have become economic tyrants bound and determined to remove any legal freedoms or protections for consumers that would inhibit their ability to enrich their stockholders. It is a point of great confusion for me, and an irony that no one in corporate management seems to recognize, that many of the people whose lives they regularly destroy by creating a regulatory system favoring massive business over small business are in fact, stockholders in the very companies that are destroying them.

Some of you out there hold voting shares in the very companies you must oppose if you are to preserve the freedoms you enjoy so that your children and grandchildren will also be able to enjoy them. How many of you sign off on the annual and semi-annual proxy the corporation sends you without ever looking at the damage your vote is used to justify? If we are to preserve our nation as the last stronghold of freedom and liberty, then we must become intimately familiar with every vote we have the ability to cast. Don't just blindly sign off on that proxy statement. Find out what the corporation is doing.

I have a friend who worked for Chrysler Motor Company. He used part of his salary every month to buy stock in the company. Every year his portion of the company expanded, and every year he signed off on the proxy statements they sent him. One day they shut down the factory where he worked and moved the entire operation to Mexico. My friend was deeply confused. He couldn't understand why they suddenly moved to Mexico. A few weeks later President Bush expanded NAFTA and laid the foundation for the North American Union without consulting either Congress or the American people. By that time, my friend had begun digging back through the annual and semi-annual reports Chrysler had been sending them. He found the first mention of the possible closing of the plant where he worked in a three year old annual report, right alongside the first mention that NAFTA could be expanded to cover transportation from the southern most limits of Mexico to the northern reaches of Canada. Every year for three years his proxy had been used to justify a vote in favor of closing the factory where he worked and move the operation to a plant in Mexico in order to take advantage of the new amendments to NAFTA.

He had voted himself out of a job without ever realizing what he was doing.