From StopTheSecrecy campaign:
The TPP threatens to censor your Internet, kill jobs, undermine environmental safeguards, and remove your democratic rights.
We're going to get the attention of decision-makers and the media by projecting a Stop The Secrecy message on key buildings in Washington D.C. - but we need you to add your voice now.
The TPP is huge: It covers 40% of the global economy and will overwrite national laws affecting people around the world.
The worst of the TPP threatens everything we care about: democracy, jobs, health, the environment, and the Internet. That's why decision-makers are meeting in Asia under extreme secrecy and pushing 'Fast Track' laws to cement the plan into place.
This is no way to make decisions in the 21st century. We need to raise a loud global call to expose this dangerous secrecy now.
With every voice that is added to our call, a donor will contribute to make the Stop The Secrecy projection on buidlings in Washington D.C. bigger and brighter. We need to make this as big as possible when Obama returns to Washington on April 30th.
Take action at StopTheSecrecy.net!
Sandy is part of The Corporation's grassroots team and has been working on the film's outreach efforts since 2003.|
This blog is cross-posted on Hello Cool World.
NEWSFLASH - VANCOUVERITES DON'T MISS THE FINAL SCREENING OF SHADOWS OF LIBERTY TONIGHT AT VIFF. This is an amazing film, and a must-see for anyone who cares about independant media. Mark Achbar describes the film as "taking up where Manufacturing Consent Left off" and "the best films on this topic so far." Check out the film. ShadowsofLiberty.org It ends with a call to action for the fight to keep the internet free!
... Read on for our Stop the Trap blog! ...
Stop the Trap! Send a message to governments involved in the TPP to make the process transparent, accountable, and open to public participation and to all interested stakeholders.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) has been described as "NAFTA on steroids," a trade agreement designed in secret by lobbyists from big corporations and industry. The breathtaking power grab would allow them to essentially write their own regulations and circumvent democracy, granting them powers over our health, environment, internet use, labour rights, and more. The countries involved in negotiations are United States, Canada, Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam.
When Big Tobacco/Oil/Media/Pharma/Agriculture/Retail and other corporations get together to party, we know we're in for one hell of a hangover.
In the Monsanto faqs section, under the link titled: Monsanto, the Government, Monopoly Claims, the company sidesteps the question entirely by briskly restating that consumers have a choice not to buy the product. The fact that they don't even attempt to provide an actual answer to the question is very telling.
The issue is taken seriously by anti-trust groups, however:
"In a White Paper published today, the American Antitrust Institute analyzes the dismal state of competition in the transgenic seed industry. The analysis concludes that agricultural biotechnology giant Monsanto possesses the market power to frustrate competition in soybeans, cotton, and corn, potentially slowing innovation and adversely affecting prices, quality, and choices for farmers and ultimate consumers of vitally important commodities. Download the White Paper above. "Transgenic Seed Platforms: Competition Between a Rock and a Hard Place," concludes that antitrust enforcement and/or federal legislative relief is needed” said American Antitrust Institute’s vice president and senior fellow, Diana Moss in their report American Antitrust Institute Says Competition in the Transgenic Seed Industry is Impaired by Monsanto.
|Jennifer Slattery is a dedicated human rights activist, former private investigator, and a member of the Occupy Movement. She lives in NY, and would be happy to answer any and all questions you might have: firstname.lastname@example.org|
In Part 3 of this 4-Part Series (read Part 1 and Part 2), guest blogger Jennifer Slattery takes on the myth that GM crops will miraculously solve world hunger. Putting aside the fact that hunger is not a supply issue but a distribution problem, Jennifer shows how GM crops fail even to deliver on increasing yields.
So come the answers from the green-washing corporatists: that we are stopping the end of world hunger by opposing GM crops. Yeah right guys, nice try. As if we’re dumb enough to believe that your terminator seed crops, (that destroy themselves after one season and never grow back), will feed more people than ones that grow back year after year naturally. The fact is that GM crops are less hearty even when they grow that one time. Yet Monsanto still brazenly claims on it's website that it's GM products increase crop yields across the board:
"Mexico - yield increases with herbicide tolerant soybean of 9 percent.
Romania – yield increases with herbicide tolerant soybeans have averaged 31 percent.
Philippines – average yield increase of 15 percent with herbicide tolerant corn.
Philippines – average yield increase of 24 percent with insect resistant corn.
Hawaii – virus resistant papaya has increased yields by an average of 40 percent.
India – insect resistant cotton has led to yield increases on average more than 50 percent."
However, Monsanto's claims aren't in sync with the facts on the ground; where a thirteen year study showed that:
"the UCS [Union of Concerned Scientists] report concluded that genetically engineering herbicide-tolerant soybeans and herbicide-tolerant corn has not increased yields. Insect-resistant corn, meanwhile, has improved yields only marginally. The increase in yields for both crops over the last 13 years, the report found, was largely due to traditional breeding or improvements in agricultural practices."
In Part 2 of this 4-Part Series, guest blogger Jennifer Slattery (read Part 1 here) delves into Monsanto's objections to the labelling of genetically modified foods. Some have suggested this has less to do with fear of consumer reprisal, and more to do with ensuring any adverse health effects are not traceable back to them, with all the legal liability that comes with it.
Monsanto's explanation for why we cannot have our food properly labelled, according to their website's article What’s the Problem with Labeling Genetically-Modified (GM/GMO) Foods? is insulting to say the least:
"Mandatory labeling of food containing GM ingredients might seem like a no-brainer. However, once you consider the facts, it becomes clear there is no sense in mandatory GMO labeling."
Is it clear to you? Me neither. This statement contains the logical fallacy of presenting the company's self-serving opinion as if it were a fact. Saying unequivocally that "once you consider the facts, it becomes clear there is no sense in mandatory GMO labeling" is an insult to the intelligence of anyone who reads it. We want to know what is in our food, whether it's harmful or not. So what "facts" could possibly change our opinion that knowledge of exactly what we are putting in our bodies is worth having?
Frankencorn, courtesy of Kevin McCarthy