Check out this story from Liberty News Online, by Marti Oakley, titled “The truth behind the drive to outlaw raw/fresh milk sales“:
“….First you go to either Georgia or Arizona, each designated a sole and singular milk [region] by the USDA (in this case Georgia) and you worm your way into a Land Grant University. This allows you to use taxpayer funds to set up your patent scheme and to test it and work out the bugs. But this isn’t enough. You cannot gain proprietary rights through the TRIPPS agreement which will be the only way you can seize property and end competition unless you come up with something supposedly “new”. You have to be able to claim your proprietary rights were violated (intellectual and/or scientific creations) in order to show harm. So how would this be accomplished?
Under the auspices of the land grant university you go into an area, say for instance, Eatonton, Georgia and you collect the germ plasms from about 192 native species of grasses and clovers. Although these belong to the public domain (owned by the public at large) and even though this property of the public is never sold, leased or even formally lent to the corporation gathering them, they in turn take them, attach proteins, alter dna, splice genes or whatever is necessary to then turn around and say “we invented this, and we own it”.
Understand here that what has been [created] by theft from the public domain is a cultivar or grass that has had no risk assessment done on it to see how it will impact local biodiversity and, no attempt has been made to determine how these alien, invasive species will be controlled. In fact, this is intentionally not done. Why? You ask? Because the new grasses and cultivars are now altered in such a way, they become an aggressive species; quickly overtaking native species and altering forever the natural biodiversity of the landscape where they have been intentionally planted.
Agritech goes on to claim their new cultivars and grasses are substantially different from the original plants due to the corporations tampering with the natural state of the plant. This is the only way they can obtain a patent and claim it is “new”. Other than their own data, little if any real testing has been done to support not only this claim, but the subsequent claim their new creations cause an increase in milk production. In fact, the only other known test on these cultivars and grasses showed no significant production increase in milk resulting from the introduction of these invasive species.
In order to sell the milk produced from cattle fed the invasive grasses and cultivars, Agritech must now provide data showing no substantial difference between cows grazed on natural forage and those grazed on the genetically altered forage.
On one hand, to get the patent they claim it is substantially different and on the other, when it comes to selling the milk produced by grazing the gmo, claiming there is no significant difference.
These new grasses and cultivars were created for no other reasons than activating patent rights and provide no benefit either to livestock or production.
Spreading rapidly and without any control these alien species now invade neighboring properties whether the owner wants them there or not or even knows they are there. Here is where international proprietary rights enter the picture, dealing a fatal blow to private property owners and their rights. The newly created invasive species which the “creator” can’t and never had any intentions of controlling and which appeared without invitation on private property is now considered “stolen property” under proprietary rights. That’s right! You have now “stolen” the creation of an uncontrollable and aggressive alien species via horizontal transfer, wind drift, bird droppings, the movement of animals or the plants’ programmed aggressive genetics. And now, using the Monsanto standard of planting in close proximity to traditional crops just waiting for nature to follow its course, you begin the next phase of your seizure of public and private lands under proprietary rights.
While all this goes on, the USDA one of the corporations’ major financial and political supporters begins working to convince the public that a great danger lies in consuming raw/fresh milk. Buying their way via cooperative agreement bribery funding into your state, USDA begins a methodical collapsing of privately owned and operated dairy operations to facilitate the overtaking of all dairy production in the US by Cullen Agritech and centralizing it in the southeastern states. Fictions of law called “regulations” are erected to facilitate the theft of land and the ending of private operations. The USDA is also busying itself in trying to convince the public that “traditional” and “cafo” farming are the same thing. Even the land grant university refers to industrialized cafo farms as a “traditional” farming method; in whose nightmares I wouldn’t know.
This is happening in almost every state of the Union and yet not one state legislator has moved in any state to even attempt to protect sovereign private citizens from being forced out of business and off their land….”
“….NOTE: Just so you know, (ask anyone sued by Monsanto) the court system does not care that you did not intentionally plant or even want the Frankenstein plants or the DNA of those Frankenstein plants in your crop or grassland; nor do they care or recognize that these results of science gone mad invaded your property. The US judicial system has routinely allowed unwarranted search and seizure by individuals hired by corporations to illegally trespass on your property and to seize it when they choose too. Instead of the corporation being held liable for damages, for contamination of traditional crops and grasslands, for rendering your genetically pure traditional seed as unfit for human consumption and there fore unacceptable for foreign markets and free trade (most foreign countries will not accept GMO). Instead, they cite the private land owner/crop grower as responsible; handing billions over to corporations who caused the problem, calling it “damages”….”
3 responses to “Dairy power play based on Monsanto style ownership of GMO grass species”
Brilliant! You have answered my quandary of why so much action against small dairies is happening at just this time.
Thank you for writing about this, get the word out. I think in UK they are patenting the pig. Merci me.
The pig is being patented (and approved) in Canada and the US under the name Enviropig.
You can’t make this stuff up: http://gaia-health.com/articles301/000314-enviropig-genetically-modified-pigs.shtml