We open our Evening Ball and spend the whole evening caressing compositions of Richard Wagner.

years of libretto - the first dates in brackets indicate this.

"The Prohibition of Love" (1834-1836)

Tangeiser (1843-1845, premiere - 1845)

"The Gold of the Rhine" (1852-1854, premiere - 1869)

Nuremberg Meistersingers (1861-1867, premiere - 1868)

The Death of the Gods (1848-1874, premiere - 1876)

Symphonic works: 

Overture and the finale to the tragedy of Raupah "King Enzio" (1832)

Overture to Abel's play "Columbus" (1835)

"Poland," overture (1836)

"Right, Britain," Overture (1837)

March of the Oath of Allegiance (1854)

Siegfried Idyll (1870)

Imperial March (1871)

Great solemn march (to the 100th anniversary of the proclamation of U.S. independence) (1876)

The FDA is silent as if fish 🐟 underwater, the population basically suspects nothing, believing that once the product is so widely advertised, it should be safe. 

By the way, congratulate our kids and please them with candy for the day of remembrance of our heroes. gave their young lives for our beautiful today, April - May 2021. We are so happy to live in a free and democratic country. Let them look at our American flag 🇺🇸 and be happy! 

"And then I realized both sides of my soul: an idealist crusader and a cold-blooded apologist of the law of the jungle." Edgar Kuini, Chairman of the Board of Monsanto (1943-1963) 

The next product after the sugar substitute, mastered in the early 30's by the company passed into the hands of Edgar Kuini, the son of the founder, was the production of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), which were widely used for the manufacture of lubricants, hydraulic fluids, water resistant coatings and sealants. That's a carcinogen so carcinogen, weighed down by the same, HOW TO THE NORMAL, destructive effect on the immune system, mental development and REPRODUCTIVE function of the human body. Monsanto bravely produced PCB almost until the introduction of this infection outlawed (in 1979), having managed to outsmart millions of residents not only in Illinois, which housed the world's largest PCB manufacturing plant, but also neighboring states. 

In 1982, environmental measurements in Times Beach, Missouri, showed such a high level of dioxin poisoning, a byproduct of PCB production, that state authorities ordered emergency evacuations.

. In the 1940s, Monsanto, already one of america's top ten chemical manufacturers, was actively involved in the production of an atomic bomb. The companies were entrusted with the Dayton Project, and Monsanto employee Charles Allen Thomas directly led the neutron generator laboratory. In addition, Monsanto was acquired by the Government's Maund Laboratory, where it was responsible for secret nuclear component development until 1989. On April 16, 1947, the port of Texas City experienced the largest environmental disaster in the history of the United States, which exalted Americans like to compare with Nagasaki. Although it is difficult for spoiled Europeans to understand the logic by which 74,000 killed Japanese equate to 581 Americans who lost their lives as a result of the explosion of a ship crammed with ammonium nitrate, which was intended to be sent to France. Eyewitnesses said that an explosive wave ripped off the wings of planes, where tourists flew around the sights of the city, in nearby Galveston, located 16 kilometers from Texas City, passers-by knocked down, and in the capital of Houston (60 km from the epicenter) in the windows flew glass, according to the Federal Environmental Protection Agency, the company is a "potentially responsible party" in the pollution of at least 93 objects in the United States. And in early 2007, British researchers declassified internal British memorandums and evidence that Monsanto illegally buried approximately 67 varieties of chemicals, including Agent Orange derivatives, dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls, which were produced only by Monsanto, in an undisclosed location in South Wales that was not intended to store chemical waste, contaminated and contaminated water and 30 years later. The Guardian reported: "It has emerged that the chemical company Monsanto paid contractors to dump thousands of tonnes of very toxic waste in British landfills, knowing that their chemicals could contaminate wildlife and humans." Dioxin is one of the most poisonous chemicals known to man. It is dangerous to live in microscopic quantities, allowable levels are measured in units per trillion, ideal level - zero. According to experts, it has been associated with endometriosis, deterioration of the immune system, diabetes, neurotoxicity, birth defects, NAME, testicular atrophy, WORK AND cancer. According to one scientific report, dioxin can affect insulin levels, thyroid and steroid hormones, FREE NEW LIFE. Monsanto's involvement in the production of dioxin contaminated with 2.4.5-T dates back to the late 1940s. Monsanto's internal memos show that Monsanto knew about the problems but concealed them." Monsanto's Agent Orange contained 2.3,7.8-tetrachloride gasparadioxine (TSO), extremely lethal even compared to other dioxins. Levels found in the internal 2.4.5-T were approximately 0.05 ppm, while those sent to Vietnam reached a maximum of 50 ppm, or 1,000 times the norm. Kate Parkins described the Monsanto report in Vietnam as saying that "a wide range of products produced by Monsanto were contaminated with dioxins, including the widely used Lisol home disinfectant. Monsanto's attempts to cover it up became apparent when the court awarded Monsanto $16 million in fines. Monsanto was found to have intimidated employees in order to keep everything secret, interfered with evidence, provided false data and samples to the Environmental Protection Agency. The investigation by Kate Jenkins of the Agency's regulatory records department recorded evidence of systematic criminal fraud." According to the Vietnam Dioxin Society, of the three million Vietnamese victims of the chemical, more than a million people under the age of 18 have now become disabled with hereditary diseases. Approximately 50,000 Vietnamese children were born with "horrifying deformities" in areas treated by Agent Orange, a practice that was only discontinued in 1971. It was an extremely profitable operation for Monsanto's chemicals division. In 1990, retired admiral Elmo R. Tsumwalt was tasked with investigating whether the government knew of Agent Orange's toxic effects on its own soldiers and civilians. More than a million Vietnamese have been sprayed along with more than 100,000 Americans and Allied soldiers." As mentioned above, Dr. James Clary admitted that in the "military" formula the concentration of dioxin was very high, but this was considered the norm, as the mixture was applied to the "enemy".

Monsanto is well-deserved for its environmental and cannibalistic poisoning with another agribusiness giant, Dou Chemical. Dow Chemical was the inventor of napalm used against civilians in Vietnam. This jelly-like chemical, getting on people's skin, burned it. As a result, more than 70% of napalm victims die as a result of pain shock. A disgraceful 1972 photograph of a naked child running down a street in Vietnam and screaming in pain has snatched out his impact on the world. For the first time, napalm was experienced in Japan, and few people know that even before Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the U.S. military had regularly polished its territory with napalm since 1942. June 8, 1972 Trangang South Vietnam. Pan Thi Kim Puk at the center flees from napalm dropped by mistake In March 1945, the Americans dropped 2 kilotons of incendiary bombs on Tokyo, destroying 15.8 square miles of land and 100,000 people, the total number of victims estimated to be one million. According to an eyewitness: "The Americans threw incendiary bombs on a special system, creating rings of fires. Wherever the Japanese ran away, they were greeted everywhere by a wall of fire. Tanks were sent to pave the way for the fleeing crowds. They began to break the road among the burning houses, but were also captured by the fire. The water boiled in the reservoirs, and people were suffocating..." 

The U.S. government apologized to the people of Japan ! The editorial board provides only documents and testimonies. Perhaps the editor himself would burn down the neighboring country, give him such an opportunity. It's hard to stop him when he breaks down, don't give him such toys if you ask for 🧎 ♂️, it's better to negotiate compensation with him in return for a hit. 

In early 2001, the New York magazine Investigate reported an alarming discovery. In an article entitled "The Vile Little Secret of Dow Chemical, the "Agent Orange" landfill found in the vicinity of the City of New York, the former high rank at the Avon Watkins Dow chemical factory in New Plymouth confirmed the worst fears of locals: part of the city was in a secret dump of toxic waste containing the deadly Vietnamese military defoliant "Agent Orange". "We buried him near New Plymouth," he confirmed. The article added: "While further evidence is needed that Agent Orange's surplus was dumped in New Plymouth, the locals found a container of the chemical on the banks of the Wyrek Creek." Dow Kemical kept it a secret for 20 years. The Dow factory at its headquarters in Midland, Michigan, contaminated all neighborhoods to sky-high levels of dioxin. Tests conducted by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality found that in 29 (out of 34) soil samples taken in the Midlands, dioxin levels were above the state's norm. In some samples, the concentration of dioxin was almost 100 times higher than normal. The state asked Midland residents to "not allow children to play in the ground. Wash your hands and any other open areas of the body after any contact with the soil" 

One of the largest environmental disasters in the history of environmental disasters is also connected with Dow Chemical, or rather its unit, Union Carbaid, from which about 40 tons of highly poisonous methylisocyanide leaked from its storage facility in Bhopal on 3 December 1984. On the night of the gas leak alone, almost 3,000 people were killed, and about 15,000 people died from the release of 40 tons of poisonous gas. Today, hundreds of thousands of survivors suffer from respiratory diseases, eyes, damage to the immune system, nervous system, memory loss, cancer, HEALTH, gynecological diseases.

In 1997, when Dow Chemical bought a stake in drug manufacturer Eli Lilly from Dow Elanco, Dow AgroSayens was formed. As a result, Dow Chemical became the second largest chemical company in the world with annual revenues of more than $24 billion and operations in 168 countries.

Four large and major suppliers of genetically engineered agricultural seeds (Monsanto, DuPont, Dow, Singent) started out as large chemical companies (which, however, are still now). The reason was the same in each case - they all before they plunged into the genetic engineering of seeds, produced pesticides and herbicides. Returning to the biography of Monsanto - the 50s passed without scandals. The company continued vigorous experiments with pesticides, which successfully turned into herbicides ("2.4.5-T"), expanded the plastics market and established together with one of the future owners of patents for GM seed, the German chemical giant Bayer, Mobey. 

In the mid-1970s, Monsanto embarked on a ambitious programme aimed at radically changing the planet's food chain. 

The program is based on the concept of a global transition from organic food to genetically modified forms, which in turn is achieved by the ubiquitous introduction of Roundup Ready System, a multi-level adaptation of cereals to Roundup, a herbicide used to fight perennial weeds. The spread of Roundup Ready System around the planet is best illustrated by the example of India, where Monsanto's expansion has taken on monumental proportions. In 1998, our good and very old friend, the International Monetary Fund, imposed SAP on India(the structural transformation programme), which, among other delights, required the opening of the country's grain market to multinationals. Monsanto came to India first, conducted a massive advertising campaign, and tens of thousands of Indian farmers credulously sown their fields of GM grain adapted for the Roundup Ready System. The consequences were an epic disaster, as savings on zero soil treatment were quickly offset by the cost of irrigation and the purchase of additional herbicides: weeds, as environmental skeptics predicted, adapted to Roundup and required either increased processing concentrations or more efficient and, of course, even more toxic chemicals (such as Atrazine, Paraquat and Metsuhu). 

Well good people, what to say, is genetic heredity, no more and no less. 

By 2005, three U.S. business leaders in the distribution of genetically engineered agricultural seeds and herbicides were lining up their arguments against any government regulation of their research or the safety of their genetically engineered seeds, arguing that the most reliable and effective way to ensure the safety of GMOs would be to simply trust them, even though massive advertising lies accompanied Monsanto's attack. 

In total, Monsanto has invested a million pounds in advertising in the UK and one and a half million in France. The company said: "The mere concern about starving generations in the future will not be able to feed them, and biotechnology will be able to." Monsanto 

Lovely guys, we like them, it would be interesting to spend a day off with them on the golf course 🏌️ ♂️. 

But according to the organization "Christian Aid" (UK) Genetic engineering does not feed and will not save the starving masses - just the opposite : "GM-cultures create classic prerequisites for the emergence of hunger. The diet, which is based on several patented plants, poses a serious threat to food security. The poorest are facing the prospect of increased dependency and accelerated marginalization." As a result of the Latin American "green revolution", as Christian Aid points out, food production per person has increased by 8%, but the number of hungry people has increased by 19%. 

And after golf 🏌️ ♂️ the course is prone to our great sympathies for the English, although to be honest, after Boris's dissolute and uns dignified behaviour, we wonder how they still haven't thrown him into the Thames. 

"During the 20 years of biotechnology implementation, Monsanto has conducted serious studies confirming the greater safety and nutritional value of our products than their standard counterparts. They (for genetically modified potatoes) have been approved by government agencies in more than 20 countries" Monsanto 

These claims were challenged by the British Advertising Standards Agency (ASA), which opposed certain provisions in the corporation's advertising, released in September 1999. The ASA report said the corporation had incorrectly stated in an advertisement that genetically modified potatoes and tomatoes had been tested and approved for sale in the UK. 

"Biotechnology and food are all about opinion. Monsanto believes that you have a right to know all opinions on this issue." Monsanto 

Of course, the opinion: especially when the same European Commission now invests in new school programs supporting biotechnology, and in training seminars for scientists, when the U.S. takes precautionary steps even before the "possible crisis" and there is a dispute. "Manufacturers of America" (GMA), which includes 132 firms, including such giants as Heinz, Craft and Procter and Gamble, have already prepared an educational program in defense of genetically modified foods (corn, tomatoes, potatoes and rapeseed), in such a situation, two opinions simply can not be. 

"Ground-based soybeans, sown in narrow rows, provide $16 more in revenue from each acre than conventional soybeans. On a 1,000-acre field, you save 450 hours of time and 3,500 gallons of diesel annually." 

Monsanto 

The Soil Sciences Association of The United Kingdom released a report in 2002 entitled Seeds of Doubt, based on an extensive study of material by US farmers who used genetically modified seeds. The report, one of the few independent estimates available, concluded that, rather than boosting yields, "GMO soy and maize made the situation worse." The study was based on an analysis by University of Iowa economist Michael Duffy, who found that, taking into account all the factors of production, "the herbicide-resistant GMO-soy requires more money per acre than non-genetically modified." The results for genetically modified bt-corn, seeded in the United States, were slightly better. Dr. Charles Benbrook of the Northwest Center for Environmental Science and Policy in Idaho, using U.S. Department of Agriculture government data to analyze bt-corn economics in detail, found that "in 1996-2001, U.S. farmers paid at least $659 million in price premiums to plant corn, increasing their yields by only $276 million and claiming $56 million more. The practical result from the cultivation of Bt-maize for farmers is a net loss of $92 million (about $1.31 per acre)." The cost of seeds was usually 10% of the normal cost of grain production. GMO seeds were significantly more expensive because of the added fees for the technology. The study concluded that with the price of technology, "GMO seeds are 25-40 percent more expensive than non-genetically modified seeds. In November 2004, a report by the Concerned Farmers Network in Australia concluded that in the case of genetically modified canola crops, "it is not clear that GMOs produce more, but there is evidence that less. While Monsanto says in advertising about a 40 per cent increase in yields sustained to the "Roundup" canola, its best results on their website for Australian test yields show that yields are 17 per cent lower than our national average. Even the U.S. Department of Agriculture acknowledged that the claimed properties of GMOs were not relevant to reality. "The application of biotechnology is under way ... does not increase the maximum yields. We need more fundamental scientific breakthroughs if we are to increase yields." It has become increasingly clear that the argument for widespread commercial use of genetically engineered seeds in agriculture was based on the foundations of scientific fraud and corporate lies. A similar story with one of Monsanto's most widely publicized acts, when the company donated a genetically engineered virus-resistant potato, sweet potato to the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (CHI) - an institution financially supported by the World Bank and Monsanto, among others. Dr. Florence Wambugu of the CSC Research Institute was sent by Monsanto and USAID on a world tour with reports in which she stated that Monsanto's GMO batata had solved the problem of famine in Africa. Wambugu worked on the design of GMO-batata during her time at Monsanto, a project supported by USAID, the International Agrobiotechnology Assessment Service and the World Bank. Wambugu claimed that it would raise yields from four to ten tons per hectare. In 2001, USAID provided a solid high-level support project to spread GMO crops to the skeptical African population. The American financial magazine Forbes named Wambuga among 15 people from all over the world who "transform the future." The only problem was that the project was a catastrophic failure. GMO-sweetulats were susceptible to viral diseases. Their yields were obviously smaller than those of conventional local pests, not 250% more than Wambugu predicted. The RESEARCH Institute and its corporate backers tried to support the fraud, but Dr. Aaron DeGrassi of the Institute for Development Studies at the University of Sussex put on public display the statistical tricks used by Wambuga and Monsanto. DeGrassi said that "the calculation of transgenic sweet potato yields used understated figures of average yields in Kenya to paint a picture of stagnation." One of the first articles referred to 6 tons per hectare (without mentioning the data source), which was then reproduced in subsequent studies. However, DeGrassi noted that "FAO statistics show a figure of 9.7 tons, and official statistics report 10.4 tons. The World Bank and Monsanto ignored these critical findings and continued to fund Wambugu research for more than 12 years. In 1998, the American biotech company Delta En Pine Land Sid Company, from Scott, Mississippi, was the largest owner of commercial cotton seeds. With the financial support of the USDA, it obtained a joint patent with the U.S. government for its GURT technology or "terminator." Their joint patent (U.S. patent number 5723765, titled "Control of Gene Expression in Plants") allowed its owners and buyers of licenses to create sterile seeds by selectively programming the plant's DNA to destroy its own embryos. 

The patent applied to plants and seeds of all kinds. The "Terminator" seemed to be the answer to the dream of agribusiness to control the world's food production. 

They will no longer need to hire expensive detectives to spy on farmers, whether they are reusing Monsanto seeds, or offering free leather jackets to informants. Terminator-technology corn, soybean or cotton seeds have been genetically modified to "self-destruct" after one harvest. The built-in gene produced the toxin before the grain was ripe, causing the plant embryo to commit "suicide." Seed with terminator technology would automatically prevent farmers from storing and reusing seeds in the next cycle. The second related technology, which received priority research and development funding from multinational GMO companies in the late 1990s, was T-GURT seeds, the second generation of the "terminator." T-GURT or the technology of genetic use of terminator technologies with a renewable trait has been nicknamed "traitor" - a reference to the characteristic features of the plant in the genetic technology used. It was also a double word that was not lost on technology critics. A year later, Monsanto announced the acquisition of Delta & Pine Land. They were determined to get a patent for the terminator technology. They knew that it applied not only to cotton seeds, but to all seeds. The news of the planned takeover was a disaster for Monsanto in terms of public relations. Newspaper headlines around the world portrayed everything exactly as it looked: as an attempt by a private company to control the seed supply to farmers around the world. In September 1999, Rockefeller Foundation President Gordon Conway took a highly unusual step by personally addressing Monsanto's Board of Directors. He made it clear to them that Monsanto should refrain from developing and commercializing Terminator seed technologies. At Monsanto they listened carefully to Conway. On October 4, 1999, Monsanto President Robert B. Shapiro gave a press conference at which he announced that the company had decided to stop the commercialization of Terminator technology. That same month, Shapiro reiterated his point in an open letter to Rockefeller Foundation President Conway, in which he stated: “We are making a public commitment not to commercialize sterile seed technologies such as Terminator.” Your information and many other experts and stakeholders. "The world press hailed this as a major victory for the advocates of common sense and social justice. For those who were not too lazy to figure out the details," Monsanto ", in essence, did not sacrifice anything. Shapiro of Monsanto "Did not back down and did not give up the opportunity to develop a" terminator "in the future. Robert Shapiro added that" at the moment we are not investing in the development of these technologies ... however, we do not refuse either from their development and use for genetic protection in the future, or from their possible agrotechnical benefits ”.

 Although Conway of the Rockefeller Foundation and Monsanto caused a sensation by announcing the suspension of work on the Terminator, Delta & Pine Land's GURT technology partner, the US Department of Agriculture, did not undertake such a commitment. The press ignored this. The big news was Monsanto's announcement. If the world realized what opportunities GMO seeds provide, it could begin to resist while it was still possible. And this, one way or another, was the obvious justification for such a rare event as the open public intervention of the Rockefeller Foundation. To save the whole project, the Rockefeller Foundation actually got discipline from Monsanto, and Monsanto took the hint, the companies played a "bad and good cop." The situation in connection with the polemic around the "terminator" began to calm down; the deception seemed to work as the "terminator" headlines began to fade. The public announcement of the moratorium by the Rockefeller Foundation and Monsanto in October 1999 was a deliberate tactical diversion, while seed companies continued to refine the Terminator, T-GURT and related technologies. As soon as the outrage at the "terminator" subsided, Monsanto, starting in June 2003, began to fix the image of the "terminator", portraying technology as an "environmental plus". Rather than emphasizing seed control technology, Monsanto began promoting the terminator, or GURT, as a way to control the spread of transgenic seeds by wind or pollination and thus contamination of conventional crops. In February 2004, Roger Krueger of Monsanto, along with Harry Collins of Delta & Pine Land, published an article in the International Seed Federation, an association for the industry, in which concerns about the dangers of Terminator or GURT seeds were dismissed as "speculation. "And they argued that" GURT technologies have the potential to benefit farms of all sizes, all economic and geographic regions. " This time they called the "terminator" or GURT "a possible technical solution" to the problems of genetic infection of plants.

 By 1999, GMO seeds had just taken a significant share of the American seed market. A 2001 US Supreme Court ruling gave GMO firms such as Monsanto the ability to force American farmers to become "seed slaves." The court ruled that Monsanto's fines for non-payment of contributions have become severe punitive legal measures. Monsanto took care of the judges' favor in advance. She stipulated in her contracts that any lawsuit against the company would be heard in San Luis, where the jury knew that Monsanto was the main local employer. Monsanto and other GMO seed companies demanded payments from farmers every year for new seeds. Farmers have been banned from reusing seeds from previous crops. Monsanto even hired Pinkerton private detectives to spy on farmers to see if they were using old seeds instead of paying for new ones.

 "We will ensure that biotech products receive the same oversight as others, rather than the barriers of meaningless regulation."

 Dan Quayle, US Vice President of the Sr. Bush Administration

 The obvious strategy of Monsanto, Dow, DuPont and the Washington government that backed them was to introduce GMO seeds to every corner of the world, prioritizing the defenseless, heavily indebted African and other developing countries, or countries like Poland. and Ukraine, where state control is minimal and official corruption is widespread. In Indonesia, Monsanto was forced to plead guilty to charges of paying $ 50,000 in bribes to a senior Indonesian government official to avoid preliminary screening for new transgenic crops. The court records showed that the bribery was done with the permission of Monsanto's American headquarters. Monsanto was later found guilty and forced to pay a fine. Subsequently sown once, the seeds quickly spread throughout the country. Then transnational GMO seed companies, using the threat of WTO sanctions, will be able to dominate the supply of seeds to the main agricultural regions of the planet, providing or denying them livelihoods at their discretion. A potential enemy or rival is denied a strategic resource - energy, money, or, as in this case, food - or he is threatened with refusal, unless he agrees to some political demands from those who control the resource. In Poland, Monsanto and other large agribusiness corporations were simply illegally sowing GMO seeds in one of the most fertile soils in Europe. In the case of Brazil, Monsanto has acted more cunningly. She used transgenic soybean smuggling to her advantage, working with illicit GMO soybean producers to pressure Lula da Silva's government to legitimize the crop. The government finally lifted the ban on GMO plants in early 2005, saying it was no longer useful to control their distribution. As soon as GMO soybeans were allowed in Brazil, Monsanto began to eliminate the black market. And while the government offered amnesty to those farmers who registered their crops as transgenic soybeans, Monsanto worked out agreements with soybean producers' organizations, cooperatives and exporters to force Brazilian farmers to pay royalties. In 1996, Monsanto sent a container full of US soybeans to the shores of Europe. They were not labeled, and EU inspectors only later discovered that they contained Monsanto's genetically modified soybeans, the same ones she had planted throughout Argentina and Brazil. They entered the food chain without labeling. In late 1997, the EU responded with a moratorium on the commercialization of genetically modified crops. The EU Commission, a strong and largely unaccountable bureaucracy in Brussels that controls the daily lives of an estimated 470 million EU citizens in 25 states, has itself been split over GMOs. The Danish European Commissioner for Agriculture was strongly in favor of GMOs. The EU Environment Minister from Greece, which had a law strictly prohibiting GMOs, was strongly opposed. Farmers across the EU set up spontaneous "GMO-free" zones and pressured their politicians to keep up with WTO demands. Opinion polls have repeatedly shown that European citizens, when asked, expressed strong negative reactions to GMOs, these numbers often reaching 60% or more.

 In 1996, Monsanto sponsored the Clinton campaign. She also donated about $ 18,000 to the Democratic Party during the 1997-98 election campaign. In 1997, Monsanto spent $ 4 million on a campaign to advance its interests in Congress and the White House on issues ranging from the tax code to hazardous waste laws and food safety. To begin with, in response to the ban on its products in Europe, Monsanto invited a group of European journalists to the United States, the plan of the visit included an "excursion" to the Oval Office. Senior aides to President Clinton (Madeleine Albright, Bill Daly, Dan Glickman) did everything to protect Monsanto. In September 2006, the WTO published part of its ruling on a case presented to trial in May 2003 by US President George W. Bush, who accused the EU of a de facto moratorium on GMOs. The WTO judges noted that as the European Commission was changing its procedures while it was changing its procedures to approve a number of different options for GMOs for commercial use, this moratorium or formal ban no longer exists. A preliminary ruling on this case was issued by a special tribunal (consisting of three persons) of the World Trade Organization in Geneva. The WTO decision threatened to force the introduction of genetically manipulated plants and food products in the most important agricultural production area in the world - the European Union. The ordinance was filed by the United States government in one folder next to Canada and Argentina, the third most GMO-polluted country in the world. In 2002, the Department of State instructed all of its relief agencies to act as international police officers. They were instructed by the government agency USAID to immediately report any opposition to imported GMO food in the recipient country. They had to collect documents to determine if the local government's anti-GMO stance was motivated by "trade or political considerations." If they established that it was trade considerations, then the US government could resort to WTO proceedings or the threat of WTO sanctions against the recipient country. Citizens in the European Union have openly opposed GMOs because of the terminator threat and food safety implications, and the fact that the US and other patent offices decided to grant exclusive patents to Monsanto and Syngenta for several different varieties. "Terminator", but what does it have to do with, right, citizens.

 September 11, 2001 completely overshadowed the USDA's announcement of a licensing agreement with its partner Delta & Pine Land, which allowed Delta & Pine Land to begin commercial production of terminator technology for its cotton seeds. The public outcry was muted this time. The world suddenly had other fears, although Robert Shapiro made it clear in his public statement that he was not going to abandon the "terminator" as a weapon over the supply of seeds. He meant T-GURT technology. On August 15, 2006, Monsanto Corporation announced that it had made a new takeover offer to Delta & Pine Land, with a disclosed purchase price of $ 1.5 billion in cash. Unlike the last time she tried the same operation in 1999 and was forced to retreat in the face of a storm of public outcry, this time the takeover went almost unnoticed. The timing of Monsanto's second bid for a controlling stake coincided with Delta & Pine Land's announcement that it was ready to commercialize Terminator. On a quiet day in August, in Scott, Mississippi, the next part of a plan to control the human food chain was completed: Under the guise of counterterrorism, Monsanto completed the final acquisition of Delta & Pine Land, gaining unrestricted control of most of the planet's crop seeds. In addition, since the 1990s, Monsanto has spent approximately US $ 8 billion buying up grain companies to cement its position as one of the world's leading herbicide producers. Plus: With strong support from the WTO and the US and UK governments, major international biotech companies have begun granting themselves genetically modified patents for every plant imaginable. By the late 1990s, the Gene Revolution was gaining monsoon strength in global agriculture.

 The Terminator deal has closed the circle for Monsanto: now it has become a monopoly in the production and sale of agricultural seeds of almost every variety. This strategy, outlined by Monsanto President Robert B. Shapiro in an interview with Business Week on April 12, 1999, was to create a global fusion of “three of the largest industrial sectors in the world - agriculture, food and health - which now operate as separate areas of activity. In the year leading up to the Delta & Pine Land proposal, Monsanto paid more than $ 1.4 billion for the loss-making Californian GMO seed giant Seminis. Seminis, actively patenting GMO seeds of various varieties of fruits and vegetables, was the world leader in this area. Seminis boasted at the time, “If you ate salad, then you ate Seminis.” By the time Monsanto took over, Seminis controlled more than 40% of all American vegetable seed sales, 20% of the global market. They supplied genetics to American supermarket shelves for 55% of all lettuce, 75% of all tomatoes and 85% of all peppers, as well as large proportions of spinach, broccoli, cucumber and peas. This purchase led to the creation of the world's largest seed company, the first in fruit and vegetable seeds, the second in agronomic crops, and the third largest agrochemical company in the world. Karl Kasale, Vice President, Monsanto: “Volume the land allotted in the United States for the use of GM grain has grown from three million acres in 1996 to 97 million in 2002. ”In the United States, As a result of the dominance of agribusiness in agriculture, genetically engineered crops have essentially filled the American food chain. In 2004, more than 85% of all US soybeans grown were genetically modified crops, most from Monsanto. 45% of the entire US corn crop was GMO corn. Corn and soybeans make up the most important feed in American agriculture, which means that nearly all of the country's meat production, as well as its meat exports, is fed on genetically modified forage. Few Americans knew what they were eating. Nobody bothered to tell them about it, and least of all government agencies, which are entrusted with the responsibility of looking after the health and welfare of citizens [2]. This is not surprising, the government agencies of the United States and Great Britain are more reminiscent of the additional office of Monsanto than the government in the usual sense. The firm donates about $ 200,000 annually to candidates and political parties. Sixteen GM firms have had more than 80 meetings with government officials, mostly Labor, in the short time since Tony Blair's team was elected. Former UK Labor Party leader David Hill is a press consultant for Monsanto. Marcia Hale, Monsanto's director of relations with the British government, was previously President Clinton's assistant on government relations. Michael Cantor, a former US Secretary of Commerce, became a member of the Monsanto board in 1997. Earlier, William Rookleshouse, a former director of the US Environmental Protection Agency, and Gwendolen King, head of the Public Safety Agency, did the same. Kantor now works for a new law firm, representing Monsanto's international trade interests and serving on the board of directors. Also in attendance was William Dee, former head of the Nixon and Reagan Environmental Protection Agency. Ruckelshaus. Michael A. Friedman, MD, MD, Monsanto Senior Vice President, Clinical Research, was at one time director of the FDA. Linda J. Fisher, Monsanto's Vice President of Public Affairs, was at one time Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency's Division of Pesticide and Toxic Substance Pollution Prevention. Monsanto attorney Jack Watson was the White House chief of staff during the Carter administration. Monsanto attorney Clarence Thomas was appointed by George W. Bush to a life-long position of Chief Justice. Donald Rumsfeld, until recently the Secretary of Defense, once headed the aspartame manufacturer Searle Pharma-ceuticals, which Monsanto acquired in 1985. Rumsfeld also served as chairman of the board of directors of the Californian biotechnology company Gilead Science, which held the patent for Tamiflu, a drug recommended by WHO for the prevention of avian influenza. Ann Veneman, until recently the US Secretary of Agriculture and now the Executive Director of UNICEF, was once a member of the Board of Directors of the Monsanto division. Linda Fisher, the first deputy director of the federal environmental protection agency, is modestly said to have “spent 17 years in the civil service and in the private sector dealing with health issues for the American people,” but it should be reported that Fischer came to power as a President of Monsanto for Government and Public Relations, and from 1995 to 2000 coordinated all lobbying activities of her native company in Washington. Margaret Miller, a former Monsanto researcher while working on the BST supplement, went to the FDA, where she tested the fruits of her own research at Monsanto. It issued a permit for a 100-fold increase in the antibiotic content of American cows' milk, although the US Food Safety Center filed a petition to ban the use of Monsanto's hormone in food production [28]. The rBGH hormone not only stimulated the cow to produce more milk. In the process, the production of another hormone, insulin-like growth factor 1GF-1, was spurred, which regulated the metabolism of the cow, in fact, stimulating cell division in the body of each animal and preventing cell necrosis. This is where problems began to appear. Various independent scientists have warned that Monsanto's rBGH increases levels of insulin-like growth factors and has a possible link to cancer. One of the most vocal speakers on this issue was Dr. Samuel Epstein of the University of Illinois School of Public Health. Epstein, a recognized authority on the study of carcinogens, warned in the light of the emerging scientific evidence that insulin-like growth factor was associated with the development of cancers in humans, which may not appear for many years after the first exposure. When Monsanto's patented Posilac caused leukemia and tumors in rats, the US Food and Drug Administration was rewritten to allow the sale of a product that caused cancer in laboratory animals without warning labels. It was all that simple. In 1995, just prior to widespread commercial sales of Monsanto's transgenic soybean seeds to American and Argentinean farmers, the Scottish Department of Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries contracted Rowett Research Institute for a three-year extensive study led by Dr. Pusztai. With a budget of $ 1.5 million, this was an impressive task. The Scottish Department of Agriculture wanted the Rowett Institute to develop guidelines on research guidelines for government regulatory agencies to assess the risks of GM crops in the future. This scientist, Dr. Arpad Pusztai, was no stranger to GMO research. He has specialized in biotechnology for over 35 years, has published many recognized scientific papers, and is considered the world's leading expert on lectins and plant genetic modification. Pusztai's task was to carry out experiments on laboratory rats in several selected groups. One of the groups was to receive nutrition in the form of genetically modified potatoes. The potato was modified with lectin, which supposedly acted as a natural insecticide to prevent aphid infestation on potatoes, at least that's what the GM potato grower claimed. The Scottish government, the Rowett Institute and Dr. Pusztai all believed they would confirm an important breakthrough in crop production that could bring enormous benefits to food production by eliminating the use of pesticides when planting potatoes. By the end of 1997, doubts began to appear in Pusztai. His experiments gave completely unexpected and disturbing results. Rats that received food in the form of genetically modified potatoes for more than 10 days had pronounced changes in their development. They were significantly smaller in size and body weight than the potato-fed control rats in the same experiment. More alarming, however, was that the GMO-fed rats had noticeably smaller liver and hearts and showed a weaker immune system. But the most disturbing result of Pusztai's laboratory experiments was the markedly smaller brain size in rats fed GMO food compared to rats fed normal potatoes. These research findings so worried Pusztai that he chose not to mention them when asked to present his findings on a British independent television show in 1998. He later stated that he feared to cause panic among the population. But what Dr. Arpad Pusztai said when, in August 1998, he was invited to the popular ITV program World in Action for a short conversation about the results of his work, turned out to be quite alarming. Pusztai told the whole world: “We are assured that it is absolutely safe. We can eat this all the time. We have to eat it all the time. There is no possible harm to us. " Then he gave the following warning to millions of viewers. He stated: "If I had a choice, I definitely would not eat it until I see at least the adequate scientific data that we get on our genetically modified potatoes."

 Suddenly, the whole world began to discuss the sensational comments of Pusztai. The damage to internal organs and the immune system was already bad news enough. The initial reaction of Pusztai chief Professor Philip James was warm congratulations on the way Pusztai presented his work that day. At James' decision, the institute even issued a press release based on the results of Pusztai's work, stressing that "Dr. Pusztai's concern is based on a series of carefully controlled studies." This symbolic support soon ended completely. Within 48 hours, the 68-year-old scientist was informed that his contract would not be renewed. He was effectively fired along with his wife, who herself has been a respected researcher at the Rowett Institute for more than 13 years. Moreover, Pusztai was threatened with the loss of his pension if he ever spoke to the press about his research again. His official papers were seized and placed under lock and key. He was banned from talking to members of his own research group under threat of legal action. The group was disbanded. Phone calls and emails were forwarded. Pusztai's colleagues began to vilify his scientific reputation. The Rowett Institute, which issued several press releases, each of which contradicted the previous one, focused on the story that Pusztai simply "confused" samples from GMO-fed rats with samples from rats fed with potatoes, known for their toxicity. Despite these attacks, some 30 leading scientists from 13 countries signed in February 1999 under an open letter in support of Pushtai. The letter was published in London's Guardian, sparking a new round of controversy over the safety of GMO crops and the results of Pusztai's research. Less than a few days after the publication in The Guardian, the most august organization - the British Royal Society itself - entered the struggle. The Royal Scientific Society announced its decision to verify the data obtained by Pusztai. In June 1999, the Society issued a public statement stating that Pusztai's research "was flawed in many aspects of planning, execution and analysis, and that no conclusions can be drawn from it." Despite his public statements about "flaws" in Pusztai's research, the Society never produced a "flawless" version of this important study. Which suggested that they were probably not interested in scientific honesty at all.

 Andrew Rowell's investigation revealed that the statements of the Royal Scientific Society and a similar condemnation of the Science and Technology Ad Hoc Committee of the British House of Commons, which appeared on the same day, May 18, were the result of concerted pressure on the two bodies from the Blair government. Three days after concerted attacks on the scientific reputation of Pusztai by the Royal Scientific Society and the Ad Hoc Committee, Blair's so-called "armchair executive", Dr. Jack Cunningham, declared in the House of Commons: “The Royal Scientific Society has convincingly rejected (as completely misleading ) the results of a recent study of potatoes and their misinterpretation - there is no evidence that genetically modified food sold in the country is dangerous. " Making this an obvious message on behalf of the Blair Cabinet, he added, "Biotechnology is an important and exciting area of ​​scientific advancement that offers incredible opportunities to improve the quality of our lives." Official documents later revealed that there was a division within Blair's own cabinet over the safety of GMOs, and that some members recommended further research on the potential health risks associated with GMOs. They were silenced and Cunningham was put in charge of the overall government position on GMO crops in the Biotechnology Presentation Group. It took five years and several heart attacks before the nearly bankrupt Pusztai was able to piece together the details of what happened in the 48 hours after his first TV appearance in 1998. The information he received revealed the sad truth about the politics of GMO crops. Pusztai pieced together the following amazing course of events. Several of his former colleagues at the Rowett Institute, who had retired and thus protected from possible job loss, confirmed to Pusztai privately that two direct phone calls had been made to the director of the Rowett Institute, Professor Philip James, from Prime Minister Tony Blair. ... Blair made it clear in no uncertain terms that Pusztai should be silenced. James, fearful of losing government funding or worse, set about neutralizing his former colleague. However, the chain did not end with Tony Blair. Pusztai also found that Blair had previously received a phone call from concerned United States President Bill Clinton. The last piece of the puzzle has been put into place for Pusztai, thanks to additional information from a former colleague of Professor Robert Orskov, a leading nutritionist with a 33-year career at Rowett Institute. Orskov, who had left the institute by that time, told Pusztai that senior colleagues at Rowett had informed him that the initial call behind his firing was a call from Monsanto. Monsanto had a conversation with Clinton, who in turn spoke directly to Blair about the "Pusztai problem." Blair then spoke with the director of the Rowett Institute, Philip James. Twenty-four hours later, Dr. Arpad Pusztai found himself on the street, forbidden to talk about his research and talk to his former colleagues. Orskov's information was sensational. If this was true, it meant that a private corporation, with a simple phone call, was able to enlist the support of the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Great Britain for its private interests. A simple call from Monsanto could destroy the reputation of one of the world's leading independent scientists. Pusztai's case, as devastating as it may be for the entire GMO project, was one of several cases of suppression of independent research or direct manipulation of research data proving the potential negative effects of GM foods on human or animal health. In fact, this practice turned out to be the norm. The Rowett Pusztai study was the first and last animal research in the United Kingdom. The Blair government was determined not to repeat this mistake. In June 2003, amid outrage in the British House of Commons over the decision to support George W. Bush's war in Iraq, Tony Blair fired his Environment Minister, Michael Meecher. 

Meecher, who later openly opposed British involvement in Iraq, was in charge of his ministry's three-year study of GMO plants and their environmental impact. Openly criticizing the accepted research on GMO plants, Meecher called on the Blair government to conduct more rigorous testing before allowing GMO crops to be widely consumed.

 Another example of British government interference with academic freedom and scientific integrity was the story of Dr. Mei-Wang Ho, senior fellow at the Open University and later director of the Science in Society Institute, who was pressured by her university to leave early. on retire. Mei-Wang Ho was a member of the National Genetics Foundation in the United States, spoke at the UN and the World Bank on biological science, published widely on genetics, and was considered a recognized expert on GMO science. Her “mistake” was that she was too outspoken about the risks of GMO food. In 2003, she was a member of the International Independent Scientific Commission on GMO Plants, where she spoke out against sloppy scientific statements about the safety of GMOs.

 She cautioned that genetic modification is not at all like normal plant or animal breeding. She argued: “Contrary to what the pro-GMO scientists tell you, the process is far from accurate. 

It is uncontrollable and unreliable and usually ends up being damaged and mixed with completely unpredictable consequences." This was more than enough for the GMO lobby to force her to retire.

 With such a lobby nothing terrible and in "Monsanto" too decided, stretching their hands in a very controversial field of genetic engineering and patenting sperm of animals. In August 2005, researchers in Germany issued Monsanto's application for an international patent for its development of genetically engineered tools. And of course, these genes were isolated from the sperm of genetically modified and already patented Monsanto boars. Monsanto spokesman Chris Horner argued that the company simply wanted to protect its breeding techniques, a kind of eugenics for pigs, including means of identifying specific genes in pigs and using a specialized fertilisation device. 

 "A kind of eugenics for pigs" is almost what Monsanto started with: "in 1901, John Kuini had worked in the meir brothers' office for thirty years, and the production of the late-horned saccharine, whose formula, they say, was borrowed from a former employer or invented on his own", since in the 190s "the first pages of the zionist newspaper "Davar" did not go down with the article about the eugenics. written by a native of Vienna, Dr. Joseph Meir." And with the fact that everything that Monsanto starts to produce - in one way or another kills or reduces fertility, absolutely ALL.

 As Monsanto CEO Bob Shapiro stated: Monsanto is a very influential company, with the world's Jewish clans, the largest banking capital and closed clubs in many countries, for example, Monsanto's main British investors, the Rothschilds. After all, Shapiro's anti-Semites can't be written down: the founder of the Shapiro dynasty was Rabbi Pinhas Shapiro, whose sayings are still in various Hasidic collections.

To be honest we are tired of reading and working with this messy topic. She is not interested in us at all, because the editor of the magazine always, all year round, takes a basket of fruits and vegetables 👇 or orders a basket directly to us on the floor. Brings either Louise or Stephanie. Two cute girls working at the market with their farm products. Who's being poisoned by the shit we've described above? About 95% of the population eats this shit 💩. 

But they are nothing to us, we care only about our cohesing union of sword and yelling. 

Our fair is the one that takes place in Union Square.

The rest is brought from Chelsea's High Line, z. 

All, cook yourself when not in the restaurant (the syllable is easy). 

𐌴D𐌹𐍄𐌏𐍂-𐌹𐌽-𐌾H𐌹𐌴𐍆 ദ 🃏 รཞ୲ദບℓ౿ ℓ.