Abolition of GMOS rev.3.pdf

7/29/2019 Abolition of GMOS rev.3.pdf

1/12

2

GENET ICALLY

M O D I F I E D

O R G A N I S M S

WE NEED

ABOLITION

the

of

GENETICALLY

M OD I F I E D

ORGANISMS


2/12

December 18, 2012

We Need the Abolition of GMOs

1. Did the colonists Ask the British to rescind the Intolerable Acts, lift the

Boston Port closure, take back the Coercive Acts? No, it only took them a few

years from the mid 1760s to early 70s to comprehend that Asking the British

for Better Policy doesnt work, so they stopped doing it. They knew the only

options were servitude, or to get the British OUT.

2. Today weve had far more than a few years to comprehend the same fact,

that Asking the British doesnt work. (Its a sad fact of history that no onelearns lessons from history, but must learn the same lesson from experience,

over and over. So be itour own experiential evidence is conclusive.) Weve

had overa century of experience with the elemental viciousness of the

corporate domination imperative, which is totalitarian in the most basic and

literal sense of the termthe corporations will NEVER stop short of total

enclosure and total domination. This was common sense from the beginning,

and its been proven by the evidence. The evidence of our own lifetimes is themost decisive of all.

3. We know that Asking the British doesnt work. Those who tout modern

versions like writing your congressman, petitioning your president, and of

course voting (I mean those who tout these as the only, or primary, courses

of action1), we must classify as modern versions of loyalists. Corporate

Loyalists. These include all system NGOs, liberals in general, and

conservatives too.

4. GMO labeling, where its seen as the goal rather than a step toward the goal,

toward the total abolition of GMOs, falls into this Begging-for-Better-Policy

category.

5. In response to the lousy campaign and stolen vote in California, and belated

analysis of the inherent flaw of the Labeling idea (as the end goal), some

people have moved on to calling for a ban on GMOs. This is a step forward,but is still mired in system consciousness. Even if a legalistic ban were possible

2

1 The title of an upcoming food book by a leading system liberal: Eat,Drink,Vote. Yes, that sumsup passive consumerism in its most profound form. A real citizen's book, meanwhile, would beentitled: Eat, Drink, Grow, Organize, Fight. But the job of system reformists is to fence in dissent,keep it domesticated and system-coordinated, and fence out the real time-tested ideas of action.


3/12

(which its not, at the central or at any state level, not right now), it would still

be operating within the same corporatized framework where Monsanto

operates. By making a fetish of the law and considering it magically endowed

with active power, it implicitly concedes the legitimacy of existing law (forexample the very intellectual property regime which props up Monsanto) and

the central government itself. But we must, as an element of our political

education, reject all such alleged legitimacy, in principle.

Herere some typical examples of how the law really works: CAFOs, fracking,

and mountaintop removal mining are exempt from the Clean Air Act, the

Clean Water Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act. And of course the just-

passed (by a bipartisan consensus, as all these examples of corporatelawlessness are held) Monsanto Rider to a typical corporate welfare law would

exempt GMOs from all regulatory control or judicial review. Thats the way

the law works. Remember that the next time you see anyone blabbering

about the law and petitions and voting.

6. Food Sovereignty rejects the notion that an alien central government can

ever play any legitimate or constructive role in food production and

distribution. The sector is naturally local/regional. The only thing centralized

hierarchy can do is use massive top-down power to force agriculture into the

commodification strait-jacket. This command economy, and the massive

corporate welfare and thug apparatus which props it up, is the basic activity of

the US government. It will never do anything significant which runs counter

to this corporate commodification imperative. Therefore, the peoples only

constructive course of action is to build a grassroots political movement to

meld with the Community Food sector which is already surging as a vibrant

economic movement.

7. Therefore, the basic nature of the anti-GMO movement, as with the entire

liberation movement, has to be direct action, self-management, civil disobedience

in our minds, in our words, and as much as possible in our actions.

8. Thats not to say legalistic actions, where immediately possible, arent worth

doing. Any town council with the votes to ban GMOs, ban fracking, bancorporate personhood, declare local food sovereignty, should do so. But no

such votes exist at the central government level. So those who propose a ban

on GMOs are really proposing that we build a political campaign centered on

this kind of legalistic advocacy (and without even building an underlying

3


4/12

movement structure and culture first). This is as quixotic and utopian as an

idea gets.

9. History and todays evidence prove that nothing will work but to relocalize

our economies and particularly our food; to build the consciousness of oureconomic need to do this; to build a cultural and intellectual movement

around this new way of life; to build upon this a new democracy consciousness;

throughout all these actions to learn from the enemys assaults upon us, the

true nature of the corporate tyranny we struggle against; and from there to

politically organize to resist, reject and abolish this enemy, through rejecting

its legitimacy, refusing to cooperate with it, refusing to participate in its

systems, and wherever possible to take local direct action against it.Combined, this movement can preserve itself through the trials ahead,

maintain the health and happiness of its people, help bring down the

corporate tyranny, and lead humanity to a new freedom and prosperity.

10. As with every other anti-corporate struggle, the struggle vs. GMOs is an

abolition movement.

February 13, 2013

GMO Action Imperatives;

Lessons of the Wetteren Case

A judge in Belgium has convicted the Wetteren 11 of charges related to a non-

violent action where they dug up a GMO potato field trial and planted real

potatoes. The judge agreed to the prosecutors characterization of the political

demonstrators as having formed an illicit conspiracy. The defendants refused

to attend the proceedings after the judge refused to convene this as an actual

trial, instead letting the prosecutor run it as a purely administrative, technical,

civil matter.

The public prosecutor and the research consortium (Flemish Institutefor Biotechnology, University of Ghent, HoGent and the FlemishAgency for Agriculture and Fishery) chose to have this debate incourt via direct summons and civil proceedings.

4
https://fieldliberation.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/press-release-gmo-trial-verdict-crimilisation-of-struggle-for-a-sustainable-agricultural-system/https://attempter.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/gmo-action-imperatives-lessons-of-the-wetteren-case/https://attempter.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/gmo-action-imperatives-lessons-of-the-wetteren-case/https://attempter.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/gmo-action-imperatives-lessons-of-the-wetteren-case/http://attempter.wordpress.com/2011/12/04/this-is-an-abolition-movement/http://attempter.wordpress.com/2011/12/04/this-is-an-abolition-movement/https://fieldliberation.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/press-release-gmo-trial-verdict-crimilisation-of-struggle-for-a-sustainable-agricultural-system/https://fieldliberation.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/press-release-gmo-trial-verdict-crimilisation-of-struggle-for-a-sustainable-agricultural-system/https://attempter.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/gmo-action-imperatives-lessons-of-the-wetteren-case/https://attempter.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/gmo-action-imperatives-lessons-of-the-wetteren-case/https://attempter.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/gmo-action-imperatives-lessons-of-the-wetteren-case/https://attempter.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/gmo-action-imperatives-lessons-of-the-wetteren-case/http://attempter.wordpress.com/2011/12/04/this-is-an-abolition-movement/http://attempter.wordpress.com/2011/12/04/this-is-an-abolition-movement/http://attempter.wordpress.com/2011/12/04/this-is-an-abolition-movement/http://attempter.wordpress.com/2011/12/04/this-is-an-abolition-movement/


5/12

The group of activists had prepared a thorough defence. Thiswas based on calling up expert witnesses, video testimoniesfrom scientists, and video footage from the action in order toprove that 1) the action was covered by the principle of

freedom of expression, and 2) that action was necessary inorder to protect the precautionary principle. The action in

Wetteren was carried out to protect the environment, publichealth and small-scale farming.

Without any further discussion, the judges refused to hearthese testimonies or to view the video footage. Thetestimonies, however, were crucial to emphasise the politicalnature of the action. The judges therefore denied the

defendants their legal right to an appropriate defence, aswell as the opportunity to question the use of geneticallymodified organisms in agriculture.2

This, of course, was tantamount to finding the defendants gulity before the

trial began. As the Red Queen put it, Verdict first, trial afterwards!, and if

the accused never commit the crime, That would be better! The judge

refused to hear evidence on the substance or merits of the issue or of the

action, even though its a well-established principle of law that the peoplemustnt obey unjust laws, and have the right to break the law in extreme

circumstances. Thus, in a rare example, an English jury found Greenpeace

demonstrators not guilty on the grounds that their illegal action was a

necessary response to a clear and present danger. Historically, juries have a

good record of acquitting direct actions when the judge informs them of their

options. In the Kingsnorth case the judge said the action could be found

justified if the trespass on a corporations property was necessary to defendthe property of people.

Where it comes to GMOs, this imperative couldnt be more clear-cut: The

USDA itself admits that once GMOs are in the environment, contamination of

related crops, including those of organic farmers, is inevitable. Thats why the

USDA promulgated the doctrine that GMO corporations and tenders have a

presumptive right to trespass upon and destroy the property of others (organic

growers and many others with an interest in not being contaminated), cannotbe sued for this or otherwise sanctioned, and that on the contrary the burden

5

2 https://fieldliberation.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/press-release-gmo-trial-verdict-crimilisation-of-struggle-for-a-

sustainable-agricultural-system/
https://fieldliberation.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/press-release-gmo-trial-verdict-crimilisation-of-struggle-for-a-sustainable-agricultural-system/https://fieldliberation.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/press-release-gmo-trial-verdict-crimilisation-of-struggle-for-a-sustainable-agricultural-system/https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/11/21-4https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/11/21-4http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/11/activists.kingsnorthclimatecamphttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/11/activists.kingsnorthclimatecamphttps://fieldliberation.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/press-release-gmo-trial-verdict-crimilisation-of-struggle-for-a-sustainable-agricultural-system/https://fieldliberation.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/press-release-gmo-trial-verdict-crimilisation-of-struggle-for-a-sustainable-agricultural-system/https://fieldliberation.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/press-release-gmo-trial-verdict-crimilisation-of-struggle-for-a-sustainable-agricultural-system/https://fieldliberation.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/press-release-gmo-trial-verdict-crimilisation-of-struggle-for-a-sustainable-agricultural-system/https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/11/21-4https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/11/21-4https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/11/21-4https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/11/21-4http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/11/activists.kingsnorthclimatecamphttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/11/activists.kingsnorthclimatecamphttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/11/activists.kingsnorthclimatecamphttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/11/activists.kingsnorthclimatecamp


6/12

of the full cost of trying to defend oneself is 100% upon the victim. Indeed,

when this inevitable and intentional contamination occurs, Monsanto is

allowed to sue the victim for patent infringement. In 2012, when a broad

alliance of farmers and Food Freedom groups sued Monsanto and thegovernment to turn this abominable policy right side up, the system judge

rejected the suit, ridiculing the damaged plaintiffs in the process.

What could be more clear, that we shall never achieve justice, reason, safety,

or simple human decency within this system, and shall have to seek it outside?

Getting back to the Belgian case, the prosecutor and judge also refused to

charge a large number of voluntary defendants comprising a list of civilsociety organizations from farmer groups to trade unions to consumer and

environmental groups to some politicians and professors, who called

themselves co-conspirators after the fact and demanded to join the defendants

in the dock. The people recognize that the prosecution here was not just of

this particular democracy action, but intended to set a precedent vs. all direct

expressions of democracy.

The defendants have explained (to the people, not to the court, which hasrefused to listen or to allow any substantive defense) how the secretive and

unaccountable machinations of the regulatory system do not serve public

health or democratic accountability, but only the corporate imperative. We can

add that the mainstream media is in fact a corporate propaganda ministry

which systematically propagates Monsantos lies and suppresses the facts and

truths about GMOs, and about food corporatism and industrial agriculture in

general. It also systematically neglects and, increasingly, slanders organicagriculture, which is the only solution to humanitys artificial food crisis.3

Groups have been calling for a democratic debate about theintroduction of genetically modified crops for years. Environmentaland agricultural organisations including Friends of the Earth,

Landwijzer, Greenpeace and the organic Bioforum have beencampaigning constantly for sustainable agriculture and emphasising

6

3 There is no natural food crisis. Todays agriculture produces far more than enough food for everyone on Earth,

although much of it is toxified and of inferior nutritional quality. Meanwhile even today organic agriculture could

produce more food than Big Ag, of vastly higher quality, under much healthier physical, environmental,

socioeconomic, and political circumstances. This margin shall become infinite with the end of the fossil fuel age, as

industrial ag becomes physically impossible.
http://www.kjonline.com/news/federal-court-to-hear-lawsuit_2012-11-23.htmlhttp://www.kjonline.com/news/federal-court-to-hear-lawsuit_2012-11-23.htmlhttp://www.kjonline.com/news/federal-court-to-hear-lawsuit_2012-11-23.htmlhttp://www.kjonline.com/news/federal-court-to-hear-lawsuit_2012-11-23.htmlhttp://www.kjonline.com/news/federal-court-to-hear-lawsuit_2012-11-23.htmlhttp://www.kjonline.com/news/federal-court-to-hear-lawsuit_2012-11-23.htmlhttp://www.kjonline.com/news/federal-court-to-hear-lawsuit_2012-11-23.html


7/12

that GMOs cannot be a part of this. They objected to the potato fieldtrial which they described as unwanted and useless. Above all, theyhighlighted the environmental risks involved in such an experiment.Three experts from the Biotechnology Safety Council gave negative

advice regarding the potato trial. They emphasised the environmentalrisks linked to the trial and pointed out that it was scientifically

ungrounded. In August 2012 a judge in Ghent ruled that the GM fieldtrial itself was actually illegal because there was no justification forthe fact that the ministers in charge did not allow for objections or forminority positions on the Biotechnology Safety Council to beconsidered.

The action took place after all these other attempts from

people to express their views had been systematically sweptaside. The structural problems in agriculture, and theconsequences of the use of genetically modified organismshave still not been openly discussed in Flanders, and publicdebate about the issue is systematically avoided.4

Nor can reform be accomplished within representative electoral channels.

We know that our elections are frauds. In the US or Canada, one can vote for

Monsanto or Monsanto. (Meanwhile in the Wetteren 11s European Union,theres an elected parliament which is purely advisory with zero actual

legislative power. Its more purely cosmetic and fraudulent than the tsars early

20th century Duma, and has far less power than the kaisers Reichstag.)

Of course, this case is a good demonstration of what we can usually expect

from the system courts, in procedure and outcome. The fact is that the system

comprises organized crime, and that corporate and government agencies are

criminal gangs. They automatically view any kind of democratic combinationas an affront to their sense of entitlement and a threat to their prerogatives.

Their goal will always be to use their illegitimate power to criminalize any

manifestation of democracy, and of any human value.

Conversely, citizens must start by recognizing the elemental illegitimacy and

fraudulence of all system institutions, and the folly of trying to achieve real

change by working through system channels. As todays defendants pointed

out, they and their allies did all they could to get action within the system

where it came to the pointlessness and likely harms of this GMO potato trial.

7

4 https://fieldliberation.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/press-release-gmo-trial-verdict-crimilisation-of-struggle-for-a-

sustainable-agricultural-system/
https://fieldliberation.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/press-release-gmo-trial-verdict-crimilisation-of-struggle-for-a-sustainable-agricultural-system/https://fieldliberation.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/press-release-gmo-trial-verdict-crimilisation-of-struggle-for-a-sustainable-agricultural-system/https://fieldliberation.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/press-release-gmo-trial-verdict-crimilisation-of-struggle-for-a-sustainable-agricultural-system/https://fieldliberation.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/press-release-gmo-trial-verdict-crimilisation-of-struggle-for-a-sustainable-agricultural-system/https://fieldliberation.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/press-release-gmo-trial-verdict-crimilisation-of-struggle-for-a-sustainable-agricultural-system/https://fieldliberation.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/press-release-gmo-trial-verdict-crimilisation-of-struggle-for-a-sustainable-agricultural-system/


8/12

(We can say the same of the Rothamstead GM wheat trial in Britaintotally

worthless, gratuitously harmful, done only as a corporate welfare handout and

as a political exercise in the alleged ubiquityand irresistability of GM crops.

These field trials often serve the same purpose as the aimless marching of SAformations in Weimar Germany they usually had no particular destination,

but were merely for intimidation and propaganda purposes. So it is with most

GM trials today.) It was only when the system made it clear that there was no

process, but only the fraudulent simulation of one, and that the system viewed

its task as to serve the Monsanto imperative no matter what, that these

activists decided their task was to serve the freedom imperative no matter

what. So they undertook non-violent direct action and pulled up the crops, inthe same way that anti-Nazis in the Weimar time tried directly to challenge the

Brownshirt domination of the streets.

The message: We reject the legitimacy of Big Ag and GMOs, and we dont

believe theres anything necessary, fated, or irresistible about them. Some

criminals chose the pro-GMO policy, the people can make the opposite

choice, whenever we want. This action was a counter-demonstration on the

part of those who value freedom, democracy, and natural economic autonomy,vs. a propaganda event set up by the corporate planned economy and its

political Big Government flunkey regime.

So we have procedural disenfranchisement, political dispossession, media

blackout and slander. Whats left for us to do? What can we do?

The primary task is to organize a coordinated Community Food movement,

with a generally agreed upon set of principles and strategy, while tactics wouldbe decided upon at the local level. (Operational goals and publicity5 might be

partially standardized and partially vary locally.) One advantage such a

movement would have over the 19th century Populist movement would be

that the Farmers Alliance comprised cotton farmers who were necessarily

participants in commodification agriculture (and therefore had no choice but

to seek to revolutionize or reform it), while we not only can but must desire

to dispense with industrial ag (a completely separate and alien sector from

8

5 The reproduction of Field Liberations press release at GMWatch is given a headline regurgitating the prosecutors

slander. Why anyone would want to do this is a mystery. But its a typical example of the current lameness of our

movement. Its a good example of the elements of publicity which will need to be standardized and applied in a

disciplined way. You know, NOT regurgitating system propaganda, terminology, framings?
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14640:gm-crop-protesters-guilty-of-qforming-a-criminal-gangqhttp://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14640:gm-crop-protesters-guilty-of-qforming-a-criminal-gangqhttp://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14640:gm-crop-protesters-guilty-of-qforming-a-criminal-gangq


9/12

Community Food) completely. An aggressive abolition campaign against

GMOs and CAFOs could be part of this movement.

Meanwhile, propagating the more revolutionary ideas of Food Sovereignty (as

defined by Via Campesina and other Southern indigenous farmer movements;the terms already somewhat obfuscated in North America) might be, for the

time being, the province of individual writers or a separate organization. The

idea would be that the experience of fighting for Community Food against the

corporate states increasing repression would make the CF movement an

educational vector of radicalization, in addition to its inherently positive

actions and results.

This will be the only way to systematically propagate a disciplined set of ideas,

truths, and facts about food corporatism and corporatism in general, and about

the need to rebuild our polities and economies on a natural, rational, resilient

local/regional basis.

February 15, 2013

GMO Labeling and Movement

Strategy and Goals

Theres a growing ambivalence among us who oppose GMOs where it comes

to GMO labeling. Most obviously, it implies the continuation of industrial

agriculture and food commodification, and globalization as such. It merely

seeks Better Consumerism within that framework.

If people saw labeling as a temporary measure within the framework of an

ongoing movement to abolish industrial ag and build Food Sovereignty, that

could be good. If people saw the campaign for labeling as primarily a

movement-building action, an occasion for public education, for democratic

participation in a grassroots action, and to help build a permanent grassrootsorganization, that would be good. (POE as I call it Participation, Education,

Organization.)

But many of the advocates seem see it as a panacea. They at least claim to

expect miracles from it: Labeling = the end of Monsanto. This is highly

9


10/12

doubtful. Just because a labeling initiative or law is passed doesnt mean it will

be enforced with any alacrity. Its still the same old pro-Monsanto government

which would be in charge of enforcement. Thats why I always said getting the

California initiative passed was just the first and easiest step; then the realwork of vigilance, forcing the enforcers to follow through, would begin. That,

too, was a reason why the campaign needs to be, even more than just an

intrinsic campaign, the building ground of a permanent grassroots

organization.

Then theres the fact that most if not all of these initiatives and laws are

riddled with loopholes, categories of food which dont need to be labeled. That

almost always includes GMO-fed meat and dairy. Actually, labeling wouldapply mostly to the same corporate-manufactured processed foods we ought

to be getting out of our diets and economies regardless.

When we combine the picayune content of these labeling proposals with the

fact that their advocates do often call them a self-sufficient panacea, and with

the fact that the California effort was designed like a one-off electoral

campaign rather than as a process of building a permanent grassroots

organization, we gather a sinister picture of whats going on here. Namely,

GMO labeling often looks like another kind of liberal fenceline patrolling,

meant not so much to fence GMOs out as to fence anti-GMO activism in.

States like Vermont and Connecticut have previously been the scenes of a

scam. Facing a groundswell of anti-GMO verve among the citizenry, the state

government hijacked this groundswell by going through the motions of

proposing labeling legislation (which is conceived and drafted in a lame way),then saying, Brer Rabbit fashion, please Monsanto dont sue us! When

Monsanto then made this briar-patch threat, the governor, crying crocodile

tears all the way, rued how we cant pass this law because mean old Monsanto

will sue us. The legislature then quashed the law it had never intended to

pass in the first place. The whole thing was just a pantomime. It was the same

basic briar-patch scam in both cases.

In reality its doubtful that Monsanto, 100% government-dependent, withouteven the slightest iota of a natural base, would actually sue a government that

really intended to make life difficult for it. (Although a lawsuit the government

never really intends to fight could be the occasion for a different form of the

scam.) Regardless, its the duty of a government to fight for the public good (so

10


11/12

the good-civics textbooks tell me), even if the going gets tough. So no matter

how one looks at it, these state governments have abdicated, and intend to

continue doing so.

So it follows that getting legislation introduced, and getting initiatives on theballot, are just part of the time-dishonored, field-failed, disproven set of

within-the-system tactics, alongside petitions, voting etc. The liberals will

keep saying, that doesnt work, so lets try it again, and again, and again, and

again, forever and ever! The goal is to ensure that nothing is done until were

enslaved once and for all.

The real answer is that we need to build a true Food Sovereignty movement,which is also an abolition movement. No goal short of the total abolition of

GMOs will suffice. We know that GMOs cannot be prevented from

contaminating other crops and the environment at large. We know that GMO

corporations and their government thugs are totalitarian in intent. Its proven

that neither organic agriculture, nor the environment, nor our political and

economic freedom, can co-exist with GMOs. But labeling, in itself, is another

version of the co-existence scam.

Im not saying all this to oppose labeling activism. But I would be suspicious of

anyone whos implying that its a panacea. Id say, If we get this passed, then

whats next? How will we organize the necessary public education and

government pressure work? How do we prevent ourselves from being co-

opted and corrupted like the anti-tobacco groups? If they have no coherent

answer, you know its a scam. In that case the goal is just to go through the

motions. Even if the thing passes its meant just to be cosmetic. In that casethe corporate liberals would then say indefinitely, we got the law passed, now

you have to be patient and give it time to work.

Id be suspicious of anyone viewing, running, organizing things like an election

campaign. Id say, First of all we need to use actions like this toward

movement-building. In what ways are we building permanent organizational

and publicity structures? What underlying principles dictate our support for

labeling, and how are we working to propagate those principles? If they haveno coherent answer, or directly say this isnt movement-building, this is a one-

off campaign, you know its a scam, or at any rate that they have in fact no

coherent principle or strategy, just a vague feeling and a handy tactic.

11


12/12

Needless to say, this mindset will never win the war of attrition it will take to

bring down Monsantos tyranny.

Most of all, Id want clarity on the ultimate goals. Do labeling advocates really

support Community Food and Food Sovereignty? Do they really oppose foodcorporatism? Do they really seek to constitute an abolition movement vs.

GMOs and industrial ag as such? Nothing short of this will work for humanity.

Does labeling have a coherent rationale at all? We mentioned how, in itself, it

still rationalizes industrial ag, food commodification, unhealthy processed

foods, passive consumerism, and the co-existence scam. In the end, it still

rationalizes food corporatism and market solutions. These are allunsustainable evils, politically, morally, and practically. But in itself, the

kind of solution labeling purports to be sees these evils as normative.

Once again we see how corporatist solutions cannot solve problems

generated by corporatism, and are not intended to. If taken as a self-sufficient

panacea (and as I said, the evidence is that most of its advocates and

organizers see it that way), GMO labeling is part of the same instrumental,

non-holistic N-P-K thinking which is destroying humanity.

The organic place of labeling activism, as part of a movement to restore the

primacy of organic agriculture, would be as a movement-building opportunity.

It would provide the occasion and the practice to build a permanent

movement structure. It would also provide the forum for movement and

public education about not just labeling, and not just the evils of GMOs, but

about the evils and unsustainability of the entire corporate food sector.

It would bring home the need to build Community Food as a full-scale

economic and political movement.

http://attempter.wordpress.com

Hh

12

Documents

Abolition of GMOS rev.3.pdf