Posted on 02/16/2006 6:22:55 AM PST by Calpernia

How do you say No NAIS in Japanese?
Say no to the National Animal Identification System (NAIS)
The USDA and the agricultural business giants have been crafting a national animal identification scheme that threatens the freedoms of the citizens of the United States of America. The National Animal Identification System (NAIS) is the creation of various businesses, such as Monsanto Company, to monopolize American food production by using fear tactics to advance their agenda. The NAIS scheme was not created by any act of our government. NAIS is merely a presumptuous bureaucratic dictate.
So who is Monsanto Company?
In the late 1970s, Monsanto developed a longer-term strategy that would enable it to reduce its dependence on low-return petroleum-based products. A central feature of the strategy involved an increase in activity in the areas of nutritional chemicals and agricultural products and a move into the new area of health care. Biotechnology, particularly genetic engineering, was attractive since it affected all three of these areas. In 1979 Monsanto hired Dr. Howard A. Schneiderman, a biochemist from the University of California, Irvine, who became a senior Vice-President and Chief Scientist in charge of the Corporate Research and Development Division. It was Schneiderman who spearheaded the company's drive into biotechnology and genetic engineering. To facilitate its move into new areas, the company's R&D budget was increased considerably, from 2.6% of sales in 1979 to 5% in 1983 and 7% in 1985 (Monsanto, 1985). In 1985, 57% of R&D expenditure was in the area of life sciences. With 1985 sales of $6,747 million, the R&D budget for 1986 is around $470 million, implying a research budget of about $270 million in the life sciences.
Monsanto has followed a number of paths in its attempt to build its biotechnology-related capabilities. To begin with, Monsanto has established links with universities. Most important of these has been a link with the School of Medicine at Washington University in St. Louis. Monsanto provided the university with $23.5 million over five years in return for cooperative research projects in biotechnology. One benefit the company has received from this relationship is G.D. Searle & Co.'s development of atrial peptides, which control high blood pressure; these compounds were originally isolated and identified by Professor Philip Needleman, Head of the Pharmacology Department at the University. Monsanto has signed research agreements with a number of other universities, including Harvard, Oxford, and Rockefeller Universities. The company's university links were the subject of a congressional enquiry, headed by then Congressman Al Gore, which concluded that the relationship was not detrimental to the university system.
Intellectual Property and Research
The company's univeristy links also show an interesting intellectual property rights issue. Example, with the Monsanto-Washington University link is intended to facilitate cooperative work between company and university scientists working collaboratively on research projects. An eight-member advisory committee divided equally between Monsanto researchers and Washington University faculty makes the final decision regarding research funding. The agreement stipulates that 30% of the research will be basic research, while 70% will be research directly applicable to human disease. The United States Congress, Office of Technology Assessment Report on Biotechnology (1984) summarized the provisions regarding intellectual property rights: 'Washington University faculty members will be at liberty to publish results of any research done under the Monsanto funding. Monsanto will exercise the right of prior review of draft materials, because they may contain potentially patentable technical developments. If they do, Monsanto can request a delay of submission for publication or other public disclosure in order to begin the patent process'. Patent rights will be retained by Washington University but Monsanto will have exclusive rights to licences. If Monsanto chooses not to license a patent then the university will be free to issue the licence to others. Royalties will go to Washington University and not to the individual researchers, but will normally go to their laboratory.
The Database
Monsanto then gives the universities access to their vast corporate digital library initiatives. Monsanto's online solution was a pioneering effort that provides a vast knowledge sharing through the Internet that includes data and solutions for:
* a basic technology infrastructure including some or all of the following: email, Intranets, search engines, and groupware-like collaboration.
* One or more separate repositories for capturing and storing critical information, typically in the form of documents.
* Subject matter experts who format, catalog, and administer submissions to the repositories and act as researchers to aid in retrieval of needed information.
Monsanto and Biotechnology
Along with universities, Monsanto has been linking with biotechnology firms through acquisition and mergers, marketing agreements, contractual agreements to provide assets, and joint ventures.
One such company Monsanto has developed a relationship with is Mitsubishi Pharma Corp. Mitsubishi itself has an interesting corporate history. The smaller businesses that eventually merged into Mitsubishi Pharma Corporation are worth mentioning.
Green Cross Corporation was founded in 1950 as Japan's first commercial blood bank and became a diversified international pharmaceutical company producing ethical drugs for delivery or administration by doctors and healthcare workers. It included war criminals such as Kitano Masaji who performed human experimentation in Unit 731 of the Japanese military during World War II.
The company merged into Yoshitomi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd On April 1, 1998, and renamed to Welfide Corporation on April 1, 2000. Finally Welfide Corp. and Mitsubishi-Tokyo Pharmaceutical Inc. were mereged to form Mitsubishi Pharma Corp. on October 1, 2001.
Throughout their history of company names, there follows a history of tainted blood scandals.
Japan's HIV-tainted blood scandal, known in Japanese as, yakugai eizu jiken, refers between one and two thousand cases in the 1980s in which Japanese patients with haemophilia contracted HIV via tainted blood products. The man that was found guilty of professional negligence resulting in these deaths, Matsushita Renzo, former head of the Ministry of Health and Welfare's Pharmaceutical Affairs Bureaum, became president of Green Cross and after serving his jail time.
Nanotechnology Micro-scale machines, such as DNA chips
The term "nanotechnology" was named in 1974 by Tokyo Science University professor Norio Taniguchi, author of "Nanotechnology: Integrated Processing Systems for Ultra-Precision and Ultra-Fine Products".
Before Bill Clinton left office, he authorized an 84% increase in the government's investment in nanotechnology research and development, National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) and made it a top priority.
Genes and the products of genetic engineering can be patented and owned. In 1980, two federal landmark decisions influenced the business side of biotechnology. A Supreme Court ruling allowed patents to be granted for genetically engineered organisms, processes of transforming cells and expressing proteins, and genes themselves. More recently, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a Patent Office decision and ruled that DNA sequences that code for particular proteins are patentable. The Bayh Dole Act rules that all intellectual property resulting from federal funding resides in the university, rather than in the government. Unless, the univeristy link is linked to funding by a company, such as Monsanto.
This is what is fueling the drive for a major restructuring of the agriculture, food, and fiber industries. The Bio and now Nanotechnology sciences have presented fundamental problems for the protection of intellectual property rights. As the main OECD publication on patent protection has put it (Beier et al., 1985):
"In the past the patent system rested safely on a semantically clear [and] objectively defensible separation between (patentable) invention' and (non-patentable) 'discovery'. The recent development of biotechnology where some scientific discoveries could be turned into commercial products almost immediately has blurred this separation. This may have far-reaching legal and practical consequences."
Monsanto has sued hundreds of farmers for saving gene-altered seeds from each year's harvest to replant their fields the following season -- a practice farmers have followed for years. In fact, three-quarters of the world's growers are subsistence farmers who rely on saved seed. Monsanto claims "seed piracy" and said replanting the company's patented, gene-altered seeds violates a three-year-old company rule requiring that farmers buy the seeds fresh every year. Monsanto does not sell its engineered seeds in the traditional sense but "leases" them, in effect, for one time use only.
The Creation of National Animal Identification System
Monsanto and other agricultural business giants have successfully laid the ground work to implement a "lease" on all of the United State's agriculture. The NAIS plan requires two types of mandatory registration for everyone who owns even just one animal. First, owners must register their name, home address, telephone number and Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates of their 'premise' in a vast corporate digital library. Secondly, in order for any animal to leave its 'premise', the owner will be required to obtain an ID number for it which will be kept in a vast corporate digital library and have the animal microchipped.
The NAIS requirements have yet been forthright as to whether DNA samples will be required in the future.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1565481/posts
USDA steps up efforts to track livestock
http://nationalpropertyowners.org
National Property Owners
Full research sections on National Animal Identification System (NAIS)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1563271/posts
Healthy People 2010
Information on where the funding came from for NAIS
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1561077/posts
Animal Tagging and SCHOOL LUNCHES???
Information on some of the partners on these posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1564815/posts
Digital Angel and Microchip
Info on the technology that will be used for the tagging
ping
Since Argentina is actually a second-world, semi-industrialized, highly organized hell-hole, the clear implication was that the writer's purpose was PROPAGANDA, not FACT.
I read the rest of the article. There were other similar bits. Interestingly enough, the writer seems to be unaware of the fact that the seed developers are actually able to protect their patents simply by beeding a final "end stage"product that can be planted, but which cannot produce viable offspring.
That way, even if a farmer stores seeds they'll do him no good. This practice is, of course, REQUIRED with experimental crops.
It is, in fact, this particular element of GM technology that's been so widely denounced by farming interests worldwide. They want to take advantage of the improved crops, but they only want to pay for the seed once!
The science appears to have been so far over the head of the writer, he didn't bother doing anything more than denouncing GM foods.
At least someone is trying to talk about it.
Maybe if more people try to get the information out there, more articles with more appropriate research will be done.
Not sure focusing on a single plant in a mix like that is competitive.
What is the White List?
The White List (or "clean list") is proposed policy which will extend government and corporate control over the possession, importation and movement of anything that is alive - plants, animals, fungi, microorganisms, everything. Under current law, the government controls or prohibits a limited list of pest species - agricultural weeds, insect pests, dangerous pathogens, etc. Only species known to cause problems are controlled. Under the White List, the government will draw up a limited list of species it deems "safe", which will continue to be legal to possess, move or import. All other species, an estimated 99.75% of the Earth's biota will be considered "guilty until proven innocent", presumed harmful or dangerous, and will be prohibited.
(snip)
To offset the cost of testing, it has been proposed that a new form of life patent be granted, giving sole rights to the entire species and its genome to the corporation paying for the testing (it being unlikely that individuals will be able to afford such testing), and granting complete immunity to the patent holder of the species becomes a pest. This will place over 99% of the natural world off-limits - it is the greatest "theft of the commons" from humanity, and the greatest extension of government and corporate control over the natural world in history.
NOTE: Sitting on the Federal Invasive Species Advisory Committee
Dr. Nelroy E. Jackson
Monsanto Company
Agricultural Sector
400 South Ramona Avenue, Suite 212
Corona, CA 92879-1448
Controlling all the food is though.
Sounds like liberalism to me.
btt
The term "Second World" usually refers to the Communist Countries and isn't used much any more.
Hungry people?
No, Second World usually referred to semi-industrialized countries with a small but growing middle-class. Good examples are Argentina, Mexico, Costa Rica, FYR, and the nicer sections of Big China (such as Hong Kong, Singapore, Canton).
Second World, From Wikipedia.
bookmark for later printing.
They are seeking to take control of terminology.
The term "second-world" was originated by writers at USNews&WorldReport 40 years ago, and it was applied to nations a cut above the "third world", yet not as fully industrialized as the "first world".
Be very suspicious of Wikipedia in the future.
They are right in this case.

In 1952 Alfred Sauvy, a French demographer, coined the term Third World which he described as the people of the world that are "unknown, exploited, and scorned." In pre-revolutionary France, the first two estates were the nobility and the clergy; everybody else was the third estate. He joked that the capitalist world (First World) compared with the nobility and the communist world (Second World) with the clergy. The First World consists of wealthy capitalist, formerly industrial, countries and the Second World of the former communist and industrial countries. Third World countries are all the other countries and they have always included capitalist (e.g., Brazil) and communist (e.g., Cuba) countries, and very rich ..... http://www.uwec.edu/geography/Ivogeler/w111/3world.htm
USNews usage was more common, and you definitely could mix many of the formerly Communist states into the same category as Argentina and Mexico, although other Communist states were necessarily third-world hell-holes.
There's even a term "fourth world" that refers to hopelessly impoverished, or even "failed" states. Examples are Haiti, Bengla Desh, Eritrea, etc.
Wikipedia continues to be untrustworthy.
And you continue to be wrong.
Sec'ond World'
(sometimes l.c.) 1. the world's industrialized nations other than the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.
2. the Communist and socialist nations of the world. Cf. First World, Third World, Fourth World.
Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Copyright © 1997, by Random House, Inc., on Infoplease
http://www.factmonster.com/ipd/A0642752.html
I've given three references Wikipedia, Univ of WI and Random House Dictionary that all agree the "second world" refers to the Communist States.
Please show me references that show otherwise.
In each case the responsible member of the nomenklatura makes sure that ALL the Communist states are grouped with mere "industrialized" states.
Did you miss that part? The first-world states then become the "post-industrial" states ~ and they survive on Capitalist enterprise.
So, how is it that you are a Capitalist and you have no industry? Well, the answer, to a Marxist, is very easy ~ you rob the "industrial" and "Communist" states.
Wikipedia's managers make sure that each and every entry is eventually brought into conformance with Marxist doctrines and definitions.
Random House has bought into this definition most likely because no one took a critical look at it before.
So, not being a Marxist, I do not accept the idea that I must use the term "second world" in the same manner that they do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.