It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by antar
Here is an interesting link I received privately "Just in case" what do you think of this site in connection with my thread here?
gangstalkingworld.com...
Originally posted by NoArmsJames
reply to post by LowLevelMason
I've starred you, I only wish I could flag you as well.
It's so nice to see some rational thought and common sense around here.
I, like you, do not believe in the NWO. People want to believe that they are part of something bigger; Everyone wants to be Neo.
Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by mystiq
I do remember that some big con agra company owns most of the big food companys all under one name and if that is not control over the food supply i don't know what is, i will do some research to find the name of this company and post it for you. i'll bet it has links to the goverment,or has had the Guard playing games in its facilitys. sorry not the best speller!
The question is: EXACTLY what scenario do they envisage where one of the richest, if not THE richest country on the face of our planet (it is still OUR planet isn't it?) is going to have mass starvation amongst it's populace?
I definately smell a rat.
spikey.
On the one hand, he said, there is under-funding of relief assistance. For example the eight-month delay by the donor countries during the food crisis in Niger in 2005 resulted in 3.6 million people being starved.
"But more important we need to examine factors that lead to such severe food crises," Mousseau said.
One of the primary reasons has been the absence of development policies geared toward providing support for rural development and small-scale farmers to ensure long-term food security.
Many countries have also been prevented by the donor countries and international financial institutions from implementing economic and trade policies that would support local producers and their markets, which could prevent a country from facing widespread hunger and destitution, Mousseau added.
In his study, Ziegler points out that "dumping" of overproduced food at cheap prices "must not be permitted when it displaces livelihoods, especially in countries where the majority of the population still depend on agriculture for security their right to food".
Anuradha Mittal, executive director of the Oakland Institute, said that with its own subsidies intact, the United States dumps cheap subsidised food into developing nations, ravaging the livelihoods of small farmers.
For example, she said, Mexico has been growing corn for 10,000 years. But under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which was supposed to level the playing field, Mexico opened its markets to imports from the United States, including corn.
"Mexican farmers, mostly operating small-scale family farms, were unable to compete against giant U.S. corn producers," Mittal told IPS. These corn producers are the largest single recipient of U.S. government subsidies -- 10.1 billion dollars, or some 10 times the total Mexican agricultural budget in 2000.
Not surprisingly, then, U.S. corn exports to Mexico have tripled, and they account for almost one-third of the domestic Mexican market, leading to an acute crisis in the Mexican corn sector.
She pointed out that dumping of cheap subsidised corn into Mexico has reduced real prices of Mexican corn by more than 70 percent.
The result is that millions of poor farmers have been displaced from their land.