Laura Bruno – Why Is It So Difficult to Imagine? – 23 November 2013

laura-of-the-rocksMore comments from Jon Rappoport’s blog:

Michael Burns
I like what you are saying, and organic and raw it real food, good for you.
But something slowly happened to North America over the last three decades. People were lulled into a trust of a food industry. A trust in that they were inventing, cheaper and better foods supposedly. More improved foods from the laboratories, which study nutrition, and know what food is…so… “Were making it better”…the bastards lied, and have be lying ever since.
It is now cheaper to go to fast food take-out shacks eg: Macdonald’, Kentucky fried chicken (if you want to can call it that), Taco bell, Wendy’s, the list on goes on. And most of the ignorant do this rather than actually cook something wholesome, for themselves, or even to try eat organic or raw; which from what I have noticed organic is getting quite expensive. Unless you can grow a garden. Real food cost real money

[A lengthy discussion about wheat and its addictiveness potential]

This is the fundamental principle of addiction: No matter how harmful a food or substance may be to the body, the sensation of pleasure keeps us coming back for more. And every time we reach for more, it alters the brain’s chemistry.”

Coca cola/Pepsi/ and most other soft drinks have added caffeine to their mix…why? It makes soda pop addictive. Because caffeine is an addiction.
The new lines of foods and energy drinks are GMO’ed, fructosed, and caffeined for addictive.
Why add another label to the ingredients, we can’t understand the ones already there.
And a GMO label won’t stop people consuming these foods; addiction is what the problem is here. And that is not only a GMO problem.

My response:

You are correct in these statistics and I agree with you about the deplorable state of nutrition in food deserts. A Place at the Table is a good film to watch if you’re not aware of what I mean by “food deserts.” The benefit of the labeling campaigns has been that we and others are actually having discussions that ARE raising awareness and paving the way for a ban. I am not opposed to any and all actions that result in a takedown of GMO’s.

Why is it so difficult for people to grasp that multiple, different strategies can be effective? If we have one campaign with a single message everywhere, that’s actually streamlining what Monsanto needs to deal with. If we have people discovering organic foods, feeling better, building independence and food sovereignty in their own communities, talks about bans in areas where there’s a bubbling up support for that, continued different campaigns for bans of pesticides, bans of GMO’s, labeling of GMO’s, benefits of fresh, real food …

If those campaigns are specific to our own areas and populations, the message gets out there and will reach a tipping point because the GMO companies simply cannot fight all those different battles with different strategies at once. They will be overwhelmed trying. No matter how much money they have they cannot fight all the different, specific local, state and a national level campaign. That’s why guerrilla warfare wins in the end. If we streamline everything into one single strategy we will miss pockets of people who might resonate more with a different message more tailored to their interests and needs. We will also handicap ourselves so that we are playing a one message game with less money and power than those who will continue to lie, cheat, intimidate and steal.

You all can do whatever you like as a national or international campaign. Fantastic. All I’m saying is that you would be wiser to funnel your energies into actual action rather than denouncing any other approaches that ARE having effects and that ARE needed if you don’t want 50 million SNAP recipients to get whipped into a political frenzy that “elitist whackos” are trying to raise food prices. Because in this particular climate, that is very easy to do. If you don’t recognize how hungry and uneducated and desperate a huge swath of the population is, then you are missing out on the reality of the US right now.

That’s not a judgment. It’s a very unfortunate and sorrowful fact. If people don’t know how they can feed their kids tomorrow (already) and someone tells them that some “weirdos” want to take away cheap (GMO processed) food without having affordable alternatives already in place, then they are going to be in the streets demanding tomorrow’s toxic food. Jon will get his protests, but it would be ever so easy to have the protestors be actually demanding GMOs and the status quo, regardless of long term consequences. Because when people are hungry and not given viable alternatives on their plate and a means of affording them, they don’t care what you say. They have hungry kids to feed and they are not thinking about anything more than that.

Another comment and reply:

Laurabruno, you make good points about the importance of continuing grassroots efforts to educate the public about GMOs. However, I don’t think you grasp the seriousness of the larger battle at hand. For instance, the Trans Pacific Partnership treaty will have the power to downgrade our food standards and further muzzle free speech on the internet (see Stephen Lendman’s overview and warnings about the TPP). Meanwhile, as you acknowledge, the US population has less and less food independence with some 50 million on food stamps and millions more dependent on food banks. TPP will continue the race to the wage bottom and permit more offshoring of jobs. The noose of TECHNOCRACY (the word the central planners use themselves) is tightening and the collapse of health care (problem, reaction, solution) is carefully being timed to accelerate technocracy’s full implementation to include a recent proposal by Larry Summers to tax savings accounts via negative interest rates and eliminate cash in favor of a digital currency (please consider watching Patrick Woods recent youtube video on Technocracy and Trilateralists). GMOs represent just one of many facets of technocracy.

I closely followed the California initiative and was crestfallen when the initiative’s leaders sidestepped the opportunity for a powerful teaching moment on GMOs that could have had far reaching effects in bringing many activist groups together to protect our health, our environment, and our basic rights. We can and should do BOTH: grassroots education AND begin a frank dialogue about GMOs and how they fit into the bigger picture.

My response:

I do grasp the bigger picture. I have blogged about TPP fairly extensively. It is the reason I believe we all need to be doing what we can with what we have wherever we are.

Now! /link to original article

One response to “Laura Bruno – Why Is It So Difficult to Imagine? – 23 November 2013

  1. Pingback: Laura Bruno – Why Is It So Difficult to Imagine? – 23 November 2013 | sweetwillowman