SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
big biotech
'Five-Alarm Threat to Our Food Supply': Monsanto-Bayer Merger Advances
Chemical and GMO giants agree on takeover offer worth $66 billion; mega-merger to be reviewed by antitrust agencies worldwide
Sep 14, 2016
Monsanto accepted Bayer's $66 billion takeover offer--the largest all-cash deal ever--on Wednesday morning.
While anti-trust agencies around the world review the proposed mega-merger, environmental and consumer advocates roundly condemned the creation of what will be the largest pesticide and GMO corporation in the world.
"This new mega corporation would be the world's biggest seed maker and pesticide company, defying important antitrust protections and giving it unacceptable control over critical aspects of our food supply--undermining consumer choice and the freedom and stability of farmers worldwide," said Anne Isakowitsch, head of international corporate watchdog SumOfUs.
"[...] these megadeals are being made to benefit the corporate boardrooms at the expense of family farmers, ranchers, consumers and rural economies."
--Andrew Johnson, National Farmers Union
"The merger of Bayer and Monsanto should make the connection between Big Pharma, Big Biotech, and Big Food all the more apparent to consumers," said Ronnie Cummins, director of the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), in an email to Common Dreams.
"This may be a move to take pressure off the manufacturer of glyphosate, the most profitable pesticide in the world," Cummins added. "But it really doesn't matter who manufactures or sells glyphosate, or any other dangerous chemical. The damage to human health and the environment remains the same, as does our commitment to getting these chemicals out of our food system."
The merger between the two chemical behemoths has been long anticipated, and antitrust experts and environmental groups have been warning against the takeover for months.
A legal opinion by two former Justice Department officials released in August decried the merger as "a five-alarm threat to our food supply and to farmers around the world."
"[T]he antitrust enforcers must not allow this merger to proceed," the officials said.
Thanks to widespread protests and organizing from groups such as the National Farmers Union, next week the Senate Judiciary Committee is set to review the recent spate of consolidation--including deals such as Dow-Dupont and ChemChina-Syngenta--within the biotech industry.
"We are pleased that next week the Senate Judiciary Committee will be reviewing the alarming trend of consolidation in agriculture that has led to less competition, stifled innovation, higher prices and job loss in rural America," said National Farmers Union president Andrew Johnson. "We underscore the importance that all mergers, including this recent Bayer/Monsanto deal, be put under the magnifying glass of the committee and the U.S. Department of Justice."
"Wars were fought, lives lost, nations carved into holy lands [...] while Bayer and Monsanto sold chemicals as bombs and poisons and their brothers provided the loans to buy those bombs."
--Dr. Vandana Shiva
"We will continue to express concern that these megadeals are being made to benefit the corporate boardrooms at the expense of family farmers, ranchers, consumers, and rural economies," Johnson said.
Meanwhile, Sydney Peace Prize-winning environmental activist Dr. Vandana Shiva recently explored Bayer and Monsanto's longstanding relationship and dark history--pointing out that they worked together as chemical weapons manufacturers and war profiteers during several of the 20th century's bloodiest conflicts:
Monsanto and Bayer have a long history. They made explosives and lethally poisonous gases using shared technologies and sold them to both sides in the two world wars. The same war chemicals were bought by the Allied and Axis powers, from the same manufacturers, with money borrowed from the same bank.
MoBay [Monsanto and Bayer] supplied ingredients for Agent Orange in the Vietnam War. Around 20 million gallons of MoBay defoliants and herbicides were sprayed over South Vietnam. Children are still being born with birth defects, adults have chronic illnesses and cancers, due to their exposure to MoBay's chemicals. Monsanto and Bayer's cross-licensed Agent Orange resistance has also been cross-developed for decades. Wars were fought, lives lost, nations carved into holy lands--with artificial boundaries that suit colonization and resource grab--while Bayer and Monsanto sold chemicals as bombs and poisons and their brothers provided the loans to buy those bombs.
"The Farben family chemical cartel [that includes Bayer and Monsanto] was responsible for exterminating people in concentration camps," adds Shiva. "It embodies a century of ecocide and genocide, carried out in the name of scientific experimentation and innovation."
"Today, the poison cartel is wearing [genetic engineering] clothes and citing the mantra of 'innovation' ad nauseam. Hitler's concentration camps were an 'innovation' in killing," Shiva writes, "and almost a century later, the Farben family is carrying out the same extermination--silently, globally, and efficiently."
Keep ReadingShow Less
States Brace for Monsanto's 'Big Stick' in GMO Labeling Fight
As New England states back new legislation, labeling supporters prepare for Big Biotech's legal assault
May 15, 2013
Grassroots groups across the United States are mobilizing against the nation's powerful biotech firms as a new round of labeling laws for foods made with genetically modified organisms (GMOs) make their way through state legislatures.
The front lines in this battle have shifted to two New England states where legislators are preparing to vote on GMO labeling laws while backers prepare for a legal assault by large industry firms like Monsanto.
"The biotech [industry] is seeing growing mass support across the US and they have fewer useful resources to combat truthfulness and popular support," said Jim Gerritsen, president of the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association (OSGATA), in an interview with Common Dreams. "Their 'big stick' now is litigation."
Biotech firms, including Monsanto and other 'Big Ag' industry groups, were behind the defeat of an earlier labeling initiative, California's Proposition 37, after bankrolling a widespread misinformation campaign.
Gerritsen's statement came on the heels of a small victory in Maine Tuesday night when the Legislature's Agriculture Committee voted 8-5 to approve Bill L.D. 718 which would prohibit retailers from labeling a product "natural" if it contains GMOs.
"Somebody once said that Monsanto isn't a seed company, it's a law firm that makes seeds." - Maine Rep. Lance Harvell
The vote followed the Friday passage of Bill H.112 by the Vermont House of Representatives which requires foods containing GMOs to be labeled, marking the "furthest any such legislation has made it through the legislative process in the United States," according to PR Watch.
The New England states are just two of a coalition of thirty-seven states currently mobilizing for GMO labeling. Of these, twenty now have legislation slated for introduction this year.
A local paper reports that one third of Vermont's legislators were co-sponsors, "signaling the bill's broad public support." Similarly, according to Gerritsen, an astounding 91 percent of Mainers favor the labeling of genetically modified foods.
"Both Vermont and Maine are not going to be bullied by out-of-state biotech firms," added Gerritsen. "It's an outrageous abuse of the democratic process. For out-of-state trade groups to threaten a state acting in the best interest of its people, that is abuse."
According to the Kennebec Journal, Maine Attorney General Janet Mills--who supports the measure--told lawmakers that the legislation is "almost certain" to face a legal challenge from the industry. "These entities are very litigious," Mills told the committee.
Maine Representative Lance Harvell (R-Farmington), who sponsored the bill, added, "You're challenging a biotech industry that's operated on the basis of throwing their weight around," he said. "Somebody once said that Monsanto isn't a seed company, it's a law firm that makes seeds."
Monsanto has already threatened to sue Vermont if the legislation passes.
Gerritsen believes the state is in "excellent position" to combat any legal challenges. What they are promoting is "factual, uncontroversial information which is valid for state interest."
He quotes a recent statistic that 50 percent of American consumers would not purchase foods made with GMOs if they knew about their presence. Not sharing that information, he says, indicates a "level of deceit" on the part of food companies.
As the Maine bill progresses, supporters are "very hopeful" they will receive passage in both the House--where a record 123 legislators (out of 186) are cosponsoring the bill--and Senate.
In Vermont, the Senate vote won't occur until the legislature convenes next January.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Monsanto Teams Up With Congress to Shred the Constitution
Mar 21, 2013
Our founding fathers, white-maleness aside, did get a few things right. One of them was the concept of "separation of powers," to ensure a system of checks and balances among the three branches of government: executive, legislative, and judicial. But a dangerous provision snuck into the budget bill passed last week in Congress upends that system. Without any hearings on the matter, the Senate included language that would require the U.S. Department of Agriculture to essentially ignore any court ruling that would otherwise halt the planting of new genetically-engineered crops. Here is how Capital Press explains it:
The rider pertains to transgenic crops that have been deregulated by the USDA but then had that approval overturned by a judge -- a scenario that has occurred with genetically engineered alfalfa and sugar beets.
In such a situation, the agency "shall" immediately issue permits or a partial deregulation order that would temporarily allow farmers to continue growing and selling the crop until USDA is done re-evaluating its environmental effects, according to the rider.
Why is this such a big deal? The court system is often our last hope, with Congress, the White House, and regulatory agencies deep inside industry's pocket. Several legal challenges have resulted in court decisions overturning USDA's approval of new GMO crops, for example, sugar beets.
So the biotech industry, unable to make its case to a judge, figured why not just rewrite the Constitution instead, with the help of a Democratic Senate led by Senator Barbara Mikulski, chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee. Despite Montana Senator Jon Tester's best attempts to stop the so-called biotech rider, the measure was pushed through. (Industry had tried to get a similar measure passed more than once last year.) Tester minced no words, in a recent article in POLITICO about this and other industry power grabs such as weakening small farmer protections:
These provisions are giveaways, pure and simple, and will be a boon worth millions of dollars to a handful of the biggest corporations in this country. They deserve no place in this bill. We simply have got to do better on both policy and process.
If President Obama signs the budget deal with this provision, it could have long-lasting and serious consequences. This list of pending petitions to USDA to approve genetically-engineered crops includes new versions of corn, soybean, canola, and cotton. Once these crops get planted, it will be too late to do much about it. That's why groups such as the Center for Food Safety file lawsuits when USDA turns a blind eye to the potentially harmful environmental consequences of these unique crops.
Here is how Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety, described the situation:
In this hidden backroom deal, Senator Mikulski turned her back on consumer, environmental, and farmer protection in favor of corporate welfare for biotech companies such as Monsanto. This abuse of power is not the kind of leadership the public has come to expect from Senator Mikulski or the Democrat Majority in the Senate.
The biotech industry, with the help of Congress, is attempting an end-run of the judicial system. Since judges can't get be bought off, just go to your friends in Congress instead.
Unfortunately, most of the mainstream media have not picked up on this unprecedented Big Biotech power grab, and in the case of NPR, has even spread misinformation about the rider's effects:
But a closer look at the language of the provision suggests it may not be granting the USDA any powers it doesn't already have.
"It's not clear that this provision radically changes the powers USDA has under the law," Greg Jaffe, director of the Biotechnology Project at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, tells The Salt.
This interpretation was echoed, unsurprisingly, by the biotech industry, in Capital Express:
"It doesn't require the USDA to do anything it wouldn't otherwise have the authority to do," said Karen Batra, communications director for the Biotechnology Industry Organization. "The language is there to protect farmers who have already made planting decisions."
But as Kimbrell of the Center for Food Safety explains, the new language makes what is currently discretionary or optional on USDA's part, mandatory, a huge difference:
The word "shall" forces the USDA to continue allowing biotech crop cultivation even if its commercialization was overturned. They've taken away the discretion of the secretary of agriculture. Its real not-so-hidden purpose is to take away the ability to effectively vacate the approval of a crop that's been approved illegally.
If there is any good news, it's that the continuing resolution the provision hitched a ride on is only valid for six months. But industry seems confident it can make the workaround permanent. Likely what will follow is a protracted court battle over the policy's constitutionality; remember that whole separation of powers thing? Still, any such legal challenge will likely take years to be resolved. Even USDA thinks the provision is unconstititional. Secretary Vilsack's office told POLITICO that he has asked the Office of General Council to review the language, "as it appears to pre-empt judicial review of a deregulatory action which may make the provision unenforceable."
Meanwhile, the grassroots movement continues to grow to demand labeling of foods containing genetically-engineered ingredients. While important, we cannot let labeling distract us from pro-biotech policies at the other end of production. The fewer GMO crops that are allowed to be planted in the first place, the fewer end-products containing GMOs.
But it's not too late. You can still demand that President Obama refuse to sign the budget bill into law unless the biotech rider (aka Monsanto Protection Act) is removed. Food Democracy Now! has already gathered more than 175,000 signatures demanding Obama do the right thing. From that organization's action alert:
By sneaking Section 735 into a federal appropriations bills, Monsanto has successfully planted a dangerous provision in U.S. law that strips judges of their constitutional mandate to protect American's health and the environment while opening up the floodgates for the planting of new, untested genetically engineered crops.
Even if their new GMO crops are ultimately proven to be harmful to human health or the environment, Section 735 allows them to be planted the minute the USDA approves them!
Even more alarming, currently 13 new crops are awaiting approval at the USDA and AquaBounty's GMO salmon is on the verge of being approved by the FDA. This new provision opens the door wide open for these approvals.
If the biotech industry can so easily override our court system, which is our last resort in stopping these dangerous crops from being planted, we will have no place left to turn. And Monsanto will have completed its hostile takeover of the U.S. government.
Take action now by calling and emailing the White House here.
UPDATE: More 'Corporate Welfare': Obama Signs 'Monsanto Protection Act' Into Law
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular