This post was published at WeAreChange
Corporate pesticide maker Monsanto, which has faced several recent lawsuits against its products, is paying farmers to use its controversial weedkiller XtendiMax with VaporGrip, an herbicide based on a chemical known as dicamba, Yahoo News reported.
The incentive to use XtendiMax aims to refund farmers over half the sticker price of the product in 2018 if they spray it on soybeans that Monsanto engineered to resist it, according to company data.
‘We believe cash-back incentives for using XtendiMax with VaporGrip Technology better enable growers to use a management system that represents the next level of weed control,’ said Ryan Rubischko, Monsanto product manager.
Monsanto faces bans and restrictions of its pesticides in several states due to damaged crops from its product which affected 3.1 million acres in nearly two dozen states, according to Reuters.
XtendiMax costs about $11 per acre to buy, and Monsanto is offering an extra $6 per acre in cash back to farmers when they apply it on Xtend soybeans, rather than using another seed-and-chemical combination to control weeds.
The rebate means farmers can receive up to $11.50 per acre in cash back next year when they use XtendiMax along with other approved chemicals, such as one called Intact that aims to prevent drift and costs $2.40 per acre, according to Monsanto.
This post was published at The Daily Sheeple on DECEMBER 14, 2017.
One of Germany’s largest companies is trying to buy Monsanto, which changes everything.
A majority of EU governments voted on Monday to extend the European license for glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s flagship product, Roundup, for another five years. One of the deciding votes was cast by the caretaker government of Germany, which came off the fence after abstaining in previous meetings.
The decision was made despite a petition signed by more than 1.3 million EU citizen-subjects calling for a European ban on the weedkiller.
The five-year extension is welcome news for Monsanto, which has found itself in the rather unusual position of being on the back foot in recent years, especially since the UN’s World Health Organization (WHO) declared that glyphosate is ‘probably carcinogenic’. The company is facing a rash of potentially costly law suits in the US from farmers, members of their families, and others who claim that Roundup is connected to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
This post was published at Wolf Street by Don Quijones ‘ Nov 28, 2017.
Earlier this year we wrote about a series of court documents that were unsealed and seemingly revealed a startling effort on the part of both Monsanto and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to work in concert to kill and/or discredit independent, albeit inconvenient, cancer research conducted by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) related to their key herbicidal product, RoundUp. The efforts to kill the research came even as Monsanto’s own lead toxicologist, Donna Farmer, admitted that she “cannot say that Roundup does not cause cancer” because “[w]e [Monsanto] have not done the carcinogenicity studies with Roundup” (see: Monsanto Colluded With EPA, Was Unable To Prove Roundup Does Not Cause Cancer, Unsealed Court Docs Reveal). But, as Reuters points out today, RoundUp isn’t the only Monsanto herbicide causing outrage in the ag community these days as state regulators all across the country say they’re being flooded with reports from farmers that Dicamba, Monsanto’s other herbicide, is increasingly becoming airborne and killing crops far away from the fields where they were actually applied.
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Nov 1, 2017.
Documents released yesterday in a lawsuit against Monsanto have resulted in new questions about the company’s efforts to influence the news media and scientific research and revealed internal debate over the safety of its highest-profile product, the weed killer Roundup.
As the New York Times notes today, new internal emails, among other things, reveal ethical objections from former employees to “ghost writing” research studies that were pawned off as ‘independent’ analyses.
The documents underscore the lengths to which the agrochemical company goes to protect its image. Documents show that Henry I. Miller, an academic and a vocal proponent of genetically modified crops, asked Monsanto to draft an article for him that largely mirrored one that appeared under his name on Forbes’s website in 2015. Mr. Miller could not be reached for comment. A similar issue appeared in academic research. An academic involved in writing research funded by Monsanto, John Acquavella, a former Monsanto employee, appeared to express discomfort with the process, writing in a 2015 email to a Monsanto executive, ‘I can’t be part of deceptive authorship on a presentation or publication.’ He also said of the way the company was trying to present the authorship: ‘We call that ghost writing and it is unethical.’
The newly disclosed emails also reveal internal discussions which cast some doubt over whether internal scientists actually believed in the company’s external messaging that Roundup was, in fact, safe.
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Aug 2, 2017.
Forget spraying pesticides on your food, now they’ll be genetically engineered to be in your food, thanks to Monsanto’s latest quiet approval via the US Environmental Protection Agency.
The EPA just told Monsanto they could go ahead and bypass spraying our crops with carcinogenic chemicals like Round Up and just go ahead and breed them right into the crops themselves. Using a process called RNA interference, Monsanto’s RNAi plant will supposedly kill pesky rootworms when they come along to chomp on them- but what else will these genetically modified crops do to beneficial bugs, the soil, and human health? The EPA has no idea, because they haven’t done a single trial on RNAi-altered crops.
Nonetheless, the EPA quietly gave Monsanto a Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card by allowing them to move forward with their genetically modified corn strain. Some are calling this a genetic weapon, in its infancy. Others are concerned that RNAi will have ramifications for the biosphere that – just like all of Monsanto’s other products – don’t come to light for years to come.
For instance, the National Honey Bee Advisory Board said in comments submitted to the E. P. A. before a ‘meeting’ in which this controversial genetic technology was to be reviewed,
This post was published at The Daily Sheeple on JULY 13, 2017.
Back in March, we highlighted official evidence divulged in unsealed court documents which seemingly revealed collusion between senior executives at the $60 billion ag-chemicals powerhouse, Monsanto, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to kill “inconvenient” research which suggested that Monsanto’s key herbicidal product, RoundUp, might be literally killing people.
We’ve shared the entire sordid tale below but here is one of the key emails from Jess Rowland, the EPA’s Deputy Division Director for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, to a Monsanto executive regarding a piece of damaging research that was pending release:
“If I can kill this I should get a medal.”
Apparently those rather unsettling court documents were all that California needed for the state’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) to add RoundUp’s key ingredient, Glyphosate, to a list of chemicals known to cause cancer. Per Reuters:
Glyphosate, an herbicide and the active ingredient in Monsanto Co’s (MON. N) popular Roundup weed killer, will be added to California’s list of chemicals known to cause cancer effective July 7, the state’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) said on Monday.
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Jun 27, 2017.
If we had a dime for every kooky, left-wing theory we’ve heard alleging some vast corporate conspiracy to exploit the treasures of the earth, destroy the environment and poison people with unknown carcinogens all while buying off politicians to cover their tracks, we would be rich. The problem, of course, is that sometimes the kooky conspiracy theories prove to be completely accurate.
Lets take the case of the $60 billion ag-chemicals powerhouse, Monsanto, and their controversial herbicide, Roundup as an example. For those who aren’t familiar, Roundup Ready is Monsanto’s blockbuster weedkiller, credited with transforming U. S. agriculture, with a majority of farm production now using genetically modified seeds resistant to the chemical.
For years the company has assured farmers that their weed killing product was absolutely safe to use. As proof, Monsanto touted the approval of the chemical by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
That said, newly unsealed court documents released earlier today seemingly reveal a startling effort on the part of both Monsanto and the EPA to work in concert to kill and/or discredit independent, albeit inconvenient, cancer research conducted by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)….more on this later.
But, before we get into the competing studies, here is a brief look at the ‘extensive’ work that Monsanto and the EPA did prior to originally declaring Roundup safe for use (hint: not much). As the excerpt below reveals, the EPA effectively declared Roundup safe for use without even conducting tests on the actual formulation, but instead relying on industry research on just one of the product’s active ingredients.
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Mar 14, 2017.
Pledges for Trump
‘You boys know what makes this bird go up? Funding makes this bird go up. That’s right. No bucks, no Buck Rogers.’
– Gordon Cooper and Gus Grissom, The Right Stuff (film)
Things are looking up for the United States economy in 2017. You can just feel it. Something great is about to happen.
Earlier this week, for example, after meeting with the incoming President, Bayer and Monsanto announced they will spend at least half of their agriculture research and development budget – approximately $8 billion – in the U. S. over the next six years. It’s estimated the combined efforts of these two companies will add 3,000 new U. S. high-tech jobs.
Wal-Mart and General Motors also made job and investment pledges for Trump. Wal-Mart said they’ll add 10,000 jobs this year. General Motors announced $1 billion in investment, which would generate 1,500 U. S. jobs. Following these pledges, Trump tweeted:
‘Thank you to General Motors and Walmart for starting the big jobs push back into the U. S.!’
This post was published at Acting-Man on January 20, 2017.
In November, a very concerning report — Glyphosate: Unsafe On Any Plate — was released by The Detox Project and Food Democracy Now!, raising the alarm of the high levels of glyphosate in the US food supply and the (deliberate?) low levels of awareness of its associated health risks.
Dave Murphy, executive director of Food Democracy Now!, joins us this week to explain the finding of this new report on the world’s most-used herbicide (more commonly known by its retail brand: Roundup). As happened in past decades with the alcohol and tobacco industries, there’s compelling evidence that profits have taken a priority over consumer safety — and as public health concerns are being raised, Big Ag is circling its wagons and attacking the questioners rather than embracing open scrutiny.
Are we being poisoned in the pursuit of profit?
Look at the chemical and what actually it does. Monsanto has three patents for glyphosate and the first one is from 1964 from the Sulfur Chemical Company in Westport, Connecticut. It was originally used to clean pipes. It’s like Drano: it basically strips minerals out of and heavy metals out of a pipe. Scientists have found that it actually chelates those same minerals in soil and makes them unavailable into the plant. At some point in the 1960s a Monsanto chemist discovered that it would also kill weeds. Monsanto applied for a patent in ’68 or ’69, was awarded that patent in ’74, and that is when Roundup first went on the market.
This post was published at PeakProsperity on January 1, 2017,.
Inequality vs Inequality
There is inequality and inequality.
The first is the inequality people tolerate, such as one’s understanding compared to that of people deemed heroes, say Einstein, Michelangelo, or the recluse mathematician Grisha Perelman, in comparison to whom one has no difficulty acknowledging a large surplus. This applies to entrepreneurs, artists, soldiers, heroes, the singer Bob Dylan, Socrates, the current local celebrity chef, some Roman Emperor of good repute, say Marcus Aurelius; in short those for whom one can naturally be a ‘fan’. You may like to imitate them, you may aspire to be like them; but you don’t resent them.
The second is the inequality people find intolerable because the subject appears to be just a person like you, except that he has been playing the system, and getting himself into rent seeking, acquiring privileges that are not warranted -and although he has something you would not mind having (which may include his Russian girlfriend), he is exactly the type of whom you cannot possibly become a fan. The latter category includes bankers, bureaucrats who get rich, former senators shilling for the evil firm Monsanto, clean-shaven chief executives who wear ties, and talking heads on television making outsized bonuses. You don’t just envy them; you take umbrage at their fame, and the sight of their expensive or even semi-expensive car trigger some feeling of bitterness. They make you feel smaller.
There may be something dissonant in the spectacle of a rich slave.
The author Joan Williams, in an insightful article, explains that the working class is impressed by the rich, as role models. Michle Lamont, the author of The Dignity of Working Men, whom she cites, did a systematic interview of blue collar Americans and found present a resentment of professionals but, unexpectedly, not of the rich.
It is safe to accept that the American public -actually all public -despise people who make a lot of money on a salary, or, rather, salarymen who make a lot of money. This is indeed generalized to other countries: a few years ago the Swiss, of all people almost voted a law capping salaries of managers . But the same Swiss hold rich entrepreneurs, and people who have derived their celebrity by other means, in some respect.
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Dec 28, 2016.