Who Are These People? The Corporate Record of Montsanto (2009)

Who Are These People; What Is It That They Are Trying To Do?
The Corporate Record of Montsanto & Rosa DeLauro’s Introduction of Bill HR 875,
The Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009

I’ve heard the frightening details of Codex Alimentarius. I am beginning to hear enough flack about it and the introduction of Bill HR 875 and rumors that it would make organic farming illegal and thus the backyard garden illegal. With an economy that crashed off the cliff and as an avid backyard gardener, I decided to do some more research into what I believed reaked of Naziism and pure evilness. The following is information I researched on the topic of of the Introduction of Bill HR 875 by Rosa DeLauro (D; 3rd District of Connecticut) as it pertains to the The Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009.

I believe the United States of America is a sovereign nation. I believe I am sovereign. To control the foods I eat is to control the air I breathe and the water I survive on. This is not of man, therefore this is not of nature. Nobody will have control over the food supply, not in the name of food safety, not in terms of the backyard garden, of mother nature in general, or there will be hell to pay.

Codex Alimentarius is latin for “Food Code” and is an international standardization, guideline, and codes of practice established by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) in 1963. According to Wikipedia, “the Codex Alimentarius is recognized by the World Trade Organization as an international reference point for the resolution of disputes concerning food safety.” Wikipedia

Now I don’t want my milk coming with melamine. I don’t want my dog’s food coming into the country with Arabic, Chinese, English, French, and Spanish on the bag. Kirkland brand dog food sold at Costco has already proven to kill dogs. Think there is a reason why I am concerned about the foods I eat? The foods my dog eats?

The Specific Standards
Meat products (fresh, frozen, processed meats and poultry)
Fish and fishery products (marine, fresh water and aquaculture)
Milk and milk products
Foods for special dietary uses (including infant formulae and baby foods)
Fresh and processed vegetables, fruits, and fruit juices
Cereals and derived products, dried legumes
Fats, oils and derived producgts such as margarine
Miscellaneous food products (chocolate, sugar, honey, mineral water)

If one values their sovereignty and health, one must question “that the Codex Alimentarius is recognized by the World Trade Organization as an international reference standard for the resolution of disputes concerning food safety and consumer protection.”

According to Wikpedia …”Some countries categorize vitamin and mineral supplements as foods. Others however, categorize them as drugs.” “Opponents of the Codex Alimentarius Commission claim that it is unduly influenced by the pharmaceutical companies, and that it guidelines for vitamin and mineral food supplements are unnecessarily restrictive.” “It is reported that in 1996 the German delegation put forward a proposal that no herb, vitamin or mineral should be sold for preventative or therapeutic reasons, and that supplements should be reclassified as drugs.” Wikipedia

I do my fair share of research and kept hearing hype about making organic farms and coops a criminal act, complete with federal raids, and holding people against their will. I then began to wonder would it someday be illegal to grow tomatoes. It was a matter of seconds until I came across this article in a forum, and the article headlines caught my attention:

YOU MAY BE ARRESTED SOON FOR GROWING A TOMATO
By Spence Cooper 11/03/08

“As our government hands over billions to Wall Street bankers, jobless Americans live in tent cities and collect food stamps in record numbers. Now when we need it the most, growing our own food may be against the law and punishable by a fine of up to $1,000,000. Think I am joking? Meet Bill HR 875, The Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009, introduced by Rosa DeLauro whose husband Stanley Greenberg works for Montsanto. The insanity doesn’t stop there – fishing boats, hotdog stands, neighborhood vegetable booths and farmers’ markets will be federally regulated under the same draconian law. As always, the spin is designed to make you (the public) believe these new provisions are for your own good. Under the deceitful guise of protection, the goal of this bill is crystal clear: to prevent us from locally growing our own food so multinational agribusiness can completely control the production and distribution of our food supply. I refer you to the usual suspects – Montsanto, ADM, Sodeso, Tyson, and Smithfield.” FACT CHECK STANLEY GREENSBERG (Not Greensburg) Y NOT YET

You have to check the facts yourself anymore. I at least am attempting to connect the dots. I do not know where to go on the internet for the truth. But there are some smart people on the web, known as bloggers, and they help you connect dots.

As I researched this matter, I came across comments in blogs that I found to be fallacy, as defined by the dictionary as “1. a mistaken idea; 2. a flaw in reasoning”. I have come across these flaws in reasoning before in other subject matters. They stick out like a sore thumb. Yes, there are opposing ideas, but as a conspiracy theorist, my gut instinct questions the timing of certain forum comments given the complexity of social phenomenon and certainly the enormity and profitability of any given multinational corporation. Point blank, I believe there are paid political pundits that get paid to “fix” the internet by commenting in blogs again, given the enormity of the multinational corporation and its profits, but moreso furthered by the agenda of those capable of such evilness. I begin to question world government, it’s agenda, those that would profit, their ways and means, and think tank organizations down to those into the public relations aspects to push the said agenda through.

At the website FriendsEAT.com, in the forum section of Spence Cooper’s blog, You May Be Arrested Soon For Growing A Tomato, I found one blogger’s comments intriguing.

Larry says: “I think Bigfoot has a legitimate claim. The first red-flag I found in Spence Cooper’s article is that there is no record on-line of Stan Greenberg ever working for Montsanto. So if Mr. Cooper has some valid information to substantiate this claim he owes it to his readers to present it. Mr. Cooper also misleads readers into thinking that Greenberg’s wife, Congresswoman Rosa Delauro was the sole introducer of the bill when she was just one of 30. Did Mr. Cooper think no one would click onto the link he provided that presented the Bill in its entirety?”

“A cursory glance at the actual bill H.R. 875, The Food Modernization Act of 2009 doesn’t indicate ANYTHING that would subject private gardens growing food for personal consumption to the restrictions or guidelines of this bill. This bill is aimed at the production and processing of food sold to the general public. Considering the problems we have had with this process in recent years I do not think it too much to ask that the FDA do what it has failed to do over the last 8-10 years and which it was established to do back in the 1920’s – to proect the public food supply from contamination.”

“I personally think that Spence Cooper is a zealot of sorts that simply doesn’t like government regulation of any sort and is trying to spin this Bill as one more example of the “Socialist” endeavors of Democrat and Liberals. Perhaps Mr. Cooper could erase this impression by stating his political views on government regulations of any kind. Was he a supporter along with every Republican and a few of Democrats who sought to DE-regulate all industries in the U.S., including the financial behemoths that have recently wreaked havoc on our economy.”

“At the bare minimum Mr. Cooper should point out exactly where is the Bill HR 875 he draws the conclusion that people growing their own fruit and vegetables for personal consumption MAY be arrested for doing so.”

Sounds like damage control to me.

Spence Cooper fired back, “Well, Larry you didn’t look very hard. It’s all over the web. Greenberg is on Montsanto payroll as a consultant, or more to the point a strategist. He’s no doubt paid to guage and/or mold public opinion; nevertheless, that’s means he works for them.” He added, “Rosa DeLauro’s name appears as the lead sponsor of the bill, citing 39 Co-Sponsors. You’re nitpicking.”

Spence Cooper continues:

Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009

Food Production Facility is defined as:

1. 1. FOOD PRODUCTION FACILITY- The term ‘food production facility’ means any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined animal-feeding operation.
      Let’s see, an orchard is a garden. ANY farm, ranch etc., is pretty much self explanatory.
      Food Production Facility is defined as:
      (14) FOOD PRODUCTION FACILITY- The term ‘food production facility’ means any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined animal-feeding operation.
      Let’s see, an orchard is a garden. ANY farm, ranch etc., is pretty self explanatory.
      Anyone who grows food in a Food Production Facility is subject to the following:
      Section 206 (a) Authorities- In carrying out the duties of the Administrator and the purposes of this Act, the Administrator shall have the authority, with respect to food production facilities, to–
      (1) visit and inspect food production facilities in the United States and in foreign countries to determine if they are operating in compliance with the requirements of the food safety law;
      (2) review food safety records as required to be kept by the Administrator under section 210 and for other food safety purposes;
      (3) set good practice standards to protect the public and animal health and promote food safety;
      (4) conduct monitoring and surveillance of animals, plants, products, or the environment, as appropriate; and
      (5) collect and maintain information relevant to public health and farm practices
      (Definition of FOOD PRODUCTION FACILITY- The term ‘food production facility’ means any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined animal-feeding operation.)
      SEC. 402. FOOD DETENTION, SEIZURE, AND CONDEMNATION.
      (a) Administrative Detention of Food-
      (1) EXPANDED AUTHORITY- The Administrator shall have authority under section 304 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 334) to administratively detain and seize any food regulated under this Act that the Administrator has reason to believe is unsafe, is adulterated or misbranded, or otherwise fails to meet the requirements of the food safety law.
      Do you see the word “Sale” listed anywhere under Section 405?
      Section 405 Civil and Criminal PenaltiesIN GENERAL- Any person that commits an act that violates the food safety law (including a regulation promulgated or order issued under the food safety law) may be assessed a civil penalty by the Administrator of not more than $1,000,000 for each such act.
      (b) Criminal Sanctions-
      (1) OFFENSE RESULTING IN SERIOUS ILLNESS- Notwithstanding section 303(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 333(a)), if a violation of any provision of section 301 of such Act (21 U.S.C. 301) with respect to an adulterated or misbranded food results in serious illness, the person committing the violation shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, fined in accordance with title 18, United States Code, or both.
      (2) OFFENSE RESULTING IN DEATH- Notwithstanding section 303(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 333(a)), if a violation of any provision of section 301 of such Act (21 U.S.C. 331) with respect to an adulterated or misbranded food results in death, the person committing the violation shall be imprisoned for not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with title 18, United States Code, or both.
      If the state has the power to seize your property, conduct warrantless government entry, impose absurd Million dollar fines, broad interpretation of the criminal section for non compliance is just within reach. And the bill’s language is still under construction.
      These bills, like the National Animal ID System (NAIS), are designed to benefit agribusiness and eliminate the viability of small farmers. Corporations like Monsanto want ro monopolize everything, all our land, seeds, animals, and water. You’d pretty much have to be living under a rock not to know how insidious Monsanto is, with things like DDT, Agent Orange, and Terminator Seeds. “
      FriendsEAT.com, You May Be Arrested Soon For Growing A Tomato, Spence Cooper

While all eyes are on AIG and their bonuses paid out that now exceed 200 million of tax payers dollars, Senator Chris Dodd has some explaining to do. Seems Senator Dodd was asked to write language by the Department of Treasury that protected AIG’s bonuses. But while all eyes are on AIG’s bonuses, let’s not forget to connect the dots of situations that arising with our Federal government. Let’s keep in mind who are these people and what is it that they are trying to do?
According to Wikipedia, Rosa L. DeLauro (born March 2, 1943), is “an American politician, has been a Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives since 1991, representing Connecticut’s 3rd congressional district. The district is based in New Haven, and includes most of that city’s suburbs.” It is also noted that Congresswoman DeLauro worked as an administrative assistant and chief of staff for Senator Dodd. Also according to Wikipedia, Representative Rosa DeLauro from the 3rd District of Connecticut is married to Stanley Bernard Greenberg. Wikipedia

According to Wikipedia, “Stanley Bernard Greenberg (born May 10, 1945) is a leading Democratic pollster and political strategist who has advised the campaigns of the Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry, as well as hundreds of other candidates and organizations in the United States and around the world, including former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
A political scientist who received his Bachelor’s Degree from Miami University and his Ph.D. from Harvard, Greenberg spent a decade teaching at Yale University before becoming a political consultant. His 1985 study of Reagan Democrats in Macomb County, Michigan became a classic of progressive political strategy, and the basis for his continuing argument that Democrats must actively work to present themselves as populists advocating the expansion of opportunity for the middle class. As the pollster for Clinton in 1992, Greenberg was a major figure in the famed campaign “war room” (and hence the documentary film of the same name).
He is the founder and CEO of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, a polling and consulting firm, and co-founder, with James Carville and Bob Shrum, of Democracy Corps, a non-profit organization which produces left-leaning political strategy. He is married to current Rep. Rosa DeLauro, representative from the Third District from Connecticut.
Greenberg’s corporate clients include British Petroleum, British Airways, Monsanto and General Motors. [1]” Wikipedia

So if Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro is married to Stanley Bernard Greenberg, who is paid by amongst other corporate clients, Montsanto, and if Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro introduced Bill H.R. 875, The Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009, let us look at Montsanto.
According to Wikipedia,

Monsanto has been identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as being a “potentially responsible party” for 56 contaminated sites (Superfund sites) in the United States.[12] Monsanto has been sued, and has settled, multiple times for damaging the health of its employees or residents near its Superfund sites through pollution and poisoning.[3][13][14] In 2004 The Wildlife Habitat Council, (which has incidentally also given awards to nuclear power companies, waste management companies, steel manufacturers, and oil companies), and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s National Environmental Performance Track presented a special certificate of recognition to Monsanto Company during WHC’s 16th Annual Symposium.
Monsanto is the largest producer of glyphosate herbicides through its popular brand, Roundup. Roundup has been a source of ongoing controversy, as researchers in several studies have argued that it leads to the first stages of and/or causes cancer,[15][16] while a review of the toxicity of roundup concluded that “under present and expected conditions of new use, there is no potential for Roundup herbicide to pose a health risk to humans”.[17].
Phil Angell, Monsanto’s director of corporate communications (referring to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration) explained the company’s regulatory philosophy to Michael Pollan in 1998:
“
Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is FDA’s job.[18]
”
[edit] MON863 liver and kidney toxicity
MON863 is a variety of maize genetically engineered to be resistant to corn rootworm[19] and intended for human consumption.
A statistical analysis conducted on results of a Monsanto 90-day feeding study by Gilles-Eric Seralini, Dominique Cellier, and Joel Spiroux de Vendomois found it increased triglycerides in female rats by 20-40%, caused increased weight gain in female rats of 3.7%, a decrease in male rat weight of 3.3%, and increased certain indicators associated with liver and kidney toxicity.[20] Both Monsanto experts, and independent toxicology experts attached to research institutions and food safety authorities internationally did not indicate statistically significant adverse effects. The European Food Safety Authority has found that “the placing on the market of MON863 is unlikely to have an adverse effect on human and animal health or the environment in the context of its proposed use.”[21]
MON863 grain is approved for human consumption in Japan, Mexico, Canada, South Korea, Taiwan, the United States and the European Union.[22][23]
[edit] “Terminator” seed controversy
Main article: Terminator Technology
In June 2007, Monsanto acquired Delta & Pine Land Company, a company that had been patented a seed technology nicknamed “Terminator”. This technology, which was never used commercially, produces plants that have sterile seeds so they do not flower or grow fruit after the initial planting, requiring customers to purchase seed from Monsanto for every planting in which they use Monsanto seed varieties. In recent years, widespread opposition from environmental organizations and farmer associations has grown, mainly out of the concerns that these seeds increase farmers’ dependency on seed suppliers especially in the third world.
There is also concern that the “Terminator” effect will be spread to native vegetation through pollination rendering all plants unable to reproduce fruit. Monsanto had previously pledged in 1999 not to commercialize terminator technology.[24]
[edit] rBGH (recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone)
Main article: Bovine somatotropin

The examples and perspective in this section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.
Monsanto sparked controversy nationwide with the introduction of Bovine somatotropin, abbreviated as rBST and commonly known as rBGH. It is a synthetic hormone that is injected into cows to increase milk production. IGF-1 is a hormone stimulated by rBGH in the cow’s blood stream, which is directly responsible for the increase in milk production. IGF-1 is a natural hormone found in the milk of both humans and cows causing the quick growth of infants. Though this hormone is naturally found in mothers to be fed to their infants it produces adverse effects in non-infants. IGF-1 behaves as a cancer accelerator in adults and non-infants; this biologically active hormone is associated with breast cancer (corellation shown in premenopausal women[25]), prostate cancer[26], lung cancer[27] and colon cancers[27][28].
However, a large Monsanto-sponsored survey of milk showed no significant difference in rBST levels in milk labeled as “rBST-Free” or “Organic” vs milk not labeled as such.[29]
According to the New York Times[30] Monsanto’s brand of rBST, Posilac, has recently (March 2008) been the focus for a pro-rBST advocacy group called AFACT, made up of large dairy business conglomerates and closely affiliated with Monsanto itself. This group, whose acronym stands for American Farmers for the Advancement and Conservation of Technology, has engaged in large-scale lobbying efforts at the state level to prevent milk which is rBST-free from being labeled as such. As milk labeled as hormone-free has proved enormously popular with consumers, the primary justification by Afact for their efforts has been that rBST is approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and that the popularity of milk sold without it is damaging what they claim to be the right of dairy producers to use a technology that maximizes their profits. Monsanto claims that labeling of hormone-free milk takes advantage of consumers by allowing higher prices for the milk by suggesting that it is “better” or “safer” than BST milk, when in fact, there is no difference. Monsanto is requesting that companies that advertise their milk as “rBST-free” be required to add the FDA label claiming that rBST has been found safe for human consumption and no differences exist between hormone and hormone-free milk. Thus far, a large-scale negative consumer response to Afact’s legislative and regulatory efforts has kept state regulators from pushing through strictures that would ban hormone-free milk labels, though several politicians have tried, including Pennsylvania’s agriculture secretary Dennis Wolff, who tried to ban rBST-free milk labeling on the grounds that “consumers are confused”. Proposed labeling changes have been floated by Afact lobbyists in New Jersey, Ohio, Indiana, Kansas, Utah, Missouri and Vermont thus far.
[edit] Pollution in Anniston, Alabama
On January 1, 2002, New Year’s Day, The Washington Post carried a front page report on Monsanto’s legacy of environmental damage in Anniston, Alabama. Plaintiffs in a pending lawsuit provided documentation showing that the local Monsanto factory knowingly discharged both mercury and PCB-laden waste into local creeks for over 40 years.[31]. In a story on January 27, The New York Times reported that during 1969 alone Monsanto had dumped 45 tons of PCBs into Snow Creek, a feeder for Choccolocco Creek which supplies much of the area’s drinking water. The company also buried millions of pounds of PCB in open-pit landfills located on hillsides above the plant and surrounding neighborhoods.[32].
[edit] Legal issues
Monsanto is notable for its involvement in high profile lawsuits, as both plaintiff and defendant. It has been involved in a number of class action suits, where fines and damages have run into the hundreds of millions of dollars, usually over health issues related to its products. Monsanto has also made frequent use of the courts to defend its patents, particularly in the area of biotechnology.
[edit] As defendant

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references (ideally, using inline citations). Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2007)
In 1917, the US government filed suit against Monsanto over the safety of its original product, saccharin. Monsanto eventually won, after several years in court.
It was sued, along with Dow and other chemical companies by veterans for the side effects of its Agent Orange defoliant, used by the US military in the Vietnam War.[33]
Monsanto was the defendant in the longest civil jury trial in U.S. history, Kemner v. Monsanto. This case ran from February 1984 through October 1987. The case involved a group of plaintiffs who claimed to have been poisoned by dioxin in a 1979 chemical spill that occurred in Sturgeon, Missouri. [34]
In 2000, GLC sued Monsanto for the $71 million dollar shortfall in expected sales.
More recently, it lost a series of court decisions resulting in US$700 million in damages being awarded to thousands of residents of the town of Anniston, Alabama that had been polluted over a period of years by Monsanto’s PCB byproducts. It was settled with the following judgment. Though the PCB production was outlawed in 1979 and Monsanto ceased production in 1977, it failed to clear up the levels of PCB already in the natural population, until detection by the federal Soil Detection Service. At their own initiative, the company dredged a few hundred yards of the contaminated Snow Creek and surrounding tributaries, but far from enough. After the truth was uncovered by the wider public, prompting swift investigations by the EPA and incinerators were introduced to burn large quantities of sarin and mustard gas produced by Monsanto.[35] On February 22 2002, Monsanto was found guilty of “negligence, wantonness, suppression of truth, nuisance, trespass, and outrage.”[36]
On October 13, 2004, the European plant variety rights on a conventionally-bred strain of soft-milling wheat owned by French company RAGT Genetique were withdrawn at RAGT’s request. The strain, called Galatea, was developed by Unilever and purchased by Monsanto in 1998; RAGT purchased the strain from Monsanto in May 2004 along with Monsanto’s European wheat and barley business. Galatea is a cross between a European wheat strain and a conventional Indian variety Nap Hal. Greenpeace considers RAGT’s withdrawal to represent a victory by Greenpeace over Monsanto and claim that they played a central role by proving that the variety in question was not the cross-bred strain described in the application but was really the traditional strain Nap Hal bred by Indian farmers, despite the contrary text of the application. RAGT says it withdrew its plant variety rights for commercial reasons and Greenpeace played no role in its decision.[citation needed]
Also in 2004, the world’s largest agrichemical company, Switzerland’s Syngenta, launched a US lawsuit charging Monsanto with using coercive tactics to monopolize markets.[37] There are several lawsuits going both ways between Monsanto and Syngenta.
Monsanto is on trial in Carcassonne, France, as of September 20 2006[update], for having allegedly illegally imported 100 tonnes of soya seed contaminated with GM varieties, of which 50 tonnes were sold to local farmers. 50 tonnes were sent back to the USA.[38]
[edit] As plaintiff
Since the mid-1990s, it has sued some 150 US farmers for patent infringement in connection with its GE seed. The usual claim involves violation of a technology agreement that prohibits farmers from saving seed from one season’s crop to plant the next. One farmer received an eight-month prison sentence, in addition to having to pay damages, when a Monsanto case turned into a criminal prosecution.[citation needed] Monsanto reports that it pursues approximately 500 cases of suspected infringement annually.
In 2003, Monsanto sued Oakhurst Dairy in Maine for advertising that its milk products did not come from cows treated with bovine growth hormone, claiming that such advertising hurt its business. The president of Oakhurst responded by saying, “We ought to have the right to let people know what is and is not in our milk.”[39]
Monsanto specializes in genetically altered seeds in crops such as corn, soybeans, and cotton. Because of these modifications the company has reason to patent their product. This is their greatest advantage, because the consumers must continue to buy new seed each season or risk a law suit for violating Monsanto’s patent. [40] This is supported by the United States government because it believes in free trade, even though Monsanto’s domination over the seed buying market is now a choice between Monsanto or its top competitor, DuPont. [41] This genetic engineering has brought more problems than just cornering the market. [42] In 1998 Monsanto’s patented seeds infected and pollenated farmland, established for forty years, owned by Percy Schmeiser. Monsanto Canada sued the seventy year old farmer for ‘stealing’ their patented seeds. This high profile case, Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser, went to the Supreme Court level. Monsanto sued an independent farmer, Percy Schmeiser, for patent infringement for growing genetically modified Roundup-resistant canola. The 1998 case was portrayed in the media as a classic David and Goliath confrontation. In March 2001, Supreme Court Judge W. Andrew MacKay ruled that Schmeiser had violated Monsanto’s genetically engineered patent. “This is very good news for us, Mr. Schmeiser had infringed on our patent.” said Monsanto’s Trish Jordan. The court rejected Monsanto’s claim for damages and did not impose punitive damages on Schmeiser, which would not have been expected in a case involving a new question of law. The case did cause Monsanto’s enforcement tactics to be highlighted in the media over the years it took to play out. [43] In 2008, agreed to pay the Schmeiser $660 to settle the original small-claims court case for the cost of removing the patented Roundup Ready canola from their field in 2005. Monsanto had offered to settle the case in 2005, but Schmeiser refused the original offer because it required that the couple sign a release stating they would never discuss the case or the terms of the agreement.[44] In the settlement, Monsanto Canada assumed no liability. [45]
Monsanto has asked Spanish customs officials to inspect soymeal shipments to determine if they use Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” technology. Monsanto claims that 30% of Argentina’s production uses black market-purchased Roundup Ready seed. Monsanto has petitioned to change the royalty collection system so that royalties are collected at harvest rather than upon purchase of the seed.[citation needed]
[edit] Related legal actions
[edit] In USA
In 1997, it was alleged Fox News cooperated with Monsanto in suppressing an investigative report on the health risks associated with Monsanto’s bovine growth hormone product, Posilac.[46] Posilac, a synthetic hormone used to increase milk production in cows, while banned in many first-world countries, is used in the United States. Steve Wilson and Jane Akre disagreed with the inclusion of material in the story they felt was slanted or misleading. Both reporters were eventually fired. Wilson and Akre alleged the firing was for retaliation, while the FOX affiliate contended they were fired for insubordination. The reporters then sued Fox in Florida state court, claiming they could not be fired for refusing to do something that they believed to be illegal. In 2000, a Florida jury found that while there was no evidence FOX had bowed to any pressure from Monsanto to alter the story, Akre, but not Wilson, was unjustly fired. [47]. The decision in Akre’s favor was then overturned in 2003 by an appeals court because the whistleblower’s statute under which the original case had been filed did not actually apply to the case, as nothing illegal had actually occurred or was occurring to blow a whistle on.
This story can be seen in the feature length documentary film The Corporation.
[edit] Monsanto vs Andhra Pradesh Government in India
The state of Andhra Pradesh, India, at first resisted Bt cotton and later, as it proved immensely popular with farmers, has attempted to control its price. In 2005, after a commission’s fact finding statement, the state agriculture minister barred the company from selling cotton seeds in the state of Andhra Pradesh.[48] The order was later lifted. More recently, the Andhra Pradesh state government filed several cases[49] against Monsanto and its Mumbai based licensee Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds, after they challenged the order directing the company not to charge a trait price of more than Rs. 900 per pack of 450 grams of Bt. Cotton seed.[50]. The Andhra Pradesh State Government has also sought a compensation package of about Rs 4.5 crore (about 1 Million US$) to be paid by the company to farmers affected in some districts.
[edit] Dumping of toxic waste in the UK
Between 1965 and 1972, Monsanto paid contractors to illegally dump thousands of tons of highly toxic waste in UK landfill sites, knowing that their chemicals were liable to contaminate wildlife and people. The Environment Agency said the chemicals were found to be polluting groundwater and the atmosphere 30 years after they were dumped.[51]
The Brofiscin quarry, near Cardiff, erupted in 2003, spilling fumes over the surrounding area, but the local community was unaware that the quarry housed toxic waste.
A UK government report shows that 67 chemicals, including Agent Orange derivatives, dioxins and PCBs exclusively made by Monsanto, are leaking from one unlined porous quarry that was not authorized to take chemical wastes. It emerged that the groundwater has been polluted since the 1970s.[52] The government was criticised for failing to publish information about the scale and exact nature of this contamination. According to the Environment Agency it could cost £100m to clean up the site in south Wales, called “one of the most contaminated” in the UK.[53]
[edit] Indonesian bribing convictions
In January 2005, Monsanto agreed to pay a $1.5m fine for bribing an Indonesian official. Monsanto admitted a senior manager at Monsanto directed an Indonesian consulting firm to give a $50,000 bribe to a high-level official in Indonesia’s environment ministry in 2002, in a bid to avoid Environmental impact assessment on its genetically modified cotton. Monsanto told the company to disguise an invoice for the bribe as “consulting fees”. Monsanto also has admitted to paying bribes to a number of other high-ranking Indonesian officials between 1997 and 2002. Monsanto faced both criminal and civil charges from the Department of Justice and the United States Securities and Exchange Commssion (SEC). Monsanto has agreed to pay $1m to the Department of Justice and $500,000 to the SEC to settle the bribe charge and other related violations.[54].
On March 5, 2008 the Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) against Monsanto was dismissed with prejudice (unopposed by the Department of Justice) by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, thereby indicating that Monsato had complied fully with the terms of the DPA.
[edit] Monsanto fined in France for false advertising
Monsanto was fined $19,000 in a French court on January 26, 2007 for misleading the public about the environmental impact of its record selling herbicide Roundup. A former chairman of Monsanto Agriculture France was found guilty of false advertising for presenting Roundup as biodegradable and claiming that it left the soil clean after use.
Environmental and consumer rights campaigners brought the case in 2001 on the basis that glyphosate, Roundup’s main ingredient, is classed as “dangerous for the environment” and “toxic for aquatic organisms” by the European Union. Monsanto’s French distributor Scotts France was also fined 15,000 euros. Both defendants were ordered to pay damages of 5,000 euros to the Brittany Water and Rivers association and 3,000 euros to the CLCV consumers group.[55].
[edit] Cooperation with BASF
Monsanto is cooperating with BASF in research, development and marketing of biotechnology. [56]
[edit] Resistance in Europe
Europeans have been resisting genetically modified food for a long time. Monsanto has been facing stiff resistance from the European Union over its portfolio of GM foods. Their approval is important for Monsanto as the EU’s position on GM foods influences the global debate. The GM industry has never gained wholehearted approval from the public in the EU. There have been several laws passed on this subject, and EU legislation of 2003 asked for strict rules on labeling, traceability and risk assessments of GM foods by all the biotech companies. The Regulation of 2004 laid down procedures on traceability and labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and all products produced using GMOs. The mandatory labeling legislation extends its requirement to all food and food ingredients produced from GMOs regardless of the detectable presence of DNA or protein within the final food product. These actions severely affected Monsanto as labeling foods as GM would stigmatise the foods.[57] In the EU, there has been a moratorium on the approval of new GM crops since 1998 caused by the public anxiety over the potential risks of GM foods.[58]
[edit] Soybean in Argentina
Arguably, Monsanto claims one of its greatest success stories has been genetically modified soyabean (Roundup Ready soya) grown and sold in Argentina, South Africa and across the USA. There are claims that its use increased soya production by 75% and increased yields by 173% over five years till 2002, giving good profitability to farmers. This was good news for the farmers who saw GM soya as a cash crop which had a good export potential as feed for cattle. Therefore, Argentine farmers relied on GM soya as their only produce. In 2004, there were questions being raised about the actual benefits, Anti-GM soya activists claimed that the consequences of growing RR soya in Argentina included a massive exodus of small farmers from the countryside because they could no longer make a living (as they could not afford GM soya) or were driven off their land. It also made the farmers have to buy the GM seeds every year as the seeds produced by GM crops cannot be reused.[citation needed]
Monsanto reasoned that the soil degradation and increased use of pesticides was not due to the use of its GM Soya. It maintains that farmers need to rotate crops in order to allow the soil to recover. Farmers should grow GM soya and then rotate it with corn or other cash crops. However, due to the growing demand of soya, farmers in Argentina did not rotate crops and grew only soya, resulting in damage to the soil.[59]
[edit] Pig controversy
After getting involved in the Soya controversies, Monsanto found itself in the midst of another controversy with its “Pig Patent”. In 2005, Monsanto had filed two patents for processes which controlled the breeding and the herds of pigs. This resulted in Monsanto being under scrutiny for ownership rights over pigs and their offspring. Many commentators felt that Monsanto was planning to create improved designer animals for human consumption using special breeding techniques. Monsanto was able to control breeds with specific characteristics as per the patent, and disallowing other breeders and farmers from doing so. The patent, being broad, remained unclear about the ownership of the proceeds from the sale of the pigs by farmers. It did not mention the royalties involved when a food producer produces sausages (as an example) using those pigs which are bred using Monsanto’s process. This was a source of royalty for Monsanto. Monsanto wanted to cash in on the growing consumer demand for meat products globally and many activists question the ethics of Monsanto’s actions.[60]
The filing of the patents also raises questions about the livelihood of all the pig breeders – those who use Monsanto process on the ownership and those who use traditional methods of pig rearing accused of patent infringement. As like the earlier seed controversy and the Canadian incident, the farmers are afraid of losing their livelihood due to Monsanto’s breeding technique. They fear that Monsanto would also file lawsuits against them like they did to the soya and corn farmers. This stems from the fact that the patent filed by Monsanto is quite broad and the interpretation would lead to them owning not just the breeding process, but also the pigs which are bred from this method.
However, there is no evidence of any addition in the nutritional value and fat content lowering which has been claimed by Monsanto. On its part, Monsanto claims that it is not trying to patent pigs; it wants the ability to track which animals come from its system. Advocates of genetically modified foods stress that this scientific process is one of the ways of increasing food production in a world where the demand for food is ever increasing. It brings about an increase in supply and is beneficial to the community. Hundreds of patents on animals have been granted over the years, including salmon, shrimps and mice. But most are Genetically Modified creatures used in laboratory research, not common farm animals which are a source of income for people.
In 2007 Monsanto sold its swine breeding business, Choice Genetics, to Newsham Genetics LC.
[edit] Criticism
[edit] Worldwide
In November 2008, a report by Greenpeace published results of a report linking a Monsanto produced strain of transgenic maize to lower levels of fertility in mice.[61]
[edit] In India
Monsanto has had a controversial history in India, starting with the accusations of terminator genes in its seed. There were demonstrations against the company. Later, its GM cotton seed was the subject of NGO agitation because of its higher cost. The company also faces increasing piracy of seed in India, with local farmers creating their own varieties.[62][63] In 2003 Brazil followed suit with a similar protest in Goias.[64]
[edit] Child labor
A subsidiary of Monsanto has been accused of employing child labour in the manufacture of cotton-seeds in India. The work involves handling of poisonous pesticides such as Endosulfan and the children get less than Rs.20 (half dollar) per day.[65] The company has refuted these claims on the basis that the children are not directly employed by the company.
[edit] Farmer suicides in India
Frontline’s “Seeds of Suicide: India’s Desperate Farmers” has detailed some of the struggles facing the Indian farmer.[66] The transition to using the latest pest-resistant seeds and the necessary herbicides has been difficult. Farmers have been lured to genetically modified seeds promoted by Cargill and Monsanto by the promise of greater yields. Resulting debts from such gambles with genetically modified seeds have led some farmers into the equivalent of indentured servitude and alarming suicide rates in the thousands.[67][68]
In India, Monsanto’s GM seed business is run by a joint venture, Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (MMB) India Ltd.[69] and markets its BT Cotton seeds under various names. The Andhra Pradesh government has registered a case against Monsanto for its high seed prices.[49]
In July 2004, India’s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh promised to set aside funds in the federal budget to aid struggling farmers, as well as the families of those who committed suicide. For each struggling farming household he pledged 150,000 rupees (about $3,400), and in addition, for families mourning a relative who committed suicide, he pledged a federal compensation of 50,000 rupees (about $1,136). At the time that Prime Minister Singh wrote this legislation, well over 3,000 Indian farmers had already committed suicide.[70]
[edit] In the United Kingdom
Monsanto dumped thousands of tons of waste containing PCBs in a quarry near Groesfaen, Wales.[71] Also responsible for dumping various unconfirmed contaminates at a site near Llwyneinion, North Wales.[citation needed]
[edit] In the United States
The non-profit Center for Food Safety[72] listed 112 lawsuits by Monsanto against farmers for claims of seed patent violations.[73] The Center for Food Safety’s analyst stated that many innocent farmers settle with Monsanto because they cannot afford a time consuming lawsuit. Monsanto is frequently described by farmers as “Gestapo” and “Mafia” both because of these lawsuits and because of the questionable means they use to collect evidence of patent infringement.[74]
Monsanto is responsible for more than 50 United States Environmental Protection Agency‎ Superfund sites, dating back to the era in which the company was called “Monsanto Chemical.”[75]
As of May, 2008, Monsanto is currently engaged in a campaign to prohibit dairies which do not inject their cows with artificial bovine growth hormone from advertising this fact on their milk cartons.[76] When the Federal Trade Commission did not side with Monsanto on this issue, the company started lobbying state lawmakers to implement a similar ban. Pennsylvania Agriculture Secretary Dennis Wolfe attempted to prohibit dairies from using labels stating that their milk does not contain artificial bovine growth hormone, but public outcry led Governor Edward Rendell to reverse this ban.[77]
[edit] In Missouri
Gary Rinehart of Eagleville, Missouri was sued by Monsanto in 2002, who claimed that he had violated their Roundup Ready Soybean patent. Rinehart is not a farmer or seed dealer, but he still had to spend money for his legal defense. Monsanto eventually dropped the lawsuit, but never issued an apology, admitted to making a mistake, or offered to pay for Rinehart’s legal expenses.
Monsanto sued the Pilot Grove Cooperative Elevator in Pilot Grove, Missouri, claiming that offering seed cleaning services to farmers was tantamount to inducing them to pirate Monsanto seeds. The Pilot Grove Cooperative Elevator had been cleaning seeds for decades before companies like Monsanto could even patent organisms.[73][75]
[edit] In Illinois
Monsanto Chemical company founded and incorporated the town of Sauget, Illinois, to avoid taxation from East Saint Louis. For many years the company employed the city’s people and polluted its environment while giving them no tax revenue in return, even during the city’s decline throughout the latter half of the 20th century.
[edit] In Alabama
Monsanto is accused of encouraging residents of Anniston, Alabama to use soil known by the company to be contaminated with PCBs as top soil.[71]
[edit] Food Safety and Modernization act of 2009
Recent criticism against Monsanto has been made against the new Food safety bill H.R. 875 which is currently in committee[78]. The bill was introduced by Representative Rosa DeLauro, who is known for being a major supporter of Monsanto. [1] [2] The bill would place small farmers and organic producers at heavy disadvantage. Failing to meet any of the restrictions and quality controls outlined in the bill would place heavy fines and product seizure upon the producer that would make it impossible to continue business. Further more, under the current broad wording of the bill, any producer of food for human consumption must comply to the long list of regulations and controls. This would effectively criminalise community based food production such as 4-H programs and community gardens.
[edit] Political contributions
Monsanto gave $186,250 to federal candidates in the 2008 election cycle through its political action committee (PAC) – 42% to Democrats, 58% to Republicans.[79]
[edit] Lobbying
The company spent $8,831,120 for lobbying in 2008. $1,492,000 was to outside lobbying firms with the remainder being spent using in-house lobbyists.[80]
[edit] Public officials formerly employed by Monsanto
Justice Clarence Thomas worked as an attorney for Monsanto in the 1970s. Thomas wrote the majority opinion in the 2001 Supreme Court decision J. E. M. AG SUPPLY, INC. V. PIONEER HI-BREDINTERNATIONAL, INC. which found that “newly developed plant breeds are patentable under the general utility patent laws of the United States.” This case benefitted all companies which profit from genetically modified crops, of which Monsanto is one of the largest.[76][81][82]
Michael R. Taylor was an assistant to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) commissioner before he left to work for a law firm on gaining FDA approval of Monsanto’s artificial growth hormone in the 1980s. Taylor then became deputy commissioner of the FDA in 1991.[76]
Dr. Michael A. Friedman was a deputy commissioner of the FDA before he was hired as a senior vice president of Monsanto.[76]
Linda J. Fisher was an assistant administrator at the United States Environmental Protection Agency‎ (EPA) before she was a vice president at Monsanto from 1995 – 2000. In 2001, Fisher became the deputy administrator of the EPA.[76]
Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was chairman and chief executive officer of G. D. Searle & Co., which Monsanto purchased in 1985. Rumsfeld personally made at least $12 million USD from the transaction.[76] Wikipedia

Furthermore, Wikipedia continues:

Monsanto was founded in St. Louis, Missouri, in 1901, by John Francis Queeny, a 30-year veteran of the pharmaceutical industry. He funded the start-up with his own money and capital from a soft drink distributor, and gave the company his wife’s maiden name. The company’s first product was the artificial sweetener saccharin, which it sold to the Coca-Cola Company. It also introduced caffeine and vanillin to Coca-Cola, and became one of that company’s main suppliers.[citation needed] In 1919, Monsanto established its presence in Europe by entering into a partnership with Graesser’s Chemical Works at Cefn Mawr in Ruabon, Wales to produce vanillin, salicylic acid, aspirin and later rubber.
In its second decade, the 1920s, Monsanto expanded into basic industrial chemicals like sulfuric acid, and the decade ended with Queeny’s son Edgar Monsanto Queeny taking over the company in 1928.
The 1940s saw Monsanto become a leading manufacturer of plastics, including polystyrene, and synthetic fibers. Since then, it has remained one of the top 10 US chemical companies. Other major products have included the herbicides 2,4,5-T, DDT, and Agent Orange used primarily during the Vietnam War as a deforestation agent (and later proven to be highly carcinogenic to any who come into contact with the solution), the excitotoxin[dubious – discuss] aspartame (NutraSweet), bovine somatotropin (bovine growth hormone (BST), and PCBs[3]. Also in this decade, Monsanto operated the Dayton Project, and later Mound Laboratory in Miamisburg, Ohio, for the Manhattan Project, the development of the first nuclear weapons and, after 1947, the Atomic Energy Commission. Monsanto began manufacturing DDT in 1944, along with some 15 other companies.[4] The use of DDT in the U.S. was banned by Congress in 1972, due in large efforts to environmentalists, who persisted in the challenge put forth by Rachel Carson and her book Silent Spring in 1962, which sought to inform the public of the side effects associated with the insecticide. In 1947, an accidental explosion of ammonium nitrate fertilizer loaded on the French ship S.S. Grandcamp destroyed an adjacent Monsanto styrene manufacturing plant, along with much of the port at Galveston Bay. The explosion, known as the Texas City Disaster, is considered the largest industrial accident in US history, with the highest death toll. As the decade ended, Monsanto acquired American Viscose from England’s Courtauld family in 1949.
In 1954, Monsanto partnered with German chemical giant Bayer to form Mobay and market polyurethanes in the US. In the 1960s and 1970s, Monsanto became the leading producer of Agent Orange for US Military operations in Vietnam.[citation needed]
In 1980, Monsanto established the Edgar Monsanto Queeny safety award[citation needed] in honor of its former CEO (1928–1960), to encourage accident prevention.
Monsanto scientists became the first to genetically modify a plant cell in 1982.[5] Five years later, Monsanto conducted the first field tests of genetically engineered crops.
Through a process of mergers and spin-offs between 1997 and 2002, Monsanto has made a transition from chemical giant to biotech giant. Part of this process involved the 1999 sale by Monsanto of their phenylalanine facilities to Great Lakes Chemical Corporation (GLC) for $125 million. In 2000, GLC sued Monsanto because of a $71 million dollar shortfall in expected sales.
With the dawn of the new millennium in 2001, retired Monsanto chemist William S. Knowles was named a co-winner of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his research on catalytic asymmetric hydrogenation, which was carried out at Monsanto beginning in the 1960s until his 1986 retirement.
Throughout 2004 and 2005, Monsanto filed lawsuits against many farmers in Canada and the U.S. The lawsuits have been on the grounds of patent infringement, specifically the farmer’s sale of seed containing Monsanto’s patented genes–which require the farmer initial purchase of the seed and its technology–unknowingly sown by wind carrying the seeds from neighboring crops. These instances began in the mid to late 1990s, with one of the most significant cases being decided in Monsanto’s favor by the Canadian Supreme Court. By a 5-4 vote in late May 2004, that court ruled that “by cultivating a plant containing the patented gene and composed of the patented cells without license, the appellants (canola farmer Percy Schmeiser) deprived the respondents of the full enjoyment of the patent.” With this ruling, the Canadian courts followed the U.S. Supreme Court in its decision on patent issues involving plants and genes.
As of February 2005, Monsanto has patent claims on breeding techniques for pigs which would grant them ownership of any pigs born of such techniques and their related herds. Greenpeace claims Monsanto is trying to claim ownership on ordinary breeding techniques.[6] Monsanto claims that the patent is a defensive measure to track animals from its system. They furthermore claim their patented method uses a specialized insemination device that requires less sperm than is typical.[7]
In 2006, the Public Patent Foundation filed requests with the U.S. Patent Office to revoke four patents that Monsanto has used in patent lawsuits against farmers. In the first round of reexamination, claims in all four patents were rejected by the Patent Office in four separate rulings dating from February through July 2007.[8] Monsanto has since filed responses in the reexaminations.
In October 2008, the company’s Canadian division, Monsanto Canada Inc., was named one of Canada’s Top 100 Employers by Mediacorp Canada Inc., and was featured in Maclean’s newsmagazine. Later that month, Monsanto Canada Inc. was also named one of Manitoba’s Top Employers, which was announced by the Winnipeg Free Press newspaper.[9]
[edit] Spin-offs and mergers
Through a series of transactions, the Monsanto that existed from 1901–2000 and the current Monsanto are legally two different corporations. Although they share the same name, corporate headquarters, many of the same executives and other employees, and responsibility for liabilities arising out of its former activities in the industrial chemical business, the agricultural chemicals business is the only segment carried forward from the pre-1997 Monsanto Company to the current Monsanto Company. A timeline follows:
1985: Monsanto purchases G. D. Searle & Company. In this merger, Searle’s aspartame business became a separate Monsanto subsidiary, the NutraSweet Company. CEO of NutraSweet, Robert B. Shapiro, goes on to become CEO of Monsanto from 1995 to 2000.
1997: Monsanto spins off its industrial chemical and fiber divisions into Solutia Inc. This transfers the financial liability related to the production and contamination with PCBs at the Illinois and Alabama plants. In January, Monsanto announced the purchase of Holden’s Foundations Seeds, a privately-held seed business owned by the Holden family along with its sister sales organization, Corn States Hybrid Service, of Williamsburg and Des Moines, Iowa, respectively. The combined purchase price totaled $925M. Also, in April, Monsanto purchases the remaining shares of Calgene.
1999: Monsanto sells Nutrasweet Co. and two other companies.
2000: Monsanto merges with Pharmacia and Upjohn. Later in the year, Pharmacia forms a new subsidiary, also named Monsanto, for the agricultural divisions, and retains the medical research divisions, which includes products such as Celebrex.
2002: Pharmacia spins off its remaining interest in Monsanto, which has since existed as a separate company: the “new Monsanto.” As part of the deal, Monsanto agrees to indemnify Pharmacia against any liabilities that might be incurred from judgments against Solutia. As a result, the new Monsanto continues to be a party to numerous lawsuits that relate to operations of the old Monsanto.
2005: Monsanto purchases Seminis, the largest seed company not producing corn or soybeans in the world.
2008: Monsanto purchases the Dutch seed company De Ruiter Seeds for about 855 million dollars.
[edit] Sponsorships
Monsanto are one of many sponsors behind Svalbard Global Seed Vault
Monsanto has been the corporate sponsor of many attractions at Disneyland and Walt Disney World.
At Disneyland they include:
Hall of Chemistry
Fashions and Fabrics through the Years
House of The Future
Adventure Thru Innerspace
And at Walt Disney World they included:
Magic Eye Theatre
Circle Vision 360
All attractions that the company has ever sponsored were located in Tomorrowland.
Wikipedia
But what sticks out in my mind are a few things in researching this transnational corporation, as eluded to in this Wikipedia material, are a few items I want to make note of.
· Amongst its many products, Montsanto has manufactured DDT and Agent Orange.
· “In 1947, an accidental explosion of ammonium nitrate fertilizer loaded on a French ship S.S. Grandcamp destroyed an adjacent Montsanto styrene manufacturing plant, along with much of the port of Galveston Bay. The explosion, known as the Texas City Disaster, is considered the largest industrial accident in US history.”
· “In the 1970’s, Montsanto became the largest producer of Agent Orange for the US Military operations in Vietnam”
· Montsanto has spunoff from a chemical giant to a biotech giant
· MON863 “is a variety of maize genetically engineered to be resistant to corn rootworm and intended for human consumption.” “MON863 grain is approved for human consumption in Japan, Mexico, Canada, South Korea, Taiwan, the United States and the European Union.
A statistical analysis conducted on results of a Monsanto 90-day feeding study by Gilles-Eric Seralini, Dominique Cellier, and Joel Spiroux de Vendomois found it increased triglycerides in female rats by 20-40%, caused increased weight gain in female rats of 3.7%, a decrease in male rat weight of 3.3%, and increased certain indicators associated with liver and kidney toxicity.[20] Both Monsanto experts, and independent toxicology experts attached to research institutions and food safety authorities internationally did not indicate statistically significant adverse effects. The European Food Safety Authority has found that “the placing on the market of MON863 is unlikely to have an adverse effect on human and animal health or the environment in the context of its proposed use.”[21] Wikipedia

end of part A because apparently Steemit wouldn't allow the whole thing?