Monsanto Bids to Take Over
Syngenta—A Move to Assure a Pesticide-Saturated Future?
May 26, 2015
Story at-a-glance
Monsanto recently made a bid to take over Syngenta,
the world’s largest pesticide producer. The $45.1
billion bid was rejected, but there’s still a chance
for a merger
By trying to acquire Syngenta, Monsanto contradicts
years of rhetoric about how its ultimate goal is to
help farmers use less agrichemicals
More than 25 farmworker, environmental, and food
safety organizations demand the USDA investigate
reports of retaliation and suppression of research
relating to the dangers of neonicotinoids and
glyphosate
By Dr. Mercola
Monsanto recently made a bid to take over European agrichemical
giant Syngenta, the world’s largest pesticide producer. The $45
billion bid was rejected, but there’s still a chance for a merger
between these two chemical technology giants.
Monsanto is reportedly considering raising the offer, and as
noted by Mother Jones,1
“combined, the two companies would form a singular agribusiness
behemoth, a company that controls a third of both the globe's seed
and pesticides markets.”
As reported by Bloomberg,2
the possibility of Monsanto taking over Syngenta raises a number of
concerns; a top one being loss of crop diversity.
“...[A] larger company would eventually mean fewer
varieties of seeds available to farmers, say opponents such as
[science policy analyst at the Center for Food Safety, Bill]
Freese.
Another is that the combined company could spur increased
use of herbicides by combining Syngenta’s stable of weed killers
with Monsanto’s marketing heft and crop development expertise.
‘Two really big seed companies becoming one big seed
company means even less choice for farmers,’ said Patty Lovera,
assistant director of Food and Water Watch, a policy group in
Washington.
‘From a public health and environmental perspective this
is a complete disaster,’ said Bill Freese... ‘The more I look at
this, the more it worries me and the more it needs to be
opposed.’”
What’s in a Name?
According to one analyst, the takeover might boost Monsanto’s
reputation, as Syngenta has been “less publicly enthusiastic” about
genetically engineered (GE) crops.
Personally, I don’t foresee Monsanto ever being able to shed its
toxic reputation, no matter how it tries to rebrand itself. It
recently tried to do just that by declaring itself "sustainable
agriculture company.”
But actions speak louder than mere words, and there’s nothing
sustainable about Monsanto’s business. Taking on the Syngenta name
would do nothing to change the obnoxious dichotomy between
Monsanto’s words and deeds.
In fact, Mother Jones astutely notes that by trying to acquire
Syngenta, Monsanto contradicts “years of rhetoric about how its
ultimate goal with biotech is to wean farmers off agrichemicals.”
It’s quite clear Monsanto has no desire or plans to help farmers
reduce the use of crop chemicals. On the contrary, it has and
continues to push for the increased use of its flagship product,
Roundup.
Roundup Also Being Used to Harvest Non-GMO Crops
Not only has Monsanto created a line of GE Roundup-ready seeds,
it also promotes the use of Roundup on conventional crops,
pre-harvest, as described in its Pre-Harvest Staging Guide.3
Applying herbicide directly before harvesting helps dry the crop,
boosts the release of seed, and is said to promote long-term control
of certain weeds.
The practice is known as desiccation, and according to
researchers Samsel and Seneff,4
the desiccation of conventionally grown wheat appears to be linked
to the rapid and concurrent rise in celiac disease.
Applying glyphosate, which was recently classified as a Class 2A
probable human carcinogen, on crops directly before harvest is one
of the dumbest things we could do to our foods, yet Monsanto
wholeheartedly supports and promotes it.
Speaking of reputation, Syngenta is hardly a poster child for
sustainability and right action either. Not only is it the main
supplier of the “gender-bending” herbicide atrazine in the US, it
also makes
neonicotinoids—a class of insecticide linked to the mass
die-offs of bees and other pollinators
Both of these chemicals have come under increasing scrutiny as
researchers have learned more about their environmental and human
health impacts, and both are banned in Europe while still widely in
use in the US.
Suppressing Science for the Chemical Industry?
As scrutiny into the effects of chemicals has intensified, so has
strong-arm tactics by the industry, which has successfully
infiltrated the very agencies charged with their oversight.
An open letter5
signed by more than 25 farmworker, environmental, and food safety
organizations was sent to the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) on
May 5, demanding the agency investigate reports of retaliation and
suppression of research relating to the dangers of neonicotinoids
and glyphosate.6
"It is imperative that the USDA maintains scientific
integrity and does not allow for harassment, censorship, or
suppression of findings that counter the interests of industry,"
the letter states.
In March, the Public Employees for Environmental
Responsibility (PEER) filed a citizen petition requesting that
the US Department of Agriculture adopt new policies that would
further job protection for government scientists who question
the health and safety of agricultural chemicals.
The petition urges for the agency to adopt policies that
would specifically prevent the ‘political suppression or
alteration of studies and lay out clear procedures for
investigating allegations and of scientific misconduct.’
PEER has found that more than 10 USDA scientists have
faced consequences or investigations when their work called into
question the health and safety of agricultural chemicals.
These scientists documented clear actions that violated
their scientific integrity, including USDA officials retracting
studies, watering down findings, removing scientists’ names from
authorship, and delaying approvals for publication of research
papers.”
Many Elementary School Children at Risk of Elevated Pesticide
Exposure
Monsanto’s marketing materials still proclaim its GE crops reduce
the need for pesticides, but usage has steadily and significantly
risen since the advent of GE seeds. The rapid emergence of resistant
superweeds have led the industry to invent crop seeds resistant to
even more toxic herbicides, such as 2,4-D and dicamba.
According to Dr. Medardo Ávila-Vázquez,7
a pediatrician and neonatologist at the Faculty of Medical Sciences
at the National University of Córdoba, glyphosate use in connection
to
GMO seeds is having a notably deleterious effect on the health
of the local people, particularly children.
In light of the approval of these next-generation pesticides, it
would behoove us to take notice to such warnings, because our kids
are also becoming increasingly exposed. As reported by Global
Research,8
children attending hundreds of elementary schools across the US are
in harm’s way as toxic weed killers are doused on nearby GE fields
in ever greater amounts:
“A new EWG interactive
map shows the amounts of glyphosate sprayed in each US
county and tallies the 3,247 elementary schools that are located
within 1,000 feet of a corn or soybean field and the 487 schools
that are within 200 feet.
Click on any county on the map to see how much GMO corn and
soy acreage has increased there as well as the number of nearby
elementary schools.”
You will see that several states are outlined. This is where the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has approved the use of Dow
AgroSciences’ Enlist Duo. This new herbicide, which is a mix of
glyphosate and 2,4-D, will be used on a new generation of GE corn
and soybeans engineered to withstand both of these toxins. Many of
these states are already heavily sprayed with Roundup, and with the
introduction of Enlist Duo, children who go to school near these
farm fields may be exposed to greater risks than ever before.
The Organic Effect
While environmental exposure is certainly a concern, most people
are exposed to pesticides via their diet. Claimed to be the largest
of its kind, a study9
published in the Environmental Health Perspectives looked
at the diets of nearly 4,500 people living in six US cities,
assessing exposure levels to organophosphates (OPs), which are among
the most commonly used pesticides on American farms.
Participants’ organophosphate levels were estimated using USDA
data10
on the average levels of pesticide residue found in the fruits and
vegetables that each individual reported eating. To verify the
accuracy of their estimates, they compared their calculated
pesticide exposures to the actual levels of pesticide metabolites
(breakdown products) excreted in the urine of a subset of 720
participants.
Not surprisingly, those who ate conventionally grown produce were
found to have high concentrations of OP metabolites, whereas those
who ate organic produce had significantly lower levels. Those who
“often or always” ate organic had about 65 percent lower levels of
pesticide residues compared to those who ate the least amount of
organic produce. According to lead author Cynthia Curl: “The
study suggests that by eating organically grown versions of those
foods highest in pesticide residues, we can make a measurable
difference.”
The “organic effect” was also recently demonstrated by a Swedish
family that agreed to eat nothing but organic food for two weeks.
11 Pesticide levels were measured before and after the
switch, and after a fortnight of eating an all-organic diet, the
family members’ toxic load had diminished to virtually nothing.
While many
organic foods have been shown to contain higher levels of
nutrients,12,13,14
one of the major benefits you reap from eating organic is what you
don’t get from your diet—all those toxic chemicals!
A Stanford University meta-analysis15
published in 2012 found that people who eat an organic diet not only
tend to have lower levels of toxic pesticides in their system,
organic meats were also far less likely to contain multi-drug
resistant bacteria, which is yet another major health threat.
Many still insist we don’t know what the health ramifications are
from eating pesticide-tainted foods, but common sense will tell you
the effect is not going to do your health any favors. Many
pesticides also do have well-established health effects.
Organophosphate (OP) pesticides, for example, have been linked to
reduced IQ and attention deficits in children.16,17
Symptoms of exposure include weakness, headache, diarrhea, nausea,
and vomiting.
Long-term exposure has been linked to neurological effects, such
as18
confusion, anxiety, and depression. According to data19
from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), more than
75 percent of the US population has detectable levels of OPs in
their urine, and unless you’re a farmer, or live near a farm, your
diet is one of the most likely routes of exposure. Considering
depression affects one in 10 Americans, who’s to say OP pesticide
exposure isn’t part of the problem?
Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce
To protect your health, your best bet is to buy only organic
fruits and vegetables. That said, not all conventionally grown
fruits and vegetables are subjected to the same amount of pesticide
load. One way to save some money while still lowering your risk is
by focusing on purchasing certain organic items, while “settling”
for others that are conventionally grown. To do this, I recommend
familiarizing yourself with the Environmental Working Group’s (EWG)
annual Shoppers' Guide to Pesticides in Produce.20
Of the fruits and vegetables tested by the EWG for the 2015
guide, the following “dirty dozen” had the highest
pesticide load, making them the most important to buy or grow
organically. Also remember that swapping your regular meat sources
to organic, grass-fed/pasture-raised versions of beef and poultry
may be even more important than buying organic fruits and
vegetables. The same goes for dairy products and animal by-products
such as eggs.
In contrast, the following foods were found to have the
lowest residual pesticide load, making them the safest bet
among conventionally grown vegetables. Note that a small amount of
sweet corn and most Hawaiian papaya, although low in pesticides, are
genetically engineered (GE). If you’re unsure of whether the sweet
corn or papaya is GE, I’d recommend opting for organic varieties. To
review the ranking of all foods tested, please see the EWG’s 2015
Shoppers' Guide to Pesticides in Produce.21
One of the most compelling reasons to eat organic is to avoid
toxins. Organic foods do tend to have a better nutritional
profile, but even if they do not, the absence of drugs,
pesticides, hormones, and antibiotics is more than enough of a
reason to make the switch to protect your health. For a step-by-step
guide to making healthier diet choices, please see my freely
available
optimized nutrition plan, starting with the
beginner plan.
While many food stores carry organic foods these days, your best
bet is to source it from a local grower, as much of the organic food
sold in grocery stores is imported. Not only has this food traveled
a long distance, adding to the carbon footprint, but some countries
may have more lax organic standards than others.
Buying local food also supports local farmers and promotes the
establishment of a more sustainable local food system. If you reside
in the US, the following organizations can help you locate
farm-fresh foods in the vicinity of where you live. Even better
would be to grow it yourself. The nation’s health would radically
improve if we could reestablish World War II Victory gardens.
Weston Price Foundation22-- has local chapters in most states, and many of
them are connected with buying clubs in which you can easily
purchase organic foods, including grass fed raw dairy
products like milk and butter.
Local Harvest -- This Web site will
help you find farmers' markets, family farms, and other
sources of sustainably grown food in your area where you can
buy produce, grass-fed meats, and many other goodies.
Eat Well Guide: Wholesome Food from Healthy Animals
-- The Eat Well Guide is a free online directory of
sustainably raised meat, poultry, dairy, and eggs from
farms, stores, restaurants, inns, and hotels, and online
outlets in the United States and Canada.
FoodRoutes -- The FoodRoutes "Find Good
Food" map can help you connect with local farmers to find
the freshest, tastiest food possible. On their interactive
map, you can find a listing for local farmers, CSAs, and
markets near you.
What Are GMOs?
GMOs are a product of genetic engineering, meaning their genetic
makeup has been altered to induce a variety of “unique” traits to
crops, such as making them drought-resistant or giving them “more
nutrients.” GMO proponents claim that genetic engineering is “safe
and beneficial,” and that it advances the agricultural industry.
They also say that GMOs help ensure the global food supply and
sustainability. But is there any truth to these claims? I believe
not. For years, I've stated the belief that GMOs pose one of the
greatest threats to life on the planet. Genetic engineering is NOT
the safe and beneficial technology that it is touted to be.
Help Support GMO Labeling
The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA)—Monsanto’s Evil
Twin—is pulling out all the stops to keep you in the dark about
what’s in your food. For nearly two decades, Monsanto and corporate
agribusiness have exercised near-dictatorial control over American
agriculture. For example, Monsanto has made many claims that
glyphosate in Roundup is harmless to animals and humans. However,
recently the World Health Organization (WHO) had their research team
test glyphosate and have labeled it a probable carcinogen.
Public opinion around the biotech industry's contamination of our
food supply and destruction of our environment has reached the
tipping point. We're fighting back. That's why I was the first to
push for GMO labeling. I donated a significant sum to the first
ballot initiative in California in 2012, which inspired others to
donate to the campaign as well. We technically "lost the vote, but
we are winning the war, as these labeling initiatives have raised a
considerable amount of public awareness.
The insanity has gone far enough, which is why I encourage you to
boycott every single product owned by members of the GMA, including
natural and organic brands. More than 80 percent of our support
comes from individual consumers like you, who understand that real
change comes from the grassroots.
Recently, Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan) has reintroduced a bill (HR
1599) that would preempt states' rights to enact GMO labeling laws.
This bill would create a federal government program to oversee
guidelines for voluntary labeling of products that do not contain
GMOs. It would specifically prohibit Congress or individual states
from requiring mandatory labeling of GMO foods or ingredients. It
would also allow food manufacturers to use the word "natural" on
products that contain GMOs. TAKE ACTION NOW! Your local
representatives need to hear from you! Please contact them today by
CLICKING HERE.
Thankfully, we have organizations like the Organic Consumers
Association (OCA) to fight back against these junk food
manufacturers, pesticide producers, and corporate giants.
Together, Let's Help OCA Get The Funding They Deserve
Let’s Help OCA get the funding it deserves. I have found very few
organizations who are as effective and efficient as OCA. It’s a
public interest organization dedicated to promoting health justice
and sustainability. A central focus of the OCA is building a
healthy, equitable, and sustainable system of food production and
consumption.
Please make a donation to help OCA fight for GMO labeling.
Copyright 1997- 2015 Dr. Joseph Mercola. All Rights Reserved.