Can a Magic Spell Take Down Monsanto?

Can a Magic Spell Take Down Monsanto?

At this point in time, there’s no question that the corporate reign is upon us. Our politicians are beholden to their corporate backers, and everything we touch—from the gloves on our fingers to the chicken (or chicken-free) fingers we inhale at lunch—have deep roots tied to industry and the multinational corporations at the center of it all. But what if a magic spell—a death curse, specifically—could change all that?

Artist Steven Leyba has taken to putting a magic spell of sorts on Monsanto and other corporations at the forefront of human health and environmental destruction. And as unbelievable as it may sound, it may just be working.

The “any means necessary” ethos has become quite literal, especially for Leyba. Between 2010-2011, Leyba produced his 13th handmade book—his medium of choice. This one was focused specifically on Monsanto, the chemical-turned-engineered-foods poster corporation for everything wrong with the food system.

The massive food industry has become anathema for many, with locally grown and produced goods becoming the ultimate rebellious #Occupy-esque move in resisting corporate control over our food system. In 2012, the year after Leyba completed his book, sales of locally produced foods and goods topped $6.1 billion. And demand continues to rise–not just for local and organic foods, but for GMO-free and antibiotic-free foods, as well as foods free from artificial ingredients.

Like millions of Americans struggling with diet-related illnesses, Leyba tried to get healthier by changing his diet. “In 2010 I had been overweight and decided to get healthy. I started eating large amounts of fruits and vegetables from my local grocery store. I got sick and that was the time I found out about GMOs,” Leyba told Organic Authority in an email. “I was appalled. I couldn’t understand why I would get so sick by eating what I thought was so healthy. When I switched to organic food I got healthy again.”

Leyba said his motivation was deeply personal, but “also universal.”

“I had to make art about this,” he explains, “and in the process I learned how insidious the Monsanto corporation was.”

Leyba’s Monsanto book itself is thick and demented in appearance, like something you might find in an archeological discovery—perhaps an old alchemist’s or shaman’s handiwork. It’s constructed with canvas pages that he added grommets to, “I bolted the pages together and painted acrylic then sewed beads into the pages and collaged information about GMOs, anti-Monsanto pamphlets, and some of my writing against Monsanto,” he explains.


Most of the paintings were of Monsanto executives he says, including the company’s CEO Hugh Grant, as well as Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas (who worked for Monsanto for years). But it’s not exactly coffee table book material: “Their [sic] is pubic hair all over his 2 portraits,” Leyba explains. “I had the idea that in the future Monsanto would make it so everyone could grow their favorite foods on their faces: ‘You are what you eat, you eat what you are; MONSANTO,’” he explains.

But Leyba didn’t stop with his multimedia protest. A student of numerous art mediums, the occult, and Native traditions, Leyba publicly put a death curse on Monsanto and Nestlé, citing their for-profit eco-terrorism as his motivation. “Death curses work like any manifestation of will like Gestalt psychology; you visualize and act in accordance and at some point what you can conceive and believe you can achieve,” he explains.

“Medicine men practice this and even medical doctors to some extent practice this. They plant suggestions in people’s minds for healing and those people start to do things that promote their own healing,” he says. “For me I see a great need to identify the cancer (Monsanto and Nestlé) and attack with full force and mirror back this so-called Black Magic they are doing to all of us.”

For Leyba, “good art” can be both a psychological and emotional motivator. “I want the things that are killing people and the environment to die (Monsanto- Nestlé). I wish them death.”

Leyba points to Monsanto’s genetically modified foods and herbicides and Nestlé’s recent bad press over water theft in California, and the company’s links to child slavery in manufacturing its chocolate products. He says it is “a form of justice to project disdain and destruction on those that purposely destroy other people and the environment.”

And despite the growing demand for labeling GMO foods in the U.S. and more corporate transparency, Leyba says the corporations still get so much handed to them in the way of tax credits, subsidies, and corporate personhood.

“Multinational corporations have more rights than individuals,” he says, “and now with trade laws they have more rights than countries. My art forces the dialogue and creates the new language in opposition to corporations that believe in and act only on profits and losses. They are above and beyond the law. Except maybe the laws of nature.”


“Many may not believe in curses but many curses do work,” Leyba says, explaining that while death curses are not common in today’s world, from numerous Indigenous perspectives, they not only work, but are necessary.

Does he think the corporations can be forces for good? While Leyba did get the attention of Monsanto (he points to a Facebook thread where a company representative responded), he is doubtful that corporations, specifically the two he’s death-cursed, will be capable of making the type of transformation desperately needed.

“What is needed,” he says, “is for people to create the new symbols for change and not let corporations control the narrative.”

Despite the dark nature of Leyba’s work, he’s hopeful, too, “It’s wonderful how well the organic movement has spread,” and he says consumers can do their best to boycott these brands. “It’s hard with Monsanto because it is in everything. Nestlé has so many products but they can be identified. Corporations will adapt to the economic climate. I feel if more people were proactive in not buying the products, the big Goliath will have to adapt or perish.”

As for his art, Leyba says it has turned many people into creative activists. “It forces the conversation we all need to be having about fascist Trans-national corporations that decide what we eat and how we think about the world.” Leyba says the world “is tired of big business ruling their lives, bodies, and environment.”

“I encourage everyone to Death Curse Monsanto and Nestlé. Justifiable Death Curses are effective on many levels, fun, cathartic,” and says Leyba, “completely legal.”

Find Jill on Twitter and Instagram


All images courtesy of Leyba

Note: Personally, IMO this is White Magic because it benefits humanity. And, it certainly gives a whole new meaning to “We are the ones we waited for”. I’ve always believed we will win the war to reclaim our planet thru accessing our Avatar skills, there a people working at some in some of the darkest corners to eliminate the dark ones and their technology.

For example, if  CERN has been taken down, it’s because people have been working in the background (most likely with ET/ID assistance) at the psychic level to break down the programming. So let’s get busy, if you’re not already spinning up magic to break down the matrix and create and new paradigm…it’s crunch time my friends! This is why we were born :)

Hemp Plant Found To “Eat” Radiation and Drive Away Toxicity – Hemp Fields Should Be Planted Around Fukushima

fukuActivists have been shouting they want an end to GMO foods for more than a decade now, and Cannabis Sattiva L. supporters have been at it for even longer, so why has the US government finally given farmers the right to legally grow industrial hemp, the non-hallucinatory, sister plant of medical marijuana?

It is safe to say that industrialized hemp should have been legalized years ago. With THC levels so low, you would have to smoke more of it than Snoop Dogg to get ‘high’ – and that’s a lot of Cannabis, it is ridiculous that it was classified as a drug at all. It has numerous uses and could replace many crops that require heavy irrigation and pesticides, like cotton, for example. Here’s the most interesting fact though – hemp plants ‘eat’ radiation.

When the Chernobyl Nuclear Plant Reactor 4 accident caused severe radioactive contamination in 1986, families within a 30-kilometer area of the site had to be evacuated. Radioactive contamination was later found at 100 kilometers from the accident site, and Fukushima radiation levels are still to be determined, with the Japanese government planning on dumping their overflowing radiated water tanks into the Pacific as we speak.

As with the Chernobyl incident, scientists are finding radioactive emissions and toxic metals–including iodine, cesium-137, strontium-90, and plutonium–concentrated in the soil, plants, and animals of Japan, but also now throughout the United States and all along the West Coast – from Canada to Mexico. Even the EPA has admitted that any living tissue can be affected by radiation exposure. High levels of thyroid disease and cancer have been reported in Japan, and our ocean is dying by the day. Scientists are also expecting that children born on the US West Coast will suffer a 28% higher incident of hyperthyroidism – a disease that accompanies radiation exposure. Even the livestock that grazed on irradiated grasses grown in contaminated soils developed meat with high concentrations of these unwanted toxins after Chernobyl, and Fukushima is exponentially worse.

Dr. Ilya Raskin of Rutgers University’s Biotechnology Center for Agriculture and the Environment, who was a member of the original task force sent by the IAEA to examine food safety at the Chernobyl site figured out that through phytoremediation utilizing hemp, among other plants, the soil, and thus the food supply could be saved from toxicity.

Phytoremediation is the process whereby green plants remove toxins from the soil. Plants can extract specific elements within their ecosystem and still thrive. They accumulate the toxins in their tissues and root systems but remain undamaged. Sunflowers have been known to do something similar for centuries, eliminating heavy metals and pesticides from damaged soil. Two members of the mustard family are also useful for this process – Brassica juncea and Brassica carinata, but it seems hemp is quite amazing at sucking up radiation.

Granted, the government is probably dumbfounded at what to do with the Fukushima radiation headed our way, but the legalization of hemp just might balance some of the toxicity scientists expect.  Fortunately, California, one of the states that will be hardest hit, has already legalized industrial hemp, but it has to wait for the federal government to give states the right before they can actually grow it. The Farm Bill only allows ‘research’ growth at certain institutions in 10 states currently.

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson grew hemp. In light of Fukushima, let’s join our countries’ founders to grow it too. You can help clean the soil in your area if hemp or medical marijuana has been legalized in your state, and help it to pass in further states by being vocal with your state and federal representatives.


Massive Fire at Monsanto Facility Likely Arson, Says Investigators

photo from Anti-Media

by John Vibes / The Anti-Media

Earlier this week, a Monsanto research facility in France was burned to the ground. Monsanto and investigators suspect an arsonist was responsible for the blaze.

Monsanto representative Jakob Witten told Reuters that investigators “strongly suspect it was a crime as no electrical or other sources were found.”He added that “No Monsanto sites in Europe have so far been the victim of fires of criminal origin, this is unprecedented violence.”

The fire had multiple points of origin, meaning it is unlikely the fire was caused by an electrical malfunction or other natural causes. Investigators also noticed a strong smell of gasoline in different areas of the site.

France announced in June that it was banning sales of Roundup, Monsanto’s flagship herbicide, amid public pressure and the World Health Organization’s announcement that the product is probably carcinogenic. Further, last month the country announced it was strengthening its ban on genetically modified crops. Monsanto is one of the most hated corporations on the planet and faces particularly strong resistance in France. If the fire is confirmed to have been arson, it is possible this vociferous opposition might have been a motivating factor.

Nevertheless, the recent fire is merely the tip of the iceberg with regard to Monsanto’s recent problems.

The company recently moved to close three different research facilities to save money in the face of declining profits. As Reuters reported last week, Monsanto research centers in Middleton, Wisconsin, Mystic, Connecticut, and Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, will soon be closed to cut costs.

Last month, the infamous company announced it would be cutting 2,600 jobs — 12% of its workforce — in order to lower costs. Monsanto also announced a loss of 19 cents per share in the most recent quarter. Profits are expected to remain low throughout the year.

The Associated Press reported that Monsanto lost $156 million in the final quarter of last year alone, and this year is expected to be even worse.

This article (Arson Suspected in Massive Fire at Monsanto Research Facility) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under aCreative Commons license with attribution to John Vibes and Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, email

Worst News Ever? World Health Organization Says Steak “Probably” Causes Cancer ~ ZeroHedge

Tyler Durden's picture

Back in June, we highlighted the sobering and yet totally unsurprising fact that Americans are, at the risk of being crass, getting fatter all the time.

Researchers had just released a new report based on data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and the conclusions were not encouraging. Around 35 percent of men and 37 percent of women are obese, the researchers said, adding that another 40 percent of men and 30 percent of women are overweight. In all then, some 74% of men are at risk, a rather precipitous increase over the past several decades:

And while none of that is particularly surprising given the proliferation of processed food and ready availability of 84 ounce Big Gulps at the local 7 Eleven, what was shocking about the report is the following: “This generation of Americans is the first that will have a shorter life expectancy than the previous generation, and obesity is one of the biggest contributors to this shortened life expectancy because it is driving a lot of chronic health conditions.”

Of course Americans are used to their sedentary lifestyle and have become accustomed to gorging themselves at meal time and if persisting in such creature comforts means shaving a few years off their lifespans well, for most people that’s probably a reasonable trade off.

But while Americans may not be frightened of heart attacks, they’re still generally scared of cancer and so one way to get everyone to stop blowing themselves up like balloons might be to make people scared to eat. Cue the World Health Organisation (via Reuters):

Eating processed meat can lead to bowel cancer in humans while red meat is a likely cause of the disease, World Health Organisation (WHO) experts said on Monday in findings that could sharpen debate over the merits of a meat-based diet.


The France-based International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the WHO, put processed meat such as hot dogs and ham in its group 1 list, which already includes tobacco, asbestos and diesel fumes, for which there is “sufficient evidence” of cancer links.


“For an individual, the risk of developing colorectal (bowel) cancer because of their consumption of processed meat remains small, but this risk increases with the amount of meat consumed,” Dr Kurt Straif of the IARC said in a statement.


Red meat, under which the IARC includes beef, lamb and pork, was classified as a “probable” carcinogen in its group 2A list that also contains glyphosate, the active ingredient in many weedkillers.


The lower classification for red meat reflected “limited evidence” that it causes cancer. The IARC found links mainly with bowel cancer, as was the case for processed meat, but it also observed associations with pancreatic and prostate cancer.

Got that? Steak is now in the same category as weedkiller (Monsanto execs are laughing somewhere).

Here’s more color from Bloomberg:

The red meat study is just the latest of many that WHO has conducted since the 1970s, when it set out to identify and catalogue suspected carcinogens. The organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer has evaluated 984 agents, from chemicals to careers, that can be linked to cancer.


They fall into one of five classifications, according to the strength of the evidence: agents or activities that definitely, probably, or possibly cause cancer in humans; those that probably don’t cause cancer; and those for which the evidence is inconclusive.


It’s important to note that the agents at the top aren’t necessarily the most dangerous. They’re the ones with the clearest evidence of hazard. WHO seeks to identify carcinogens “even when risks are very low at the current exposure levels, because new uses or unforeseen exposures could engender risks that are significantly higher,” the agency says. In other words, even though WHO has determined that red meat is a carcinogen, the report doesn’t quantify how much meat it would take to cross into the danger zone.


Full infographic here

The question now, we suppose, is whether this will be used as an excuse for government to begin ever so gradually enacting a set of paternalistic regulations on red meat and Lunchables in an all too familiar attempt by lawmakers to save us from ourselves.

Guard your steaks.

Tampons, sterile cotton, sanitary pads contaminated with glyphosate – study

© Marcos Brindicci
The vast majority ‒ 85 percent ‒ of tampons, cotton and sanitary products tested in a new Argentinian study contained glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, ruled a likely carcinogen by the World Health Organization.

Meanwhile, 62 percent of the samples tested positive for AMPA, glyphosate’s metabolite, according to the study, which was conducted by researchers at the Socio-Environmental Interaction Space (EMISA) of the University of La Plata in Argentina.

All of the raw and sterile cotton gauze analyzed in the study showed evidence of glyphosate, said Dr. Damian Marino, the study’s head researcher.

“Eighty-five percent of all samples tested positive for glyphosate and 62 percent for AMPA, which is the environmental metabolite, but in the case of cotton and sterile cotton gauze the figure was 100 percent,” Marino told Télam news agency. An English translation of the Télam report can be found here. The products tested were acquired at local stores in Argentina.

“In terms of concentrations, what we saw is that in raw cotton AMPA dominates (39 parts per billion, or PPB, and 13 PPB of glyphosate), while the gauze is absent of AMPA, but contained glyphosate at 17 PPB.”

The results of the study were first announced to the public last week at the 3rd National Congress of Doctors for Fumigated Communities in Buenos Aires.

“The result of this research is very serious, when you use cotton or gauze to heal wounds or for personal hygiene uses, thinking they are sterilized products, and the results show that they are contaminated with a probably carcinogenic substance,” said Dr. Medardo Avila Vazquez, president of the congress.

“Most of the cotton production in the country is GM [genetically modified] cotton that is resistant to glyphosate. It is sprayed when the bud is open and the glyphosate is condensed and goes straight into the product,” Avila continued.

Marino said the original purpose of his research was not to test products for glyphosate, but to see how far the chemical can spread when aircraft sprayed an area, such as cropland.

“There is a basic premise in research that when we complete testing on out target we have to contrast it with something ‘clean,’ so we selected sterile gauze for medical use, found in pharmacies,” he said.

READ MORE: Long exposure to tiny amounts of Monsanto’s Roundup may damage liver, kidneys – study

“So we went and bought sterile gauze, opened the packages, analyzed and there was the huge surprise: We found glyphosate! Our first thought was that we had done something wrong, so we threw it all away and bought new gauze, analyzed them and again found glyphosate.”

Argentina has had a tampon shortage in recent years based on the country’s policies concerning imports and foreign currency, according to reports in January. Most of the nation’s tampon imports come from Brazil, Miguel Ponce, head of the Chamber of Importers, told AP. Those tampons include American brands, such as OB and Kotex.

In 2014, 96 percent of cotton produced in the United States was genetically modified, according to the US Department of Agriculture.

Transnational agrochemical giant Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, of which glyphosate is the main ingredient, is sprayed over genetically modified crops ‒ which Monsanto also produces ‒ that are engineered to be resistant to the powerful chemical. Used the world over, glyphosate, which Monsanto first developed in 1974, is a broad-spectrum herbicide used to kill weeds, especially annual broadleaf weeds and grasses known to compete with commercial crops. GMO seeds have caused use of glyphosate to increase immensely since the 1990s, according to US Geological Survey data.

In March, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an arm of the World Health Organization, classified glyphosate as a “probable carcinogen,” as opposed to its previous designation, a “possible carcinogen.”

In the US, the herbicide has been considered safe since 2013, when Monsanto received approval from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for increased tolerance levels for glyphosate. In its original assessment, the federal regulator said glyphosate could be “used without unreasonable risks to people or the environment.”

Scientific studies have linked the chemicals in Monsanto’s biocides to Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, autism and cancer. Furthermore, as the most powerful multinational biotech corporation today, Monsanto has drawn the ire of farmers and consumers for its firm grip on the global food chain. The company’s control and advancement of GMO seeds is of prime concern, as they symbolize the company’s consolidation of agricultural processes.

The effects of biochemicals on wildlife, including pollinators such as honeybees and monarch butterflies, are also a point of concern. For instance, since 1990, about 970 million of the butterflies – 90 percent of the total population – have vanished across the United States, according to the Fish and Wildlife Service. At least part of the blame rests on the boom in Roundup use. The herbicide is marketed to farmers and homeowners as an effective method for eliminating plants like milkweed, so it’s widely blamed for decimating the butterflies’ only source of food in the Midwest.

Two-thirds of European Union nations have requested allowance to ban GMO crops, pursuant to European Commission rules.

Cancer Death Rates Now Doubled In Argentina’s GMO Agribusiness Areas

Americans Lining up to SUE MONSATANO ~ “MASS TORT” Rising

GMO Free USA's photo.
GMO Free USA with Elke Colangelo

Americans Lining Up to Sue Monsanto: Personal injury law firms around the U.S. are lining up plaintiffs for what they say could be “mass tort” actions against Monsanto due to Roundup herbicide caused cancers. Meanwhile, at least 700 lawsuits against Monsanto or Monsanto-related entities are pending, brought by law firms on behalf of people who claim their non-Hodgkin lymphoma was caused by exposure to PCBs. “We can prove that Monsanto knew about the dangers of glyphosate,” said Michael McDivitt, whose Colorado-based law firm is putting together cases for 50 individuals. “There are a lot of studies showing glyphosate causes these cancers.” We need to sue Monsanto out of existence, and then lock up their executives for crimes against humanity.

37 Million Bees Found Dead In Ontario, Canada After Planting Large GMO Corn Field


Millions of bees dropped dead after GMO corn was planted few weeks ago in Ontario, Canada. The local bee keeper, Dave Schuit who produces honey in Elmwood lost about 37 million bees which are about 600 hives.

“Once the corn started to get planted our bees died by the millions,” Schuit said. While many bee keepers blame neonicotinoids, or “neonics.” for colony collapse of bees and many countries in EU have banned neonicotinoid class of pesticides, the US Department of Agriculture fails to ban insecticides known as neonicotinoids, manufactured by Bayer CropScience Inc.

Two of Bayer’s best-selling pesticides, Imidacloprid and Clothianidin, are known to get into pollen and nectar, and can damage beneficial insects such as bees. The marketing of these drugs also coincided with the occurrence of large-scale bee deaths in many European countries and the United States.

 Nathan Carey another local farmer says that this spring he noticed that there were not enough bees on his farm and he believes that there is a strong correlation between the disappearance of bees and insecticide use.

In the past, many scientists have struggled to find the exact cause of the massive die-offs, a phenomenon they refer to as “colony collapse disorder” (CCD). In the United States, for seven consecutive years, honeybees are in terminal decline.

US scientists have found 121 different pesticides in samples of bees, wax and pollen, lending credence to the notion that pesticides are a key problem. “We believe that some subtle interactions between nutrition, pesticide exposure and other stressors are converging to kill colonies,” said Jeffery Pettis, of the ARS’s bee research laboratory.

 The collapse in the global honeybee population is a major threat to crops. It is estimated that a third of everything we eat depends upon honeybee pollination, which means that bees contribute over 30 billion to the global economy.

A new study published in the Journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences revealed that neonicotinoid pesticides kill honeybees by damaging their immune system and making them unable to fight diseases and bacteria.

After reporting large losses of bees after exposure to Imidacloprid, banned it for use on corn and sunflowers, despite protests by Bayer. In another smart move, France also rejected Bayer’s application for Clothianidin, and other countries, such as Italy, have banned certain neonicotinoids as well.

After record-breaking honeybee deaths in the UK, the European Union has banned multiple pesticides, including neonicotinoid pesticides.

Disclaimer: All information, data and material contained, presented, or provided on WorldTruth.Tv is for educational purposes only. It is not to be construed or intended as providing medical or legal advice. Decisions you make about your family’s healthcare are important and should be made in consultation with a competent medical professional. We are not physicians and do not claim to be. Any views expressed here-in are not necessarily those held by WorldTruth.Tv


Another nice find, courtesy of Keri at

If you’ve been following the whole story of genetic engineering and patent law, particularly with reference to the uses, and abuses, thereof by the GMO “agribusiness sector,” then there has been a stunning development from Australia, as indicated in this article shared by many of you:Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision

The significant passages for our high octane speculations of the day are these:

The court based its reasoning (PDF) on the fact that, although an isolated gene such as BRCA1 was “a product of human action, it was the existence of the information stored in the relevant sequences that was an essential element of the invention as claimed.” Since the information stored in the DNA as a sequence of nucleotides was a product of nature, it did not require human action to bring it into existence, and therefore could not be patented.

Although that seems a sensible ruling, the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry has been fighting against this self-evident logic for years. The view that genes could be patented suffered a major defeat in 2013, when the US Supreme Court struck down Myriad Genetics’ patents on the genes BRCA1 and the similar BRCA2. The industry was hoping that a win in Australia could keep alive the idea that genes could be owned by a company in the form of a patent monopoly. The victory by D’Arcy now makes it highly likely that other judges around the world will take the view that genes cannot be patented.

This is a result that will have major practical consequences, and is likely to save thousands of lives. In the past, holders of gene patents were able to stop other companies from offering tests based on them, for example to detect the presence of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes that were linked with a greater risk of breast and ovarian cancers. This patent monopoly allowed companies like Myriad to charge $3,000 (£2,000) or more for their own tests, potentially placing them out of the reach of those unable to afford this cost, some of whom might then go on to develop cancer because they were not aware of their higher susceptibility, and thus unable to take action to minimise their risks.

There are two obvious implications here from this ruling in Australia, which follows similar US Supreme Court rulings. The most obvious of these is that some of the genetic modifications of crops might also be subject to similar strictures, should cases be brought to the courts, and in the case of GMOs, corporations will now have to spend the money to litigate that specific modifications are exceptions to such guidelines and rulings. This will raise the cost of their products, introducing yet another element of cost-non-effectiveness into the rising body of evidence that GMOs, over time, are not cost effective, as nature adapts to human modifications faster than they can be made. Or to put it “country simple,” the rulings are major looming problems for the whole GMO enterprise over the long term. Court “findings” will now have to be made over a whole range of GMO patents. And this will take time, and money, and lots of it, since such findings will have to be filed for and fees paid, on a country-by-country basis: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the USA, Brazil, Argentina, France, … well, you get the idea. Anywhere where GMOs have been introduced, the right to charge licensing fees will have to be contested and won. Expect IG Farbensanto, Syncrudda, DuPonzanto and other GMO-agrubusiness companies to fight this tooth and nail, and with their customary meanness.

A more subtle implication, however, is how this ruling might transform the realm of genetic therapies and medicine as a whole, for the entire profit motive for the development of such therapies has been undercut. They may, or may not, turn out to be a bad thing, since the development of such therapies might perforce have to move into the public, i.e., the state sector. For fans and advocates of various forms of socialized medicine or national healthcare, this could be a boon. For those who don’t trust the Empire any further than they can toss it, it might be the reverse. Time will tell.

In any case, however, the rulings would appear to have sweeping implications for the whole host of bureaucratic and regulatory policies that have been emplaced surrounding GMOs, based as they have been on the assumption of the patentability of genetic modifications.

See you on the flip side…

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

Monsanto ‘Deliberately Covered Up Data’ Proving Glyphosate is Cancerous for 4 Decades

Courtesy of

A key sign we need truly independent testing
Christina Sarich
by Christina Sarich
Posted on September 30, 2015

What will it take to shut down Monsanto’s doors irrevocably? Likely it will be the same type of lawsuit that finally pulled the shades on the tobacco industry. If Big Tobacco eventually had to pay a $206 billion settlement over 25 years for lying about the health impacts of cigarettes, what do you think Monsanto will have to pay for lying about glyphosate’s carcinogenic nature for almost 40 years?

Some well-respected researchers are now saying that Monsanto demanded incriminating data and reports be sealed and locked away from public scrutiny as proprietary trade secrets, though they knew these documents would reveal glyphosate’s carcinogenic nature.


Monsanto has yet to be caught red-handed lying about research, but the corp has been caught twice when they utilized outside laboratories that were later found to have been criminal. In 1978, the EPA busted Industrial Biotest Laboratories for rigging laboratory results; the company’s executives were found guilty for submitting fabricated data supporting glyphosate in positive light to the government. In 1991, another firm, Craven Labs, was found guilty on similar charges with 20 felony counts. Monsanto’s timeline of crime is undeniable. [1]

The EPA continually colludes with Monsanto to present glyphosate as ‘safe’ to the public, but during an exclusive interview on the Progressive Radio Network on September 4, Anthony Samsel stated that Monsanto used an industry trick to dismiss evidence about glyphosate’s risks in its own research.  “Monsanto misrepresented the data,” says Samsel, “and deliberately covered up data to bring the product [glyphosate] to market.”

Samsel, an independent research scientist and a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists, explains, along with Dr. Stephanie Seneff, that in order to minimize and cancel out its adverse findings:

“Monsanto had relied upon earlier historical animal control data, toxicological research with lab animals afflicted with cancer and organ failures, and completely unrelated to glyphosate. In some cases the control animals displayed kidney, liver and pancreatic diseases.

Many of Monsanto’s own studies required the inclusion of extraneous studies in order to cancel out damaging results.  This is not an uncommon industry habit, particularly in toxicological science. It enables corporations to mask undesirable outcomes and make claims that observable illnesses and disease are spontaneous occurrences without known causal factors.

Frequently, Monsanto would have to rely on three external control studies to negate the adverse effects of a single one of its own. Samsel found other incidences in Monsanto’s data where 5, 7 and in one case 11 unrelated studies were necessary to diminish the severity of its own findings.  In effect, glyphosate received licensure based upon a platform of junk tobacco science.”

The researchers go on to explain that Monsanto covered up the fact that glyphosate was equally toxic in both low and high range doses. These findings are corroborated by a recent study from France published in the August issue of the Environmental Health Journal by scientists at Kings College London and the University of Caen in France.


The two year study found that glyphosate administered at an ultra-low dose of 0.1 ppb (the EU’s safety limit) in drinking water altered over 4000 gene clusters in the livers and kidneys of rats, though the biotech industry has been trying to debunk its findings.

So what information is hiding in Monsanto’s sealed documents?

Among the many cancers and diseases associated with glyphosate are:

  • Adenoma cancer in the pituitary gland
  • Glioma tumors in the brain
  • Reticular cell sarcomas in the heart
  • Malignant tumors in the lungs
  • Salivary mandibular reticular cell carcinoma
  • Metastatic sarcomas of the lymph gland
  • Prostate carcinoma
  • Cancer of the bladder
  • Thyroid carcinoma
  • Adrenal reticulum cell sarcomas
  • Cortical adenomas
  • Basal cell squamous skin tumors

Yet these were all hidden from public view. I think that hundreds of billions of dollars won’t come close to account for the 40 years of health damage Monsanto has potentially caused by hiding this information. But one thing is certain, just like the Tobacco industry – Monsanto will pay.

Want to learn more? Watch these videos:

Lobbyist who says you can drink glyphosate:

Documentary of the Monsanto Company:

Seeds of Death:

Monsanto has gotten away with murder for long enough. The world is starting to wake up, and hold them accountable. Our efforts are working; just don’t let up the pressure. Keep educating yourself and others and we will protect the food supply.

Q3 Earnings Bloodbath Continues With Terrible Monsanto Results: Company Fires 2,600 As It Boosts Buyback ~ ZeroHedge

Tyler Durden's picture

It had been quite a downcast start to the third quarter earnings season following very disappointing earnings from Illumina, Adobe and Yum Brand. Then Moments ago agri-giant Monsanto made it four out of four when it reported a huge miss on both the top and bottom line, with Q4 revenue of $2.36 billion, far below the $2.79 billion consensus estimate and down 10% from a year ago. The EPS was likewise a disaster, which at at loss of $0.19 in Q4, was also far below the consensus estimate of ($0.03).Q4 EBIT tumbled to -$773 million, while full year EBIT was down 15% to $2.2 billion.

This is what the company justified this shockingly bad result:

Full-year net sales results were driven by the performance of the company’s Seeds and Genomics segment and licensing agreements, which were more than offset by foreign currency headwinds, declining corn acres and declines in glyphosate pricing.

Then there was the topic of cash flow: Monsanto was proud to announce that in 2015 it $3.1 billion in cash from operations, the same as in fiscal year 2014. Free cash flow was a source of $2.1 billion in fiscal year 2015, compared with a source of $959 million in fiscal year 2014. The fiscal year 2015 cash flow results primarily reflected the absence of The Climate Corporation acquisition and the BioAg Alliance with Novozymes.

So, great news right: the company was generating solid cash flow right. Well, yes, until one realizes that in 2014 MON repurchased $7.1 billion in stocks, and then another $835 million in 2015. In other words the company spent more than it generated in the past two years on buybacks.

Worse, MON spent $7.1 billion buying back stock at an average price of just over $115/share in 2014. Its stock is now $85, which as every Treasurer knows is a great way to generate a -25% return on cash investment…

… but to assure a huge grin on the faces of activist shareholders who were delighted to sell to the company at $125 last summer.

As for MON, we are happy that the company has not learned its lesson:

Monsanto plans to enter into a new $3 billion accelerated share repurchase program under its current share repurchase authorization, as it progresses toward its targeted capital structure. The company plans to begin the new accelerated share repurchase program in the near-term and complete it sometime in the next six months.

Because when all else fails, a short-term pop and a long-term drop is precisely what “activist shareholders” demand.

And as for all else failing, one just needs to look at the outlook:

  • Monsanto expects to achieve ongoing EPS of $5.10 to $5.60 in fiscal year 2016.

This compares to consensus estimates of $6.22. What is to blame this time?

Ongoing EPS guidance reflects in part an estimated $0.35 to $0.40 of headwinds from currency, $0.50 to $0.85 of headwinds from Agricultural Productivity pricing declines and $0.20 to $0.30 from elevated cost of goods for corn and the anticipated launch costs of Roundup Ready® Xtend soybeans. EPS on an as-reported basis is expected to be $4.44 to $5.01 in fiscal year 2016, reflecting additional charges related to the first phase of announced restructuring actions.

So pretty much everything including central bankers.

It gets worse:

The company projects free cash flow in the range of $1.6 billion to $1.8 billion for fiscal year 2016. The company expects net cash provided by operating activities to be $2.7 billion to $3.1 billion, and net cash required by investing activities to be approximately $1.1 billion to $1.3 billion.

Consensus cash flow estimate: $2.56 billion. But at least more than all of the company’s net cash will be used to fund the stock buyback.

And while Monsanto management is delighted to hand over all of its cash flows to investors (and management’s equity-linked compensation bonus), there is something for workers too: a pink slip.

The plans also include an expected separation of approximately 2,600 employees over the next 18-24 months. 

Which, incidentally, is what in the New Normal is called “growth.”

Monsanto’s Migraine: Big Fiascoes Facing the World’s Biggest Seed Company

Note: Tweets are VERY difficult to re-post, go here to view the clever tweets mentioned below…mahalo!
The problems are piling up at the company’s front door.

Photo Credit: a katz/

Monsanto has been reeling from a number of setbacks around the globe. Here’s a look at some of the main reasons that 2015 has been a giant headache for the biotech giant. But that headache could find some reilef if the U.S. Senate hands them a legislative victory that would keep American consumers in the dark about what’s in their food.

Roundup Probably Causes Cancer

In March, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the World Health Organization’s cancer arm, said that the controversial herbicide glyphosate — the main ingredient in Monsanto’s popular weedkiller Roundup — is “probably carcinogenic to humans.” IARC noted, “Case-control studies of occupational exposure in the USA, Canada, and Sweden reported increased risks for non-Hodgkin lymphoma that persisted after adjustment for other pesticides.” Used by home gardeners, public park gardeners and farmers, and applied to more than 150 food and non-food crops, Roundup is the Monsantot’s leading product and the world’s most-produced weedkiller.

In June, France banned Roundup. French Ecology Minister Segolene Royal said, “France must be on the offensive with regards to the banning of pesticides.” She added, “I have asked garden centers to stop putting Monsanto’s Roundup on sale” in self-service aisles. And earlier this month, California issued a notice of intent to list glyphosate as a carcinogen. “As far as I’m aware, this is the first regulatory agency in the U.S. to determine that glyphosate is a carcinogen,” said Dr. Nathan Donley, a scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity. “So this is a very big deal.”

In April, U.S. citizens filed a class action lawsuit against Monsanto, claiming that the company is guilty of false advertising by claiming that glyphosate targets an enzyme only found in plants and not in humans or animals. The plaintiffs argue that the targeted enzyme, EPSP synthase, is found in the microbiota that reside in human and non-human animal intestines. In addition to its potential cancer-causing properties, Roundup has been linked to a host of other health issues, environmental problems and the record decline of monarch butterflies.And in September, another of the company’s herbicides got slammed when a French appeals court confirmed that Monsanto was guilty of chemical poisoning, upholding a 2012 ruling in favor of Paul Francois, whose lawyers claimed the company’s Lasso weedkiller gave the cereal farmer neurological problems, including memory loss and headaches.

Tweet Backfires

Monsanto would probably love to forget one of their recent tweets that tried to put out the glyphosate-fueled public image fire. A day before the cancer-listing announcement by California’s EPA, Monsanto posted a tweet, asking if people has questions about glyphosate with a link to a FAQ page:

The tweet wasn’t the PR success that the company had hoped for. Instead of helping to alleviate consumer fears about the chemical, the tweet became a target for the Monsanto-hating Twitterati:

EU Nations Ban GMOs

In addition to the glyphosate backlash, Monsanto has had to deal with several EU countries who have said no to the company’s GM crops. A new European Union law signed in March allows individual member countries to be excluded from any GM cultivation approval request. European opposition to GMOs has been strong: Unlike in the Americas and Asia, where GMO crops are widely grown, only Monsanto’s pest-resistant MON810, a GMO maize, is grown in Europe. Several nations have taken advantage of the new exclusion law: Scotland, Germany, Latvia, Greece, France and recently, Northern Ireland, have all invoked it.

In August, Scotland became the first EU nation to ban the growing of genetically modified crops by requesting to be excluded by Monsanto’s application to grow GMO crops across the EU. “Scotland is known around the world for our beautiful natural environment — and banning growing genetically modified crops will protect and further enhance our clean, green status,” said Rural Affairs Secretary Richard Lochhead.

Germany cited strong resistance from farmers and the public when it made its opt-out request. “Germany has committed a true act of food democracy by listening to the majority of its citizens that oppose GMO cultivation and support more sustainable, resilient organic food production that doesn’t perpetuate the overuse of toxic herbicides,” said Lisa Archer, food and technology director at environmental nonprofit Friends of the Earth. “We are hopeful that more members of the EU will follow suit and that the U.S. Congress will protect our basic right to know what we are feeding our families by requiring mandatory GMO labeling.”

Soon after Germany’s decision, Latvia and Greece announced that they too are taking advantage of the EU law. France, too, is using the opt-out law to ensure the country’s GMO ban remains in place.

While anti-GMO activists warn of the dangers that genetically modified foods pose to health and the environment, the Big Food industry and many scientists argue that GMOs are safe and can help feed a skyrocketing human population. Monsanto told Reuters: “We regret that some countries are deviating from a science-based approach to innovation in agriculture and have elected to prohibit the cultivation of a successful GM product on arbitrary political grounds.” There is a significant political dimension as well: Newswire reported that the GMO opt-out law “directly confronts U.S. free trade deal supported by EU, under which the Union should open its doors widely for the U.S. GM industry.” It remains to be seen how the opt-out law will play out in the long run.

But for now, could the GMO resistance in Europe be working? Following the announcements by Latvia and Greece, EurActiv, an online news service covering EU affairs, reported that Monsanto “said it had no immediate plans to request approvals for any new GM seeds in Europe.”

The GMO Debate Rages On

The debate over genetically modified foods is complex, and not without its contradictions. While the anti-GMO movement appears to gaining steam, GMO foods have been a big part of the U.S. food system for many years. The vast majority of several key crops grown in the U.S. are genetically modified, including soy (93 percent), corn (93 percent) and canola (90 percent). As Morgan Clendaniel, editor of Co.Exist, points out, “Many crops are genetically modified so frequently, it’s nearly impossible to find non-GMO versions.” He adds that, althought 80 percent of all packaged food sold in America contain GMOs, consumers are kept in the dark, because the U.S. is “one of the few places in the developed world that doesn’t require food producers to disclose whether or not their ingredients have any modifications.”

One scientist who has been sharply critical of GM crops is David Williams, a cellular biologist at the University of California at Los Angeles. He says that “inserted genes can be transformed by several different means, and it can happen generations later,” which can result in potentially toxic plants. In addition, faulty monitoring of GM field tests presents another danger. For example, from 2008 to 2014, only 39 of the 133 GM crop field trials in India were properly monitored, “leaving the rest for unknown risks and possible health hazards.”

But within the scientific community, Dr. Williams is in the minority, In fact, as science writer David H. Freeman notes in Scientific American, “The vast major it of the research on genetically modified crops suggests that they are safe to eat.” David Zilberman, an agricultural and environmental economist at the University of California at Berkeley (who Freeman describes as “one of the few researchers considered credible by both agricultural chemical companies and their critics”) says that the use of GM crops “has increased farmer safety by allowing them to use less pesticide. It has raised the output of corn, cotton and soy by 20 to 30 percent, allowing some people to survive who would not have without it. If it were more widely adopted around the world, the price [of food] would go lower, and fewer people would die of hunger.”

The European Food Safety Authority said it will issue its scientific opinion on the GM crops by the end of 2017. For now, the GMO debate — filled with a host of pros and cons — rages on. But beyond the health and environmental threats that Monsanto’s products may pose, some worry that about the how control of the global food system is increasingly concentrated in a few biotech and agriculture megacorps like Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer, Pioneer and DuPont. “Beating in the heart of every good capitalist is the heart of a monopolist,” says Neil Harl, an agricultural economist at Iowa State. “So we have to have rules, we have to have the economic police on the beat. Or we end up with concentration and that means higher prices.”

GMO Labeling Law: SAFE or DARK?