Monsanto now offering CASH to farmers if they will use its toxic "dicamba" agricultural chemical

Image: Monsanto now offering CASH to farmers if they will use its toxic “dicamba” agricultural chemical

(Natural News)
The agri giant Monsanto, commonly known as the world’s most evil corporation, is now offering farmers cash in a desperate bid to distribute its XtendiMax with VaporGrip dicamba-based weed killer product. Reuters is reporting that Monsanto will be offering farmers refunds of over half the cost of the product in 2018, if they can prove that it was sprayed on soybeans known as Xtend, which have been specially engineered by the company to resist the toxic chemical.

These incentives are being offered even as the country is facing an agricultural crisis caused by dicamba-based products which evaporated and drifted away after being sprayed on crops.

Natural News reported last year that with increasing scrutiny being leveled at Monsanto’s most famous weed killer, the glyphosate-based Roundup product, Monsanto has quietly invested over $1 billion in developing dicamba-based products. As bad as Roundup is, dicamba poses even more of a threat because it is more volatile and can easily become airborne and drift from where it has been applied.

Of the 90 million acres of soybeans planted this year, about four percent sustained damage linked to dicamba spraying. (Related: Illegal spraying of Monsanto’s herbicide destroying crops nationwide.)

The crisis has led to regulators limiting how and when dicamba-based products can be used, and special training for farmers wishing to use such products is already being enforced at both state and federal levels.

These restrictions will, of course, make Monsanto’s product costlier to apply, but the company hopes that its cash-back incentive plan will be enough to motivate farmers to choose to use it anyway.

“We believe cash-back incentives for using XtendiMax with VaporGrip Technology better enable growers to use a management system that represents the next level of weed control,” said Ryan Rubischko, Monsanto’s product manager.

While XtendiMax costs around $11 per acre, Monsanto is offering farmers an additional rebate of $6 per acre if they use the product in combination with the genetically modified Xtend soybeans. In addition, if farmers choose to use a combination of other chemicals offered by the company they can get about $11.50 per acre in cash rebates.

Monsanto faces stiff competition from other distributors of dicamba-based weed killers, including Bayer. The company is also facing increasing government oversight in several states, including Missouri, North Dakota and Arkansas, all of which have plans in place to prohibit the spraying of dicamba at certain times of year.

Monsanto is also dealing with an onslaught of lawsuits from plaintiffs who claim that the glyphosate in their Roundup product caused them or their loved ones to develop a form of cancer known as non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Natural News reported last year:

The law firm Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman is currently representing around 140 people, all of whom are suffering from non-Hodgkin lymphoma caused by glyphosate exposure.

The plaintiffs include individuals from 10 to 70 years old, but most are in the 50 to 60 age group. New lawsuits are being filed each week, and the firm eventually expects to represent as many as 500 clients in the glyphosate litigation.

It looks like 2018 might be a rocky year for Monsanto, but with virtually limitless cash resources, the sad reality is that they will probably survive by simply throwing more money at the problem. (Find more news on dicamba at

Sources for this article include:



Source Article from

Say No to America’s monster: Mexico revokes Monsanto’s permit to market GMO soy


The US agrochemical company Monsanto said Mexico’s agriculture sanitation authority SENASICA had revoked its permit to commercialize genetically modified soy in seven states. The company criticized the decision as unjustified. According to Monsanto, the permit had been withdrawn on unwarranted legal and technical grounds. It has warned that it would take the necessary steps to safeguard its rights and those of farmers using the technology.

Mexican newspaper Reforma cited a SENASICA document saying the permit was revoked due to the detection of transgenic Monsanto soya in areas where it was not authorized. Monsanto rejected the argument, claiming the authorities had not analyzed how the soy on which their decision was based was sown.

The revocation applies to the Mexican states of Tamaulipas, San Luis Potosi, Veracruz, Chiapas, Campeche, Yucatan and Quintana Roo. It follows a 2016 legal suspension of the permit. As the largest producer of genetically modified seeds Monsanto has for a long time wanted to grow corn in the birthplace of maize Mexico. Several years ago, the company submitted two applications for the commercial planting of GMO corn in Mexico. Both sought 700,000 hectares (1.7 million acres) in the northwestern state of Sinaloa, the country’s largest corn-producing area.

In January, a Mexican court upheld a late 2013 ruling that temporarily halted even pilot plots of GMO corn following a legal challenge over its effects on the environment.

Source Article from

Monsanto postpones "NemaStrike" launch after new pesticide causes skin rashes among farmers

Image: Monsanto postpones “NemaStrike” launch after new pesticide causes skin rashes among farmers

(Natural News)
The launch of a Monsanto product that the company touted as boasting “blockbuster technology” has been postponed indefinitely after farmers report developing skin rashes after using it.

The chemical in question, NemaStrike, was developed to put on crop seeds to protect soybeans, cotton and corn from yield-reducing worms. Monsanto says it underwent three years of field tests throughout the nation ahead of its full launch and was used by more than 400 people as part of its trial. In addition, it gained approval by U.S. regulators. However, farmers have started complaining of skin rashes and irritation.

Never one to admit blame, Monsanto is essentially telling those suffering these ill effects that it’s their own fault, with company spokesperson Christi Dixon saying that some of the users who have had problems might not have followed the directions to use protective equipment like gloves.

Whether they are admitting it or not, however, they must realize the product is also at fault because they’ve decided to delay its launch. If it was simply a matter of not following instructions, wouldn’t they have added a warning or clarified the instructions and then proceeded with this “blockbuster” launch as planned? They used a similar excuse when their dicamba spray came under fire earlier this year, claiming the problem was caused by farmers not following the directions.

In a letter sent to customers about NemaStrike, Monsanto U.S. Commercial Operations Lead Brian Naber wrote:
“There have been limited cases of skin irritation, including rashes, that appear to be associated with the handling and application of this seed treatment product.”

NemaStrike was poised to launch on 8 million crop acres in the nation in the 2018 fiscal year, according to Chief Executive Hugh Grant. He said the product would bear a premium price tag in keeping with its consistent yield protection against nematodes. It works by remaining in the root area where these microscopic roundworms attack, spreading viruses and enabling fungal and bacterial infections to take hold. According to the EPA, these parasites are responsible for a 14 percent loss in worldwide agricultural production, which equates to up to $100 billion in crop losses each year.

Monsanto constantly making headlines for all the wrong reasons

This is just the latest product drama the divisive firm is facing. Its dicamba weedkiller spray made headlines recently for its tendency to drift into nearby crops that have not been genetically modified to withstand it, damaging them beyond repair. This has spurred countless arguments between neighboring farmers, with one even ending in a shooting death.

Years of questionable practices seem to be backfiring on Monsanto, who are currently facing class-action lawsuits from people suffering from cancer due to Roundup exposure. Court documents show that the firm offered scientists cash payments to give its products a stamp of approval despite knowing they were dangerous. They’ve been intentionally stopping studies that make their products look bad, and they’ve also been known to ghostwrite literature. They’ve bought off journalists, and they conspired to have the Seralini study, which shows glyphosate causes cancer, retracted from a journal. Their relationship with American regulators has also come into question, with accusations of collusion continuing.

It will be interesting to see if Monsanto unleashes its bribery and bully crew on those who are studying the side effects of NemaStrike and reporting on them like they have done for many years with Roundup. They’ve already demonstrated their willingness to do whatever it takes to keep their profit machine turning, and if cancer isn’t enough to convince them it’s time to pull their products, skin rashes seem unlikely to make a big wave.

This launch might be postponed for now, but once they’ve had some “conversations” with the “right” people, this product will likely see the light of day – and perhaps will be at the heart of some class action lawsuits of its own several years from now.

Sources include:



Source Article from

Orange Juice Samples Found Contaminated With Monsanto Weedkiller


The average American consumes about 2.7 gallons of orange juice per year since 2015 according to the USDA food statistics. OJ is rich in vitamin C, fiber, and contains antioxidants that help protect and nourish the skin among many other benefits but according to grassroots non-profit Moms Across America, that may also be a toxic cocktail that is slowly killing Americans every morning.

The study was conducted using two samples from the five major juice producers –  Tropicana, Minute Maid, Stater Bros, Signature Farms, Signature Farms and Kirkland.

The chemical was deemed a “probable human carcinogen” by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer in March 2015, was found in amounts ranging from 4.43 parts per billion to 26.05 ppb by the group’s tests. The controversial chemical is the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup product used to selectively kill weeds by farmers manufactured by Monsanto, and 750 other brands of glyphosate-based herbicides.

Moms Across America’s stated that as little as 0.1 ppb of glyphosate is capable of destroying beneficial bacteria in the stomach. Further, repeated exposure to glyphosate is capable of weakening the immune system and potentially leading to a host of health problems down the road.

“The discovery of glyphosate residue in orange juice is unacceptable, especially since a branch of the World Health Organization designated glyphosate a probable carcinogen, two years ago, back in the spring of 2015. The EPA has had ample time to revoke the license of this chemical and restrict its use in our food and beverage crops. As confirmed by the American Academy of Pediatrics, our children (who frequently drink orange juice for breakfast) are especially vulnerable to pesticides and measures should be taken immediately to protect them,” Moms Across America founder Zen Honeycutt stated.

The post also included research that the toxic chemical glyphosate may stimulate breast cancer at such small amounts that it should scare everyone at as little as 1 part per trillion. Just think about how that, in turn, would affect kids whose anatomic structure is smaller than adults as the body is just starting to develop.

This comes as Monsanto’s other chemical product Dicamba has been banned in Arkansas which the company has disputed suing the Plant Board in response.

A Canadian Food Inspection Agency Health Canada has previously documented that glyphosate was found in 1.percent of food samples including 4 percent of grain samples of more than 3,000 samples, Producer reported.

Glyphosate was also listed as a carcinogen on California EPA’s Prop 65 list in July of 2017, while a study published earlier in the year in January of 2017 proved chronic consumption of low levels of Roundup (which contains glyphosate) caused fatty liver disease in animals.

Moms Across America is urging concerned citizens to contact each of the five companies listed below to request that they switch to organic oranges for their products.

Whitewash: The Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer, and the Corruption of Science(Ad)

The five major brands that tested positive in Moms Across America’s test according to the lab results are:

1. Tropicana, with amounts of 26.05 ppb and 25.12 ppb in glyphosate residues. Both samples were purchased from Target stores.  (Tropicana- Pepsi-Co – (914) 253-2000 – CEO – Indra Nooyi)

2. Minute Maid, with amounts of 13.54 and 12.65 ppb, purchased from Jack in the Box stores. (Minute Maid – Coca-Cola – (800)-438-2653 – Alexander Douglas Jr. President)

3. Stater Bros., with amounts of 4.93 and 4.43 ppb, purchased at the stores of the same name. (Stater Bros -(855)-782-8377 – CEO Peter Van Helden)

4. Signature Farms, with amounts of 6.33 and 5.78 ppb, purchased at Vons stores. (Vons – (877)-723-3929 -CEO Willam Davilla)

5. Kirkland, with amounts of 5.96 and 4.33 ppb, purchased at Costco stores. (Costco – (425)- 313- 8100- CEO Craig Jelinik)

The full report can be seen here. The testing methodology was “Glyphosate and AMPA Detection by UPLC-MS/MS.”

Read more from Aaron – Natural Blaze / Free eBook /Image

This article (Monsanto Sues Arkansas Board For Its Ban On Controversial Pesticide) appeared first on Natural Blaze and can be shared with this message, bio and links intact. 

Aaron Kesel goes by AK writes for Natural Blaze & Activist Post, and is the Director of content for CoinivoreHe is an independent journalist and researcher you can check out more of his work on Steemit. Find Aaron on Twitter.

For almost a decade Gov’t Slaves has worked tirelessly to bring its readers the most critical news the corporate media does not want you to see. We have no intrusive ads, pop-ups or clickbait, just NEWS. If you happen to be in a position to support our work, PLEASE consider making a one-time donation below or a monthly recurring donation HERE. Your support is humbly appreciated. Gov’t Slaves

100% Secure via Pay Pal. All major CC accepted.

Source Article from

Monsanto’s new chemical halted after causing rashes

The product, called NemaStrike, is supposed to protect crops from worms. It has been given the green light by US environmental regulators.

“There have been limited cases of skin irritation, including rashes, that appear to be associated with the handling and application of this seed treatment product,” Brian Naber, US commercial operations lead for Monsanto, said in a letter to customers about NemaStrike, quoted by Reuters.

The company spokeswoman Christi Dixon said those who faced rashes may have forgotten to wear protective equipment.

Monsanto has big plans for the chemical, calling it a “blockbuster technology,” and wants to have it spread on up to eight million American crop acres during 2018. “The technology is effective and can be used safely when following label instructions,” the company said.

In Europe, more than a million people have signed a petition against Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer, over fears it causes cancer. The license for the most common herbicide runs out in Europe on December 15, and EU officials haven’t extended it.

The World Health Organization (WHO) have said glyphosate may pose a carcinogenic threat to humans. The EU has postponed a critical decision on whether to reauthorize the use of glyphosate, after the European Parliament voted in favor of phasing out the controversial herbicide by 2022.

Monsanto is in the process of being acquired by German conglomerate Bayer for $63.5 billion.

Source Article from

Monsanto halts launch of chemical after users complain of rashes

Monsanto Co put on hold the launch of a chemical designed to be applied to crop seeds on Wednesday following reports it causes rashes on people, in the latest instance of complaints about a company product that was approved by U.S. environmental regulators.

Monsanto froze plans for commercial sales of the product called NemaStrike, which can protect corn, soybeans and cotton from worms that reduce yields. The company said it conducted three years of field tests across the United States in preparation for a full launch and that more than 400 people used it this year as part of a trial.

The delayed launch of what Monsanto calls a blockbuster product is another setback for the company, which is already battling to keep a new version of a herbicide on the market in the face of complaints that it damaged millions of acres of crops this summer.

“There have been limited cases of skin irritation, including rashes, that appear to be associated with the handling and application of this seed treatment product,” Brian Naber, U.S. commercial operations lead for Monsanto, said in a letter to customers about NemaStrike.

Some users who suffered problems may not have followed instructions to wear protective equipment, such as gloves, company spokeswoman Christi Dixon said.

The company expected NemaStrike to launch across up to 8 million U.S. crop acres in fiscal year 2018, Chief Executive Hugh Grant said on a conference call last month. The product was “priced at a premium that reflects its consistent yield protection” against worms known as nematodes, he said.

For almost a decade Gov’t Slaves has worked tirelessly to bring its readers the most critical news the corporate media does not want you to see. We have no intrusive ads, pop-ups or clickbait, just NEWS. If you happen to be in a position to support our work, PLEASE consider making a one-time donation below or a monthly recurring donation HERE. Your support is humbly appreciated. Gov’t Slaves

100% Secure via Pay Pal. All major CC accepted.

Source Article from

Monsanto Caught Ghostwriting Its Own GMO Safety Reviews For A Stanford Scientist

Next Story

Monsanto was recently caught “ghostwriting” pro-GMO content for a Stanford University Fellow, Henry I. Miller. In light of this information and the emails released exposing the company’s ties to Miller, the public is now questioning Monsanto’s influence over both mainstream news and scientific research.

The GMO giant already faces criticism and public scrutiny over their monopoly over the seeds and farming industries, and particularly for their carcinogenic herbicide, RoundUp, which endangers both human health and the environment.

If you’ve never heard of the term “ghostwriting,” it refers to when an author writes an article, speech, or other text knowing it will be accredited to another person. This is common practice in the publishing world, as many popular authors simply don’t have the time to pump out tons of content, and many other writers don’t have the fame to increase the reach of their articles.

It’s often a win-win situation, as one writer gets to be credited for more content that they’ve simply paid for, while another is able to reach a greater audience by “ghostwriting” a piece of content under someone else’s name. In many cases, ghostwriting allows people to spread information and content to a greater number of people by using another person’s name to do so.

However, ghostwriting can become a huge issue when conflicts of interest exist. In the case of Monsanto employees ghostwriting pro-GMO content under a “respected” Stanford scientist’s name, it’s pretty easy to see the ethical issues at hand.

Monsanto Emails Reveal Employees Ghostwrite Pro-GMO Content Under Stanford Scientist’s Name

The revelations regarding Monsanto’s influence over the news and scientific research isn’t necessarily new. Earlier this year, Monsanto was in the line of fire again over allegations of ghostwriting scientific studies and papers that were pro-GMO. In February 2015, Monsanto executive William Heydens actually sent an email to employees requesting that they ghostwrite parts of a scientific study.

Heydens wrote that he would just tell scientists “to sign their names” on the study, and that he was confident his scheme would work, as the company had already successfully ghostwritten a study on Roundup in the past.

Monsanto is known for spending huge amounts of money on delegitimizing research that questions the safety of GMOs and the company’s herbicide, Roundup, as well as the active ingredient within that herbicide, glyphosate. Given all of the information on Monsanto’s stranglehold over science and the U.S. government, the idea that a scientist would suggest that Monsanto ghostwrite content for him isn’t surprising.

The piece in question is an article published by Forbes that attacked the findings of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a branch of the World Health Organization that classified glyphosate as a “probable carcinogen.” Numerous studies have proven the cancer-glyphosate link (examples 123), yet, despite the overwhelming amount of evidence, it remains a controversial subject.

In the emails released between Miller and Monsanto, Monsanto requested that Miller write an article opposing the WHO’s new findings, and Miller responded that he’d only do so if he “could start from a high-quality draft.”

This specific article was then published by Forbes; however, there was no mention of Monsanto’s involvement with the piece. The only information provided was Miller’s authorship, and that “opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.”

So, readers would assume that the article was written by Miller, in his own words, reflecting his own scientific opinion, when in reality it was largely written and very clearly influenced by Monsanto.

Miller refused to comment on the emails, but Scott Partridge, vice president of global strategy for Monsanto, said: “That was a collaborative effort, a function of the outrage we were hearing from many people on the attacks on glyphosate. . . . This is not a scientific, peer-reviewed journal. It’s an op-ed we collaborated with him on.”

Forbes, however, took immediate action and deleted the article off its site, stating that they had ended their relationship with Miller.

“All contributors to sign a contract requiring them to disclose any potential conflicts of interest and only publish content that is their own original writing,” Mia Carbonell, a Forbes spokeswoman, stated. “When it came to our attention that Mr. Miller violated these terms, we removed his blog from and ended our relationship with him.”

Miller has been a guest writer for numerous large publications, including the New York Times.

James Dao, the Op-Ed editor of The Times, addressed their relationship with Miller, stating, “Op-Ed contributors to The Times must sign a contract requiring them to avoid any conflict of interest, and to disclose any financial interest in the subject matter of their piece.”

This type of pro-GMO content doesn’t necessarily conflict with Miller’s own beliefs though, as CBS described Miller as “an outspoken critic of regulations that aim to protect the public from harmful, or potentially harmful, chemicals such as DDT, BPA and glyphosate.”

Nevertheless, if a company with vested interests in the findings of a study or article is funding or contributing to that piece of content in any way, it should be disclosed.

Final Thoughts 

Although ghostwriting can be a wonderful tool to help writers spread more information to a larger audience, it can also be used unethically, which is why it’s important to disclose any conflicts of interest.

The Monsanto-Miller link is very clearly a conflict of interest, and it even breached the contract Miller signed with Forbes. It makes you wonder, how many other times has Monsanto influenced or literally written scientific literature regarding GMO safety?

GMOs are a controversial topic right now, namely because they are so harmful to human health given the harsh chemicals sprayed on them. For years, Monsanto has been trying to hide the risks their leading herbicide, Roundup, poses to human health and the environment. Over the years, numerous studies have been published proving that the active ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, can cause cancer, miscarriages, Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s, and more.

To learn more about the dangers of GMOs, check out the following articles:

How Monsanto Genetically Modifies Our Food Compared To What Happens Naturally In Nature

The “Poison Papers”: New Documents Expose Monsanto, The EPA & More. We’ve Been Lied To

Study Finds Long Exposure to Tiny Amounts of Monsanto’s Roundup Damages The Liver & Kidneys

Judge Threatens To Sanction Monsanto For Hiding Information While Overseeing 55 Cancer Lawsuits

Federal Lawsuit Forces The US Government To Divulge Secret Files on Genetically Engineered Foods




How would YOU change the future?

Will “business as usual” take our planet and civilization down the road to complete destruction?.

In this new film called Prosperity, you can learn the ways in which companies are changing the game in order to change our world. CE’s founder Joe Martino is in this film talking about CE’s business practices.

Watch the film free to see how things are changing.

How would YOU change the future?

Watch the new film Prosperity for free and learn how the game is changing on this planet. Watch now!


Source Article from

The EPA intervened on Monsanto’s behalf, sabotaging another government agency’s safety review of glyphosate

Image: The EPA intervened on Monsanto’s behalf, sabotaging another government agency’s safety review of glyphosate

(Natural News)
Monsanto, the agrichemical company that produces genetically modified seeds and the herbicide Roundup, among others, has become known as the “world’s most evil corporation.” Their callous disregard for the welfare of humans and the environment certainly makes them deserving of this label. Now, imagine this scenario for a moment: The world’s most evil corporation as a puppeteer pulling the strings of the federal watchdog organizations that are supposed to regulate them and protect public health. Nothing good could come from such a scenario, could it? Well, sadly it’s exactly what’s been going on in the United States for a long time.

This was recently illustrated once more when Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests brought documents to light that show how much control Monsanto has over the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – the very agency tasked with regulating Big Agri.

In March of 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) released a report that would finally prove what anecdotal evidence has been telling us for decades: Glyphosate – the main ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer – is “probably carcinogenic to humans.”

The report added:

For the herbicide glyphosate, there was limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The evidence in humans is from studies of exposures, mostly agricultural, in the USA, Canada, and Sweden published since 2001. In addition, there is convincing evidence that glyphosate also can cause cancer in laboratory animals.

This report led to a slew of lawsuits being brought against Monsanto by people who believe that they or their loved ones developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma as a direct result of glyphosate exposure. Lawsuits are currently either in progress or pending in Missouri, California and Delaware.

Of course, Monsanto was always aware that any real, unbiased and unmanipulated scientific study would discover their dirty little secret, and it has fostered relationships with all the right people to ensure that no such study would ever see the light of day. (Related: Seralini study on GMOs republished after unprecedented scientific censorship.)

Unfortunately for them, they didn’t have sufficient reach to block the IARC report, but they had already successfully blocked two other reports with equal potential for damage.

In February of 2015, shortly before the IARC released its report, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) announced that it, too, would be looking into the toxicity of glyphosate. The report was due to be released in October of that same year. This was a logical thing for the agency to do, since it is tasked with evaluating the potentially toxic effects to humans of exposure to hazardous substances.

Somehow, however, that report was never compiled or released, and the FOIA documents requested for the glyphosate trials have finally explained why.

Baum, Hedland, Aristei and Goldman, attorneys representing some of the plaintiffs in these cases, explain:

Lawyers and the news media have already reported on Jess Rowland, formerly the deputy division director within the health effects division of EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), who bragged to Monsanto that he “should get a medal” if could kill the ATSDR glyphosate review.

But according to the trove of newly obtained internal emails, assistance to Monsanto in stopping the ATSDR glyphosate review came not only from Rowland, but also from several other high-ranking EPA officials. Instead of allowing the ATSDR to perform its function as a hazardous materials watchdog agency, Monsanto and EPA both told ATSDR that a review of glyphosate was “duplicative” and unnecessary.

Between May 19 and October 23 2015, multiple emails were exchanged between executives at Monsanto; the office of chemical safety and pollution at the EPA; the ATSDR; and the National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH), which oversees ATSDR, stressing that an investigation by the ATSDR into glyphosate would be a “duplicative government effort,” since the EPA was completing its own risk assessment for glyphosate. Such an investigation, the EPA insisted, would not “be a good use of government resources.”

The result? The ATSDR’s review was placed on hold, and two years later, the EPA still hasn’t released its own report on glyphosate. (Related: Learn more at

Monsanto had the situation firmly under control.

Sources include:



Source Article from

For Snubbing Glyphosate Hearing, EU Parliament Bans Monsanto Lobbyists

Monsanto lobbyists were officially barred by the European Parliament on Thursday after refusing requests to participate in hearings about the U.S. corporation’s efforts to influence regulations of its controversial glyphosate within the 28-nation bloc.

The ban was announced by the parliament’s presidential council under rules designed to combat misbehavior by those lobbying the EU’s lawmaking body. It is the first time, the Guardian notes, that

“MEPs have used new rules to withdraw parliamentary access for firms that ignore a summons to attend parliamentary inquiries or hearings.”

The Greens/EFA Group in the parliament, which had requested Monsanto’s removal after the biotech giant’s refusal, welcomed the decision.

“This is strong democracy. Those who escape democratic accountability must be excluded from access to lobbying,” said MEP Sven Giegold, financial and economic policy spokesperson for the Greens/EFA and parliament’s rapporteur for Transparency, Accountability and Integrity. “If Monsanto does business in Europe, it must also face up to its responsibilities before the European Parliament.”

The Guardian reports:

The lobby ban will be a bitter blow to Monsanto’s advocacy campaign ahead of a decision later this year about the relicensing of glyphosate, which has been linked to cancer by one expert WHO panel.

Another deemed it safe for public use, but Monsanto’s outreach to regulatory agencies in the US and Europe sparked controversy and prompted the parliamentary hearing.

Philippe Lamberts, president of the Greens/EFA, added,

“Those who ignore the rules of democracy also lose their rights as a lobbyist in the European Parliament. US corporations must also accept the democratic control function of the parliament. Monsanto cannot escape this. There remain many uncertainties in the assessment of the pesticide glyphosate. Monsanto has to face the questions of parliamentarians and should not hinder the clarification process.”

In response to the decision in Brussels, critics of the powerful company wondered if the U.S. would ever take such measures:

Copyright Information: This article was reprinted with permission from Please contact the author directly for republishing information.

Source Article from