Does Monsanto WANT To Kill You? Probably Not... But They Don't Care If They Do, As Long As They Profit From It

Last week, Valerie Brown and Elizabeth Grossman, writing for In These Times reported on how Monsanto has captured the EPA (and twisted Science) for it's own corporate ends. Their concern is primarily health issues around glyphosate, the world’s most widely used herbicide and the primary ingredient of Monsanto's Roundup. Monsanto, they wrote, has been defending Roundup and glyphosate with research, purported to be "independent," but that was actually research funded by Monsanto itself. When EPA scientists have found Monsanto products unsafe, their finding were "reversed by EPA upper management and advisory boards, apparently under pressure from Monsanto."

Everyone is exposed to glyphosate: Residues of the herbicide are found in both fresh and processed foods, and in drinking water nationwide. More and more research suggests that glyphosate exposure can lead to numerous health issues, ranging from non-Hodgkin lymphoma and kidney damage to disruption of gut bacteria and improper hormone functioning.

The Moms Across America episode fits a pattern that has emerged since 1974, when the EPA first registered glyphosate for use: When questions have been raised about the chemical’s safety, Monsanto has ensured that the answers serve its financial interests, rather than scientific accuracy and transparency. Our two-year investigation found incontrovertible evidence that Monsanto has exerted deep influence over EPA decisions since glyphosate first came on the market-- via Roundup-- more than 40 years ago.

...[T]he EPA has overlooked a growing body of research suggesting glyphosate is dangerous. In March 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) determined that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans” based on multiple peer-reviewed studies published since 2001. But the EPA has not changed its classification. Instead, the agency issued a rebuttal in September 2016 that said its scientists “did not agree with IARC”-- and cited that 1983 mouse study as evidence of non-carcinogenicity.

Controversy continues to swirl around EPA management’s cozy relationship with Monsanto. The agency’s Office of Inspector General, an independent oversight body, is currently investigating whether a former deputy director in the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs, Jess Rowland, colluded with Monsanto to “kill” a Department of Health and Human Services investigation into glyphosate prompted by the release of the IARC report. On April 28, 2015, Dan Jenkins, a Monsanto regulatory affairs manager, emailed his colleagues that Rowland had told him, “If I can kill this, I should get a medal.”

In the meantime, people across the country are suing Monsanto, alleging that their health problems and the deaths of their loved ones are connected to glyphosate. At least 1,100 such cases are wending their way through state courts, and an additional 240 through federal courts.

Matt Stoller's post blogger career included legislative policy jobs first for Alan Grayson in the House and then for Bernie Sanders in the Senate. More recently he's been a fellow at the Open Markets program researching the history of the relationship between concentrated financial power and the Democratic party in the 20th century. This is right up his alley and he's the first person I turned to talk about how Monsanto uses regulatory capture to further its corporate goals. "This is a problem of power," he told me this morning, "not just safety. All monopolies use political power to sustain their market position, and Monsanto is no different. The company funds a significant amount of ostensible safety research on its own products, so even if you are someone who buys the importance of GMO crops (and I do!), it's impossible to trust the regulators. What is left out of this article is Monsanto's massive merger and acquisition spree to acquire independent seed businesses, and its use of patent law and certain kinds of predatory pricing to undermine competitors and even customers. And now the company is attempting to merge with Bayer, further cementing control of the seed and chemical industry in the hands of a few. Farmers are going to feel the sting in the form of higher seed and chemical prices, and unless this moral lawlessness is stopped, we will all experience the health problems that are sure to ensue when self-policing of predatory monopolies that organize our food system is the norm."

Blue America's two most recently endorsed candidates, Iowa's Austin Frerick and Texas' Lillian Salerno, both worked in the Obama Administration and both have come to the conclusion-- "I had a front-row seat on the game being rigged," Salerno told us-- that monopolistic impulses by companies like Monsanto are a real and present danger to Americans. This morning, after he had read the piece by Brown and Grossman, Frerick told us that "Monsanto's word means nothing to me anymore. They will stop at nothing to spin the truth so long as it helps their bottom line regardless of what it does to our health or environment. It all comes back to antitrust enforcement for me. Monopolist like Monsanto have the economic and political resources to undermine and overwhelm anything that challenges it. This article is another great example of just how ruthless they are."

David Gill is running for a seat occupied by one of Monsanto's favorite puppets, Rodney Davis, who they give a $10,000 every cycle (in return for services rendered). When I asked Gill about that this morning, he said, "This is yet another example of the corporate ownership of our government, and it's no surprise to me that my Republican opponent, Rodney Davis, is one of the leading recipients of Monsanto's legalized bribery. Time after time after time, Mr. Davis takes the big bucks from the big corporations, and in exchange he shirks his duty to represent the men and women who struggle to get by here in IL-13. As a physician who has spent 29 years on the front lines, serving to protect and improve the  health of individuals and communities, I find it unconscionable that Mr. Davis sucks up the cash and then stands by quietly as Monsanto acts with reckless disregard for people's health. This is a perfect example of the swamp that voters are fed up with, and I'm eagerly looking forward to sending Mr. Davis home from D.C. in next November's election."

Last cycle, Monsanto spent $423,000 bribing members of Congress. They spent $266,000 on Republicans and $89,500 on corrupt conservative Democrats from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, criminal congressmembers like Brad Ashford (Blue Dog-NE), Cheri Bustos (Blue Dog-IL), Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA), Steny Hoyer (MD), Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN), Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR) and, of course, Kyrsten Sinema (Blue Dog-AZ). Aside from the Blue Dogs the dozen House members who have made sure Monsanto could continue poisoning the U.S. food supply are:

• Paul Ryan (R-WI)
• Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)
• John Shimkus (R-IL)
• Rodney Davis (R-IL)
• Frank Lucas (R-OK)
• Ann Wagner (R-MO)
• Adrian Smith (R-NE)
• David Young (R-IA)
• David Valadao (R-CA)
• Devin Nunes (R-CA)
• Mike Conway (R-TX)
• Erik Paulsen (R-MN)

So far this cycle they have already-- once again-- made big "contributions" to some of the most notoriously corrupt members of Congress: Paul Ryan, David Young, Ann Wagner, Mike Conway, Rodney Davis, David Valadao, Kevin McCarthy and, sigh, Steny Hoyer.

Back to Brown and Grossman: "The EPA’s regulatory record on glyphosate is compromised by missing, incomplete, hidden, redacted, lost and otherwise faulty information. The EPA relies on data, most of which is unpublished, that is supplied by the manufacturer, interpreted by the industry and not publicly available. Consequently, a decisive and transparent assessment of glyphosate’s toxicity is impossible. The EPA has never wavered from its decision to dismiss and minimize the 1983 mouse study, which appears to be valid. The agency has never attempted to replicate the study in order to clarify its results-- perhaps because it feared that such evidence would demonstrate that glyphosate was indeed a carcinogen. Furthermore, it’s a pattern the agency continues to follow, discounting later studies using similar arguments and research supplied by industry that have not undergone independent analysis... Glyphosate is a clear case of 'regulatory capture' by a corporation acting in its own financial interest while serious questions about public health remain in limbo. The record suggests that in 44 years-- through eight presidential administrations-- EPA management has never attempted to correct the problem. Indeed, the pesticide industry touts its forward-looking, modern technologies as it strives to keep its own research in the closet, and relies on questionable assumptions and outdated methods in regulatory toxicology."

"Rusty-Patched Bumble Bee" Joins Endangered Species List

The Rusty-Patched Bumble Bee, disappearing from an orchard near you (Photo © Johanna James-Heinz; source)

by Gaius Publius

The plant world has been losing its pollinators (pollinating insects) for a while due to species decline and, in the case of bees, colony collapse. I suspect most people have had this story on the far edge of their radar for a while. It's time to bring the story nearer.

For the first time, a bee species, the "Rusty-Patched Bumble Bee," has been put on the endangered species list by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This means two things — one, the species gets "special protection," and two, the long-term threat to U.S. and world food supply from loss of pollinating insects should not be underestimated.

The bumble bee story is in many places. Let's start with Lorraine Chow, who follows this at EcoWatch (my emphasis):

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has declared the rusty patched bumble bee an endangered species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA). This is the first-ever bumble bee in the U.S., and the first wild bee of any kind in the contiguous 48 states, to receive ESA protection.

This landmark decision was made in "a race against extinction" of the Bombus affinis which is "balancing precariously on the brink of extinction," the agency said in its announcement Tuesday.

The bee, known for its distinctive reddish mark on its abdomen, was once common and abundant across 28 states from Connecticut to South Dakota, the District of Columbia and two Canadian provinces, but has plummeted by 87 percent since the late 1990s. Only small, scattered populations remain in 13 states and one province.

"The rusty patched bumble bee is among a group of pollinators—including the monarch butterfly — experiencing serious declines across the country," USFWS Midwest Regional Director Tom Melius said. "Why is this important? Pollinators are small but mighty parts of the natural mechanism that sustains us and our world. Without them, our forests, parks, meadows and shrublands, and the abundant, vibrant life they support, cannot survive, and our crops require laborious, costly pollination by hand."

The rusty patched bumble bee is already listed as "endangered" under Canada's Species at Risk Act and as "critically endangered" on the International Union for Conservation of Nature's Red List.

The insect is an important pollinator of prairie wildflowers, as well as food crops such as cranberries, blueberries, apples, alfalfa and more.

"Bumble bees are especially good pollinators; even plants that can self-pollinate produce more and bigger fruit when pollinated by bumble bees," the USFWS said. "Each year, insects, mostly bees, provide pollination services valued at an estimated $3 billion in the United States."

There's more in the article if you wish to read further. The Washington Post puts it this way:

The rusty patched bumble bee was so prevalent 20 years ago that pedestrians in Midwest cities fought to shoo them away. Now, even trained scientists and experienced bee watchers find it difficult to lay eyes on them. “I’ve never seen one, and I live here pretty close to where there have been populations documented,” said Tamara Smith, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologist stationed in Minneapolis.

Fearing that the striped black and yellow pollinator with a long black tail could be lost forever, Fish and Wildlife designated the animal as endangered Tuesday. ...

Why was the rusty patched bee selected for the list and not others? The answer, Smith said, is its former abundance and astonishing plummet.

Apparently the speed of this species' collapse got people's attention.

"Canary in the Coal Mine"

This is just the beginning of the loss of pollinating insects. Honey bees have been in trouble for a while, and as the Post writer says, more species are sure to follow this bumble bee:

Although rusty patched bumble bees are the first to be considered endangered, and the first bee species on the U.S. mainland to get the designations (the yellow faced bee in Hawaii became the first overall in October last year), they are likely to be joined by others. “This bee is kind of like the canary in the coal mine,” Smith said, an indicator that many pollinator species — bees and butterflies — are in deep trouble.

There were nearly 3.5 million honeybee colonies in 1989, according to the Agriculture Department. That number fell by a million colonies when colony collapse disorder was first documented in 2006. in the 10 years sinc[e], the number of colonies has climbed only slightly, by about 100,000.

One state, Maryland, shows how eerie and perilous the decline has been for professional beekeepers. In 2015, the state lost more than 60 percent of its hives, each containing up to 20,000 honeybees. Beekeeper Steve McDaniel, owner of McDaniel Honey Farms, lost half of his hives in Manchester, Md., and all of them where he kept bees in downtown Baltimore. Hives with up to 20,000 bees cost about $1,200.

So, what's causing this? For a change, the answer isn't climate change.

Pesticides Are Killing the Bees

The scientific community has reached a consensus that the agent causing these species collapses is a group of widely used pesticides called "neonicotinoids" or "neonics." EcoWatch, from a different article:

Neonicotinoids—a potent class of pesticides used on many crops in the U.S.—have long been blamed for the widespread decline of our pollinators. Now a major new study has found a direct correlation between the use of these "neonics" and honeybee colony losses across England and Wales.

Meanwhile, a report from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) revealed that the controversial insecticides were present in more than half of both urban and agricultural streams sampled across the U.S. and Puerto Rico.

 Back to the first EcoWatch article:

"A number of scientific articles clearly document the lethal and sublethal effects that these chemicals are having on bees and other pollinators, and their use has intensified extensively within the rusty patched bumble bee's range during the same time period that declines have been observed," the Xerces Society explains.

The world's largest producer of neonics is Bayer. They're not just an aspirin company; they're a chemical producing giant (and, by the way, part of the cartel that sold poison gas to Nazis for concentration camps).

But neonicotinoids aren't the only culprit:

The Xerces Society also suggests that the massive rise in the use of the controversial herbicide glyphosate on genetically modified corn and soybean fields in the last 20 years has effectively eliminated milkweed and other wildflowers from the agricultural landscape.

"While no direct link has been made from the use of these pesticides to the declines observed in the rusty patched bumble bee there is little doubt that stressors like pesticides at the very least put increased pressures on an already imperiled bumble bee, especially when one considers the scope at which these chemicals are being adopted and used," the group points out.

Which bring us to ... Monsanto.

Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup, a pesticide used around the world. And Monsanto is one of the world's leading megalomaniacal corporations. Which leads to this.

Is Monsanto Killing the Bees? 

Above, the EcoWatch writer noted that "no direct link" showed that glyphosate is responsible for the collapse of the rusty-patched bumble bee population, which brings me to these final points:

Monsanto is one of the most obsessively profit driven companies in the world. It aims to create a worldwide monopoly for its GMO food products, and has thus, ironically, been tabbed as a leading cause of world hunger. The reason is simple. Monsanto doesn't really grow food; it grows money, and food is just the middle-man. If too much corn is being planted for ethanol (see link above), taking productive fields offline for other uses, Monsanto doesn't care, so long as the money comes in.

Which means that if Monsanto, the corporation — or more specifically, its CEO class — has to choose between making millions from a mega-profitable operation versus providing sufficient food for actual humans, well, what choice do you think they're going to make, ten times out of ten?

Special Protection?

Which brings us back to where we started — the Endangered Species Act and the "special protection" offered to species on its list. Here's how the Post writer quoted above put the pesticide problem:

Fearing that the striped black and yellow pollinator with a long black tail could be lost forever, Fish and Wildlife designated the animal as endangered Tuesday. The designation triggers protections such as regulations against knowingly destroying the bumble bee’s habitat and habitat creation. It also raises awareness about the plight of the bumble bee and requires a detailed, long term recovery plan to restore its population.

What are the odds that Monsanto and other pesticide companies will be required by the U.S. givernment to eliminate sales of their products within the habitats of these insects? Or will the agency simply content itself with "raising awareness"?

The Post article lists these causes of bumble bee population collapse: "farm pesticides, household herbicides, human development over bee habitat, disease and climate change." A convenient list for corporate giants; it could be your fault too, even though the farm pesticide usage is magnitudes greater as a cause than anything else in that list.

And, as the writer notes, there really is no direct link, just as there is no "direct link" between cigarette smoking and lung cancer. The link is strong, but no one can say that any individual death was caused by smoking, even if the deceased died of lung cancer and was a heavy smoker. Doubt-inducers can always point to individuals who smoked heavily and lived to ripe ages, and to lung cancer patients who never smoked at all.

Yet ... this seems specious, doesn't it? In the case of smoking, the statistical evidence finally became too overwhelming even for an industry-captured government to ignore, and the U.S. finally issued regulations designed to reduce or eliminate smoking, because human life is irretrievable and the risk of death from smoking is high.

Same on this case. Only now the risk is to food across the planet: "The honeybee is the most important commercial pollinator, globally responsible for pollinating at least 90% of commercial crops." The rusty-patched bumble bee population has collapsed 87%. In the U.S., between April 2014 and 2015, honey bee loss was 42%, up from 34% the previous year.

If the honey bee joins this bumble bee on the endangered species list, look out. Because if Monsanto and other pesticide companies can't be stopped, only they and their friends will be eating well. Fun times ahead.

Bayer-Monsanto Merger

A final note: Remember the two companies listed above? Guess who wants to merge — Bayer and Monsanto. The combined company would be "the largest agribusiness giant in the world, 'selling 29 percent of the world’s seeds and 24 percent of its pesticides.'"

And the $66 billion deal is done; it just needs regulatory approval:

[T]he proposed merger will likely face an intense and lengthy regulatory process in the United States, Canada, Brazil, the European Union and elsewhere. Hugh Grant, Monsanto's chief executive, said Wednesday the companies will need to file in about 30 jurisdictions for the merger.

I'm willing to bet that in the U.S. — even with a government fully controlled by Democrats — regulatory approval would be granted. Under a Republican administration, approval is a foregone conclusion. As to worldwide approval, stay tuned.

GP
 

Law Firm Files Suit on Behalf of Government Against Giant Chemical Firms; Government Declines to Join

Victims blinded by a methyl isocyanate gas leak from a chemical factory in Bhopal, India, 1984 (source).

by Gaius Publius

This news brought to you by the hashtag #CultureOfCorruption.

There's a fair amount to digest in the news story below, so I'll try to give you the short strokes first:

• Four huge chemical companies have been lying to the federal government about how dangerous some of its chemicals in consumer products are. These products include mattress foam.

• A whistleblower apparently went, not to the government, but to a law firm, Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman — or at least came to the attention of the law firm, then didn't go to the government.

• The law firm is bringing a lawsuit against these companies, on behalf of the federal government, which has decline to join.

• The damages sought — $90 billion.

I know there are questions around the way this is playing out. For example, why didn't the whistleblower(s) go to the government? Why isn't the government suing on its own behalf? And so on.

About the first question, I think there's an obvious explanation. The Obama administration treats whistleblowers with disdain, and it also tends to give corporations, especially those with a lot of money to spread around, a considerable pass. After all, today's sued company could be tomorrow's campaign contributor, or employer. For example, Eric Holder came from and went back to a law firm that lobbies for Wall Street banks he himself failed to prosecute as Attorney General.

About the second question, we'll have to see, as this story develops, what the Obama administration will do. But if they do decline to act, it may be time to look again at our hashtag.

Now the story, from Lorainne Chow at EcoWatch (my emphasis):

$90 Billion Whistleblower Suit Filed Against Four of the Nation's Largest Chemical Companies

Four of the country's largest chemical companies have been accused of selling billions of dollars worth of harmful isocyanate chemicals but intentionally concealing their dangers to consumers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over the past several decades.

BASF Corporation, Bayer Material Science LLC, Dow Chemical Company and Huntsman International LLC have been named in a False Claims Act (FCA) lawsuit brought by New York law firm Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman LLP on behalf of the U.S. government.

EcoWatch learned that the recently unsealed whistleblower lawsuit was served on the chemical companies on Wednesday. The lawsuit was originally filed under seal in federal court in Northern California.

Kasowitz brought this action on behalf of itself and the federal government to recover more than $90 billion in damages and penalties under the FCA, which imposes penalties for concealing obligations to the government.

According to a copy of the lawsuit seen by EcoWatch, "Each of these companies is separately liable to the United States Government for billions of dollars in civil reporting penalties, which continue to accumulate by tens of thousands of dollars daily, and for billions of dollars in similarly increasing breach of contract damages."

In the suit, the law firm said that the defendants manufacture and sell isocyanate chemicals such as methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI), polymeric MDI (PMDI) and toluene diisocyanate (TDI). These raw materials make up polyurethane products such as liquid coatings, paints and adhesives; flexible foam used in mattresses and cushions; rigid foam used as insulation; and elastomers used to make automotive interiors.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) states that exposure to isocyanate can irritate the skin and mucous membranes, cause chest tightness and difficult breathing. Isocyanates also include compounds classified as potential human carcinogens and is known to cause cancer in animals.

The piece concludes with this:

According to Andy Davenport of Kasowitz, "The defendants' cover-up implicates major human health concerns. Thankfully, the whistleblower law allows us to assist the federal government in holding these companies responsible for their actions while we alert regulators and the public to the serious undisclosed hazards of these chemicals."

Assisting a government that may not want assisting creates an interesting situation. Because the lawsuit was brought privately, it's (a) civil, not criminal; (b) a potential generator of large fees for the firm (I've seen estimates as high as $27 billion); (c) a suit that may go nowhere.

About (a) — According to one of the links in the above piece, the federal government "has declined to intervene" in this suit, meaning, that it is not joining as a plaintiff. The site LawNewz.com states: "The firm brought the action as a qui tam complaint, which is when a whistleblower brings legal action on behalf of the U.S. government. These complaints typically remain under seal while the government reviews them and decides whether to join."

The government has declined the opportunity to join the suit, which means that the law firm is on its own.

About (c) — It may be difficult to sue for unpaid penalties if those penalties were never assessed. LawNewz.com reached out to an industry spokesperson and received this reply:

"This qui tam complaint is meritless. Dow has complied with all the federal laws and requirements referenced in the complaint. It is noteworthy that the law firm provided these allegations to the United States Department of Justice, which declined to intervene or take any action in support of the lawsuit. Moreover, the False Claims Act does not allow a claim for unassessed civil penalties."

It may well be that the strategy of the suit is to publicize this, if true, horrendous action and shame the government into acting, either by joining the suit or by suing on its own.

Culture of Corruption

I think it's fair to ask why the government declined to sue, either with the law firm or on its own — or more to the point, is failing to pursue criminal charges for the companies' failing to meet reporting requirements that keep the public from harm. If the allegations are true, and it seems pretty clear they could be, not only were the companies derelict in their duty to the public — in other words, corrupt — but so is the government in its response to this new information.

I don't know if this will go anywhere without greater publicity, but do stay tuned. I think being poisoned by isocyanates in your brand new foam mattress might be something the American consumer may care about.

Bayer and Monsanto

Oh, and if you weren't aware, Bayer, mentioned above, wants to buy Monsanto. Here's why that's a terrible idea. Bayer is also one of the companies whose pesticides are killing bees. None of the people running these companies has your health, or that of our species, at heart.

GP
 

Monsanto Democrats Attempt to Kill Vermont's GMO Labeling Law

Al Franken, a reliable Monsanto Senator (source)

by Gaius Publius

Let's look at this story from a couple of angles. First, here's what happened recently in Vermont, as told by Thom Hartmann (my emphasis everywhere):

On July 1, Vermont implemented a law requiring disclosure labels on all food products that contain genetically engineered ingredients, also known as genetically modified organisms or GMOs.

Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food and Water Watch, hailed the law as “the first law enacted in the US that would provide clear labels identifying food made with genetically engineered ingredients. Indeed, stores across the country are already stocking food with clear on-package labels thanks to the Vermont law, because it’s much easier for a company to provide GMO labels on all of the products in its supply chain than just the ones going to one state.”

What that means is that the Vermont labeling law is changing the landscape of our grocery stores, and making it easier than ever to know which products contain GMOs.

The "first law enacted in the United States that would provide clear labels" identifying food with GMO ingredients. And as noted by Ms. Hauter of Food and Water Watch, once one state mandates this labeling, these labels will be de facto practice in all states, since "it’s much easier for a company to provide GMO labels on all of the products in its supply chain than just the ones going to one state."

That tells you what the stakes are — a de facto national GMO labeling law instigated by Vermont. Now the response.

Your Monsanto Senators at Work

Hartmann again:

And less than a week later after that law went into effect, it is under attack. Monsanto and its bought-and-paid-for toadies in Congress are pushing legislation to override Vermont’s law. Democrats who oppose this effort call the Stabenow/Roberts legislation the “Deny Americans the Right to Know” Act, or DARK Act.

This isn’t the first time that a DARK Act has been brought forward in the Senate, and one version of the bill was already shot down earlier this year. The most recent version of the bill was brought forward by Michigan Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow and Kansas Republican Sen. Pat Roberts, both recipients of substantial contributions from Big Agriculture.

How much money?

Stabenow has received more than $600,000 in campaign contributions since 2011 from the Crop Production and Basic Processing Industry, and Pat Roberts has received more than $600,000 from the Agricultural Services and Products industry.

Doesn't sound like much, does it? Especially compared to Monsanto's annual revenue of $15 billion. If I were Stabenow's agent, I'd get her ten times as much. Some folks, I guess, just don't know their worth to those they serve.

George Orwell Explains the Anti-GMO Labeling Law

Here's Senator Stabenow on what her anti-GMO labeling law would do (quoted here):

“This bipartisan bill is a win for consumers and families. For the first time ever, consumers will have a national, mandatory label for food products that contain genetically modified ingredients. This proposal is also a win for our nation’s farmers and food producers.”

The anti-labeling law is offers consumers a "national, mandatory label" that looks like this:

Clear as a bell, right? Not only that, but the bill contains restrictions in its definitions and applications:

The 14-page bill – which uses a narrow definition of genetic engineering (traits developed through recombinant DNA techniques, which involve transferring a gene from one organism to another) that would exempt new techniques such as gene editing from labeling – would come into force two years after it is enacted.

Like many state-led bills, the Roberts/Stabenow bill would not require labeling on milk or meat from animals fed GM feed, or food sold in [a] restaurant “or similar retail food establishment.”

It does not make any reference to ‘natural’ claims, meanwhile, which have been a feature of many state-driven GMO labeling bills, including Act 120 in Vermont. ...

One fact immediately picked up by Dr. William Hallman, Chair of the Department of Human Ecology at Rutgers University, is that - as written - the definition of 'bioengineered' could potentially exclude scores of products containing heavily refined ingredients derived from GM crops, as it states (p1) that food qualifying for labeling "contains genetic material."

He added: "According to the definition, the food must contain genetic material i.e. DNA. This requirement would presumably exclude ingredients made from genetically modified crops that are then refined to remove DNA. This would include commonly used ingredients such as refined sugar from GM sugar beets, corn syrup from GM corn, and oil from GM canola."

In other words, this anti-labeling labeling law is designed to be toothless and offered as a "bipartisan compromise" by lead Democratic sponsor Debbie Stabenow.

Do You Know Who Your Monsanto Senators Are? They're Also Your "Progressive" Senators.

Which brings me to the point of this piece. You can't defeat Monsanto and the rest of the corporate food industry, with its insistence on basing all food possible on poison such as "modified food starch," a product that fattens its consumers slowly while it fattens the wallets of its producers much more quickly — you can't defeat Monsanto if you don't know who's propping them up.

The list of Your Monsanto Senators includes these "liberals" and "progressives":

    Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) — 202-224-5653
    Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) — 202-224-3841
    Al Franken (D-MN) — 202-224-5641
    Tim Kaine (D-VA) — 202-224-4024
    Amy Klobushar (D-MN) — 202-224-3244
    Jean Shaheen (D-NH) — 202-224-2841
    Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) — 202-224-4822

plus:

    Sherrod Brown (D-OH) — 202-224-2315

who declined to vote No by declining to vote (but see below). 

These senators were part of the Yes vote on cloture for the bill. Cloture, the motion to close debate, passed 65-32. Since cloture required 60 votes, six No votes from the list above would have killed the bill in the Senate.

Remember these names when you assemble up your "progressive heroes" list. They should not be on it.

They're on another list, though. The Christmas list at Monsanto. Doesn't help us much when we're fattening up on GMO modified corn starch at the McDonalds and Burger King trough, but it does provide the money that keeps them in power. So I guess there's that.

They've Done This Before, Your Monsanto Senators

This isn't the first time Your Monsanto Senators have killed GMO labeling from their high seats in the Senate. There was another instance in 2012. This Senate amendment attempted to "permit States to require that any food, beverage, or other edible product offered for sale have a label on indicating that the food, beverage, or other edible product contains a genetically engineered ingredient (my emphasis)." In other words, it wouldn't have mandated GMO labeling; it would allow states to do as they choose with respect to GMO labeling.

The amendment failed 26-73. Among the No (pro-Monsanto) votes were these "progressive" senators:

    Al Franken (D-MN) — 202-224-5641
    Sherrod Brown (D-OH) — 202-224-2315
    Amy Klobushar (D-MN) — 202-224-3244
    Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) — 202-224-4822
    Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) — 202-224-4451
    Dick Durbin (D-IL) — 202-224-2152
    Tom Harkin (D-IA) — retired

Their No wasn't even needed, given the margin, so I guess their Yes was a proof of loyalty.

Do you feel like telling these senators what you think of their love of Monsanto, ahead of the "unity festival" at the Democratic Convention in Philadelphia? The DC office phone numbers are above.

GP
 

Iowa's Progressive Senate Candidate Tom Fiegen Endorses Bernie Sanders

On his website, Iowa Senate candidate Tom Fiegen explains that he supports Bernie Sanders "because he has demonstrated unconditional support for working people since he was mayor of Burlington, Vermont 34 years ago. He tells the truth." Feigen, who is running against somewhat doddering right-wing senator Chuck Grassley-- first elected, very narrowly, to Congress in 1974-- right after Nixon was driven from office (and just as the GOP was losing dozens of seats across the nation, including 2 in Iowa). Everyone, nationally, who was, like Grassley, first elected that day has either died or retired, including well-known politicians like Tom Harkin (D-IA), Chris Jim Jeffords (R-VT), Max Baucus (D-MT), Paul Tsongas (D-MA), Larry Pressler (R-SD), Henry Waxman (D-CA), George Miller (D-CA), Norman Mineta (D-CA), Henry Hyde (R-IL), Jim Oberstar (D-MN), Jim Florio (D-NJ), Abner Mikva (D-IL) and Paul Simon (D-IL)... except Grassley.

There are three Democrats running to replace him, state Sen. Rob Hogg, ex-state Sen. Tom Fiegen and ex-state Rep. Bob Krause. No Blue Dogs, New Dems or corporate whores in that trio. What drew our attention to Fiegen was his endorsement of Bernie Sanders and Bernie's platform and his commitment to run on those issues.

Fiegen shares similar stances with Senator Bernie Sanders, including repealing Citizens United.

“I want to fix the bribery of politicians in the guise of campaign contributions,” Mr. Fiegen said. “People throw around the reference to Citizens United, but the problem is much more systemic and ingrained than that.”

Mr. Fiegen cites an NPR story from 2012 about convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff. In the piece, Mr. Abramoff explains how he donated $100,000 to Mr. Fiegen’s opponent, incumbent U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley, in exchange for allowing his client, Tyco International, to evade paying billions in taxes.

You can read Fiegen's whole endorsement statement here and you can contribute to his campaign here. I asked him to write a guest post on an issue most DWT readers are unaware of but that is of crucial concern to people in Iowa.

Water And Agricultural Poisons
by Thomas Fiegen

In farm country, we have a problem. A lot of us can’t drink the water because of the ag poisons in it, and more of us are dying of cancer caused by the same ag poisons.

Here in Iowa, 60 cities and towns have nitrate levels in their water supply too high to drink. The community of Des Moines, Iowa spends over $7,000 a day to remove nitrate from the source of its water, the Raccoon River. Plus it is looking at new filtration equipment which will cost north of $140 million to replace the current system. Two of the Top 10 cancers in Iowa in 2015, thyroid and ovarian cancer, are directly linked to high nitrate in our water.

In addition to nitrate, we also have a problem with all the weed spray that we are being doused with by a few of our chemically addicted farmers. At the top of the list is glyphosate aka Roundup™. According to a story in April of this year by National Geographic, Roundup was invented in 1974. By 1987, we were applying 11 million pounds of Roundup in this country. Last year, it was up to 300 million pounds. Roundup is now so pervasive in our environment that 75% of the rain collected by the U.S. Geological Survey now contains Roundup. The National Geographic also sampled soybeans in 300 randomly selected bins across the Corn Belt and 90% contained Roundup. In March of this year, the World Health Organization, after a review of over 900 studies, concluded that Roundup is a causal agent for non-Hodgkins lymphoma. In 2015, non-Hodgkins lymphoma is also one of the Top 10 cancers in Iowa.

The Iowa College of Public Health has kept extensive records on Iowa cancer deaths by type and county since 1973.  In 1975, before Roundup was in use, and before corn on corn on corn to supply corn ethanol, according to the Iowa College of Public Health, we had 5,320 cancer deaths in Iowa. This year, after 40 years of medical progress in treating cancer, we will have over 6,400 cancer deaths in Iowa. That is an additional 1,100 cancer deaths per year.  My home town of Clarence, Iowa is 1,100 people. That is like wiping out an extra entire town of Clarence every year. How many more family and friends are we willing to lose early to cancer so that a few farmers can poison themselves and all of us with ag poisons?

I have visited 86 of the 99 counties in Iowa so far this year. The farm wives and widows get it. One widow, a survivor of thyroid cancer, told me how her husband had flu-like symptoms whenever he sprayed weeds on their farm. She told me that she could smell the chemicals on his clothes when she washed them. She knew something was not right, but she did not put her finger on it. Her husband died of non-Hodgkins lymphoma. She has had multiple tumors since her initial battle with thyroid cancer. She told me that she now knows that the ag chemicals they used was the reason she is a widow and has cancer. I have heard story after story like the one from this widow as I travel around Iowa. When I was a young boy in school, all of our bus drivers were retired 75 - 80 year old farmers. In my community today, we do not have many 75 - 80 year old retired farmers. They have all died of cancer and their wives have retired to town as widows.

Here is how we can fix the problem. First, we ban bribes of Congress under the guise of political contributions aka Citizens United. For too long chemical companies have been able to “buy” favorable legislation and regulations. Next, we need to amend and enforce the Clean Water Act to limit non-point sources of poisons. The next Farm Bill should also include not only a mandatory conservation requirement to quality for any federal subsidy or payment, but also a mandatory water purity requirement for ag runoff. We also need to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to remove the blanket immunity for chemical manufacturers and applicators, and instead impose strict liability for damages to people and property caused by ag poisons. Finally, we need to teach our farmers good and sustainable management practices to reduce and ultimately end their reliance on ag chemicals to grow crops.

We know how to grow food without chemicals. We have done it for centuries. If we are going to reduce and end needless cancer deaths in rural America, and survive as a species on this planet, we need to go back to growing food sustainably with limited or no chemicals. 

Again, please consider helping Tom Fiegen replace Chuck Grassley as the Senator from Iowa, something you can do at this special ActBlue page dedicated to progressives running for Congress who have endorsed Bernie Sanders.

Republicans Vote To Prevent Consumers From Finding Out What's In The Food They Eat

Wednesday, when I got home after a month in the hospital, I found a big stack of mail, including a copy of Neil Young's new CD, The Monsanto Years. And I got home in time to watch two of the most treacherous right-wing "Democrats," Blue Dogs Jim Costa (CA) and Kyrsten Sinema (AZ), cross the aisle and vote with the Republicans on a procedural resolution to advance what food activists are calling the Monsanto Protection Act.

This is a relatively simple issue. Food activists want to see potentially dangerous GMO food labeled so that consumers can make up their own minds about whether or not to feed it to their families. Monsanto and the GMO-Republicans, led by the Koch brothers' Mike Pompeo (R-KS), want to make sure that there is no labeling and that the states that have already passed labeling laws to protect their citizens-- Connecticut, Maine and Vermont-- are overruled. I guess the concepts of states' rights and small government are trumped in GOP minds when their Big Business allies squawk loud enough! The bill passed yesterday 275-150. 45 disgraceful Democrats crossed the aisle to vote with all but a dozen Republicans in favor. 

Among the Democrats who sold out their own constituents were the regular Blue Dogs and New Dems who tend to back the GOP in most things, plus easily corrupted crooks like Donald Norcross (NJ). After the vote, Alex Law, the progressive Democrat challenging Norcross' reelection, told us:

The dark bill that passed in Congress today with the support of my opponent Donald Norcross is a direct assault on the consumer's right to know about their food. It is transparently a bill bought and paid for by companies like Monsanto. It is an assault on democracy and an assault on states' rights and I would have voted against it.

One Los Angeles congressman, Steve Knight (R-Santa Clarita), voted for the bill. The progressive Democrat running against him, Lou Vince, was stunned. After the vote he told us:

This bill is incredibly important. Every person deserves to know what is in their food, and especially if their food contains potentially dangerous GMOs. The American people are not hurt by GMO labeling so there is no reason to oppose it, unless you are receiving money from large agribusiness firms like Monsanto. Every vote cast against GMO labeling is a vote against consumers, the right to know what you are consuming, and against the interests of average Americans. We need to stop Congress from serving as nothing more than a rubber stamp for the giant chemical corporations. As a congressman, that's exactly what I would do.

Do Republicans want to give you cancer? Probably not. Do they care about protecting you from it? Uh... no; they don't care. Or maybe they're just too stupid to understand. Earlier this year the World Health Organization declared glyphosate, the main chemical ingredient in Monsanto's weed-killer Roundup, a probable carcinogen.Yesterday House Republicans voted to exempt Monsanto's GMOs from labeling.

Pompeo's ironically named “Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act” (H.R. 1599) has four toxic components:

• It forbids states from labeling GMO foods or enforcing existing labeling laws already passed in Connecticut, Maine and Vermont.
• It prohibits any state or local county or city oversight of GMO crops.
• It further weakens already nearly impotent federal regulations on GMO crops at USDA and FDA.
• And, outrageously, it allows GMOs to be labeled as "natural."

For two decades-- under corrupt Republicans and corrupt Blue Dogs (the House Agriculture Committee for years and years was like a Blue Dog caucus meeting)-- Monsanto and other giant chemical companies have basically been writing the rules and regulations behind closed doors, allowing their toxic chemicals and untested genetically engineered crops to receive rubber-stamp approvals at the FDA, EPA and USDA. "Americans," wrote John Conyers in an OpEd before the vote yesterday, "want to know what's in their food."

The Orwellianly-titled "Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act," HR 1599, would bar the Food and Drug Administration from introducing mandatory labeling of Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) foods and ban states from doing the same -- even if voters demand such labeling through a ballot measure. The bill would also block many state and local efforts to protect farmers and the public from concerns including seed and pesticide drift and would forbid states from making it illegal for companies to label GMO products as "natural," as Connecticut has done.

The bill is a serious attack on transparency and presents a dubious one-size-fits-all approach to federal policy making. Most importantly, it presents a potentially serious threat to our long-term health.

In a landmark report this year, the World Health Organization revealed a weed-killer called glyphosate to be a probable cause of cancer. The chemical, also known as Roundup, is considered safer than some other herbicides, but it's being used increasingly often in growing quantities as farmers around the world attempt to drown out new weeds that have become resistant to the chemical's effects. This overzealous use of herbicides is made possible by a recent innovation: corn, soy, and other crops that have been genetically engineered to withstand heavy use of the chemicals. The issue, therefore, isn't just GMOs on their own-- it's the increasing use of herbicides that GMOs enable.

This is why voters in Vermont passed a ballot initiative to require GMO labeling. It's why 64 countries around the world require GMO labels. It's why, according to recent polling, more than 90% of Americans support mandatory labeling for these crops.

The proposal before Congress this week isn't simply about denying Americans the right to know what's in their food. As the text of the bill stands right now, HR 1599 could potentially block state and local efforts to regulate GMO crops and related chemicals to protect farm workers and rural residents from economic and environmental damages. This is particularly troubling when you consider that there are hundreds of elementary schools within 200 feet of a corn or soybean field, according to the Environmental Working Group.

This should not be a partisan issue-- both parties purport to stand for transparency, and both parties should oppose a federal power-grab to prevent states and localities from making their own decisions regarding the protection of lives and property.

So why has the bill been introduced?

Proponents of HR 1599 claim it's essential to stop food labeling in order to prevent a spike in food prices. Yet companies change food labels frequently to highlight innovations, and countries with mandatory labeling have not encountered food price spikes attributable to anti-GMO backlash.

While proponents claim that their proposal will still allow voluntary GMO labeling, the bill, as it stands now, outlaws any non-GMO claim unless approved through a new certification process to be created by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Given that it took the department more than a decade to establish similar certifications for organic foods, this would effectively stop farmers and food companies from advertising the purity of their own food. Meanwhile, many of the corporate lobbyists who champion this proposal are the folks who are fighting to reject the claims of leading scientists that the liberal use of glyphosate and other chemicals could harm human health.

Upton Sinclair, the author who appears to have awakened Teddy Roosevelt's interest in food safety, said it best: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

The fact that Congress is even considering a proposal to deny Americans basic information about their food speaks to overwhelming power of these corporate lobbyists over the public interest.

Hillary Clinton, CGI and the Relationship with Monsanto

Monsanto uses money to grow money (source)

by Gaius Publius

As many of you know, I've been following the "Clinton & Sanders" story for a while, but also the Clinton story by itself as it relates to the candidate, the family (since all are principals of their foundation), and the foundation itself. The most recent entries are here:

NAFTA, TPP, and The Clinton Global Initiative’s “Free Trade” Activism

The State of the Union, Hillary Clinton & Obama’s “Piketty Moment”

The Clinton Cash Story from the Left

Hillary Clinton, TPP, the World of Money & Center for American Progress

I was therefore very pleased to find this comprehensive article by Judy Frankel comparing Clinton and Sanders on the issue of food. I actually follow food issues from time to time, especially as it relates to Monsanto and the politics of the farm states, and also what I increasingly think of as "our broken food system."

Ms. Frankel's article is entitled "Hillary vs. Bernie on Frankenfood" and as I said, it's fairly comprehensive. I'll return to its main points later, but I want just to focus here on one aspect, Monsanto, Clinton, and the Clinton Global Initiative.

Here's Ms. Frankel (my emphasis):

Is Hillary a Shill for Monsanto?

How is Hillary personally involved in supporting big agriculture? The Clinton Global Initiative (CGI), which gathers leaders to solve the world's problems, promotes Monsanto, the maker of RoundUp® and RoundUp Ready® seeds. Hugh Grant, Monsanto's Chairman and CEO spoke at the Clinton Global Initiative conference in September, 2014. Ms. Clinton's top campaign advisor, Jerry Crawford, was a lobbyist for Monsanto for years and is now the political pro for her Super PAC, "Ready for Hillary." Clinton spoke in favor of the government's Feed the Future (FtF) program, a USAID funded, corporate-partnered program that brings RoundUp Ready® technology to the most vulnerable populations of the world. Monsanto and Dow Chemical support Hillary and Bill's 'Clinton Foundation' with generous donations.

Last year, at a San Diego biotech conference, Hillary coached her audience in messaging. "Genetically modified sounds Frankensteinish. Drought-resistant sounds like something you'd want. Be more careful so you don't raise that red flag immediately."

It's also highly unlikely for Hillary Clinton to stand up against her benefactors, saying she favors a review of RoundUp, 2,4-D, and the even more toxic poisons used by farmers worldwide when she has friends in the industry telling her that they will "feed the world" someday with their agricultural methods.

As I said, I'll return to the food aspect of this issue later. For now, though, consider what this says, or reinforces, about the Clinton Global Initiative. I earlier wrote (in the first article listed above):

The do-gooder aspect of the Clinton family's CGI — yes, family; the official name of the umbrella organization is "Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation" — obscures its definition of "good." The organization promotes these "good" things — more carbon emissions in the form of fracked methane ("America's natural gas"), privately-owned schools, privately-owned public infrastructure like bridges and roads — and it does so by hosting forums presented people like Robert Rubin, fracked methane CEOs, and other billionaire beneficiaries of these policies. ...

[Examples provided in source article]

What's the goal of CGI? The answer has to be — to prop up the One Percent (actually the 0.001%, the 1% of the 1%) while appearing to do good, or by doing enough good to appear to be all-good.

As to CGI's managers, from the Clintons on down, are they failing to solve global economic problems out of ignorance of the obvious — that their proposed "solutions" are in fact the cause? Or are they failing for some other reason? If trade deals, to pick just one issue, are so bad for the average worker, are they too ... what, dumb? ... to see that, or too venal to cop to it?

And what about the Clintons themselves? What causes this family to collect millions for a foundation loved by "do-gooder" billionaires — and likely funded by them — a foundation that promotes policies that keep these people rich and the rest of us poor, despite its stated objectives?

There are several ways to answer these questions, some social, some intellectual, some financial. None is flattering.

And about Ms. Clinton more generally, from the fourth piece listed above:

The "Wall Street wing" of the Democratic Party is really the Money wing and represents Money wherever it is found. Though some dispute the claim, it seems to me the split between the Warren wing and the Money wing is huge, a chasm, and shows little sign of healing at the moment. It may heal later, artificially and for a time, around a Clinton candidacy, but that time isn't now.

Hillary Clinton and the Money Wing

I think it's fair to say, regardless of how you view Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate, that her biggest hurdle on the Democratic side is her perceived connection to Big Money, and lots of it. Her family grew rich by cultivating people with money; her foundation grew fat by cultivating people (and nations) with money; and her donor list has historically included holders of big money, especially Wall Street holders (though Obama seems to have out-raised her on Wall Street in 2008).

She may be able to shed these concerns — there is much time left, too much in fact, until the Democratic primary elections. But she may not need to shed them; for example, the specter of "Republicans in the White House!" may be too much for even the most progressive of voters. We'll have to see how this plays out. Nevertheless, it's fair to say that the tag "friend of money" is one of the vulnerabilities Ms. Clinton may have to overcome. 

So the first point was about the foundation, the second about the 2016 presidential contest. What are the takeaways so far?

Two Bottom Lines

I'm presenting Clinton's connection to Monsanto because Ms. Frankel's piece adds one more data point to two broader statements, namely:

• The Clinton Global Initiative, whatever else it is, is also a very well funded promoter of the global neo-liberal project, in the same way that the Gates Foundation aggressively promotes the neo-liberal transformation of the world.
   
• Ms. Clinton's connection to the world of money, through her family's foundation and in other ways, is both her greatest liability in the race between her and Sanders and a glaring one.

These points may sound editorial, but I don't mean them as such here. It's also fair to say the statements are factual. So I simply want to leave you to interpret them for yourself. What flows from this information is subject to discussion; but ignoring it avoids important data for the national debate we've already started to have in the run-up to 2016.

Schedule note: I'll be transitioning for about a week to a new location, after which I'll be working remotely through the end of July. There may be some interruption in posting until I'm resettled. After that, we're back to the regular schedule.

GP

Worst Environment Secretary In UK History Picks A Fight With Neil Young Over GMOs

Plus: The Donald rips Neil off

Owen Paterson is a right-wing imbecile, a prominent climate change denier and the Conservative Member of Parliament for North Shropshire in England -- an area of the West Midlands so politically backward that it has elected a right-winger to every Parliament since 1832, when it was first established. Paterson was UK secretary of state for the environment, food and rural affairs from 2012 to 2014 and until this week was best known for his hysterical opposition to the banning of fox hunting. 

Now the man The Guardian dubbed "the worst environment secretary this country has ever suffered" has decided to pick a fight with Neil Young. Paterson penned an op-ed for Rupert Murdoch's NY Post, "How Neil Young, Greenpeace work to starve the world's poor." That's because Paterson is a shill for Monsanto and he and his GMO pals are offended that Neil's new album, The Monsanto Years, raises issues that Monsanto is desperately trying to cover up and mislead the public on. It's Neil's 36th album and his first with Willie Nelson's sons, Lukas and Micah, and their band, Promise of the Real.

The nasty Paterson claims, "The aging songwriter is following the lead of activists who claim that GMOs are harmful to health, farmers and the environment," and asserts Neil is "tragically wrong. In reality, GMOs can save millions of lives. It’s the environmentalists who are doing real harm."

He seems especially incensed by the lyrics "I love to start my day off without helping Monsanto. Monsanto, let our farmers grow what they want to grow. From the fields of Nebraska from the banks of the Ohio, farmers won’t be free to grow what they want to grow. If corporate control takes over the American farm with fascist politicians and chemical giants walking arm in arm."

"Monsanto," said Neil, "is the poster child for the problems we’re having with the corporate government." Lukas Nelson backed up the anti-corporate sentiment. "Nobody likes Monsanto," he told Rolling Stone last month. "I’m really proud to be on this side of history with Neil."

POSTSCRIPT: Trump, Latest GOP Music Thief

When Trump announced his comedic bid for the GOP nomination yesterday, about which Noah will have some thoughts this evening, he followed a long line of Republican intellectual property thieves using songs without paying for their use (which is, by the way, the law). Trump, who strutted up on the stage to brag-- falsely-- that he has a net worth of $9 billion, kicked off his campaign with Neil Young's classic "Rockin' in the Free World." Trump's campaign claims they paid to use the song, although it's apparent that Trump has never listened to the lyrics of this profoundly anti-GOP composition.

Neil is a Bernie Sanders supporter, and he stated flatly: "Donald Trump was not authorized to use 'Rockin' in the Free World' in his presidential candidacy announcement." Neil's long-time manager, Elliot Roberts, has contacted Trump's office and told them to stop using the song immediately.

I was once president of Reprise Records, Neil's label, and if I was still there I would be suing Trump for damages today, since his use of the song in that ugly racist announcement permanently devalues the composition and twists Neil's entire meaning. The only Neil song Republican politicians should be allowed to use in their campaigns is "Southern Man."

Will The TPP Allow Monsanto To Destroy Neil Young?

If Wall Street-owned Republicans and conservative Democrats manage to give Obama Fast Track authority and jam the TPP through the House, are they in fact granting Monsanto the right to sue Neil Young for all he's worth? Although Monsanto's headquarters are in Creve Coeur, that's Creve Coeur, Missouri, not France. Monsanto is the go-to place for genetically modified foods, although they have stopped manufacturing other dangerous products like DDT, Agent Orange and PCBs. Monsanto's life-threatening products are involved in lawsuits in India, Brazil, Argentina, China and other countries. And Monsanto uses lax campaign laws to bribe conservative American (and European) politicians, primarily Republicans and right-wing Democrats-- with "campaign contributions," lobbying and very aggressive revolving-door policies.

What's all this got to do with Neil Young? Neil's talking about a collection of new songs he's going release June 29 as an anti-Monsanto concept album. TPP will make it easier for Monsanto to sue him-- and his record label, Reprise/Warner Bros. Neil isn't unaware of the dangers of a lawsuit either. Last year when he announced he was boycotting Starbucks he said, "Starbucks has teamed up with Monsanto to sue Vermont, and stop accurate food labeling."

Young is taking things a step further now, releasing an entire rock album dedicated to slamming Monsanto. The album is called, fittingly, The Monsanto Years It is a collaboration between Young and Willie Nelson's sons, Lukas and Micah [who have a band, Promise of the Real].

Young recently previewed a clip of one of the songs from the album, "Rock Starbucks," according to Democracy Now! The lyrics are an unsubtle assault on the ethics of the Seattle coffee giant:

If you don't like to rock Starbucks, a coffee shop
Well, you better change your station 'cause that ain't all that we got
Yeah, I want a cup of coffee, but I don't want a GMO
I like to start my day off without helping Monsanto
Monsanto
Let our farmers grow
What they want to grow

Neil describes the new album, which has 9 songs, as "ecologically-environmentally focused." The track listing:

1. A New Day For Love
2.  Wolf Moon
3.  People Want To Hear About Love
4.  Big Box
5.  A Rock Star Bucks A Coffee Shop
6.  Workin' Man
7.  Rules Of Change
8.  Monsanto Years
9.  If I Don't Know

Neil has also announced he'll be touring behind the new album in July. So far he's announced a dozen dates:

07/05 – Milwaukee, WI @ Summerfest
07/08 – Denver, CO @ Red Rocks Amphitheatre
07/09 – Denver, CO @ Red Rocks Amphitheatre
07/11 – Lincoln, NE @ Pinnacle Bank Arena
07/13 – Cincinnati, OH @ Riverbend Music Center
07/14 – Clarkston, MI @ DTE Energy Music Theatre
07/16 – Camden, NJ @ Susquehanna Bank Center
07/17 – Bethel, NY @ Bethel Woods Center for the Arts
07/19 – Essex Junction, VT @ Champlain Valley Expo
07/21 – Wantagh, NY @ Nikon at Jones Beach Theater
07/22 – Great Woods, MA @ Xfinity Center
07/24 – Oro-Medonte, ON @ WayHome Music Festival



There have been reports that some of the countries negotiating the TPP pact-- including Australia, Canada and Malaysia-- are demanding exemptions from the proposed litigation rule that allows corporations to sue governments because of environmental, safety, labor and health regulations that harm their bottom lines, according to a secret text released by WikiLeaks. Last month Jedediah Purdy, a professor at Duke Law School, wrote at HuffPo about some of the dangers the TPP poses to Americans. He sums up those threats as a grave danger to democracy itself.

Democracy is the problem with the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade negotiation. It's the problem for TPP supporters because the trade deal has been secret so far-- known to the public only through leaks and rumors-- and because the Fast Track authorization that the Obama Administration wants would box Congress out of meaningful input on the treaty.

As Yale Law School international trade scholar David Grewal has pointed out, the TPP is about national regulation of domestic economies, issues like environmental, labor, and consumer safety law that are at the core of self-government. It's outlandish that this sovereign power is being bargained away in secret, with the final deal dropped before Congress in a take-it-or-kill-it package. So TPP critics have found that democracy is by far their easiest argument. In fact, given how much of the negotiations remain secret, just about the only informed argument they can make is that the secrecy itself is a problem. And it is a terrible problem. It should make the whole backroom arrangement illegitimate, at least until we all know what is in it.

But democracy is also a problem for TPP opponents, and in a subtler way. Consider: Who actually thinks the US Congress would be able to hold a reasoned debate on a complex trade agreement and deliver a sound judgment reflecting the will of the people? Who even believes that Congress holds reasoned debates, ever, or that there is such a thing as the will of the people, rather than fleeting gusts of public opinion and internet mobbing? If you think the TPP is a good thing, you definitely do not want to put it through the political process. TPP supporters don't, by and large, believe they are trying to put one over on a wise but unwary public: they believe democracy is broken, the public is ignorant and renders irrational decisions, and that Congress is no better (though sometimes teachable, thanks to lobbyists).

And who, honestly, doesn't believe something like this about US democracy today? Who really wants to submit their highest value, or the project they have worked on for decades, to this democracy? Really?

The press to fast-track TPP is a sellout of democracy, but it is also a symptom of a deeper collapse of faith in American self-government. Increasingly, people who want to get something done find ways around democratic lawmaking: private investment, nonprofit social mobilization, executive actions, lawsuits in the courts, anything but going to Congress. The TPP sellout of democracy has attracted so many supporters among well-intentioned, sophisticated, realistic people because, frankly, such people are used to disregarding democracy when they want to accomplish something important.

Acting like we have no democracy to protect-- in fact, believing we have none-- has vicious circular effects. The deep reason to be skeptical of the TPP isn't just that it an unlabeled pill; it's that once we swallow it, we surrender some of the power to shape our own economy to advance our own ideas of fairness, safety, solidarity, sustainability, and so forth. The life and aspirations of a democratic community should come before its economy, and give their shape to the economy-- not the other way around. That was certainly FDR's view during the New Deal, and LBJ's when he proposed the Great Society. But who really believes it now? Who wants the regulatory laws that these guys, the politicians now in power, and the people they listen to, would make?

From what we know of the TPP, it works as an economic policy straitjacket, locking its members into a shared set of market rules. It even brings in "investor-state dispute settlement"-- a fancy term for allowing foreign corporations to sue governments whose lawmaking interferes with their profits, outside the courts of law, in suits resolved by private arbitrators. All of that is fundamentally anti-democratic. It reverses the basic and proper relationship between a political community and its economy. But plenty of Americans are seeking just that reversal. Not all of them believe the market is perfect and magical; but they believe it works, more or less, and that democracy does not. They are more than half right that this democracy, "our democracy" (a phrase that's hard to say without irony), does not work. And that is the reality that makes their anti-democratic agreement so plausible.

So the movement against the TPP has to be more than that. It has to be organically and explicitly linked to a pro-democracy movement: one that works against money in politics, for stronger antitrust laws to reduce concentrated economic power, against the economic inequality that pulls Americans apart and isolates them in their insecurity, and for access to good education and political empowerment for everyone in this country.

...It's one of the famous clichés of American life that Benjamin Franklin, asked what the Constitutional Convention had created, replied "A republic-- if you can keep it." Anyone asked what the TPP's opponents are fighting for should reply, "A democracy-- if we can build it." Defeating the TPP would keep open the space for that building. Of course, then we would still have to build it.