by Joseph P. Farrell, Giza Death Star:

It has been a while since we’ve had to update the GMO scrapbook with the latest news concerning I.G. Farbensanto, but this article spotted and shared by (and with our thanks to) M.W. necessitates an update. Before we get to that, however, first a word to bring more recent readers up to speed about our “diction and usage.”  “I.G. Farbensanto” is simply our nickname here on this website for “Big Agribusiness”, the big chemical and seed cartels that have been pushing genetically modified crops, seeds, and foods, the most notorious of these being Monsanto, which we like to call “Mon(ster)santo”.  Our nickname of “I.G. Farbensanto” was coined after the giant German chemicals and agribusiness firm, Bayer (yea, the same people who invented aspirin), bought controlling interest in Mon(ster)santo. Bayer, having been formerly a component of the even more gigantic German chemicals cartel I.G. Farben, the nickname I.G. Farbensanto seemed appropriate, as combining the worst features of the Farben cartel:  indifference to human or animal suffering, GMO foods, deadly chemicals, and lawfare against farmers it didn’t or doesn’t like.


So with that little excursion into our nicknaming protocols on this website explained, down to the article that was shared by M.W. itself:

Inside Bayer’s State-by-State Efforts to Stop Pesticide Lawsuits

Note that, amid the rising tide of nullification laws and other state-sanctioned or supported blowback against globaloonyism 9think only of the recent state efforts outlawing or banning the WHO treaty, or measures against Central Bank Digital Currencies, and so on), the analysts at I.G. Farbensanto, being the slow-witted Byzantine schemers that they are, have targeted the states themselves in an effort to head off yet more lawsuits being brought for bad effects from using their “products”:

“To me,” she says, pointing at herself with both hands, her eyebrows raised, “Iowa’s farmers matter more than corporate interests.”

Srinivas, a Democrat, posted the video on February 7 to draw attention to a bill that was just starting to make its way through the statehouse. If passed, the legislation could prevent individuals who use pesticides from suing manufacturers based on the argument that the manufacturer should have warned them the products could cause cancer or another illness.

Srinivas is a physician, and one specific concern added to her outrage. Less than a year earlier, the Iowa Cancer Registry released data showing Iowa now has the second highest cancer rate in the country, after Kentucky, and is the only state where rates significantly increased between 2015 and 2019. For the first time, researchers at the Iowa Cancer Consortium have a plan to evaluate whether the incredible volume of weed- and bug-killers used in the state is a contributing factor (although an annual report released at the end of February focused more on high rates of binge drinking).

However, while other states have seen a flurry of more than 100,000 lawsuits brought by individuals claiming Roundup—the most widely used commercial product that contains the weedkiller glyphosate—had caused their cancers, Iowa stands apart. Especially in agriculture, most people trust the safety of pesticides, locals say, and Roundup is the most common and coveted.

In other words, I.G. Farbensanto hopes to head off lawsuits in states by introducing bills in states.

But if one reads the article further, one notes the concentration on glyphosate (the primary ingredient in the pesticide Roundup), and I am bold to suggest that this attention is a bit of a misdirection, an understandable one from I.G. Farbensanto’s point of view to be sure, because that is what the vast majority of lawsuits against the company are being brought upon. But it should not be the primary foci for those concerned about GMOs in general. The primary concerns, when GMOs first began to appear, were (1) the use of lawfare to target farmers for license royalty violations on whose property GMO crops had sprouted, even if those farmers had not planted GMO crops. Such discoveries were literally made by corporate spies to detect if fields were sprouting crops from their seeds without payment; this lawfare strategy was allegedly, and according to some researchers, a particular favorite of Mon(ster)santo (and hence, how it acquired its nickname here); (2) the concern that farmers began to exhibit that heirloom seeds, i.e., non-genetically modified seeds, which could be stored and harvested for planting later and which generated their own offspring, were being carefully removed from the market, and replaced with GMO seeds with in many cases are incapable of regenerating, requiring the purchase of new seeds every year; (3) that there was no genuine intergenerational testing of the environmental and human impact on health not only of the specially-made pesticides, but of the GMO crops and foods themselves (which is really what the glyphosate lawsuits are about). Where such studies were attempted (France and Denmark for example) the results were quickly suppressed; and finally (4) the (somewhat crazy) concern that engineered genetic modifications, which were patentable and hence subject to financial licensing and royalty arrangements, might jump species and result in the modifications appearing in the populations consuming the GMOs, and thus extending a kind of “lien” on those populations.  When such concerns first appeared back in the 1980s, they were laughed at. No one is laughing now…

Read More @

Originally Posted at