Bayer raises bid to purchase Monsanto to over $65 BILLION

Monsanto

Source: NaturalNews.com
Vicki Batts
September 13, 2016

German pharmaceutical giant Bayer AG seems to know no limits in its quest to acquire the world’s most notorious agricultural company. The drug manufacturer has recently pushed its offer for procuring Monsanto up to a whopping $65 billion.

Bayer has confirmed that the two corporations are currently engaged in “advanced negotiations,” though it seems less like negotiating and more like Monsanto trying to take Bayer for everything they have. The original offer from Bayer averaged out to $122 per share, or $62 billion. Their new $65 billion offer averages out to about $127.50 per share. Bayer would also assume Monsanto’s $9 billion in debt, which pushes their offer up by an additional 2 percent. However, Monsanto is apparently seeking a jaw-dropping $130 per share, at least according to Bloomberg.

The attempted wooing of Monsanto is just one of many consolidations that have occurred lately in the agricultural industry. Bloomberg reports, “China National Chemical Corp. agreed in February to acquire Syngenta AG, while DuPont Co. and Dow Chemical Co. plan to merge and then carve out a new crop-science unit.” These kinds of deals in the crop and seed industry threaten to leave just a few oversized global giants in the Big Ag industrial complex.

If Bayer and Monsanto were to merge, they would create what would be one of the world’s largest agricultural suppliers. Monsanto is presently the world’s largest seed manufacturer, and Bayer currently offers their own “crop-protection” products (if you can really call them that). Between the two, they will make for a nearly-untouchable conglomerate. Monsanto has announced that it is considering Bayer’s offer, but the company is not the GMO giant’s only suitor; several other companies are seeking to acquire Monsanto as well.

In spite of their tremendous offer, Monsanto reportedly feels that their company is somehow being undervalued, but is still “open” to negotiation. Clearly, Monsanto is blind to the growing aversion to its name and products.

While the apparent ego of the company is worrisome, there are many more things to be concerned about, especially if this deal were to come to fruition. If two massive companies tied to the agricultural industry join forces, it could spell disaster for farmers and food prices. Their consolidation would lead to fewer choices for farmers, and you know what happens when there is a monopoly: prices skyrocket. With farmer bargaining power limited, it’s natural to expect seed prices to increase. And that means that the price of produce in supermarkets will increase along with them.

Robert Lawrence, a professor from Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and the founding director of the Center for a Liveable Future, told Market Watch, “The consolidation and driving out of smaller competitors, and controlling the marketplace and raising prices of seeds and pesticides for farmers worldwide is going to be a real shock to the food system.”

The merger could also mean fewer options for consumers, and may even effect the availability of organic crops and crops grown with fewer pesticides. Given the size of the two companies, the potential for them to further reduce farmers’ options is very real.

You would think that with the growing demand for organic, pesticide-free produce, Bayer would not be so interested in Monsanto; after all, that name has become something of a dirty word.

However, Bayer reportedly took Monsanto’s poor image into account, but made their offer to acquire the company anyway. This isn’t surprising though; anytime two large companies such as these merge together, the net result will always be more power. Even if people don’t like them, the increase in market share will still inevitably yield more economic power. And with economic power comes political power. As if Monsanto doesn’t already have their claws deep enough into our political system, merging with Bayer would surely grant them invincibility.

The most frightening thing about this acquisition is its potential to make Monsanto a stronger force in the agricultural industry, and consequently, further reduce the availability of non-GMO foods.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

USAToday.com

Bloomberg.com


MarketWatch.com

Advertisements

Clinton receives millions from Dow Chemical; backs away from effort to ban toxic chemical that harms women

Dow Chemical
Source: NaturalNews.com
J.D. Heyes
September 7, 2016

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton embodies all that is wrong with American politics today, as she has proven time and again. One example unearthed just recently involves her policy reversal regarding a dangerous chemical, after the company that manufactures it became a benefactor of the Clintons’ charities.

As reported by Breitbart News in February, at one time Clinton opposed use of an industrial solvent manufactured by Dow Chemical known as Trichloroethylene, or TCE, because it was found to be potentially harmful to pregnant women. But she changed her mind after the nation’s largest maker of TCE began partnering with, and eventually contributing to, the Clinton Global Initiative and an advisory group linked to her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

Not so ironically, at the time of the Breitbart report Clinton was making an issue of the government-created toxic water crisis in Flint, Mich., in which residents were saturated with dangerous levels of lead. Lead poisoning: bad; chemical poisoning: not so much (for donors, anyway).

Clinton’s personal and financial partnership with Dow Chemical reveals much about the inner workings of her and her husband’s growing financial empire, as well as the “pay for play” nature of her political life.

Phony legislation that went nowhere

On October 5, 2005, then-U.S. Sen. Clinton, D-N.Y., drafted a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency’s administrator, Stephen L. Johnson, noting that seniors and children are especially vulnerable to the toxic effects of the chemical, used primarily as a metal degreaser. She then urged the agency to adopt regulatory measures to prevent possible harm from the chemical.

“Endicott, Hopewell Junction and Ithaca [New York] are known to be contaminated with volatile organic compounds where TCE is also known to be present,” Clinton’s office said at the time in a statement which highlighted the letter.

At the time, there was intense political pressure on Clinton and her New York lawmaker colleagues, after it was found that TCE had leached into an underground water table near Hopewell Junction. In addition, a number of homes had experienced “vapor intrusion” of the chemical into their homes. Both of these incidents caused significant threats to public health, as most residents were likely not purifying their water or cleaning the air in their houses.

Also, noted Breitbart, the EPA reported discovering other toxins in the well water of at least five homes in the Hopewell Junction community while testing was being conducted for the presence of TCE.

“TCE is a widespread pollutant in the United States and vapor intrusion is known to be a significant pathway of exposure,” Clinton, who took the lead, said in her letter, which was signed by other senators and congressmen. “The EPA needs to act now to establish safe, protective ‘interim standards’ in order to ensure the health and safety of our children and our communities.”

Principles for sale

In 2007, Clinton would introduce legislation that made clear that TCE was potentially harmful to “pregnant women, infants, and children.”

Shortly after Clinton introduced her measure, Dow began partnering with the Clinton Global Initiative, eventually working up to being a benefactor. The company pledged a $30 million loan guarantee for a clean water projection in India at the Clinton Global Initiative’s 2007 annual meeting. Andrew Liveris, Dow’s chairman and CEO, announced the loan while appearing at the annual meeting in late September 2007, less than two months after Clinton introduced her TCE Reduction Act.

Breitbart noted that Liveris became a close friend of the Clintons, with Dow donating between $1 and $5 million to the Clinton Global Initiative in 2014. Liveris also gave Bill Clinton the use of a private Dow jet when the former president went to North Korea in 2009 to successfully negotiate the release of two American journalists who were being held in that country.

There are other ties as well, Breitbart noted. But in sum, this is just another example of how the principles of Bill and Hillary Clinton are not hard-and-fast ideological things, but are instead for sale to the highest bidder.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

Breitbart.com

Congress.gov

HVMag.com

EPOnline.com

NaturalNews.com

Hillary Clinton Backs Industries Responsible For Miscarriages & Infertility While Claiming To Support ‘Reproductive Rights’

Hillary Clinton
Source: NaturalNews.com
Amy Goodrich
July 6, 2016

Hillary Clinton has been hailed as a feminist figurehead who fights for women’s issues, equality and reproductive rights. She has won the votes of many women as she could go into the history books as the first female president of the United States.

“Too often, these are called women’s issues. Well, I am a proud lifelong fighter for women’s issues, because I firmly believe what’s good for women is good for America. … As far as I’m concerned, any issue that affects women’s lives and futures is a women’s issue,” Hillary said in September 2015.

But is she really true to her word or is she using her status as a woman to trick people into believing that she is going to make the world a better place for women?

Hillary, the ‘Bride of Frankenfood’

While pretending to fight for women’s rights, the Clinton Foundation received millions of dollars from big agricultural corporates and the GMO industry.

According to the Clinton Foundation disclosures, Monsanto donated between $501,250 and $1 million to the foundation, and Dow Chemical Company, another top GMO player, gave between $1 million and $5 million. Numerous other corporate giants donated large sums to the foundation and Hillary’s presidential campaign.

What’s more, she hired a Monsanto and Big Ag lobbyist to run her campaign and has been pushing other nations to start using GMO products and pesticides.

So let’s face it, Hillary is no stranger to Monsanto and isn’t shy to air her pro-GMO agenda in public. Her ties to Monsanto and the GMO industry run so deep that she has been dubbed the “Bride of Frankenfood” by environmentalists in Iowa.

How can one fight for women’s rights while promoting GMO ‘Frankenfoods’ that have been found to cause breast cancer, miscarriages, birth defects, and infertility?

What is America going to eat if Hillary is elected

For years the White House chefs have used organic foods coming from local farmers and suppliers, Global Research reports. They even have a rooftop garden for fresh produce grown without pesticides and fertilizers. Next to the Obama family, the Clinton and Bush II families all ate non-GMO, organic foods.

Controversially, that’s not what they are intending to feed the rest of the America, and the world.

In 2014, Hillary Clinton endorsed GMOs, saying, “I stand in favor of using seeds and products that have a proven track record.” She even attacked GMO critics, by saying, “There is a big gap between what the facts are, and what the perceptions are.”

Don’t let governments and presidents ruin your family’s health. Grow your own organic vegetables with the Food Rising Mini-Farm Grow Boxes. No skills needed and you will be sure of what you eat.

Another dirty secret

If you are still not convinced that Hillary Clinton isn’t quite the feminist she claims to be, then here is another dirty little fact.

According to the Observer, Hillary Clinton also received generous donations to the Clinton Foundation during her tenure at the State Department from countries with horrid records of women’s rights violations. These countries include Saudi Arabia, Oman, Algeria and the United Arab Emirates.

“Ms. Clinton’s supposed penchant for women’s rights wasn’t taken into account when it came to taking money from countries that exhibit some of the worst examples of gender inequality in the world. These donations beg the question of whether Ms. Clinton’s efforts on the behalf of women were more for show than genuinely wanting to make an impact for women today,” the article reads.

Don’t be fooled. Although it would be very empowering for all women to have a female president, know what you are voting for.

As reported by The Washington Times, a large fraction of Hillary’s enthusiasts has turned their back on her for her involvement in GMOs and are prompting other women to switch allegiances to Sen. Bernard Sanders of Vermont.

“I was surprised, because these women were really pushing for Hillary until they found out about the Monsanto connection, and then they dropped her like a hot potato,” said James Berge, Democratic Party chairman for Worth County, Iowa.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com