Dark underside of the Monsanto bid to buy Syngenta

When agrichemical giant Monsanto, headquartered in St. Louis, made a $45 billion takeover bid to buy Syngenta, headquartered in Basel, Switzerland, it seemed like a chemical tsunami.

Between sales of Monsanto GMO seeds and Roundup and Syngenta’s atrazine and other pesticides, central Illinois is saturated with the products of both global agrichemical corporations.

Then Reuters reported industry sources were saying the purchase would give Monsanto the opportunity to move its headquarters outside the United States and benefit by avoiding U.S. corporate taxes.

That maneuver, called an inversion, is being discouraged by the U.S. Treasury. Congress is examining the problem.

But with sales of $31 billion annually, Monsanto writes its own ticket. Critics point out that the regulatory agencies in Washington, including Food and Drug Administration, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency, are dominated by former Monsanto executives.

Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin recently issued a warning to Monsanto urging it not to relocate if its takeover offer is ultimately accepted.

Durbin told Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant that he’s committed to preventing the relocation.

Durbin is a lead sponsor of the Stop Corporate Inversions Act that would lower ownership threshholds and prevent to relocation of U.S. corporations.

Since 2004, about 40 corporations headquarterd in the United States have purchased smaller foreign firms and relocated corporate headquartered in order to avoid U.S. taxes.

“Like so many large companies in the U.S., Monsanto has prospered in large part due to U.S. taxpayer-funded programs and services. Where would Monsanto be without the U.S. farm program and our world class research labs?” Durbin said in a prepared statement, adding he would do all he can in Congress to prevent inversions.

In January, Durbin joined U.S. Sen. Jack Reed, D-RI, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Mich., Rep. Sandy Levin, D-Mich., and Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, to introduce Stop Corporate Inversions Act of 2015 that would close the corporate inversion loophole and save nearly $34 billion over 10 years.

He also supports legislation that would ban federal contracts and subcontracts for inverted companies.

“DARK” Act

That’s the acronym given to HR 1599, the “Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015” that has passed the House of Representatives and proposes to establish a national standard for labeling and not require food companies to disclose use of GMO ingedients. It would pre-empt states from passing their own GM labeling laws such as the one proposed by Sen. Dave Koehler, D-Peoria.

Opponents of the bill call it the DARK Act: Deny Americans the Right to Know what’s in their food. Opponents include the Environmental Working Group and Center for Food Safety.

“Americans have the right to know what’s in food and how it was grown — the same as citizens of 64 other nations that require GMO labeling,” said Scott Faber, EWG’s vice president of government affairs. “It’s time for lawmakers to recognize that right and stand for GMO labeling.”

As much as 80 percent of packaged foods in grocery stores contains GMO ingredients, according to the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which opposes GMO labeling.

HR 1599 would:

• Preempt states from regulating GE crops to protect public health and the environment.
• Virtually eliminate FDA’s ability to craft a national GE labeling system.
• Codify the current, broken voluntary labeling system.
• Create a GE “safety” review system based on industry science.
• Allow “natural” foods to contain GE ingredients and preempt state efforts to end misleading “natural” claims

BPA in air as well as plastics

We have long understood people are exposed to bisphenol A, an endocrine disrupting chemical, from plastic, thermal cash register receipts and the lining of food cans. Now a new study from University of Missouri found high exposure from air and water near industrial sites.

EPA maintains most BPA enters the body through food, and the amount is negligible. EPA contends BPA that enters the body through food is eliminated from the body fairly quickly. The new study claims exposure from touch and inhalation may have more of a biological effect than oral ingestion. This new finding means the EPA should rethink its position on the safety of BPA exposure.