September 3, 2015 By Joseph P. Farrell

This article, shared by Ms. M.W., is a significant one, if you've been following the GMO story, not only for what it says, but also for what it implies:

Monsanto drops Syngenta takeover bid

There are a couple of sets of statements I want to draw your attention to. Here's the first set:

Monsanto shared have droped 13 percent between August 18 and 25 amid global market turmoil. With nearly half Monsanto's takeover offer based on a share swap, the merger would have entailed significant exposure to market volatility.


Monsanto had envisioned shifting the merged company's headquarters from Monsanto's current home base of St Louis, in the midwestern US state of Missouri, to Britain.


Syngenta said Monsanto had failed to provide "sufficient clarity" on a number of concerns, including regulatory risk, the tax consequences of shifting the company's registered headquarters from the US to Britain, and the estimated financial benefits of the proposed merger.

"We engaged with Monsanto in good faith and highlighted those key issues which required more concrete information in order to continue a dialogue. We take note of Monsanto's decision," Syngenta chairman Michel Demare said, adding that "our Board is confident Syngenta's long-term prospects remain very attractive." (All emphases added)

Put all this together, and reading between the lines, what is being suggested is (1) Mon(ster)santo is under increasing pressure and in spite of its underhanded and mercantilist policies which has gained for it the reputation it is now seeking to escape (after all, with mergers come name-changes, and an instant release from a track record), it cannot find an ally in Syngenta, (2) Mon(ster)santo was hoping, through the merger, to move its headquarters away from an increasingly aware American public, and (3) it may have been dealing less-than-forthrightly with Syngenta's negotiating team.

So much for Set Number One.

Here's set number two:

The idea, according to Monsanto chief executive Hugh Grant in an April 18 letter to Syngenta executives, was that "our merger will create a new global enterprise focused on future growth across all geographies... The combination of our companies would redefine the future of agriculture."

And then this at the end of the article:

Mergers in the agrochemicals industry have led to a situation where only six companies dominate the bulk of global agrochemicals sales, including Syngenta, Bayer CropScience, BASF, Dow Agrosciences, Monsanto and DuPont.

In other words, a merger of Syngenta/Syncrudda and Mon(ster)santo would have created such a huge combine that it would have approached a cartel, the IG Farbensanto that we speculated was a goal in blogs on this website. And that may, indeed, really be the goal, not merely the creation of a global corporate lock on food supplies via patent law, but the actual merger into a huge cartel and trust. And the idea of calling it IG Farbensanto isn't so absurd after all, for Bayer and BASF were both components of the old IG Farben cartel.

But apparently, Syngenta, which had negotiated in "good faith" wasn't impressed with what it was seeing.

The real story, in other words, isn't in the lines of the article; it's between them.

See you on the flip side...