Bayer Corporation's Plan to Control Agriculture....

AND Control the Cures for the Diseases it Seeds!

As I have explained here previously, the corporations seated at the WEF table seek to control all food production. Chemical manufacturer BASF claims its products are now “sustainable,” and that its technologies can be used to improve the world by tracking products throughout their manufacture and useful life. Consider the implications of its proposed cotton-tracking technology and how its “net-zero,” high-tech, highly-profitable aspirations could result in total food control with its (presumably proprietary) “next-level” sustainability: “farm to retail” traceability”:

Ever look at your cotton-made attire and wonder, where did that come from? How was it grown and does it deliver improvements from a sustainability standpoint?

Now, all those questions can be answered thanks to a new technology developed by BASF. The global company’s agricultural solutions business created a one-of-a-kind e3 sustainable cotton program. Why is it called e3, you might ask? Because customers know their clothes meet all three E’s – they’re socially equitable, economically viable and use environmentally responsible sustainable practices. (The three pillars of sustainability are society, environment and economy, and this program covers all three.)

The unique program delivers the comprehensive level of e3 cotton farm-to-retail traceability, along with third-party verification and BASF certification.

How quickly this technology could be applied to food supplies. The transferability of this Orwellian technology to food products is obvious. This preview of “social credit food scoring” extends quickly to the planned food choices for humans – only BASF-certified products will be permitted to socially-qualified individuals. The three pillars of sustainability have been declared to be…. social justice tyranny! Chemicals are sustainable now, so long as socially equitable and economically viable – per one of the world’s largest chemical manufacturers, intent on ending carbon dioxide and drafting the WEF’s farming blueprint for all humanity.

All of the WEF “partners” are similarly socially actuated “sustainability” champions. Several of Zurich International’s enlightened staff contributed to the WEF’s “Transforming Food Systems with Farmers” paper (drafted not with, but without, farmers). Zurich toots that “every USD 1 invested in climate resilient infrastructure can yield USD 4 to USD 10 in economic benefits” (this sure sounds like a profit motive). Zurich Insurance is all in to save the world:

[G]overnments must articulate clear and detailed national transition plans. These should set out policy priorities and target timeframes for decarbonization, alongside measures to enhance climate resilience and adaptation. – Consistent, comparable and credible climate-related data.

But to be effective, there needs to be an international approach to climate disclosure to ensure that climate risks are properly identified across the economy. Zurich believes that consistent, comparable, and credible climate-related data is essential to support climate transition. For such information to be of value there needs to be an internationally coordinated approach to climate disclosures and we support the work of the ISSB to achieve a global baseline for sustainability reporting standards.

This international insurer is now a food and farming expert too, focused on justice, the future of humanity, and managing insurance risks:

Today, the economy-wide transition is not progressing fast enough to meet the ambition of the Paris Agreement…. To change course, we need radical collaboration across and between the public and private sectors.

Public policy must provide the right frameworks and incentives, but there is also a need for new technology, new solutions and considerable investments. Supporting a successful transition offers the prospect of a stronger, more prosperous future that will ultimately benefit our customers, the companies we invest in, and our own business. There will be setbacks and challenges, but the price we pay for inaction is far higher than the price of protection.

As a result, a significant focus of our Plan is advocating for supportive policies, standards and regulations needed to enable the economy to reach net-zero. ….This will require deep, rapid and sustained emissions reductions.

The social justice menu is on display: Zurich Insurance intends to employ its risk management and insurance training to eliminate inequalities: “Climate change impacts vary significantly across gender, age and socioeconomic groups, disproportionately affecting women, children, the elderly and vulnerable populations.” (Are those the company’s shareholders?) Implicit in Zurich Insurance’s policy proposals is that it will choose whom to insure or not based upon compliance with its social justice pronouncements. Similarly, large financial institutions may one day only loan money to “compliant” businesses: climate activists have already begun pressuring lenders to “stop financing livestock production.”

Also hoggishly at the WEF’s farmer planning table is Bayer Corporation, a pharmaceutical and agri-chemical goliath that owns many GMO seed patents and sells glyphosate and other agri-chemicals. Bayer is also redefining what sustainability means for farms, farmers, and food – it means chemicals, chemicals, chemicals!:

The world is hungry – not only for food, fiber and fuel, but for innovative solutions that restore natural resources, like soil and water, and help address climate change.

The world’s farmers need to grow 50% more by 2050 to feed, clothe and fuel the growing world. At Bayer, we believe feeding the world and restoring the planet can – and should – go hand in hand.

Increasing crop production and reversing global warming were once considered incompatible, but we now have solutions to do both. It’s time to make them available to more farms around the world.

Much as the word-soup of these global corporations incorporates “climate” as part of its nomenclature, the word “diversity” is incorporated by Bayer to mean a diversity of innovations and farming methods:

We believe a world with Health for all, Hunger for none is possible. We are a global leader in health and agriculture and innovate to help farmers bring high quality, abundant and diverse food to the table for millions of people every day.

“A world of flavors. Diversity in every bite.”

Does Bayer’s “Vision for the Future of Agriculture” include also a diversity of pesticide residues in every bite? Calling itself a “global life science company,” Bayer advocates for GMO seeds, glyphosate, pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, and genome editing in vegetables as part of its “products and services … designed to help people and the planet thrive by supporting efforts to master the major challenges presented by a growing and aging global population.”

Bayer, too, has its eye on rescuing EU farmers:

European farmers face unprecedented challenges: rising costs, stringent regulations, and the unpredictable impacts of climate change.

It's not just about sustainability; it's about reimagining agriculture as a driver of both economic growth and environmental stewardship.

Bayer ForwardFarms across Europe – and around the world – are showcases of what the key innovations and building blocks look like that make up a regenerative agriculture system. Here, you can experience how digital farming tools, modern crop protection solutions such as biologicals and breeding technologies combine to optimize resource use, reduce environmental impact, and enhance agricultural productivity.

Europe has an extraordinary opportunity to become a global leader in sustainable agriculture. By embracing and scaling up regenerative practices and investing in innovation, we can create a model for the world, demonstrating that economic growth and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive.

The circular justification is evident here – EU farmers are facing rising costs and stringent regulations because of globalist plans built around climate change that promise chemicals and technologies to “cure” the problems inflicted. Bayer is a pharmaceutical company that produces a myriad of toxic chemicals including “XtendiMax™ with VaporGrip™ Technology,” described by the company as “Ideal dicamba option to help manage glyphosate-resistant broadleaf weeds. VaporGrip™ Technology provides a significant reduction in volatility potential compared to commercially available dicamba formulations.”

Bayer Corporation does not conceal the widespread industrial baloney that chemicals and GMOs are not only harmless but essential for sustainable agriculture:

GMOs are extensively researched and regulated to ensure that these crops are safe and effective tools for farmers to grow enough while also caring for the environment. In that regard, GMOs are an essential aspect of advancing sustainable agriculture. Explore the science and safety record behind one of humanity’s biggest breakthroughs.

GM crops play a crucial role in helping farmers around the world grow their crops more sustainably.

….we follow a rigorous process to ensure that the pesticides we bring to the market are safe for humans and animals and have no unacceptable risks for the environment when following label instructions. Discover what goes into developing solutions that support a sustainable food system.

Crop protection must be effective and safe in order to improve agriculture.

The claim that glyphosate and other chemicals are “safe and effective” is hardly agreed upon. Bayer has been subjected to hundreds of lawsuits by people who claim they suffer from non-Hodgkins lymphoma due to exposure to the company’s Round-up weedkiller; a Pennsylvania jury awarded a plaintiff $2.25 billion in 2024 (including a $2 billion punitive award), finding that the company negligently failed to warn consumers that Round-up is a “defective cancer-causing product.”

Bayer claims that its various pesticides and herbicides are “net-good” for the world, as well as essential for increased efficiency:

Often, people think that "organic agriculture" means "pesticide-free" or "chemical-free". However, organic farmers are allowed to use a variety of natural pesticides on their crops. So, what does organic agriculture mean? It means that pesticides applied in such organic systems must be derived from natural sources, e.g. biopesticides, copper or sulfur.

Organic or conventional? Both fine!

At Bayer, we are committed to and encourage diversity in agricultural practices and recognize the importance of combining diverse farming practices.

Conventional and organic foods are equally nutritious, as an exhaustive review from Stanford University confirmed. Multiple crops were tested over four decades and eating organic foods gave no health or nutritional benefits compared to conventional foods.

Research shows the benefits of eating a healthy diet outweigh any perceived risk of pesticide residues in food. Residues are found in both organic and conventional foods; however, these are insignificant compared to the naturally occurring toxins that are found in plants we eat.

Thanks to highly efficient and productive agriculture, less land per person are needed for agricultural production across the globe. This allows land to be used for more food production to feed an increasing population, or for other purposes, such as housing, road construction or forests.

Beneath glowing headings such as “Benefits of pesticides for the environment: growing more food on limited land,” “Benefits of pesticides to human health and human well-being,” “Pesticides’ Role in Productivity and The Link to Food Cost,” and “Protecting Crops in A Sustainable Way,” the company claims its chemicals are necessary: “To continue to be able to produce sufficient quantities of quality produce requires that crops are protected.” The reason? Overpopulation:

We are faced with the challenge of having to feed a growing world population while ensuring the sustainable use of our natural resources. Every year, the world population is expanding by 83 million people – equivalent to the current population of Germany. Since the 1960s, the world population has grown by 5.5 billion people, rising from 2 billion to 7.5 billion.

Consider this bizarre Bayer sales pitch, equating topical insect repellents to ingesting chemicals through food:

Every time you use an insect repellent to prevent mosquito bites or a product to keep your kitchen free of ants, you use a pesticide targeted at these small pests.

You probably don't associate this with the use of an insecticide in agriculture, but some of the active ingredients are the same. Pesticides repel or control some unpopular insects such as cockroaches and mosquitoes. We also count on restaurants, hospitals, playgrounds or shopping malls to be free of these unpopular insects or rodents. We’ve got used to it, yet probably don't associate it with the use of pesticides.

Drinking cockroach spray does not sound appetizing, but it may be less toxic than Bayer’s proffered chemical menu. A study using EPA testing by the non-profit Environmental Working Group determined in 2024 that blueberries were an offender:

• Pesticides were found on 90 percent of conventional blueberry samples, compared to 81 percent in 2014.

• 80 percent of samples had two or more pesticides, versus 70 percent in 2014.

• A single sample of blueberries could have up to 17 different pesticide residues, compared to 13 in 2014.

EWG also found that “61 percent of the pears tested had residues of five or more pesticides, compared to 48 percent in 2016 and just 3 percent in 2010; 64 different pesticides were found on recent pear samples, up from 49 in 2016 and nine in 2010”; “Four pesticides – one insecticide and three fungicides – were responsible for the bulk of the residues detected on spinach; Seventy-six percent of the samples contained residues of permethrin, a neurotoxic insecticide. Since 2000, Europe has not permitted any permethrin to be used on food crops.”

Strawberries repeatedly make the top of the EWG list:

• Almost all samples – 99 percent – had detectable residues of at least one pesticide.

• Some 30 percent had residues of 10 or more pesticides.

• The most contaminated sample had residues of 23 different pesticides and breakdown products.

• Strawberry samples contained residues of 82 different pesticides in various combinations.

Bayer Corporation portrays its various chemicals as not just harmless, but beneficial, sustainable, necessary, and efficient – they almost sound tasty with such lipstick-on-a-pig advocacy. (After all, people spray themselves with bug repellent, so….) More, Bayer promises to employ Artificial Intelligence to save the world and improve farming:

Bayer is transforming health and nutrition by harnessing cutting-edge artificial intelligence (AI) technologies to catalyze faster product development and improve the way we manufacture and deliver products to our customers. With our mission “Health for all, hunger for none” always in mind, we are guiding our use of AI through a principled, purpose-led approach.

Forgive me, but I never trusted Monsanto Corporation to be “principled,” given how profit-driven and ruthless its “purpose-led approach” has proven to be. Changing its name to Bayer has not changed this corporate leopard’s spots!