THE CONTEXTUAL BACKGROUND BEHIND BAYER AND MONSANTO’S CAMPAIGN AGAINST LIABILITY
The intersection of law and food and agriculture, and we ought to begin with the contextual background behind the Bayer and Monsanto campaign to shield all pesticides from legal liability. So, in 2018, Bayer (one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies) acquired Monsanto. This backfired, as due to the billions in Roundup judgments (likely to far exceed 16 billion), Bayer rapidly lost two-thirds of its value.
It was against this background that certain measures were taken. In particular, to save the company Bayer (which, like Monsanto, has a long history of unscrupulous conduct) is now conducting a variety of measures to end those lawsuits within the Courts, States, Congress, and EPA. Many of these involve creating liability shields which make it impossible to ever sue a pesticide manufacturer for being seriously injured by their product, even if the manufacturer deliberately concealed this known toxicity. And quite notable is that these actions eerily parallel the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, a “well-intended” act which rather than lead to safer vaccines, unleashed the modern era of chronic disease upon America.
Well, presently a bill is working its way through Congress containing a covert provision designed to shield Bayer (and many other manufacturers) from these lawsuits. And due to how utterly repugnant this position is (along with a related one to ensure toxic sludge can be dumped on farmland and render it permanently unusable), this bill can only pass if we are not unaware of it, and thus not primarily praying against it, but also engaging the relevant stakeholders and institutions. As such, I believe it is vital to have a discussion concerning what is going on and the diabolical intent behind it.
And for all of its challenges, the United States has one of the best governments that has ever been developed. This is because the system is rife with checks and balances, where one part of the country or government can constrain another part from acting out of line, and the public has a voice that can frequently be mobilised if things become too egregious and bring everything back to balance. However, this framework has led to instances where bad actors endeavour to take a multi-pronged approach where they attempt to co-opt every single thing that constrains their misdeeds. And while challenging, this can eventually be done with concerted effort. For example, during COVID-19, virtually every institution that should have prevented the unconstitutional lockdowns, the top-down suppression of unpatented COVID-19 treatments, and the COVID-19 vaccine mandates (let alone their approvals) failed as virtually every institution worked in concert to advance the COVID cartel—resulting in arguably the worst “public health” crime in history.
Yet, even with this example, due to the independent media, bold politicians and medical practitioners, and the egregiousness of the COVID policies, a check was eventually able to neutralise the COVID cartel. Furthermore, beyond the COVID vaccine program failing to accomplish its primary goal, the trust they have long used to market medical products has also been shattered, to the extent that COVID is now arguably costing the medical industrial complex far more than was made from the landemic—all of which illustrates that the American political system has a robust series of checks once things get too out of line – ALL OF THIS because the Church prayed: the architects of the COVID plandemic collided with a Higher Power, which is a the Church of Jesus Christ.
THE WAR ON THE JUDICIARY: HOW LAWS, FOOD, AND AGRICULTURE INTERSECT
This brings us to the intersection between laws, food and agriculture, and how this is tied to a war on the judiciary as well. So, since so many institutions in society have been co-opted by the pharmaceutical industry, it has both become vital to find alternative options (e.g., creating a robust independent media, such as the Loveworld Networks and LN24 International) AND ALSO to protect the viable options that remain.
One of those has ALWAYS been the courts, as frequently, if a bad actor steps too far out of line, a legal framework exists to constrain their actions – in other words, and to paraphrase the words of the highly esteemed Rev Dr Oyakhilome DSc. DSc. DD has often said, “Courts are the last line of defence in the formal legal recourse system”. And so, for this reason, a plan of the industries which profit from poisoning people has long been to take away the ability of the courts to check them by passing laws (or securing court rulings) that shield them from liability and hence terminate the lawsuits that can stop their egregious conduct!
For example, the whole-cell DPT vaccine was long recognised to be a particularly dangerous vaccine which frequently caused brain damage and death, yet for decades the medical community and government covered it up. As a grassroots awareness of the dangers of the vaccine spread across the country (aided by a 1982 NBC program) more and more lawsuits were filed against vaccine manufacturers, the majority of which were for DPT injuries.
Because of this, DPT manufacturers rapidly left the market (e.g., due to rising liability insurance costs) and by 1984, only one remained. Now, during that time, the discourse on vaccines was not as critical as it is today, and as such, the perception was that something needed to be done to protect the vaccine supply, therefore, a deal was brokered between advocates for vaccine injured children (along with their supporters within Congress) and the pharmaceutical industry. After some work, a framework was put together which was intended to help the vaccine-injured (as lawsuits for vaccine injuries were a grueling and not always successful process), create safer vaccines, also to transfer liability from the vaccine manufacturers to the US government so the manufacturers could remain in business. HOWEVER, since many provisions of the act designed to protect the vaccine injured were at the HSS Secretary’s discretion and the government ultimately paid for injury compensation. It created a massive incentive to deny that injuries could occur, and as a result, most of the acts’ intended provisions failed to manifest or were systematically undermined.
As such, there’s still very little reliable data on vaccine injury (e.g., VAERS was systematically undermined as the government did not want a publicly available injury database), the science linking vaccines to specific injuries that was supposed to be done never got done (especially during the Biden-Harris administration), and most importantly it’s nearly impossible for vaccine injuries allegedly “not supported by science” to be compensated in the vaccine court. In addition, a 2011 Supreme Court ruling further gutted the act, making it impossible for vaccine manufacturers to be directly sued, even in cases of grossly defective vaccines that the 1986 law had specifically intended to allow.
Well, here is Stanley Plotkin, who is nicknamed the “godfather of vaccines” explaining the rationale behind the National Vaccine Injury Act 1986.
Well, conversely, this act birthed a massive industry, as removing the primary check against the industry (being lawsuits for vaccine injuries) incentivised producing a glut of new vaccines to enter the market and removed any incentive to ensure their safety. As such, an apparatus gradually developed to ensure investors could expect a successful return on upcoming vaccines by ensuring they would always be approved and mandated upon our children, eventually culminating in the COVID catastrophe.
Fortunately, as the American system has a robust series of checks and balances, even though a primary one failed (again, being injury lawsuits), eventually the unrestrained proliferation of injurious vaccines went so far that a new check emerged—and that was public loss of trust in the vaccine apparatus, MAHA’s political ascendency and RFK becoming a HHS Secretary who amongst other things has begun to implement the key safety provisions of the 1986 Act every Secretary before him refused to do.
But, in light of the war on the judiciary, and the intersection between law, food and agriculture; what we’ve just discussed is to explain why many are quite concerned by the recent push to exempt pesticides from lawsuits – it is about removing the judiciary from the equation, EVEN when it comes to food and agriculture related cases! In other words, Bayer and Monsanto are trying to replicate the same diabolical conduct of the vaccine manufacturers! Here’s a recapitulation on this, looking at the articulation of the vaccine injury act of 1986 by RFK Jr, and the articulation of the pursuit for agrochemical protection from liability from the CHD.
A DEEP DIVE IN TO BAYER, MONSANTO AND GLYPHOSATE
Let’s proceed to a deep dive into the actors behind this pursuit of protection from liability – and so, let’s talk about Bayer, Monsanto and Glyphosate. So, Bayer rose to ascendency as one of the early pharmaceutical giants after developing one of the first blockbuster drugs, aspirin (which arguably contributed to the 1918 influenza catastrophe as doctors regularly gave toxic doses of it to influenza patients), along with selling heroin (as an allegedly “non-addictive substitute for morphine”) as a cold remedy, and then chemical weapons during World War I. Following this, in 1925, Bayer merged with five other German companies to form IG Farben, creating the world’s largest chemical and pharmaceutical company [where Bayer’s scientists developed the world’s first antibiotic]…Following World War II, the Allied Control Council seized IG Farben’s assets because of its role in the Nazi war effort and involvement in the Holocaust, including using slave labour from concentration camps and humans for dangerous medical testing, and production of Zyklon B, which was a chemical used in gas chambers. In 1951, IG Farben was split into its constituent companies, and Bayer was reincorporated as Farbenfabriken Bayer AG. After the war, Bayer re-hired several former Nazis to high-level positions, including convicted Nazi war criminals found guilty at the IG Farben Trial like Fritz ter Meer. So, as far as ethical corporate practices, Bayer has a fairly dark history, and showed a lack of ideological change with its re-hiring of convicted Nazi war criminals.
Well, unsurprisingly, they merged with Monsanto to present the world with a glyphosate based herbicide. During this time, of the agrochemicals, herbicides (to destroy weeds) are arguably the most toxic, so in many ways, when glyphosate was discovered, it was seemingly revolutionary as it was significantly less toxic than the competing options. And so, after being introduced in 1974, it initially occupied a small portion of the herbicide market, but once Monsanto introduced crops genetically modified to resist Roundup it rapidly took off.
This ended up being a profitable business model for Monsanto as beyond allowing Monsanto to corner the herbicide market, it also incentivised farmers to use far more Roundup (as their crops didn’t die) and allowed Monsanto to make even more money selling genetically modified Roundup Ready seeds (e.g., in 2009 about 10% of Monsanto’s revenue came from glyphosate whereas 50% came from Roundup Ready seeds)—particularly since overuse of glyphosate created resistant weeds requiring even more glyphosate to be eliminated. BUT, unfortunately, since Roundup became more toxic to humans at higher doses, concerns grew about the chemical.
In response to this and similar concerns, in 2018, RFK Jr (before MAHA and his appointment by Trump to be the Secretary of the US Department of HHS), he helped spearhead a successful lawsuit for chronic Roundup exposure that caused a groundskeeper to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma and was able to obtain proof through discovery that Monsanto had doctored decades of science to conceal this known risk so they could continue selling “safe and effective” Roundup. This resulted in a massive 289 million jury payout (later reduced to 21 million) and many more successful non-Hodgkin lymphoma lawsuits between 2019 and 2025. But, before we proceed, here is Charles Benbrook detailing how glyphosate enters the bloodstream much the same way it is designed to penetrate the outer layer of weeds.
Furthermore, as of May 2025, Monsanto had reached settlement agreements in nearly 100,000 Roundup lawsuits, paying approximately $11 billion, but still had roughly 61,000 active lawsuits pending. Because of this, Bayer was forced to take on that liability and their decision to acquire Monsanto. Its value rapidly dropped from 100 billion pre-acquisition to 33 billion (making it worth half of what it paid to buy Monsanto), and this acquisition is now being viewed as one of the worst merger decisions in corporate history.
Well, parallel to these efforts at accountability, a hidden battle is raging in Washington, D.C.—one that could lock in outdated, dangerously obsolete pesticide safety rulings for decades.
Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso
