After searching in internet crevices of limited transparency
because one was determined to find out which corporation created Monitor
pesticide, an individual with research skills can learn that the cycle of cancer
in and cancer out profits for companies is continually deceiving and complex.
The real life company is parallel to the film The Constant Gardener, where the pharmaceutical companies and
chemical agriculture companies are the same company, one in the same poisoning
and curing.
Michael Pollan’s video has been dated by a mere two or three
years, but the multiple messages he presented are still relevant. But it can be
hard to keep up to date minute by minute. Product names are continuously
changing for dangerous chemicals and companies using the same chemicals by any
other name tend to limit transparency. Interesting
enough with a little research: the company that makes Monitor, the pesticide
used for McDonald's fries that is highly toxic that it takes nearly six-weeks
for potatoes to be aired out safe enough for workers to begin touching the
produce, is Bayer, the same company that makes drugs to help fight the very
diseases it creates.
According to Crop Protection Database, Bayer Crop Science
has a long list of challenging named products, such as Monitor. If one tried to
Google search just the word Monitor, unlike Bic Mac, thousands of unrelated
topics show up. The verb to monitor, the news monitor, the monitor lizard, one
gets the point…was this intentional, create a highly toxic pesticide, give it a
name as common as any usual word so that concerned consumers cannot search for
it?
Possible, or just coincidental; however, the chemical Methamidophos
is the key ingredient and it is in the chemical group known as Organophosphates.
Supposedly, the Crop Protection Database notes that the US Environmental Protection
Agency has cancelled methamidophos brand Monitor distribution to retailers and
growers as of December 31, 2013 and has since become illegal (CPD). But for how
long has McDonald’s used the chemical and what are they using to label methamidophos
in 2014? This similar question came up two years ago when McDonald’s claimed it
was no longer using Pink Slime in their hamburgers, which was ammonium
hydroxide, the same chemical home-owners used to paint their fences to keep
them shiny and bug free.
When the same company that creates the toxic chemical to
spray the food Americans consume is also the company that creates the drug to
cure the illness, this creates a profit at both ends of the life cycle. This is
a conflict of interest. If their profits are continually strong, why would they
want a legitimate cure for cancer, and why would they want to stop creating
toxic chemicals that pass into the foods Americans and foreigners eat?
McDonald’s fries are the same across the globe. Bayer sees no conflict here. Money
is their bottom line from Bayer’s Monitor, Aspirin, or their cancer drug like
Nexavar, or their diabetes drug Adempas; if they can give the unenlightened
consumer the disease then they can provide him with a slow progressive, yet a
prolong, cure
Ethics has nothing to do with it. The fastfood company
preaches, “I am loving it;” but only until one dies from it. The Institute of Food Safety and Toxicology
with the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, Søborg, Denmark did a
study with the World Health Organization about pesticide residues in food in
2002. When looking at Methamidophos’ impact on animals studied: rats, mice,
dogs, rabbits, and humans. In the smaller animals the results showed high
levels of toxicity, carcinogenicity, and with humans the study found inhibition of
cholinesterase activity. One has to wonder how often is there a correlation
between inhibition of cholinesterase activity and diabetes, cancer, or other
popular yet growing public health issues?
To top off the damage done and to rake in continual
customers the two king corporations Bayer and McDonalds have done charity work
together in low-income neighborhoods. Bayer Oncology has contributed to the Ronald
McDonald House before under Corporate Teams philanthropy challenge (2012). This provides the disguise that they care
about the poor, who tend to be the biggest consumers of their products.
Links:
