Special to Mulch from EWG Communications Director Alex Formuzis.

I couldn't resist. When agribusiness's version of The Death Star accuses a competitor of being 'dishonest, disingenuous and downright deceitful', it's too rich to let it go.

On Monday, August 17, Monsanto Chairman, President and CEO Hugh Grant sent a letter to his counterpart and competitor, DuPont board Chairman, Charles O. Holliday, Jr. claiming that the chemical giant's actions "were misleading to the public and a serious breach of business ethics far beyond honest competitor behavior." You can find Mr. Grant's letter along with other documents here.

Mr. Grant went on to demand that DuPont's board investigate its own tactics in its efforts to chip away at Monsanto's near-stranglehold of the genetically altered seed business, which helped Monsanto net over $2 billion in 2008 alone.

Chuck Neubauer, a reporter for the Washington Times, reported that

An attorney for Monsanto said the tactics used against his company included forged letters to Congress, misinformation, attempts to improperly influence public officials and support for a special interest group which opposed Monsanto.

This is not the first time a Big Ag black ops scheme has been exposed.

In the May 2008 edition of Vanity Fair, journalists Donald Bartlett and James B. Steele reported:

As interviews and reams of court documents reveal, Monsanto relies on a shadowy army of private investigators and agents in the American heartland to strike fear into farm country. They fan out into fields and farm towns, where they secretly videotape and photograph farmers, store owners, and co-ops; infiltrate community meetings; and gather information from informants about farming activities. Farmers say that some Monsanto agents pretend to be surveyors. Others confront farmers on their land and try to pressure them to sign papers giving Monsanto access to their private records. Farmers call them the "seed police" and use words such as "Gestapo" and "Mafia" to describe their tactics.

Some other highlights of Monsanto's storied history:

'65-'72: Monsanto contractors illegally dumped tons of toxic chemicals in landfills throughout the United Kingdom. As a result, UK government researchers have found components of Agent Orange, dioxins and PCBs in groundwater testing.

'05: Monsanto paid $1.5M for bribing a top official in the Indonesian government in an effort to side step environmental and safety assessments for the company's genetically altered cotton.

The cottonseed subsidiary of Monsanto based in India employed children.

...around 17,000 children work for Monsanto and their Indian subsidiary Mahyco. These children get no education, earn less than 40 Eurocents (Rs. 20) a day and are exposed to poisonous pesticides like Endosulphan during their work.

According to a report by The Center for Food Safety, Monsanto has gone after at least 112 farmers with lawsuits accusing each of "seed patent violations". From the CFS report: "many innocent farmers settle with Monsanto because they cannot afford a time consuming lawsuits".

And, of course we can't leave out Anniston, Alabama, where local farmers were urged by Monsanto to use soil the company knew was contaminated with PCBs.

The video above is of the new John Deere 48 row planter called the DB 120 (T1000 was taken) in action.

The Des Moines Register wrote about the DB 120 as:

Just four of the "Green Monsters," which Deere makes in conjunction with Bauer Built Manufacturing of Paton, have been made available to farmers before Deere begins marketing in earnest for the 2010 planting season.

Mike Brelsford, who farms about 5,000 acres north of Perry, tried out the planter this spring and was impressed enough to buy one. Deere and Brelsford wouldn't talk cost, but published reports have put the price above $335,000.

"My old 36-row planter could do about 60 acres an hour, this one can do 85 acres an hour," Brelsford said one day after signing for the purchase at the Van Wall Group's Perry dealership.

The 48-row planter is symbolic of how Deere has followed the growth of agriculture. Since the 1950s, Deere's planters have expanded from the four- to six-row planters that were standard then to the 36-row planter in 2003 and now the 48-row planter that has a 240-foot span.

The folks at Corn and Soybean Digest are even more bullish:

Imagine you're planting down the middle of your local high school football field. With John Deere/Bauer Built's newest planter, the DB120, you'd only have 20 ft. from each outside row unit to the sidelines - thanks to its 120-ft.-wide toolbar.

"As growers get bigger, they're looking for more productivity from their equipment to plant more acres per day," says Rob Rippchen, Deere's division marketing manager for the new planter. "At 120 ft., the DB120 has 30% more productivity than our 36-row, DB90 planter and will match up wit­­­­h our 12-row corn heads."

Depending on field conditions, the DB120 should plant 90-100 acres/hour at the recommended 5-5½ mph, according to Rippchen.

So in the spirit of a machine that can plant 100 acres an hour, Mulch is sponsoring a naming contest for the DB 120 since "Green Monster" is already taken by Fenway Park. One intrepid EWGer has already offered the "Obliterator".

The winner of the naming contest will have their choice of either:

The last piece of unfarmed soil in Iowa.

Or the sole existing chunk of sod from an Iowa grass waterway, both prizes courtesy of EWG's office in Ames, IA.

So let us see some of your names in the comment section below.

WASHINGTON, July 13, 2009 - The American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), narrowly approved in the House, is an important first step toward slowing climate change. Unfortunately, the agriculture provisions of the bill open two loopholes that threaten to let power plants and other big climate polluters off the hook and slow progress toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

An analysis conducted by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) details that ACES will:

· Allow polluters to take credit for meeting their required pollution reductions by paying farmers, not to put new conservation practices in place, but simply to keep doing what they were already doing. This could allow the equivalent of over 67 of the dirtiest power plants to avoid any controls on greenhouse gas emissions while missing the opportunity to encourage farmers to do more to protect the climate.

· The bill also provides no guarantee that key conservation practices that are generating credits for polluters will actually stay in place over the long-term.

"The stated purpose of this landmark legislation is to reduce the carbon emissions that threaten the health and well being of our planet and its inhabitants. Letting polluters take credit for practices farmers already have in place not only lets the polluters off the hook it also squanders the opportunity for agriculture to play a critical role in fighting climate change," said Craig Cox, EWG's Midwest vice-president.

"Agriculture faces a host of threats from climate change, and should be on the front lines in this fight. Instead, the agricultural provisions in ACES lack the long-term mechanisms needed to ensure carbon emissions are properly sequestered," Cox said.

"We urge the Senate to close these polluter loopholes and enact agricultural provisions that will make farmers and ranchers credible and effective partners in the fight against climate change," Cox concluded.

Go here for the full analysis: http://www.ewg.org/opinion/cap-and-trade-legislation

# # #

Chuck Abbott from Reuters writing about President Obama's speech last night as it pertains to farm programs.

President Barack Obama, in his first speech to Congress, called on Tuesday for an end to "direct payments to large agribusinesses that don't need them," an apparent attack on subsidies costing $5.2 billion a year.

The proposal echoed a leading point from his presidential campaign, although the idea was not certain of success. President George W. Bush, for example, fruitlessly backed a $250,000 annual cap on payments per farmer.

While running for president, Obama said in campaign documents that farm subsidies should go to farmers who need them and "not millionaire farmers who rely on American taxpayers to protect their multimillion dollar profits."

In remarks prepared for Congress, Obama said the White House has identified $2 trillion in wasteful and ineffective spending, including unneeded direct payments to large farms.

"In this budget, we will ... end direct payments to large agribusinesses that don't need them," he said. He did not say how much money would be saved by the step or how it would be structured.

Two farm-group spokesmen said the president apparently meant a farm subsidy known as direct payments that was created in 2002 and is made regardless of crop prices or farm profits.

But they noted "direct payments" also is a term meaning all types of federal support made in cash.

EWG has released an analysis of "Direct Payments" that you can find here.