In news that should surprise no one, Monsanto's CEO, Hugh Grant, proved once again what a liar he is.

Grant sat down recently with Here and Now's Jeremy Hobson to address global concerns of Monsanto's best selling herbicide, Roundup. The herbicide has become increasingly controversial, as many countries across the globe are banning the weed killer because of it's carcinogenicity. Unfortunately for U.S. citizens, Monsanto has former executives in positions of power within regulating agencies, including the EPA. Because of this, American citizens are largely unaware that a requisite carcinogen is used to grow much of the food lining grocery store shelves.

Here are some of the questions and answers that were asked during the interview:

1. People think your Roundup pesticide could be linked with cancer and other health problems. How do you respond to that?

"Roundup is not a carcinogen. It's 40 years old, it's been studied; virtually every year of its life it's been under a review somewhere in the world by regulatory authorities. So Canada and Europe just finished. Europe finished their review last year and came back with glowing colors. The Canadians were the same and now we are going through a similar process in the U.S., so I've absolutely no concerns about the safety of the product."

2. Do you ever envision a pesticide-free Monsanto?

"A pesticide-free Monsanto, or a pesticide-free world, if you look at the last 20 years - and this is probably myth number two that's been exploded - pesticide use has been reduced, and as we have seen the increase in GMOs, the use of pesticides has decreased significantly. The reason for that is mainly an insecticide, the chemicals that kill bugs. Bug control is now done by the plant more than it's done by the sprays on the top. If I think about the next 30 or 40 years, I think through the use of data we'll be applying these chemistries much more accurately and we'll be applying them earlier, so applying them before diseases really take a hold in these crops or bugs are tearing these crops apart, so I think we'll be more prophylactic, we'll be more accurate and our selection of these chemistries will be a lot more discriminating. That's kind of my vision of the future as through the use of data and bringing biology and science together, we'll get much smarter about how we use these things, a bit like how the vision works for personalized medicine."

Comment: Unbelievable lies! The arrogance...just keep claiming that pesticide use has decreased significantly and continue silencing scientists conducting pesticide research. The reality is quite different! For the record according to a recent USDA Report over half of food tested in the U.S. contains pesticide residue and consider the following:
In 2012, research showed that GM crops have led to a 404-million pound increase in overall pesticide use from the time they were introduced in 1996 through 2011. This equates to an increase of about 7 percent per year.

The excessive use of agrichemicals by farmers has now, in turn, led to herbicide resistance, both in weeds and pests, leaving farmers to struggle with an increasingly difficult situation. More than two dozen weed species are now resistant to glyphosate, the primary ingredient in Monsanto's broad-spectrum herbicide Roundup.

But instead of getting to the bottom of the weed-resistance problem, which is the GM crops at its foundation, US regulators are adding fuel to the fire and getting ready to approve more GM crops that, ironically, call for even more use of herbicides...

3. What's the next step for Monsanto? What will you be building next?

"We were a chemical business that became a biotech and biology business that morphed into a seed business. I think the main transition as you look forward is the application of data. It takes about 40 decisions, from right around now until harvest in August or September, the grower takes about 40 decisions to produce a crop. Some of those decisions are highly technified, and others it's because of what his mom and dad did or what he hears in the coffee shop or what he read in a magazine. So we've been populating those 40 decisions with data and I think by improving the quality of decisions, you increase the yield. I think the transition for Monsanto is increasingly in the next 10 years becoming a solutions-driven company, and coalescing the biology, the more accurate application of chemistry and the much smarter use of data. You know, these big green John Deere combines are streaming data off the field, one yard at a time, and it's how you use that biological data and apply it back to the field to help growers with better insights, I think that's going to be the next piece."

4. On the West Coast cities planning on suing Monsanto over damages from products containing PCBs, which have since been banned:

"When we formed the new company, we retained the name, but it was really the former Monsanto, and it was back in the 1960s and '70s, so 40 or 50 years ago. We did produce PCBs at that time, PCBs are still in the environment. We would contest the claims on the health effects of these, but frankly I think the argument with much of this is how the products that contain those PCBs, how they were disposed of and a lot of them were manufactured by other companies and then disposed of inappropriately. We've been working with these cities for decades now in part of that cleanup, but we are not wholly responsible for that. There's other people in that chain that are responsible."

Comment: Monsanto's dirty dealings — chemical reform bill could grant the evil empire legal immunity for PCB pollution
Pay no mind to research that demonstrates PCBs are exceptionally toxic to humans, wildlife and the environment. Also turn a blind eye to the fact that Monsanto knew for decades the chemical was extremely poisonous. And ignore that the corporation not only continued to manufacture the chemical after recognizing its toxicity, but decided it was a good idea to dump tonnes of raw PCBs into a creek adjacent to the chemical plant, essentially poisoning an entire community over the course of 40 years. For the grand finale, lets add a provision into a chemical reform bill, which protects Monsanto from lawsuits concerning said PCB contamination.

As noted by The Environmental Working Group: "Slipped at the last minute into the House version, H.R. 2576, of a bill to update the broken Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 is a provision that could shield the company from liability for decades of pollution with a family of chemicals made only by Monsanto: polychlorinated biphenyls, better known as PCBs. While the insertion was so subtle many lawmakers probably did not even notice it, the implications of the Monsanto bailout clause are huge. The implications of the provision — added at the last minute — are significant enough that perhaps it should be called the "Monsanto bailout clause."

5. But you admit partial responsibility?

"We manufactured these products, but we're not responsible for how they were subsequently disposed of."

It is an absolute wonder how this guy sleeps at night...

To read the full interview and see Hugh Grant lying some more, visit Here and Now.