Monsanto

From SourceWatch
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Monsanto is a leading global provider of agricultural products and systems sold to farming concerns. Their leading products are the Roundup herbicide, DEKALB and Agrow seed products, and biotechnology traits. Products have also included Agent Orange (1), PCBs, DDT, Bovine Growth Hormone and Aspartame. The Monsanto company was created in 1901 by John Francis Queeny (photo). Named after his wife, Olga Mendez Monsanto, the name Monsanto has since, for many around the world, come to symbolize the greed, arrogance, scandal and hardball business practices of too many multinational corporations. For a short history see [1].

Corporate Rogue

In the Washington Post article (Jan 1, 2002) "Monsanto Hid Decades Of Pollution PCBs Drenched Ala. Town, But No One Was Ever Told" a grim story of Monsanto's treacherous behavior in Anniston Alabama was revealed. It is summed up in this chilling paragraph: "They also know that for nearly 40 years, while producing the now-banned industrial coolants known as PCBs at a local factory, Monsanto Co. routinely discharged toxic waste into a west Anniston creek and dumped millions of pounds of PCBs into oozing open-pit landfills. And thousands of pages of Monsanto documents -- many emblazoned with warnings such as "CONFIDENTIAL: Read and Destroy" -- show that for decades, the corporate giant concealed what it did and what it knew." [2] [3]. Over twenty thousand Anniston residents were part of the suit which resulted in a $700 million fine [4]. The Alabama jury found Monsanto's conduct "outrageous". Under Alabama law, the rare claim of outrage requires conduct "so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in civilized society."

Monsanto's response is to claim that since it spun off a smaller affliate, Solutia (in 1997), then merged with Pharmacia (in 2000) and then two years later sort of de-merged, it is not the same company that is responsible for Anniston [5]. Says the Farm Industry News, "Monsanto, which has long resided in the crosshairs of public scorn and scrutiny, appears to have dodged at least one bullet by spinning off its industrial chemical business into a separate entity called Solutia a couple of years ago. Solutia has since been hammered by lawsuits regarding PCB contamination from what were once called Monsanto chemical plants in Alabama and other states" [6]. "Solutia inherited Monsanto's liabilities as a result of 'one-sided negotiations' with Monsanto, according to a court document filed by Jeffrey Quinn, Solutia's general counsel and chief restructuring officer. Monsanto spun off its chemical business, naming it Solutia in 1997, when it decided to focus on its agricultural products. As part of the spinoff, Monsanto put all the liabilities both known and unknown that it had obtained for its nearly 100 years doing business into Solutia, which then became a publicly traded company" [7]. "Some cynically say the company got its name because it was the solution to many of old Monsanto's problems" [8], argues Solutia's Glenn Ruskin, "its spinoff from Monsanto Co. unjustly saddled it with hundreds of millions of dollars in environmental cleanup costs and other liabilities.... '(Monsanto) sort of cherry picked what they wanted and threw in all kinds of cats and dogs as part of a going-away present,' including $1 billion in debt and environmental and litigation costs accrued by Monsanto and Pharmacia over a century of manufacturing" [9]. In addition to PCBs the article mentions two Texas asbestos lawsuits inherited from Monsanto involving "about 570 asbestos actions involving 3,500 to 4,500 plaintiffs." "'Solutia has spent approximately $100 million each year to service legacy liabilities that it was required to accept at the time of the spin-off from Monsanto,' says Solutia chairman, president and CEO John Hunter" [10]. In 2003 Solutia filed for bankruptcy.

Monsanto's three shell game hasn't fooled everyone though, "despite this self-induced identity crisis surrounding the company name Monsanto, a quick look at the people involved reveals that essentially the same cast of characters has been with the (chemical) company since it was (old) Monsanto" [11]. Additionally "the new Monsanto states in its 2001 proxy statement that the new Monsanto (not Pharmacia) is responsible for the liabilities of Solutia, Inc.(Old Monsanto's subsidiary) in the event Solutia, Inc. cannot meet its obligations." Of course the settlement of the case included "no admissions of wrongdoing" [12].

Anniston wasn't the only place where toxics were dumped for years by Monsanto; Sauget, Illinois near the banks of the Mississippi river is another notable case (2) [13] [14]. In fact Greenpeace alleges that "Monsanto has been identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as being the 'potentially responsible party' for no fewer than 93 contaminated sites (Superfund Sites) in the U.S." [15].

The Roundup Ready Mess

(Note: In addition to the issues raised on this page, there are a host of other concerns with genetic modification. Furthermore, the issues and statistics in the fast-paced biotech world are ever in flux. The reader is encouraged to visit the other websites below for more and up-to-date info.)

Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" crops are genetically engineered to allow direct application of the Monsanto herbicide glyphosate allowing farmers to drench both their crops and crop land with the herbicide so as to be able to kill nearby weeds without killing the crops (3). "RR soybeans are heavily herbicide dependent" [16] [17] says Charles M. Benbrook, an expert in the field. This is because the "Roundup Ready System" is primarily a "no-till" system. Rather than the traditional tilling of the ground to control weeds the RR system relies on its herbicide to control them, "No-till cropping systems are the most demanding with regards to weed control. The crop is seeded directly into untilled soil with no follow-up cultivation. Weed control depends entirely on herbicides" [18]. The draw for farmers is the promised reduced cost and thus extra profit over traditional systems. Says this Monsanto blurb "no-till soybeans grown in narrow rows add $16 per acre more to a grower's bottom line than conventional soybeans.... On a 1,000 acre farm, no-till can save as much as 450 hours of time and 3,500 gallons of diesel fuel each year. That's 11, 40-hour weeks in time savings and $4,000 less for diesel at $1.15 per gallon" [19]. However the weed control advantage of the no-till vs. conventional system has been disputed [20].

Among the issues with GMOs, the manufacture of herbicide tolerant (HT) biotech crops, particularly Monsanto's RR crops, has resulted in the creation of hard-to-kill "superweeds" [21] [22]. Precisely because the RR System was specifically designed to allow a more liberal use of Monsanto's herbicide, Roundup, (primarily, some say, to increase profits for Monsanto), this overuse itself (similar to the escalating quandary of antibiotic overuse in humans) is prompting the evolution of resistance to and thus a loss of efficacy for the herbicide, something that Benbrook refers to in his 2004 report Genetically Engineered Crops and Pesticide Use in the United States: The First Nine Years as "the unraveling of HT technology". Suggestions to control resistance include increasing the applications which, of course, only exacerbates the problem [23]. As their quandary escalates farmers in the RR system are now having to rely on other, more toxic herbicides in an attempt to control the weeds, "highly toxic herbicides, some of them banned in other countries, which glyphosate was supposed to replace, have had to be brought back in use in addition to glyphosate. These include 2,4D, 2,4DB, Atrazine, Paraquat, Metsulphuron Methyl, Imazethapyr." [24].

Furthermore engineered crop volunteers and weeds are even evolving resistance to multiple herbicides (gene-stacking) requiring ever stronger chemicals to kill [25]. Moreover studies indicate that genes engineered to instill resistance to herbicides can migrate to non-GM crops - such as those that may be found on a neighboring farm, and even related wild plants - among the very weeds the herbicides were designed to kill (horizontal gene transfer, transgene escape) via pollen. [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]. See also [32]. This has alarmed many in the scientific community.

Says the article: Cross-Pollination Leads to Triple Herbicide Resistance [33]:

One of the risks frequently cited in association with transgenic crops is the escape of a foreign gene via sexual reproduction. The recipient plant in such cases may be a non-transgenic variety of the same crop or a sexually compatible relative. Depending on the gene and trait considered, adverse environmental or agricultural impacts may result from such transfers, ranging from issues of genetic purity of neighboring crops to the generation of "super weeds." While this issue is receiving increasing attention by researchers, a recent report by Hall et al. [4] describes a truly remarkable example of herbicide resistance transfer via pollen among Brassica napus varieties. What is unusual here is not so much that it happened at all, but that it occurred rapidly and multiple times, such that, through completely random crossing, certain plants were found to be resistant to three different herbicides.

Monsanto's reply to the HT transference issue, originally flat-out denial, is now to claim that the actual incidence of transference is very low and thus not a problem. That assertion though is quite deceptive as this Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage site demonstrates. Even with an very low initial outcrossing rate but also considering the number of hectares planted, in just two years time the amount of viable HT hybrid seeds and thus plants could number in the millions. They would, of course, continue to mushroom after that.

Regarding the need for more study of this Paul E. Arriola, Associate Professor of Biology at Elmhurst College in Elmhurst, Illinois said in a personal correspondence "Scientists expressing concern about negative consequences for wide scale GM release have recommended for years that GM producing companies make available probes that could be used for long-term monitoring, but the call has fallen on deaf ears in both industry and the federal government". Providing appropriate genetic probes would, he says "violate company policy" regarding Monsanto's "confidential business information" and thus "it is not likely to happen".

There is now an attempt to verify worldwide how bad the problem of herbicide resistance has become. WeedScience documents (so far) "291 Resistant Biotypes, 174 Species (104 dicots and 70 monocots) and over 270,000 fields" [34] [35] [36]. Most of the resistances here are due to herbicide overuse in general however because those weeds tolerant of Roundup are closely associated with our food supply and the because of the ubiquity of Roundup Ready crops they are a particular concern. According to this site the 2003 total for GM crops was 167.2 million acres and says Monsanto "The potential for expansion for Roundup Ready crops also is significant.... For example, Roundup Ready corn currently is used on 3 million acres, but the global potential is more than 200 million acres." [37] According to Carl Casale, Vice President of Monsanto, the land area in the United States used for cultivation of RR crops in 2002 "increased from 3 million U.S. acres in 1996 to more than 97 million U.S. acres" [38]. "The explosion in the adoption of glyphosate-resistant crops outpaces any other adoption of technology in modern history (including the tractor, fertilizer and hybrid corn)" [39].

While glyphosate has been marketed for nearly 30 years, its use in placing significant selection pressure on major weeds has only been since the introduction of RR soybeans in 1996. In six short years, since the introduction of RR crops, the use of glyphosate has grown 2.5 times, and in the Midwest, its use has increased even more. Some 33 million pounds of glyphosate were sprayed on soybean crops alone in 2001, a five-fold increase from 1995, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Yet no matter how well glyphosate controls weeds today, take note: resistance is happening. Almost all weed scientists agree the increasing evolution of resistant biotypes is inevitable with the current use pattern of glyphosate. Their warning: increased adoption of a rotation relying solely on RR crops will contribute to the rate at which resistance evolves. [40]

Indeed as predicted a recent report shows that, contrary to industry claims of reduced herbicide use, herbicides usage has actually increased in the United States on GM HT crops by 138 million pounds to date. Under the heading PESTICIDE REDUCTION CLAIMS ARE UNFOUNDED the report states "The increase in herbicide use on HT crop acres should come as no surprise. Weed scientists have warned for about a decade that heavy reliance on HT crops would trigger changes in weed communities and resistance, in turn forcing farmers to apply additional herbicides and/or increase herbicide rates of application. The ecological adaptations predicated by scientists have been occurring in the case of Roundup Ready crops for three or four years and appear to be accelerating". It concludes, "the average acre planted to glyphosate-tolerant crops is requiring more and more help from other herbicides, a trend with serious environmental and economic implications" [41]. This is not to mention the fact that most people who aware of the issue are not comfortable with herbicides/pesticides on their food in the first place, let alone in increasing amounts. And this upward spiral in resistance/usage can be expected to continue. A related issue is the growing resistance of insects to GM Bt crops [42] [43] [44].

If all this weren't enough, exposure to glyphosate (the active ingredient in Roundup) increases the risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. [45]. See also [46].

Terminator Technology

Monsanto also came under heavy public fire with their "Terminator Technology", a.k.a. "suicide seeds", in which they developed and planned to market seeds that, after one season's growth would not germinate again forcing farmers around the world to buy their seed from them every year rather than saving their best seed for the next years planting, a traditional and economical practice [47]. Seed saving has had the benefit of allowing farmers to continually improve the quality of their crops through careful artificial selection. Fears were also expressed that Monsanto's terminator genes could spread to wild plants. In 1999 Monsanto called the program off, however there are disturbing indications that they may be planning to resurrect it. [48] [49]

On June 29, 2004 The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture went into effect giving farmers in those countries which have ratified it the right to save seeds [50].

The War On Organics

Monsanto also partially funds the extreme anti-organic Center for Global Food Issues, a project of the right-wing Hudson Institute. It is run by Dennis Avery [51] [52] and his son Alex Avery. In 1998 Dennis wrote an article that began "'According to recent data compiled by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC), people who eat organic and natural foods are eight times as likely as the rest of the population to be attacked by a deadly new strain of E. coli bacteria (0157:H7)'. However, according to Robert Tauxe, M.D., chief of the food borne and diarrheal diseases branch of the CDC, there is no such data on organic food production in existence at their centers and he says Avery's claims are 'absolutely not true.'" [53]. Following in his father's steps Alex distorted a study from the Journal of Food Protection that showed that organic food does not contain more pathogens than conventionally grown, contrary to Avery's claims. He instead declared that the study showed the opposite, "According to Francisco Diez-Gonzalez, the report's chief author and faculty member at the University of Minnesota, 'I had a very heated discussion with Alex Avery of the Hudson Institute. They were very dissatisfied with our findings and told me that our interpretations were not "correct"'.... Dr. Diez-Gonzalez is not surprised to learn that the Hudson Institute, with its long record and the backing of agribusiness giants like Monsanto and DuPont, is now trying to use the independently funded, University of Minnesota data to discredit organic farming. Commenting on the Diez-Gonzalez study, Alex Avery called eating organic food 'a crap shoot' and warned that potential cases of diarrhea, typhoid fever and Reiter's Syndrome await its consumers. 'This statement is total a fabrication and a gross distortion of the Diez-Gonzalez study,' charged Kastel. 'Alex Avery will say anything in his petty little war against organic food and farming'" [54]. For more see Trashing organic foods.

Yet another area of alarm is the discovery that agri-business giants like Monsanto are quietly aquiring organic and health food businesses through "unfriendly takeovers" [55] [56].

As an aside, Master Chefs around the world have repeatedly stated their opposition to GM food - examples [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62]. Said Chef Charlie Trotter, "I have concerns that this untested technology diminishes the purity and taste of food" [63]. An ironic and embarrassing episode occurred in 1999 when Monsanto's own chefs banned the use of GM food from the company cafetaria at its main offices in Buckinghamshire in the UK [64], "It must be the final insult. Having led the way in promoting genetically modified (GM) food, the food technology giant Monsanto has suffered the indignity of having GM products banned in its own staff canteen by the caterers, who say the move is 'in response to concern raised by our customers'" [65]. The referenced articles states that the chefs decided that "In response to concern raised by our customers over the use of GMFs [genetically-modified foods], and to comply with government legislation, we have taken the decision to remove, as far as is practicable, GM soya and maize from all food products served in our restaurant.... We have taken the above steps to ensure that you, the customer, can feel confident in the food we serve". The caterers however later 'clarified' the issue by claiming that no one at Monsanto asked for its removal, now citing only labling laws that came into force at the time [66].

Genetic Pollution a deliberate strategy?

Organic farms are increasingly finding that via cross-pollination their pure food has been contaminated with GM DNA thus ruining their businesses [67] [68]. "In 2002, Ontario farmer Alex Nurnberg had tests conducted on his 100-ton harvest of organic corn. Twenty tons were found to be contaminated by GMOs, which Nurnberg believes were blown by the wind from the corn on a neighboring farm. 'I was not ready for it. I feel such a wrath about it,' says Nurnberg" [69].

Many are now expressing suspicions that the contamination is intentional "once genetic contamination reaches a ‘significant’ level, the world will be left with no other choice but to accept the sad reality. Genetically engineered crops will then be pushed with impunity. The great genetic scandal is only beginning to unfold." [70] [71]. Says the Scottish parliament's Mark Ruskell, "As far as the US and the biotechnology companies are concerned the GM debate doesn't exist -- you will eat it and you will grow it" [72] [73]. Comments from the Biotechnology Industry Association's Lisa Dry add fuel to suggestion, "Rather than pursue the unrealistic goal of trying to keep seeds completely free of genetic contaminants, she and other industry representatives said, the United States should work harder to get European and other nations -- many of which have balked at engineered crops and foods -- to be more accepting of the technology. 'It's important for countries around the world to adopt a uniform standard' of acceptable levels of contamination" [74]. "The formula seems to be this" says this Grain article, "focus on the major cash crops (cotton, soybeans, maize, etc), find an entry point, contaminate the seed supply and then step in to take control" See also [75]. "The total acreage devoted to GM crops around the world is expanding. That may be what eventually brings the debate to an end. It's a hell of a thing to say that the way we win is don't give the consumer a choice, but that might be it" says Dale Adolphe, biotech booster and President of the Canadian Seed Growers Association and previous president of the Canola Council of Canada (Western Producer, 4/4/02). Adds Jeremy Rifkin, longtime critic of biotechnology in the New York Times, June 10, 2001, "They're hoping there's enough contamination so that it's a fait accompli" [76].

Removing any remaining doubt about the intention of biotech is this comment from Don Westfall, biotech industry consultant and vice-president of Promar International, in the Toronto Star, January 9 2001: "The hope of the industry is that over time the market is so flooded [with GMOs] that there's nothing you can do about it. You just sort of surrender".

In move to absolve itself from blame Monsanto here says that it is the responsibility of organic farmers to figure out a way to keep contamination from Monsanto's GM ingredients out of their crops. This despite the fact that it is the upstart biotech genes that are the trespassers here. One envisions a gloomy future wherein natural organic crops must now and evermore be sequestered from all environmental contact. Still, says Arran Stephens, president of Nature's Path Foods, an organic producer of breads and cereals based in Delta, British Columbia, "There's no wall high enough to keep that stuff contained".

Brazil, which until recently was proud of its GM-free stance and despite the fact that its citizens are overwhelmingly opposed to GM food has thrown in the towel due to extensive illegal cultivation and contamination in the south of the country - not to mention the usual bullying from Monsanto [77] [78] [79]. An unfortunate consequence of contamination is that farmers trying to grow soy that is free from GM are being forced to move further and further north, even into the Amazonian rain forest to escape it. Rather than accept any culpability for the contamination driven deforestation though, Monsanto here attempts to pin the blame on those who are trying to keep their crops GM free even though the illegal seed was Monsanto's [80] [81] [82] See also [83] under "More Rio Grande do Sul Genetically Modified Crops".

Fears have also been raised that genes from "pharm" crops engineered for other purposes such as medicinal or industrial could find their way into food crops [84] and indeed mix-ups have already occurred. In response to the infamous ProdiGene incidents, "The Grocery Manufacturers of America, whose members include major foodmakers such as General Mills Inc., Kellogg Co. and Del Monte, said it was "deeply concerned by ProdiGene's reported conduct" "We strongly urge the biotech industry to direct its substantial research capabilities into investigating the use of nonfood crops for the development of pharmaceuticals" [85]. For more see the excellent report Gone to Seed.

"There's No End"

Food crops are not the only area Monsanto and others have hoped to cash in on with their technology, also with frightening consequences, a range of genetically engineered "designer" trees and forests are also high on their list. From trees modified to withstand Monsanto's Roundup to trees designed with a reduced lignin content (it's lignin that gives trees their strength and rigidity) to appeal to the paper making industry to "terminator trees" which don't produce seeds. This has met with fierce resistance from activists and scientists alike, but again, to no avail [86] [87] [88] [89]. Already there has been a contamination issue with the GE papaya tree, the world's first commercially planted genetically engineered tree, which enraged local farmers in Hawaii [90].

Grasses are also being modified genetically for the lawn seed industry with the aid of Monsanto. After an earlier plan for the product was withdrawn over concerns by the Center for Technology Assessment and the USDA that it could become an "environmental nightmare" [91], Monsanto withdrew its proposal. However they've apparently changed their minds and have decided to try to market it anyway. Scotts is currently the leading GM-intending lawn seed company. Besides grasses that can withstand applications of Roundup, they say that they hope to engineer a variety of lawn features including grasses of varying colors and even grasses that glow in the dark. "'There's no end to what you might do,' says Peter Day, director of the biotechnology center at Rutgers University, which is working with Scotts and Monsanto to develop the grasses. 'You might put a luminescent gene in so that your grass might glow. Or, if your foot stepped on it, it would glow.'" Nevertheless due to concerns by scientists about cross pollination with non-GM and wild grass the plan is temporarily on hold [92] [93].

And indeed there have now been cases of escape from Scotts test plots. Modified genes from creeping bentgrass, a common golf course grass, were found in non-GM bentgrass up to at least 13 miles away - as that was the the farthest distance measured in the study. Additionally "natural growths of wild grass of a different species were pollinated by the gene-modified grass nearly nine miles away.... The Forest Service said earlier this year that the grass 'has the potential to adversely impact all 175 national forests and grasslands'.... 'The gene really is essentially going to get out,' he added. 'What this study shows is it's going to get out a lot faster and a lot further than people anticipated'.... The bentgrass, moreover, besides having very light pollen - a cloud can be seen rising from grass farms - has very light seeds that disperse readily in the wind. It can also reproduce asexually using stems that creep along the ground and establish new roots, giving rise to its name" [94]. Another release was caused by "a wind storm that swept across Scotts' fields and scattered grass seeds outside the test plot" according to Scotts spokesman Jim King. "Norm Ellstrand, a genetics professor at the University of California, Riverside, said EPA's report raises questions about whether Scotts followed rules to contain grass pollen. 'It seems to me that there is a serious compliance violation', he said" [95].

With experimentation now so widespread it is becoming sadly apparent that the genetic genie now released may well be impossible to get back into the bottle.

The Indian Suicides

Farmers in India are finding that the "biotechnology revolution" is having a devastating effect on their crop lands and personal debt levels. "In 1998, the World Bank's structural adjustment policies forced India to open up its seed sector to global corporations like Cargill, Monsanto, and Syngenta. The global corporations changed the input economy overnight. Farm saved seeds were replaced by corporate seeds which needed fertilizers and pesticides and could not be saved" Says Vandana Shiva, leader of the movement to oust Monsanto from India. "As seed saving is prevented by patents as well as by the engineering of seeds with non-renewable traits, seed has to be bought for every planting season by poor peasants. A free resource available on farms became a commodity which farmers were forced to buy every year. This increases poverty and leads to indebtedness. As debts increase and become unpayable, farmers are compelled to sell kidneys or even commit suicide. More than 25,000 peasants in India have taken their lives since 1997 when the practice of seed saving was transformed under globalisation pressures and multinational seed corporations started to take control of the seed supply. Seed saving gives farmers life. Seed monopolies rob farmers of life" [96].

Says the Deccan Herald, "Bt cotton requiring more water than hybrid cotton, was knowingly promoted so as to allow the seed industry to make profits. What happens to the farmers as a result was nobody's concern. And never was.... Strange, the country has already jumped into the second phase of green revolution without first drawing a balance sheet of the first phase of the technology era. Such an approach will only worsen the crisis, and force more farmers to commit suicide or abandon their farms. As a result, India is sure to witness the worst environmental displacement the world has known and this will be in the field of agriculture." [97] For more see Selling Suicide by Christian Aid. As in other parts of the world, GM farm fields and Monsanto property have been under attack in retaliation [98]. See also How GM Crops Destroy the Third World.

Mexican Maize Mischief

Monsanto has employed the services of a firm called Bivings Group which used a phony e-mail campaign to persuade Nature to retract the Chapela and Quist paper finding that GM maize had escaped into Mexico [99] [100] see also Monsanto's World Wide Web of Deceit. Chapela and Quist have since been vindicated as it turns out that GM maize has indeed invaded Mexico. Says Science 3/1/2002 "Surprisingly, even Quist and Chapela's most strident critics agree with one of their central points: Illicit transgenic maize may well be growing in Mexico.... At a 23 January meeting in Mexico City, CINVESTAV official Elleli Huerta presented preliminary PCR findings indicating that transgenic promoters, mostly CaMV 35S, were present in about 12% of the plants. In some areas, up to 35.8% of the grain contained foreign sequences, INE scientific adviser Sol Ortiz Garcia told Science last week." "This is the world's worst case of contamination by genetically modified material because it happened in the place of origin of a major crop. It is confirmed. There is no doubt about it." Jorge Soberón, Secretary of Mexico's National Biodiversity Commission told the London Daily Telegraph, April 19, 2002 [101]. See also [102]. Also see CARMA International for more on Monsanto's PR tactics.

Unfortunately for Chapela, despite overwhelming support from Berkeley staff and students alike, Chancellor Robert Berdahl decided to deny him tenure. Supporters petitioned the new Chancellor to reverse the decision. However "the Budget Committee knows the chancellor wants to get his hands on that corporate loot [Berkeley receives tens of millions of dollars from biotech] Chapela is exactly the kind of person we need around here. He has wisdom, and above all he has courage and integrity" said Joe Nielands, emeritus professor of biochemistry [103].

Global Bully

Monsanto has sued many a farmer when their GM crops have turned up on the farmer's fields even though the farmers say they never planted them (examples)[104] [105] [106].

Farmers who get into the RR system lose their independence, and are obliged to sign a lengthy and restrictive agreement (which many have come to see as the selling of their souls) [107]. What's more Monsanto contracts out to private investigation firms like Pinkerton, to regularly check up on their farmers, taking samples unannounced from their fields to make sure they are not in violation [108] [109]. It also maintains a hotline so farmers can turn in their neighbors for suspected violations. The June 1, 2004 issue of Playboy tells how one longtime Indiana farmer, Troy Roush, once big on biotech was wrongly accused of saving seed. The legal fight cost him $390,000 in lawyers' fees. Since then he has begun to see the way the system is devastating traditional farming. "Genetically modified crops are destroying the social fabric of our rural communities" he says, "Roush probably couldn't go back to conventional crops even if he could find good conventional seed; once Monsanto's DNA is in your field it's almost impossible to get it out. And with the corporate DNA police abroad in the land, farmers can't afford to take a chance. So it looks as though there's no turning back from a future in which Monsanto and a handful of other companies own the genetic building blocks of the world's food supply. 'I'd put the genie back in the bottle in a heartbeat,' says Roush" [110].

In the well known Percy Schmeiser case the Canadian Supreme Court in Monsanto v Schmeiser rejected Schmeiser's claim that the presence of RR crops had happened accidentally, however Schmeiser says that since he never used Roundup in his fields there would have been no reason for him to have RR crops. Schmeiser was not required to pay Monsanto any damages due to the fact that he had not profited from the "infringement".

Nevertheless what is disturbing to many is the fact that, though technically the court attempted to limit Monsanto's patent protection to its engineered gene, in effect the court allowed Monsanto to claim patent ownership of a plant, a form of life [111], and that is because the engineered gene cannot be separated from the plant - except in a lab. "Mr. Schmeiser saved the seed and reused it 'for production and advantage,' the majority noted. 'Whether or not patent protection for the gene and the cell extends to activities involving the plant is not relevant to the patent's validity'" "The team of dissenting judges in the latest decision, led by Justice Louise Arbour, said the ruling contradicts the Harvard mouse judgment. The majority is effectively allowing Monsanto 'to do indirectly what Canadian patent law has not allowed them to do directly: namely, to acquire patent protection over whole plants,' wrote Arbour" [112] #108 [113].

The judgment along with previous ones upon which it was built has been interpreted by many to mean that if any RR crop is found on agricultural land wherein it was not specifically purchased even if it found its way there through entirely natural means such as wind or insect pollination, the farmer is liable to Monsanto for "theft" of its property. That at least seems to be the goal of Monsanto. Says this 2000 ENS article regarding the Canadian federal court judgment, "Monsanto did not directly try to explain how the Roundup Ready seed got there. 'Whether Mr. Schmeiser knew of the matter or not matters not at all,' said Roger Hughes, a Monsanto attorney quoted by the Western Producer, a Canadian agriculture magazine.... 'It was a very frightening thing, because they said it doesn't matter how it gets into a farmer's field; it's their property," Schmeiser said, in an interview with Agweek. "If it gets in by wind or cross-pollination, that doesn't matter'" [114] See also [115].

"Monsanto's Jordan said the company isn't concerned that Schmeiser won't have to pay. "The important aspect of this particular case was intellectual property, not any sort of monetary gain," she said. "The ruling affirms the way that we do business" [116]. For a different assessment of the decision see here.

Labeling Issues, Revolving Doors and rBGH

An issue of growing concern is the Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods [117]. Many have questioned why it is that while consumers in Europe have the right to know through labeling which foods contain GM ingredients and thus to make an informed choice consumers in the United States, purportedly the bastion of freedom, democracy and the "free market" in the world are denied this same right. Polls indicate that the great majority of Americans who are aware of the issue want labels [118]. Attempts to accomplish some kind of labeling have repeatedly been rebuffed due to tremendous opposition from biotech, which fear loss of sales if people know [119] [120]. In 2002 Oregon tried and failed to pass just such a labeling initiative (Measure 27). The campaign cited big money and misinformation propagated by biotech as contributing to the defeat [121].

In a bit of good news for GM opponents Vermont's Governor James Douglas on April 26, 2004 signed into law H. 352, the Farmer Right to Know Seed Labeling Bill requiring biotech to label and register their GM seeds in the state [122].

Monsanto also demanded that Maine dairy Oakhurst "stop advertising that it doesn't use milk from hormone-treated cows" [123]. For three years a label on the dairy's milk containers stated "Our Farmers' Pledge: No Artificial Growth Hormones", however Monsanto sued and eventually the dairy gave in and agreed to an additional label stating that "no significant difference has been shown between milk derived from (hormone)-treated and non-(hormone)-treated cows."

But What was going on behind the scenes? "The FDA's pro-rBGH activities make more sense in light of conflicts of interest between the FDA and the Monsanto corporation. Michael R. Taylor, the FDA's deputy commissioner for policy, wrote the FDA's rBGH labelling guidelines. The guidelines, announced in February 1994, virtually prohibited dairy corporations from making any real distinction between products produced with and without rBGH. To keep rBGH-milk from being "stigmatized" in the marketplace, the FDA announced that labels on non-rBGH products must state that there is no difference between rBGH and the naturally occurring hormone. In March 1994, Taylor was publicly exposed as a former lawyer for the Monsanto corporation for seven years. While working for Monsanto, Taylor had prepared a memo for the company as to whether or not it would be constitutional for states to erect labelling laws concerning rBGH dairy products. In other words. Taylor helped Monsanto figure out whether or not the corporation could sue states or companies that wanted to tell the public that their products were free of Monsanto's drug" [124]. RACHEL'S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS adds a few details, "It is no accident that the FDA and Monsanto are speaking with one voice on this issue. The FDA official responsible for the agency's labeling policy, Michael R. Taylor, is a former partner of King & Spaulding, the Washington, D.C. law firm that has brought the lawsuits on behalf of Monsanto.... In 1984 he joined King & Spaulding and remained there until 1991; during that time the law firm represented Monsanto while the company was seeking FDA approval of rBGH.... Taylor signed the FEDERAL REGISTER notice warning grocery stores not to label milk as free of rBGH, thus giving Monsanto a powerful boost in its fight to prevent consumers from knowing whether rBGH produced their milk" [125].

"Taylor did not simply fill a vacant position at the agency", says Jeffrey M. Smith in his book Seeds of Deception, "In 1991 the FDA created a new position for him: Deputy Commissioner for Policy. He instantly became the FDA official with the greatest influence on GM food regulation, overseeing the development of government policy. According to public interest attorney Steven Druker, who has studied the FDA’s internal files, 'During Mr. Taylor’s tenure as Deputy Commissioner, references to the unintended negative effects of bioengineering were progressively deleted from drafts of the policy statement (over the protests of agency scientists), and a final statement was issued claiming (a) that [GM] foods are no riskier than others and (b) that the agency has no information to the contrary" [126] [127]. After his stint at the FDA Taylor went back to work as Monsanto's vice-president for public policy [128].

Another example of the Government-industry revolving door is Margaret Miller, "In order for the FDA to determine if Monsanto's growth hormones were safe or not, Monsanto was required to submit a scientific report on that topic. Margaret Miller, one of Monsanto's researchers put the report together. Shortly before the report submission, Miller left Monsanto and was hired by the FDA [as deputy director of the Office of New Animal Drugs]. Her first job for the FDA was to determine whether or not to approve the report she wrote for Monsanto. In short, Monsanto approved its own report. Assisting Miller was another former Monsanto researcher, Susan Sechen" [129]. Here you can read Robert Cohen's testimony before FDA on the subject of rBGH including the disclosure that, while at the FDA and in response to increasing sickness in cows on the stuff, Miller increased the amount of antibiotics that farmers can legally give cows by 100 times. See also [130]. "Remarkably the GAO determined in a 1994 investigation that these officials' former association with the Monsanto corporation did not pose a conflict of interest. But for those concerned about the health and environmental hazards of genetic engineering, the revolving door between the biotechnology industry and federal regulating agencies is a serious cause for concern" [131].

Miller's name again came up when it was revealed in 1999 that a direct underling at the FDA, Nick Weber, during European Commission deliberations on the safety of the product, secetly passed on their confidential documents concerning it to Monsanto. "Advance knowledge of objections to the hormone seems likely to have helped Monsanto to prepare arguments in advance of the EU meeting" [132]. Consumers' International accused Weber of "professional misconduct and 'breach of trust' in passing copies of sensitive papers to Monsanto". The UK Food Ethics Council called Monsanto's behavior "totally wrong" and a "spokesman for the Consumer Policy Institute of New York decried 'the disturbingly close relationship between FDA and Monsanto'" [133].

As for the product itself, recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (a.k.a. rBST) - an engineered hormone, is sold under the name Posilac. Injected every two weeks it increases a cows milk output 10 to 25 percent or about a gallon plus a day. Studies have indicated that there is a link between rBGH and various cancers [134] [135]. Concern has also been raised about the strain of this extra production on the cows themselves (photos) [136] [137] [138]. The list of serious ailments to cows is long and sad [139] [140]. On each package of Posilac Monsanto itself warns of "increases in cystic ovaries and disorders of the uterus", "decreases in gestation length and birthweight of calves", "increased risk of clinical mastitis (visibly abnormal milk) [note: mastitis is very painful]. The number of cows effected with clinical mastitis and the number of cases per cow may increase. In addition, the risk of sub-clinical mastitis (milk not visibly abnormal) is increased", "increases in somatic cell counts", "increased frequency of use of medication in cows for mastitis and other health problems", "periods of increased body temperature unrelated to illness", "increase in digestive disorders such as indigestion and diarrhea", "increased numbers of enlarged hocks and lesions (i.e. lacerations)" It should be noted that Monsanto uses the word "may" before several of these disorders. Disputed is the charge of draining of the animal's bones of calcium to the point of lameness, though others believe there is adequate evidence of that. Canada has banned the product because it "presents a sufficient and unacceptable threat to the safety of dairy cows". Posilac has also been banned in Europe, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand.

Intrigue surrounds Canada's decision as the scientists involved alleged that Monsanto attempted to bribe and pressure them into approving Posilac. Says the Ottawa Citizen 10/23/98 "Veterinary scientists from Health Canada's Human Safety Division testified yesterday that they are being pressured to approve a controversial hormone intended to boost milk production in dairy cattle. 'We have been pressured and coerced to pass drugs of questionable safety, including rBST', Dr. Shiv Chopra told the Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. The senators sat dumbfounded as Dr. Margaret Haydon told of being in a meeting when officials from Monsanto Inc., the drug's manufacturer, made an offer of between $1 million and $2 million to the scientists from Health Canada -- an offer that she told the senators could only have been interpreted as a bribe", additionally, "Dr. Haydon also recounted how notes and files critical of scientific data provided by Monsanto were stolen from a locked filing cabinet in her office." [141] [142]. Another incident here. See also [143]

The WTVT Scandal

Yet another infamous Monsanto scandal involved Fox news reporters Jane Akre and Steve Wilson who were fired from the Florida station they worked at, WTVT - owned by Rupert Murdoch, for refusing to weaken their story regarding rBGH. The BGH Scandals--The Incredible Story of Jane Akre & Steve Wilson recounts how Akre and Wilson rewrote the story 83 times in an attempt to mollify a threatening Monsanto, the new Fox station manager Dave Boylan and Fox attorneys yet remain truthful at the same time. They won a "landmark whistleblower lawsuit" against the station and were awarded $425,000 in damages. However, Fox appealed and prevailed February 14, 2003 when the jury decision was reversed on a legal technicality: the appeals court agreed with Fox that it is technically not against any law, rule or regulation to deliberately distort the news on television. [144]

Monsanto's High Level Connections to the Bush Administration

While Monsanto has found its way into previous administrations, the current Bush administration is rife with Monsanto influence.

"The connections between Monsanto and the new Bush administration are also very solid. G.W.’s pop, Bush Sr. appointed Clarence Thomas, a Monsanto attorney, to the Supreme Court. Thomas played a key role in the selection of G.W. as president. John Ashcroft, the current attorney general, was the top recipient of Monsanto contributions when he recently tried to get reelected to the U.S. Senate. Donald Rumsfeld, the current secretary of defense, was president of Searle Pharmaceuticals, now owned by Monsanto. Tommy Thompson, now the secretary of Health and Human Services, helped the biotech industry by getting the state of Wisconsin to set up a $37 million biotech zone there. He received $50,000 from the biotech industry for his reelection campaign. The current secretary of Agriculture, Ann Veneman, was on the board of directors of Calgene Pharmaceuticals, an affiliate of Monsanto. Recently, Linda J. Fisher, a former Monsanto official, was nominated by Bush to be second-in-command at the EPA. She was Monsanto’s representative in Washington from 1995 to 2000 and coordinated the company’s strategy to blunt resistance to genetically modified food" [145] See also GM lobby takes root in Bush's cabinet.

These close ties are paying off now in Iraq as the Bush White House has decided that Iraqi farmers can now buy only biotech GM seeds and must stop saving seed, a countrywide practice going back to the dawn of civilization [146] [147]. "In 2002, FAO estimated that 97 percent of Iraqi farmers used saved seed from their own stocks from last year's harvest or purchased from local markets. When the new law - on plant variety protection (PVP) - is put into effect, seed saving will be illegal and the market will only offer proprietary "PVP-protected" planting material "invented" by transnational agribusiness corporations." In effect given the opportunity and friends in high places Monsanto is now forcing farmers to buy their engineered grain at the point of a gun.

...

Monsanto is a supporter of anti-environmental groups such as Consumer Alert [148]. "Another group that represents itself as crusading for scientific truth is the Washington-based Consumer Alert, founded in 1977. Although it describes its work as nonpartisan, Consumer Alert takes a pro-business, anti-environmental position on almost every issue. It denounces global warming as a myth, attacks the Clean Air and Endangered Species Acts, and denies the dangers of second-hand smoke. Most of its policy papers and editorials were written by Michael Fumento, a columnist who now serves as a senior fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute. Consumer Alert endorses the Cato Institute's "Principles for Environmental Policy." This proclamation, signed by a who's who of "wise use" proponents, think-tank conservatives and "new consumerists" (including Whelan) calls for regulations to be wholly subordinate to private sector priorities. No environmental law could survive its seven principles" [149].

Monsanto recently made news when it decided to withdraw its GM wheat from the market due to worldwide opposition. [150] Environmental risks of GM wheat.

California's Mendocino County as of March 2, 2004 became the first county in the nation to ban the growing of genetically altered crops and animals [151] via ballot Measure H despite a massive campaign against it from the usual suspects.

...

(1) Monsanto was accused of fraud in assessing the risks of dioxin, a by-product of Agent Orange manufacture. Regarding this William Sanjour, Policy Analyst at the EPA wrote "This kind of cold-blooded analysis is bad enough when the product is used by the general public, but it is insufferable when used on our own armed forces who were exposed in combat.... The issue wasn't false science, but allegedly using false science to cover-up a callous hard-hearted decision to continue poisoning our GIs and their children because it was cheaper to do so." [152]

(2) Scott McMurray, "Denying Paternity: Monsanto Case Shows How Hard It Is to Tie Pollution to a Source; PCBs Taint Site Where Firm Used to Produce Them, But it Doesn't See a Link," Wall Street Journal June 17, 1992, pg. A1.

(3) Glyphosate products such as "Rodeo" and "Accord" along with a lengthy list of other herbicides, are also applied liberally by local governments to aquatic environments such as streams, rivers, ponds, lakes and reservoirs often simply because certain wild plants therein are deemed 'aesthetically undesirable'. A shortened list.

(4) Hall L, Topinka K, Huffman J, Davis L, and Good A. 2000. Pollen flow between herbicide-resistant Brassica napus is the cause of multiple-resistant B. napus volunteers. Weed Science 48: 688-694

"Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the F.D.A.'s job" - Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications. "Playing God in the Garden" New York Times Magazine, October 25, 1998.

"What you are seeing is not just a consolidation of seed companies, it’s really a consolidation of the entire food chain" - Robert Fraley, co-president of Monsanto's agricultural sector 1996, in the Farm Journal. Quoted in: Flint J. (1998) Agricultural industry giants moving towards genetic monopolism. Telepolis, Heise.

"I recognized my two selves: a crusading idealist and a cold, granitic believer in the law of the jungle" Edgar Monsanto Queeny, Monsanto chairman, 1943-63, "The Spirit of Enterprise", 1934.

"Genetically engineered food constitutes a massive experiment on the planet, with potentially devastating effects on human health and the global environment" Adam Kapp, Columnist for the Penn State Digital Collegian, Nov. 7, 2002.

Case Studies

Monsanto's Website

External Links

Other Websites

Monsanto Specific

News and Articles

Books and Videos

Take Action

(dis)Investment Information

Just Say No to Monsanto

Retrieved from "https://dev.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsanto&oldid=56028"