The World According to Monsanto: Pollution, Corruption, and

Re: The World According to Monsanto: Pollution, Corruption,

Postby admin » Sun Feb 07, 2016 6:52 am

Conclusion: A Colossus with Feet of Clay

The people of this company are poison: like the god of death, they take away life.

—A member of the Community Media Trust in Pastapur, Andhra Pradesh


The scene took place at the headquarters of TIAA-CREF (Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association, College Retirement Equities Fund) in an upscale neighborhood of Manhattan in July 2006. Established ninety years earlier, this prestigious pension fund is one of the most important financial institutions in the United States, holding $437 billion in assets. Ranked eightieth on Fortune’s list of the five hundred largest companies in the country, TIAA-CREF has a special characteristic figuring prominently on all its official documents: the company provides “financial services for the greater good.” The only people eligible to join the pension fund are those who serve the “greater good,” including “professors, nurses, deans, hospital and university administrators, doctors,” and the like, amounting to 3.2 million members. Since 1990, TIAA-CREF has had a department specializing in “responsible investment,” which 430,000 clients have joined. The reason I had asked to meet representatives of the venerable company was that I had discovered it was one of the twenty largest shareholders in Monsanto, 1.5 percent of whose shares it held at the time. [i]

Reputation Is a Risk Factor for Companies

I met that day with John Wilcox, head of the company’s corporate governance practice, and Amy O’Brien, director of the Socially Responsible Investing group. “Considering the special nature of your clientele, are there companies in which you refuse to invest?” I asked, under a little stress because the public relations director was also there, sitting behind me and taking notes.

“Of course,” O’Brien said. “For instance, our investors don’t want us to invest their money in tobacco companies, because of the burdens they impose on society. And, generally speaking, they are sensitive to the conduct of companies in social and environmental matters.”

“That means you take into account a company’s reputation?”

“Absolutely,” Wilcox answered without hesitation. “Reputation is increasingly considered a risk factor. Until recently, non-financial criteria for a company’s performance, such as its reputation or its environmental practices, were of no interest to Wall Street analysts, probably because they are hard to quantify and they involve the long term. But this is very clearly changing. There are increasing numbers of citizens who demand that the companies they invest their savings in share their values.”

“I have read that TIAA-CREF holds 1.5 percent of Monsanto’s shares.”

“It’s possible,” Wilcox said. “I really don’t know.”

“That company’s reputation is very controversial. How do you explain that investment?”

“I don’t think we offered it in our portfolio of shares for responsible investing,” O’Brien said hesitantly, visibly embarrassed. “I’m not sure, but in any case the company is especially controversial in Europe because of genetically modified organisms, but not in the United States.”

“But Agent Orange, PCBs, bovine growth hormone, aren’t they American stories? Did you inform your clients about the litigation Monsanto has had to deal with in the last several years?”

“No,” Wilcox answered. “I’m going to examine Monsanto’s risk factors and ask for advice from the people managing our stock portfolios.”

A Risky Company for Investors

Still in Manhattan, not far from the offices of TIAA-CREF, I went to see Marc Brammer, who works for Innovest Strategic Value Advisors, the leader in what is known as “extrafinancial analysis,” which consists of evaluating the social and environmental performances of companies on a scale ranging from AAA for the best to CCC for dunces. The grades are used to advise investors so that they may reduce their financial risks and increase the yield of their investments. With offices in New York, London, Tokyo, and Paris, Innovest has taken on the task of developing a clientele with portfolios focused on sustainable development. In January 2005, Brammer published a report titled “Monsanto and Genetic Engineering: Risks for Investors,” in which he presented a summary of the company’s activities and noted its “management and strategy” in the area of biotechnology.1 The result was a grade of CCC. “It’s the worst environmental grade,” he told me. “We have observed that in almost every industrial sector the companies with above-average environmental grades generally do better in the stock market than those with below-average grades, by a range of three hundred to three thousand points annually. This means that Monsanto is a risky business for shareholders in the medium and long term.”

“Who are Monsanto’s shareholders?”

“They are very dispersed, but the principal investors are pension funds and banks, which represent tens of thousands of small shareholders.”

“How do you explain the fact that a fund like TIAA-CREF has invested in Monsanto?”

“It’s surprising, because it’s an institution that really encourages responsible investing. On the other hand, it’s rather typical of the way pension funds operate: they make short-term calculations and are very sensitive to market rumors. In the case of Monsanto, it’s clear that it is overvalued because of unconditional support on Wall Street.”

“What are the principal risk factors for investors?”

“The primary one is market rejection, which is a real time bomb for Monsanto. GMOs are some of the most strongly rejected products that have ever existed. More than thirty-five countries have adopted or proposed legislation limiting the imports of GMOs or requiring the labeling of food containing biotech ingredients. Most European food distributors have established measures to guarantee that no biotech ingredients are used in their products. This is true for Nestlé, Unilever, Heinz, ASDA [British subsidiary of Wal- Mart], Carrefour, Tesco, and many others. Outside of Europe, there is also strong consumer opposition to GMOs in Asia and Africa.

“Even in the United States, Monsanto was forced, for example, to withdraw its Bt potatoes from the market after companies such as McDonald’s, Burger King, McCain, and Pringles refused to buy them. I’m sure that if the FDA decided to label GMOs, Monsanto would lose 25 percent of its market overnight. In fact, twenty surveys conducted between 1997 and 2004 clearly indicate that more than 80 percent of Americans want biotech products to be labeled.* So much so that one of the consequences of the lack of labeling of GMOs is the absolutely exponential development of the market for organic products in the United States.”

Monsanto has fully understood the danger labeling represents for its biotech business. When a citizen initiative in 2002 succeeded in getting a referendum on the ballot in Oregon on the labeling of GMOs, Monsanto quickly organized a campaign under the name of the Coalition Against the Costly Labeling Law, with its “allies from biotechnology and the food industry,” which cost the tidy sum of $6 million. “The general feeling,” argued Monsanto spokesman Shannon Troughton, “is that the measure, if passed, would create a new set of bureaucratic rules and regulations and provide meaningless information at a considerable cost to consumers.”2 The initiative, the first of its kind in the United States, was finally rejected by 73 percent of the voters, on the grounds that the labeling would be too costly.

“The other risk factor that threatens Monsanto’s performance are the flaws in the regulatory system, perfectly illustrated by the StarLink disaster,” Brammer went on. “We have calculated that if it were faced with a similar case, the company would lose $3.83 a share. The fundamental problem with GMOs is that only Monsanto benefits from them; risks are for the others, and regulatory agencies have abdicated their role of assessment and supervision. The opacity of the regulatory process feeds rejection by consumers in the United States because they don’t have the right to choose what they eat, but also in Europe, as the example of MON 863 corn shows.”

The Flaws of the Regulatory System: The Example of MON 863 Corn

While the French government announced in January 2008 that it was implementing the “safeguard clause” for MON 810 corn, suspending the cultivation of this Monsanto Bt variety until the European Union has reconsidered its authorization, I would like to recall the history of MON 863, a close cousin of MON 810. MON 863 contains a toxin (Cry3Bb1) intended to protect it against the corn root worm, while MON 810 has been engineered (Cry1Ab) to resist infestation by the corn borer. [iii] The MON 863 affair is a perfect illustration of the worrisome way, to put it mildly, in which GMOs are regulated in Europe.

In August 2002, Monsanto filed a request for marketing approval of MON 863 with the German authorities, submitting a technical file including a toxicological study conducted on rats for twenty-nine days. In conformity with European regulations, the authorities examined the data supplied by Monsanto and transmitted a negative opinion to the Brussels Commission, on the grounds that the GMO contained a marker for resistance to an antibiotic, which infringed directive 2001/18 strongly advising against its use. The commission was then required to distribute the file to the member states to solicit their opinions, which would be examined by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the European scientific committee charged with evaluating the food safety of GMOs.

In France, the Commission du Génie Biomoléculaire (CGB) received the file in June 2003. Five months later, on October 28, 2003, the CGB issued an unfavorable opinion, not because of the presence of the antibiotic resistance marker, but because, as Hervé Kempf explained in Le Monde, it was “very troubled by the deformities observed in a sample of rats fed with 863 corn.”3 “What struck me in this case was the number of anomalies,” explained Gérard Pascal, director of research at INRA and member of the CGB since its creation in 1986. “There are too many areas here where one observes significant variations. I’ve never seen that in another case. It has to be reconsidered.”4

The “variations” included a “significant increase in white blood cells and lymphocytes in males in the sample fed with MON 863; a reduction in reticulocytes (immature red blood cells) in females; and a higher frequency of anomalies (inflammation, regeneration) of kidneys in males,” as well as a reduction in weight in the test animals.5 As Kempf points out, “no one would have known anything about it” if the lawyer Corinne Lepage, former environment minister in the government of Alain Juppé and president of CRIIGEN, [iv] “had not forced entry into the CGB” to obtain, after a legal battle lasting a year, the transcripts of discussions leading to the CGB’s negative opinion, which was “unusual for a commission that had always tended to support the authorization of GMOs.” The deliberations of the scientific committees of member states of the European Union, like those of EFSA, are indeed confidential, which gives one an idea of the transparency of the process for the evaluation of GMOs.

There was a new development in the affair on April 19, 2004, when EFSA issued an opinion in favor of marketing MON 863. According to the authority, the anomalies observed by the CGB “are part of the normal variation of control populations”; as for the kidney deformities, they were “of minimal importance.”6

How could two scientific committees express such different opinions on the same case? The answer to this question was provided by the European branch of Friends of the Earth, which in 2004 published a very detailed (and very troubling) report on the operations of EFSA.7 Established in 2002 under the authority of European directive 178/2002 on the safety of food products, this institution includes eight scientific committees, one of which is charged exclusively with the evaluation of GMOs. It is precisely this committee, known as the GMO panel, that the report considers.

Friends of the Earth begins by observing: “In just over a year [the GMO panel] has published twelve scientific opinions, virtually all favourable to the biotechnology industry. These opinions have been used by the European Commission, which is under increasing pressure from the biotechnology industry and the United States, to force new GM products onto the market. . . . They are being used to create a false impression of scientific agreement when the real situation is one of intense and continuing debate and uncertainty. Concerns about the political use of their opinions have been expressed by members of the EFSA themselves.”

According to the report, this situation is due to the close ties between “certain members” of the GMO panel and the giants of biotechnology, led by the panel’s chairman, Harry Kuiper. Kuiper is the coordinator of Entransfood, a project funded by the European Union to “facilitate market introduction of GMOs in Europe, and therefore bring the European industry in[to] a competitive position.” In that capacity, he is a participant in a working group that includes Monsanto and Syngenta. Similarly, Mike Gasson works for Danisco, a partner of Monsanto; Pere Puigdomenech was co-chair of the Seventh International Plant Molecular Biotechnology Congress, sponsored by Monsanto, Bayer, and DuPont; Hans-Yorg Buhk and Detlef Bartsch are “well-known for their pro-GM views and have even appeared in promotional videos produced by the biotechnology industry.” One of the few outside experts consulted by the panel is Dr. Richard Phipps, who had signed a petition in favor of biotechnology circulated by AgBio World8 and turned up on Monsanto’s Web site to support bovine growth hormone.9

Friends of the Earth then considered several cases, including MON 863. It appears that the reservations expressed by the German government about the presence of an antibiotic resistance marker were dismissed out of hand by the GMO panel, which relied on an opinion it had issued in a press release on April 19, 2004: “The Panel has confirmed that ARMs [antibiotic resistance markers] are in the majority of cases still required in order to ensure the efficient selection of transgenic events in plants,” Kuiper stated. Friends of the Earth commented: “The Directive does not ask for confirmation of whether ARMs are an efficient tool for the biotech industry; the assessment required is whether they could have adverse effects on the environment and human health.”

The end of the story was equally exemplary. After EFSA’s favorable opinion was issued, Greenpeace asked the German Agriculture Ministry to have the technical file supplied by Monsanto (1,139 pages) made public, so that it could be independently analyzed. The ministry replied that this was impossible; Monsanto refused to make the data public because they were covered by the “trade secret” privilege. After a legal battle that lasted several months, Monsanto was finally compelled to make the data public by a decision of the court of appeals in Munich on June 9, 2005.

“It’s really unbelievable, when it’s a question of verifying the safety of a pesticidal plant designed to enter into the food chain, that Monsanto could first claim ‘trade secret,’ then file two lawsuits to deny access to the raw data in its study,” according to Gilles-Éric Séralini, who had followed the case very closely. At the request of Greenpeace, and simultaneously with Arpad Pusztai, the University of Caen scientist first did an assessment of the toxicological file that had been dragged out of Monsanto, which confirmed the anomalies observed by the French CGB.10 Then, under the auspices of CRII-GEN, he conducted an independent analysis of the raw data, in which he applied a more refined statistical method, considering in particular organs, dosage, and exposure time to GMOs. This analysis revealed that the effects of 863 corn on rats were much more significant than those observed initially, “which indicates the need to conduct further tests.”11

“Indeed,” Séralini commented, “the story of MON 863 corn shows the inadequacy of the process for the approval of GMOs, which ought to be assessed in the same way as any pesticide or medicine is, by testing them on three mammalian species over two years, which would permit an assessment of their long-term toxicity, not only of their possible acute toxic effects.” In the meantime, faced with these disturbing revelations, the European Commission discreetly swept MON 863 corn under the rug by banning its cultivation but not its importation and therefore not its consumption.

What If GMOs Were Tomorrow’s Agent Orange?

“Contrary to what Monsanto claims, it is not an agricultural company, but a chemical company,” argues Marc Brammer. “The proof is that the only GMOs it has succeeded in getting on the market are plants resistant to its star herbicide, Roundup, which still accounts for 30 percent of its revenue, or insecticidal plants. [v] Those plants are of no interest to consumers who are still waiting for the miracle GMOs that the company has constantly promised them, such as the golden rice that it announced with great public fanfare.”

To be precise, Monsanto did not invent golden rice, which was cobbled together, with the best intentions in the world, by two European researchers, Ingo Potrykus from Zurich and Peter Beyer from Freiburg. This GM rice was supposed to produce beta-carotene, the precursor to vitamin A, deficiency of which leads to the death of a million children annually in the Third World and causes blindness in 300,000 others. Published in Science in 2000, the laboratory results seemed so promising that golden rice made headlines in many newspapers as the embodiment of the great promise of biotechnology.12 Funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, the two researchers decided to launch their creation on the market, but they were confronted by an inextricable problem of patents: to make their golden rice, they had used genes and procedures covered by no fewer than seventy patents belonging to thirty-two companies or research centers. That meant that unless they sold the precious grains at astronomical prices, the business was doomed to failure. At that point a philanthropic association by the name of Monsanto intervened. At an agricultural conference in India in 2000, the company announced that it would “give away certain patent rights to speed [the] use of a genetically modified rice that could save millions of malnourished children.”13 The development of the rice, said Hendrik Verfaillie, who would soon succeed Robert Shapiro, “clearly demonstrates that biotechnology can help not only countries in the West, but in the developing world as well.”14

However, as soon as golden rice was grown in real conditions, it produced such a pathetic amount of beta-carotene that it did absolutely no good. “We never found out why,” said Brammer, “but this story is a good illustration of the unknowns surrounding the process of genetic engineering. They represent a medium- and long-term risk for Monsanto; we have no guarantee that GMOs will not be tomorrow’s Agent Orange.”

I will not enumerate all the surprises held in store over the years by products derived from genetic tinkering, such as, for example, the discovery by a Belgian scientist of an “unknown DNA fragment” in Monsanto Roundup Ready soybeans.15 I merely advise the reader to consult a European Commission Web site listing the scientific studies it sponsors on the safety of GMOs. One example is a research study with the title “The Mechanisms and Control of Genetic Recombination in Plants.”16 In their presentation of the project, the authors note: “A major problem with present day technology is the non-predictability of the integration of . . . transgenes,” which “may induce unpredictable and undesirable mutations in the host genome.” The researchers proposed to ascertain the facts of the situation, proof that GMOs have entered the food chain before this important question was resolved.

Another example is “Effects and Mechanisms of Bt Transgenes on Biodiversity of Non-Target Insects: Pollinators, Herbivores, and Their Natural Enemies.”17 I think the monarch butterfly would have appreciated it if this study had been conducted before Bt corn was put on the market. A final example is “Safety Evaluation of Horizontal Gene Transfer from Genetically Modified Organisms to the Microflora of the Food Chain and Human Gut.”18 The findings of this British study have since been published, and the least that can be said is that they are not reassuring. The researchers gave seven volunteers each a hamburger and a milk shake containing RR soy, then analyzed the bacteria in their intestines. In three cases out of seven, they “detected very low levels of the gene for resistance to the herbicide.”19 It would certainly be useful, in the name of the principle of precaution, if the experiment were repeated over a period of two years with a daily intake of Monsanto soy products (a normal diet in the United States).

Genetic Contamination Is a Major Risk Factor

When one dissects Monsanto’s activity reports (contained in 10-K forms) since 1997, one is struck by the place taken up by litigation. First there are suits filed by victims of the company’s chemical activities, such as the residents of Anniston or the Vietnam War veterans.

“If the veterans’ second class action were successful, it could lead to bankruptcy for Monsanto,” Marc Brammer told me when I met him in the summer of 2006. “Not forgetting PCBs, bovine growth hormone, and Roundup, which may lead to more suits. In addition to the risks incurred by its past and present chemical activities, there are those associated with genetic contamination, which is an inexhaustible source of potential litigation. So far the StarLink disaster has cost Aventis $1 billion. But contamination is continuing, and so it is impossible to estimate the final cost to the company.” The reader may recall the uproar provoked in 2006 by the discovery of traces of unauthorized GMOs in American rice.20 Produced by Bayer Crop- Science, one of Monsanto’s competitors, the GM rice had never been approved for consumption or planting; the contamination, which came from field tests conducted on a Louisiana farm between 1998 and 2001, affected thirty countries, led to a collapse in American rice exports, and resulted in “losses of up to $253 million from food-product recalls in Europe.”21

“We are involved in various intellectual property, biotechnology, tort, contract, antitrust, employee benefit, environmental, and other litigation, claims, and legal proceedings and government investigations.”22 This is according to Monsanto’s 2005 10-K form, under the heading “Litigation and Other Contingencies.” Under the heading of “Legal Proceedings,” the firm enumerates, in a catalogue worthy of Prévert or perhaps Kafka, all the lawsuits in which it is a party, either as plaintiff or defendant.23 Some proceedings pit it against its competitors, the Swiss Syngenta, the German Bayer, or the American Dow Chemical Company, over “who is the first to have discovered one or another gene or active principle.” Similarly, the University of California filed a complaint against Monsanto for violation of a patent covering bovine growth hormone. One also finds that Syngenta has filed an antitrust claim asserting that Monsanto holds a monopoly on glyphosate-tolerant corn seeds. Reuters has wondered: “Monsanto Co.’s domination of the biotech crop market is indisputable, but is it illegal?”24

Says Marc Brammer: “The danger hanging over Monsanto is the same that once threatened Microsoft. It’s not impossible that the company will one day be found guilty of violating American antitrust and antiracketeering laws. If that were to happen, it would be very costly.” In 1999, a class action had been brought by farmers in federal court in St. Louis, claiming that the company had conspired with Pioneer Hi-Bred to fix the prices of seeds at a very high level. But the claim was dismissed in 2003 by Judge Rodney Sippel, the same judge who was so severe against farmers accused of violating Monsanto patents.25

One year later, the New York Times published a very detailed investigation in which, after interviewing dozens of executives of seed companies, the paper confirmed the suspicions of conspiracy hanging over the world leader in GMOs. Among other things, Monsanto had asked Mycogen, a California seed company, “not to compete with Monsanto and its partners on the price of biotech seeds in exchange for access to some of Monsanto’s patented technologies, according to former executives” of the company (since acquired by Dow Chemical).26 These allegations were later repeated in fourteen class action suits filed in fourteen different U.S. courts, as the company acknowledged in its 2005 10-K form.

“We are attacking the monopoly on seeds that Monsanto has acquired by what we consider to be illegal means,” Adam Levitt, one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, who works for a well-known Chicago firm, told me in October 2006, “namely, the abuse of patent rights, such as the prohibition on farmers keeping their seeds or the requirement to buy only Roundup and not a generic glyphosate; also the obligation imposed on licensed dealers to sell a high percentage of Monsanto products. We also accuse the company of having stifled competition with unfair trade practices and having conspired to fix seed prices at an exorbitant level. All of that seems to us to amount to a violation of U.S. laws.”

“Do you think you’ll win?”

The question made Levitt smile, and he reminded me that he was paid on contingency. He concluded with obvious pleasure: “The fact that Monsanto has hired the largest law firms in the country for its defense makes us think that the company takes the matter seriously.”

I will add that for us too, the citizens of the Earth, the matter is serious. After tracking the company for four years, I think I am in a position to state that we can no longer say we didn’t know, and that it would be irresponsible to allow the food of humanity to fall into Monsanto’s hands. For if there is one thing I’m certain I do not want, for myself and even less for my three daughters and my future grandchildren, it is the world according to Monsanto.

_______________

Notes:

i. According to the SEC, in June 2006 Monsanto’s principal shareholders were: Fidelity Investment (9.1 percent), Axa (6.1 percent), Deutsche Bank (3.6 percent), Primecap Management (3.6 percent), State Street Corp (3 percent), Barclays (3 percent), Morgan Stanley (2.9 percent), Goldman Sachs Group (2.7 percent), Vanguard Group Inc. (2.5 percent), Lord Abbett & Co (2.4 percent), American Century Investment Management Inc. (2.4 percent), and General Electric (2.3 percent).

ii. The surveys referred to in the Innovest report were done by ABC News (in which 93 percent of those surveyed wanted GMOs labeled as such), Rutgers University (90 percent), Harris Poll (86 percent), USA Today (79 percent), MSNBC (81 percent), Gallup Poll (68 percent), Grocery Manufacturers of America (92 percent), Time magazine (81 percent), Novartis (93 percent), and Oxygen/Market-Pulse (85 percent).

iii. According to Greenpeace, the corn root worm, a very harmful insect, was introduced into Europe during the Balkan War; it is said to have come in American air force planes.

iv. CRII-GEN is the Committee for Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering, of which Professor Gilles- Éric Séralini is a member.

v. *According to its 10-K form, Monsanto had revenues of $7.3 billion in 2006, $2.2 billion of which were from Roundup.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 27841
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: The World According to Monsanto: Pollution, Corruption,

Postby admin » Sun Feb 07, 2016 7:21 am

Part 1 of 2

Notes:

Introduction: The Monsanto Question


1. The program was broadcast on November 15, 2005.

2. Available on DVD in the Alerte Verte collection (http://www.alerte-verte.com), this film was awarded the grand prize at the Festival International du Reportage d’Actualité et du Documentaire de Société (FIGRA–Le Touquet), the Buffon Prize at the International Scientific Film Festival of Paris, and the best reportage prize, the grand prize, and the Ushuaïa TV prize at the International Ecological Film Festival in Bourges.

3. Trans. note: The U.S. Patent Office finally rejected the patent in April 2008.

4. This report was broadcast on Arte on October 18, 2005. It is available on DVD in the Alerte Verte collection.

5. In the words of the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA), a pro-GMO organization that provides these figures (www .isaaa.org).

6. Monsanto, Pledge Report, 2005 (http://www.monsanto.com/who_we_are/our_pledge/ recent_reports.asp), 12.

7. Ibid., 3.

8. Ibid., 30.

9. Ibid., 9.

10. Ibid., inside front cover.

1. PCBs: White-Collar Crime

1. See Dennis Love, My City Was Gone: One American Town’s Toxic Secret, Its Angry Band of Locals, and a $700 Million Day in Court (New York: William Morrow, 2006).

2. “Technical Report Evaluation of Monsanto’s Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB). Process for PCB Losses at the Anniston Plant,” United States Environmental Protection Agency, March 2005, http://www.epa.gov/Region4/waste/sf/annistonsf/10302197 .PDF.

3. http://www.chemicalindustryarchives.org ... xicity.asp.

4. Soren Jensen, “Report of a New Chemical Hazard,” New Scientist 32 (1966): 612.

5. The story was told by the resident during a trial hearing. Trial transcript, Owens v. Monsanto, CCV-96-J-440-E, N.D. Alabama, April 5, 2001, 551.

6. San Francisco Chronicle, September 24, 1969.

7. Le Dauphiné libéré, Isère Nord edition, August 17, 2007.

8. Directive 96/59/CE. See Marc Laimé, “Le Rhône pollué par les PCB: un Tchernobyl français?” http://blog.mondediplo.net/-Carnets-d-eau-, August 14, 2007.

9. Industrie-Déchets, February 2007.

10. U.S. Public Health Service and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Public Health Implications of Exposure to Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs),” http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/files/pcb99.pdf.

11. The two studies are presented in Ruth Stringer and Paul Johnston, Chlorine and the Environment: An Overview of the Chlorine Industry (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2001).

12. “Whales in Sound Imperiled,” Anchorage Daily News, July 22, 2001.

13. Chemical and Engineering News, January 14, 2002, http://pubs.acs.org/cen/ topstory/8002/8002notw1.html.

14. I recommend reading this very thorough article, which can be found at www .washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=articleandcontentId=A46648-2001 Dec31.

15. Anniston Star, February 23, 2002.

16. Anniston Star, August 8, 2003; Wall Street Journal, August 21, 2003.

17. “ US: General Electric Workers Sue Monsanto Over PCBs,” Reuters, January 4, 2006.

18. The Ecologist, March 22, 2007; Sunday Times, June 3, 1973.

2. Dioxin: A Polluter Working with the Pentagon

1. Renate D. Kimbrough, “Epidemiology and Pathology of a Tetrachlorobenzodioxin Poisoning Episode,” Archives of Environmental Health, March–April 1977; The Lancet, April 2, 1977, 748.

2. New York Times, August 28, 1974.

3. Coleman D. Carter, “Tetrachlorobenzodioxin: An Accidental Poisoning Episode in Horse Arenas,” Science, May 16, 1975.

4. See Robert Reinhold, “Missouri Now Fears 100 Sites Could Be Tainted by Dioxin,” New York Times, January 18, 1983.

5. New York Times, August 13, 1983, November 18, 1983, November 29, 1983, and December 1, 1983.

6. James Troyer, “In the Beginning: The Multiple Discovery of the First Hormone Herbicides,” Weed Science 49 (2001), 290–97.

7. Raymond R. Suskind et al., “Progress Report. Patients from Monsanto Chemical Company, Nitro, West Virginia,” unpublished report, July 20, 1950.

8. J. Kimmig and Karl-Heinz Schulz, “Berufliche Akne (Sog. Chlorakne) durch Chlorierte Aromatische Zyklische Äther [Occupational Acne (So-Called Chloracne) Due to Chlorinated Aromatic Cyclic Ether],” Dermatologia 115 (1957): 5404–46.

9. Peter Downs, “Cover-up: Story of Dioxin Seems Intentionally Murky,” St. Louis Journalism Review, June 1, 1998. See also Robert Allen, The Dioxin War: Truth and Lies about a Perfect Poison (London: Pluto Press, 2004).

10. “The Monsanto Files,” The Ecologist, September/October 1998, http://web .archive.org/web/20000902182550/www.zpok.hu/mirror/ecologist/SeptOct. Required reading!

11. Brian Tokar, “Agribusiness, Biotechnology, and War,” http://www.social -ecology.org/2002/09/agribusiness-biotechnology-and-war.

12. Richard H. Kohn, “Foreword,” in William Buckingham Jr., Operation Ranch Hand: The Air Force and Herbicides in Southeast Asia, 1961–1971 (Washington, DC: Office of Air Force History, 1982), iv.

13. Buckingham, Operation Ranch Hand, 1, 4, 3.

14. Ibid., 14–15.

15. Ibid., 33.

16. The most reliable estimates are those published by James Mager Stellman, “The Extent and Patterns of Usage of Agent Orange and Other Herbicides in Vietnam,” Nature, April 17, 2003.

17. Le Monde, April 26, 2005.

18. GAO, “U.S. Ground Troops in Vietnam Were in Areas Sprayed with Herbicide Orange,” FPCD 80-23, November 16, 1979, 1.

19. Written September 9, 1988, this letter was read by Tom Daschle to a Senate committee on November 21, 1989.

20. Diane Courtney et al., “Teratogenic Evaluation of 2,4,5-T,” Science, May 15, 1970.

21. In 1978, the EPA ordered a halt to the spraying of 2,4,5-T in national forests after recording a “statistically significant increase in miscarriages” in women living near the forests sprayed. Bioscience 454 (August 1979).

22. Joe Thornton, Science for Sale: Critique of Monsanto Studies on Worker Health Effects Due to Exposure to 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-P-Dioxin (TCDD), Greenpeace, November 29, 1990. The study was presented at the National Press Club in Washington (Washington Post, November 30, 1990).

23. Plaintiffs’ brief, October 3, 1989; see also Allen, The Dioxin War.

24. Judith A. Zack and Raymond R. Suskind, “The Mortality Experience of Workers Exposed to Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin in a Trichlorophenol Process Accident,” Journal of Occupational Medicine 22, no. 1 (1980): 11–14; Judith A. Zack and William R. Gaffey, “A Mortality Study of Workers Employed at the Monsanto Company Plant in Nitro, West Virginia,” Environmental Science Research 26, no. 6 (1983): 576–91; Raymond R. Suskind and Vicki S. Hertzberg, “Human Health Effects of 2,4,5-T and Its Toxic Contaminants,” Journal of the American Medical Association 251, 18 (1984): 2372–80.

25. Peter Schuck, Agent Orange on Trial: Mass Toxic Disasters in the Courts (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987), 86–87, 155–64. Monsanto had produced 29.5 percent of the Agent Orange used in Vietnam, compared to 28.6 percent for Dow Chemical, but some of its supplies contained forty-seven times as much dioxin as those of Dow.

3. Dioxin: Manipulation and Corruption

1. Wall Street Journal, January 1987.

2. 492 N.E. 2d 1327, 1340 (Ill. 1986), Clark C.J., concurring (opinion on appeal concerning a procedural motion).

3. Kemner v. Monsanto, plaintiff ’s brief, October 3, 1989.

4. Marilyn Fingerhut, “Cancer Mortality in Workers Exposed to 2,3,7,8- Tetrachlorodibenzo-P-Dioxin,” New England Journal of Medicine 324, no. 4 (January 24, 1991): 212–18.

5. Anthony B. Miller et al., Environmental Epidemiology, vol. 1: Public Health and Hazardous Waste (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1991), 207.

6. Joe Thornton, Science for Sale, Greenpeace, November 29, 1990.

7. Raymond R. Suskind, testimony and cross examination, Boggess v. Monsanto, Civil No. 81-2098-265 (S.D. W. Va., 1986).

8. Alastair Hay and Ellen Silberberg, “Assessing the Risk of Dioxin Exposure,” Nature 315 (May 9, 1985), 102–3.

9. Judith A. Zack and William R. Gaffey, “A Mortality Study of Workers Employed at the Monsanto Company Plant in Nitro, West Virginia,” Environmental Science Research 26, no. 6 (1983): 576–91.

10. Alastair Hay and Ellen Silberberg, “Assessing the Risk of Dioxin Exposure.”

11. Report of proceedings: testimony of Dr. George Roush, Kemner v. Monsanto, Civil No. 80-L-970, Circuit Court, St. Clair County, Ill., July 8–9, 1985.

12. Kemner v. Monsanto, plaintiff ’s brief, October 3, 1989.

13. Harrowsmith, March–April 1990.

14. EPA, Drinking Water Criteria Document for 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-PDioxin, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, ECAO-CIN-405 (April 1988).

15. Cate Jenkins, “Memo to Raymond Loehr: Newly Revealed Fraud by Monsanto in an Epidemiological Study Used by the EPA to Assess Human Health Effects from Dioxins,” February 23, 1990.

16. Dick Carozza, “Sentinel at the EPA: An Interview with William Sanjour,” Fraud Magazine, September–October 2007, http://pwp.lincs.net/sanjour/Fraud% 20%Magazine%209-o7htm.

17. The court decision is online at http://www.whistleblowers.org/sanjourcase.htm.

18. William Sanjour, The Monsanto Investigation, July 20, 1994, pwp.lincs.net/ sanjour/monsanto.htm.

19. “Key Dioxin Study a Fraud, EPA Says,” Charleston Gazette, March 23, 1990.

20. Case opening, EPA no. 90-07-06-101 (10Q), August 20, 1990; Cate Jenkins, “Cover-up of Dioxin Contamination in Products, Falsification of Dioxin Health Studies,” November 15, 1990, EPA, http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/Monsanto -Coverup-Dioxin-USEPA15nov90.htm.

21. Cate Jenkins v. EPA, case no. 92-CAA-6 before the Department of Labor Office of Administrative Law Judges, complainant’s post-hearing brief, November 23, 1992.

22. U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, May 18, 1994 (case no. 92-CAA-6).

23. Jenkins v. EPA, transcript, September 29, 1992.

24. Washington Post, May 17, 1990.

25. Elmo R. Zumwalt Jr., “Report to the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs on the Association Between Adverse Health Effects and Exposure to Agent Orange,” May 5, 1990, http://www.gulfwarvets.com/ao.html.

26. “A Cover-up on Agent Orange?” Time, July 23, 1990.

27. Thomas Daschle, “Agent Orange Hearing,” Congressional Record, S. 2550, November 21, 1989.

28. Alfred M. Thiess, R. Frentzel-Beyme, and R. Link, “Mortality Study of Persons Exposed to Dioxin in a Trichlorophenol-Process Accident that Occurred in the BASF AG on November 17, 1953,” American Journal of Industrial Medicine 3, no. 2 (1982): 179–89.

29. Stephanie Wachinski, “New Analysis Links Dioxin to Cancer,” New Scientist, October 28, 1989. The fraud was also revealed by Friedmann Rohleder at a conference on dioxin held in Toronto September 17–22, 1989.

30. R.C. Brownson, J.S. Reif, J.C. Chang, and J.R. Davis, “Cancer Risks Among Missouri Farmers,” Cancer 64, no. 11 (December 1, 1989): 2381–86.

31. Aaron Blair, “Herbicides and Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma: New Evidence from a Study of Saskatchewan Farmers,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute 82 (1990): 544–45.

32. Pier Alberto Bertazzi et al., “Cancer Incidence in a Population Accidentally Exposed to 2,3,7, 8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-PARA-Dioxin,” Epidemiology 4 (September 1993): 398–406.

33. Lennart Hardell and A. Sandstrom, “Case-Control Study: Soft Tissue Sarcomas and Exposure to Phenoxyacetic Acids or Chlorophenols,” British Journal of Cancer 39 (1979): 711–17; Mikael Eriksson et al., “Soft Tissue Sarcoma and Exposure to Chemical Substances: A Case Referent Study,” British Journal of Industrial Medicine 38 (1981): 27–33; Lennart Hardell et al., “Malignant Lymphoma and Exposure to Chemicals, Especially Organic Solvents, Chlorophenols, and Phenoxy Acids,” British Journal of Cancer 43 (1981): 169–76; Lennart Hardell and Mikael Eriksson, “The Association between Soft Tissue Sarcomas and Exposure to Phenoxyacetic Acids: A New Case Referent Study,” Cancer 62 (1988): 652–56.

34. Royal Commission on the Use and Effects of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam, Final Report, 9 vols. (Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1985).

35. “Agent Orange: The New Controversy: Brian Martin Looks at the Royal Commission That Acquitted Agent Orange,” Australian Society 5, no. 11 (November 1986): 25–26.

36. Monsanto Australia Limited, “Axelson and Hardell: The Odd Men Out,” Submission to the Royal Commission on the Use and Effect of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam, Exhibit 1881, 1985.

37. Quoted in Lennart Hardell, Mikael Eriksson, and Olav Axelson, “On the Misinterpretation of Epidemiological Evidence, Relating to Dioxin-Containing Phenoxyacetic Acids, Chlorophenols, and Cancer Effects,” New Solutions, spring 1994.

38. Richard Doll and Richard Peto, “The Causes of Cancer: Quantitative Estimates of Avoidable Risks of Cancer in the United States Today,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute 66, no. 6 (June 1981): 1191–308.

39. “Renowned Cancer Scientist Was Paid by Chemical Firm for 20 Years,” The Guardian, December 8, 2006.

40. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, November 3, 2006.

41. Arnold Schechter et al., “Food as a Source of Dioxin Exposure in the Residents of Bien Hoa City, Vietnam,” Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 45, no. 8 (August 2003): 781–88.

42. Le Cao Dai et al., “A Comparison of Infant Mortality Rates between Two Vietnamese Villages Sprayed by Defoliants in Wartime and One Unsprayed Village,” Chemosphere 20 (August 1990): 1005–12.

43. New Scientist, March 20, 2005.

44. New York Times, March 10, 2005.

45. Corpwatch, November 4, 2004.

4. Roundup: A Massive Brainwashing Operation

1. http://www.roundup-jardin.com/page.php? ... up_roundup.

2. Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Minneapolis, Sustainable Agriculture Week, April 11, 1994.

3. Problems Plague the EPA Pesticide Registration Activities, U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, House Report 98-1147, 1984.

4. EPA, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, “Summary of the IBT Review Program,” Washington, DC, July 1983.

5. EPA, “Data Validation: Memo from K. Locke, Toxicology Branch, to R. Taylor, Registration Branch,” Washington, DC, August 9, 1978.

6. EPA, Communications and Public Affairs, “Note to Correspondents,” Washington, DC, March 1, 1991.

7. New York Times, March 2, 1991.

8. Ibid.

9. “Testing Fraud: IBT and Craven Laboratories,” June 2005, http://www.monsanto .com/pdf/products/roundup_ibt_craven_bkg.pdf. Trans. note: This site is no longer accessible.

10. Caroline Cox, “Glyphosate Factsheet,” Journal of Pesticide Reform 108, no. 3 (1998), http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/Roun ... et-Cox.htm. This very thorough article provides an excellent summary of all the questions raised by Roundup.

11. http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/Mons ... Ynov96.htm.

12. Attorney General of the State of New York, Consumer Frauds and Protection Bureau, Environmental Protection Bureau, In the Matter of Monsanto Company, Respondent. Assurance of Discontinuance Pursuant to Executive Law § 63 (15), New York, April 1998.

13. Isabelle Tron, Odile Picquet, and Sandra Cohuet, Effets chroniques des pesticides sur la santé: État des connaissances, Observatoire Régional de Santé de Bretagne, January 2001.

14. Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber, Trust Us, We’re Experts! How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles with Your Future (New York: Tarcher/Putnam, 2002).

15. Fabrice Nicolino and François Veillerette, Pesticides: Révélations sur un Scandale Français (Paris: Fayard, 2007).

16. Julie Marc, “Effets Toxiques d’Herbicides à Base de Glyphosate sur la Régulation du Cycle Cellulaire et le Développement Précoce en Utilisant l’Embryon d’Oursin,” Université de Biologie de Rennes, September 10, 2004.

17. Helen H. McDuffie et al., “Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma and Specific Pesticide Exposures in Men: Cross-Canada Study of Pesticides and Health,” Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention 10 (November 2001): 1155–63.

18. Lennart Hardell, Michael Eriksson, and Marie Nordström, “Exposure to Pesticides as Risk Factor for Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma and Hairy Cell Leukemia: Pooled Analysis of Two Swedish Case-Control Studies,” Leukemia and Lymphoma 43 (2002): 1043–9.

19. Anneclaire J. De Roos et al., “Integrative Assessment of Multiple Pesticides notes to pages 72–79 337 as Risk Factors for Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma among Men,” Occupational and Environmental Medicine 60, no. 9 (2003).

20. Anneclaire J. De Roos et al., “Cancer Incidence among Glyphosate-Exposed Pesticide Applicators in the Agricultural Health Study,” Environmental Health Perspectives 113, no. 1 (January 2005): 49–54.

21. Marc, “Effets Toxiques d’Herbicides à base de glyphosate.”

22. A report entitled “Étude Phyto Air,” financed by the Nord-Pas-de-Calais region and conducted by the Institut Pasteur of Lille, is a good source of information on the problems posed by the additives contained in herbicides. http://www.pasteur-lille .fr/images_accueil/Rapport%20Phytoair.pdf.

23. Institute for Science in Society, press release, March 7, 2005.

24. Julie Marc, Odile Mulner-Lorillon, and Robert Bellé, “Glyphosate-Based Pesticides Affect Cell Cycle Regulation,” Biology of the Cell 96, no. 3 (April 2004): 245–49.

25. Tye E. Arbuckle, Zhiqiu Lin, and Leslie S. Mery, “An Exploratory Analysis of the Effect of Pesticide Exposure on the Risk of Spontaneous Abortion in an Ontario Farm Population,” Environmental Health Perspectives 109, no. 8 (August 2001): 851–57.

26. John F. Acquavella et al., “Glyphosate Biomonitoring for Farmers and Their Families: Results from the Farm Family Exposure Study,” Environmental Health Perspectives 112, no. 3 (March 2004): 321–26.

27. Lance P. Walsh et al., “Roundup Inhibits Steroidogenesis by Disrupting Steroidogenic Acute Regulatory (StAR) Protein Expression,” Environmental Health Perspectives 108, no. 8 (August 2000): 769–76.

28. Eliane Dallegrave et al., “The Teratogenic Potential of the Herbicide glyphosate-Roundup® in Wistar Rats,” Toxicology Letters 142, no. 1 (April 2003): 45–52.

29. Sophie Richard et al., “Differential Effects of Glyphosate and Roundup on Human Placental Cells and Aromatase,” Environmental Health Perspectives 113, no. 6 (June 2005): 716–20; Nora Benachour et al., “Time- and Dose-Dependent Effects of Roundup on Human Embryonic and Placental Cells,” Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 53, no. 1 (July 2007): 126–33.

30. Christian Ménard, “Rapport Fait au Nom de la Mission d’Information sur les Enjeux des Essais et de l’Utilisation des Organismes Génétiquement Modifiés,” Assemblée Nationale, April 13, 2005, http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/12/rap-info/12254 -tl.asp. Trans. note: This site appears no longer accessible.

31. Marc, “Effets Toxiques d’Herbicides à base de glyphosate.”

32. Rick A. Relyea et al., “The Impact of Insecticides and Herbicides on the Biodiversity and Productivity of Aquatic Communities,” Ecological Applications 15, no. 2 (April 2005): 618–27.

33. University of Pittsburgh, press release, April 1, 2005.

34. Hsin-Ling Lee et al., “Clinical Presentations and Prognostic Factors of a 338 notes to pages 79–87 Glyphosate—Surfactant Herbicide Intoxication: A Review of 131 Cases,” Academic Emergency Medicine 7, no. 8 (August 2000): 906–10.

35. Pesticides News, September 1996, 28–29.

36. Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund, “Spraying Toxic Herbicides on Rural Colombian and Ecuadorian Communities,” January 15, 2002, http://www.mindfully.org/ Pesticide/2002/Roundup-Human-Rights24jan02.htm.

5. The Bovine Growth Hormone Affair, Part One

1. Los Angeles Times, August 1, 1989. At the same time, Epstein wrote a scientific article: “Potential Public Health Hazards of Biosynthetic Milk Hormones,” International Journal of Health Services 20, no. 1 (1990): 73–84.

2. Samuel Epstein also published another article: “Questions and Answers on Synthetic Bovine Growth Hormones,” International Journal of Health Services 20, no. 4 (1990): 573–82.

3. The terms used by Congress were “knowing acts of non-disclosure” and “reckless acts.” Samuel S. Epstein, Testimony on White Collar Crime, H.R. 4973, before the Subcommittee on Crime of the House Judiciary Committee, December 13, 1979.

4. “FDA Accused of Improper Ties in Review of Drug for Milk Cows,” New York Times, January 12, 1990.

5. Judith C. Juskevich and C. Greg Guyer, “Bovine Growth Hormone: Human Food Safety Evaluation,” Science 249 (August 24, 1990): 875–84.

6. Frederick Bever, “Canadian Agency Questions Approval of Cow Drug by US,” Associated Press, October 6, 1998.

7. Le Monde, August 30, 1990.

8. Depending on the source, the level of IGF-1 present in milk from injected cows can be two to ten times higher than that found in natural milk. In the request for approval that Monsanto submitted to the British authorities, the company speaks of a level “as much as five times higher.” T. Ben Mepham et al., “Safety of Milk from Cows Treated with Bovine Somatotropin,” The Lancet 344 (November 19, 1994): 1445–6.

9. C. Xian, “Degradation of IGF-1 in the Adult Rat Gastrointestinal Tract Is Limited by a Specific Antiserum or the Dietary Protein Casein,” Journal of Endocrinology 146, no. 2 (August 1, 1998).

10. June M. Chan et al., “Plasma Insulin-like Growth Factor-1 [IGF-1] and Prostate Cancer Risk: A Prospective Study,” Science 279 (January 23, 1998): 563–66.

11. Susan E. Hankinson et al., “Circulating Concentrations of Insulin-like Growth Factor-1 and Risk of Breast Cancer,” The Lancet 351 (1998): 1393–6.

12. The Milkweed, August 2006. This article surveys all the available scientific literature on the links between IGF-1 and breast cancer.

13. Journal of Reproductive Medicine, May 2006; The Milkweed, June 2006; New York Times, May 30, 2006. The number of twins in the United States has increased from 1.89 per 100 births in 1977 to 3.1 in 2002 (twice that in the United Kingdom).

14. “NIH Technology Assessment Conference Statement on Bovine Somatotropin,” Journal of the American Medical Association 265, no. 11 (March 20, 1991): 1423–5.

15. Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association, “Biotechnology and the American Agricultural Industry,” Journal of the American Medical Association 265, no. 11 (March 20, 1991): 1429–36.

16. Eliot Marshal, “Scientists Endorse Ban on Antibiotics in Feeds,” Science 222 (November 11, 1983): 601.

17. Barry R. Bloom and Christopher J. L. Murray, “Tuberculosis: Commentary on a Reemergent Killer,” Science 257 (August 21, 1992): 1055–64.

18. Sharon Begley, “The End of Antibiotics,” Newsweek, March 28, 1994, 47–52.

19. The GAO wrote a special report on the question of antibiotic residues in milk. It noted that there were few available tests to measure these residues—the FDA had only four, one of which was for penicillin—although thirty drugs were authorized for dairy herds, and reportedly seventy-two were used illegally. GAO, Food Safety and Quality: FDA Strategy Needed to Address Animal Drug Residues in Milk, GAO/PMED-92-96, 1992.

20. Erik Millstone, Eric Brunner, and Ian White, “Plagiarism or Protecting Public Health?” Nature 371 (October 20, 1994): 647–48.

21. Jeremy Rifkin, The Biotech Century (New York: Tarcher/Putnam, 1999).

22. Samuel Epstein had already expressed similar anger in the Los Angeles Times, March 20, 1994.

6. The Bovine Growth Hormone Affair, Part Two

1. 59 Federal Register 28 (February 10, 1994), 6279.

2. http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/fr940210.html.

3. This thirty-two-page document was signed by Richard A. Merrill, Jess H. Stribling, and Frederick H. Degnan.

4. Capital Times, February 19–20, 1994.

5. Washington Post, May 18, 1994.

6. New York Times, July 12, 2003.

7. “Oakhurst to Alter Its Label,” Portland Press Herald, December 25, 2003.

8. Associated Press, February 18, 2005.

9. Mark Kastel, “Down on the Farm: The Real BGH Story: Animal Health Problems, Financial Troubles,” http://www.mindfully.org/GE/Down-On-The-Farm-BGH1995 .htm.

10. Metroland (Albany), August 11, 1994.

11. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, March 15, 1995.

12. Their story is the subject of a chapter in Kristina Borjesson, ed., Into the Buzzsaw: Leading Journalists Expose the Myth of a Free Press (New York: Prometheus Books, 2002).

13. They can be consulted on http://www.foxbghsuit.com.

7. The Invention of GMOs

1. Edward L. Tatum, “A Case History in Biological Research,” Nobel Lecture, December 11, 1958, http:nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1958/ tatum-lecture.html.

2. Arnaud Apoteker, Du poisson dans les fraises (Paris: La Découverte, 1999).

3. Quoted by Robert Shapiro, “The Welcome Tension of Technology: The Need for Dialogue about Agricultural Biotechnology,” Center for the Study of American Business, CEO Series, 37, February 2000.

4. Quoted by Hervé Kempf, La Guerre secrète des OGM (Paris: Seuil, 2003), 23.

5. Ibid., 25.

6. Susan Wright, Molecular Politics: Developing American and British Regulatory Policy for Genetic Engineering, 1972–1982 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), 107.

7. Daniel Charles, Lords of the Harvest: Biotech, Big Money, and the Future of Food (Cambridge, MA: Perseus, 2002), 24.

8. Quoted by Kempf, La Guerre secrète des OGM, 57.

9. Charles, Lords of the Harvest, 38.

10. Ibid., 37.

11. Luca Comai et al., “Expression in Plants of a Mutant aroA Gene from Salmonella typhimurium Confers Tolerance to Glyphosate,” Nature 317 (October 24, 1985): 741–44.

12. Charles, Lords of the Harvest, 67.

13. Stephanie Simon, “Biotech Soybeans Plant Seed of Risky Revolution,” Los Angeles Times, July 1, 2001.

14. Ibid.

15. CropChoice News, November 16, 2003, http://www.organicconsumers.org/ ge/72803_ge_soybeans.cfm.

16. Charles, Lords of the Harvest, 75.

17. Simon, “Biotech Soybeans Plant Seed of Risky Revolution.”

18. Apoteker, Du poisson dans les fraises, 36–37.

19. Kurt Eichenwald, “Redesigning Nature: Hard Lessons Learned; Biotechnology Food: From the Lab to a Debacle,” New York Times, January 25, 2001.

20. Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology, Office of Science and Technology Policy, 51 FR 23302, June 26, 1986, http://usbiotechreg.nbii.gov/ CoordinatedFrameworkForRegulationOfBiotechnology.

21. Eichenwald, “Redesigning Nature.”

22. Ibid.

23. Charles, Lords of the Harvest, 28.

24. Eichenwald, “Redesigning Nature.”

25. Quoted by the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness, http://www.thecre.com/omb papers/1999-0129-F.htm.

26. Food and Drug Administration, “Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties,” 57 FR 22983 (May 29, 1992).

27. 57 FR 22985 (emphasis added).

28. Charles, Lords of the Harvest, 143.

29. FAO, Genetically Modified Organisms, Consumers, Food Safety, and the Environment, http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/x9602e/x9602e00.htm.

30. Jeffrey M. Smith, Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies about the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You’re Eating (Fairfield, IA: Yes! Books, 2003), 107–27; Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods (Fairfield, IA: Yes! Books, 2007), 60–61. See the Web site http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/Home/index.cfm.

31. House of Representatives, FDA’s Regulation of the Dietary Supplement L-Tryptophan, Human Resources and Intergovernmental Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, 1991.

32. Arthur N. Mayenno and Gerald J. Gleich, “Eosinophilia-Myalgia Syndrome and Tryptophan Production: A Cautionary Tale,” Trends in Biotechnology 12, no. 9 (September 1994): 346–52.

33. Quoted by Smith, Genetic Roulette, 61.

34. See, for example, “Information Paper on L-Tryptophan and 5-Hydroxy-LTryptophan,” U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Office of Nutritional Products, Labeling, and Dietary Supplements, February 2001, http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms /ds-tryp1.html.

35. Quoted in Steven Druker’s statement to the FDA on November 30, 1999, “Why FDA Policy on Genetically Engineered Foods Violates Sound Science and US Law,” Panel on Scientific Safety and Regulatory Issues, http://www.psrast.org/drukeratfda .htm.

36. Food and Drug Administration, “Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties,” 57 FR 22991.

37. Smith, Genetic Roulette, 61.

8. Scientists Suppressed

1. http://www.biointegrity.org.

2. See Steven Druker’s statement to the FDA on November 30, 1999, “Why FDA Policy on Genetically Engineered Foods Violates Sound Science and 342 notes to pages 143–153 US Law,” Panel on Scientific Safety and Regulatory Issues, http://www.psrast.org/ drukeratfda.htm.

3. Alliance for Bio-Integrity v. Shalala.

4. New York Times, October 4, 2000.

5. “Genetically Engineered Foods,” FDA Consumer, January–February 1993, 14.

6. http://www.biointegrity.org/list.html.

7. Memorandum from the Division of Food Chemistry and Technology and Division of Contaminants Chemistry. Subject: “Points to Consider for Safety Evaluation of Genetically Modified Foods. Supplemental Information,” November 1, 1991. http://www.safe-food.org/-issue/fda.html.

8. Samuel I. Shibko, Memorandum to Dr. James Maryanski, FDA Biotechnology Coordinator. Subject: “Revision of Toxicology Section of the Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from Genetically Modified Plants.” Dated January 31, 1992. www .safe-food.org/-issue/fda.html.

9. Gerald B. Guest, DVM, Director of the Center for Veterinary Medicine, in a memorandum to Dr. James Maryanski, Biotechnology Coordinator. Subject: “Regulation of Transgenic Plants—FDA Draft Federal Register Notice on Food Biotechnology.” Dated February 5, 1992. http://www.safe-food.org/-issue/fda.html.

10. Louis Pribyl, comments on “Biotechnology Draft Document, 2/27/92.” Dated March 6, 1992. http://www.mindfully.org/GE/Louis-J-Pri ... 7feb92.htm.

11. Letter of James Maryanski to Dr. Bill Murray, Chairman of the Food Directorate, Canada, October 23, 1991, http://www.safe-food.org/-issue/fda.html.

12. Linda Kahl, Memorandum to James Maryanski, FDA Biotechnology Coordinator, January 8, 1992, http://www.biointegrity.org/FDAdocs/01/view1.html.

13. Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties, 57 FR 23000 (point 17d).

14. Jean Halloran and Michael Hansen, “Why We Need Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food,” Consumers International, Consumer Policy Institute, April 1998; “Compilation and Analysis of Public Opinion Polls on Genetically Engineered Foods,” Center for Food Safety, February 11, 1999.

15. Time, February 11, 1999.

16. “Citizen Petition before the United States Food and Drug Administration,” March 21, 2000, http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys ... 00/cp00001 .pdf.

17. Douglas Gurian-Sherman, “Holes in the Biotech Safety Net: FDA Policy Does Not Assure the Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods,” Center for Science in the Public Interest, Washington, DC, 2001.

18. “Flavr Savr Tomato: Pathology Branch’s Evaluation of Rats with Stomach Lesions from Three Four-Week Oral (Gavage) Toxicity Studies,” Memorandum from Dr. Fred Hines to Dr. Linda Kahl, June 16, 1993, http://www.mindfully.org/GE/Flavr Savr-Pathology-Review.htm.

19. http://www.biointegrity.org/FDAdocs/19/view1.html.

20. http://www.ilsi.org.

21. Sarah Boseley, “WHO ‘Infiltrated by Food Industry,’ ” The Guardian, January 9, 2003.

22. “Biotechnologies and Food: Assuring the Safety of Foods Produced by Genetic Modification,” Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 12, no. 3 (1990), www .ilsi.org/AboutIlsi/IFBiC.

23. “Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties,” 57 FR 23003.

24. Smith, Seeds of Deception; Smith, Genetic Roulette.

25. “Monsanto Employees and Government Regulatory Agencies Are the Same People!” Green Block, December 8, 2000, http://www.purefood.org/Monsanto/revolve door.cfm. See also Agribusiness Examiner Newsletter, June 16, 1999, and Washington Post, February 7, 2001.

26. “How Agribusiness Has Hijacked Regulatory Policy at the US Department of Agriculture,” released at the Food and Agriculture Conference of the Organization for Competitive Markets, Omaha, Nebraska, July 23, 2004.

27. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, May 30, 1999.

28. Federal News Service, “Remarks of Secretary of Agriculture before the Council for Biotechnology Information,” April 18, 2000.

29. Dan Glickman, “How Will Scientists, Farmers, and Consumers Learn to Love Biotechnology and What Happens If They Don’t?” July 13, 1999, http://www.usda .gov/news/releases/1999/07/0285. Emphasis added.

30. http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/MonsantoRpt.html.

31. Judith C. Juskevich and C. Greg Guyer, “Bovine Growth Hormone: Human Food Safety Evaluation,” Science 249 (August 24, 1990): 875–84.

32. Erik Millstone, Eric Brunner, and Sue Mayer, “Beyond Substantial Equivalence,” Nature 401 (October 7, 1999): 525–26.

33. Stephen Padgette et al., “The Composition of Glyphosate-Tolerant Soybean Seeds Is Equivalent to That of Conventional Soybeans,” Journal of Nutrition 126, no. 3 (March 1996): 702–16.

34. Barbara Keeler and Marc Lappé, “Some Food for FDA Regulation,” Los Angeles Times, January 7, 2001.

35. Marc Lappé et al., “Alterations in Clinically Important Phytoestrogens in Genetically Modified, Herbicide-Tolerant Soybeans,” Journal of Medicinal Food 1, no. 4 (July 1, 1999).

36. http://www.soygrowers.com/newsroom/rele ... bkgndr.htm.

37. Marc Lappé and Britt Bailey, Against the Grain: Biotechnology and the Corporate Takeover of Your Food (Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press, 1998).

38. New York Times, October 25, 1998.

39. Ian Pryme and Rolf Lembcke, “In Vivo Studies on Possible Health Consequences of Genetically Modified Food and Feed—with Particular Regard to Ingredients Consisting of Genetically Modified Plant Materials,” Nutrition and Health 17 (2003): 1–8.

40. Bruce Hammond et al., “The Feeding Value of Soybeans Fed to Rats, Chickens, Catfish, and Dairy Cattle Is Not Altered by Genetic Incorporation of Glyphosate Tolerance,” Journal of Nutrition 126, no. 3 (March 1996): 717–27.

41. Manuela Malatesta et al., “Ultrastructural Analysis of Pancreatic Acinar Cells from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,” Journal of Anatomy 201, no. 5 (November 2002): 409–15; Manuela Malatesta et al., “Fine Structural Analyses of Pancreatic Acinar Cell Nuclei from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,” European Journal of Histochemistry 47, no. 4 (October–December 2003), 385–88. See also “Nouveaux soupçons sur les OGM,” Le Monde, February 9, 2006.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 27841
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: The World According to Monsanto: Pollution, Corruption,

Postby admin » Sun Feb 07, 2016 7:23 am

Part 2 of 2

9. Monsanto Weaves Its Web, 1995–1999

1. See François Dufour, “ Les Savants Fous de l’Agroalimentaire,” Le Monde diplomatique, July 1999. It is worth noting that for the 1996–97 growing year, France was able to supply 22 percent of its needs.

2. “Scientist’s Potato Alert Was False, Laboratory Admits,” The Times (London), July 13, 1998.

3. “Doctor’s Monster Mistake,” Scottish Daily Record, October 13, 1998.

4. Daily Telegraph, June 10, 1999.

5. “Le Transgénique, la Pomme de Terre, et le Soufflé Médiatique,” Le Monde, August 15, 1998.

6. “Genetically Modified Organisms: Audit Report of Rowett Research on Lectins,” press release, Rowett Institute, October 28, 1998.

7. The Guardian, February 12, 1999; “Le Rat et la Patate, Chronique d’un Scandale Britannique,” Le Monde, February 17, 1999; “Peer Review Vindicates Scientist Let Go for ‘Improper’ Warning about Genetically Modified Food,” Natural Science Journal, March 11, 1999.

8. The Scotsman, August 13, 1998.

9. “Testimony of Professor Philip James and Dr. Andrew Chesson,” Examination of Witnesses, Question 247, March 8, 1999, http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office .co.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmsctech/286/9030817.htm.

10. “Loss of Innocence: Genetically Modified Food,” New Statesman, February 26, 1999, 47.

11. “Furor Food: The Man with the Worst Job in Britain,” The Observer, February 21 1999.

12. Quoted by Jeffrey Smith, Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies about the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You’re Eating (Fairfield, IA: Yes! Books, 2003), 24.

13. “People Distrust Government on GM Foods,” Independent on Sunday, May 23, 1999.

14. “Labour’s Real Aim on GM Food,” Independent on Sunday, May 23, 1999.

15. Memorandum Submitted by Dr. Stanley William Barclay Ewen, Department of Pathology, University of Aberdeen, February, 26, 1999, http://www.parliament.thestationery- office.co.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmsctech/286/9030804.htm.

16. Laurie Flynn and Michael Sean Gillard, “Pro-GM Food Scientist ‘Threatened Editor,’ ” The Guardian, November 1, 1999.

17. Stanley Ewen and Arpad Pusztai, “Effects of Diets Containing Genetically Modified Potatoes Expressing Galanthus Nivalis Lectin on Rat Small Intestines,” The Lancet 354 (October 16, 1999): 1353–54.

18. Steve Connor, “Scientists Revolt at Publication of ‘Flawed GM Study,’ ” The Independent, October 11, 1999.

19. Flynn and Gillard, “Pro-GM Food Scientist ‘Threatened Editor.’ ”

20. Andrew Rowell, “The Sinister Sacking of the World’s Leading GM Expert— and the Trail That Leads to Tony Blair and the White House,” Daily Mail, July 7, 2003.

21. Monsanto 1997 annual report, quoted in Washington Post, November 1, 1999.

22. New Yorker, April 10, 2000.

23. The Ecologist, September–October 1998.

24. Hervé Kempf, La Guerre secrète des OGM (Paris: Seuil, 2003), 110.

25. New Yorker, April 10, 2000.

26. “Growth Through Global Sustainability: An Interview with Monsanto’s CEO, Robert B. Shapiro,” Harvard Business Review, January–February 1997.

27. Ibid.

28. “Interview, Robert Shapiro: Can We Trust the Maker of Agent Orange to Genetically Engineer Our Food?” Business Ethics, January–February 1997.

29. I recommend this fascinating article: Michael Specter, “The Pharmageddon Riddle,” New Yorker, April 10, 2000.

30. “Interview, Robert Shapiro.”

31. The Ecologist 28, no. 5 (September–October 1998).

32. Daniel Charles, Lords of the Harvest (Cambridge, MA: Perseus, 2002), 119.

33. Ibid., 120.

34. Ibid., 179.

35. Ibid., 151.

36. Ibid., 177.

37. Ibid., 200.

38. Chemistry and Industry, July 20, 1998.

39. Daily Telegraph, June 8, 1998.

40. Associated Press, June 7, 1998.

41. Reuters, August 11, 1998. In February 1999, the company was finally condemned for deceptive advertising (The Guardian, February 28, 1999). In all, thirty complaints had been filed.

42. The Ecologist 28, no. 5 (September–October 1998). This is essential reading. In addition, on July 1, 1999, the French weekly Courrier international published a translation, to which Monsanto replied in the July 29 edition. The reply contained the following: “With respect to Agent Orange, the writers for The Ecologist forgot to mention that detailed studies conducted for several years by the US Air Force and other bodies have shown that there are no major harmful health effects associated with this defoliant.”

43. The Guardian, September 29, 1998.

44. Justin Gillis and Anne Swardson, “Crop Busters Take on Monsanto: Backlash against Biotech Foods Exacts a High Price,” Washington Post, October 27, 1999. On October 26, Monsanto stock was quoted at $39.18 on the New York Stock Exchange, compared to $62.72 in August 1998.

45. Véronique Lorelle, “L’Arrogance de Monsanto a mis à mal son rêve de nourrir la planète,” Le Monde, October 8, 1999.

46. Gillis and Swardson, “Crop Busters Take on Monsanto.”

47. Michael D. Watkins and Ann Leamon, “Robert Shapiro and Monsanto,” Harvard Business School case, rev. January 2, 2003.

48. Véronique Lorelle, “Le Patron de Monsanto, prophète des OGM, démissionne pour cause de mauvais résultats,” Le Monde, December 20, 2002. In 2002, the company recorded a net loss of $1.7 billion.

10. The Iron Law of the Patenting of Life

1. For more details on the patenting of life, see my documentary Les Pirates du vivant, broadcast on Arte on November 15, 2005.

2. Monsanto, Pledge Report, 2005, 42 (emphasis added). The document can be found at http://www.monsanto.com/who_we_are/our_ ... eports.asp.

3. Monsanto, Technology Use Guide, art. 19 (emphasis added). Quoted by the report of the Center for Food Safety, Monsanto vs. U.S. Farmers, November 2005, 20, http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/Mons ... report.cfm.

4. Daniel Charles, Lords of the Harvest (Cambridge, MA: Perseus, 2002), 185.

5. Ibid., 155.

6. Ibid., 187.

7. Rick Weiss, “Seeds of Discord: Monsanto’s Gene Police Raise Alarm on Farmers’ Rights, Rural Tradition,” Washington Post, February 3, 1999.

8. Center for Food Safety, Monsanto vs. U.S. Farmers.

9. Chicago Tribune, January 14, 2005.

10. “Lawsuits Filed against American Farmers by Monsanto,” Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, http://pacer.uspci.uscourts.gov.

11. Quoted by Charles, Lords of the Harvest, 187.

12. Ibid.

13. Weiss, “Seeds of Discord.”

14. Associated Press, April 28, 2004.

15. Quoted by Center for Food Safety, Monsanto vs. U.S. Farmers, 44.

16. Interview with Robert Schubert, CropChoice News, April 6, 2001.

17. The story is reported in Monsanto vs. U.S. Farmers, 23ff. In addition, I talked to Scruggs’s lawyer, James Robertson, who has film of the arrangement set up by Monsanto agents.

18. Associated Press, May 10, 2003.

19. “Monsanto ‘Ruthless’ in Suing Farmers, Food Group Says,” Chicago Tribune, January 14, 2005. According to this article, of the ninety suits filed by Monsanto so far, forty-six had been heard in St. Louis.

20. St. Louis Business Journal, December 21, 2001.

21. http://record.wustl.edu/archive/2000/10 ... s/law.html.

22. http://www.populist.com/02.18.mcmillen.html.

23. Hervé Kempf, “Percy Schmeiser, un rebelle contre les OGM,” Le Monde, October 17, 2002.

24. The reader can consult Schmeiser’s Web site, where he presents all the details of his case: http://www.percyschmeiser.com.

25. Hervé Kempf, “Le trouble d’une plaine du Saskatchewan,” Le Monde, January 26, 2000.

26. Toronto Star and Saskatoon Star Phoenix, June 6, 2000.

27. Kempf, “Percy Schmeiser, un rebelle contre les OGM.”

28. Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Percy Schmeiser, 2001 FCT 256 (March 29, 2001), 51–55; Star Phoenix, March 30, 2001.

29. Washington Post, March 30, 2001.

30. Quoted by Kempf, “Percy Schmeiser, un rebelle contre les OGM.”

31. Sacramento Bee, May 22, 2004.

32. Ibid.

33. Monsanto Co., Pledge Report, 2001–2, 19, http:www.monsanto.com/who_ we_are/our_pledge/recent_reports.asp.

34. CBC News and Current Affairs, June 21, 2001.

35. Canadian Bar Association, Annual Conference, August 2001.

36. Soil Association, Seeds of Doubt: North American Farmers’ Experience of GM Crops, September 2002, http://www.soilassociation.org/seedsofdoubt. This is a fundamental document.

37. New Scientist, November 24, 2001. Since then the Quebec government site on GMOs has stated that “pollen can travel over a distance of at least two and a half miles,” http://www.ogm.gouv.qc.ca/envi_canolagm.html. This has been confirmed by British and Australian studies.

38. “GM Volunteer Canola Causes Havoc,” Western Producer, September 6, 2001.

39. The Guardian, October 8, 2003.

40. Soil Association, Seeds of Doubt, 47.

41. “Firms Move to Avoid Risk of Contamination,” The Times (London), May 29, 2000.

42. Kempf, “Le trouble d’une plaine du Saskatchewan.”

43. http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6239072/claims.html.

44. Soil Association, Seeds of Doubt, 24; see also “Monsanto Sees Opportunity in Glyphosate Resistant Volunteer Weeds,” CropChoice News, August 3, 2001.

45. Science and The Independent, October 10, 2003.

46. “Introducing Roundup Ready Soybeans: The Seeds of Revolution,” undated document in author’s possession.

47. Monsanto, Pledge Report, 2005, 18.

48. Charles Benbrook, “Genetic Engineered Crops and Pesticide Use in the United States: The First Nine Years,” October 2004, http://www.biotech-info.net/Full_ version_first_nine.pdf.

49. Ag BioTech InfoNet Technical Paper no. 4, May 3, 2001.

50. Ibid. A 1998 Monsanto document claimed that “herbicide use was on average lower in Roundup Ready soybean fields than in other fields” (“The Roundup Ready Soybean System: Sustainability and Herbicide Use,” Monsanto, April 1998).

51. According to the Los Angeles Times of July 1, 2001, Roundup was used on 20 percent of American crops in 1995 and on 62 percent four years later.

52. Benbrook, “Genetically Engineered Crops and Pesticide Use in the United States,” 7.

53. Indianapolis Star, February 20, 2001.

54. http://www.mindfully.org/GE/GE4/Glyphos ... aDec02.htm.

55. Charles Benbrook, “Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology,” February 4, 2002, http://pewagbiotech.org/events/0204/benbrook.php3.

56. “Introducing Roundup Ready Soybeans: The Seeds of Revolution.”

57. Roger Elmore et al., “Glyphosate-Resistant Soybean Cultivar Yields Compared with Sister Lines,” Agronomy Journal 93 (2001): 408–12.

58. Charles Benbrook, “Evidence of the Magnitude and Consequences of the Roundup Ready Soybean Yield Drag from University-Based Varietal Trials in 1998,” Ag BioTech InfoNet Technical Paper no. 1, July 13, 1999, http://www.biotech-info.net/ RR_yield_drag_98.pdf.

59. C. Andy King, Larry C. Purcell, and Earl D. Vories, “Plant Growth and Nitrogenase Activity of Glyphosate-Tolerant Soybeans in Response to Foliar Glyphosate Application,” Agronomy Journal 93, no. 1 (January 2001): 179–86.

60. Benbrook, “Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology.”

61. Andy Coghlan, “Splitting Headache: Monsanto’s Modified Soybeans Are Cracking Up in the Heat,” New Scientist, November 20, 1999.

62. Michael Duffy, “Who Benefits from Biotechnology?” Considered a standard reference, this paper was presented to the meeting of the American Seed Trade Association in Chicago, December 5–7, 2001. http://www.econ.iastate.edu/faculty/duffy/ Pages/biotechpaper.pdf.

63. According to a survey conducted by Eurobarometer in 1997, the great majority of European citizens were in favor of labeling GMOs: Austria 73 percent, Belgium 74 percent, Denmark 85 percent, Finland 82 percent, France 78 percent, Germany 72 percent, Greece 81 percent, Ireland 61 percent, Italy 61 percent, Spain 69 percent, United Kingdom 82 percent. “European Opinions on Modern Biotechnology,” European Commission Directorate General XII, no. 46.1, 1997.

64. Washington Post, November 12, 1999.

65. “US Agriculture Loses Huge Markets Thanks to GMOs,” Reuters, March 3, 1999.

66. Reuters, September 17, 2002.

11. Transgenic Wheat: Monsanto’s Lost Battle in North America

1. http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2004/Monsan ... 0may04.htm.

2. Monsanto, Pledge Report, 2004, 24.

3. See my documentary Le Blé: Chronique d’une mort annoncée? broadcast, with Les Pirates du vivant, in the Thema series on Arte on November 15, 2005, “Main basse sur le vivant.”

4. Stewart Wells and Holly Penfound, “Canadian Wheat Board Speaks Out against Roundup Ready Wheat,” Toronto Star, February 25, 2003.

5. “Italian Miller to Reject Genetically Modified Wheat,” St. Louis Business Journal, January 30, 2003.

6. “Japan Wheat Buyers Warn against Biotech Wheat in US,” Reuters, September 10, 2003.

7. New York Times, April 11, 2004.

8. Robert Wisner, “The Commercial Introduction of Genetically Modified Wheat Would Severely Depress U.S. Wheat Industry,” Western Organization of Resource Councils, October 30, 2003.

9. Justin Gillis, “The Heartland Wrestles with Biotechnology,” Washington Post, April 22, 2003.

10. Ibid.

11. Pierre-Benoît Joly and Claire Marris, “Les Américains ont-ils accepté les OGM? Analyse comparée de la construction des OGM comme problème public en France et aux États-Unis,” Cahiers d’économie et de sociologie rurales 68–69 (2003): 19.

12. Ibid., 18.

13. John Losey, Linda Rayor, and Maureen Carter, “Transgenic Pollen Harms Monarch Larvae,” Nature 399 (May 20, 1999): 214.

14. Hervé Morin, “Les doutes s’accumulent sur l’innocuité du maïs transgénique,” Le Monde, May 26, 1999. The studies include Angelika Hilbeck et al., “Effects of Transgenic Bacillus Thuringiensis Corn-Fed Prey on Mortality and Development Time of Immature Chrysoperla Carnea,” Environmental Entomology 27, no. 2 (April 1998): 480–87.

15. Morin, “Les doutes s’accumulent sur l’innocuité du maïs transgénique.”

16. Ibid.

17. Carol Kaesuk Yoon, “Altered Corn May Imperil Butterfly, Researchers Say,” New York Times, May 20, 1999.

18. Lincoln Brower, “Canary in the Cornfield: The Monarch and the Bt Corn Controversy,” Orion Magazine, Spring 2001, http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/ articles/article/85.

19. Press release, Biotechnology Industry Organization, November 2, 1999.

20. Carol Kaesuk Yoon, “No Consensus on Effect of Genetically Altered Corn on Butterflies,” New York Times, November 4, 1999.

21. See, for example, “Scientists Discount Threat to Butterflies from Altered Corn,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, November 2, 1999.

22. Laura Hansen and John Obrycki, “Field Deposition of Transgenic Corn Pollen: Lethal Effects on the Monarch Butterfly,” Oecologia 125, no. 2 (2000): 241–48.

23. News in Science, August 4, 2000; see also Le Monde, August 25, 2000.

24. Marc Kaufman, “Biotech Corn Is Test Case for Industry; Engineered Food’s Future Hinges on Allergy Study,” Washington Post, March 19, 2001.

25. Joly and Marris, “Les Américains ont-ils accepté les OGM?” 21.

26. Michael Pollan, “Playing God in the Garden,” New York Times Magazine, October 25, 1998.

27. This exemplary document can be consulted at http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~acrobat2/ bnfL055.pdf.

28. “Life-Threatening Food? More than 50 Americans Claim Reactions to Recalled StarLink Corn,” CBS News, May 17, 2001.

29. Bill Freese, “The StarLink Affair: A Critique of the Government/Industry Response to Contamination of the Food Supply with StarLink Corn and an Examination of the Potential Allergenicity of StarLink’s Cry9C Protein,” Friends of the Earth, July 17, 2001, 35–36, http://www.foe.org/safefood/starlink.pdf.

30. Ibid., 36.

31. Jeffrey M. Smith, Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies about the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You’re Eating (Fairfield, IA: Yes! Books, 2003), 171.

32. Marc Kaufman, “EPA Rejects Biotech Corn as Human Food: Federal Tests Do Not Eliminate Possibility That It Could Cause Allergic Reactions, Agency Told,” Washington Post, July 28, 2001.

33. Washington Post, March 18, 2001; Boston Globe, May 3 and 17, 2001.

34. Nature, November 23, 2000.

35. Reuters, March 18, 2001.

36. Financial Times, June 27, 2003.

37. Éric Darier and Holly Penfound, “Lettre à Paul Steckle,” Greenpeace Canada, May 27, 2003.

38. In an interview with Canadian Press, Jim Bole, an AAC representative, said that the “ministry contract with Monsanto was confidential.” According to him, AAC had spent $500,000 Canadian and Monsanto $1.3 million to develop RR wheat. Canadian Press, January 9, 2004.

39. Ibid.

40. See his presentation of organic farming in Saskatchewan at http://www.sask organic.com/oapf/farm.html.

41. Canadian Press, April 10, 2004. For details on the course of the suit, see the Web site of the Organic Agriculture Protection Fund, http://www.saskorganic.com/oapf.

42. René Van Acker, Anita Brulé-Babel, and Lyle Friesen, “An Environmental Safety Assessment of Roundup Ready Wheat: Risks for Direct Seeding Systems in Western Canada,” Report Prepared for the Canadian Wheat Board for Submission to the Plant Biosafety Office of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, June 2003; “Study: Modified Wheat Poses a Threat,” Canadian Press, July 9, 2003.

43. “New Survey Indicates Strong Grain Elevator Concern over GE Wheat,” Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Minneapolis, press release, April 8, 2003.

44. Memorandum obtained by Ken Ruben, with the assistance of Greenpeace Canada, through the Freedom of Information Act. See also Tom Spears, “Federal Memo Warns against GM Wheat; Canada Still Working with Monsanto to Create Country’s First Modified Seed,” Ottawa Citizen, August 1, 2001, available at www .thecampaign.org/newsupdates/august01a.htm#Federal.

45. Greenpeace EU, “EU Suppresses Study Showing Genetically Engineered Crops Add High Costs for All Farmers and Threaten Organic,” press release, May 16, 2002, available at http://www.biotech-info.net/high_costs.html.

12. Mexico: Seizing Control of Biodiversity

1. Stuart Laidlaw, “Starlink Fallout Could Cost Billions,” Toronto Star, January 9, 2001, available at http://www.mindfully.org/GE/StarLink-Fa ... llions.htm.

2. David Quist and Ignacio Chapela, “Transgenic DNA Introgressed into Traditional Maize Landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico,” Nature 414 (2001): 541–43.

3. University of California, Berkeley, press release, November 28, 2001.

4. New York Times, October 2, 2001; The Guardian, November 29 and 30, 2001.

5. Kara Platoni, “Kernels of Truth,” East Bay Express, May 29, 2002.

6. Monsanto, Pledge Report, 2001–2, 13. This is the language Monsanto also used in its 2006 10-K form, 47.

7. Robert Mann, “Has GM Corn ‘Invaded’ Mexico?” Science 295 (March 1, 2002): 1617–19.

8. Platoni, “Kernels of Truth.”

9. Marc Kaufman, “The Biotech Corn Debate Grows Hot in Mexico,” Washington Post, March 25, 2002.

10. Mann, “Has GM Corn ‘Invaded’ Mexico?”

11. Fred Pearce, “Special Investigation: The Great Mexican Maize Scandal,” New Scientist, June 15, 2002.

12. This e-mail can be consulted in the archives of the AgBio World Web site: http://www.agbioworld.org/newsletter_wm ... ewsid=1267.

13. http://www.agbioworld.org/newsletter_wm ... id=archive &newsid=1268.

14. George Monbiot, “Corporate Phantoms,” The Guardian, May 29, 2002.

15. http://www.agbioworld.org/about/index.html.

16. “Scientists in Support of Agricultural Biotechnology,” http://www.agbioworld.org/ declaration/petition/petition.php.

17. http://www.bivings.com/client/index.html.

18. George Monbiot, “The Fake Persuaders: Corporations Are Inventing People to Rubbish Their Opponents on the Internet,” The Guardian, May 14, 2002.

19. Monbiot, “Corporate Phantoms.”

20. Quoted by George Monbiot, “The Battle to Put a Corporate GM Padlock on Our Food Chain Is Being Fought on the Net,” The Guardian, November 19, 2002.

21. Monsanto, Pledge Report, 2001–2, 1.

22. “Amazing Disgrace,” The Ecologist 32, no. 4 (May 2002).

23. “Journal Editors Disavow Article on Biotech Corn,” Washington Post, April 4, 2002.

24. Fred Pearce, “Special Investigation: The Great Mexican Maize Scandal.”

25. Wil Lepkowski, “Maize, Genes, and Peer Review,” Center for Science, Policy, and Outcomes, no. 14, October 31, 2002.

26. Andrew Suarez, “Conflicts Around a Study of Mexican Crops,” Nature 417 (June 27, 2002): 898.

27. Platoni, “Kernels of Truth.”

28. Ibid.

29. Mann, “Has GM Corn ‘Invaded’ Mexico?”

30. “Corn Row,” Science 298 (November 6, 2002): 1169.

31. Sol Ortiz-Garcia et al., “Absence of Detectable Transgenes in Local Landraces of Maize in Oaxaca, Mexico, 2003–2004,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102, no. 35 (August 30, 2005): 12338–43.

32. David A. Cleveland et al., “Detecting (Trans)gene Flow to Landraces in Centers of Crop Origin: Lessons from the Case of Maize in Mexico,” Environmental Biosafety Research 4, no. 4 (2005): 197–208.

33. Hervé Morin, “La contamination du maïs par les OGM en question,” Le Monde, September 7, 2005.

34. See Elena R. Alvarez-Buylla and Berenice Garcia-Ponce, “Unique and Redundant Functional Domains of APETALA1 and CAULIFLOWER, Two Recently Duplicated Arabidopsis thaliana Floral MADS-box genes,” Journal of Experimental Botany 57, no. 12 (August 7, 2006): 3009–107.

13. In Argentina: The Soybeans of Hunger

1. Ámbito financiero, Sec. Ámbito agropecuario, August 11, 2000, 4–5.

2. La Nación, July 23, 2000.

3. See Walter Pengue, Cultivos trnasgénicos: Hacia dónde vamos? (Buenos Aires: Lugar Editorial, 2000).

4. Revista Gente, January 29, 2002.

5. Ibid.

6. Clarín, January 11, 2003.

7. http://www.sojasolidaria.org.ar (no longer accessible).

8. La Nación, February 14, 2003.

9. La Capital, March 25, 2005.

14. Paraguay, Brazil, Argentina: The “United Soy Republic”

1. Daniel Vernet, “Libres OGM du Brésil,” Le Monde, November 27, 2003.

2. http://www.monsanto.com/who_we_are/loca ... macari.asp.

3. Javiera Rulli, Stella Semino, and Lilian Joensen, Paraguay Sojero: Soy Expansion and Its Violent Attack on Local and Indigenous Communities in Paraguay, Grupo de reflexión rural, http://www.grr.org.ar, Buenos Aires, March 2006.

4. Ibid.

15. India: The Seeds of Suicide

1. Somini Sengupta, “On India’s Farms, a Plague of Suicide,” New York Times, September 19, 2006.

2. Amelia Gentleman, “Despair Takes Toll on Indian Farmers,” International Herald Tribune, May 31, 2006.

3. Jaideep Hardikar, “One Suicide Every 8 Hours,” DNA India. In this article, the Mumbai newspaper specifies that, according to government sources, 2.8 million cotton farmers in the state (out of a total of 3.2 million) are in debt.

4. This was patent no. 0436257 B1 (see my film Les Pirates du vivant).

5. Gargi Parsai, “Transgenics: US Team Meets CJI,” The Hindu, January 5, 2001.

6. “Food, Feed Safety Promote Dialogue with European Delegation,” Monsanto news release, July 3, 2002.

7. http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/lr19023.htm. See also Peter Fritsch and Timothy Mapes, “Seed Money: In Indonesia, Tangle of Bribes Creates Trouble for Monsanto,” Wall Street Journal, April 5, 2005; Agence France-Presse, January 7, 2005.

8. Quoted by Fritsch and Mapes, “Seed Money”; Agence France-Presse, January 7, 2005.

9. Rama Lakshmi, “India Harvests First Biotech Cotton Crop; Controversy Surrounds Policy Change,” Washington Post, May 4, 2003.

10. Ibid.

11. Ibid.

12. Abdul Qayum and Kiran Sakkhari, “Did Bt Cotton Save Farmers in Warangal? A Season Long Impact Study of Bt Cotton—Kharif 2002 in Warangal District of Andhra Pradesh,” AP Coalition in Defense of Diversity and Deccan Development Society, Hyderabad, June 2003, http://www.ddsindia.com/www/pdf/English%20Report .pdf.

13. “Performance Report of Bt Cotton in Andhra Pradesh: Report of State Department of Agriculture,” 2003, http://www.grain.org/research_files/AP_state.pdf.

14. Matin Qaim and David Zilberman, “Yield Effects of Genetically Modified Crops in Developing Countries,” Science 299 (February 7, 2003): 900–2.

15. Times of India, March 15, 2003.

16. The State of Food and Agriculture 2003–2004; Agricultural Technology Meeting the Needs of the Poor? FAO, Rome, 2004, http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/Y5160E/ Y5160E00.HTM.

17. http://www.monsanto.co.uk/news/ukshowlib.pthml?uid=7983.

18. “Le Coton génétiquement modifié augmente sensiblement les rendements,” Agence France-Presse, February 6, 2003.

19. Washington Post, May 4, 2003.

20. Times of India, March 15, 2003.

21. Hindu Business Line, January 23, 2006. These were Mech-12 Bt, Mech-162 Bt, and Mech-184 Bt.

22. “Court Rejects Monsanto Plea for Bt Cotton Seed Price Hike,” The Hindu, June 6, 2006.

23. Abdul Qayum and Kiran Sakkhari, “False Hope, Festering Failures: Bt Cotton in Andhra Pradesh 2005–2006. Fourth Successive Year of the Study Reconfirms the Failure of Bt Cotton,” AP Coalition in Defense of Diversity and Deccan Development Society, November 2006, http://www.grain.org/research_files/APCIDD%20 report-bt%20cotton%20in%20AP-2005-06.pdf.

24. “Monsanto Boosts GM Cotton Seed Sales to India Five-Fold,” Dow Jones Newswires, September 7, 2004. According to this article, the company sold 1.3 million packets of Bt seeds in 2004, compared to 230,000 in 2003.

25. Daniel Charles, Lords of the Harvest: Biotech, Big Money, and the Future of Food (Cambridge, MA: Perseus, 2002), 182.

26. Michael Pollan, “Playing God in the Garden,” New York Times Magazine, October 25, 1998.

27. “Farmers Violating Biotech Corn Rules,” Associated Press, January 31, 2001.

28. Susan Lang, “Seven-Year Glitch: Cornell Warns that Chinese GM Cotton Farmers Are Losing Money Due to ‘Secondary’ Pests,” Cornell Chronicle Online, July 25, 2006, http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Jul ... a.ssl.html.

16. How Multinational Corporations Control the World’s Food

1. Vandana Shiva, The Violence of the Green Revolution: Ecological Degradation and Political Conflict in Punjab (London: Zed Books, 2002).

2. http:nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1970/press.html.

3. Vandana Shiva and Kunwar Jalees, Seeds of Suicide: The Ecological and Human Costs of Seed Monopolies and Globalisation of Agriculture (Navdanaya, May 2006).

4. Vandana Shiva has devoted several books to the subject: Protect or Plunder? Understanding Intellectual Property Rights (London: Zed Books, 2001); Stolen Harvest: The Hijacking of the Global Food Supply (London: Zed Books, 2000); Éthique et agro-industrie: Main basse sur la vie (Paris: L’Harmattan, 1996).

5. Monsanto obtained the patent when it purchased the wheat division of the British company Unilever in 1998. See “Monsanto Wheat Patent Disputed,” The Scientist, February 5, 2004.

6. Mounira Badro, Benoît Martimort-Asso, and Nadia Karina Ponce Morales, “Les enjeux des droits de propriété intellectuelle sur le vivant dans les nouveaux pays industrialisés: Le cas du Mexique,” Continentalisation, Cahier de Recherche 1, no. 6 (August 2001): 8.

7. Shiva, Éthique et agro-industrie, 8.

8. Badro, Martimort-Asso, and Ponce Morales, “Les enjeux des droits de propriété intellectuelle sur le vivant,” 8.

9. Quoted in Shiva, Éthique et agro-industrie, 12–13; Badro, Martimort-Asso, and Ponce Morales, “Les enjeux des droits de propriété intellectuelle sur le vivant,” 9.

10. James R. Enyart, “A GATT Intellectual Property Code,” Les Nouvelles, June 1990, quoted in Shiva, Éthique et agro-industrie, 12–13.

11. “Globalization and Its Impact on the Full Enjoyment of Human Rights,” Preliminary Report submitted by J. Oloka-Onyango and Deepika Udagama, UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, June 15, 2000.

Conclusion: A Colossus with Feet of Clay

1. “Monsanto and Genetic Engineering: Risks for Investors,” January 2005. http://www.asyousow.org/publications/20 ... nsanto.pdf.

2. “Monsanto Helps Battle Oregon Voter Initiative on Food Labeling,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, September 20, 2002.

3. Hervé Kempf, “L’expertise confidentielle sur un inquiétant maïs transgénique,” Le Monde, April 23, 2004.

4. Ibid.

5. Ibid.

6. Ibid.

7. Friends of the Earth Europe, “Throwing Caution to the Wind: A Review of the European Food Safety Authority and Its Work on Genetically Modified Foods and Crops,” November 2004, http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/publicati ... report.pdf.

8. http://www.agbioworld.org/pdf/petition.pdf.

9. http://www.monsanto.co.uk/news/ukshowlib.phtml?uid=2330.

10. Gilles-Éric Séralini, “Report on MON 863 GM Maize Produced by Monsanto Company,” June 2005, http://www.greenpeace.de/fileadmin/gpd/user_upload/ themen/gentechnik/bewertung_monsanto_studie_mon863_seralini.pdf.

11. Gilles-Éric Séralini, Dominique Cellier, and Joël Spiroux de Vendomois, “New Analysis of a Rat Feeding Study with a Genetically Modified Maize Reveals Signs of Hepatorenal Toxicity,” Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 52, no. 4 (May 2007): 596–602.

12. Ingo Potrykus et al., “Engineering the Provitamin A (Beta-Carotene) Biosynthetic Pathway into (Carotenoid-Free) Rice Endosperm,” Science 287 (January 14, 2007): 303–5.

13. “Monsanto Offers Patent Waiver,” Washington Post, August 4, 2000.

14. “Monsanto Plans to Offer Rights to Its Altered Rice Technology,” New York Times, August 4, 2000.

15. Le Monde, August 19, 2001.

16. “The Mechanisms and Control of Genetic Recombination in Plants,” http:// ec.europa.eu/research/quality-of-life/gmo/01-plants/01-14-project.html.

17. “Effects and Mechanisms of Bt Transgenes on Biodiversity of Non-Target Insects: Pollinators, Herbivores, and Their Natural Enemies,” http://ec.europa.eu/ research/quality-of-life/gmo/01-plants/01-08-project.html.

18. “Safety Evaluation of Horizontal Gene Transfer from Genetically Modified Organisms to the Microflora of the Food Chain and Human Gut,” http://ec .europa.eu/research/quality-of-life/ka1/volume1/qlk1-1999-00527.htm.

19. Reuters, July 7, 2002.

20. Agence France-Presse, August 22, 2006.

21. Reuters, November 5, 2007.

22. SEC 10-K form, 2005, 49.

23. Ibid., 10–11.

24. “Monsanto Market Power Scrutinized in Lawsuit,” Reuters, August 25, 2004.

25. New York Times, October 17, 2003.

26. David Barboza, “Questions Seen on Seed Prices Set in the 90s,” New York Times, January 6, 2004.`
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 27841
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: The World According to Monsanto: Pollution, Corruption,

Postby admin » Sun Feb 07, 2016 7:29 am

Index

Aapresid (Argentine Association of No-Till
Farmers), 260, 262–63, 275, 277, 280, 287
Abernathy v. Monsanto, 15, 26–27
Abrams, Edwin, 58
additives: and food, 147–50; and pesticides,
77, 81, 88
Advanta seed company (Canada), 218
advertising campaigns, 69–71, 73–75, 197–99
Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and
Processes (UK), 181
AgBio World (Web site), 248–51, 324
Agence France-Presse, 301
Agent Orange, 3, 39–45; effects on veterans,
42–45, 59–60, 61, 67–68; military use
(and Operation Ranch Hand), 39–42, 60;
Vietnamese victims, 63–68
Agrarian and Popular Movement (MAP)
(Paraguay), 281, 283
AgrEvo, 195, 233
Agricultural Biotechnology Stewardship Working
Group (ABSWG), 231
Agriculture and AgriFood Canada (AAC), 235,
238–39
Agriculture Canada, 125, 127
Agro Seed Corp (Philippines), 195
Agrobacterium tumefaciens, 137–38, 140, 144,
246
Agroceres (Brazil), 278
Agropeco, 284
Akre, Jane, 89, 118–22
Alabama Water Improvement Commission
(AWIC), 20–21
Albert Einstein Medical College (New York),
101
Albuquerque Journal, 150
Alexander, Ian, 124, 127
Alliance for Bio-Integrity, 153–54, 159–60
Altieri, Miguel, 251
Alvarez-Buylla, Elena, 252–53
American Cancer Society, 117
American Cyanamid, 90
American Dietetic Association, 117
American Home Products, 200
American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 63
American Medical Association (AMA), 55,
101, 117
American Soybean Association (ASA), 173,
194, 206, 260, 287
Amish agricultural products, 112–13
Anand, A.S., 296
Andhra Pradesh Coalition in Defense of
Diversity (CDD), 298–99
Angell, Phil, 174
Animal Health Institute, 117
Anniston, Alabama, 9–15, 19–21
antibiotic resistance, 101–2, 137–38
antibiotic resistance markers, 137–38, 322, 324
antibiotics and rBGH, 91–93, 96, 101–2
anti-globalization movement, 229
Apassul (Seed Producers Association of Rio
Grande Do Sul), 277
Apotheker, Arnaud, 133, 141
Appel, Cameron, 59
Arcario, Adelmar, 284
Argentina: The Soybeans of Hunger (Arte
documentary), 2
Argentina and transgenic RR soybeans,
256–72; the Argentine economy and
financial crisis, 261–63, 288; and Argentine
seed companies, 258; and deforestation,
271–72; environmental and health
consequences of Roundup spraying, 266,
Argentina and transgenic RR soybeans (cont.)
268–69; and expulsion of rural families,
270–71; low yield problem, 260; and
Monsanto’s collection of royalties,
279–81; the pampas and soybean production,
259–63, 265–66; the public health
disaster, 265–68; seed smuggling, 276–77;
soil erosion/soil fertility problems, 260;
Soja Solidaria program, 262–63, 267; soy
consumption, 262–63, 267; soybean
farming and “direct sowing,” 260; weed resistance
problem, 263–65
Argentine Agrarian Federation, 260, 262,
279–80
Aroclor, 3, 12, 16–18, 19. See also PCBs
(polychlorinated biphenyls)
ASDA (British subsidiary of Wal-Mart), 321
Asgrow Agronomics, 195, 223, 278
Ashcroft, John, 163, 211
Asilomar, 134
aspartame, 3, 189
aspirin, 12
Atlanta Constitution, 11
atrazine (herbicide), 139, 264
Australia, 62, 128
Australian Society, 62
Aventis, 38, 232–35
Axelson, Olav, 62
Azevedo, Kirk, 191–92
Bacillus thuringiensis, 191, 230, 304. See also
Bt crops
Bailey, Britt, 172–74
Baker, David, 9–11, 12–14, 27–28
Barchetta, Héctor, 260–61, 265
Barrett, J.W., 18
Bartle Bogle Hegarty (advertising agency),
197–98
Bartsch, Detlef, 324
BASF, 37, 38, 46, 60
basmati rice, 311–12
Basta (herbicide), 139, 195
Baumann, Dale, 98, 105
Bayer, 29, 38, 324, 328
Bayer CropScience, 327–28
Bayh, Evan, 212
Belgium and the 1999 “dioxin chicken” crisis, 25
Bellé, Robert, 79–82
Belle Center of Chicago, 189
Bello, Jésus, 263–65
Benbrook, Charles, 219–21, 222
Bennett, Stanley T., 111
benzene, 11
Berg, Paul, 134
Berman, Howard, 57
Bertazzi, Pier Alberto, 61
Beyer, Peter, 326
Bharatiya Kisan Union, 1
Bhopal tragedy, 311
360 index
biodiversity: and biouniformity of transgenic
agriculture, 288–89; effects of genealogical
selection on, 136–37; and transgenic
contamination, 231, 239; UN Convention
(1992), 197, 276, 317
Biotechnology Industry Organization, 231
Birnbaum, Linda, 61
birth defects: and dioxin, 60, 63–68; and
Roundup, 83–85, 87, 266
Bivings Group, 249
Blair, Tony, 184, 187
Bliss, Russell, 31, 33, 34
Bliss Waste Oil Company, 31–32
“Bollgard.” See Bt cotton
Booth, Grace, 233
Borlaug, Norman, 308
Bové, José, 229, 250
bovine growth hormone (rBGH), 3, 89–107,
108–28; and antibiotics for cows, 91–93,
96, 101–2, 106; and cancer, 100–101; and
dissenting voices, 108–28; and the FDA,
89–107, 108–12, 116, 118–19, 126, 131;
GAO investigations, 97, 101, 102, 104,
106–7; Health Canada approval process,
123–28; and IGF-1, 98–102; and labeling,
108–12; marketing of Posilac, 104–5, 108,
115; and mastitis in dairy cattle, 91–93,
101–4, 115, 118; and milk consumption,
99–102; and milk surpluses, 113; Monsanto’s
lobbying and control of the press,
117–22; promotional marketing to dairy
farmers, 113–15; Science article and rat
studies, 96–99, 105; UN report on JECFA
scientists on safety, 126–27; veterinary
data on effects in cows and humans,
93–96, 102–4; and whistle-blowers,
89–93, 105–6, 118–22, 123–28
Boylan, Dave, 120–21
Boyle, Ellen, 163
Brammer, Marc, 320–22, 325–26, 327, 328
Brazil and transgenic RR soybeans, 257, 276–79
Brazilian Institute for Consumer Defense
(IDEC), 276
breast cancer, 23, 101–1
Bristol-Myers, 314
British Food Journal, 104
Brower, Lincoln, 230–31
Brunner, Eric, 104
Bt corn, 223, 229–31, 322–25; and corn borer,
194, 229–30, 304–5, 322; and insect resistance,
218–21, 304–5, 322; Mexico
and contamination of criollo corn,
243–55; Mexico’s moratorium on, 244;
MON 810, 157, 322; MON 863, 322–25;
and the monarch butterfly, 229–31; and
regulatory policy, 232–34; and the Star-
Link debacle, 232–35
Bt cotton, 191–92, 210, 276, 290–306; Cocker
312 and Cry1Ac gene, 295–96; crop
failures, 298–300; first field trials in India,
296; India and “Bollgard,” 290–306; and
lectins, 191; necessity for herbicides and
insecticides, 295, 303–6; and rhizoctonia
(disease), 302–3; seed prices, 298, 302;
the 2003 Science article and Monsanto
propaganda, 300–301
Bt crops: and Bt gene, 191, 193–94, 230, 246,
304; and lectins, 179–80, 182–83. See
also Bt corn; Bt cotton; Bt potatoes;
Roundup Ready soybeans; transgenic crops
Bt potatoes, 179–87, 232–33
Buckingham, William, 39–41
Buhk, Hans-Yorg, 324
Burch, John Thomas, 59
Bureau of Veterinary Drugs (BVD) (Canada),
123–24
Burford, Anne, 33–34
Burger King, 184, 321
Burroughs, Richard, 89–93, 97, 101, 116
Bush, George H.W., 61, 141, 143–44
Bush, George W./Bush administration, 67,
162–63, 165, 189
Business Ethics, 189, 190
Buzzi, Eduardo, 262, 279–80
Byrne, Jay, 250
Calandra, Joseph, 22
Calgene, 134, 139, 148–49, 157, 169
Callis, Clayton F., 49
Camarra, Graciela, 275
Campos, Miguel, 256–57, 261, 262–63, 266,
268, 279–81
Canada: canola exports, 224; farmers’ resistance
against Monsanto patents, 213–16;
GM canola contamination, 214, 217–18,
236–39; health effects of Roundup on
farm families, 83; and rBGH, 123–28;
wheat production and campaign against
transgenic RR wheat, 226, 235–39
Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), 235
Canadian House of Commons Standing Committee
on Agriculture and Agri-Food, 235
Canadian Seed Trade Association, 217
Canadian Wheat Board (CWB), 226–28, 235,
236, 238
cancer: and dioxin, 52–53, 60–63; and
glyphosate-based herbicides (Roundup),
79–82; and IGF-1, 101–1; and PCBs, 23;
and rBGH, 100–101
Cancer (journal), 61
canola. See Roundup Ready canola
Capeco (Paraguay), 274, 275, 287
Cargill, 195, 262, 278
Carleton University, 83
Carpenter, David, 22–23, 24, 26, 67
Carr, Rex, 49, 50, 52
Carrato, Tom, 173
Carrefour, 321
Carstensen, Peter, 205–6
Carter, Jimmy, 189
Castellán, Luis, 268–69
Center for Biological Warfare (Fort Detrick,
Maryland), 40
Center for Food Safety (CFS), 153, 156–57,
207–10
Center for Plant Biotechnology Research at
Tuskegee University, 249
Center for Science in the Public Interest, 157
Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) at the
FDA: and GM foods, 154, 160; Office of
New Animal Drug Evaluation, 92–93,
105; and rBGH, 90–93, 98, 105, 109, 116
Centers for Disease Control (CDC), 31,
59–60, 102, 150
CETOS (Center for Ethics and Toxics) in
Gualala, California, 172
Chakrabarty, Ananda Mohan, 203
Chamorro, Domingo, 168
Chapela, Ignacio, 89, 244, 245–52, 298
Charles, Daniel, 135, 193–94, 205, 206, 208,
304
Charleston Gazette, 54
Chemical Warfare Service, 37
Chemistry and Industry, 198
Chevron-Texaco, 263
Chicago Tribune, 207, 211
Chinese Academy of Science, 305
chloracne, 16–17, 35, 37, 50, 61
chlorophenols, 45, 49
Chopra, Shiv, 89, 123–28
Ciagro (Argentina), 195
Ciba-Geigy, 139
CIMMYT (International Maize and Wheat
Improvement Center, Centro Internacional
de Mejoramiento de Maíz y Trigo), 308–9
Clarín (Argentine daily), 258, 263, 275
Clary, James, 43
Clay, Don R., 55, 57
Clean Air Act, 52
Clemon, U.W., 28
Clinton, Bill/Clinton administration, 163,
164–67, 187–88
Clophen, 3, 12. See also PCBs (polychlorinated
biphenyls)
CNN, 122
CNRS (Centre Nationale de la Recherche
Scientifique), 79, 82
Coalition for the Prevention of Cancer, 94, 117
Coca-Cola, 12, 161, 189
Cochran, Johnnie, 9–10, 27–28
Codex Alimentarius Commission, 126–27, 169
“co-evolution,” 304
Cohen, Stanley, 134
Cold War, 40
Collier, Robert, 104, 118
Colombia, 87–88
Colonel, Pedro, 271–72
Commercial Fisheries Bureau of the U.S.
Interior Department, 21
Commission d’étude de la toxicité des produits
antiparasitaires à usage agricole, 78–79
Commission du Génie Biomoléculaire (CGB),
322–25
Community against Pollution (Anniston,
Alabama), 10, 14
Community Media Trust (Andhra Pradesh), 318
con A (concanavalin A), 182
Conabia (National Advisory Commission on
Agricultural Biotechnology) (Argentina),
258, 259
Conamuri (Coordinadora Nacional de Organizaciones
de Mujeres Trabajadoras Rurales
e Indígena) (Paraguay), 274, 283
Conn, Cary, 37
Consejo Nacional de Coordinación de Políticas
Sociales (Argentina), 267
Consultative Group on International Agricultural
Research (CGIAR), 197
Consumer Fraud and Protection Bureau of
New York, 73–74
Consumer Policy Institute, 97, 105, 110, 127
Consumers Union, 97, 105–6, 142, 147, 201
contamination, transgenic, 207, 213–18, 219,
227, 236–39, 243–55, 327–28; and
biodiversity, 231, 239; canola, 207, 214,
216–18, 219, 236–39; corn, 243–55; and
“volunteers,” 207, 218, 227; wheat, 227,
236–39
Conyers, John, 96–97
Cook, Ken, 15–16, 19–20, 26, 28, 75
Core, Al, 115
corn. See Bt corn
Corn States Hybrid Services, 195
Cornell University, 91, 98, 110, 140, 229–31,
305
corporations and status as “persons” in U.S.
law, 28
Cosmo-Flux 411F, 88
Cosmo-InD, 88
cotton. See Bt cotton
Council for Biotechnology Information, 165
Council of Canadians, 227
Council on Scientific Affairs (AMA), 101
Courtney, Diane, 44
Cox, Caroline, 73
Craven, Neil, 103
Craven Laboratories, 72–73
Crawford, Leslie, 111–12
Crick, Francis, 132
CRII-GEN (Committee for Independent
Research and Information on Genetic
Engineering), 83, 323, 325
Cristaldo, Angel, 284–85
Crockett, Joe, 20–21
Cummins, Joe, 82
Custom Farm Seed, 195
362 index
Daily Mail, 187
Daily Record (Scotland), 182
Daily Telegraph, 185, 198
Dairy and Food Market Analyst, 116
Dairy Coalition, 117–18, 120
Danisco, 324
Daschle, Tom, 43, 60
Daucet, Jean, 168
Le Dauphiné libéré, 23
DDT, 3, 19, 38–39, 40, 76–77
de la Rúa, Fernando, 261
de Vilmorin, Louis, 136
Dean Foods, 116
Deccan Development Society (DDS), 298–300
Declaration of Support for Agricultural
Biotechnology, 249
DeKalb Genetics, 195, 278
Delaney, James, 90
“Delaney amendment,” 90, 100
Delta and Pine Land Company, 196, 197
Department of Veterans Affairs, 59, 61
deregulation, 141–42
Derwinski, Edward J., 43, 59
Diamond Shamrock, 44
Diem, Ngo Dinh, 41, 42
Diouf, Jacques, 301
dioxin, 3, 30–47, 48–68; birth defects and
genetic deformities, 63–68; and cancer,
52–53, 61–63; and chloracne, 16–17, 35,
37, 50, 61; effects of Agent Orange on
veterans, 42–45, 59–60, 61, 67–68; and
EPA, 31–33, 51–61; epidemiological
studies, 50–51, 52, 54–58, 61–63; Greenpeace
report (1990), 45–46, 50; and
herbicide 2,4,5-T, 31, 35–45, 50–51,
60–61; and Kemner v. Monsanto, 36–37,
45–47, 48–51; military use, 37–45, 60;
and Monsanto’s falsified scientific studies,
48–51; and Nitro factory accident, 36–37,
46, 51; origins of, 35–37; and the “Seveso
catastrophe,” 35, 45; Times Beach contamination,
30–35; and whistle-blowers,
51–57. See also PCBs (polychlorinated
biphenyls)
DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), 132
Doll, John, 203–4
Doll, Richard, 63
Dow Chemical, 39, 44, 328
Drinker, Cecil K., 16
Druker, Steven, 153, 159–60
Duarte, Nicanor, 283
Duffy, Michael, 223
Duhalde, Eduardo, 261
DuPont, 38, 139, 200, 314, 324
Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund, 87
East Bay Express, 246–47
Eau et Rivières de Bretagne, 74–75
The Ecologist, 38, 199, 251
Edwards, David, 49
Eid Parry (India), 195
Einstein Institute for Science, Health, and the
Courts, 296
Elanco, 90
Électricité de France (EDF), 24
Eli Lilly, 90
Elixir Sulfanilamide, 90
Elmore, Roger, 221–22
Embrapa (Brazil), 278
endocrine disruption, 84–85, 266
Entransfood, 324
Entz, Martin, 216
Environment Department of Oslo, 29
Environmental Health Perspectives, 85
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): and
dioxin, 31–33, 51–61; Experimental
Toxicology Division, 61; fraud and falsified
studies of health effects of Roundup,
71–73; and glyphosate (Roundup), 79;
and GMO regulatory policy for pesticides,
142, 232–34; Nixon administration and
creation of, 20; Office of Criminal Enforcement
(OCE), 56; Office of Health
and Environmental Assessment, 58; and
PCBs, 13, 24–25, 27, 72; whistle-blowers,
51–57
Environmental Working Group (Washington,
D.C.), 15, 75
Eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome (EMS),
150–52
Epstein, Samuel, 93–97, 99–101, 107, 108,
117–18, 120
Errico, Phil, 174
Escherichia coli (E. coli) bacterium, 91, 134,
234
ETC Group (Erosion, Technology, Concentration),
196
European Commission, 74, 128, 174, 224,
227, 230, 325–27
European Community: banned herbicides,
264; debates and directives regulating
GMOs, 174, 181, 224, 322–25; and
labeling of GM foods, 197, 277; mad cow
crisis and anti-GMO movement, 229; and
marketing of Bt crops, 230; pesticide
toxicological testing and regulation,
77–79; and rBGH, 94, 102–3, 128;
research on safety of GMOs, 326–27; and
Roundup advertising, 74
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA),
322–25
European Patent Office, 203, 204, 280, 311
European Union (EU), 77–79, 128, 197, 239,
264, 322–25
Evatt, Phillip, 63
Ewen, Stanley, 185–87
“extrafinancial analysis,” 320
Ezcurra, Exequiel, 251, 252–53
Family Farm Defenders, 112, 113
Farm Journal, 178
farm subsidies, 294
Favero, Tranquillo, 275
Federal Communications Commission (FCC),
121–22
Federal Election Commission, 162
Federal Register (FDA), 106, 108–9, 145, 159
Ferguson, Denzel, 18
Fichet, Yann, 4
Fife, David, 237
Le Figaro, 23
Firm Line Seeds (Canada), 195
Fisher, Linda, 27, 72–73, 164
Fisons (company), 232
“Flavr Savr” tomatoes, 148–49, 157, 169
FMC Corporation, 314
Fondation pour une Terre Humaine, 85
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (1938), 90, 105;
and GM foods, 146, 147–48, 153–54; and
1958 “Food Additive Act” (Delaney
amendment), 90, 100, 147–48
“food additives,” 147–50
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 126,
161, 165, 169–70, 171, 301
Food and Drug Administration (FDA): agency
formation and authority, 90; Center for
Veterinary Medicine, 90–93, 98, 105, 109,
116, 154, 160; GM foods and the principle
of substantial equivalence, 146–52,
153, 156, 159; GM foods regulatory policy,
142–52, 153–62, 174, 232–34; and milk
labeling, 108–12; the 1992 policy statement
on GMOs, 144–46, 156, 158–62;
and PCB levels of fish, 20–21; and rBGH,
89–107, 108–12, 116, 118–19, 126, 131;
and revolving door, 105, 106–7, 161–64;
and Starlink debacle (Bt corn), 232–34;
and the L-tryptophan affair, 149–52
Food Lion case, 119
Food Security Act (1985), 113
Ford, Gerald, 39, 189
Ford Foundation, 179, 310
Forrest, Carolyn, 120–21
Forum for Biotechnology and Food Security
(India), 316
Foundation on Economic Trends, 106, 147
Fox News, 119–22
Fraley, Robert, 135, 144, 164, 179, 187, 228
France: Bt corn (MON 863) and regulatory
process, 322–25; Monsanto’s
GMO/biotechnology advertising campaign,
198; PCBs and pollution of the
Rhône, 23–24, 29; pesticide regulation,
75–78; and rBGH, 94, 103; Rhône in
France, 23–24, 29; Roundup advertising
and publicity campaigns, 69–71, 74–75;
studies of glyphosate-based herbicides
and cancer, 79–82
France Nature Environnement, 24
Franco, Felipe, 269–70
Franco, Roberto, 276, 279, 282, 287
Franklin, Bob, 120
Fraud Magazine, 53
Freeling, Mike, 248
French Biomolecular Engineering Commission,
83
French Environment and Energy Management
Agency (ADEME), 24
Friedman, Michael, 164
Friends of the Earth, 198, 232–34, 323–25
Frish, Tracy, 71
Fuchs, Roy, 170, 171
Futterer, Johannes, 248
Gaffey, William, 51, 63
Galeano, Jorge, 281–83, 284–86
Gandhi, Indira, 309
Gasson, Mike, 324
Gaud, William, 308
Gavilán, Benito, 283
“gene guns,” 140–41, 180
General Accounting Office (GAO), 43, 97,
101, 102, 104, 106–7
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
(GATT), 181, 313–17
General Electric, 16, 29, 203, 314
General Foods, 161
General Motors, 314
genetic engineering. See GMOs (invention of)
Genetic Engineering Approval Committee
(India), 296, 297–98
Genetic Roulette (Smith), 152
GeneWatch, 168
Gepts, Paul, 202, 252–53
Germany and approval of MON 863, 322–25
Gianfelici, Darío, 265–67
Gibson, Alan, 42–43, 61, 67
Glean (herbicide), 139
Gleich, Gerald, 151
Glickman, Dan, 164–67, 187, 196, 201, 258
Globe and Mail (Toronto), 123
glyphosate-based herbicides, 70, 77, 79, 81,
84; and cancer, 79–82; health effects of
Roundup compared to glyphosate alone,
84; invention of, 70, 138–39; and weed
resistance, 218–21, 263–65. See also
Roundup herbicide
GMOs and food crops. See transgenic crops
GMOs and patents. See patents and GMOs
GMOs (and regulatory system), 141–52,
153–77, 232, 321–25; Bt corn and Starlink
debacle, 232–34, 321; and debate
over MON 863 corn in Europe, 322–25;
EMS epidemic and the L-tryptophan
affair, 149–52; and EPA, 142, 232–34; the
FDA, 142–52, 153–62, 174, 232–34; and
FDA’s 1992 policy statement, 144–46,
156, 158–62; and food additives, 147–50;
and Monsanto’s political strategies to
influence, 141–45; Monsanto’s revolving
door system and regulatory agencies,
161–67; and principle of substantial
equivalence, 146–52, 153, 156, 159,
169–76; and toxicology studies, 148–49,
157, 171–77; and transgenic tomatoes,
148–49, 157, 169; WHO/FAO consultations
(1990 and 1996), 169–70, 171
GMOs (invention of), 131–41; and differences
between inserted proteins and original
proteins, 158, 234; and “gene guns,”
140–41; genetic manipulation research,
135–41; Roundup Ready soybeans,
138–41; and selection markers, 137–38,
322, 324
GMWatch, 249
Gold, Richard, 216
golden rice, 326
Goldsmith, Zac, 199
González, Aldo, 253–55
Grandi Molini Italiani, 227
Grant, Hugh, 186, 200, 206
GRAS (“generally recognized as sage”) substances,
148, 149
Great Britain, 178–87, 198–99, 217
green revolution, 1, 36, 135, 197, 295, 307–11;
and seed patents/patent law, 310–11; and
transgenic agriculture in India, 295,
307–8, 310–11; and wheat production,
308–10
Greenpeace: anti-GMO/biotechnology campaigns,
165, 197–98, 199–200, 203, 225,
227, 229, 235–36, 266, 276, 311,
324–25; campaign against Roundup
Ready wheat, 225, 227, 235–36; and
dioxin, 45–46, 50, 51–52, 56; and mad
cow disease crisis, 229; and Monsanto’s
biotechnology campaign in Europe, 198
Greenpeace Canada, 235–36
Greenpeace France, 133
Greenpeace UK, 199–200
Groenewegen, Paul, 99
Groves, Leslie R., 38–39
Gruissem, Wilhelm, 248
Grupo de Reflexión Rural, 266
The Guardian, 63, 161, 183, 185–86, 217,
249–50
Guarino, Kevin, 56
Guarraia, Leonard, 141, 142
La Guerre secrète des OGM (Kempf), 132
Guest, Gerald B., 94, 114, 154, 160
Gurian-Sherman, Douglas, 157–58
Guyer, Greg, 97, 127
Hale, Marcia, 163
Halowax, 16
Hanley, John, 135
Hansen, Michael, 97–99, 105, 110, 118, 127,
142–50, 160–61, 201–2
Hard, Doug, 103
Hardell, Lennart, 61–63, 79
Hardin, Pete, 95–96, 99, 100–101
Harrowsmith, 52
Hartkamp, Hendrik, 209
Hartwell, Leland, 80
Harvard Business Review, 188
Harvard University, 100
Harvey, Terrence, 92
Hay, Alastair, 50
Haydon, Margaret, 123–28
Heinz, 161, 321
Heisecke, Jorge, 287
Hercules (company), 44
Herndon, Mike, 145
Hertzberg, Vicki, 51
Hetherington, Kregg, 285
Hewlett-Packard, 314
Hexagon Laboratories, 17
Hines, Fred, 157
Hjelle, Jerry, 305
Ho Chi Minh, 41
Hochwalt, Caroll, 133
Hoechst, 38, 139, 232
Hoffman, John, 194, 206–7, 287
Hoffmann-La Roche, 35
Holden’s Foundation Seeds, 195
Horner, Christopher, 4, 207
Horsch, Robert, 135, 136, 138, 140, 144, 187
Horton, Richard, 186
Houk, Vernon, 60
House Agriculture Committee, 164
House Government Operations Committee, 96
House of Commons Science and Technology
Committee, 183–84
Houser, J.S., 40
Hovis, Rank, 227
Huergo, Héctor, 258, 263
Huet, Gilles, 74
human growth hormone, 98–102
Human Rights Commission, 87
Hunt, Tim, 80
Hunter, John, 26
Husch and Eppenberger (law firm), 211
Ibáñez, Antonio, 279
IBM, 314
IG Farben, 38
IGF-1 (insulin-like growth factor 1 or tissue
growth factor), 98–102
ILSI. See International Life Sciences Institute
(ILSI)
The Independent, 186, 219
Independent on Sunday, 184
India: and Bt cotton seeds (“Bollgard”),
290–306; Bt technology license agreement
with Mahyco, 295–96; decision to
ban three varieties of Bt cotton (2005),
302; farmers in state of Andhra Pradesh,
293–94, 298, 300, 302; first field trials of
Bt cotton, 296; and green revolution, 295,
307–8, 309–11; history of Monsanto in,
294–97; peasant farmers’ suicides,
290–93, 295, 300; prohibition on seed
patents, 298, 311, 312–13; seed prices,
298, 302; traditional organic pesticide of
neem tree leaves, 295, 311
Indonesia and Monsanto’s Bt cotton, 297
Industrial Bio-Test Labs (IBT) of Northbrook,
Illinois, 22, 72
Innovest Strategic Value Advisors, 320
Institut National de la Recherche
Agronomique (INRA) (France), 94, 323
Institut Technique de l’Élevage Bovin (France),
94, 103
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
(Minneapolis), 225, 238
Institute for Health and the Environment at
the University of Albany, 22
Institute for Responsible Technology, 150, 162
Institute for Social Ecology, 38
Institute of Science in Society, 82
Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) (Mexico),
244
Intellectual Property Committee (IPC) of the
WTO, 314–15
intellectual property rights (IPR) issue, 311,
313–17
International Agency for Research on Cancer, 52
International Dairy Food Association (IDFA),
112
International Food Biotechnology Council
(IFBC), 160–61, 170
International Herald Tribune, 291–92
International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI),
160–61, 169
International Research and Development
Corporation of Michigan, 148
International Rice Research Institute (IRRI),
310
Internet strategies and viral marketing, 249–51
Inuits of Hudson Bay, 25–26
investors and Monsanto, 318–22
Isaacson, Joe, 67
isoflavones, 171–73, 267
James, Philip, 181–84
Japan, 25, 150–51, 227–28, 282, 314–15
Jaworski, Ernest, 135, 138–39, 187
Jenkins, Cate, 51–59, 89
Jensen, Soren, 19
Johnson and Johnson, 314
Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives
(JECFA), 126–27, 128
Joly, Pierre-Benoît, 229, 232
Jones, Franklin D., 36
Jordan, Trish, 215–16
Journal of Dairy Science, 94, 103–4
Journal of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology, 16
Journal of Medicinal Food, 172–73
Journal of Nutrition, 153, 172, 173, 179
Journal of Pesticide Reform, 73
Journal of the American Medical Association
(JAMA), 51, 55, 117
Junien, Claudine, 168
junk food, 229
Juppé, Alain, 323
Juskevich, Judith, 97, 127
Kahl, Linda, 155–56, 157
kanamycin resistance genes, 137–38, 148
Kanechlor, 12. See also PCBs (polychlorinated
biphenyls)
Kantor, Mickey, 163, 165, 166, 187
Kaplinsky, Nick, 248
Kasowitz, Benson, Torres, and Friedman (law
firm), 14
Kastel, Mark, 115–16
Kate, Tarak, 290–91, 292–93, 294
Kawata, Masaharu, 140
Keidanren (Japanese employers’ confederation),
314
Kelly, Emmett, 16–18
Kemner, Frances, 45
Kemner v. Monsanto, 36–37, 45–47, 48–51
Kempf, Hervé, 132, 213, 214–15, 322–23
Kennedy, John F., 41
Kessler, David, 94, 105–6, 146, 155, 158–59
Kettering Laboratory (Cincinnati), 36, 51
Khayat, David, 168
King, Josh, 163
King and Spalding (Atlanta law firm), 106, 110,
111, 161
Kinsman, John, 113–15, 116–17
Kirchner, Néstor, 261
Klee, Harry, 139
Klein, Odacir, 277
Klein, Ted, 140
Kohn, Richard H., 39
Kosinski, William, 258–59
Kowalczyk, David, 114, 127
Kraft, 161
Kram, Ed and Elizabeth, 214
Kraus, Ezra, 36
Kroger, 116
Kuiper, Harvey, 324
Kusserow, Richard, 97
Kuster, Louis, 228
labeling of GM foods, 108–12, 197, 277, 321
Lachmann, Peter, 186
LADD (lowest acceptable daily dose), 78
Laird, Joel, 15, 27
Lambert, Gérard, 123–28
The Lancet, 100, 186
Landless Peasants Movement (MST) (Brazil),
277
Lappé, Mark, 172, 173
Lavelle, Rita, 33–34
lectins, 179–80, 182–83, 191
Lehmann, Richard P., 92
Lehn and Fink, 49
Leistner, Marilyn, 30, 31–33
Lembcke, Rolf, 174
Lepage, Corinne, 323
Levitt, Adam, 329
Libération, 23, 229
Liberty (herbicide), 195
Livingston, Jay, 115–16
Livingston, Robert, 105–6
lobbying, political, 162–63
Loehr, Raymond C., 54
Loiselle, Marc, 236–38
Lords of the Harvest (Charles), 135, 193, 205,
304
Lorenz, Guido, 271–72
Los Angeles Times, 94, 141, 166, 172
Losey, John, 229–30, 231
Lowery, Brian, 111–12
Lula da Silva, Luiz Inácio, 277
Macready, John, 40
mad cow disease (bovine spongiform
encephalitis), 192, 229
Mae-Wan Ho, 82
Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Company (Mahyco)
(India), 195, 295–96. See also Mahyco
Monsanto Biotech (MMB)
Mahoney, Richard J., 54, 138, 187, 193
Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (MMB), 195,
296–98, 302
Malatesta, Manuela, 176–77
Malathion (insecticide), 86
Manhattan Project, 38–39
Marc, Julie, 76–77, 79–80, 86
Mario (company), 232
Marris, Claire, 229, 232
Marshall, Karen, 208
Martin, Brian, 62
Martin, Guillaume, 294
Maryanski, James: and FDA regulatory policy
on GM foods, 145–56, 159–62, 174, 233;
and L-tryptophan affair, 151–52; and
principle of substantial equivalence,
146–49, 153, 169–70; and WHO/FAO
consultations on GMO food safety,
169–70
mastitis in dairy cattle, 91–93, 101–4, 115,
118
Matera, Philip, 165
Matthews, Jonathan, 249–51, 298
May, Sir Robert, 182
Mayer, Sue, 168
McCreary, Ian, 226–27, 236
McDermott, Tom, 111
McDonald’s, 184, 229, 321
McFarling, Homan, 209
McKay, Andrew, 215–16
McNamara, Robert, 41
McSweeney, Barry, 239
Measner, Adrian, 235
Melchett, Peter, 199–200
Meldon, Virginia, 117, 164
Mellon, Margaret, 230
Ménard, Christian, 85–86
Mendelson, Joseph, 156–57, 207–8, 209
Menem, Carlos, 257–59
Menéndez, Jorge, 271
Merck, 314
Merritt, Colin, 182, 183
Metz, Matthew, 247, 248
Mexican National Institute of Ecology, 251,
252
Mexico, 243–55; contamination of criollo corn
by transgenic corn, 243–55; moratorium
on transgenic corn (1998), 244; and
original green revolution, 308–9
military use of chemical weapons, 37–45, 68
milk: human consumption, 99–102; labeling,
108–12; surpluses, 113. See also bovine
growth hormone (rBGH)
The Milkweed, 95
Miller, Henry, 143
Miller, Margaret, 105–6, 107, 109–10, 127,
164
Millstone, Erik, 102–4, 170–71
Mississippi State University, 18–19
Mitchell, John, 36
Moffett, Toby, 163, 198
monarch butterflies, 229–31
Monbiot, George, 249, 250
Le Monde, 23, 98, 99, 182–83, 199, 213, 253,
277, 322–23
Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices
Commission (MRTPC) (India), 302
Monsanto, Olga Mendez, 11–12
Monsanto Australia, 62
Monsanto Canada, 214–16
Monsanto Chemical Works (St. Louis), 11–12
Monsanto Europe, 19
Monsanto France, 4, 70, 74–76
Montgomery, Jill, 48, 68
Mooney, Pat, 196–97
Moore, James, 57–58
Morin, Christian, 230
Movimiento Campesino Paraguayo (MCP), 283
Mowling, Ray, 127
Murdoch, Rupert, 119
Murray, Bill, 155
Mycogen, 328
La Nación (Argentina), 258
NAFTA, 245
National Academy of Sciences, 61, 219, 252
National Agricultural Statistics Service
(NASS), 219–20, 223
National Cancer Institute, 79
National Corn Growers Association (NCGA),
304
National Farmers Union, 115
National Front for Sovereignty and Life
(Paraguay), 283
National Institute for Occupation Safety and
Health (NIOSH), 50, 56
National Institute of Agricultural Technology
(INTA) (Argentina), 258, 260, 288
National Institute of Statistics and Census
(INDEC) (Argentina), 261–62
National Institutes of Health (NIH), 44–45,
101, 134
National Research Council (NRC), 50
National Seed Company (Malawi), 195
National Seed Institute (INASE) (Argentina),
258
National Vietnam Veterans Coalition (NVVC),
56–57, 59
National Whistleblower Center, 54
Nature (journal), 50, 104, 139, 169, 229–30,
235, 244, 245–52
Nau, Jean-Yves, 98, 99
Navdayana (Nine Grains) association, 308
neem tree, 295, 311
Nestlé, 184, 321
“New Leaf” potatoes, 232–33
New Scientist, 19, 60, 248
New Statesman, 184
New York Stock Exchange, 12, 134
New York Times, 31, 72, 97, 122, 141–43, 231,
232, 291, 305, 328
New Yorker, 189–90
New Zealand, 128
Nicolino, Fabrice, 76
nitrilotriacetic acid, 96
Nitro, West Virginia and 1949 dioxin accident,
36–37, 46, 51
NOAEL (no observable adverse effect level), 78
Norrlands University Hospital at Umea University
(Sweden), 62
North American Millers’ Association, 235
Northeastern Pharmaceutical and Chemical
Company (NEPACCO), 35
Le Nouvel Observateur, 23, 24
Novartis, 229–30, 246, 247–48, 258, 287
Nurse, Paul, 80
Nutman, Philip S., 36
NutraSweet, 189
Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 39
Oakhurst Dairy Inc., 111
O’Brien, Amy, 319
Observatoire Régional de Santé de Bretagne, 74
Ocampo Benítez, Antonio, 275
Office of Government Ethics, 53
Oliver, Melvin, 196
Olson, Dennis, 225–26
Operation Ranch Hand, 39–42, 60
Opperman, Ademir, 284–85
organic dairy farms and rBGH, 111, 112–13,
116
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD), 169, 171
organochlorides, 76–77
Orlando, John, 163
Orskov, Robert, 187
Ottawa Citizen, 123
Otten, Adrian, 316
Padgette, Stephen, 139–41, 172–73
Página 12 (Argentina), 267
Palau, Tomás, 286–89
Papageorge, William, 19–20, 26–27, 32
Paraguay and transgenic RR soybeans, 273–76,
279, 281–86, 287; collective action,
283–86; and Paraguay’s history of agrarian
reform, 281–82; Roundup pollution and
public health, 273–75
paraquat (herbicide), 264
Pascal, Gérard, 168, 323
patents and GMOs, 1–2, 192–99, 201–16,
229, 310–17; the breeder’s and research
exemption, 202; Canadian farmer’s resistance
and patent infringement case,
213–16; CFS report on lawsuits (2004),
207–10; Chakrabarty decision (1980),
202–3; and farmers, 201–16; in India,
298, 311–13; intellectual property rights
issue, 311, 313–17; Monsanto’s “gene
police” and investigators/prosecutions,
206–16; patents for living organisms,
201–4, 310–17; and “plant variety protection,”
202, 210, 315–16; and problems
with Roundup Ready crops, 221–23; and
rice, 311–12, 326; and Roundup Ready
soybean seeds, 192–96, 205–6, 209–11,
280; seed dealers and seed cleaning, 205;
and seed saving, 204–7, 209, 210,
211–12; and signing of “technology use
agreements” (contracts), 205–6, 209–11;
and the Terminator, 196–99, 229; and
TRIPs agreement, 311, 314–17
PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), 3, 9–29;
and Anniston, Alabama, 9–15, 19–21; and
chloracne, 16–17; congeneric PCBs and
variations in toxicity, 23; and dioxin,
22–23, 34; invention of, 11–12; and legal
actions against Monsanto, 9–11, 14–15,
26–28, 29; and Monsanto’s “mountain of
documents,” 9, 15–20; and sea mammals,
26; Snow Creek dumping and pollution,
13, 18–19, 20–21; and Swann Chemical
Company, 11; toxicity, environmental
contamination, and accidental poisonings,
20–26, 29. See also dioxin
Peck, John, 112
Pengue, Walter, 259, 260, 262, 263–65,
288–89
Penta (pentachlorophenol), 49, 51–52
Pepsi-Cola, 161
peripheral neuropathy, 42, 61
Perkins Coie (law firm), 57
Permanent Phytosanitary Committee (EU), 79
persistent organic pollutants (POPs), 22–23
Pesticide Action Network North American
(PANNA), 248
Pesticide News, 87, 174
pesticides: accidental poisonings and suicides,
86–87; and additives, 77, 81, 88; and EPA
regulatory policy, 142, 232–33; European
regulations, 75–79; falsified studies of
health effects, 71–73; and industrial
agriculture, 76–79; organic, 295, 311;
organochlorides, 76–77
Pesticides: Révélations sur un Scandale Français
(Nicolino and Veillerette), 76
Pfizer, 28, 200, 314
Pharmacia, 28, 163, 200
Philippson, Martin, 216–17
Phillips, Patrick, 31
Phipps, Richard, 324
Phuong, Nguyen Thi Ngoc, 64–65
phytates, 267
phytoestrogens, 172, 267
“phytosanitary products,” 76–77, 86, 295, 309
Pickett, John, 186
Pinkerton Detective Agency, 206, 207
Pioneer Hi-Bred International, 193–95, 308, 328
The Pirates of the Living (Arte documentary),
1–2
“Plan Colombia,” 87–88
Plant Breeding International (UK), 195
Plant Genetics System, 134
Pledge Report (2001–2002), 243, 247
Pledge Report (2004), 225
Pledge Report (2005), 5–6, 30, 131, 201, 204,
216, 219, 256, 273, 307
Pledge Report (2006), 290, 292
Poindexter, Martha Scott, 164
Pollack, Robert, 134
Pollan, Michael, 232–33, 305
“Pollution Letter” (February 16, 1970), 9, 16
polyethoxylated tallowamine (POEA), 77, 81,
266
Popular Assembly of the People of Oaxaca
(APPO), 243
porphyria, 32
Posilac, 104–5, 108, 115. See also bovine
growth hormone (rBGH)
potatoes. See Bt potatoes
Potrykus, Ingo, 326
Prakash, Chanapatna S., 249
President’s Advisory Committee for Trade
Policy and Negotiations, 187
President’s Council on Competitiveness, 159,
169
Pribyl, Louis, 154–55
Prince of Wales, 198
“principle of substantial equivalence,” 146–52,
153, 156, 159, 169–76
prions, 192, 229
Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 252
Procter and Gamble, 161
Promar International, 243
Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’
Rights Act (India), 302
Pryme, Ian, 174–76
Puigdomenech, Pere, 324
“Pure Food Campaign,” 106
Pusztai, Arpad, 89, 178–87, 198–99, 325
Pydraul 150, 18
Pyralène, 3, 12. See also PCBs (polychlorinated
biphenyls)
Qaim, Matin, 300, 301, 302–3
Qayum, Abdul, 298–300, 303, 306
Quayle, Dan, 144
Queeny, John Francis, 11–12
Quist, David, 244, 246–47, 251
Quynh, Hoang Trong, 66–67
Rallis (India), 195
Ralph, Ken, 210
Rampton, Sheldon, 76
Ramsay, Jonathan, 198
Reagan administration, 34, 141–42, 287–88
recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST)/recombinant
bovine growth hormone (rBGH). See
bovine growth hormone (rBGH)
Red Fife wheat, 226, 236–37
Reddy, Raghuveera, 300, 302
Reidhead, Paris, 100–101
Reilly, William, 54
Relyea, Rick, 86
Research Foundation for Science, Technology
and Ecology (New Delhi), 296
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), 53
Resources for the Future (RFF), 107
Reutershan, Paul, 45, 47
revolving door system, 73, 105, 106–7, 161–67
Rhône-Poulenc, 38, 139, 232
rice, 311–12, 326, 327–28
RiceTec, 311
Rifkin, Jeremy, 106, 107, 147, 159
Rockefeller Foundation, 197, 308, 326
Rockwell International, 314
Rodrigues, Roberto, 277
Rogers, Stephen, 135, 143–44, 187
Rollins, Scott, 34
Roosevelt, Franklin D., 90
Rorer (company), 232
Rosenberg, Marc, 234
Roundup herbicide, 4, 69–88; and biodegradation,
75, 81; Brazilian production, 278; and
development of GMOs, 82–83; early
advertising and publicity campaigns,
69–71, 73–75; and endocrine disruption,
84, 266; environmental and health consequences
of spraying, 266, 268–69; and
history of pesticides and industrial agriculture,
76–79; and lower yields, 221–23,
260; problems with Roundup Ready crops,
218–23, 260, 263–65; and resistant weeds,
218–21, 263–65; studies of health effects,
71–73, 79–86; suicides and accidental
poisonings, 86–87. See also Roundup
Ready canola; Roundup Ready soybeans
Roundup Ready canola, 207, 214, 216–18,
219, 236–39
Roundup Ready soybeans, 2, 70, 131; and
Argentina, 256–72; and Brazil, 257,
276–78; and “gene guns,” 140–41; invention
of, 138–41; and isoflavones, 171–73;
and lower yields, 221–23, 260; and Monsanto’s
collection of royalties, 279–81; and
Paraguay, 273–76, 279, 281–86, 287;
pollution and public health problems,
273–75; and the principle of substantial
equivalence, 147, 171–76; and seed
patents, 192–96, 204–6, 209–11, 280;
and “technology use agreements” (contracts),
205–6, 209–11; toxicology studies
and food safety, 171–77, 179; weed resistance
problem, 263–65
Roundup Ready wheat, 225–39; and crosscontamination,
227, 236–39; foreign
consumers, 227–28; North American
campaign against, 225–28, 235–36; and
Red Fife wheat, 226, 236–37; and the
Starlink debacle, 232–35
Roundup Ultra, 88
Roush, George, 46, 51
Roush, Troy, 211–13
Roussel-Uclaf, 232
Rowett Research Institute (Aberdeen, Scotland),
178, 179–83, 186–87
Royal Society, 185–86
royalties, collection of, 278–81
Ruckelshaus, William, 34, 57, 164
Ruiz Ortiz, Ulises, 243–44
Rulis, Alan, 233
Rumsfeld, Donald, 163, 189
Runyon, David, 212–13
Rural Advancement Foundation (RAFI), 196–97
saccharin, 12, 38
Sainsbury, 184
Sakkhari, Kiran, 298–300, 302–3, 306
Sandoz (Swiss company), 246
Sanford, John, 140
Sanjour, William, 53–59, 85, 89
Sanofi-Synthélabo (Sanofi-Aventis), 232
Santophen, 49
Santucho, Luis, 270–71
Satheesh, P.V., 299
Schechter, Arnold, 65–67
Scheid, John, 98
Schmeiser, Percy, 213–16, 226
Schulz, Karl-Heinz, 37
Schwartz, Roy, 117
Science (journal), 31, 96–99, 102, 105, 247,
251, 300–301, 326
The Scotsman, 183
Scottish Agriculture, Environment, and Fisheries
Ministry, 179
Scottish Agriculture Research Institute, 186
Scotts Company, 70, 75
Scruggs, Mitchell, 210
Searle (Monsanto’s pharmaceutical subsidiary),
164, 189, 200
Sechen, Susan, 105, 106
seed companies, Monsanto’s acquisition of,
194–96, 197
seed patents. See patents and GMOs
Seeds of Doubt (2002 Soil Association report),
217–18, 223
Sementes Agroceres (Brazil), 195
Seminis (vegetable seeds), 195
Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry, 159–60, 164
Senger, James H., 54, 57
Sensako (South Africa), 195
Séralini, Gilles-Éric, 83–86, 323, 325
Seventh International Plant Molecular
Biotechnology Congress, 324
“Seveso catastrophe” (1976), 35, 45
Sevin (insecticide), 86
Shalala, Donna, 104
Shand, Hope, 196
Shapiro, Robert B., 187–96, 198; and acquisition
of seed companies, 194–96, 197; and
seed patents, 192–94, 205
shareholders and Monsanto, 318–22
Sharma, Devinder, 316
Shelby, Richard, 27
Shend, Anil Kondba, 292
Shibko, Samuel, 154
Shigeta, Tsutomu, 227
Shiva, Vandana, 296–97, 300, 307–8, 310–13
Showa Denko, 150–51
Shumway, John, 115
Silberberg, Ellen, 50
Silva, Marina, 277
Simon, Stephanie, 141
Singh, Yudhvir, 1, 6
Sippel, Rodney, 210–11, 328
60 Minutes, 122
Smetacek, Ranjana, 298
Smith, Jeffrey, 150, 152, 162–63
Smoger, Gerson, 34–35, 43–44, 47, 67
Snow, Allison, 252
Soil Association, 217–18, 223
Solutia (Monsanto’s chemical division), 12–13,
26–28, 29, 195–96
somatic cell count (SCC), 102–4
Somerfield, 184
Southern Manganese Corporation, 11
soy consumption, 171–73, 262–63, 267
soy isoflavones, 171–73, 267
soybeans. See Roundup Ready soybeans
Specter, Michael, 189–90
spina bifida, 65
Spivak, Mira, 126, 127
St. Louis Journalism Review, 37
St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 28, 165
St. Petersburg Times, 122
Stanford University, 133–34
StarLink debacle, 232–35, 321
Station Biologique de Roscoff, 79
Stauber, John, 76
Steckle, Paul, 235
Stedile, João, 277
Steinmann, Gary, 101
Stephenson, Daniel, 67
Stewart, Donald, 14–15
Stieber, Tamar, 150
Stratemeyer, Eugene, 209–10
Stratton, Terry, 123–24
Stroessner, Alfredo, 282, 283, 284
Sturgeon, Missouri, dioxin accident (1979), 45
Suarez, Andrew, 251
Sundlof, Stephen, 116
Superfund Program, 33–34
Supreme Court of Canada, 216, 238
surfactants, 266
Suskind, Raymond, 36–37, 46, 49–51, 54–56
Swann Chemical Company, 11
Sweden, 19, 61–63
Swiss Valley Farms, 111
Syngenta, 221, 229–30, 246, 258, 264–65,
286, 287, 324, 328
Syntex Agribusiness, 35
Taiwan and “Yu-Cheng” accident (1979), 25
Talavera, Petrona, 273–75, 283
Tatum, Edward, 132–33
Taylor, Michael: and bovine growth hormone,
106–7, 109–10, 131–32; and regulatory
system for GMOs, 145, 159–62, 170
Taylor, Nicholas, 125
“Technology Protection System” (seed sterilization),
196
Templeton, William G., 36
Terminator patent, 196–99, 229
Tesco, 184, 321
Texas Tech University, 83
T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition, 44
Then, Christoph, 203
35S promoter gene, 137, 140, 180, 246
Thomas, Charles, 38–39
Thomas, Clarence, 163, 211
Thomas, John, 168
Thompson, Tommy, 163
Thompson Chemicals, 44
TIAA-CREF, 318–20
Tillamook County Creamery Association, 111
Times Beach, Missouri, 30–35
Times of India, 301–2
Tiwari, Kishor, 291–93
Tokar, Brian, 38
Tolbert v. Monsanto, 27–28
tomatoes, transgenic, 148–49, 157, 169
Tominack, Rebecca, 191
Toronto Star, 227
Torres, Leoncio, 285
Toxic Substances Control Act, 56
Tracy, Alan, 228
transgenic agriculture and the world’s food, 4,
243–317; India and Bt cotton, 290–306;
the second “green revolution,” 295,
307–8, 310–11; and seed patents/patent
law, 310–13; and the Southern Cone
(Paraguay, Brazil, Argentina), 273–89; and
transgenic contamination, 243–55
transgenic crops: and Bt gene, 191, 193–94,
230, 246, 304; canola, 207, 214, 216–18,
219, 236–39; corn, 157, 223, 229–34,
243–55, 304–5, 322–25; and crop contamination,
207, 213–18, 219, 227, 236–39,
243–55, 327–28; differences between
inserted proteins and original proteins, 158,
234; and gene insertion, 140–41, 158,
180–81, 222, 230, 253; and insect resistance,
218–21, 295, 303–6, 322; and
lectins, 179–80, 182–83, 191; and lower
yields, 221–23, 260; potatoes, 179–87,
232–33; price declines and economic
disasters, 223–24, 265; and “refuges,”
304–6; and regulation, 232–34; seed
smuggling, 276–77; and StarLink debacle,
232–35; tomatoes, 148–49, 157, 169;
toxicology studies, 148–49, 157, 171–77,
179–87, 233, 326–27; weed resistance and
increased herbicide use, 218–21, 263–65;
wheat, 225–39. See also patents and
GMOs; Roundup Ready soybeans
transgenic hormones. See bovine growth
hormone (rBGH)
Trewavas, Anthony, 249
TRIPS (Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual
Property Rights) agreement, 311, 314–17;
Article 27, paragraph 3(b) and patents
issue, 315–16
Trouton, Shannon, 321
Troyer, James, 36
Trucco, Victor, 263
Trust Us, We’re Experts (Rampton and Stauber),
76
L-tryptophan, 149–52
Tu Du Hospital (Ho Chi Minh City), 64
2,4-D (herbicide), 3, 36, 40, 41–42, 61, 86,
218, 264
2,4,5-T (herbicide), 3, 31, 35–45; as chemical
weapon, 37–39, 40, 41–42, 44–45; and
dioxin, 31, 35–45, 50–51, 60–61
2,3,7,8-TCDD, 35, 45, 52. See also dioxin
UFC-Que Choisir, 74–75
U.K. Agricultural Research Council, 40
UN Convention on Biodiversity (Río de
Janeiro, 1992), 197, 276, 317
UN Economic and Social Council, 87
UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and
Protection of Human Rights, 317
Unilever England, 184, 195, 321
Union Carbide and Bhopal tragedy, 311
Union of Concerned Scientists, 230
Union of Industrial and Employers’ Confederations
of Europe (UNICE), 314
Union of Organizations of the Sierra Juarez of
Oaxaca, 253
Uniroyal, 44
Université Pierre et Marie Curie, 79, 82
University of Aberdeen, 185
University of Arkansas, 222
University of Bergen, Norway, 174
University of Buenos Aires, 259
University of Caen, 83, 85, 325
University of California, 328
University of California, Davis, Department of
Molecular Biology, 202, 252
University of Delaware, 221
University of Florida, 118
University of Illinois at Chicago, 94
University of Iowa, 221, 231
University of Manitoba, 216, 238
University of Nebraska, 221
University of Pittsburgh, 86
University of Quebec, 313, 314
University of Reading, 219
University of Saskatchewan, 79
University of Sussex, 102, 170
University of Urbino, 176
University of Vermont, 91, 102
University of Washington, 247
University of Wisconsin, 110
“Uphoria” team of Monsanto researchers,
135–39
Upjohn, 28, 90, 200
UPOV agreements (Union for the Protection
of New Varieties of Plants), 202, 316
Urban, Tom, 193
U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID), 249, 308
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA): and
GM crop exports, 224; and GMO regulatory
policy, 142, 144, 146, 232; and
rBGH, 107, 110; revolving door system,
107, 164–67
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
97, 104
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 203, 316
U.S. Public Health Service, 24
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC), 297
U.S. Supreme Court, 67, 202–3, 211
U.S. Wheat Associates, 228
Van Acker, René, 238–39
Van Heel, Melvin, 115
Vanclief, Lyle, 238–39
Veillerette, François, 76
Venneman, Ann, 163
Verakis, Dan, 184
Verbitsky, Horacio, 266–67
Verfaillie, Hendrik, 200, 235, 326
Vermont Public Interest Research Group, 102
Vernet, Daniel, 277
Veterans Administration, 59
Veterinary Products Committee of the British
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and
Food, 103
Veterinary Record, 104
Vidarbha Jan Andolan Samiti (VJAS), 291
Vietnam Association of Agent Orange Victims,
67–68
Vietnam Veterans Association, 62
Vietnam Veterans of America, 42
Vietnam War: Operation Ranch Hand and
Agent Orange, 39–43, 60; veterans and
effects of dioxin, 42–45, 59–60, 61,
67–68; Vietnamese populations and
effects of dioxin, 63–68
Vital Health Publishing, 173
Wales, 29
Wall Street Journal, 48, 196
Wallace, Henry, 193, 308
Wal-Mart, 116, 321
Warner Communications, 314
Washington Post, 26, 59, 199, 208, 224, 232,
298, 301
Washington University in St. Louis, 133, 252
Watkins, Michael, 200
Watrud, Lidia, 164
Watson, James, 132
Webster, Daniel, 119
Weinstein, Jack, 47, 68
West, John, 56
Western Organization of Resource Councils,
227–28
Western Producer, 217
Westfall, Don, 243
W.G. Krummrich plant (Sauget, Illinois),
16–17, 49
Wheat: Chronicle of a Death Foretold? (Arte
documentary), 2
wheat, transgenic. See Roundup Ready wheat
wheat production and original green revolution,
308–10
Whelan, Eugene, 125, 127–28
whistle-blowers: Chapela and contamination of
Mexican criollo corn, 252; CVM employees,
105–6; and dioxin, 51–57; and FCC
law, 121–22; and Health Canada, 123–28;
investigative reporters Akre and Wilson,
118–22; and rBGH, 89–93, 105–6,
118–22, 123–28
Wichtrich, John, 235
Wilcox, John, 319
Wilkinson, Mike, 219
Williams, Alan, 183–84
Williams, Jeffrey, 13
Williams, Russell “Tombstone,” 14
Williams and Connolly (law firm), 121
Wilson, Steve, 89, 118–22
Wisconsin Farmers Union, 115
Wisner, Robert, 228
The World According to Monsanto (Arte documentary),
3
World Food Summit (November 1996), 165
World Health Organization (WHO): and
glyphosate herbicide, 79; and the ILSI,
161; and the JECFA, 126; and revolving
door, 164; WHO/FAO consultations on
GMOs (1990 and 1996), 169–70, 171;
workshop on GMO food safety (1994), 170
World In Action (ITV documentary), 178,
181–82
World Trade Organization (WTO): founding
document and “trade-related” sectors,
313–14; and GATT, 313–17; intellectual
property rights issue, 311, 313–17; Seattle
summit (1999) and global agriculture,
229, 315; and seed patents, 315–17; and
TRIPS agreement, 311, 314–17
World War I, 38
World War II, 38–39, 40
W.R. Grace, 295, 311
Wright, Paul, 22, 72
Wright, Susan, 135
Yerxa, Rufus, 164
“yield drag,” 221–23
Yoon, Carol, 231
Young, Frank, 94
Zack, Judith, 50–51
Zilberman, David, 300, 301
Zumwalt, Elmo R., III, 43
Zumwalt, Elmo R., Jr., 43, 56, 59–61
Zyklon B, 38
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 27841
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Previous

Return to Corporate Crime

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest