“” Imagine “: This is Monsanto’s motto. Originally a chemical company, the multinational made a capital strategic choice in the late 1980s. She built an empire of biotechnology, more specifically in the agricultural sector, to become in a few years the flagship company now famous GMOgenetically modified organisms. Its products and methods are today denounced, as is the dysfunctions of the US high administration.
Marie-Monique Robin has just devoted to Monsanto, the multinational of the most famous agrochemistry in the world, a book and a documentary. The first sold 23,000 copies in less than a week and will be translated into several languages, including English. The second, broadcast on Arte on March 11, 2008, interested 1.5 million viewers. Time sign ? The world according to Monsanto is an investigation into the history and practices of this company in all the unusual respects. In a kind of “ parallel lives “-Lives of Monsanto products-Marie-Monique Robin analyzes these flagship products which made the fortune of Monsanto: the PCBthese molecules which were widely used for more than half a century, especially as insulators, before being prohibited and which contaminated the planet ; Dioxins “ residue »Present massively in herbicides and in particular the Orange agent, used during the Vietnam War, molecules with teratogenic effects (malformation of the fetus) and carcinogenic ; THE Rollethe most used herbicide in the world, once praised as “ biodegradable »And whose toxicity is now recognized ; The bovine growth hormone which increases the dairy production of cows by singularly reducing their life expectancy and whose effect on consumers is still unanswered, so much so that the product has been prohibited for use everywhere (except in the United States) ; And, of course, GMOto which regulations ad hoc Avoid it for the moment an evaluation procedure up to the doubts that they arouse as to their nature and their safety.
A pseudo-science at the service of the business
These “ parallel lives “Have the effect of showing the amazing similarities of all these scenarios. Launch of a product ; Hunting by Monsanto effects on health, sometimes for decades ; blindness, but more often complacency of administrations and in particular the Food and Drug Administration (Fda) andEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA) American, supposed to guarantee the rigorous evaluation of substances ; Use of legal procedures as so many means of threatening the recalcitrants who refuse the law of silence. It is a whole system that is revealed: the Monsanto system. For example, the firm promoted the Rolle With major advertising reinforcements, saying that he was biodegradable and not hesitating to stage a father dealing with his bedbags with the children playing in the garden. After several trials, the product is now recognized as toxic. In the United States, the cans now have the following mention:
“” THE Rolle should not be applied to water reserves, such as ponds, lakes or rivers, because it can be toxic to aquatic organisms. People or pets (cats and dogs) must remain outside the area where the Rolle has been applied, as long as it is not completely dry. We recommend that cattle, such as horses, cows, sheep, goats, rabbits and turtles, is not allowed to graze in the areas treated for two weeks. If the Rolle is used to neutralize unwanted plants located near fruit trees or nuts, as well as vines, we advise not to eat fruit or nuts before twenty-one days. »»
Alas, its massive use in Latin America, linked to the Sojas GMO “” Roundup Ready (That is, tolerant to Rolle), is currently at the origin of a dramatic poisoning of the poor populations.
The table is all the more freezing since the vast majority of documents in this dependent file are available on the internet, following the many trials in which the firm was involved. Marie-Monique Robin was mainly contented-but what work ! – to collect all this data demonstrating that the actions of Monsanto are completely clear for those who want to know. She completed her impressive collection of documents with several interviews with key characters: Michael Taylor, successively lawyer for Monsanto, agent of the Fda and vice-president of Monsanto ; James Maryanski, coordinator for biotechnology at Fda and author of non-regulation on GMO ; Kirk Azevedo, former executive at Monsanto.
The file of GMO occupies a good half of the book, and for good reason. Because this case is not closed. Scientific controversy – or allegedly such ? – Rage. A backwards makes it possible to demonstrate that Monsanto has passed by the art of provoking controversies “ scientists ». She has always been able to save the necessary time by rigging the data, hiding the results that were unfavorable to her, by inventing “ ghost researchers », By throwing discredit on the quality of the work of his detractors, even by practicing with the complicity of a part of theestablishment Research what to be named a pseudo-science delivering exactly the message expected by the company. Because Monsanto has completely integrated the weight that the scientific argument has in contemporary societies, particularly upstream of administrative or legal decisions. And, therefore, she understood that any actor who wants to succeed must first be able to control the expertise. In fact, control of scientific expertise is at the heart of the Monsanto system. Monsanto raised charlataneria to the rank of art, in defiance of human life, as in Anniston, a city which long housed its main production plant of polychlorobiphenyls (PCB) and which faces a massive poisoning of its population, so much so that, on February 23, 2002, at the end of the trial opposing Monsanto to Anniston, the judge had this relentless comment: Monsanto “ A extremely exceeded all the limits of decency, which can be considered atrocious and absolutely intolerable in a civilized society. »»
The US administration trial
However, it is not for Monsanto that the indictment is the most overwhelming. Because the actions of the firm first sanction the total bankruptcy of an administrative system supposed to guarantee the health of citizens. This is first of all the great lesson of this investigation. Because, after all, whether there are individuals or undertaking or criminal businesses in all times, the lucid observer will conceive. But that public institutions are not only unable to regulate these actions, but make it accomplices, is properly terrifying. Monsanto’s trial is therefore first of all that of seriously compromised central administrations. Marie-Monique Robin quotes the New York Times of January 25, 2001: “ During the weeks and months that followed, the White House executed, working behind the scenes to help Monsanto (…) get the regulation that the firm wanted. This scenario would repeat itself again and again, under three successive administrations: what Monsanto wanted from Washington, Monsanto – and by extension the biotechnology industry – obtained it. »»
The case of the dairy hormone shows an administrative and executive power which escapes parliamentary power. In this case, three Canadian scientists denounced the risks that hormone was running, against the advice of their hierarchy. Their job has enabled the Canadian parliamentary committee to make a negative decision, but, despite the promises of senators, the three “ whistleblowers “Were dismissed six years later for” disobedience ». Because the administrations first shine by their opacity-the industrial secrecy or the instruction allowing all the abuses and all the concealations-, their ability to escape democratic control, to form powerful places of power managed in a clanical way, where the back and forth of the “ Revolving Door “, From administrations to law firms by (re) passing through the companies themselves, are the rule. The whole allows consumption forcing. Because North American consumers, contrary to popular belief, would have done wellGMO : In March 2000, various polls indicated that “ more than 80 % of Americans would prefer that transgenic foods be labeled and that 60 % of them would avoid them if they had the choice ».
Finally, all this attests to the bankruptcy of the judicial system, although it appears as the only final guarantor of the fundamental rights of citizens – because the trials that are too late and too light are no longer for Monsanto only a planned and budgetized consequence. Despite the dead, malformations and abortions, leaders are likely. “” In fact, in the United States, the legal status of what is called a “corporation” makes it a legal person in its own right, which shelters its leaders of any individual pursuit ».
Imagine … a world without monsanto
From this relentless demonstration, the reader comes out with three convictions. The first is the absolute superiority of parliamentary regimes on strong executive regimes. By its collegial and open nature, by its dependence on the population (through elections and re -elections), parliamentary power provides the best guarantee of transparency. It seems urgent, therefore, to strengthen parliamentary control over administrations and the executive everywhere. There “ Republic of co -opted experts », Opaque and irresponsible, is highly corruptible. The second conclusion is the absolute need for transparency and the danger of confidentiality in accreditation procedures. It is inconceivable that, under the pretext of industrial secrecy, parts supporting accreditation files relating to health and the environment are not public. The third is the necessary criminalization of the criminal acts committed in the professional framework. Managers who have voluntarily endangered the lives of others must be considered responsible. Marie-Monique’s investigation Robin indirectly pleads in favor of a technical democracy, so that such acts are no longer possible tomorrow.