Brewer 1

Laura Brewer

Professor Dean Leonard

English 1201

13 November 2019

Are Monsanto’s Innovations Feeding the World or Poisoning the World?

The first time I ever heard the name Monsanto was several years ago when my daughter

asked me to watch a documentary film with her. The film was called Food, Inc. and it explored

how the meat, dairy, and produce industries are consumed by just a few large corporations and

the huge impact that this had on farms, groceries, and the restaurants where we eat. Prior to

watching this, I hadn’t thought much at all about where our food came from or what was being

sprayed on it. I was seriously shocked by what I learned just through this film. The film

discussed the factory farm industries and how nasty it was behind the scenes at the cattle and

chicken storehouses. The film discussed how little things were regulated in the beginning until

they were investigated and then changes were implemented to try and keep e-coli out. It was

quite disturbing, but at least some changes were being made through these finds. The film moves

on to discuss the Monsanto Company. A company who has been in the spotlight in recent years

and currently has thousands of lawsuits against them. The company who has been known for

saying that their mission is to “feed the world.” I have found that this statement couldn’t be any

further from the truth.

Monsanto started out building their empire using the leftovers or “byproducts” of other

companies’ resources. A term Elmore called scavenger capitalism. In 1901, Monsanto became

incorporated by a druggist named John Francis Queeny (Elmore 158). He named it after his wife,

Olga Mendez Monsanto. Queeny became interested in saccharin about 10 years prior while he
 Brewer 2

was a purchaser for Meyer Brothers drug company. Saccharin was made from coal tar, a syrupy

byproduct from coal mining. At that time, there was no one in the US who manufactured

saccharin. There were also no reclamation systems set in place for coal tar. It basically was just

being wasted until Monsanto was able to convince the government and coal processors that they

should do all they can to reclaiming coal tar to conserve this natural resource. In Monsanto’s

urgings they also said that it would employ many people and would prove very beneficial in

many ways. The coal tar processing companies bought into Monsanto’s pitch and began the

reclaiming coal tar (Elmore 160). Queeny believed he could make a lot of money if he could be

the first one in the US to do so. With the help of three swiss chemists, $1,500 of his own money,

and $3,500 from a loan, Queeny was able to get the plant started. The company’s first big client

purchased nearly all their saccharin supply. This client was the Coca-Cola company. (Elmore

159).

Monsanto soon found another byproduct to produce from wasted tea leaves – caffeine.

This came from damaged tea leaves that tea traders didn’t want. Monsanto took this waste,

recycled it and processed the caffeine out of it. They supplied this to the soft drink industry as

well. Well into the mid-twentieth century, Monsanto went on sifting through the stockpiles of

raw materials that other businesses generated (Elmore 157).

After the saccharin business took off Monsanto began creating other products, like

caffeine, aspirin, synthetic rubber, and fibers. When World War II ended, Monsanto began

creating herbicide, along with their most famous one, called Roundup (Mattera).

Monsanto sold off a lot of their industrial chemical business in the 1980’s to focus more

on agricultural biotechnology. It’s first focus was to create crops that wouldn’t be damaged when

their herbicide, Roundup was applied to kill the weeds (Mattera).

 Brewer 3

Monsanto went on to create their first genetically engineered product. This was a growth

hormone, called bovine somatotropin, or Posilac. This hormone helped increase milk productions

in cows. The FDA approved this in 1993. The following year it went on sale, which created

protests from all over, causing some larger grocery chains to try and find milk from dairy farms

that did not carry this hormone. However, this did not deter Monsanto from creating more

genetically engineered products. They developed bioengineered potatoes, genetically modified

cotton seed and Roundup Ready soybeans. These soybeans in particular, were created to resist

the Round up they sprayed on weeds. This allowed farmers to spray more without damaging the

soybeans. Monsanto also acquired a few companies along the way and mergers, as well. They

continued to focus on the seed business and purchased regional firms, a large cotton seed

company, fruit, and vegetable seed companies. In Europe, there was growing opposition to

GMO’s. In the United States, many were calling for labeling genetically modified foods at the

resistance of the FDA. Monsanto pressed on despite opposition from various outlets.

In San Francisco, a federal judge ordered Monsanto in 2007 to suspend sales of

genetically engineered alfalfa due to the USDA approving it without doing an assessment of the

environmental impact. This was the

first time a court had ever did this to

Monsanto and the company appealed

the case up to the US Supreme Court,

where they ruled in Monsanto’s favor

in 2010 (Mattera). The revolving door

between government public service

workers and lobbying for Monsanto

Fig. 1 Khalil Bendib, Other Words, 17 May 2010
 Brewer 4

has been going on for decades. Monsanto company certainly did not have the publics best

interest in mind when they succeeded to influence members of the Bush, Clinton, & Obama

administrations to lobby against European restrictions on GMO’s. Monsanto frequently hired

former federal government employees to lobby for them. One example of many, was a former

Monsanto executive and lawyer who represented them before, was appointed the FDA’s deputy

commissioner for foods in 2010 (Mattera).

A 2017 press release from the Center for Food Safety disclosed that the U.S. Dept. of

Agriculture (USDA) appointed former Georgia governor, Sonny Perdue as their secretary.

Perdue has very strong ties to corporate Agri-business. During his political career as governor in

Georgia, Perdue accepted over $950,000 in campaign contributions from food and agriculture

businesses, including Monsanto. He is also responsible for massive expansion of factory farm

poultry operations and had 13 complaints related to ethics from when he was governor, some of

which were regarding his discrimination against minority farmers. It is very concerning that

someone with this background is the person appointed as the main consultant to the president to

recommend policies with matters pertaining to farmers and consumers.

In 2013, there was an agricultural bill passed by Monsanto’s friends in Congress that

basically had a provision in it which bars federal courts from being able to stop the sale of

genetically modified seeds regardless of what issues or risks to health may arise. Critics coined

this the “Monsanto Protection Act” (Mattera).

Recently a large set of documents were made public considering litigation against

Monsanto. These now de-classified documents disclosed how Monsanto participated in

ghostwriting in papers that were published in journals and the media. Ghostwriting is essentially

when the name of an author does not appear on a written published article. From the internal
 Brewer 5

Monsanto documents was ordered to release during litigation, it appears that ghostwriting has

become a regular business practice for them. Along with this, their documents show other

deceptive practices such as, interfering with the peer review process, and creating a website that

claimed to be an academic one, but was merely just a disguise for the defense of Monsanto

products (McHenry 193). In 2014, a global advisory group of scientist and government officials

called for dozens of pesticides, including glyphosate, to be examined. From this, the

International Agency for Research on Cancer (or IARC) concluded that glyphosate is a Group

2A Agent, meaning it is probably carcinogenic in humans. Monsanto vigorously disputed the

IARC’s conclusion and published a response to the report on their own website stating the

following. “In evaluations spanning four decades, the overwhelming conclusion of experts

worldwide has been that glyphosate, when used according to label directions, does not present an

unreasonable risk of adverse effects to humans, wildlife, or the environment.” What is interesting

about their statement is how they state “overwhelming conclusion of experts” when their de-

classified documents showed that they have pursued and heavily influenced these third-party

consultants to sign off on Monsanto ghost-written reports that were later published in journals of

toxicology (McHenry 195).

With regard to Monsanto’s’ declassified documents, McHenry said, “The Monsanto

Papers draw back the curtain and expose science on a fragile foundation, artificially propped up

by corporate manipulation. For Monsanto there is no such thing as science standing as a neutral,

objective test of the safety of its products; there is rather “our science” that is supportive of

Monsanto’s products and “their science” that does not and, as a consequence, becomes the target

for a Monsanto-sponsored public relations campaign” (McHenry 202).

 Brewer 6

Carey Gillam is an investigative journalist, author and researcher with over 25 years’

experience covering corporate America. She recently wrote a book, called Whitewash: The Story

of a Weed Killer, Cancer, and the Corruption of Science. In this book, Gillam exposes

Monsanto’s lies, coverups, and corruption. As Monsanto has tried to influence others to not

report or release information on them, they have attempted the same with Gillam. Regarding

Monsanto in her book she said that representatives from Monsanto set out to influence,

intimidate, bully, and beguile her to write stories about them a certain way. They tried

convincing her that she had no argument in their chemicals because it was determined already

that the crops and chemicals were safe and that if anyone tried to undermine that was interfering

with Monsanto’s efforts to “feed the world” (Gillam 15). It seems Monsanto will pull out all the

stops to keep the truth from consumers. This has not stopped Gillam from divulging Monsanto’s

secrets no matter how much they have tried to discredit her.

No one really knows just how dangerous glyphosate really is, and more of the same can

be said with Roundup, which has other added chemicals in it, besides the active ingredient,

glyphosate. The government doesn’t require safety data for long-term use of the finished product

and most toxicology tests that’s been sponsored by the industry has just been on glyphosate.

This can make it even more difficult to trust Monsanto when they tell the public it is safe, and

that no further research is necessary (Gillam 79). Because the U.S. Food and Drug administration

have diligently excluded testing for glyphosate in their testing protocol, there is no standard

foundation of knowledge as to the quantity of glyphosate in the commodities we consume daily

(Gillam 80).

There are scientists in several other countries who have found connections between

glyphosate and disease. They have also discovered that products like Roundup were found to be
 Brewer 7

even more harmful than just glyphosate. There have been countless studies on lab rat’s exposure

to glyphosate that reflected tumors and health problems in the kidney, liver, pancreas, and blood

(Gillam 80). One published research from scientists in Brazil in 2017 showed how young lab

animals who ingested soymilk that was laced with glyphosate and they experienced damage and

change to their hormones. This study brought great concern, because mothers often feed soy

formula to their babies if they are not breastfeeding (Gillam 81). Another often used chemical in

roundup called polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), works in conjunction with glyphosate to

help it bond to the plant as its sprayed. Even though Monsanto claims that this chemical is not

harmful, those who have researched it have stated that it could be even more toxic than

glyphosate, by almost 2,000 times. In studies when fish and rats were exposed to POEA even at

low levels, they have died (Gillam 87).

As health officials in the United States have been attempting to find out how glyphosate

and other chemicals used on farms have affected farmers and their families, they created a

government funded study called Agricultural Health Study (AHS). This study looks at the

relationship between rates of disease that farming communities develop and the many pesticides

that they spray on their farmland. Much of this research points to elevated risks of myeloma,

non-Hodgkin lymphoma, leukemia, and cancers of the stomach, lip, brain and prostate for

farmers in comparison with others who live in more urban areas. There are more than 55,000

farmers and 30,000 spouses enrolled in the study from the two highest farming states: Iowa and

North Carolina. They are hoping this information will help them to assess how strong the risks

are and figure out what they can do to lower them (Gillam 90). Those who are participating in

this study receive updates from research, like when they saw that a farm insecticide, called

diazinon, could cause an increase risk of ovarian cancer, and another bug killer is associated with
 Brewer 8

a higher risk of thyroid cancer. The AHS also looked at residues from pesticides that contaminate

the homes of farmers. They informed farm families that their carpet dust revealed residues of

five different pesticides, the highest residue of which was glyphosate. So far, this AHS study has

found little to no links between glyphosate and disease, but the study is still ongoing (Gillam 91).

Most of society really hasn’t had much concern over glyphosate until the International

Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) spoke up in 2015. The IARC does not do any regulating

of products, they merely access and decide if things are cancer causing so they can inform the

public of their findings. They bring different scientists from various specialties and countries

together regularly to inspect various drugs, mixtures, chemicals, and other things. An IARC

group of seventeen top scientists from eleven different countries was given the task to inspect

glyphosate along with researching studies put together on four different pesticides (Gillam 92).

After scouring over many studies and evaluating exhaustively they determined by their

classification system that glyphosate was deemed as “probably carcinogenic” to humans (Gillam

95).

It was found out later that Monsanto had been given advance notice of the IARC

classification results by the EPA. Therefore, when the results were proclaimed, Monsanto was

prepared to counter these claims to investors and reporters. Monsanto officials declared that the

classification was, “mischief based on junk science and politically motivated (Gillam 97).”

Monsanto then released a statement stating that their glyphosate products were highly analyzed

and tested most among all other pesticides in the world. They also said that in their 40 years of

being used, the safety of glyphosate is supported in the most thorough databases ever compiled

on any pesticide (Gillam 97). The company insisted on a retraction from IARC and called for the

EPA to defend them on these cancer claims. The later de-classified Monsanto documents showed
 Brewer 9

that Monsanto was concocting a plan to spend over $200,000 to counterattack the scientists of

IARC to try and discredit them. They made huge efforts in doing so, but despite their efforts and

even publishing their findings of deeming glyphosate safe, regulators in many countries were

already pushing to limit the use of the chemical before the IARC even announced their news.

After the cancer classification they were even more determined to make changes (Gillam 99).

Several countries make like Germany, France, and Columbia called for restrictions or

bans of glyphosate use in public places, and California added glyphosate to a list of chemicals

known to cause cancer.

Monsanto tried to block California’s action by suing state regulators in efforts to keep

glyphosate off the list. However, a judge ruled against Monsanto and the state would then require

Monsanto to put warnings on Roundup. During this lawsuit, Monsanto thought it would be a

good opportunity to again attack the credibility of the IARC scientists again claiming that they

were, “unelected, undemocratic, unaccountable, and foreign body (Gillam 100).” IARC scientists

were taken aback with all the unexpected reactions as they were merely doing their jobs as

scientists with no other agenda in place. It caused many of the scientists to retreat to their home

countries and shun interviews regarding the studies. One of the scientists from the U.S. had their

e-mails and documents subpoenaed by Monsanto as they were trying to refute the findings

(Gillam 100).

During all this madness, the EPA seemed to assist Monsanto and even reviewed over

thirty studies that inspected glyphosate as it related to the endocrine system which, if disrupted,

can cause cancer and many other issues. They determined from their studies that glyphosate was

safe. However, the EPA failed to disclose that twenty-seven of the thirty-two studies were

performed by Monsanto or funded by them. Merely five of the studies were independent. Of
 Brewer 10

which, three of them found that glyphosate could be harmful. Despite the EPA’s own office of

research and development stating that they found flaws in their findings, the EPA did not change

their stance on the safety of glyphosate (Gillam 101).

When the de-classified documents came out, it was discovered that Monsanto had a

longtime scientists ally named Jess Rowland that worked for the EPA with a history of siding

favorably with Monsanto’s position on glyphosate’s safety (Gillam 101).

It may seem that Monsanto is above the law, with all they have been able to get away

with, but recent lawsuits against them are proving otherwise. One case in point was Dewayne

Johnson, who became a school groundskeeper in 2012. He would spray the grounds with

Roundup weed control around twenty to thirty times each year. This took hours to cover the

entire ground each time. He recalled one occasion that the sprayer broke and the herbicide

spewed all over him. This caused him to develop a rash and lesions all over him. He later was

told he had developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma, after going to several doctor visits. (Sandford).

Last fall, Dewayne Johnson sued Monsanto and won $289 million in damages. This

judgment spurred numerous new lawsuits against Monsanto, one of which recently had a $2

billion verdict given to a couple in their 70’s named Alva and Alberta Pilliod. They both

developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma and claim that it is due to being exposed to Roundup weed

killer for a long time (Sandford).

Monsanto continues making millions off glyphosate sales, all the while claiming that

their product, if used as directed, is deemed safe. There is a push in communities and cities all

around the world. Recently, a New York City council proposed a bill that would ban glyphosate
 Brewer 11

from being sprayed on public parks. In addition to that, there are entire countries like France,

Ireland and Brazil, who are taking steps to stop glyphosate from being used altogether (Sanford).

Even though, Dewayne Johnsons case was an amazing win for an individual against a

giant like Monsanto, Johnson is still extremely sick, and unfortunately, Roundup is still being

sold. We may never fully realize the magnitude of the effects that Monsanto’s Roundup and

GMO crops will ultimately have on consumers worldwide. Although, with knowledge comes

power. If as consumers we begin to research more about the products we use and the foods we

consume, it will enable us to make informed decisions and minimize exposure to the potential

damaging effects that these products have on our health.

 Brewer 12

Works Cited

Elmore, Bartow J. “The Commercial Ecology of Scavenger Capitalism: Monsanto, Fossil Fuels, and

the Remaking of a Chemical Giant.” Enterprise & Society, vol. 19, no. 1, July 2017, pp.

153–178., doi:10.1017/eso.2017.22. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/ejournals/article/351998312.

Food, Inc. Magnolia Home Entertainment, 2009.

Gillam, Carey. Whitewash: The Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer, and the Corruption of Science.

Island Press, 2019.

“It's Confirmed: Ethics Go out the Window at a USDA under Perdue.” Center for Food Safety, 24

Apr. 2017, https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/4919/its-confirmed-ethics-go-

out-the-window-at-a-usda-under-perdue.

Bendib. Khalil, Monsanto Cartoon. Other Words. 17 May 2010.

Mattera, Phillip. “Monsanto: Corporate Rap Sheet: Corporate Research Project.” Corporate

Research Project, Good Jobs First, 23 June 2018, https://www.corp-research.org/monsanto.

McHenry, Leemon B. “The Monsanto Papers: Poisoning the Scientific Well.” Sinclair College Off-

Campus Authentication Form, International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine, 18 Jan.

2018, http://sinclair.ohionet.org:80/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct&db=eih&AN=129968459&site=eds-live.

Sandford, Lauren. “Why Is Monsanto Losing Lawsuits over Roundup?” Nation of Change, 24 July

2019, https://www.nationofchange.org/2019/07/24/why-is-monsanto-losing-lawsuits-over-

roundup/.