The World According to Monsanto (2008) - full transcript

So, it's Roundup herbicide

that's specially formulated for big jobs.

- That's the new one.

On this one it says:

"Biodegradable".

- That's the old one.

It doesn't say biodegradable anymore,

so it must no longer be biodegradable.

It's the same product.

I imagine that they don't have

the right to say it anymore.

It must not really be biodegradable.

- Careful not to spray it in my face!

I'm not a murderer.

Well, I'm sure these

Roundup Ready soybeans

are ready to harvest today.

They're probably about...

I'm gonna say about

11 and a half percent moisture,

so they're perfect for harvest.

I first heard about Roundup Ready soybeans

in a farm magazine

about eight years ago

and it seemed like a neat innovation.

The soybean has a protein

genetically inserted

into the plant

and its resistance of Roundup.

The Roundup is sprayed on the plants.

There's some definite advantages.

If you look at our... my field here,

you don't see weeds.

"When label directions

"are carefully followed,

"Roundup is not harmful to humans,

"animals or their environment."

"Copyright Monsanto,

made in Belgium."

If you see any snails,

don't spray them

because they'll be inedible.

Watch the strawberries!

I'd encourage European farmers

to take a look

at the Roundup Ready technology.

Frankly, it's very good for the environment.

It's a sustainable system.

So... give it a try!

Monsanto.

For twenty years I've traveled the globe

and everywhere

I've heard about

this American multinational.

But what I've heard

hasn't always been positive.

Wanting to know more,

I surfed the Web for months

to put the pieces of the puzzle together.

On its Web site,

Monsanto positions itself

as an agricultural company that aims

"to help farmers produce healthier food,

"while reducing agriculture's impact

on our environment".

Its leading product is Roundup,

the world's best-selling herbicide

for the last 30 years.

[ Advertisement ]:

"One shot. All it takes for weeds. Roundup."

Monsanto is also the

world leader in biotechnology.

90% of the GMOs grown on the planet

belong to them.

Most of them have been

genetically modified

to resist the application of Roundup.

Like Roundup Ready soybeans.

Monsanto's GMOs have invaded the planet,

but no ag-industry product in history

has ever incited as much

controversy and passion.

Why?

What's at stake with GMOs?

And, could the company's past

shed some light

on what the company is,

or claims to be today?

Founded in Saint Louis, Missouri in 1901,

it was not always an agricultural company.

It was one of the

largest chemical companies

of the 20th century.

"Chemistry is working for you.

"And very likely Monsanto is working for you.

"Monsanto,

"where creative chemistry

works wonders for you."

The "wonders" boasted about

in this commercial

made Monsanto one of

the most controversial companies

in the industrial era.

These chemically-created oils,

used worldwide as coolants and lubricants

in electrical equipment, were the jewels

in Monsanto's crown for over 50 years.

They were called "Arochlor"

in the United States,

"Pyralène" in France

and "Clophen" in Germany,

until they were banned in the early 1980s.

"Monsanto PCB"...

A Washington Post article from 2002.

It happened in Anniston, Alabama.

- Terry was my baby brother.

He died in 1971

from a cancer of the brains,

tumour of the brains,

cancer of the lungs,

and arteries of the heart.

He was 16.

In the last three years,

I have lost most friends.

They died from illnesses:

cancer, sugar diabetes, hepatitis.

All these different illnesses

that comes with PCBs

and have been related to PCBs.

This is Monsanto road.

This is all just a black area

of minorities that live in this area.

But every one of these homes

was like contaminated.

They just cleaned that yard up,

over there, to the right,

about six months ago.

These was all homes,

these people lived here

and now, they had to move.

I mean, the houses was torn down.

My brother fell dead right around the house.

This is the house I was raised in.

And see this grass right here?

They buried PCBs over here.

Monsanto got permission

to bury PCBs in Anniston.

This is Snow Creek right here,

where they put the cement in here.

It comes from the plant, discharging PCBs,

all the way down through here.

And it was poisoning...

They never told anybody.

But they told the State.

The State didn't tell us.

'PCB Monsanto knew'...

But what exactly did they know?

An environmental organization

in Washington D.C.,

headed by Ken Cook,

has put internal Monsanto files online.

Most of them are classified "Confidential"

"F.Y.I. and destroy".

1937: "Exposure to PCBs

"provokes systemic toxic effects"

and "acne-form skin eruption".

In 1961, two workers

developed hepatitis symptoms

after a pipe broke

in a factory using PCBs.

In 1966 Monsanto scientists placed fish

in Snow Creek's water:

"All were dead

in three and a half minutes."

Pollution:

A letter addressed

to sales executives in 1970.

- This is the one

that really tells you the story.

They're saying:

"We can't afford

to lose one dollar of business".

Their neighbours in Anniston were not told

about the poisoning that

they were inflicting upon them

because they didn't want to lose one dollar.

It was only when lawyers went to court

on behalf of people in Anniston

and forced the company,

through the legal system,

to disclose these internal, secret documents,

that we knew what they knew.

They knew the truth from the very beginning.

They lied about it.

They hid the truth from their neighbours,

they hid the truth in many cases

from the government authorities

and when they did share information

with government authorities,

that should have been acted upon,

the government authorities, instead of siding

with the people who were being poisoned,

sided with the company.

They sided with Monsanto.

It was outrageous.

Absolutely unforgivable!

This is all your medicine?

- Yeah.

No, that ain't all of it.

I got some more here.

How much you have in you?

- 63.8.

In the blood.

- In the blood.

If they took a fatty biopsy of him, now,

he'd probably would top the scales

at about 3,000 or 4,000

parts per billion, or more.

- And which is the level acceptable,

I mean...?

Acceptable is two part per billion.

That's the standard all around the world.

But these people, we have more in our bloods

and in our bodies than actually

anywhere else in the world.

- It's usual here

to speak about his PCB level?

We all talks about it

because it became a household word, now.

Kids used to run up to me:

"Mr. Baker, I-- I got tested,

"I had 3 point part per billion in my blood.

How long you think I got?"

That's a horrible story.

But, what do scientists think about it?

On the Web, you can find numerous articles

concerning the effects of PCBs

on human health.

David Carpenter is one

of the most qualified

specialists in the field.

He carried out the testing

for the Anniston residents.

- We all have PCBs in our bodies.

The polar bears and the penguins have PCBs.

And what has happened is, in the past,

there were a few sites

where PCBs were released.

But over time, they've gone into the air,

they've gone into the water,

they've transported,

so the whole world is now

contaminated with PCBs.

The issue is that many diseases

are caused by PCB exposure.

The one everyone knows about is cancer.

My test results stated I've had 2-0-2.

Two hundred and two parts

per billion in my system.

- Women that get pregnant

and have PCBs in their body

will have a child with a reduced IQ.

Twenty-nine point six.

PCBs cause reduced thyroid function.

Over 1,800.

PCBs interfere with sex hormones.

Pass away, just let me pass away,

pass away in peace.

He's gonna pay, I said then,

he's gonna pay for the way

that he have done to us.

In 2001, 20,000 Anniston residents

filed two lawsuits against Monsanto.

Monsanto and its subsidiary, Solutia,

settled by paying 700 million dollars,

to compensate the victims,

to clean up the site

and to build a specialized hospital.

But no Monsanto executive was ever sued.

... to do justice.

Under American law, in most instances,

it's very rare for executives

or officials in these companies

to be held criminally responsible.

So, we have the civil system,

the civil courts.

We make them pay.

And the truth of the matter is,

in most instances,

the price these companies pay,

decades later,

is a fraction of their profits.

And this is why it pays

to keep these problems secret.

And it makes you wonder

what they might be

keeping secret now.

I have to say we would never trust

a company like Monsanto

to tell the truth

about a pollution problem or about a product.

We would never trust them.

Ken Cook says:

"We would never trust

a company like Monsanto."

So, what about Roundup,

the world's favourite herbicide

used by gardeners and farmers alike?

What is it exactly?

It's the brand name

Monsanto gave to glyphosate,

a so-called "non-selective"

or "total" herbicide

because it destroys all plants.

First sold in 1974,

it owes its great success

to Monsanto's unwavering claims

that it is "biodegradable"

and "good for the environment".

"Roundup biodegradable"...

Ken Cook was right.

The company was found guilty

of false advertising... twice!

The first time was in New York in 1996,

and the second

was in France just last year!

The judges found that the wording

"biodegradable,"

"leaves the soil clean,"

and "respects the environment"

were "false advertising".

Especially since,

"according to tests

performed by Monsanto itself,

only 2% of the product

had broken down after 28 days".

That's why Monsanto recently removed

the word "biodegradable"

from its containers.

But that's not all:

many scientific studies

have shown that Roundup is highly toxic.

For example:

"Roundup Provokes Cell Division Dysfunction".

A study by Professor Robert Bellé.

Professor Bellé works

for the National Centre

for Scientific Research

and the Pierre and Marie Curie

Institute in France.

He has studied the effects of Roundup

on fertilized sea urchin eggs.

- The big surprise

was that Roundup had an

effect on cell division.

We saw very quickly that Roundup

affected a key process in cell division.

Not the cell division mechanisms themselves,

but those which control cell division.

You have to understand

how cells become cancerous.

In the beginning,

all cells are benign and then,

at a certain point modifications

take place in the cells

that make them unstable,

from a genetic point of view.

This is the first malfunction

that we observed with Roundup.

It is for that reason that we consider

that Roundup provokes

the first stages that lead to cancer.

We're careful not to say

it "provokes cancer",

because, we won't see the cancers develop

for 30 or 40 years.

It was immediately clear how important

these findings were for product users.

Especially since the tested doses

were well below those

which people normally use

and we said to ourselves:

Gosh, we really have

to let the public know about the dangers

as quickly as we can.

And I thought the best way to do that

was to talk to my administration.

But there, I was shocked,

very, very shocked,

because I was told,

- ordered rather -

not to communicate our findings

due to the GMO question

lurking in the background.

What an incredible account:

Roundup's toxicity was hidden

to protect the development of GMOs.

So, let's go back

to the creation of GMOs.

According to Monsanto's site,

Roundup Ready Soybeans,

introduced in 1996,

were the first bioengineered crop

to be approved in the United States.

Farmers using these seeds

belong to the

American Soybean Association

whose address is on Monsanto's site.

John Hoffman is its Vice President

and an ardent biotechnology advocate.

- In the spring, I will go out

and spray one pass of Roundup to burn down

the weeds that are growing

in the early spring.

And about six or seven weeks later,

I'll spray a second pass of Roundup,

and that controls the weeds for the year.

Before we had Roundup technology,

this field woulda had weeds.

We woulda had to walk through

and pull the excess weeds by hand.

It was labour intensive.

So, the Roundup Ready system saves me time

and it saves me money.

It seems Monsanto's new "wonder"

has what it takes

to entice farmers.

But how does it work?

How can the soybean plants survive

being sprayed with Roundup?

This is a soybean cell.

The core of this cell contains its DNA

in which the bean's

genetic structure is encoded.

In order to create its GMOs,

Monsanto breaks the species barrier,

using a Roundup resistant gene,

harvested from a bacterium.

This gene is placed on

microscopic particles of gold,

which are fired into the soybean's cells

with a gene gun.

The gene penetrates the DNA

and creates a protein,

making the plant resistant to Roundup.

When the herbicide is sprayed on the crop,

it kills all the weeds,

leaving the soybean plants intact.

One must admit that the process

is an incredible technological feat.

But these soybeans

engineered to withstand

such a powerful herbicide

are destined for our dinner plates.

They must have been thoroughly tested

before being put on the market.

Who was the Secretary of

Agriculture at the time?

Dan Glickman,

Bill Clinton's Ag Secretary

from 1995 to 2000.

- What I found in the early years

I was involved in the

regulation of biotechnology,

that there was a general feeling

in agro-business

and inside our government in the US

that if you weren't

marching lock-step forward

in favour of rapid approvals

of biotech products,

rapid approvals of GMO crops,

then somehow,

you were anti-science

and anti-progress.

Well, I think that, frankly,

there were a lot of folks

in industrial agriculture

who didn't want as much analysis

as probably we should have had,

because they had made

a huge amount of investments

in the product.

And I mean, I think that...

And certainly when I became Secretary,

given the fact that I was

in charge of the department

regulating agriculture,

I had a lot of pressure on me

not to push the issue too far,

so to speak.

But, I would say even when

I opened my mouth

in the Clinton Administration,

I got slapped around

a little bit by not only the industry,

but also some of the people

even in the administration.

In fact, I made a speech once where...

saying that we needed to be...

we needed to

more thoughtfully think through

the regulatory issues on GMOs.

And I had some people within

the Clinton Administration,

particularly in the US trade area,

that were very upset with me.

They said: "How could you,

in agriculture, be questioning

our regulatory regime?"

In a nutshell, in the United States,

the Secretary of Agriculture

doesn't stand a chance

against the multinationals.

But, just how are GMOs

regulated in the United States?

The most crucial policy on the subject

was published by the FDA,

the Food and Drug Administration,

which is legally responsible for regulating

the safety of food and medicine.

Title:

Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties

Date: May 29, 1992

Principle 1: "Foods derived

"from genetic modification are regulated

"within the existing framework

that applied to foods developed

by traditional plant breeding."

Obviously the FDA decided not to create

a special category for GMOs.

"For further information,

contact James Maryanski,"

who headed the Biotechnology

department at the time.

Basically, the government

had taken a decision,

that it would not create new laws,

that it felt

there were already sufficient laws in place

that had enough authority for the agencies

to deal with new technologies.

- That means the White House

asked the agency

to write a policy where GMOs

should not be submitted

to a specific regulatory regime?

But it's not based on scientific data.

It was a political decision?

Yes, it was a political decision.

It was a very broad decision

that didn't apply to just foods.

It applied to all products of biotechnology.

Unbelievable!

James Maryanski admits

that GMO regulation

was based on politics

rather than science.

How exactly did they

justify their decision?

Principle 2:

"The components of food

"as a result of

genetic modification of a plant

"will be the same as,

or substantially similar to,

substances commonly found in food."

In other words, the FDA considers

that a genetically modified plant

is equivalent to

its conventional counterpart.

What they call

"the principle of substantial equivalence"

has been adopted around the world

and it's at the heart of the debate

between biotech supporters and GMO foes.

- How could the FDA decide

that a GMO crop

is the same as a conventional plant?

What we do know, is that the

genes that are being introduced,

currently, to date, using biotechnology,

produce proteins that are very similar

to proteins that we've

consumed for many centuries.

That's the FDA's official position

on the matter,

which was toppled by Jeffrey Smith,

author of several books on GMOs,

Michael Hansen, scientific expert

for the Consumer's Union

of the United States,

and writer Jeremy Rifkin

who was the first to denounce

the Principle of Substantial Equivalence.

The reason why GM crops are here

is based on a deception

that occurred in the FDA.

They said that these foods

are not different.

They used the word

"substantially equivalent",

they used the word

"not meaningfully or uniformly different"

and what that turned into

was a terminology called

"Generally Recognized as Safe,"

or "G.R.A.S."

Typically, if something

is to be considered

"Generally Recognized as Safe,"

it needs lots of peer-reviewed

published studies

and an overwhelming consensus

among the scientific community.

With GM crops, they had neither.

What FDA was saying was:

if you introduce a gene into a plant,

that gene is DNA,

and we've consumed DNA,

we have a long history of consuming DNA,

and we can establish

that that is "G.R.A.S."

We were trying to say that these things

should be considered "food additives".

When you want to put

a new colouring agent in a food,

the tiniest bit of colouring agent,

or a preservative

or some other tiny chemical,

that's considered a food additive

and you have to go

through all these procedures

to show that it meets the criterion

of "reasonable certainty of no harm".

But when you genetically engineer a food,

which can cause untold

differences in that plant,

they don't require anything!

Here in Washington,

if you were to have an evening

and go out and get a drink

at one of the local haunts where

all the lobbyists hang out,

everybody would laugh about this.

They all know this was a joke,

this "substantial equivalency".

This was simply a way

to paper over the need for these companies,

especially Monsanto,

to move their products

into the environment quickly

with the least amount

of government interference.

And I should say they were very, very good

at getting their interest expressed.

I remember meetings that we had

where the Monsanto scientists

met with the FDA scientists

and they went through

the kinds of modifications

that they were making,

and how those were being done.

And basically, what they were

also saying to FDA is:

"How will these products be regulated"?

I have never seen a situation

where one company

could have so much overwhelming influence

at the highest levels

of regulatory decision making

as the example of Monsanto

with its GM food policy and the government.

Exceptional news footage actually shows

George Bush Senior visiting

Monsanto's research facility

nine years before

Roundup Ready Soybeans

were first sold.

When George Bush Senior

toured the company's headquarters,

he was Ronald Reagan's

Vice President and deregulation

was this Republican

administration's watchword.

The intention was to

boost industry by eliminating

what White House hardliners

called "bureaucratic hurdles"

like health and

environmental safety testing,

which were Monsanto's key problems.

In 1988, when George Bush Senior

was elected

President of the United States,

Dan Quayle became

the new Vice President.

Four years later, he announced

the American policy

concerning GMOs,

drafted just as Monsanto had wanted.

We are taking this step

as part of the President's

'Regulatory Relief Initiative',

now in its second phase.

The United States is already the

world leader in biotechnology

and we want to keep it that way.

In 1991 alone, it was

a four-billion-dollar industry.

It should reach at least 50 billion dollars

by the year 2000, as long as we resist

the spread of unnecessary regulation.

- Do you think it was really a conspiracy?

A "conspiracy" is a strong word.

From a corporate standpoint

it was a brilliantly executed takeover.

Early on, a gentleman

by the name of Michael Taylor

became the Deputy Administrator

of the Food and Drug Administration,

right at the time that they were

about to set out their policy.

Who is Michael Taylor?

On the Internet

only a single image remains of the man

who once wielded his power so discreetly.

Today he heads a foundation

called "Resources for the Future".

Hello, Marie-Monique speaking.

- Hello, it's Mike Taylor.

My question's are about your role,

I mean when you were working at the FDA.

Before being hired by the FDA,

you worked as an attorney for Monsanto

during seven years, didn't you?

Well, I was a partner in a law firm

of which Monsanto was a client

and I worked on

some Monsanto matters, yes...

- Uh huh. And apparently,

if I understood well what I read,

the FDA created a new position for you:

Deputy Commissioner for Policy?

- Well...

Because there was a special

need at that time at the FDA

because of the new GMOs?

It had nothing to do with GMOs,

nothing at all to do with GMOs...

I wasn't the author of these policies.

But, that's just, that's very...

That's just false.

- He moved over to the FDA

in July of 1991.

Up until that time,

he was at a law firm

called King and Spalding.

His personal clients

included not only Monsanto,

but the International Food Biotechnology Council,

and he had drafted for them a proposal

for how they would like to see

genetically engineered foods regulated.

And if you look at the proposal

that was written for IFBC

that was Michael Taylor's,

with the final one that was published,

it looks very, very similar.

So... if he didn't write it,

then it looks like somebody

took what he wrote

and changed it slightly for the policy.

Mr. Taylor was the

Deputy Commissioner at the time,

and he provided the leadership

for the project

and served as the chief...

the sort of the lead... policy person,

in terms of making sure

that the project got done.

So, Monsanto played that game very well.

Both the political game

and the regulatory game.

They played a key role

in Bovine Growth Hormone,

in getting that thing approved, and also

in how genetic engineering was dealt with.

Michael Hansen has just mentioned

Bovine Growth Hormone.

What's that?

It's a transgenic hormone

that's injected into cows,

increasing dairy production by 20%.

It would be an understatement

to say that it had critics.

"The hormone threatens our health"...

"deadly poison"...

"manipulation"...

Called rBGH for

recombinant bovine growth hormone,

Monsanto began selling it to dairy farmers

in 1994,

under the brand name Posilac.

Posilac is the single most

tested new product in history.

You'll soon see the dramatic

results Posilac can offer you!

In 1985, Monsanto

submitted POSILAC to the FDA

for market approval.

The experts

at the FDA's

Centre for Veterinary Medicine

reviewed the studies

that the company had carried out

on experimental herds.

At the FDA, the veterinarian

in charge of reviewing the data

was Richard Burroughs.

In an interview, he stated that

"agency officials had

suppressed and manipulated data."

The data that they came in with

lacked a lot of insight

into the dairy industry.

They didn't ask crucial

questions about these diseases.

And that is mastitis, which is an infection

of the mammary gland

and reproductive problems.

So, when the first data

came in and that was missing,

I said: "All right, guys,

you need to go back and get information".

So that set it back probably

two or three years.

- Did you warn the FDA about your concerns?

They pretty much just sidetracked me.

They pulled in...

my boss pulled in other people

that were closer to him,

and I saw less and less of the data.

Even the things I had asked for

to be done, I didn't,

like the mastitis studies,

I never really got to see

a lot of that.

Because, they figured:

"Well, if you're in the way,

we'll get you out of the way".

So, they sidetracked me.

Eventually, I was fired.

One day,

I was escorted to the door and

told that was it, I was done.

- Have you been threatened?

Yes, mainly by the lawyers from Monsanto,

because when I was going for my appeal,

they told my lawyer that if I went in

and revealed any company secrets

in my defence,

that they would sue me.

In the end, the FDA was forced

to reinstate this

conscientious veterinarian.

He eventually resigned, disheartened.

On the Internet,

there is also talk about

"files that were stolen from the FDA

and sent to Dr. Samuel Epstein"

who heads the

Cancer Prevention Coalition.

In 1990, Samuel Epstein

published an article

in The Milkweed,

the standard for dairy reporting,

edited by Pete Hardin.

The scoop was based

on the secret documents

that the two men scrutinized.

One morning, I came,

I think in October of that year,

I came into my office

and found a great big box of documents and...

It came from Washington, but

no indication as to who sent it.

This was a box of files

of all Monsanto records,

which had been submitted to the FDA

on the veterinary tests

in the preceding six years or so.

Well, this was great fun!

Many of these documents

are original documents.

And, as it says here:

"Company confidential.

"It contains confidential information

"which may not be reproduced,

"revealed to unauthorized persons

or sent outside the company

without proper authorization."

As an investigative journalist,

that's the kind of stuff I like to report.

Revealing this information made Monsanto

and FDA very, very angry,

because what we were able to establish

is that there were dramatic

physiological changes

in the animals that received the shots,

the hormone shots,

compared to their control group peers.

For example,

we see the ovaries of the cows

receiving the synthetic hormone

in the different treatment groups

were, for the right ovaries,

34% larger, 42% larger

and 44% larger.

Elsewhere in the stolen files,

it shows how there were severe problems

with the reproduction

of these treated animals.

The data is conclusive,

we provided the data,

the raw data and summary datas,

peer-reviewed data,

not done by us, to support the submission.

Every health authority

who has looked at Bovine Somatotropin

has found that it is

completely safe for consumers.

For Monsanto,

the hormone is not only safe,

it is actually beneficial for consumers.

"Because the chemical

composition of the milk

"is not altered as a result of Posilac,

the manufacturing and

taste properties do not change."

It's untrue, a lie,

whatever the adjective you want to use...

Um, it's a very different product,

it's a very, very different product

in many, many ways.

First of all,

as there is a high incidence of mastitis,

in the cows, there will be pus in the milk...

And then you'd find antibiotics,

given to the cows to treat the mastitis.

So, a wide range of antibiotics

would be in the milk.

Apart from that, and very, very importantly,

very substantial increases

in levels of IGF-1,

of Insulin-like Growth Factor 1.

There have been a series of studies,

somewhere in the region of 60,

relating increased levels of IGF-1

and breast, colon and prostate cancers.

Absolutely incredible.

Are there other countries

that have approved rBGH?

Apparently, the hormone

was banned in Europe

and Canada.

Canada?

That's strange because Health Canada

usually models its decisions on the FDA's.

"rBGH: Scandal at Health Canada."

"Monsanto Accused

of Attempt to

Bribe Health Canada for rBGH."

In October 1998, three scientists

from Health Canada testified

before a senate commission

in order to stop the approval

of the transgenic hormone.

The scandal was made public by

whistleblower Dr. Shiv Chopra.

... shall be the truth,

the whole truth

and nothing but the truth.

So help me God.

My question to myself was:

what truth am I going to tell?

The one I know

or the one the Ministry

is telling me to tell?

And that was my conflict...

- I would ask each one of you,

have any one of you been

lobbied by Monsanto?

Any one of you?

- Dr. Haydon?

I did attend a meeting back

approximately about,

I believe, 1989, 1990

and Monsanto representatives

had met with myself

and my supervisor, Dr. Grenon

and my director Dr. Messier.

And, at that meeting,

an offer of one to two million dollars

was made by the company.

And, I don't know anymore

about what became of that,

but my director indicated after the meeting

that he was going to report it

to his superiors.

- How did Monsanto react?

Well, Monsanto did not deny

that they made the offer

of one to two million dollars

at this meeting.

They later on tried to say:

"Oh, this was an offer of research

"in Canada to do some more studies

on cows in Canada or whatever..."

So anyway,

that's what happened in Canada,

the drug was not approved.

So, the European Parliament,

based on revelations in Canada,

banned it forever.

And then, all of a sudden,

we three: Margaret Haydon,

Gérard Lambert and I

were dismissed for "disobedience".

- You mean "fired"?

All three of us were fired.

And those fights are now in courts.

Bovine Growth Hormone...

The United States Congress

also opened an investigation

at the request of

rBGH opponents who opposed

the ban on labeling milk as "rBGH free".

Interestingly enough, the investigation

was never completed.

- Bovine Growth Hormone,

BGH, is a test of consumer acceptance

of genetic engineering.

- In the garbage,

in the garbage!

- In the garbage,

in the garbage!

[ Hollering ]

The cow hormone drug was simply

the first major application of biotechnology

to food production.

And Monsanto is a very powerful corporation

with many, many linkages to

top level persons in government.

I think the prevailing ethic

at the federal government was

"biotechnology is so important

"that we can't let a few little questions

about cow safety

or human safety get in the way."

The reason the FDA approved it

is it appeared to be that

there was a lot of people

that used to work at and had key positions,

that had worked for Monsanto,

came over to the FDA

and managed to get the FDA to approve it.

It's revolving doors that move up,

it's kind of like a double helix,

it's a spiral.

Revolving door.

- Yes, revolving door.

The revolving door

is not just in agriculture.

It tends to be in many, many areas.

- Donald Rumsfeld

was the CEO of Searle,

which was a Monsanto subsidiary.

The former US Trade ambassador,

Mickey Kantor,

ended up on Monsanto's board.

Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas

used to work for Monsanto.

"Monsanto, revolving doors."

The state of affairs in 1999 includes:

Linda Fisher moves

from the Environmental Protection Agency

to Monsanto.

Michael Friedman

from the FDA to Monsanto.

Marcia Hale and Josh King

from the White House to Monsanto.

Margaret Miller

from Monsanto to the FDA.

William Ruckelhaus,

from the EPA to Monsanto

And let's not forget Michael Taylor,

who went back and forth several times.

- Once your mission was

carried out by the FDA,

you became Monsanto's

Vice President for Public Policy?

- Right...

So, there is no conflict of interest for you?

- No... The... No!

And, and again,

the rules are the rules

and I played within the rules.

I think in terms of public acceptance,

it's been one blunder after another.

If you're trying to have a strategy

for having the public understand

and accept a new technology,

having the first

application of it be, uh,

have it be related to milk,

which we already have

more than we need,

it created, you know,

it helped create a climate of,

of...

Suspicion?

- Suspicion.

I think that the idea that...

that companies are not required

in every case of a GMO

to submit the product to FDA,

such as is required in Europe,

I think that,

from a public confidence,

public acceptance standpoint,

that's not a sufficient system.

I personally have said that Congress

should change the law.

Congress should create

a mandatory notification system

that insures that every product

is looked at by FDA

and that FDA make a safety

judgment about every product.

That's some very compelling testimony.

It seems that Michael Taylor has qualms

about the policy he signed in 1992.

What about the FDA's own scientists?

Was there a consensus

on the GMO regulations?

"FDA Documents Show They Ignored GMO

Safety Warnings from Their Own Scientists"

written by Steve Druker.

Lawyer Steven Druker

represents a coalition

of non-profit associations.

He sued the FDA,

forcing it to declassify

its internal files on GMOs.

We received over 44,000 pages

from the FDA's own files.

And they revealed that the FDA

has been lying to the world

since 1992, if not before.

But they continue to lie.

They are still lying.

They claim that there's

an overwhelming consensus

in the scientific community,

that genetically engineered foods are as safe

as their conventionally produced counterparts.

And, they claim that

there has been sufficient data

to back up this consensus.

Both of those claims are blatant lies.

There are several examples, for instance,

Dr. Louis Pribyl

of the FDA's microbiology group wrote,

quote:

"There's a profound difference

between the types

"of unexpected effects

from traditional breeding

and genetic engineering,"

unquote.

Then, Dr Pribyl added in his memo that

"some of the aspects of genetic engineering

may be more hazardous".

The concern expressed

by the FDA's various scientific experts

was so clear and unmistakable

that the FDA official whose job it was

to track and summarize the scientists' input,

Dr. Linda Kahl, wrote a memo

to the FDA biotechnology coordinator,

Dr James Maryanski.

- According to the internal FDA's files,

which have been declassified now,

there were many in-house critics,

I mean, among the scientists of the FDA,

about the proposed policy...

I have for instance, a memorandum

sent to you by Linda Kahl...

- Right...

She stated:

"The processes of genetic engineering

"and traditional breeding are different...

- "...traditional breeding are different,

"and according to the technical

experts in the agency...

- ...they lead to different risks."

- ...different risks."

The point was that we had many people

with many different views.

Linda Kahl of course,

wrote that in her memo,

but in fact, when we finished the policy,

all the scientists agreed with the policy.

Now, FDA has, of course,

looked at the use of genetic engineering

and has no information

that simply the use of the techniques

creates products that

differ in safety or quality...

Even before the consistent

warnings in the memos

from the FDA's own scientists,

the FDA had very clear warning.

Because the very first genetically engineered

food supplement that came

to market in the United States

caused a major epidemic.

- Do you remember what happened in '89

with L-tryptophan?

Do you remember?

Yes.

- It was a bioengineered amino acid...

You know very well what's amino acid and...

Right...

- ...that killed dozens of people

and made hundreds and hundreds sick.

- It caused an epidemic of an

unusual disease called EMS.

Right.

- And how many people died?

Right. But we have many...

- Thirty-seven.

And more than a thousand people disabled,

do you remember?

I do remember.

- And you said...

according to FDA administrative record:

"We do not yet know the cause of EMS

nor can we rule out

the engineering of the organism."

Did you say that? What I read.

- Yes.

Amazing!

James Maryanski can't

rule out the possibility

that it's the genetic manipulation itself

that triggers unexpected side effects.

But, he did nothing.

Have any independent scientists

investigated this question

which is crucial for consumers?

Arpad Pusztai.

"World renowned scientist lost his job

when he warned about GE foods." 1998.

Arpad Pusztai worked

for the Rowett Institute in Scotland.

At the Ministry of Agriculture's request,

he led a study on

genetically modified potatoes,

with a budget of over two million euros

and a staff of 30 researchers

to prepare the arrival

of GMOs in Great Britain.

- We were all enthusiastic about it,

I was enthusiastic about it.

The Ministry thought that if we did this study,

looking at all aspects,

then it would be an endorsement

of GM, and when they introduce it,

they will say that

the foremost laboratory in Europe,

nutritional laboratory, had looked at them

and they'd found them alright.

Arpad Pusztai specializes in lectins.

These proteins function as an insecticide

protecting plants against aphids.

Rowett scientists had created potatoes

that were resistant to aphids

and into which

they introduced a Snowdrop gene,

which produces the lectin in question.

Beforehand, they verified

that in their naturally occurring state,

lectins themselves

do not pose a health risk.

The genetically modified potatoes

were tested on rats.

- It had a twofold effect.

First it started

to increase

a proliferative response in the gut,

and that you don't like,

because this is possibly...

I'm not saying that it is cancerous,

but what it does-- it does--

it can have an adjuvant effect

on any chemical,

chemically induced tumour.

The other thing is, the immune system

was certainly in-- got into high gear,

and that was...

We don't know

whether it's good or bad or...

But it certainly did recognize

the GM potatoes as "alien".

We were convinced that this insertion

is causing the problem

and not the transgene.

As I said, the transgene,

when we did it in isolation,

even at 800-fold concentration,

didn't do any harm.

It was a very important point,

because the American FDA

is going on by a...

about a neutral technology.

And what we did say

and what we did publish was,

actually corroborated, confirmed...

that it was NOT the transgene,

which was the problem

but it was the technology.

While the first shipments

of genetically modified soybeans

were arriving in Great Britain,

Arpad Pusztai's superiors

authorized him

to be interviewed by the BBC.

As a scientist actively working on the field,

I find that it's very,

very unfair

to use our fellow citizens as guinea pigs.

They will never forgive me for that.

Monsanto did see

the importance of our findings,

don't worry about it.

Even before the broadcast went out,

they already knew,

because the Scottish Crop Research Institute

did get a lot of money from Monsanto

and they were not slow

to understand the implications.

The day after the interview's broadcast,

Arpad Pusztai was fired

and the research team dismantled.

Dr. Stanley Ewen

was in charge of evaluating the impact

of GM potatoes

on the rats' internal organs.

He no longer has any illusions

about scientific independence.

- I was extremely, well, angry

and very, very concerned,

I just... It's like your whole world

is disappearing under your feet.

What's going on?

- They start to discredit Stanley as well,

it's not just Arpad and me.

Stanley was made to retire

and he was discredited at the University.

- As well?

- Yes, oh, yes...

It was very hard, indeed...

Monday, it was wonderful work.

Tuesday, it was rubbished.

I had one or two ideas

of what was happening,

but a very imprecise idea,

until eight years ago, almost exactly,

I was at a dinner dance.

And, next to me, at the top table,

was someone

from the Rowett called Dr. Roy,

who happened to say, when I said:

"Isn't it awful what's happening to Arpad."

"Yes," he said, "and did you not know

"that there were not one but two phone calls

from Downing Street to the director?"

And then, of course,

I saw clearly what was happening,

that this was something

sort of "supranational," if you like,

some pressure being put on Tony Blair's office

to stop this work,

because it was perceived by the Americans

to be harming their industrial base,

the biotech industry in other words.

The Arpad Pusztai scandal

triggered a massive rejection

of GMOs in Great Britain,

led by Greenpeace.

A year later, Robert Shapiro,

Monsanto's CEO at the time,

agreed to participate in a teleconference

organized by

the environmental organization.

This is the only existing video

footage of the former CEO.

He was responsible

for moving the company

into the biotechnology era

with its new slogan:

"food, health and hope".

Monsanto made huge efforts

to push its products

in every direction with the full support

of multi-national food manufacturers, retailers,

communications firms,

regulators, even governments.

You behave not as a company

offering life and hope,

but as bullies trying to

force your products on us.

- Um, I, if I'm a bully I don't feel that

I'm a very successful bully.

[ Laughter ]

I want to start by emphasizing

that biotechnology is a tool.

Biotechnology in itself

is neither good nor bad,

It can be used well or it can be used badly.

The products that are on the market

have been reviewed through

the regulatory processes

that society has established

in order to assure

not only safety, but the environmental safety

of the products themselves.

After ten years on the market,

Roundup Ready Soybeans account for 90%

of all of the soybeans grown in the US.

In fact, 70% of the food in American stores

contains bioengineered elements.

Unlike Europe,

consumers cannot make an informed decision,

because GM labelling is forbidden,

a direct consequence of

"the principle of substantial equivalence".

And I've got a soybean in my hand, here

and I can eat this soybean.

It's very safe, very safe.

I think the FDA is confident that the soybean,

in terms of food safety,

is as safe as other varieties of soybean.

- How is it the FDA confident about that?

It's based on all the data

that the company provided

to FDA, that was reviewed by FDA scientists.

And so, it's,

it's not in a company's interest to try

to design a study in some way

that would mask results.

How can James Maryanski be so sure?

If I type in:

"Monsanto falsified scientific studies,"

I get 174,000 hits!

Among them:

"A report from the EPA,

of the United States.

"Monsanto accused of falsifying studies

concerning the carcinogenicity of dioxin."

The story began in Nitro,

in a Monsanto factory

that produced a powerful

herbicide called 2-4-5 T.

In 1949, an explosion in the factory

provoked unexpected side effects:

228 workers developed

an extremely disfiguring illness

called chloracne.

It's caused by dioxin,

which is a highly toxic

byproduct of 2-4-5-T.

2-4-5 T was the main

ingredient in Agent Orange,

the defoliant used by the US

army during the Vietnam War.

During the war, 40 million litres

of Agent Orange containing

400 kilograms of pure dioxin

were sprayed on trees in southern Vietnam.

Three million people were contaminated

including thousands of American soldiers.

Even some 40 years

after the end of the war, dioxin continues

to claim more victims:

we know today that this poison

provokes cancer and

serious genetic malfunctions.

[ Protestation Chants ]

In 1978, while American Vietnam veterans

were suing the makers of Agent Orange,

Monsanto sponsored studies

on the long-term effects of dioxin.

♪ We're the ones

that are paying now ♪

The company paid scientists

to compare the health of

workers who had been exposed

during the Nitro plant's accident

30 years prior,

to the health of non-exposed workers.

There are two experts on the subject:

William Sanjour,

who led the Toxic Waste Division

of the Environmental Protection Agency

and Gerson Smoger,

a lawyer who represents Vietnam Veterans.

In 1990, Dr. Cate Jenkins,

a colleague of mine at EPA

wrote a memorandum

pointing out that allegations

had been made that those studies,

some of those studies

that Monsanto had conducted

were flawed and if they were done correctly,

would have reached just the opposite result

that Monsanto had.

The Monsanto studies showed

that dioxin was not a human carcinogen.

That means they had the data first

and then they manipulated

how they were gonna look

at that data to come up

with the conclusion they want.

It's absolutely...

You never do a study that way!

Never!

And they did it absolutely wrong!

And they achieved what they wanted.

And it came out later that there were people

that had cancer,

that in one of these two studies,

were listed as being exposed to dioxin,

and the same five people in another study

were listed as not being exposed.

And when you put all these

cancers into the unexposed,

then it looked like the unexposed people

were getting as much cancer

as the exposed, and they said:

"There's no difference. See, they're the same."

So then thousands and thousands of veterans

were disallowed benefits

because of exposure to Agent Orange.

So, all policy was affected by those studies

for seven to nine years in this country.

Being a good scientist

and a good EPA employee,

and someone, by the way, who's quite fearless,

Cate Jenkins wrote a memorandum

to the EPA Science Advisory Board

asking them to review these two studies

to see if they were correctly done.

The fact is there was

no investigation of Monsanto.

It didn't exist.

Nobody investigated those, those studies.

Nobody, period!

What they investigated was

Cate Jenkins, the whistleblower!

They made her life a hell.

They harassed her, they changed her jobs,

they persecuted the poor woman.

- If you think of Monsanto today,

they are telling that their GMOs,

for instance, are sound and safe?

Do you trust the company?

- I wouldn't believe a word

that company says, nothing.

I might trust some independent source

who investigated their claims,

depending on who that independent source was,

and how good they are

and how independent they are.

Precisely.

In order to prove the safety

of Roundup Ready Soybeans,

Monsanto carried out a study,

which was published in 1996

in a well-respected scientific journal.

The study was supposed

to assess the effects

of GM soybeans on animal health,

specifically on rats.

This study was thoroughly reviewed

by both a Danish scientist,

now deceased,

and the Norwegian specialist

Ian Pryme.

- I'm afraid to say, I value

this study very poorly indeed.

It's very disappointing, very disappointing.

Especially because this paper

sort of served as a basis

for the whole principle

of "substantial equivalence".

I can just cite, which is again

a bit surprising:

"Although the animal feeding studies

provide some reassurance

that no major changes occurred".

Now...."some reassurance,"

now, that's not good enough.

I want 100% reassurance, not just "some",

"some reassurance".

They talk, for example about the...

on page 723.

"Except for the darker brown colour,

livers appeared normal at necropsy."

I mean...

you can't do that without looking inside,

you have to look at the content

inside the liver,

taking sections, showing under the microscope

that there is no difference.

They've used, for example,

older... older rats.

Obviously, again, if you want

to avoid any problems, okay,

use an adult.

But if you want to see

if any changes are evident,

then you should use younger individuals,

of course.

In some ways you could say it's bad science

because a lot of the data

that they should have shown

isn't shown.

- Did you try, for instance,

to get access to the raw data?

I didn't, a colleague of mine did,

and spent quite a frustrating length of time

going through different offices and so on,

but finally, the answer was...

the answer was: "no".

If there was nothing to hide,

then there should be no problem.

You should be willing

to distribute your material

for anybody to do work on.

And when it's... when you keep it,

keep it tight, then you suspect that it's...

why, why is this the case?

One thing is sure:

thanks to this limited study,

Monsanto's GMOs have inundated the world,

principally in North and South America,

Asia and Australia.

After only 10 years,

transgenic crops now cover

250 million acres.

70% are Roundup resistant

and 30% have been genetically modified

to produce an insecticide called "BT".

Since 2001

the company has published a yearly document

titled "The Pledge Report,"

a kind of ethics statement

in which Monsanto tries to

justify its business practices.

At the heart of the opposition to GMOs

is the subject of patents.

This is what Monsanto calls

"their intellectual property,"

which are supposed

to protect their investment.

In North America every farmer

who buys bioengineered seeds

must sign a "Technology Agreement"

in which the farmer promises

to respect the company's patent

on the modified gene.

Biotech crops are protected by US patent law.

And so I may not in any way save seed

to replant the following year.

It's something that is a protection for the,

for Monsanto... for biotech companies.

Because they literally invest

millions and millions of dollars

to produce this new technology.

- And how can Monsanto know

that someone, for instance,

replants harvested seeds?

I'm not sure how,

how to answer that, no...

How they would,

how they would know

if someone replanted seed...

That's a good question for Monsanto.

The question is so touchy that Monsanto

prefers to circumvent it

by making glorious promises.

"In cases of unintended appearance

"of our proprietary varieties

on a farmer's field,

"we will surely work

to resolve the matter

to the satisfaction of both

the farmer and Monsanto."

The reality seems much less idyllic.

The Centre for Food Safety

in Washington D.C.

published a study

on farmers sued by Monsanto

for having not respected its seed patents.

It found "at least 100 lawsuits

and many bankruptcies".

Among the victims:

Troy Roush, an Indiana farmer.

- Our story starts back in 1999.

A gentleman, and I use that term loosely,

showed up at my mother and father's farm,

and he claimed to be a private investigator

hired by Monsanto.

And he was out investigating

farmers saving their own seed.

And asked us,

come out right and asked us

if we'd saved their seed,

and we told him no, we had not,

and offered up our herbicide purchases

and seed purchases,

all the receipts and everything,

told him where everything was purchased

so he could go check it out for himself.

He declined that, that offer.

And what occurred is,

then, they, they sued us.

Monsanto filed a lawsuit

against myself, my father,

and my two brothers.

And Monsanto presented us with documents

that they claimed were samples

taken from our farms.

To obtain those samples,

Monsanto had to have

trespassed upon our land

without our permission and stole those samples.

That year, I recall, we had 492 acres

of Roundup Ready Soybeans.

And they were,

they were grown under contract

for a company for seed.

And the contract was very specific.

It spelled out the specific field, so...

It wasn't a problem in isolating those fields.

Everybody knew it.

- And why did you settle

out of court with Monsanto?

Well, after two and a half years of this,

the family was just destroyed.

The stress involved in this,

I mean...

They're, in essence,

threatening five generations of work.

And, if they were to prevail

on something like this,

it's all gone.

They take it all away,

they take it all away.

Good morning.

- 'Morning, sir.

How are you this morning, Troy?

I'm well. How are you, David?

- Still surviving.

Good.

Troy Roush and David Runyon

grow conventional soybeans.

They have been victims

of the so-called "gene police."

Created by Monsanto

to enforce its law in the fields,

the gene police sow fear in rural America,

where farmers denounce

the totalitarian methods

used in a GMO-dominated world.

- I have some pictures here for you, Troy,

I'd like for you to look at.

Here's what I have done, Troy,

to help prevent re-entry on my farm...

Anyone coming onto my farm...

Summer, it was in July of 2003.

And they came, it was the latter part of July,

they came to my house, it was like 7 p.m.

- Who came?

Um,

Monsanto employees

and they presented me a business card.

And they asked me a few questions

about the kind of soybeans I plant,

the kind of corn I plant,

where I market my crops.

And so, I said:

"Okay, that's the end of the conversation."

Yeah. Patents have changed,

they've changed everything.

It revolves with a,

with a relationship of trust

with neighbours, that is gone.

By myself, I probably only have

two farmers that I talk to,

that are close to me.

- Are they really afraid, the farmers?

Of course, they're afraid.

You can't defend yourself against these people.

They've created a little industry that,

that serves no other purpose

than to wreck farmers' lives.

Of course they're afraid.

- You're afraid, for instance,

that a neighbour can snitch on you?

- Yes.

- Yes?

Yes, all's you have to do is, is...

- Dial 1-800... Dial 1-800 MONSANTO,

Or no I'm sorry, 1-800 ROUNDUP.

I remember 'em encouraging farmers to call this,

this toll-free number

and turn their neighbour in.

- And why does Monsanto do that?

Well, the reason they do it is control.

- Seeds?

Yeah.

They wanna control the seed.

They wanna own life.

I mean, this is the building blocks of food

we're talking about.

They are in the process

of owning food, all food.

Between 1995 and 2005, Monsanto acquired

over fifty seed companies

throughout the world.

These companies produce corn, cotton,

wheat and soybean and also seeds

for tomatoes, potatoes and sorghum.

Everywhere people worry about

Monsanto's monopoly,

which, in the long-term,

threatens to wipe out

all non-transgenic varieties.

Monsanto doesn't agree

and speaks only about

the benefits of biotechnology

especially in developing

countries like India.

"Our products provide

significant economic benefits

"to both large and small growers.

In many cases,

"farmers are able to grow higher-quality

and better-yielding crops."

India is the world's

third largest cotton producer.

In 1999, Monsanto acquired Mahyco,

the country's leading seed company.

Two years later, the Indian government

authorized the sale of BT Cotton

under the brand name Bollgard.

It is genetically modified

to produce an insecticide,

which repels bollworms, a cotton parasite.

Since 2001, Kiran Sakhari

and Abdul Gayum

have been closely following

the transgenic cotton

grown by small farmers

in the Warangal district.

Every year, the two agronomists

publish a report

comparing bioengineered cotton

with conventional cotton

in terms of yields and production costs.

In 2006, the harvest was

ravaged by a disease

that affects transgenic cotton.

This is a Bollgard field.

We can see some of the Rhizoctonia

affecting the plants.

You see,

if you remove the bark of a healthy plant

it won't be like this, like threads.

See, it's a classic example

of Rhizoctonia infestation.

- The farmers all said

they have never seen that.

When we were doing our study from 2001,

we noted the disease in very few samples

in the BT cotton only and, as the time passed,

the spread was seen more and more

in the BT fields

as well as some non-BT fields also.

What I personally feel is that

there may be some interaction,

undesirable interaction,

between the host plant

where the gene was introduced

and the gene which is carrying the BT.

And that has introduced

a weakness in the plant to...

not to resist this Rhizoctonia.

- I have seen on the Web site

of Mahyco Monsanto,

"BT Cotton reduces 78%

of pesticide application--

pesticide consumption--

and it gives 30% better yields."

But it's an utter flop.

After 70-90 days invariably you have to spray

for the bollworm even on BT cotton.

- How do you explain that so many farmers

are buying BT seeds?

You see presently, the option is very,

very narrow... is getting narrower

and narrower for the farmer.

During the current season,

if even the farmer wanted to go for non-BT

there is no non-BT hybrid seed

available in the market.

Today in India, Monsanto controls

nearly all of the cottonseed market.

Forcing the locals to buy its seeds,

at prices four times higher

than conventional varieties.

Small farmers must turn to moneylenders

who charge high interest rates.

If the harvest is poor,

it means bankruptcy.

A vicious circle,

which is decimating Indian villages.

Tragedies like the one we've just witnessed

occur three times a day

in the Vidharba region

where BT Cotton was introduced in 2005.

Of course, cotton farmers

committing suicide

is not new in India, but the GM crops

are causing it to skyrocket.

However, in this battle

that pits David against Goliath,

few dare to publicly denounce

this international scandal.

- This is Vidarbha's rice growing belt.

If you see, the minimum suicides are there.

But this is the cotton growing area.

The result of the BT Cotton is:

the first year: 600 suicides,

from June 2005 to June 2006.

Second year, till today,

within six months: 680 suicides.

So, it's a disaster.

It's a complete disaster yes.

All these technologies, either if it is GM

or biotechnology, they are actually

making the farmers completely

dependent on the market.

Because not only that you have to pay more

for the seed procurement,

but you have to fertilize,

and this very claim

that no spraying is required,

no pesticide is required is also false.

- When Monsanto claims in advertising

that GM crops are adapted for small farmers,

what do you think? It's...

Our experience shows that it is completely false.

It's completely false, it's a lie!

On this day in December of 2006,

a revolt was brewing

in the largest cotton market

in the state of Maharastra.

Three days later riots broke out

and dozens of small farmers,

including Kishor Tiwari,

were arrested.

- 60,000 rupees of debt...

50,000 rupees of debt...

20,000 rupees of debt...

50,000 rupees of debt...

15,000 rupees of debt...

They don't want to go for the BT.

"Seeds of Suicide"

is the title of a book

by physicist Vandana Shiva.

She won the Alternative Nobel Prize

and heads the Navdanya organization,

which aims to conserve traditional seeds.

In the beginning, Vandana Shiva's battle

was against the first green revolution,

which brought

industrial agriculture to India

in the 1960s.

Today, she denounces what she calls

the second green revolution,

that of GMOs protected by patents.

The difference is that

the first green revolution

was public sector driven.

It was driven by government agencies.

The government agencies controlled the research.

In the case of the second green revolution,

it is driven by Monsanto.

It is a Monsanto-driven revolution.

The second big difference is that

the first green revolution

did have a hidden objective

of selling more chemicals,

but its first objective

was providing food.

It was food security.

And yes, they grew less pulses,

they grew less oil seed

but they did grow more rice

and wheat and fed people.

The second green revolution

has nothing to do with food security.

It is not about food security.

It is about returns to Monsanto's profits.

That's all it is about.

They've always said genetic engineering

is the way to get to patenting.

But patenting is the real aim.

If you look at Monsanto's research agenda,

they are testing at this point

something like 20 crops with BT genes in them.

There is nothing they are leaving untouched,

the mustard, the ochra,

the brinjal, the rice,

the cauliflower.

Once they have established the norm

that seed can be owned as their property,

royalties can be collected,

we will depend on them for every seed we grow,

of every crop we grow. If they control seed,

they control food,

they know it, it's strategic.

It's more powerful than bombs,

it's more powerful than guns.

This is the best way to control

the populations of the world.

Monsanto responds to Ms. Shiva's

persuasive argument by

brandishing its pledge:

"integrity, dialogue,

transparency and sharing."

We want to participate constructively

in the process

by which societies around the world

try to develop good answers

to those questions:

Are the products gonna be

safe for the environment?

How are they gonna affect biodiversity?

How are they gonna affect other plants

and insects and birds?

What about outcrossing of genes?

What happens if genes

do outcross into wild species?

To me that means, among other things,

listening carefully and respectfully

to all points of view.

Despite Robert Shapiro's placid demeanour,

he has just touched on a subject

that greatly troubles GMO opponents:

transgenic contamination,

which Monsanto prefers to call

an "adventitious presence,"

that is part of the "natural order".

According to a study

led by Berkeley professor

Dr. Ignacio Chapela, GMOs

have already contaminated Mexican corn.

But when the scientific journal Nature

published the study's findings,

it triggered a violent controversy.

I had been working for 15 years

with indigenous communities

in Oaxaca, in Mexico,

and they had been developing the capacity

to analyze their environment themselves.

One of my students went

to try and train people to detect transgenics.

We brought with ourselves a positive control,

that was a can of corn from the US

that we knew was transgenic

and we were looking for a negative control

and we thought the best negative control

is going to be corn from the local places,

because we all believed

that it was the cleanest,

the most well-preserved

source of corn in the world.

So, the surprise came

when we looked at these samples

and we discovered that the samples

that we all believed would be non-transgenic

had already transgenic DNA within them.

It was a very big surprise for us to discover

that these land races of corn

that were kept by people locally

and supposedly maintained over 10,000 years

had already been reached

by transgenic contamination,

mostly from the US.

Mexico is the centre of origin for corn.

More that 150 local corn varieties

can be found in just

the southern region of Oaxaca.

This extensive biodiversity is a treasure--

the world's genetic reservoir of corn.

Millions of Mexican farmers

had maintained it for thousands of years.

- This corn is for the family?

Yes, only for the family.

We use it to make tortillas.

This ear is a good size

so we'll save it as seed

for next year's planting.

- You don't buy your seeds?

No.

- You exchange them?

Yes.

It's our ancient barter system.

To preserve its corn's diversity

Mexico has banned

genetically modified crops.

However, due to the

NAFTA free-trade agreement

it signed with the United States

and Canada,

Mexico cannot stop

the massive importation of American corn,

40% of which is genetically modified.

This "industrial corn,"

as it's called in Mexico,

is highly subsidized by the US government.

So on local markets it costs

half as much as traditional Mexican corn.

- Do you always make your tortillas

with local corn?

Yes.

It's natural and has a better yield.

Also it's more nourishing

because it comes from pure soil.

That's blue corn.

In the past,

my ancestors only planted this kind of corn.

Today, we maintain it as well.

- It existed before the Spanish conquest?

Yes. There is another kind of conquest.

- What is the new conquest?

It's the transgenic conquest

that wants to destroy everything

by making local corn disappear

so that their "industrial corn" can dominate.

If they succeed,

we'll be dependant on multinationals,

we'll be forced to buy

the fertilizer and insecticides

they sell because without them

their corn won't grow.

Whereas, the local corn grows very well

without fertilizer or herbicide.

Look at it, it's very beautiful.

Ignacio Chapela's article

provoked a violent reaction in Mexico.

Since then, The National Ecology Institute

has confirmed the

contamination of Mexican corn.

Roundup Ready and BT genes

have been found

in corn from five regions of the country.

What would happen if bioengineered corn

crossed with traditional land races?

Dr. Alvarez Buylla

led a study using a local flower.

She inserted the same gene

in several specimens

and then observed their growth.

We observed that two plants,

strictly identical from a genetic point of view--

in other words, they both have the same genome,

the same chromosomes and the same transgene,

the only difference is that the transgene

is located in different places.

And well, once they grew, these plants

presented a phenotype,

that it to say flower shapes,

that were very different: some have flowers

that are identical to their

natural counterparts, like here,

four petals with four sepals,

but others have abnormal flowers

with abnormal hair or strange petals.

In addition,

some are completely monstrous.

The only difference in all of these plants,

is the location of the transgene,

which was inserted randomly.

- Why is that worrisome?

In Mexico, once the transgenic corn seeds

have been released into the environment,

it's very likely that the transgenes

will insert themselves into the genomes

of the local Mexican varieties.

It's an unavoidable phenomenon,

because corn plants cross naturally

by wind-blown pollen.

Given that, we fear

that the genetic resources

of traditional corn

will be uncontrollably affected.

Good morning!

We invite you to attend a meeting

about the new diseases

which are infecting our corn

because of transgenic contamination.

Aldo heads an organization

of indigenous people.

For two years, he's been leading

an information campaign

in Oaxaca communities

where Elena Alvarez's fears

have already been confirmed

in the fields.

I'm going to show you some photos

of some corn plants that we took

in our region of Sierra Juárez.

We'd like to know if you have already seen

this type of plant in your community.

You can see that some very strange things

are going on:

this plant, for example,

has a branch here and another one there.

Normally, a corn plant is not like that.

There is always only one ear per leaf,

but look, here,

there are three ears

coming out of the same leaf.

They are really monsters!

We sent a plant sample to a biotech lab

to see if maybe it contained

genetically modified genes.

Unfortunately, the test came out positive.

Usually, we see these types

of plants along the roadside

or in people's yards.

It's possible that people

buy corn in a shop

and they drop some kernels while walking.

Some kernels germinate.

This is how traditional corn

became contaminated.

From what you've said,

if we don't manage to stop

their spread in our fields,

soon we'll be forced to buy our corn seed

because our own won't work anymore?

That's very troubling.

What should we do?

First of all, if you find a strange plant,

you should immediately remove its stamen,

because that's where the pollen comes from.

In any case, you must be very vigilant

in monitoring your plants.

- Don't you think it's Monsanto's strategy?

What they couldn't achieve legally,

they're trying to force through contamination?

Yes, we end up wondering

if the contamination wasn't intentional.

If the centre of origin of corn

becomes contaminated,

the rest of the planet could follow.

Contamination only benefits

multinationals like Monsanto.

How did Monsanto react

to Ignacio Chapela's study

on Mexican corn contamination?

"Monsanto's dirty tricks campaign

against fired Berkeley

Professor Ignacio Chapela."

An article by Jonathan Matthews

who heads GM Watch,

a GMO information service

based in southern England.

According to Jonathan Matthews,

Ignacio Chapela was a victim of a campaign

launched on AgBioWorld,

a pro-GMO Internet site.

On the eve of the article's

publication in Nature,

a certain "Mary Murphy"

posted an e-mail

that AgBioWorld distributed

to thousands of scientists

around the world.

She wrote:

"Activists will certainly run wild

"with news that Mexican corn

has been 'contaminated'

by genes from GM corn."

The very next day,

a certain Andura Smetacek

posted a second e-mail:

"Activists FIRST, scientist second."

It's totally a smear campaign.

And this is what happens

over the first couple of days;

you get Murphy and Smetacek coming in.

Then others come in and they say:

"We have to campaign on this.

"We have to inundate Nature.

"We have to go to the editor of the journal

and we have to say this research isn't valid."

Smetacek and Murphy...

We'd been tracking them

for some time, and trying to work out

who they were.

In the case of Smetacek,

we could look at the technical headers

on the e-mail.

It says "received from"

and then we've got

an Internet Protocol Address.

If we go off to a Web site registration site,

now all we have to do

is just to copy that IP address.

"Organization Name:

Monsanto Company

and based in St. Louis."

Then Mary Murphy

left behind details

that enabled us

to track who she was so...

If we look here,

the information that appeared,

posted by Mary Murphy,

and then we get the IP Address:

and we found that that was the original name

of a P.R. agency called The Bivings Group.

We quickly found out that on their client list

was Monsanto.

That this was an Internet P.R. firm for Monsanto.

- That means fake scientists!

What a dirty trick.

Yeah, no, no, we're talking

very dirty tricks here, yeah.

I mean, there, there,

there's no ethics at all in,

in what's going on here.

It shows an organization that is determined

to push its products

into countries around the world

and it's determined to destroy the reputation

of anybody who stands in their way.

Jonathan Matthew's accusations

were covered in the British press,

but Monsanto chose to ignore them.

As it continues its unrelenting rise,

the company defends its vision

of a transgenic world

"that will resolve the problems of famine

and the environment in perfect harmony."

"Practical experience clearly demonstrates

"that the coexistence of biotech,

"conventional and organic systems

is not only possible,

but is peacefully occurring

around the world."

[ ♫ What a Wonderful World ♫ ]

A transgenic world

already exists in South America

where 100 million acres of

Roundup Ready Soybeans

were planted in 2007.

Their conquest started

10 years ago in Argentina,

the only country to have

officially authorized

transgenic crops.

Since then, GMOs have mysteriously spread

to neighbouring countries, like Brazil

and Paraguay seen here.

In 2005, Paraguay finally legalized

these smuggled crops

to save their soybean exports to Europe

where labelling GMOs is obligatory.

In reality,

for the Ministry of Agriculture,

the deed had already been done.

We had to authorize GMO seeds

because they had already

entered our country in a,

let's say, unorthodox way.

- Do we know how transgenic

seeds entered the country?

Through the black market or smuggling?

We don't speak about the black market

but about "the blank sack,"

because these are the seed sacks

that have no official markings.

- Did Monsanto play a role

in this seed contraband?

It is possible that the company, let's say,

promoted its varieties and its seeds and,

as I told you, the government had to react

after the fact to authorize

what was already a reality.

Whatever the origin,

contraband has been

profitable for Monsanto:

as soon as the crops were legalized,

the company obtained the right

to collect royalties

on each ton of soybeans

the country produced.

Just like in Brazil.

Since then, there has been no let up

in Paraguay's deforestation

and the expulsion of many small farmers

who refuse to relinquish

their small plots of land.

Jorge Galeano leads

a small farmers' organization,

which is fighting against the progression

of what he calls the "green desert".

What we have here is an example

of a GM extension of soybeans.

In fact, it's a monocrop

that destroys everything in its path.

Before, here, there were

fields containing everything

that a family needed to live:

plants, trees, manioc, corn.

- Do you think that the GM crop can coexist

with the crops of the small farmers?

No, we are sure it can't.

They are two

incompatible models that can't co-exist.

It's a silent war that eliminates communities

and families of small farmers.

In addition,

it destroys the biodiversity of the countryside.

It brings death, poverty and illness

as well as the destruction

of the natural resources

that help us live.

Today, Roundup is sprayed,

all over Paraguay

by plane or mechanical spreaders

driven by unprotected farm workers.

The herbicide is sprayed

right up to people's front doors

or near the subsistence crops

of small farmers.

Every year, crops are destroyed

and thousands of people contaminated.

Like this family,

which is surrounded by Monsanto's GMOs.

The parents are worried

about their son Pedro,

because everyday he has

to cross the soybean fields

to sell his mother's

homemade corn tortillas.

How long has he had that?

- It started 15 days ago.

It started on his foot

and then it spread.

That's how it starts.

- Does he have a headache?

- Is he eating?

Very little...

Today he didn't want to eat

what I had prepared for him.

He only drank a little fruit juice.

- And his brother?

He eats better, but it's difficult.

That's the way we live.

Recently we lost 60 ducks and geese.

They took a few steps

and then they fell down,

dead as doornails.

They spray deadly herbicide over there.

When it rains, the water streams down here

and since ducks live in water,

that's the result.

In Paraguay, 70% of the farmland

is owned by only 2% of the population.

With GMOs, the concentration is increasing.

Three quarters of the

soybean producers are foreigners

staking claims for this new green gold.

The ban on animal-based feed

after the Mad Cow epidemic

and the recent bio-fuel craze

have caused soy prices to soar,

triggering a rush to Roundup Ready crops.

According to the last census in Paraguay,

each year 100,000 people leave rural areas

to live in urban slums.

An estimated 70%

flee Monsanto's

genetically modified soybeans,

which are destined

to feed Europe's chickens,

cows and pigs.

We are going to talk

about the production model of GM soybeans

promoted by Monsanto.

It's a true multinational company,

it's everywhere in the world.

Its objective is to control

all of the world's food production

through farmerless farming.

The result is that Monsanto is depriving us

of our food sovereignty,

of our ability to feed ourselves,

without depending on anyone else.

That is why we say

that we must fight for our independence,

for our land,

we must defend our communities,

our families and our country.

In my case, my family lives in the city

but I don't want to go there.

In the city you have to buy everything,

even food.

Here, whatever we grow is ours.

We can eat whatever we want,

but in the city you can't.

If you don't have money,

you have to search for food in garbage cans.

I'd like to add that these families'

struggle to survive touches all of us.

In 2007,

Monsanto employed 18,000 workers

in 50 countries.

In 2007,

its stock prices continue to rise

and its profits have reached

a billion dollars.

Its shareholders include not only

pension funds and banks

but also hundreds of thousands

of small investors.

[ Dialing ]

[ Phone Ringing ]

- Chris Horner.

Hello, Christopher Horner.

I'm Marie-Monique Robin from France.

- Yeah, we appreciate

your persistence in...

in asking, but uh, you know

we've had several conversations

internally about this

and uh, have not changed our position.

So, there's no reason

for us to participate.

Our suspicion is that

it would not be positive.

Um, so, you know...

Subs = PhilSpace