From PCBs to GMOs – A History of Corporate Influence and Environmental Controversy
In 1967, a group of Swedish scientists demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that PCBs were a big threat to the global environment. They clearly identified traces of PCBs in the entire food chain, in birds and fish, even in children’s hair.
So what did Monsanto do in face of such clear cut evidence? Their simple response was to prepare for a media war to rubbish these reports and findings. One of their medical director wrote a memo asking if there was anything he could do to make sure their business was not affected by this evil publicity.
In 1968, PCBs were discovered in California’s wildlife, setting off a huge debate and controversy in the USA. This is when Monsanto officials began talking about damage control, as the evidence on their impact on the environment was more than substantial. One official wrote that it was only a matter of time before the regulatory agencies will be looking down our throats. Another official wrote that we should begin to protect ourselves and limit further releases of PCBs.
In 1969, Monsanto appointed an Ad-Hoc Committee to look into these controversies surrounding their most profitable product PCBs. According to the minutes of the first meeting the Committee’s two main objectives were to protect the image of the corporation, and to allow continued sales and profits. But they realized the situation indeed looked bleak, as chemical traces had been found across the USA in fish, oysters, shrimp, bald eagles, and even in milk.
Their status as a serious pollutant was certain, and it seemed to be just a matter of time before the authorities took some concrete action. One option they had was to stop production immediately, and the other was to sell as much possible as long as they could. The Committee instead went for what they called the responsible approach to gradually phase out the PCBs, but only once the company had developed alternatives. They also urged more studies to be undertaken to find evidence that they were not harmful to the environment. as this had turned into a raging topic in the national media. while members of congress were calling for heatings.
Till 1977 Monsanto kept producing PCBs as the federal law banning them did not take effect till 1979, Various Tests that linked them to cancers, birth defects, diabetes, thyroid problems and a variety of immune disorders, were totally ignored by the company in their quest not to lose even one dollar of their business. They greatly profited from over 40 years of monopoly on PCB production in USA and world-wide, and eventually battled with all their might to protect that even long after PCBs were declared as global pollutants.
In fact, the PCBs were also used in paints, adhesives, bread wrappers, and deep-fat fryers, without the knowledge of the consumers. Once known as the miracle chemicals, they were eventually declared as cancerous and banned by the EPA and the World Health Organization.
The Ad-Hoc Committee that Monsanto set up in 1969 recommended the responsible approach to gradually phase out the PCBs, but only once the company had developed alternatives. The gradual phase continued till 1977, while the company was seriously working on alternatives to continue filling up their coffers. A lot of thinking and planning must have ensued behind closed doors to come up with a new product to enrich the shareholders. It must have been some super brainstorming sessions that gave birth to a phenomenal idea of investing into research of GMO seeds. With genetically modified seeds, not only would they turn into an agriculture company and improve their image, but also have control of the world’s food markets. But the problem was, they were a chemical company since inception and all they knew and did during their 80 years of existence was to produce and profit from chemicals. To look for replacement chemical of their most profitable product PCBs must have been their most important agenda.
In 1983, Monsanto announced they had succeeded in genetically modifying a plant cell, and field trials of genetically modified crops were done in 1987. This made them the pioneers in applying the biotechnology industry business model to agriculture. In this model companies invest in research and development, and then recover not only the investments, but make massive profits with the use and enforcement of patents. Monsanto was well acquainted with this model and used it successfully for over 80 years in their chemical business. Now with the ban on PCBs, they diverted most of that business through mergers and buyoffs to become the biggest GMO seed company. Their seed patenting model became a direct threat to customary farming practices of sharing, reusing, and developing plant varieties.
Once a farmer buys their seeds, he would have to buy them again and again every year.
For as long as agriculture has been in practice, farmers have saved seeds from their current harvest to sow the following year, but Monsanto has changed this natural course of nature. They have succeeded in patenting their GMO seeds, just like patented drugs and other commercial products, and farmers are prohibited from saving seeds for future use. If they do save them, Monsanto tracks them down and prosecutes to set an example and warn others. They have launched a permanent war against farmers to protect their way of business. A farmer in the USA was forced to pay over USD 80,000 through a Supreme Court ruling for using their GMO seeds saved from an earlier harvest. From thousands of eases that they ruthlessly pursue, a great number are settled out of court, as farmers are afraid to take any stand against them. Not only farmers, they also track the dealings of seed sellers and seed cleaners to grab patent violators, and many a times innocent people are made to pay huge fines.
The company collected over USD 160 million till 2007 in out of court settlements from farmers and dealers who could not afford to take a stand against this giant multi-national.
The fact is that GMO crops cannot be contained in one farm, and it’s easy for them to spread through winds and cross pollination to the adjoining farms, where conventional farming may be in practice. Rather than being sued for contaminating such farms, Monsanto has done the opposite by suing those farmers for unlicensed crops growing in their fields. Many such farmers ended up losing their farms, but one Canadian farmer, Percy Schmeiser, refused to tolerate such injustice and fought back. For over 40 years he had grown canola on his farm using his own seeds, saved from the previous harvest. In 1998 Monsanto sued him for USD 400,000 when more than 320 hectares of his farmland was found to be contaminated with their GMO canola. He countersued them for trespassing, accusing him of illegal acts, contamination of his crops with GMO plants, and for complete disregard of the environment by introducing such crops without proper controls and containment. This landmark case is featured in a documentary film ‘David versus Monsanto’, which can be viewed on YouTube. After a decade long battle Percy Schmeiser eventually won, when Monsanto agreed to settle out of court and pay all cleanup costs.
