The world according to Monsanto : pollution, corruption, and

the bovine growth hormone affair, part one 97and in addition continued to advertise the product as safe. 3 Monsanto fitinto both categories: the first for PCBs, and the second for dioxin andrBGH.”On May 8, 1990, Conyers officially asked Richard Kusserow, inspectorgeneral of the Department of Health and Human Services, to open an investigationof bovine growth hormone, alleging that “Monsanto and the FDAsuppressed and manipulated data from veterinary tests to secure approvalfor the commercial use of rBGH.” The request led to an investigation by theGeneral Accounting Office (GAO), the investigative arm of Congress.Among the witnesses testifying before the GAO were Richard Burroughs,whose case had recently been reported in the New York Times, and SamuelEpstein. 4But the FDA and Monsanto very quickly organized a counterattack. InAugust 1990, the agency decided to breach its statutorily mandated duty ofconfidentiality. For the first time in history, it took a public position in favorof a product it had not yet authorized by publishing an article in the prestigiousjournal Science, in which it asserted that milk from cows treated withrBGH was “safe for human consumption.” 5 Officially, the article was writtenby two FDA scientists, Judith Juskevich and Greg Guyer, who were carefulto note at the outset: “The FDA requires that the pharmaceutical companiesdemonstrate that food products from treated animals are safe for humanconsumption. . . . The companies also submit the raw data from all safetystudies that will form the basis for approval of the product.” Specifically, theauthors referred to two toxicological studies conducted by Monsanto: in thefirst, rats received injections of the transgenic hormone over a period oftwenty-eight days; in the second study, which lasted ninety days, the testanimals ingested rBGH, in order to test its particular effects on the gastrointestinalsystem. In both cases, the same conclusion was reached: “Nosignificant change.”“This publication was pure and simple manipulation,” Dr. Michael Hansentold me when I met him in New York in July 2006. Hansen is an expertwho works for the Consumer Policy Institute and who, along with SamuelEpstein, has become one of Monsanto’s major gadflies.* “First,” he explained,*The Consumer Policy Institute is a division of Consumers Union, established in 1936, which publishesConsumer Reports, the second most widely circulated American consumer magazine (4.5 millionsubscribers).