The world according to Monsanto : pollution, corruption, and

the bovine growth hormone affair, part two 123An Attempt at Corruption in CanadaI left Florida shaken by my colleague’s story. I naively thought I had exploredevery one of the “special” methods Monsanto had no hesitation in using toimpose its products on the market. But I had not had my last surprise. As myplane took off for Ottawa, I dove into the file of press clippings I had put togetheron the approval process for rBGH in Canada. “Health Canada ResearchersAccuse Firm of Bribery in Bid to OK ‘Questionable’ Product” wasthe headline in the Ottawa Citizen on October 23, 1998. “The scientists’ testimonybefore a Senate committee was like a scene from the conspiratorialtelevision show The X Files,” said the Globe and Mail on November 18.I discovered that Monsanto had filed a request for authorization to putits transgenic hormone on the market with Health Canada, the Canadiancounterpart to the FDA, in 1985. Generally, Health Canada models its decisionson those of the U.S. agency, but this time, even though the machinehad been well oiled, it jammed. Three scientists from the Bureau of VeterinaryDrugs (BVD) took on the uncomfortable role of whistle-blowers bypublicly denouncing the imminent authorization of rBGH. In June 1998,they were called to testify before a Senate committee that met over a periodof several months before publishing a report recommending that Monsanto’sproduct not be approved for sale in Canada. I obtained a transcript and avideo recording of the committee’s hearings—the atmosphere does indeedrecall The X Files.The opening session immediately took on a solemn tone when the threewhistle-blowers asked to take an oath on the Bible or the Canadian constitution.They were Drs. Shiv Chopra, Gérard Lambert, and Margaret Haydon,who had been working at Health Canada for thirty, twenty-five, and fifteenyears, respectively. One after the other they rose, stretched out their hands,and swore to tell “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.”There was a lengthy silence among the rather stiff and formal members ofthe audience, who seemed both embarrassed and surprised, until SenatorTerry Stratton spoke. “I have two lines of questioning. The first goes back tothe fact that you swore on oath,” he said. “Are you now satisfied that yourpersonal professional life will be protected? In other words, do you believethat you no longer have any worries about actions taken against you? . . .The minister has sent a letter to the committee stating that you are, as a