The world according to Monsanto : pollution, corruption, and

monsanto weaves its web, 1995–1999 185the scientists under consideration, the document mentioned those of theeminent Royal Society, which did indeed actively collaborate in the “rubbishing”campaign.Monsanto, Clinton, and Blair: Effective Pressures“The Royal Society was really ferocious,” said Pusztai, and Dr. StanleyEwen, who was sitting beside him, nodded in agreement. A renowned pathologistat the University of Aberdeen, Ewen had been involved in the study oftransgenic potatoes, responsible for assessing their impact on the rats’ gastrointestinalsystem. In a memorandum to the parliamentary committee, hehad pointed out the results of his analysis: “Significant elongation of thecrypt in the rats fed raw genetically modified food is the main finding. In additionI have counted the chronic inflammatory cells within the lining cellsand found increased numbers of these cells in the rats fed raw geneticallymodified potatoes.” 15Ewen still finds it hard to talk about the affair, which permanently destroyedhis faith in the independence of science. “It felt as though theground had given way beneath my feet,” he said. “Impossible to understand:Monday, our work was wonderful, and Tuesday it was ready for the garbageheap. I myself was forced to retire, as though I had made a serious error.”With a distressed air, he recounted how the Royal Society deliberately trampledon his reputation for reliability and impartiality in order to denigrate theresults of the study.On February 23, 1999, nineteen members of the Royal Society publishedan open letter in the Daily Telegraph and The Guardian stigmatizing the researcherswho had “triggered the GM food crisis by publicizing findings thathad not been subjected to peer review.” This was false, because in his brieftelevision interview Pusztai had not said a word about the results of his study,but merely called for more vigilance about GMOs in general. On March 23,the Royal Society published a critical analysis of the research, concludingthat it was “flawed in many aspects of design, execution, and analysis.”Investigating this strange initiative, The Guardian discovered that theRoyal Society had established a “rebuttal unit” whose purpose was “to mouldscientific and public opinion with a pro-biotech line and to counter oppos-