The world according to Monsanto : pollution, corruption, and

transgenic wheat 235USDA found that 22 percent of American corn was contaminated by the incriminatedprotein. 33 This gave a fatal blow to exports that the monarch butterflyaffair had already severely reduced. Nature reported that, according toa USDA representative, StarLink was found in bakery products in Taiwanand even Japan. 34 An irritated John Wichtrich, an Aventis executive, told ameeting of the North American Millers’Association in San Antonio: “I knowyou are wondering: Will there ever be an end to this? Unfortunately, as ofnow, the answer is ‘No’—there will never be an ‘end’ as long as there is zerotolerance for Cry9C in food.” 35It is therefore easy to understand why resistance was organized in theNorth American plains when, in the midst of the StarLink debacle, Monsantoannounced its intention to market its Roundup Ready wheat. It shouldbe noted that the company was in very bad shape. As previously reported, inlate 2002 the CEO, Hendrik Verfaillie, had been forced to resign for “poor financialperformance,” namely, $1.7 billion in losses for the year. But this wasnot the problem for the Canadian Wheat Board, which, on June 27, 2003,declared war not only on Monsanto but on its loyal government ally. AdrianMeasner, president of the CWB, declared: “We will do everything in ourpower to ensure that GM wheat is not introduced in Canada.” 36A short time before, the Canadian House of Commons Standing Committeeon Agriculture and Agri-Food had met to discuss the question. Excludedfrom the deliberations, Greenpeace Canada had circulated a letter ithad sent to Paul Steckle, the committee chairperson, in which it criticizedthe “conflict of interest created by the partnership between Monsanto andthe Canadian government.” 37 The letter notes that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAC, under the Ministry of Agriculture and Food) “providedtop quality genetic material that was public property to Monsanto so that itcould develop its RR wheat,” and that it was AAC that had “carried outunder contract the field tests of Monsanto GM wheat so that it could begranted plant variety protection status.” Finally, the same ministry “providedMonsanto with at least $800,000 of funding under the Matching InvestmentFund Initiative.” 38 Under these circumstances, it is indeed hard to seehow the Ministry of Agriculture and its partner, the Canadian Food InspectionAgency (CFIA), which had functioned as co-developers of RR wheat,could independently exercise their regulatory authority in assessing “as requiredthe safety of agricultural biotechnology for human health, agriculture,and the environment.” 39