The world according to Monsanto : pollution, corruption, and

conclusion 325ered by the “trade secret” privilege. After a legal battle that lasted severalmonths, Monsanto was finally compelled to make the data public by a decisionof the court of appeals in Munich on June 9, 2005.“It’s really unbelievable, when it’s a question of verifying the safety of apesticidal plant designed to enter into the food chain, that Monsanto couldfirst claim ‘trade secret,’ then file two lawsuits to deny access to the raw datain its study,” according to Gilles-Éric Séralini, who had followed the casevery closely. At the request of Greenpeace, and simultaneously with ArpadPusztai, the University of Caen scientist first did an assessment of the toxicologicalfile that had been dragged out of Monsanto, which confirmed theanomalies observed by the French CGB. 10 Then, under the auspices ofCRII-GEN, he conducted an independent analysis of the raw data, in whichhe applied a more refined statistical method, considering in particular organs,dosage, and exposure time to GMOs. This analysis revealed that theeffects of 863 corn on rats were much more significant than those observedinitially, “which indicates the need to conduct further tests.” 11“Indeed,” Séralini commented, “the story of MON 863 corn shows the inadequacyof the process for the approval of GMOs, which ought to be assessedin the same way as any pesticide or medicine is, by testing them onthree mammalian species over two years, which would permit an assessmentof their long-term toxicity, not only of their possible acute toxic effects.” Inthe meantime, faced with these disturbing revelations, the European Commissiondiscreetly swept MON 863 corn under the rug by banning its cultivationbut not its importation and therefore not its consumption.What If GMOs Were Tomorrow’s Agent Orange?“Contrary to what Monsanto claims, it is not an agricultural company, buta chemical company,” argues Marc Brammer. “The proof is that the onlyGMOs it has succeeded in getting on the market are plants resistant to itsstar herbicide, Roundup, which still accounts for 30 percent of its revenue,or insecticidal plants.* Those plants are of no interest to consumers whoare still waiting for the miracle GMOs that the company has constantly*According to its 10-K form, Monsanto had revenues of $7.3 billion in 2006, $2.2 billion of whichwere from Roundup.