The world according to Monsanto : pollution, corruption, and

dioxin: manipulation and corruption 55the news media and is being treated as the official EPA position,” he complained.“This is creating a serious problem for Monsanto that we simplydon’t deserve. We request a prompt statement from your office to the effectthat Ms. Jenkins does not speak for the US EPA on this issue and that herviews are hers alone and not the official position of the agency.” This was followedby an answer from Don R. Clay, deputy administrator, whose serviletone is perplexing: “The opinions expressed in the internal EPA memorandumwere those of Dr. Jenkins not the EPA. ...We regret any problemthat Monsanto may have had as a result of the news media’s use of thismemorandum. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate tocontact me.”As a sensible whistle-blower, Jenkins had arranged to leak her memorandumto the media so that a trace of it would remain in the event the EPAdecided to bury her request. The affair had created a stir at the top of theJournal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the most widely readmedical weekly in the world, which six years earlier had unquestioninglypublished Monsanto’s third study. What follows is an excerpt from a letterfrom the vice president of the American Medical Association, published onApril 13, 1990, in reply to the questions quite properly raised by a doctorwho was worried about the reliability of studies published by the scientificjournal, considered the bible of medical research: “JAMA is very concernedabout the reliability of the scientific studies we publish. However, when allegationsof possible fraud arise, the editors of scientific journals are in noposition to carry out the necessary investigations. We lack access to the necessaryrecords and individuals involved [emphasis added]. Thus, the conductof such investigations becomes the responsibility of the institution employingthe authors of the study (usually a university), or the private or governmentalagency that sponsored the research, or both.”*In other words, JAMA published what was sent to it without verifying thevalidity of the data, even when the author of the article is paid by a major industrialcompany. Yet publication in such a prestigious medical researchjournal is a guarantee of seriousness, which the vice president of Monsantodid not hesitate to make use of in his March 9, 1990, letter defendingSuskind, where he pointed out that Suskind’s conclusions had been “peerreviewed.” Lies are thereby propagated in the international scientific com-*All internal documents quoted in this section come from the file given to me by William Sanjour.