The world according to Monsanto : pollution, corruption, and

dioxin: manipulation and corruption 57and the quality of her work. Jenkins publicly confirmed that the EPA wasconducting a criminal investigation of Monsanto’s fraudulent studies. “Fromthat point on,” said Sanjour, “Monsanto constantly intervened at the EPA toblock the investigation and to force the agency to discipline or even fireCate. All these internal documents prove it,” he said, showing me a sheaf ofletters on Monsanto letterhead. “And this is only the tip of the iceberg.Monsanto is one of the most powerful companies in the United States: ithas privileged access to the White House, the Congress, the press. Get this:not only was the investigation buried, but a lawyer for Monsanto ended updrafting a letter for the EPA in which the agency apologized.”I read the letters in question very carefully, and I must admit that I wasstaggered by the self-assurance of the Monsanto executives: far from makingamends, they evidenced unshakable arrogance, presenting themselves asvictims, adopting the stance of offended virgins, or expressing thinly veiledthreats, as though they were addressing humble subordinates. “Monsantorecognizes that the Agency did issue a corrective statement indicating thatthe employee was acting in her individual capacity ...and that her memorandumdoes not reflect the Agency’s official position,” Monsanto’s Sengerwrote, for example, on October 1, 1990, to Clay at the EPA. “However, thatstatement has not remedied the problems caused by continual referencesto the accusations repeated in the memorandum which was prepared onAgency stationery. ...Given the Company’s science-based focus, preservationof Monsanto’s reputation for performing accurate world-class researchis of critical importance to our business and research operations.”In 1991, James Moore, a lawyer for Monsanto, appeared on the scene. Hehad not been chosen at random: he worked for Perkins Coie, the law firm ofWilliam Ruckelshaus, who, as noted, had twice been EPA administrator,with a long stint on the board of Monsanto and Solutia in between. “For allthe reasons I have previously discussed with you, there is no basis for a conclusionthat fraud was perpetrated,” Moore asserted on March 12, 1992, toHoward Berman, associate director of the OCE. “The inquiry by EPA’s criminalunit should be concluded expeditiously so that Monsanto can clear itsgood name and such references to the alleged criminal nature of the studieswill cease.”The admonition bore fruit. On August 7, 1992, a final “investigative report”concluded: “The investigation is complete. The original allegations regardingthe submission of fraudulent studies by Monsanto to the EPA were