The world according to Monsanto : pollution, corruption, and

72 the world according to monsantoin this book—whether they have to do with PCBs, dioxin, or Roundup—cover the same period, roughly from 1975 to 1995. So, regardless of whichproduct was at issue, the same protective blindness obviously prevailed.I have already described the trial that made headlines in the early 1980sinvolving Industrial Bio-Test Labs (IBT) of Northbrook, a private laboratory,one of whose directors was Paul Wright, a toxicologist from Monsanto recruitedto supervise a study of the health effects of PCBs. The EPA wasquite familiar with IBT, because it was one of the chief laboratories in NorthAmerica conducting tests of pesticides for chemical companies so that theycould obtain regulatory approval for their products. By combing through thelaboratory’s archives, EPA agents had discovered that dozens of studies hadbeen faked—had “serious deficiencies and improprieties,” in the agency’scautious language. In particular, they had discovered a “routine falsificationof data” designed to conceal “countless deaths of rats and mice” involved inthe tests. 3Among the offending studies were thirty tests of glyphosate. 4 It was “hardto believe the scientific integrity of the studies,” noted an EPA toxicologistin 1978, particularly “when they said they took specimens of the uterus frommale rabbits.” 5In 1991, Craven Laboratories was accused of having falsified studies thatwere supposed to measure pesticide residues, including Roundup, onplums, potatoes, grapes, and sugar beets, as well as in soil and water. 6 “TheE.P.A. said the studies were important in determining the levels of a pesticidethat should be allowed in fresh and processed foods,” said the New YorkTimes. Referring to the earlier IBT fraud, the article reported: “As a result ofthe falsification . . . the E.P.A. declared pesticides safe when they had neverbeen shown to be.” 7 The widespread fraud had resulted in the indictmentand conviction of three IBT executives, but Monsanto and the other chemicalcompanies that had benefited from the falsified studies suffered no consequences.With respect to Craven Laboratories, it appeared that the EPAwas again sticking its head in the sand: “We don’t think there is an environmentalor health problem,” said Linda Fisher, assistant administrator forpesticides and toxic substances. “First of all, we’re dealing with allegations.Right now we’re moving out to take preventive measures. . . . [It’s a] big dealto me.” 8 The following year, the owner of Craven Laboratories and three employeeswere indicted on twenty felony counts. The owner was sentenced tofive years in prison and Craven Labs was heavily fined.