The world according to Monsanto : pollution, corruption, and

oundup: a massive brainwashing operation 73It was indeed a big deal: after ten years at the EPA, Linda Fisher was hiredby Monsanto in 1995 to head the company’s Washington office, responsiblefor lobbying political decision makers; she then returned to the EPA in May2001 as deputy administrator—a typical instance of the revolving door systemthat exemplifies the collusion between large companies and governmentauthorities.In the meantime, Monsanto was cognizant of the impact that these twoinstances of fraud could have on its image. In June 2005, fourteen years afterCraven Laboratories had been accused, the company published a note inwhich it stated with its usual self-assurance: “The damage caused to Monsanto’sreputation by discussion of this issue by the media, and then furtheruse by activists to question the integrity of Monsanto’s data, cannot be calculated.All affected residues studies have been repeated and the data aresound, up-to-date and accepted by EPA.” 9After the two scandals, the EPA had indeed required that the questionedstudies be repeated. But as Caroline Cox pointed out in the Journal of PesticideReform in 1998, “This fraud casts shadows on the entire pesticide registrationprocess.” 10 On the other hand, these “shadows” had no effect onMonsanto, which continued as though nothing had happened, its advertisingcampaign promoting Roundup as a pesticide that was “biodegradableand good for the environment.”“False Advertising”In 1996, complaints filed with the Consumer Frauds and Protection Bureauof New York had compelled the company to negotiate a settlement with theState Attorney General, who had opened an investigation of “false advertisingby Monsanto regarding the safety of Roundup herbicide (glyphosate).”In a very detailed statement of findings, the bureau reviewed the numerousMonsanto newspaper and television ads, including “Glyphosate is less toxicto rats than table salt following acute oral ingestion” and “Roundup can beused where kids and pets’ll play and breaks down into natural material.” 11This was “false and misleading advertising,” the attorney general found,and he barred Monsanto, under penalty of a fine, from declaring that its herbicidewas “safe, nontoxic, harmless or free from risk.” Nor could Monsantoclaim that Roundup is good for the environment or “known for [its] environ-