The world according to Monsanto : pollution, corruption, and

oundup: a massive brainwashing operation 75delay enabled the company to save the spring weed-killing campaign, crucialfor its revenues: in 2004, Monsanto France had 60 percent of the glyphosatemarket, which amounted to annual sales of 3,200 tons of Roundup—use ofthe herbicide had doubled between 1997 and 2002.The hearing was finally held at the Lyon criminal court on January 26,2007, exactly six years after the complaint had been filed. The heads of ScottsFrance and Monsanto were fined g15,000, a penalty worth a few dilatorymaneuvers. The court found that “the combined use on labels and packaging[of herbicides in the Roundup product range] of the terms and expressions‘biodegradable’ and ‘leaves the soil clean’ . . . could lead the consumerto believe erroneously in the complete and immediate harmlessness of theseproducts following quick biological degradation after use . . . whereas theycan on the contrary remain durably in the soil, and even spread into thewater table.”Even more bothersome for Monsanto, which appealed, the court determinedthat the company knew “prior to publication of the challenged advertisementsthat the products concerned were ecotoxic in nature,” because,“according to studies conducted by Monsanto itself, a level of biologicaldegradation of merely two percent may be reached at the end of 28 days.”Once again, the company possessed data contradicting what it was publiclyclaiming, but it carefully refrained from revealing them. Indeed, why shouldit have done so? As Ken Cook, head of the Environmental Working Group inWashington, said with reference to PCBs, “It pays to keep secrets, becausein the end the penalties are very light.”The Very Problematic Process of Pesticide Registration“We wish to point out that all the statements made on our labels are basedon published scientific studies or studies communicated to the regulatoryauthorities of the Ministry of Agriculture in charge of delivering authorizationsto market,” a Monsanto France executive wrote on June 8, 2000, to theFrench government agency in charge of competition policy and consumerprotection. It must be conceded that the representative of the firm was righton that point. But by offering a defense of this kind, he was putting hisfinger on the heart of the problem: namely, that the process for registering