What do you think?
Rate this book
The World According to Monsanto: Pollution, Corruption, and the Control of the World's Food Supply
The result of a remarkable three-year investigation that took award-winning journalist and documentary filmmaker Marie-Monique Robin across four continents (North and South America, Europe, and Asia). The World According to Monsanto tells the little-known yet shocking story of this agribusiness giant--the world's leading producer of GMOs (genetically modified organisms)--and how its new "green" face is no less troubling than its PCB (and Agent Orange) -soaked past.
Robin reports that, following its long history of manufacturing hazardous chemicals and lethal herbicides, Monsanto is now marketing itself as a "life sciences" company, seemingly convinced about the virtues of sustainable development. However, Monsanto now controls the majority of the yield of the world's genetically modified corn and soy, ingredients found in more than 95 percent of American households, and its alarming legal and political tactics to maintain this monopoly are the subject of worldwide concern.
Released to great acclaim and controversy in France, throughout Europe, and in Latin America, The World According to Monsanto is sure to change the way we think about food safety and the corporate control of our food supply.
Robin reports that, following its long history of manufacturing hazardous chemicals and lethal herbicides, Monsanto is now marketing itself as a "life sciences" company, seemingly convinced about the virtues of sustainable development. However, Monsanto now controls the majority of the yield of the world's genetically modified corn and soy, ingredients found in more than 95 percent of American households, and its alarming legal and political tactics to maintain this monopoly are the subject of worldwide concern.
Released to great acclaim and controversy in France, throughout Europe, and in Latin America, The World According to Monsanto is sure to change the way we think about food safety and the corporate control of our food supply.
352 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2009
143 people are currently reading
3832 people want to read
About the author
Marie-Monique Robin
20 books40 followersfrom Wikipedia: Marie-Monique Robin is a French TV journalist and documentary filmmaker. She generally issues books and documentary films together on the topics she investigates.
Her work has been recognized by numerous awards: the 1995 Albert Londres Prize for Voleurs d'yeux (1994), an expose about organ theft; best political documentary award from the French Senate for Escadrons de la mort, l'école française (2003), her film about France's transfer of counter-insurgency techniques (including torture) to Argentina; and the Rachel Carson Prize for Le monde selon Monsanto (2008), her film on Monsanto and challenges to the environment from its products, including GMOs.
Her work has been recognized by numerous awards: the 1995 Albert Londres Prize for Voleurs d'yeux (1994), an expose about organ theft; best political documentary award from the French Senate for Escadrons de la mort, l'école française (2003), her film about France's transfer of counter-insurgency techniques (including torture) to Argentina; and the Rachel Carson Prize for Le monde selon Monsanto (2008), her film on Monsanto and challenges to the environment from its products, including GMOs.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 125 reviews
October 11, 2019
ENGLISH
The end of (agrocultural) history? Do DDT, dioxon, agent orange and genetically engineered food fit to one´s diet plan?
If one thinks that outside the US one would be immune to the effects of this agricultural policy, it´s a self-deceit.
There is hardly any reading as bitter as this revelation of comparatively unknown facts. As the company grows from a small poisoner to a modestly controversial one in his business conduct, one repeatedly stifles one's disbelief while reading. The opening chapters, which deal with the classics of industrial history, namely pollution through corruption and the illness of many people, are a rather old hat. That the half-life of these substances, be it dioxins, DDT, lubricants, pesticides or consorts, is considerable and that many future generations will suffer as a result, can not be emphasized enough. However, it is part of every semi-profitable industry's portfolio to poison the planet sustainably and irreversibly for a very long time, whether it is cyanide leaching in mining, oil sludge recovery in Canada, chlorofluorocarbons, leaded gas, and and and. So far, so well known, so no matter.
Not reputable, but throwing garbage in the next gorge is a long lived tradition, given from tycoon to tycoon, probably with a little ceremony. However, it has the advantage that after a few years or at the latest a century, collateral damage in the form of illness and sickness around these application sites decrease, if not disappear. In this respect, there is light at the end of the tunnel and about the first half of the book.
However, what happens next, if the modern horsemen of the Apocalypse partly recruited from this so called green genetic engineering, could be considered as potentially fatal.
To increase the likelihood of this, here are a few stylistic howlers of the neoliberal economic miracle:
When one replicates cows' growth hormones, which they normally only produce for their calves, and then inject them into the animals permanently to increase their milk production, that is highly enterprising. Moreover, to do that although a milk surplus exists for a long time. The fact that consumers of these milk and dairy products are more likely to develop certain types of cancer and that many women consuming milk are many times more likely to have twins speaks for itself. At least one saves the costs of a fertility treatment.
A terminator gene owned by Monsanto allows the plant to sterilize its seeds by poisoning at the end of the growth period. The application was refrained because it was classified as too crassly unethical and because the corporation was exposed to a storm of outrage after the announcement to use the technology. Now the development, at least officially, has stopped. Butt the potential for both biological and ethnic warfare could not be negligible.
Like the superweeds and super-pests (presumably also super-mushrooms, but nothing like this is mentioned), which after decades of spraying with (sorry, I just cannot resist), super herbicide, insecticides, and fungicides are becoming increasingly multi-drug resistant. The remedy against it? Right, super-super herbicide, pesticides, and fungicides. And super super super as a potential grandchild generation. So if that is not a vicious circle. That incidentally all microorganisms are destroyed in the soil, goes without saying.
The patenting of life and living beings, be it flora or fauna, is a booming market thanks to legal loopholes and legal dogdes. This allows corporations to get an exclusive use license for anything that crawls, floats, grows and probably someday speaks.
In its natural form, colza is no longer available in the USA because everything is contaminated with genetically modified varieties and the original breed is virtually extinct. The same threatens theoretically all industrially available plant and animal species, the others extinct anyway by themselves trough ecocide.
The genes were initially altered with the aid of a so-called "gene gun," which shot DNA into cells with the help of particles. The flaw in it was that the "hits" were always in about the right place at random points because everything was quite small and therefore difficult to aim. Thus, many consequences could be conjured, as in this way always new; random mutations were created.
Now with CRISPR scientists can indeed work a lot more responsibly.
Nevertheless, nobody knows how the mixture of natural and artificial flora and fauna is currently developing, what will happen and what might happen. However, as the author says so appropriate:
"Go on; there's nothing to see here."
Finally, something to the thesis that the most substantial species extinction of all time would have occurred long ago as a result of volcanic eruptions or meteorite impacts and extinguished about 70 percent of all plant and animal species. That´s nothing, humankind creates a multiple of that with described techniques.
A wiki walk can be as refreshing to the mind as a walk through nature in this, yuck, ugh, boo, completely overrated real-life outside books:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsant...
GERMAN
Das Ende der (Agrar)Geschichte? Entsprechen DDT, Dioxin, Agent Orange und gentechnisch veränderte Lebensmittel Ihrem Ernährungsplan?
Sie denken in Europa wären wir vor den Auswirkungen dieser auf die USA und den Rest der Welt beschränkten Unsitten gefeit?
So bitter wie diese Offenbarung verhältnismäßig unbekannter Fakten stößt kaum eine Lektüre auf. Wie ein Konzern vom kleinen Giftmischer zu einem, in seinem Geschäftsgebaren dezent umstrittenen, Multi heranwächst lässt einen vor Unglauben wiederholt während des Lesens stocken. Wobei die Anfangskapitel, in denen es um die Klassiker der Industriegeschichte, namentlich Umweltverschmutzung dank Korruption samt Krankmachung etlicher Menschen geht, ein eher alter Hut sind. Dass die Halbwertszeit dieser Stoffe, seien es Dioxine, DDT, Schmiermittel, Pestizide oder Konsorten beträchtlich ist und Generationen daran zu leiden haben werden, kann man nicht oft genug betonen. Allerdings gehört es in das Portfolio jedes halbwegs ertragreichen Industriezweigs den Planeten nachhaltig zu vergiften, sei es Cyanidlaugung beim Bergbau, Ölschlammgewinnung in Kanada, Fluorchlorkohlenwasserstoffe, verbleites Benzin und und und. Soweit, so bekannt, so egal.
Alles nicht ganz koscher, aber den Müll einfach in die nächste Schlucht zu werfen hat einfach Tradition. Es birgt aber doch den Vorteil in sich, dass nach einigen Jährchen oder spätestens Jahrhundertchen Kollateralschäden in Form von Krankheit und Siechtum rund um diese Ausbringungsstätten abnehmen, wenn nicht gar verschwinden. Insofern gibt es Licht am Ende des Tunnels und etwa ersten Hälfte des Buches.
Was allerdings dann kommt könnte man in fernerer Zukunft, sollten sich die modernen Reiter der Apokalypse teilweise aus dieser grünen Gentechnik rekrutieren, als potentiell apokalyptisch bezeichnen.
Um die Wahrscheinlichkeit dafür zu steigern, hier ein paar Stilblüten des neoliberalen Wirtschaftswunders:
Wenn man Wachstumshormone von Kühen nachbaut, die diese normalerweise nur für ihre Kälber produzieren, um sie dann permanent zur Steigerung der Milchproduktion den Tieren mittels Injektionen zu verabreichen, ist das überaus geschäftstüchtig.
Und das obwohl seit langer Zeit ein Milchüberschuss besteht. Dass die Konsumenten dieser Milch und Milchprodukte wesentlich häufiger an bestimmten Krebsarten erkranken und viel Milch konsumierende Frauen um ein vielfaches häufiger Zwillinge bekommen spricht für sich.
Ein Terminator- Gen, in dessen Besitz Monsanto ist, ermöglicht es, dass die Pflanze nach Ende der Fruchtperiode ihre eigenen Samen durch Bildung eines Giftes sterilisiert. Die Anwendung wurde aber mit offizieller Stellungnahme als dann doch zu krass unethisch unterlassen. Der Konzern sah sich nach Bekanntgabe der Pläne die Technologie einzusetzen einem Empörungssturm ausgesetzt. Jetzt liegt sie, zumindest offiziell, auf Eis. Das Potential für biologische Kriegsführung dürfte auch nicht unbeträchtlich sein.
Wie auch die Superunkräuter und Superschädlinge (vermutlich auch Superpilze, aber von denen wird nichts erwähnt), die nach jahrzehntelangem Besprühen mit (Entschuldigung, ich kann es mir einfach nicht verkneifen), Superherbiziden, -Insektiziden und –Fungiziden immer multiresistenter werden. Die Abhilfe dagegen? Richtig ,Supersuperherbizide,-Insektizide und Fungizide. Also wenn das mal kein Teufelskreis ist. Dass nebenbei sämtliche Mikroorganismen im Boden zerstört werden, versteht sich von selbst.
Die Patentierung von Leben und Lebewesen, seien es Flora oder Fauna, ist dank Gesetzeslücken und juristischer Winkelzüge ein boomender Markt. Das ermöglicht es Konzernen, sich eine exklusive Nutzungsgenehmigung für alles was da kreucht, fleucht und wächst zu genehmigen.
Raps gibt es in seiner natürlichen Form in den USA nicht mehr, da alles mit gentechnisch veränderten Sorten verunreinigt und die Ursorte damit quasi ausgestorben ist. Gleiches droht theoretisch allen industriell nutzbaren Pflanzen- und Tierarten, die anderen sterben ohnehin von selbst aus.
Die Gene wurden anfänglich unter Zuhilfenahme einer sogenannten „Genkanone“, die DNA mit Hilfe von Partikeln in Zellen schoss, verändert. Der Schönheitsfehler daran war, dass die „Treffer“ immer im ungefähr richtigen Bereich an zufälligen Punkten lagen, weil alles doch recht klein und es somit schwer zu zielen war. Somit konnten mannigfache Konsequenzen heraufbeschworen werden, da auf diese Weise immer neue, zufällige Mutationen entstanden.
Jetzt mit CRISPR können die Wissenschaftler sicher viel verantwortungsbewusster arbeiten.
Trotzdem weiß niemand, wie sich die Vermischung von natürlicher und künstlicher Tier- und Pflanzenwelt momentan gestaltet, gestalten wird und was alles passieren könnte. Aber wie sagt die Autorin so passend:
„Gehen sie weiter, es gibt hier nichts zu sehen.“
Abschließend etwas zu der These, das größte Artensterben aller Zeiten hätte vor Urzeiten in Folge von Vulkanausbrüchen oder Meteoriteneinschlägen stattgefunden und rund 70 Prozent aller Tier- und Pflanzenarten ausgelöscht. Kindergeburtstag, der Mensch schafft mit eben geschilderten Winkelzügen das Doppelte!
The end of (agrocultural) history? Do DDT, dioxon, agent orange and genetically engineered food fit to one´s diet plan?
If one thinks that outside the US one would be immune to the effects of this agricultural policy, it´s a self-deceit.
There is hardly any reading as bitter as this revelation of comparatively unknown facts. As the company grows from a small poisoner to a modestly controversial one in his business conduct, one repeatedly stifles one's disbelief while reading. The opening chapters, which deal with the classics of industrial history, namely pollution through corruption and the illness of many people, are a rather old hat. That the half-life of these substances, be it dioxins, DDT, lubricants, pesticides or consorts, is considerable and that many future generations will suffer as a result, can not be emphasized enough. However, it is part of every semi-profitable industry's portfolio to poison the planet sustainably and irreversibly for a very long time, whether it is cyanide leaching in mining, oil sludge recovery in Canada, chlorofluorocarbons, leaded gas, and and and. So far, so well known, so no matter.
Not reputable, but throwing garbage in the next gorge is a long lived tradition, given from tycoon to tycoon, probably with a little ceremony. However, it has the advantage that after a few years or at the latest a century, collateral damage in the form of illness and sickness around these application sites decrease, if not disappear. In this respect, there is light at the end of the tunnel and about the first half of the book.
However, what happens next, if the modern horsemen of the Apocalypse partly recruited from this so called green genetic engineering, could be considered as potentially fatal.
To increase the likelihood of this, here are a few stylistic howlers of the neoliberal economic miracle:
When one replicates cows' growth hormones, which they normally only produce for their calves, and then inject them into the animals permanently to increase their milk production, that is highly enterprising. Moreover, to do that although a milk surplus exists for a long time. The fact that consumers of these milk and dairy products are more likely to develop certain types of cancer and that many women consuming milk are many times more likely to have twins speaks for itself. At least one saves the costs of a fertility treatment.
A terminator gene owned by Monsanto allows the plant to sterilize its seeds by poisoning at the end of the growth period. The application was refrained because it was classified as too crassly unethical and because the corporation was exposed to a storm of outrage after the announcement to use the technology. Now the development, at least officially, has stopped. Butt the potential for both biological and ethnic warfare could not be negligible.
Like the superweeds and super-pests (presumably also super-mushrooms, but nothing like this is mentioned), which after decades of spraying with (sorry, I just cannot resist), super herbicide, insecticides, and fungicides are becoming increasingly multi-drug resistant. The remedy against it? Right, super-super herbicide, pesticides, and fungicides. And super super super as a potential grandchild generation. So if that is not a vicious circle. That incidentally all microorganisms are destroyed in the soil, goes without saying.
The patenting of life and living beings, be it flora or fauna, is a booming market thanks to legal loopholes and legal dogdes. This allows corporations to get an exclusive use license for anything that crawls, floats, grows and probably someday speaks.
In its natural form, colza is no longer available in the USA because everything is contaminated with genetically modified varieties and the original breed is virtually extinct. The same threatens theoretically all industrially available plant and animal species, the others extinct anyway by themselves trough ecocide.
The genes were initially altered with the aid of a so-called "gene gun," which shot DNA into cells with the help of particles. The flaw in it was that the "hits" were always in about the right place at random points because everything was quite small and therefore difficult to aim. Thus, many consequences could be conjured, as in this way always new; random mutations were created.
Now with CRISPR scientists can indeed work a lot more responsibly.
Nevertheless, nobody knows how the mixture of natural and artificial flora and fauna is currently developing, what will happen and what might happen. However, as the author says so appropriate:
"Go on; there's nothing to see here."
Finally, something to the thesis that the most substantial species extinction of all time would have occurred long ago as a result of volcanic eruptions or meteorite impacts and extinguished about 70 percent of all plant and animal species. That´s nothing, humankind creates a multiple of that with described techniques.
A wiki walk can be as refreshing to the mind as a walk through nature in this, yuck, ugh, boo, completely overrated real-life outside books:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsant...
GERMAN
Das Ende der (Agrar)Geschichte? Entsprechen DDT, Dioxin, Agent Orange und gentechnisch veränderte Lebensmittel Ihrem Ernährungsplan?
Sie denken in Europa wären wir vor den Auswirkungen dieser auf die USA und den Rest der Welt beschränkten Unsitten gefeit?
So bitter wie diese Offenbarung verhältnismäßig unbekannter Fakten stößt kaum eine Lektüre auf. Wie ein Konzern vom kleinen Giftmischer zu einem, in seinem Geschäftsgebaren dezent umstrittenen, Multi heranwächst lässt einen vor Unglauben wiederholt während des Lesens stocken. Wobei die Anfangskapitel, in denen es um die Klassiker der Industriegeschichte, namentlich Umweltverschmutzung dank Korruption samt Krankmachung etlicher Menschen geht, ein eher alter Hut sind. Dass die Halbwertszeit dieser Stoffe, seien es Dioxine, DDT, Schmiermittel, Pestizide oder Konsorten beträchtlich ist und Generationen daran zu leiden haben werden, kann man nicht oft genug betonen. Allerdings gehört es in das Portfolio jedes halbwegs ertragreichen Industriezweigs den Planeten nachhaltig zu vergiften, sei es Cyanidlaugung beim Bergbau, Ölschlammgewinnung in Kanada, Fluorchlorkohlenwasserstoffe, verbleites Benzin und und und. Soweit, so bekannt, so egal.
Alles nicht ganz koscher, aber den Müll einfach in die nächste Schlucht zu werfen hat einfach Tradition. Es birgt aber doch den Vorteil in sich, dass nach einigen Jährchen oder spätestens Jahrhundertchen Kollateralschäden in Form von Krankheit und Siechtum rund um diese Ausbringungsstätten abnehmen, wenn nicht gar verschwinden. Insofern gibt es Licht am Ende des Tunnels und etwa ersten Hälfte des Buches.
Was allerdings dann kommt könnte man in fernerer Zukunft, sollten sich die modernen Reiter der Apokalypse teilweise aus dieser grünen Gentechnik rekrutieren, als potentiell apokalyptisch bezeichnen.
Um die Wahrscheinlichkeit dafür zu steigern, hier ein paar Stilblüten des neoliberalen Wirtschaftswunders:
Wenn man Wachstumshormone von Kühen nachbaut, die diese normalerweise nur für ihre Kälber produzieren, um sie dann permanent zur Steigerung der Milchproduktion den Tieren mittels Injektionen zu verabreichen, ist das überaus geschäftstüchtig.
Und das obwohl seit langer Zeit ein Milchüberschuss besteht. Dass die Konsumenten dieser Milch und Milchprodukte wesentlich häufiger an bestimmten Krebsarten erkranken und viel Milch konsumierende Frauen um ein vielfaches häufiger Zwillinge bekommen spricht für sich.
Ein Terminator- Gen, in dessen Besitz Monsanto ist, ermöglicht es, dass die Pflanze nach Ende der Fruchtperiode ihre eigenen Samen durch Bildung eines Giftes sterilisiert. Die Anwendung wurde aber mit offizieller Stellungnahme als dann doch zu krass unethisch unterlassen. Der Konzern sah sich nach Bekanntgabe der Pläne die Technologie einzusetzen einem Empörungssturm ausgesetzt. Jetzt liegt sie, zumindest offiziell, auf Eis. Das Potential für biologische Kriegsführung dürfte auch nicht unbeträchtlich sein.
Wie auch die Superunkräuter und Superschädlinge (vermutlich auch Superpilze, aber von denen wird nichts erwähnt), die nach jahrzehntelangem Besprühen mit (Entschuldigung, ich kann es mir einfach nicht verkneifen), Superherbiziden, -Insektiziden und –Fungiziden immer multiresistenter werden. Die Abhilfe dagegen? Richtig ,Supersuperherbizide,-Insektizide und Fungizide. Also wenn das mal kein Teufelskreis ist. Dass nebenbei sämtliche Mikroorganismen im Boden zerstört werden, versteht sich von selbst.
Die Patentierung von Leben und Lebewesen, seien es Flora oder Fauna, ist dank Gesetzeslücken und juristischer Winkelzüge ein boomender Markt. Das ermöglicht es Konzernen, sich eine exklusive Nutzungsgenehmigung für alles was da kreucht, fleucht und wächst zu genehmigen.
Raps gibt es in seiner natürlichen Form in den USA nicht mehr, da alles mit gentechnisch veränderten Sorten verunreinigt und die Ursorte damit quasi ausgestorben ist. Gleiches droht theoretisch allen industriell nutzbaren Pflanzen- und Tierarten, die anderen sterben ohnehin von selbst aus.
Die Gene wurden anfänglich unter Zuhilfenahme einer sogenannten „Genkanone“, die DNA mit Hilfe von Partikeln in Zellen schoss, verändert. Der Schönheitsfehler daran war, dass die „Treffer“ immer im ungefähr richtigen Bereich an zufälligen Punkten lagen, weil alles doch recht klein und es somit schwer zu zielen war. Somit konnten mannigfache Konsequenzen heraufbeschworen werden, da auf diese Weise immer neue, zufällige Mutationen entstanden.
Jetzt mit CRISPR können die Wissenschaftler sicher viel verantwortungsbewusster arbeiten.
Trotzdem weiß niemand, wie sich die Vermischung von natürlicher und künstlicher Tier- und Pflanzenwelt momentan gestaltet, gestalten wird und was alles passieren könnte. Aber wie sagt die Autorin so passend:
„Gehen sie weiter, es gibt hier nichts zu sehen.“
Abschließend etwas zu der These, das größte Artensterben aller Zeiten hätte vor Urzeiten in Folge von Vulkanausbrüchen oder Meteoriteneinschlägen stattgefunden und rund 70 Prozent aller Tier- und Pflanzenarten ausgelöscht. Kindergeburtstag, der Mensch schafft mit eben geschilderten Winkelzügen das Doppelte!
April 27, 2019
From PCBs to dioxin to Agent Orange, Monsanto has had its dirty little fingers in many poisonous pies. Their evil empire now spans the globe. I can't prove it, but I'm pretty sure both Dick Cheney and Lord Voldemort must be on its Board of Directors.
October 20, 2012
I have a personal interest in this book since my father and stepmother worked there their whole careers. Monsanto was really good to them and got great retirement packages out of working there. I tried to recommend it to them but my responce from my Dad was "Not at all interested. It's a hatchet job by a flaming liberal. Naturally. Daily Kos would like it because it fits their anti- American anti- capitalist agenda." As you can tell he is a serious Republican and sees things like that as lies. I told him I was going to read the book anyway and he was not too happy.
I am 14% done and it is a real eye opener. I have read things about Monsanto for years in not so positive light. This book is great because it starts at the start of the company and how they have changed over the years. Plus all the toxins they made which they ignored or tried to hide while the toxins were killing lots of people. I am at the point now where they talk about Agent Orange. This book is really interesting so far and I have to recommend it for people who are worried about food safety and left over toxins. In addition, they bring up the pollution problem of dumping toxic waste (PCBs) into nearby streams and land fills in Anniston, Alabama. These PCBs were dumped in the poor side of town where there are mostly black folks. Their hogs would inject the PCBs and would become sick and die as well as the people becoming very sick and some dying. Monsanto-Solutia had been doing the dumping since the 1930's and stopped in 1972. The PCB's have leaked from the dump fields and the creeks and rivers no longer have fish and aquatic animals. There was a class-action suit where Johnny Cochran represented 18,000 plaintiffs who lived near Snow Creek and the Choccolocco Creek and testified they had serious medical problems like cancer, liver disease, neurological disorders and heart disease. Johnny Cochran won $700 million for the people. Monsanto denies that PCBs cause serious problems to people who lived near the chemical plant. In a court case in 2001, Owens v. Monsanto, Monsanto only agrees that it can cause cloracne (a serious skin disease). Monsanto says it is easily treatable. Monsanto was ordered to do a clean-up with a 'special master' overseeing the project. There have been other lawsuits against Monsanto from individual people in Anniston. Some are still pending.
I am 25% done. What I have to say so far is Shame on Monsanto (sorry Dad and Betty). The truth hurts. They even had the EPA on their side based on the lies Monsanto told them about their own scientific research. I can't believe the EPA just disregarded the whistle-blowers and the data they came up with. There are studies of these toxic chemicals being done all over the world. Monsanto just disregards them, period. At this point I am on the production of rBST's (Bovine somatotropin) which is a peptide hormone that affects the pituitary gland. This hormone is supposed to increase cows milk production. The problem is that it creates severe mastitis in cows where the teats get swollen and extracts pus. The brand name for rBST is Posilac. This causes 40% reduction in fertility and 55% increased risk of developing clinical signs of lameness. This study reported a decrease in body condition score for cows treated with rBST even though there was an increase in their dry matter intake. The European Union commission's statement, subsequently adopted by the European Union, stated that the use of rBST substantially increased health problems with cows, including foot problems, mastitis and injection site reactions, impinged on the welfare of the animals and caused reproductive disorders. On September 30, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, analyzing evidence submitted in briefs, found that there is a "compositional difference" between milk from rBGH-treated cows and milk from untreated cows. The court stated that milk from rBGH-treated cows has: increased levels of the hormone Insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1); higher fat content and lower protein content when produced at certain points in the cow's lactation cycle; and more somatic cell counts, which may "make the milk turn sour more quickly." Many countries have now banned the use of Posilac or any other rBST product sold by other companies. It seems like it never ends with Monsanto and their denials and outright lies. They have very close connections with the EPA, FDA and other organizations and last but not least politicians. Outside scientists doing studies on Monsanto products end up getting their projects cancelled and are forced to retire or resign. Every outside scientific research project and even individual people (like small farmers) are very afraid of Monsanto and what they can do to their livelyhood.
I am 49% done. I'm am now at the point where they are about to import Roundup Ready soybeans. Independant studies by well know scientists have been researched with negative outcomes in the studies in animals (rats mostly). As soon as they find something negative, the studies are cancelled and the scientists are forced out of their jobs. However, Monsanto's own scientists have positive outcomes. Monsanto must have a great law team because they are able to scare other organizations to make them look clean. One case worth mentioning is of a famous European scientist from Rowett Institute who had done research on dioxin (I think) and found all kinds of problems with it. He said that Monsanto's own scientists did not do their research correctly and basically skimmed over the research. The scientist wrote an article about his findings and gave a large presentation on TV about what he found. Afterwards, his boss came up to him with congratulations on a job well done. Said he was brilliant, etc. etc. 2 days later his boss fired him and the scientist said he looked as though he had been threatened. Monsanto is dirty, very dirty!
I am 67% done. I am at the point where Argentina has opened it's arms to transgenic soybeans. Where people once used to grow corn, regular soybeans, vegetables, etc. is now a vast land of transgenic soybeans. Of course, they have to use Roundup to spray the plants. At the beginning, they would only have to spray twice but as time went on the weeds become resistant to it and have to spray more and more. After a while, it gets into the soil and the land becomes barren and lacking the neccessary nutrients to keep these soybeans growing. Eventually, they have to stop farming. Since the land is now a wasteland nothing can grow in it. Also, people in the area are getting sick from all the spraying and some have died to extreme exposure to the Roundup. They talk about sojeros in Argentina that go to peoples homes and ask to lease their land for soybeans and pays them a good sum. The small farmers take the money but eventially realize they made a big mistake. They plant the soybeans and at the beginning they only need to spray twice. As time goes on the weeds become resistant to the Roundup and they have to spray more frequently at higher doses. It starts to affect the crops (they get smaller) because that amount of Roundup leaves the soil barren and lacking essential nutrients. After the sojeros use the land they give it back to the small farmer but now he cannot grow anything on his land as it is barren. They have no way to make money so they are forced to move to the city slums. Then there is the government and private sectors who deforest the rare trees in that area so they can grow more soybeans. So now as you are driving in that area (the author says) all you can see is soybeans as far as the eye can see. At one point, seeds suddenly started appearing in Paraguay without their knowledge. Farmers started taking the sacks of seeds and planting them not knowing where they came from. Some felt it was a trap set by Monsanto. Now most of South America is growing these Roundup Raady soybeans. I am afraid to eat soybeans now. You know our grocery stores produce are full of Roundup, genetically and otherwise. One thing that bugs me is that Monsanto claims that Roundup is good for the environment and causes no problems. Monsanto has never suggested protective gear for people who spray tons of Roundup over very large crops. One boy in Argentina who was walking home from the market where he bought meat and noodles was suddenly sprayed with Roundup by a soybean field. He was soaked through. As soon as he got home he told his mother he wasn't feeling well and had migraines, nausea, red swollen eyes and joint pain. To make matters worse, the family ate the meat and noodles at dinner. Now everyone was sick. The boy kept getting worse and worse and he had to go to the hospital for 7 weeks in intensive care. He came back home and things got a little better until he was sprayed again only this time he died. The family sued (not sure if they sued the government, Monsanto or some FDA type organisation)and won. The same thing happened to another boy who got sprayed in the area and he died. The family could not afford to sue so they did nothing. Monsanto still denies any problems as always. The company is bulletproof and use money given to politicians, federal agencies and so on so they will praise them on what great work they are doing. They sue anyone at the drop of a hat. Monsanto is just that powerful. It's really very scary.
Now I am finished with the book. The rest of the book talks about India and how they adopted Roundup Ready cotton (Indias main staple), Advertisements are all over the TV's since Monsanto hired Bollywood actors to make a fun and jumpy ad. They claimed that they will get higher yields of cotton and they only have to spray 2-3 times during the growing cycle. They said it was environmentally safe, etc. The Indians really bought into that promise but soon they regretted it. The cotton that was grown was smaller in size and not the right consistency. They could not sell it because cotton dealers would not buy it saying the cotton lacked fibers of normal cotton. Now these farmers are in deep debt because the seeds are 10 times more expensive than regular seeds. The author went to a lot of villages where small farmers had huge debts and she talked to them. They said Monsanto lied to them and that their crops are worthless. The big issue there was that farmers started killing themselves and I mean thousands of them ever since the introduction of the cotton seeds. I got the impression from the book that most of these people who committed suicide died by poison. They drank whole bottles of pesticide at an alarming rate. I think the people of India are very proud people and they could not handle the stress of their livelihood. They would rather die than be embarrased. One thing I never got an answer to in the book is if Monsanto ever admitted to the dangers of Agent Orange. I guess I will do my own research on that.
This book is a must read. It is tough reading as there is a lot of scientific data and details of research. The author spend years on the road going from one country to another and one remote village to another looking for answers. She interviewed so many crucial people I could not keep track of them all. This book is very thorough and she says it like it is. Well, the thing is you hardly ever hear what she has to say just that she asks questions to the people she interviews. What out for Monsanto! They are VERY clever, corrupt and liars. This reminds me of the book 1984 by George Orwell and Monsanto is Big Brother.
I am 14% done and it is a real eye opener. I have read things about Monsanto for years in not so positive light. This book is great because it starts at the start of the company and how they have changed over the years. Plus all the toxins they made which they ignored or tried to hide while the toxins were killing lots of people. I am at the point now where they talk about Agent Orange. This book is really interesting so far and I have to recommend it for people who are worried about food safety and left over toxins. In addition, they bring up the pollution problem of dumping toxic waste (PCBs) into nearby streams and land fills in Anniston, Alabama. These PCBs were dumped in the poor side of town where there are mostly black folks. Their hogs would inject the PCBs and would become sick and die as well as the people becoming very sick and some dying. Monsanto-Solutia had been doing the dumping since the 1930's and stopped in 1972. The PCB's have leaked from the dump fields and the creeks and rivers no longer have fish and aquatic animals. There was a class-action suit where Johnny Cochran represented 18,000 plaintiffs who lived near Snow Creek and the Choccolocco Creek and testified they had serious medical problems like cancer, liver disease, neurological disorders and heart disease. Johnny Cochran won $700 million for the people. Monsanto denies that PCBs cause serious problems to people who lived near the chemical plant. In a court case in 2001, Owens v. Monsanto, Monsanto only agrees that it can cause cloracne (a serious skin disease). Monsanto says it is easily treatable. Monsanto was ordered to do a clean-up with a 'special master' overseeing the project. There have been other lawsuits against Monsanto from individual people in Anniston. Some are still pending.
I am 25% done. What I have to say so far is Shame on Monsanto (sorry Dad and Betty). The truth hurts. They even had the EPA on their side based on the lies Monsanto told them about their own scientific research. I can't believe the EPA just disregarded the whistle-blowers and the data they came up with. There are studies of these toxic chemicals being done all over the world. Monsanto just disregards them, period. At this point I am on the production of rBST's (Bovine somatotropin) which is a peptide hormone that affects the pituitary gland. This hormone is supposed to increase cows milk production. The problem is that it creates severe mastitis in cows where the teats get swollen and extracts pus. The brand name for rBST is Posilac. This causes 40% reduction in fertility and 55% increased risk of developing clinical signs of lameness. This study reported a decrease in body condition score for cows treated with rBST even though there was an increase in their dry matter intake. The European Union commission's statement, subsequently adopted by the European Union, stated that the use of rBST substantially increased health problems with cows, including foot problems, mastitis and injection site reactions, impinged on the welfare of the animals and caused reproductive disorders. On September 30, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, analyzing evidence submitted in briefs, found that there is a "compositional difference" between milk from rBGH-treated cows and milk from untreated cows. The court stated that milk from rBGH-treated cows has: increased levels of the hormone Insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1); higher fat content and lower protein content when produced at certain points in the cow's lactation cycle; and more somatic cell counts, which may "make the milk turn sour more quickly." Many countries have now banned the use of Posilac or any other rBST product sold by other companies. It seems like it never ends with Monsanto and their denials and outright lies. They have very close connections with the EPA, FDA and other organizations and last but not least politicians. Outside scientists doing studies on Monsanto products end up getting their projects cancelled and are forced to retire or resign. Every outside scientific research project and even individual people (like small farmers) are very afraid of Monsanto and what they can do to their livelyhood.
I am 49% done. I'm am now at the point where they are about to import Roundup Ready soybeans. Independant studies by well know scientists have been researched with negative outcomes in the studies in animals (rats mostly). As soon as they find something negative, the studies are cancelled and the scientists are forced out of their jobs. However, Monsanto's own scientists have positive outcomes. Monsanto must have a great law team because they are able to scare other organizations to make them look clean. One case worth mentioning is of a famous European scientist from Rowett Institute who had done research on dioxin (I think) and found all kinds of problems with it. He said that Monsanto's own scientists did not do their research correctly and basically skimmed over the research. The scientist wrote an article about his findings and gave a large presentation on TV about what he found. Afterwards, his boss came up to him with congratulations on a job well done. Said he was brilliant, etc. etc. 2 days later his boss fired him and the scientist said he looked as though he had been threatened. Monsanto is dirty, very dirty!
I am 67% done. I am at the point where Argentina has opened it's arms to transgenic soybeans. Where people once used to grow corn, regular soybeans, vegetables, etc. is now a vast land of transgenic soybeans. Of course, they have to use Roundup to spray the plants. At the beginning, they would only have to spray twice but as time went on the weeds become resistant to it and have to spray more and more. After a while, it gets into the soil and the land becomes barren and lacking the neccessary nutrients to keep these soybeans growing. Eventually, they have to stop farming. Since the land is now a wasteland nothing can grow in it. Also, people in the area are getting sick from all the spraying and some have died to extreme exposure to the Roundup. They talk about sojeros in Argentina that go to peoples homes and ask to lease their land for soybeans and pays them a good sum. The small farmers take the money but eventially realize they made a big mistake. They plant the soybeans and at the beginning they only need to spray twice. As time goes on the weeds become resistant to the Roundup and they have to spray more frequently at higher doses. It starts to affect the crops (they get smaller) because that amount of Roundup leaves the soil barren and lacking essential nutrients. After the sojeros use the land they give it back to the small farmer but now he cannot grow anything on his land as it is barren. They have no way to make money so they are forced to move to the city slums. Then there is the government and private sectors who deforest the rare trees in that area so they can grow more soybeans. So now as you are driving in that area (the author says) all you can see is soybeans as far as the eye can see. At one point, seeds suddenly started appearing in Paraguay without their knowledge. Farmers started taking the sacks of seeds and planting them not knowing where they came from. Some felt it was a trap set by Monsanto. Now most of South America is growing these Roundup Raady soybeans. I am afraid to eat soybeans now. You know our grocery stores produce are full of Roundup, genetically and otherwise. One thing that bugs me is that Monsanto claims that Roundup is good for the environment and causes no problems. Monsanto has never suggested protective gear for people who spray tons of Roundup over very large crops. One boy in Argentina who was walking home from the market where he bought meat and noodles was suddenly sprayed with Roundup by a soybean field. He was soaked through. As soon as he got home he told his mother he wasn't feeling well and had migraines, nausea, red swollen eyes and joint pain. To make matters worse, the family ate the meat and noodles at dinner. Now everyone was sick. The boy kept getting worse and worse and he had to go to the hospital for 7 weeks in intensive care. He came back home and things got a little better until he was sprayed again only this time he died. The family sued (not sure if they sued the government, Monsanto or some FDA type organisation)and won. The same thing happened to another boy who got sprayed in the area and he died. The family could not afford to sue so they did nothing. Monsanto still denies any problems as always. The company is bulletproof and use money given to politicians, federal agencies and so on so they will praise them on what great work they are doing. They sue anyone at the drop of a hat. Monsanto is just that powerful. It's really very scary.
Now I am finished with the book. The rest of the book talks about India and how they adopted Roundup Ready cotton (Indias main staple), Advertisements are all over the TV's since Monsanto hired Bollywood actors to make a fun and jumpy ad. They claimed that they will get higher yields of cotton and they only have to spray 2-3 times during the growing cycle. They said it was environmentally safe, etc. The Indians really bought into that promise but soon they regretted it. The cotton that was grown was smaller in size and not the right consistency. They could not sell it because cotton dealers would not buy it saying the cotton lacked fibers of normal cotton. Now these farmers are in deep debt because the seeds are 10 times more expensive than regular seeds. The author went to a lot of villages where small farmers had huge debts and she talked to them. They said Monsanto lied to them and that their crops are worthless. The big issue there was that farmers started killing themselves and I mean thousands of them ever since the introduction of the cotton seeds. I got the impression from the book that most of these people who committed suicide died by poison. They drank whole bottles of pesticide at an alarming rate. I think the people of India are very proud people and they could not handle the stress of their livelihood. They would rather die than be embarrased. One thing I never got an answer to in the book is if Monsanto ever admitted to the dangers of Agent Orange. I guess I will do my own research on that.
This book is a must read. It is tough reading as there is a lot of scientific data and details of research. The author spend years on the road going from one country to another and one remote village to another looking for answers. She interviewed so many crucial people I could not keep track of them all. This book is very thorough and she says it like it is. Well, the thing is you hardly ever hear what she has to say just that she asks questions to the people she interviews. What out for Monsanto! They are VERY clever, corrupt and liars. This reminds me of the book 1984 by George Orwell and Monsanto is Big Brother.
September 11, 2018
Author researched this company for 4 years and it shows. She has an impressive wealth of knowledge. Some of the syntax isn't perfect, and I could tell this book was translated, but generally the writing and translation were nicely done and not too obtrusive. Organization was good; first, we started off by examining different products of Monsanto (such as dioxin, Agent Orange, bovine growth hormone, and Roundup).
That's all I have to say about the value of the book; let's talk about some substance. Below are some things I found memorable/worth reading about.
-----------THE COMPANY-----------
>> This is the company that brought you dioxin, Agent Orange, DDT, asparatame, and the bovine growth hormone. Here be Satan.
>> Also responsible for the spread of PCBs (used as industrial coolants), which are now in all of us. Even though PCB use has lowered, because they get passed on from mother to child. They cause cancers, neurological problems, and hormone imbalances.
>> Cate Jenkins and William Sanjour are whistleblowers who worked for EPA (which covered for Monsanto); Richard Burroughs was a whistleblower of the FDA about bovine growth hormone (rGBH), created by Monsanto and covered up by the EPA; Jane Akre and Steve Wilson were Fox News reporters who were threatened and bribed by Fox (which received large funding from Monsanto in the form of advertisements) into hiding their report on rGBH. In light of all that, Marie-Monique Robin is gutsy as hell for taking this project on, knowing everything she could risk.
>> Monsanto and the EPA, as well as Monsanto and the FDA, have a revolving door where the same people who work at Monsanto now work at the top level of the government agencies-- which alone should raise some huge red flags.
>> Somewhat unrelated, but Dr. Cecil Drinker (of Harvard) came up in the course of the discussions about PCBs. Basically, he did a study that said PCBs are harmful when everyone else claimed they were safe as houses. This is only remarkable because I know his name from another book I read this year- Radium Girls (he was among the first to examine the girls and declare radium harmful). I love it when a small piece of information in my reading overlaps. Makes me feel like I actually learn shit from all these books I read.
-----------BOVINE GROWTH HORMONE-----------
[aka rGBH aka rBST]
>> Monsanto put milk and meat treated with bovine growth hormone (rGBH) on the market before getting any approval for the hormone. In fact, the FDA had warned them they needed to do further studies before they would get approval; they ignored this, and put the milk and meat from their experimental herds on the market. They also treated the experimental herds with antibiotics, some of which were approved for use for human consumption, some of which weren’t. All on the sly and completely illegal. But were they penalized? No. See above: revolving door.
>> rGBH straight up causes cancer. rGBH metabolizes into IGF-1 (growth hormone made in both cows and humans). Studies show that people with elevated levels of IGF-1 have much higher risks of cancer (growth hormone stimulates the growth of all cells, including cancerous ones). Consuming dairy products since the addition of rGBH to the milk supply leads to increased cancer.
>> FDA recommends not labeling natural milk as “rBGH-free.” When companies using non-GBH milk tried to label it that way anyway, Monsanto sued, harassed, and manipulated them until they put an asterisk on it.
If you read containers obsessively like I do, you'll note that if it DOES say “made with milk from cows not treated with rBGH”, there is ALWAYS an asterisk, and at the bottom of the container it’ll say "the FDA has found no significant difference between milk from cows treated with rBST and nontreated cows.”
>> Monsanto is smart. If you’re a dairy farmer and want to try out rGBH on your cows, you have to sign a confidentiality agreement. That way, when you see your cows get sick and your milk get full of pus, and you switch back to natural milk, you can’t tell people about what happened- or they’ll sue you and take everything.
-----------GMOs & ROUNDUP-----------
>> "Roundup Ready" (hereafter referred to as "RR") soybeans really are the most ingenious product. First, create Roundup, a chemical to kill all plants, including but not limited to its objective, weeds. Then, create genetically modified soybeans that survive the spraying of Roundup- now you have people buying two of your products on a massive scale.
>> Roundup, the “safe for humans, animals, and the environment” herbicide, fucks with cell regeneration controls and basically initiates the first stage of cancer. Even at concentrations thousands of times more diluted than the recommended use in agriculture/gardening. It also causes severe poisoning symptoms like skin lesions, vomiting, respiratory problems, vision problems, severe bleeding, birth defects and miscarriages, and even death.
The US government, charmers that they are, conspired with the Colombian government to spray Roundup over coca fields (to prevent it from being turned into cocaine) and the surrounding areas from 2000-2006, which poisoned hundreds of thousands of Colombians. They call Roundup “Colombia’s Agent Orange.”
>> The science behind GMOs like RR crops is pretty biased. There’s no funding for truly independent research; the research is funded by biotech corps or by the federal government, which, see above: not exactly independent from Monsanto.
>> Monsanto representative told a farmer, “We own you—we own anybody that buys our Roundup Ready products.”
>> An opinion by SCOTUS deciding in favor of the patenting of seeds was written by Justice Thomas- who (this was news to me) used to be an attorney for Monsanto.
>> Monsanto requires farmers who purchase its seeds to promise not to use the seeds the crop generates as next year’s seed, forcing them to re-buy seed every year (normally, farmers would reuse seeds from last year). Monsanto has the Pinkerton detective agency on retainer to act as the “gene police” on these “pirates.”
The problem is, where in reality upwards of 80% of crops are Monsanto’s RR crops, even if you don’t use Monsanto’s seed, odds are pretty good your neighbor does, and cross-contamination is super easy. And the courts don’t care; even if only 15% of your crop is RR and you’ve never bought RR before (all suggesting this was a result of cross-contamination), you’re still liable. And Monsanto will take everything.
To avoid this, some farmers are forced to switch crops to avoid cross-contamination, but it’s spreading; some might cave and buy the seeds every year to avoid being accused of recycling the seeds.
Crop biodiversity is disappearing. It’s happening in the United States, Canada, Mexico, South America, India. At some point, Monsanto could control essentially the whole world’s food supply.
>>RR crops sometimes cross-pollinate with weed species, which means farmers need to use more herbicide to kill them (some weeds are now resistant to herbicides even when administered at ten times the recommended dose), which is . . . yeah, even worse for the environment.
-----------CONCLUSIONS-----------
Monsanto is going to be our doom. Carry on.
~~~~~~READ HARDER CHALLENGE~~~~~~
#6: A book about nature
That's all I have to say about the value of the book; let's talk about some substance. Below are some things I found memorable/worth reading about.
-----------THE COMPANY-----------
>> This is the company that brought you dioxin, Agent Orange, DDT, asparatame, and the bovine growth hormone. Here be Satan.
>> Also responsible for the spread of PCBs (used as industrial coolants), which are now in all of us. Even though PCB use has lowered, because they get passed on from mother to child. They cause cancers, neurological problems, and hormone imbalances.
>> Cate Jenkins and William Sanjour are whistleblowers who worked for EPA (which covered for Monsanto); Richard Burroughs was a whistleblower of the FDA about bovine growth hormone (rGBH), created by Monsanto and covered up by the EPA; Jane Akre and Steve Wilson were Fox News reporters who were threatened and bribed by Fox (which received large funding from Monsanto in the form of advertisements) into hiding their report on rGBH. In light of all that, Marie-Monique Robin is gutsy as hell for taking this project on, knowing everything she could risk.
>> Monsanto and the EPA, as well as Monsanto and the FDA, have a revolving door where the same people who work at Monsanto now work at the top level of the government agencies-- which alone should raise some huge red flags.
>> Somewhat unrelated, but Dr. Cecil Drinker (of Harvard) came up in the course of the discussions about PCBs. Basically, he did a study that said PCBs are harmful when everyone else claimed they were safe as houses. This is only remarkable because I know his name from another book I read this year- Radium Girls (he was among the first to examine the girls and declare radium harmful). I love it when a small piece of information in my reading overlaps. Makes me feel like I actually learn shit from all these books I read.
-----------BOVINE GROWTH HORMONE-----------
[aka rGBH aka rBST]
>> Monsanto put milk and meat treated with bovine growth hormone (rGBH) on the market before getting any approval for the hormone. In fact, the FDA had warned them they needed to do further studies before they would get approval; they ignored this, and put the milk and meat from their experimental herds on the market. They also treated the experimental herds with antibiotics, some of which were approved for use for human consumption, some of which weren’t. All on the sly and completely illegal. But were they penalized? No. See above: revolving door.
>> rGBH straight up causes cancer. rGBH metabolizes into IGF-1 (growth hormone made in both cows and humans). Studies show that people with elevated levels of IGF-1 have much higher risks of cancer (growth hormone stimulates the growth of all cells, including cancerous ones). Consuming dairy products since the addition of rGBH to the milk supply leads to increased cancer.
>> FDA recommends not labeling natural milk as “rBGH-free.” When companies using non-GBH milk tried to label it that way anyway, Monsanto sued, harassed, and manipulated them until they put an asterisk on it.
If you read containers obsessively like I do, you'll note that if it DOES say “made with milk from cows not treated with rBGH”, there is ALWAYS an asterisk, and at the bottom of the container it’ll say "the FDA has found no significant difference between milk from cows treated with rBST and nontreated cows.”
>> Monsanto is smart. If you’re a dairy farmer and want to try out rGBH on your cows, you have to sign a confidentiality agreement. That way, when you see your cows get sick and your milk get full of pus, and you switch back to natural milk, you can’t tell people about what happened- or they’ll sue you and take everything.
-----------GMOs & ROUNDUP-----------
>> "Roundup Ready" (hereafter referred to as "RR") soybeans really are the most ingenious product. First, create Roundup, a chemical to kill all plants, including but not limited to its objective, weeds. Then, create genetically modified soybeans that survive the spraying of Roundup- now you have people buying two of your products on a massive scale.
>> Roundup, the “safe for humans, animals, and the environment” herbicide, fucks with cell regeneration controls and basically initiates the first stage of cancer. Even at concentrations thousands of times more diluted than the recommended use in agriculture/gardening. It also causes severe poisoning symptoms like skin lesions, vomiting, respiratory problems, vision problems, severe bleeding, birth defects and miscarriages, and even death.
The US government, charmers that they are, conspired with the Colombian government to spray Roundup over coca fields (to prevent it from being turned into cocaine) and the surrounding areas from 2000-2006, which poisoned hundreds of thousands of Colombians. They call Roundup “Colombia’s Agent Orange.”
>> The science behind GMOs like RR crops is pretty biased. There’s no funding for truly independent research; the research is funded by biotech corps or by the federal government, which, see above: not exactly independent from Monsanto.
>> Monsanto representative told a farmer, “We own you—we own anybody that buys our Roundup Ready products.”
>> An opinion by SCOTUS deciding in favor of the patenting of seeds was written by Justice Thomas- who (this was news to me) used to be an attorney for Monsanto.
>> Monsanto requires farmers who purchase its seeds to promise not to use the seeds the crop generates as next year’s seed, forcing them to re-buy seed every year (normally, farmers would reuse seeds from last year). Monsanto has the Pinkerton detective agency on retainer to act as the “gene police” on these “pirates.”
The problem is, where in reality upwards of 80% of crops are Monsanto’s RR crops, even if you don’t use Monsanto’s seed, odds are pretty good your neighbor does, and cross-contamination is super easy. And the courts don’t care; even if only 15% of your crop is RR and you’ve never bought RR before (all suggesting this was a result of cross-contamination), you’re still liable. And Monsanto will take everything.
To avoid this, some farmers are forced to switch crops to avoid cross-contamination, but it’s spreading; some might cave and buy the seeds every year to avoid being accused of recycling the seeds.
Crop biodiversity is disappearing. It’s happening in the United States, Canada, Mexico, South America, India. At some point, Monsanto could control essentially the whole world’s food supply.
>>RR crops sometimes cross-pollinate with weed species, which means farmers need to use more herbicide to kill them (some weeds are now resistant to herbicides even when administered at ten times the recommended dose), which is . . . yeah, even worse for the environment.
-----------CONCLUSIONS-----------
Monsanto is going to be our doom. Carry on.
~~~~~~READ HARDER CHALLENGE~~~~~~
#6: A book about nature
September 14, 2011
This book was quite scary. The book is the result of investigative journalism of the megacorporation, Monsanto. It explores the company's history since before the Vietnam War. Topics include PCBs (which the company discovered), Agent Orange (which the company was a major manufacturer), DDT, bovine growth hormones, Roundup, and transgenic crops (Roundup Ready soy, corn, cotton etc.). The picture is bleak. It follows the revolving door of company executives and their path from Monsanto to the regulatory agencies of the FDA, EPA and even the Whitehouse. The science of all of their products are questionable and when others raise the alarm they are fired, discredited and pushed to the side. Their reach permeates the globe. The last several chapters follow the effects of the transgenic crops around the world and the effects of those in third world countries that Monsanto claims to try to help and that their crops will eliminate hunger and poverty. I cannot wait to look at her sources but if what she says is even a fraction true, things don't look good. This book makes me want to grow my own food.
October 9, 2012
I'll try to be as concise as I can be: this book is outstanding. Sure, it's not the best stylistic read in the whole world, cause let's be honest, this is mostly about learning facts, stories and statistics. It's not a Ryszard Kapuściński book, to make it clear. But that's why it's so good: the book gives you everything it promises and what it stands for. Everything (or at least, a clear small side of the story) about Monsanto is in here, but what I really liked about it was that inside so many statistical facts and veridic (horrifying) stories, you could not only see the hidden face of a corporate giant like Monsanto: it actually feels like one of the clearest depiction of the inner mechanisms of power ever told. If anyone is interested about learning how this world works, and how it has worked ever since governments work along corporations, they should read this book. The only problem is you won't be able to trust your food anymore, and believe me that's a nightmare so big, you actually just end up ignoring it. But it keeps eating you inside.
March 7, 2012
In a nutshell, Monsanto has immense power and is accountable to no-one. They have exposed us all to PCBs, herbicides, dioxins and bovine growth hormones while being fully aware of the harmfulness of these substances. It's profit at any price.
As one quote in the book says, Monsanto is, 'A calmly arrogant company heedlessly profiting from the suffering of victims and the destruction of ecosystems.'
Monsanto knew that PCBs were harmful way back in 1937. They have falsified studies and concealed the evidence which didn't suit their bottom line, and the sold-out FDA and EPA lend them an aura of respectability that most people accept at face value, and so their destruction of our environment and our health continues unabated.
We can't say we didn't know with the information in this book so clearly presented and we must try to stop (somehow) Monsanto getting control of our seeds and so our entire food supply as is their current completely terrifying aim. This just can't be allowed to happen.
For information on how to undo some of the damage caused by pesticides, PCBs, dioxins and other toxic compounds (which underlie so many diseases) I also recommend the excellent book Detoxify or Die by Dr Sherry Rogers. Equally important is avoiding contaminated and GMO foods (especially growth hormone containing milk) as much as possible.
This book is very well done and is so needed. I hope this book is as widely read as it deserves to be. Finally some real investigative journalism - such a rare thing these days. Thank goodness for books, and libraries!
Jodi Bassett, The Hummingbirds' Foundation for M.E.
As one quote in the book says, Monsanto is, 'A calmly arrogant company heedlessly profiting from the suffering of victims and the destruction of ecosystems.'
Monsanto knew that PCBs were harmful way back in 1937. They have falsified studies and concealed the evidence which didn't suit their bottom line, and the sold-out FDA and EPA lend them an aura of respectability that most people accept at face value, and so their destruction of our environment and our health continues unabated.
We can't say we didn't know with the information in this book so clearly presented and we must try to stop (somehow) Monsanto getting control of our seeds and so our entire food supply as is their current completely terrifying aim. This just can't be allowed to happen.
For information on how to undo some of the damage caused by pesticides, PCBs, dioxins and other toxic compounds (which underlie so many diseases) I also recommend the excellent book Detoxify or Die by Dr Sherry Rogers. Equally important is avoiding contaminated and GMO foods (especially growth hormone containing milk) as much as possible.
This book is very well done and is so needed. I hope this book is as widely read as it deserves to be. Finally some real investigative journalism - such a rare thing these days. Thank goodness for books, and libraries!
Jodi Bassett, The Hummingbirds' Foundation for M.E.
January 31, 2020
Monsanto has brought dangerous and lethal products to our universe without a shred of decency, thought or care of humanity. I became so angry reading this book that I could only do a chapter every couple of days. It's like a horror science fiction, but it's true and happening. I will only buy organic produce from now on, but I won't be sure it's not GMO. This book makes me scared to go into a grocery store and in so doing, poison myself. Monsanto executives infiltrated into the EPA and EPA retirees were hired by Monsanto. The EPA has protected Monsanto every step of the way, lying to US citizens, and taking as fact all the "studies" that Monsanto has produced, not real scientific studies. I personally think they are the most evil and corrupt company in the world. They've brought us:
Dioxin
Agent Orange
Round Up
GMOs
Seed Control
Patents Over Food Control
Dioxin
Agent Orange
Round Up
GMOs
Seed Control
Patents Over Food Control
December 13, 2022
Very interesting book about the workings of Monsanto. The book shows the big picture, but also zooms in to the people that are affected by the practises of this corrupt polluter. I really wonder how it can be that a company like this still exists.. money talks I guess. They are crooks. The book is quite long but the writing style is nice and flowing so it was easy to get through, if you're interested in this topic.
January 8, 2012
For a long time I've heard "Monsanto-is-evil" type comments and didn't really know much about the company or the fuss. I was wary of reading a one-sided expose on Monsanto but this book was not the mass hysteria book that I'm sure people could write on the company. It was well-researched, thorough and provided a broad basis for why one could really come to the conclusion that Monsanto is really something that a reasonable person could conclude is "evil" (note the book doesn't actually say this).
It is well worth the read - I like that there's an in-depth scientific explanation of trials, GM products, along with the problems of regulatory bodies/revolving doors between government/corporations, etc.
The book made me feel angry, troubled and informed.
Two criticisms of the book would be that:
- It was hard to read in a few places (long lists of people/dates): some diagrams of key people/timelines for reference would have helped.
- I really would have liked to have had pro-GM and pro-Monsanto opinions covered, or read a response from others who disagree with her research covered in the book, just in case the book is leading you astray with conclusions.
Well worth reading.
It is well worth the read - I like that there's an in-depth scientific explanation of trials, GM products, along with the problems of regulatory bodies/revolving doors between government/corporations, etc.
The book made me feel angry, troubled and informed.
Two criticisms of the book would be that:
- It was hard to read in a few places (long lists of people/dates): some diagrams of key people/timelines for reference would have helped.
- I really would have liked to have had pro-GM and pro-Monsanto opinions covered, or read a response from others who disagree with her research covered in the book, just in case the book is leading you astray with conclusions.
Well worth reading.
February 6, 2011
A harrowing look at the monopolization and monoculturization of our food supply by Monsanto. The book, companion to the equally harrowing film, will make you question everything that you have ever heard from Monsanto about both their intentions and the safety of their products, whether chemical or genetically engineered. Fined again and again for fraud, for bribery, and for negligence, it is simply extraordinary that the revolving door of Monsanto employees entering public service at the FDA, USDA and EPA continues even to the present day. Everyone should read this book or see the film at http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc...#. Exploring subjects just touched upon briefly in the 2008 Oscar nominated Food Inc, Robin pulls back the curtain and shows us the spin wizards at Monsanto for what they really are...
I'd have given it five stars if the editing and translation from the French were better. It's still worth your reading time and I especially encourage people to see the film...
I'd have given it five stars if the editing and translation from the French were better. It's still worth your reading time and I especially encourage people to see the film...
May 28, 2013
I give it 5 stars for research but only 3 for readability. I had to make myself read it as it has an overwhelming amount of details! I think the message that Monsanto is messing with our food chain is very important so I wish the author had written in a more engaging manor. I must say that I had no idea how Monsanto is impacting food world-wide. I thought it was just a US problem but it is destroying other nations agriculture faster than our. If you care about food politics this is the book for you.
June 30, 2012
There are few topics on this earth that get me as riled up as talking or reading about Monsanto and what they have done to ruin so many things on this planet!! Rather than make myself out to sound like a crazy person ranting on about the under-handed horrible way this company is hurting us all, I will just say this:
Anyone curious as to how one company could {very} possibly bring on a world-wide famine?
Ever wondered why there seems to be so much more cancer and other diseases being diagnosed these days? It's not just early detection/advanced medical science.
Want to see how the FDA {and the entire government for that matter} is so corrupted that it is no longer an organization working to protect us as individuals, but to protect the interests of this fiendish company? {revolving doors, anyone?}
If these pique your curiosity, and you can get yourself through all the dry writing full of facts - you will then realize that the facts are what it is all about, and they are pretty damning. Robin went to painstaking effort to collect every tidbit of evidence to affirm that this company should be - literally - nipped in the bud. Or rather, as it's already entrenched, uprooted and burned!
Support organic, locally grown produce, ya'll! I used to make fun of the whole organic scene, then I watched Food, Inc. and it started me on a whole new path. Grow a vegetable garden. Teach your kids that real food doesn't come out of a box. We as the consumer have so much power.
Anyone curious as to how one company could {very} possibly bring on a world-wide famine?
Ever wondered why there seems to be so much more cancer and other diseases being diagnosed these days? It's not just early detection/advanced medical science.
Want to see how the FDA {and the entire government for that matter} is so corrupted that it is no longer an organization working to protect us as individuals, but to protect the interests of this fiendish company? {revolving doors, anyone?}
If these pique your curiosity, and you can get yourself through all the dry writing full of facts - you will then realize that the facts are what it is all about, and they are pretty damning. Robin went to painstaking effort to collect every tidbit of evidence to affirm that this company should be - literally - nipped in the bud. Or rather, as it's already entrenched, uprooted and burned!
Support organic, locally grown produce, ya'll! I used to make fun of the whole organic scene, then I watched Food, Inc. and it started me on a whole new path. Grow a vegetable garden. Teach your kids that real food doesn't come out of a box. We as the consumer have so much power.
August 22, 2010
Quite an examination of Monsanto and quite one sided (but there really didn't seem to be another side and Monsanto did decline to participate). This book was an eye opener as to how as a person my rights are being eroded for profit, bad science, and little or no foresight as to GMO's effects on the environment and humanity. And this coming from someone who considers them-self a moderate.
Okay that really wasn't a review of the book itself but after reading the book I'm pissed off and confused as to why this is allowed to happen without (major) repercussions to the perpetrators.
Okay that really wasn't a review of the book itself but after reading the book I'm pissed off and confused as to why this is allowed to happen without (major) repercussions to the perpetrators.
December 31, 2011
This book efficiently and compellingly lays out the record of atrocities perpetrated by Monsanto and their ilk, from the role they played in the development and promotion of Agent Orange, to the insidious and ongoing power grab on the global food supply.
The only downside of this book is that it could have discussed the commonalities between the profit-driven, anti-democratic behavior of Monsanto and other multinationals, however this might fit better in a sequel...
The only downside of this book is that it could have discussed the commonalities between the profit-driven, anti-democratic behavior of Monsanto and other multinationals, however this might fit better in a sequel...
October 23, 2010
Like Marie Monique Robin, I do not want to live in the world according to Monsanto. A world where ethics are subjugated to the pursuit of profit at any cost. Ever since reading Silent Spring by Rachel Carson I have steered clear of pesticides, herbicides and GM foods for health and environmental reasons. I expected to read in this book about the risks of genetic engineering and the increase in use of Round Up as a result of the introduction of Monsanto's RoundUp Ready canola and soy. She covered these topics well and gave me much new evidence to use to explain why I eat organic. But...what took me by surprise is that this company has such a disturbingly chequered history. Agent Orange, PCBs, bovine growth hormone... a pattern emerges.. the reckless and ruthless marketing of high risk chemicals to the detriment of human and animal health. Opponents are buried. Scientific independence is subverted. Regulators are bought.
I was always against the introduction of GMO's to Australia, a country with the opportunity to remain clean through its geographic isolation. This book has given me so much more information on the known problems with this technology that there is a risk I will turn into an anti-GM activist!
The translation from the French is well done. The book is easy to read, although it does seem to try to cram too much into the last few chapters. Some judicious editing could have helped there.
In summary, this is an important book that deserves to be widely read. Robin even manages to provide some hope in the final pages; hope that such practices are not sustainable; that Monsanto will have to run hard to escape the repurcussions of its past behaviour. The sins of the fathers may well be the downfall of the sons, as litigation mounts, investors turn to ethical investment strategies and consumer demands for clean healthy food grow louder.
I was always against the introduction of GMO's to Australia, a country with the opportunity to remain clean through its geographic isolation. This book has given me so much more information on the known problems with this technology that there is a risk I will turn into an anti-GM activist!
The translation from the French is well done. The book is easy to read, although it does seem to try to cram too much into the last few chapters. Some judicious editing could have helped there.
In summary, this is an important book that deserves to be widely read. Robin even manages to provide some hope in the final pages; hope that such practices are not sustainable; that Monsanto will have to run hard to escape the repurcussions of its past behaviour. The sins of the fathers may well be the downfall of the sons, as litigation mounts, investors turn to ethical investment strategies and consumer demands for clean healthy food grow louder.
October 7, 2016
The content of this book was revealing, shocking and quite frightening, but considering the hold that huge multinational companies have on almost every aspect of life, and considering how their only driving force is profit, profit and more profit, I don't think I found the content of this book that surprising. I know only a little about GM crops, and therefore I wouldn't say I was particularly well informed, but the cover-ups, lies, corruption and bullying tactics undertaken by Monsanto would put me off anything the company does even if the GM issue wasn't involved.
Technically, this book did lack. That could be in part because the author's native language is French, or it just could be one of those things. Sadly, I also listened to it on audio. The narrator spoke in a monotone, and I found the endless repetition of "quote...unquote...quote...unquote...quote...unquote" highly distracting and unnecessary. Similarly, the spelling out of people's names was also incredibly distracting. For some names I understood, but there were names which were obvious and really didn't require spelling out by the narrator. Surely that could have been managed better - a website with the names listed perhaps? I have listened to a lot of non-fiction on audio and I have never come across this before and never felt I needed it. I don't think I needed it here.
On the plus side though, listening to this book has encouraged me to learn more and try to understand better and Goodreads is great for that with it's recommendations. Of course, it means my reading list grows by the day, but isn't that what a book like this is trying to achieve? Getting people to become more informed about who controls the world they live in and then perhaps make better choices in their lives.
Technically, this book did lack. That could be in part because the author's native language is French, or it just could be one of those things. Sadly, I also listened to it on audio. The narrator spoke in a monotone, and I found the endless repetition of "quote...unquote...quote...unquote...quote...unquote" highly distracting and unnecessary. Similarly, the spelling out of people's names was also incredibly distracting. For some names I understood, but there were names which were obvious and really didn't require spelling out by the narrator. Surely that could have been managed better - a website with the names listed perhaps? I have listened to a lot of non-fiction on audio and I have never come across this before and never felt I needed it. I don't think I needed it here.
On the plus side though, listening to this book has encouraged me to learn more and try to understand better and Goodreads is great for that with it's recommendations. Of course, it means my reading list grows by the day, but isn't that what a book like this is trying to achieve? Getting people to become more informed about who controls the world they live in and then perhaps make better choices in their lives.
July 5, 2010
Highly relevant investigative journalism into a company that many probably have no idea who they are (Roundup is their most common product, if you are wondering). Monsanto is one of the sketchiest companies ever. This book examines its ultra-sketchy past (Agent Orange and rBGH being 2 of their more notorious product) and the increasing amount of control they are obtaining over the world's food supply through the use of Genetically-Modified seeds (and highly potent herbicides & insecticides). Handing control of the world's food supply over to these scumbags is risky at best, disatrous at worst. And, clearly they are willing to pull all the stops to gain as much control as possible. Those concerned w/ GMOs, corporate control, gov't corruption and/or the future of agriculture and food should read this book. Seeing as everybody eats food, give it a whirl. The book drags in a few places and the last 30pp. are largely a "here's the rest of my research" but, overall, the book is highly relevant is a highly-necessary investigation into the corporate world in general and one of the world's most controversial companies in general.
October 26, 2010
Good coverage of history and topics, but would benefit from some sort of glossary of key players. There are so many regulatory and company people mentioned, that it's hard to keep track. Seems to be well researched, but a bit hard to get through. I'm looking forward to watching the documentary. I'm not sure that I would recommend it unless someone has a deep interest in Monsanto and GM foods. I'm still looking for a good book on GM foods that's written by someone with a science background and that's not overly preachy or scaremongering.
October 20, 2011
This book tells an important story about Monsanto's control of the world's food, and it's a story that could be fascinating. However, this book managed to make a very interesting story into an un-interesting one simply by using an extremely dry writing style. There are many facts and figures and the book is well researched, but it fails to make any compelling arguments or even have a clear thesis. In parts, it reads like a list of names, dates, figures, and other pieces of data that are not strung together into a compelling story. I had to force myself to finish it.
December 28, 2014
I knew Monsanto was bad, I just didn't know how bad and for how long they have manipulated the system. Each paragraph describes a person or a town destroyed by chemicals, a falsified study supporting the harmlessness of the chemicals created and used by Monsanto or the long way down of the whistle blower who tried to notify someone of the harm they found through accurate research. There was so much info, it read like a textbook, and sometimes I lost focus on numbers. But I am definitely more focused on eating Non GMO's.
July 11, 2012
Marie-Monique Robin’s scathing expose of giant food corp Monsanto. I hated Monsanto even before I read this book and now I hate them even more. All this revolving door biz with the FDA and the USDA and the EPA, etc. It just makes me soooo angry that 5 multi-corps own about 85% of the world’s food supply. Monsanto is now buying up seed companies to maintain its stranglehold on food. We have got to stop this!
November 10, 2011
Everyone should read this. I mean, everyone. Republicans, Democrats, Tea Party - this is not a political issue as much as it is a moral issue. Did you know that Monsanto controls 90% of our food supply?? And that it hides research about the fact that it the food it supplies causes cancer and infertility? Scary stuff, but something we should all be aware of.
August 25, 2012
This book was simply amazing. Everything I had come to understand as a scientist had been violated by Monsanto. The company has been using us as guinea pigs - like most companies but far worse. Not only that, but they control are food and access to new medicines! It is atrocious.
Read
June 29, 2010everyone should read this, it's important, it's relevant, it's massively depressing so no one will read it and instead they will read twilight and i will be sad.
June 28, 2009
J’ai mis énormément de temps à lire cette enquête sur l’entreprise Monsanto, version papier du reportage diffusé sur Arte il y a quelques temps. J’ai en effet un énorme défaut, lorsque je lis ce genre de chose, je suis tous les liens donnés. Ca ne facilite pas la lecture. Celui qui a déjà lu 64 pages en anglais sur le suicide des agriculteurs en Inde comprendra ma douleur. En outre, je n’ai jamais pris autant de notes. C’est un sujet qui m’intéresse puisque je suis fille d’agriculteur et que les produits phytosanitaires et les semenciers ont fait partie de mon quotidien pendant toute mon enfance (indirectement bien sûr, mes parents ne sont pas des tortionnaires qui envoyaient leurs enfants manier des produits dangereux à la sortie de l’école) et aujourd’hui encore, il m’arrive d’assister à de passionnantes conversations sur les avantages comparés de telle et telle variété de blé en terme de rendement ou de verse. Ma vie est tout à fait palpitante, n’est-ce pas ?
Pour en revenir au livre, la thèse de Marie-Monique Robin est simple (voire simpliste ?) : Monsanto est prête à tout pour s’emparer de l’agriculture mondiale, ne se préoccupe pas de la santé humaine et met sur le marché uniquement des produits dangereux, que ce soient les PCB, le Roundup ou les OGM. Ses dirigeants infiltrent ou menacent tous les niveaux des Etats et toutes les institutions, y compris scientifiques.
Le début est incontestable, lorsque l’auteur évoque le scandale du PCB dans les années 70. Là, la journaliste s’appuie sur des faits reconnus et la seule chose qui me gêne un peu, c’est une forte tendance à vouloir faire pleurer dans les chaumières. S’en tenir aux faits me semble toujours plus probant que d’abuser d’un vocabulaire du domaine de l’émotion, phénomène assez généralisé et très agaçant du reportage de nos jours, qui passe encore moins à l’écrit. Cette petite facilité n’enlève rien à la démonstration cependant. Les problèmes posés par le lobbying et les liens entre économie et politique sont intéressants aussi mais parfois plus affirmés que clairement démontrés. Toute la partie sur les liens entre FDA (Food and Drug Administration, en charge de la réglementation légale pour la mise en place des produits sur le marché) et Monsanto (cela dit, ça marcherait avec la plupart des grandes entreprises) est intéressante. On voit que les liens étroits par le jeu des chaises musicales entre les entreprises et l’administration sont au moins discutables d’un point de vue éthique. Cela mériterait un livre en soi et pas juste quelques dizaines de pages.
La suite en revanche a fini par beaucoup me gêner. C’est un bel exemple d’une démonstration à charge avec une succession d’argumentations biaisées et d’affirmations assez vaguement étayées. Je ne prendrai qu’un exemple mais c’est loin d’être le seul. Le Roundup (un herbicide, produit phare de l’entreprise) est d’abord pris sous l’angle de l’argument de la publicité mensongère, ce qui est incontestable puisque la société a été condamnée : le produit n’est pas biodégradable à 100%. C’est alors que la démonstration part en vrille. De biodégradabilité, on passe à la toxicité (au passage, si le public fait l’amalgame entre les deux, j’imagine que ça ne nuira pas à la diabolisation voulue du produit et c’est toujours ça de gagné pour la suite) et alors, Marie-Monique Robin nous explique pourquoi il faut absolument interdire le Roundup et cette raison, c’est ... que des gens se suicident avec. Eh oui, j’ai découvert grâce à cet ouvrage qu’il ne faut pas boire de Round up (en tout cas, moins de ¾ de tasse, la dose létale).
Pour le reste, toute la démonstration (plus de la moitié du livre) est basée sur le prétendu danger lié aux OGM. Je n’ai pas vraiment d’avis sur le sujet. Le problème, c’est qu’il est difficile de juger si on manque de connaissances scientifiques comme c’est mon cas. Le principe « d’équivalence en substance » utilisé par la FDA (avec l’influence de Monsanto) pour faire passer la réglementation sur les OGM aux Etats-Unis est contesté par les anti-OGM. Mais là, j’avoue avoir eu du mal à suivre l’explication. Il y a aussi bataille d’experts sur des études, chacun y allant de son interprétation. Voici une étude qui est mise en cause par certains témoins : http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/reprint/1.... J’ai un peu cherché ce que les partisans OGM disaient de cette étude et en comparant avec ce que dit le chercheur interrogé par Marie-Monique Robin, il semblerait que ce soient plutôt ses adversaires qui aient raison puisque page 7, on peut lire que « There were no gross pathologic findings observed at necropsy that were considered related to genetic modification. However, the livers of several animals (males predominately) fed GTS and parental-line ground soy beans appeared a darker brown at necropsy; the liver of one diet control male also appeared darker. Because rats fed processed GTS and parental-line soybean meal did not exhibit a similar incidence of darker brown livers at necropsy, this finding may have been related to feeding rats high dietary levels of ground soybeans. Because this finding occurred both in rats fed ground GTS and in rats fed ground parental-line soybeans, it was not considered to be related to genetic modification. ». Bien sûr, là, je suis assez circonspecte parce que je ne suis pas scientifique et il y a forcément des termes qui m’échappent, donc c’est difficile d’avoir un avis absolument tranché.
Mais dès que l’on sortait de l’explication purement scientifique, là encore, beaucoup d’arguments sont à la limite de la mauvaise foi. Comme lorsqu’elle tire des conclusions très ‘personnelles’ de réponses de Robert Shapiro (ancien PDG de Monsanto). Il est convaincu de la nécessité pour Monsanto de se lancer dans le développement durable et pense que les OGM en font partie, et pourtant il n’achète pas de produits laitiers biologiques (en relation avec le rBGH, l’hormone laitière). Ah ah ! Pris en flagrant délit ! De quoi je ne sais pas mais apparemment, pour l’auteur, c’est un signe. Bon, comme je suis plutôt de l'avis de ce méchant homme, même si j’ai tendance à penser que Monsanto n’est pas forcément le meilleur symbole de développement durable, je ne vois pas trop où est le problème.
Ensuite, en suivant les liens donnés, j’ai eu quelques surprises. On a l’impression par exemple que de multiples documents viennent affirmer la toxicité des OGM. En suivant les liens, je me suis aperçue qu’en fait, tout tourne toujours autour de deux ou trois mêmes études (contestées par le reste de la communauté scientifique mais c’est tellement nébuleux que à part de la confusion, ça ne m’a pas apporté de réponse et je n’ai pas réussi à me faire d’opinion entre complot mondial d’un côté et excès de diabolisation de l’autre), qui sont reprises à l’infini par les anti-OGM. Les liens renvoient aussi très souvent à des articles de journaux étrangers qui utilisent les mêmes sources sans jamais les mettre en doute (alors que, quand tout ce qu’on trouve est sous-tendu par une idéologie, même sympathique à priori, cela devrait être questionné, me semble-t-il, que ce soit dans le domaine économique, politique ou environnemental). Là encore, la plupart des liens renvoient vers des organisations écologistes (dont la composition des comités scientifiques prêtent parfois à rire en plus), anti-OGM par principe et quand on essaie de voir sur quoi elles se basent, c’est le flou le plus total, toutes reprenant mot pour mot les mêmes phrases toutes faites censées être basées sur ces mêmes études contestées qui tournent en boucle. Pour moi, tout cela n’est donc pas totalement convaincant même si c’est troublant.
Mais le pire, c’est que les agriculteurs m’ont l’air bien trop passifs pour que ce soit honnête. On m’explique que l’hormone laitière est super dangereuse et provoque énormément de problèmes de mammites et là, j’avoue que je ne comprends pas bien les agriculteurs américains. Seraient-ils plus stupides que tous les agriculteurs autour de moi, qui quand ils sont déçus par un produit en changent ? Pareil pour les OGM. On ne parle pas de machines-outils hyper coûteuses qui prennent des années pour être rentabilisés. Lorsqu’un agriculteur n’est pas satisfait de la semence qu’il a utilisée, il en change (cela fait bien longtemps que la plupart des agriculteurs rachètent tous les ans leurs semences dans les pays occidentaux), donc cette idée qu’il soit difficile de revenir en arrière dans le cas des OGM, j’avoue que j’aurais besoin de beaucoup plus d’arguments pour être convaincue qu’une simple affirmation. Les agriculteurs indiens pourraient très bien revenir à des semences traditionnelles moins chères. Pourquoi s’obstinent-ils à semer ces plantes (et même de plus en plus nombreux, semble-t-il) s’ils voient qu’elles n’apportent pas plus de bénéfices que d’inconvénients à leurs voisins qui les utilisent ? S’il y avait tant de problèmes, serait-ce économiquement viable ? Le produit ne disparaîtrait-il pas de lui-même ? Cela fait pourtant des années que ces semences sont utilisées. Voilà des questions que je me pose à la lecture de ce livre. Au moins, les quelques pages qui expliquent pourquoi les résultats du Roundup-ready ne sont pas miraculeux sont probablement les seules qui ne m’ont pas fait sursauter et je les ai même trouvées très convaincantes (ça fait quand même seulement une dizaine de pages sur l’ensemble) sauf que finalement, c’est une cause plus politique que technique qui explique leur échec (le maïs s’est effondré à l’exportation en raison du rejet européen). Donc, globalement, plus j’avançais dans ma lecture et plus j’étais sceptique. Le problème, c’est qu’à force d’accuser chaque chose et chacun de tous les maux, ça finit par paraître un peu trop pour être honnête. Ainsi, dans le chapitre sur le brevetage du vivant, les agriculteurs américains sont présentés comme de pauvres victimes innocentes. Alors là, je veux qu’on me les présente. Un agriculteur qu’on oblige à signer quelque chose contre son gré, c’est une espèce rare qu’il faut exposer. Les agriculteurs occidentaux sont aussi des chefs d’entreprise qui savent en général faire jouer la concurrence et s’ils signent ces contrats, encore une fois, c’est qu’ils y trouvent certainement leur compte d’un point de vue économique. Que l’on puisse reprocher des abus à l’entreprise, certainement, mais qu’on le fasse au moins avec honnêteté. Même quand la journaliste dénonce les méthodes odieuses de l’entreprise en cas de litige avec ces agriculteurs, on commence par s’insurger devant des cas de toute évidence scandaleux, avant que ça devienne vite n’importe quoi. Sur cinq exemples d’agriculteurs abusés, deux sont d’une mauvaise foi totale. Ainsi le témoignage le plus intéressant qui montre bien des pratiques peu reluisantes et qui est en soi très efficace est gâché par d’autres qui font rire tellement ils sont maladroits. Ainsi, un certain Mitchell Scruggs garde des semences OGM Monsanto pour l’année suivante (contrairement au contrat qu’il a accepté de signer) car il trouve ça cher et pour des raisons idéologiques. Si c’est trop cher et qu’il refuse le principe de ne pas garder ses semences, qu’est-ce qui l’empêchait de semer uniquement des non-OGM ? (D’autant que 25% de ses semences sont encore conventionnelles) Ne sait-il pas que Monsanto a des concurrents très bien positionnés qui se feraient certainement un plaisir de lui vendre d’autres semences, qu’elles soient OGM ou pas ? Et en plus, ça lui ferait les pieds à Monsanto de perdre son marché. Ca, c’est un mystère qui n’est pas vraiment résolu dans ce livre. Personnellement j’ai deux pistes, idiotie ou malhonnêteté mais faute d’indice... Donc, Michael préfère tricher avec la plus parfaite mauvaise foi et est fort surpris d’être poursuivi en justice.
Plus largement, la vision de l’agriculture véhiculée par ce livre me hérisse carrément. Ca se résume à « au temps de la bouillie bordelaise, c’était mieux » (d’ailleurs existe-t-il des études sur les méfaits du cuivre sur l’environnement ? Je serais curieuse de le savoir). Cette vision idyllique et simpliste de l’agriculture traditionnelle pure et naturelle et donc sans dangers (ah le bon vieux temps des charançons qui tombaient dans la soupe !) opposée à une agriculture moderne sans foi ni loi me porte sur les nerfs de plus en plus. L’idéologie de la journaliste est tellement visible que ça en devient désagréablement perturbant. Le vocabulaire béatifiant sur la nature laisse pantois. « Notre bonne vieille mère nature » (elle me semble au moins être aussi souvent capable de congeler ses enfants que d’être bonne pour eux, cette mère, me semble-t-il) est mise à toutes les sauces. Les seuls scientifiques qui ne sont pas corrompus sont ceux qui partagent son point de vue, même s’ils ne s’expriment pas dans leur domaine de compétence. Personnellement, ça ne me suffit pas pour être convaincue.
J’ai en fait parfois eu le sentiment qu’on essayait quasiment de me manipuler en faisant vibrer la corde sensible plutôt que mon cerveau. Un comble pour un ouvrage qui se veut dénonciateur. Dans le fond, je trouve que le vrai problème, ce n’est pas Monsanto mais c’est la FDA, dont le mode de fonctionnement est certes contestable, et le principe même du lobbying qui n’est pas l’apanage de Monsanto, loin de là, fait beaucoup de dégâts. Pour le reste, j’ai beaucoup de doutes, la démonstration me semblant trop être un mélange de théorie du complot et d’écologie de comptoir. Souvent, Monsanto est coupable là où il me semble que ce sont plutôt des Etats et leur politique ultra libérale qui sont responsables des abus. Je n’ai finalement pas le sentiment d’avoir appris grand-chose sur Monsanto. Mais ici, il s’agit d’ailleurs surtout d’une attaque contre ses produits et surtout les OGM. Certes, c’est une entreprise cynique dont les pouvoirs sont trop délayés pour que quiconque soit responsable. Certes, ils tentent de mettre en place des choses inacceptables, mais n’est-ce pas aux pouvoirs publics de jouer leur rôle alors ? Certes, les discours scientistes et béatifiants à base de « on va sauver le monde » d’une entreprise dont le premier objectif est le profit sont assez risibles. En dehors du gros scandale des années 70 (là, on est vraiment dans l’infâme), certaines choses sont encore inacceptables mais rien de ce qui est dans ce livre ne me semble effroyable au point de justifier un tel déchaînement.
Sur le fond, je ne sais donc pas trop ce que vaut ce livre faute de capacités scientifiques pour le décortiquer plus avant. Sur la forme, je le trouve souvent sujet à caution et il y a trop de points qui m’ont semblés aberrants pour que je puisse accepter le reste sans plus de preuves que des témoignages (comme pour les maïs ‘monstres’ du Mexique). Le problème ici, c’est que s’il y a démonstration de réels dangers, ils sont noyés dans la masse du flou artistique et des imprécisions (le mélange des causes de tout ce qui est dénoncé pour l’Argentine et l’Inde* –je me suis demandée à plusieurs reprise ce que Monsanto venait faire dans ces histoires - serait presque risible si ce n’était une enquête censée être sérieuse) et au bout d’un moment, je me dis que si elle se trompe sur un point, elle peut aussi bien se tromper sur tout et que si ce n’est pas le cas, comment savoir ce qui est vrai ou pas ? Dans le doute, je vais donc m’abstenir de prendre ce livre au sérieux. J’ai en fait surtout appris que la surproduction agricole est un problème (c’est déjà arrivé avant les OGM), que les gros exploitants argentins se comportent très mal vis à vis des petits paysans locaux et que le surendettement et l’usure en Inde sont très importants. Que cela soit directement lié à Monsanto me semble plus sujet à caution.
Je ne regrette pourtant pas ma lecture. Cela me permettra d’aborder désormais les documentaires télévisés avec beaucoup plus de circonspection. En regardant le documentaire filmé, je dois reconnaître que je n’aurais certainement pas eu le même regard critique. Lire un témoignage n’a pas le même impact que voir une sympathique victime en vrai et on n’a pas le temps de s’arrêter pour réfléchir vraiment à ce qu’on a entendu et à en percevoir les limites. Avec un livre, on est moins dans la compassion immédiate ou l’émotion et plus dans la réflexion.
Pour en revenir au livre, la thèse de Marie-Monique Robin est simple (voire simpliste ?) : Monsanto est prête à tout pour s’emparer de l’agriculture mondiale, ne se préoccupe pas de la santé humaine et met sur le marché uniquement des produits dangereux, que ce soient les PCB, le Roundup ou les OGM. Ses dirigeants infiltrent ou menacent tous les niveaux des Etats et toutes les institutions, y compris scientifiques.
Le début est incontestable, lorsque l’auteur évoque le scandale du PCB dans les années 70. Là, la journaliste s’appuie sur des faits reconnus et la seule chose qui me gêne un peu, c’est une forte tendance à vouloir faire pleurer dans les chaumières. S’en tenir aux faits me semble toujours plus probant que d’abuser d’un vocabulaire du domaine de l’émotion, phénomène assez généralisé et très agaçant du reportage de nos jours, qui passe encore moins à l’écrit. Cette petite facilité n’enlève rien à la démonstration cependant. Les problèmes posés par le lobbying et les liens entre économie et politique sont intéressants aussi mais parfois plus affirmés que clairement démontrés. Toute la partie sur les liens entre FDA (Food and Drug Administration, en charge de la réglementation légale pour la mise en place des produits sur le marché) et Monsanto (cela dit, ça marcherait avec la plupart des grandes entreprises) est intéressante. On voit que les liens étroits par le jeu des chaises musicales entre les entreprises et l’administration sont au moins discutables d’un point de vue éthique. Cela mériterait un livre en soi et pas juste quelques dizaines de pages.
La suite en revanche a fini par beaucoup me gêner. C’est un bel exemple d’une démonstration à charge avec une succession d’argumentations biaisées et d’affirmations assez vaguement étayées. Je ne prendrai qu’un exemple mais c’est loin d’être le seul. Le Roundup (un herbicide, produit phare de l’entreprise) est d’abord pris sous l’angle de l’argument de la publicité mensongère, ce qui est incontestable puisque la société a été condamnée : le produit n’est pas biodégradable à 100%. C’est alors que la démonstration part en vrille. De biodégradabilité, on passe à la toxicité (au passage, si le public fait l’amalgame entre les deux, j’imagine que ça ne nuira pas à la diabolisation voulue du produit et c’est toujours ça de gagné pour la suite) et alors, Marie-Monique Robin nous explique pourquoi il faut absolument interdire le Roundup et cette raison, c’est ... que des gens se suicident avec. Eh oui, j’ai découvert grâce à cet ouvrage qu’il ne faut pas boire de Round up (en tout cas, moins de ¾ de tasse, la dose létale).
Pour le reste, toute la démonstration (plus de la moitié du livre) est basée sur le prétendu danger lié aux OGM. Je n’ai pas vraiment d’avis sur le sujet. Le problème, c’est qu’il est difficile de juger si on manque de connaissances scientifiques comme c’est mon cas. Le principe « d’équivalence en substance » utilisé par la FDA (avec l’influence de Monsanto) pour faire passer la réglementation sur les OGM aux Etats-Unis est contesté par les anti-OGM. Mais là, j’avoue avoir eu du mal à suivre l’explication. Il y a aussi bataille d’experts sur des études, chacun y allant de son interprétation. Voici une étude qui est mise en cause par certains témoins : http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/reprint/1.... J’ai un peu cherché ce que les partisans OGM disaient de cette étude et en comparant avec ce que dit le chercheur interrogé par Marie-Monique Robin, il semblerait que ce soient plutôt ses adversaires qui aient raison puisque page 7, on peut lire que « There were no gross pathologic findings observed at necropsy that were considered related to genetic modification. However, the livers of several animals (males predominately) fed GTS and parental-line ground soy beans appeared a darker brown at necropsy; the liver of one diet control male also appeared darker. Because rats fed processed GTS and parental-line soybean meal did not exhibit a similar incidence of darker brown livers at necropsy, this finding may have been related to feeding rats high dietary levels of ground soybeans. Because this finding occurred both in rats fed ground GTS and in rats fed ground parental-line soybeans, it was not considered to be related to genetic modification. ». Bien sûr, là, je suis assez circonspecte parce que je ne suis pas scientifique et il y a forcément des termes qui m’échappent, donc c’est difficile d’avoir un avis absolument tranché.
Mais dès que l’on sortait de l’explication purement scientifique, là encore, beaucoup d’arguments sont à la limite de la mauvaise foi. Comme lorsqu’elle tire des conclusions très ‘personnelles’ de réponses de Robert Shapiro (ancien PDG de Monsanto). Il est convaincu de la nécessité pour Monsanto de se lancer dans le développement durable et pense que les OGM en font partie, et pourtant il n’achète pas de produits laitiers biologiques (en relation avec le rBGH, l’hormone laitière). Ah ah ! Pris en flagrant délit ! De quoi je ne sais pas mais apparemment, pour l’auteur, c’est un signe. Bon, comme je suis plutôt de l'avis de ce méchant homme, même si j’ai tendance à penser que Monsanto n’est pas forcément le meilleur symbole de développement durable, je ne vois pas trop où est le problème.
Ensuite, en suivant les liens donnés, j’ai eu quelques surprises. On a l’impression par exemple que de multiples documents viennent affirmer la toxicité des OGM. En suivant les liens, je me suis aperçue qu’en fait, tout tourne toujours autour de deux ou trois mêmes études (contestées par le reste de la communauté scientifique mais c’est tellement nébuleux que à part de la confusion, ça ne m’a pas apporté de réponse et je n’ai pas réussi à me faire d’opinion entre complot mondial d’un côté et excès de diabolisation de l’autre), qui sont reprises à l’infini par les anti-OGM. Les liens renvoient aussi très souvent à des articles de journaux étrangers qui utilisent les mêmes sources sans jamais les mettre en doute (alors que, quand tout ce qu’on trouve est sous-tendu par une idéologie, même sympathique à priori, cela devrait être questionné, me semble-t-il, que ce soit dans le domaine économique, politique ou environnemental). Là encore, la plupart des liens renvoient vers des organisations écologistes (dont la composition des comités scientifiques prêtent parfois à rire en plus), anti-OGM par principe et quand on essaie de voir sur quoi elles se basent, c’est le flou le plus total, toutes reprenant mot pour mot les mêmes phrases toutes faites censées être basées sur ces mêmes études contestées qui tournent en boucle. Pour moi, tout cela n’est donc pas totalement convaincant même si c’est troublant.
Mais le pire, c’est que les agriculteurs m’ont l’air bien trop passifs pour que ce soit honnête. On m’explique que l’hormone laitière est super dangereuse et provoque énormément de problèmes de mammites et là, j’avoue que je ne comprends pas bien les agriculteurs américains. Seraient-ils plus stupides que tous les agriculteurs autour de moi, qui quand ils sont déçus par un produit en changent ? Pareil pour les OGM. On ne parle pas de machines-outils hyper coûteuses qui prennent des années pour être rentabilisés. Lorsqu’un agriculteur n’est pas satisfait de la semence qu’il a utilisée, il en change (cela fait bien longtemps que la plupart des agriculteurs rachètent tous les ans leurs semences dans les pays occidentaux), donc cette idée qu’il soit difficile de revenir en arrière dans le cas des OGM, j’avoue que j’aurais besoin de beaucoup plus d’arguments pour être convaincue qu’une simple affirmation. Les agriculteurs indiens pourraient très bien revenir à des semences traditionnelles moins chères. Pourquoi s’obstinent-ils à semer ces plantes (et même de plus en plus nombreux, semble-t-il) s’ils voient qu’elles n’apportent pas plus de bénéfices que d’inconvénients à leurs voisins qui les utilisent ? S’il y avait tant de problèmes, serait-ce économiquement viable ? Le produit ne disparaîtrait-il pas de lui-même ? Cela fait pourtant des années que ces semences sont utilisées. Voilà des questions que je me pose à la lecture de ce livre. Au moins, les quelques pages qui expliquent pourquoi les résultats du Roundup-ready ne sont pas miraculeux sont probablement les seules qui ne m’ont pas fait sursauter et je les ai même trouvées très convaincantes (ça fait quand même seulement une dizaine de pages sur l’ensemble) sauf que finalement, c’est une cause plus politique que technique qui explique leur échec (le maïs s’est effondré à l’exportation en raison du rejet européen). Donc, globalement, plus j’avançais dans ma lecture et plus j’étais sceptique. Le problème, c’est qu’à force d’accuser chaque chose et chacun de tous les maux, ça finit par paraître un peu trop pour être honnête. Ainsi, dans le chapitre sur le brevetage du vivant, les agriculteurs américains sont présentés comme de pauvres victimes innocentes. Alors là, je veux qu’on me les présente. Un agriculteur qu’on oblige à signer quelque chose contre son gré, c’est une espèce rare qu’il faut exposer. Les agriculteurs occidentaux sont aussi des chefs d’entreprise qui savent en général faire jouer la concurrence et s’ils signent ces contrats, encore une fois, c’est qu’ils y trouvent certainement leur compte d’un point de vue économique. Que l’on puisse reprocher des abus à l’entreprise, certainement, mais qu’on le fasse au moins avec honnêteté. Même quand la journaliste dénonce les méthodes odieuses de l’entreprise en cas de litige avec ces agriculteurs, on commence par s’insurger devant des cas de toute évidence scandaleux, avant que ça devienne vite n’importe quoi. Sur cinq exemples d’agriculteurs abusés, deux sont d’une mauvaise foi totale. Ainsi le témoignage le plus intéressant qui montre bien des pratiques peu reluisantes et qui est en soi très efficace est gâché par d’autres qui font rire tellement ils sont maladroits. Ainsi, un certain Mitchell Scruggs garde des semences OGM Monsanto pour l’année suivante (contrairement au contrat qu’il a accepté de signer) car il trouve ça cher et pour des raisons idéologiques. Si c’est trop cher et qu’il refuse le principe de ne pas garder ses semences, qu’est-ce qui l’empêchait de semer uniquement des non-OGM ? (D’autant que 25% de ses semences sont encore conventionnelles) Ne sait-il pas que Monsanto a des concurrents très bien positionnés qui se feraient certainement un plaisir de lui vendre d’autres semences, qu’elles soient OGM ou pas ? Et en plus, ça lui ferait les pieds à Monsanto de perdre son marché. Ca, c’est un mystère qui n’est pas vraiment résolu dans ce livre. Personnellement j’ai deux pistes, idiotie ou malhonnêteté mais faute d’indice... Donc, Michael préfère tricher avec la plus parfaite mauvaise foi et est fort surpris d’être poursuivi en justice.
Plus largement, la vision de l’agriculture véhiculée par ce livre me hérisse carrément. Ca se résume à « au temps de la bouillie bordelaise, c’était mieux » (d’ailleurs existe-t-il des études sur les méfaits du cuivre sur l’environnement ? Je serais curieuse de le savoir). Cette vision idyllique et simpliste de l’agriculture traditionnelle pure et naturelle et donc sans dangers (ah le bon vieux temps des charançons qui tombaient dans la soupe !) opposée à une agriculture moderne sans foi ni loi me porte sur les nerfs de plus en plus. L’idéologie de la journaliste est tellement visible que ça en devient désagréablement perturbant. Le vocabulaire béatifiant sur la nature laisse pantois. « Notre bonne vieille mère nature » (elle me semble au moins être aussi souvent capable de congeler ses enfants que d’être bonne pour eux, cette mère, me semble-t-il) est mise à toutes les sauces. Les seuls scientifiques qui ne sont pas corrompus sont ceux qui partagent son point de vue, même s’ils ne s’expriment pas dans leur domaine de compétence. Personnellement, ça ne me suffit pas pour être convaincue.
J’ai en fait parfois eu le sentiment qu’on essayait quasiment de me manipuler en faisant vibrer la corde sensible plutôt que mon cerveau. Un comble pour un ouvrage qui se veut dénonciateur. Dans le fond, je trouve que le vrai problème, ce n’est pas Monsanto mais c’est la FDA, dont le mode de fonctionnement est certes contestable, et le principe même du lobbying qui n’est pas l’apanage de Monsanto, loin de là, fait beaucoup de dégâts. Pour le reste, j’ai beaucoup de doutes, la démonstration me semblant trop être un mélange de théorie du complot et d’écologie de comptoir. Souvent, Monsanto est coupable là où il me semble que ce sont plutôt des Etats et leur politique ultra libérale qui sont responsables des abus. Je n’ai finalement pas le sentiment d’avoir appris grand-chose sur Monsanto. Mais ici, il s’agit d’ailleurs surtout d’une attaque contre ses produits et surtout les OGM. Certes, c’est une entreprise cynique dont les pouvoirs sont trop délayés pour que quiconque soit responsable. Certes, ils tentent de mettre en place des choses inacceptables, mais n’est-ce pas aux pouvoirs publics de jouer leur rôle alors ? Certes, les discours scientistes et béatifiants à base de « on va sauver le monde » d’une entreprise dont le premier objectif est le profit sont assez risibles. En dehors du gros scandale des années 70 (là, on est vraiment dans l’infâme), certaines choses sont encore inacceptables mais rien de ce qui est dans ce livre ne me semble effroyable au point de justifier un tel déchaînement.
Sur le fond, je ne sais donc pas trop ce que vaut ce livre faute de capacités scientifiques pour le décortiquer plus avant. Sur la forme, je le trouve souvent sujet à caution et il y a trop de points qui m’ont semblés aberrants pour que je puisse accepter le reste sans plus de preuves que des témoignages (comme pour les maïs ‘monstres’ du Mexique). Le problème ici, c’est que s’il y a démonstration de réels dangers, ils sont noyés dans la masse du flou artistique et des imprécisions (le mélange des causes de tout ce qui est dénoncé pour l’Argentine et l’Inde* –je me suis demandée à plusieurs reprise ce que Monsanto venait faire dans ces histoires - serait presque risible si ce n’était une enquête censée être sérieuse) et au bout d’un moment, je me dis que si elle se trompe sur un point, elle peut aussi bien se tromper sur tout et que si ce n’est pas le cas, comment savoir ce qui est vrai ou pas ? Dans le doute, je vais donc m’abstenir de prendre ce livre au sérieux. J’ai en fait surtout appris que la surproduction agricole est un problème (c’est déjà arrivé avant les OGM), que les gros exploitants argentins se comportent très mal vis à vis des petits paysans locaux et que le surendettement et l’usure en Inde sont très importants. Que cela soit directement lié à Monsanto me semble plus sujet à caution.
Je ne regrette pourtant pas ma lecture. Cela me permettra d’aborder désormais les documentaires télévisés avec beaucoup plus de circonspection. En regardant le documentaire filmé, je dois reconnaître que je n’aurais certainement pas eu le même regard critique. Lire un témoignage n’a pas le même impact que voir une sympathique victime en vrai et on n’a pas le temps de s’arrêter pour réfléchir vraiment à ce qu’on a entendu et à en percevoir les limites. Avec un livre, on est moins dans la compassion immédiate ou l’émotion et plus dans la réflexion.
October 20, 2022
[Thoughts from 2011-ish] Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), excessive use of pesticides and herbicides, corruption, conspiracy. Monsanto and all biotech companies have it all.
This book lays out the proof that Monsanto knows its products are destructive, hazardous carcinogens, but conceals the studies and squashes anyone who dares to speak out against it. It buys the government, installs its people in government offices to pass legislation that favor itself, and conspires with other businesses globally (via the WTO, which is nothing but a cartel made of the world’s largest businesses that drafts legislation for the politicians to pass) to extend its reach into other countries.
It is responsible for the manufacture of the most toxic substances known to man (PCBs and dioxins), marketed them knowing full well they were dangerous, but suppressed the knowledge to protect its business. It is doing the same thing with GMOs today.
This is a scary book. All the tidbits of information I’ve heard over the years collected in one place about the dangers of GMOs, how they are not safe and predictable and have delivered none of their promises except to rob farmers of their autonomy so they will be forced to rely on seeds and pesticide from a multinational corporation. It has turned farmers in South America and India into serfs, and we’re well on the way to it happening in the USA. Pretty soon there will be no farmers. Just giant companies and investors who own the land and pay low-wage temp-workers to work the land.
GMOs are not the same as hybridization. Humans have been selective breeding for thousands of years, and it does not involve taking DNA from one species and forcing it into another. GMOs have all sorts of unpredictable effects. The scientists don’t have control over where the new gene is inserted into the host organism, so it could interrupt critical functions. Cross-breeding with non-GMO varieties is inevitable, and the results are even more chaotic. Plants become weak and die, people eating them get sick, rats that consume them develop tumors and immune system responses. All of these things were tested, but Monsanto ignored the tests and moved everything to market as quick as possible so money could continue to roll in. Monsanto and all companies like it got the government to push GMOs through without asking these questions.
This business is in everyone’s pocket, from the government to the media to the scientific community itself, and the company has done everything to secure profits at the expense of human life. Profit motive is destroying the world. Governments are not conspiring to force liberalism and welfare states on the people—it’s just the opposite. They dismantle welfare states and allow multibillion-dollar companies to come in and subdue the people. It’s all happening right before our eyes, and yet few are raising any alarm bells. Too much money at stake.
Michael Crichton was right. When science advances for the purpose of profit instead of knowledge, safety is ignored and people die. He had been following all the news regarding biotechnology during the 80s all the way up until his death, and it clearly worried him a great deal. He tried to warn people, but alas all we got to see was dinosaurs on a big screen with little mention of the unpredictable nature of gene manipulation, and none of the profit-hungry nature of corporations that will demolish entire countries just to enrich their investors and executives.
One question the book does not answer adequately is why this is allowed to happen. It’s hard to believe this is simply a matter of profit motive. Someone in some government must have noticed. The people behind the UN and the various governments of the world can’t be so stupid not to recognize putting a new type of plant in the wild without checking it for safety will hurt people and the whole ecosystem. Nobody can be that ignorant and trusting of a giant corporation not to suspect something. They know, and even a company acting on pure self-interest should not have this much power. Something else must be going on.
[October 2022: The story of Monsanto is part of a larger picture of business influencing government. Corporations know their products are harmful but they sell them anyway, buying science and government in the process because it makes money. This has happened time and time again. DDT, tobacco, Teflon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cCkA... Every single time science concludes something is dangerous, industry rushes in to distort the truth because that’s how they make money. While the facts surrounding GMO are still murky, we have seen this pattern before. It’s likely only a matter of time before we find out just how harmful they are, with or without the herbicides. The more I read, the more I realize this is not conspiracy. This is business.]
This book lays out the proof that Monsanto knows its products are destructive, hazardous carcinogens, but conceals the studies and squashes anyone who dares to speak out against it. It buys the government, installs its people in government offices to pass legislation that favor itself, and conspires with other businesses globally (via the WTO, which is nothing but a cartel made of the world’s largest businesses that drafts legislation for the politicians to pass) to extend its reach into other countries.
It is responsible for the manufacture of the most toxic substances known to man (PCBs and dioxins), marketed them knowing full well they were dangerous, but suppressed the knowledge to protect its business. It is doing the same thing with GMOs today.
This is a scary book. All the tidbits of information I’ve heard over the years collected in one place about the dangers of GMOs, how they are not safe and predictable and have delivered none of their promises except to rob farmers of their autonomy so they will be forced to rely on seeds and pesticide from a multinational corporation. It has turned farmers in South America and India into serfs, and we’re well on the way to it happening in the USA. Pretty soon there will be no farmers. Just giant companies and investors who own the land and pay low-wage temp-workers to work the land.
GMOs are not the same as hybridization. Humans have been selective breeding for thousands of years, and it does not involve taking DNA from one species and forcing it into another. GMOs have all sorts of unpredictable effects. The scientists don’t have control over where the new gene is inserted into the host organism, so it could interrupt critical functions. Cross-breeding with non-GMO varieties is inevitable, and the results are even more chaotic. Plants become weak and die, people eating them get sick, rats that consume them develop tumors and immune system responses. All of these things were tested, but Monsanto ignored the tests and moved everything to market as quick as possible so money could continue to roll in. Monsanto and all companies like it got the government to push GMOs through without asking these questions.
This business is in everyone’s pocket, from the government to the media to the scientific community itself, and the company has done everything to secure profits at the expense of human life. Profit motive is destroying the world. Governments are not conspiring to force liberalism and welfare states on the people—it’s just the opposite. They dismantle welfare states and allow multibillion-dollar companies to come in and subdue the people. It’s all happening right before our eyes, and yet few are raising any alarm bells. Too much money at stake.
Michael Crichton was right. When science advances for the purpose of profit instead of knowledge, safety is ignored and people die. He had been following all the news regarding biotechnology during the 80s all the way up until his death, and it clearly worried him a great deal. He tried to warn people, but alas all we got to see was dinosaurs on a big screen with little mention of the unpredictable nature of gene manipulation, and none of the profit-hungry nature of corporations that will demolish entire countries just to enrich their investors and executives.
One question the book does not answer adequately is why this is allowed to happen. It’s hard to believe this is simply a matter of profit motive. Someone in some government must have noticed. The people behind the UN and the various governments of the world can’t be so stupid not to recognize putting a new type of plant in the wild without checking it for safety will hurt people and the whole ecosystem. Nobody can be that ignorant and trusting of a giant corporation not to suspect something. They know, and even a company acting on pure self-interest should not have this much power. Something else must be going on.
[October 2022: The story of Monsanto is part of a larger picture of business influencing government. Corporations know their products are harmful but they sell them anyway, buying science and government in the process because it makes money. This has happened time and time again. DDT, tobacco, Teflon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cCkA... Every single time science concludes something is dangerous, industry rushes in to distort the truth because that’s how they make money. While the facts surrounding GMO are still murky, we have seen this pattern before. It’s likely only a matter of time before we find out just how harmful they are, with or without the herbicides. The more I read, the more I realize this is not conspiracy. This is business.]
February 26, 2021
Read this please! Even if you just skim it over a span of months. My take-away from this book is:
1. I need to do even more research, but on topics I never gave any consideration to prior to reading this book.
2. You truly, unfortunately cannot trust the government/"experts"/propaganda to have your best interests or health in mind. This includes Republicans and Democrats, renowned science magazines/websites, and, obviously, giant corporations.
3. Organic is real! I feel like through the early 2000's - even now, organic products are presented in a pretentious, hippie, helicopter-mom type of light. After reading this, "organic" & "non-GMO" take on a very important meaning.
4. America is 100% a business first. Organic products are more expensive for many reasons, but conventional & GMO's are contributing to America's pockets in the long-run. Long-term effects aren't entirely known because the companies producing & selling them do not do real science to understand them before marketing them. It's likely these products can cause cancer & deformities, & birth defects among other complications.
The author did a ton of research, countless interviews, and was in the process of directing a documentary on Monsanto, as well, while writing this book. It's somewhat dated having been published in 2008, but that only means there's more insidious stuff to look up and learn at this point (like that Monsanto is now owned by Bayer).
1. I need to do even more research, but on topics I never gave any consideration to prior to reading this book.
2. You truly, unfortunately cannot trust the government/"experts"/propaganda to have your best interests or health in mind. This includes Republicans and Democrats, renowned science magazines/websites, and, obviously, giant corporations.
3. Organic is real! I feel like through the early 2000's - even now, organic products are presented in a pretentious, hippie, helicopter-mom type of light. After reading this, "organic" & "non-GMO" take on a very important meaning.
4. America is 100% a business first. Organic products are more expensive for many reasons, but conventional & GMO's are contributing to America's pockets in the long-run. Long-term effects aren't entirely known because the companies producing & selling them do not do real science to understand them before marketing them. It's likely these products can cause cancer & deformities, & birth defects among other complications.
The author did a ton of research, countless interviews, and was in the process of directing a documentary on Monsanto, as well, while writing this book. It's somewhat dated having been published in 2008, but that only means there's more insidious stuff to look up and learn at this point (like that Monsanto is now owned by Bayer).
January 10, 2024
I read this book as part of my research for a paper I wrote at university, which was based very much on this book and it helped me achieve a first (74%) for the paper.
The book itself is an eye-opening and is a well-researched investigation of the history and practices of Monsanto, the world's leading producer of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The author exposes how Monsanto has been involved in creating and spreading harmful chemicals and herbicides, such as PCBs and Agent Orange, and how it has manipulated science, politics, and the media to expand its control over the global food supply. The book also reveals the devastating impacts of Monsanto's GMOs on the environment, biodiversity, farmers' rights, and human health. The book is written in a clear and engaging style, with plenty of evidence and testimonies from various sources. It is a must-read for anyone who cares about the future of our food and our planet.
The book itself is an eye-opening and is a well-researched investigation of the history and practices of Monsanto, the world's leading producer of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The author exposes how Monsanto has been involved in creating and spreading harmful chemicals and herbicides, such as PCBs and Agent Orange, and how it has manipulated science, politics, and the media to expand its control over the global food supply. The book also reveals the devastating impacts of Monsanto's GMOs on the environment, biodiversity, farmers' rights, and human health. The book is written in a clear and engaging style, with plenty of evidence and testimonies from various sources. It is a must-read for anyone who cares about the future of our food and our planet.
October 23, 2024
The author is remarkably French in a way that gives this book a little ~je ne cais quoi~.
Key quotes:
1. “she explained in respectable French”
2. “My bones started to dissolve and come out of my toes. One day, I was washing my feet, and a piece of bone fell into my hand.”
3. “He explained to me in impeccable French.”
Great book about chemicals, corn, and good old fashion lawsuits.
Key quotes:
1. “she explained in respectable French”
2. “My bones started to dissolve and come out of my toes. One day, I was washing my feet, and a piece of bone fell into my hand.”
3. “He explained to me in impeccable French.”
Great book about chemicals, corn, and good old fashion lawsuits.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 125 reviews