Running head: DOES MONSANTO DESERVE IMMUNITY

Does Monsanto Deserve Immunity from Federal Courts? Alexander Van Dyke Salt Lake Community College ENGL 2010-002

DOES MONSANTO DESERVE IMMUNITY At times, motion pictures, books, and other forms of popular media portray dystopian futures. Movies such as The Terminator, Robocop, Alien, and Resident Evil place culpability for societys downfall on large, overly powerful and unethical corporations with government ties. While these movies are works of fiction, the idea that large corporations focus on their own profits rather than the public good is definitely not farfetched. Political commentators attempt to draw parallels between these intellectual works and current issues. More often than not, these claims are unfounded and radical conspiracy theories. However, sometimes there is some truth to these comparisons that cannot be discarded. For example, a piece of legislation was signed into law in March of 2013 known as the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2013. One particularly disturbing section of this legislation is the Farmer Assurance Provision, also known by critics as the Monsanto Protection Act. It essentially dictates that if the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) decides that a genetically modified crop or product that they previously approved for use is questioned for safety or other reasons, no judicial action can be taken against the manufacturer. This allows a biotechnology firm to continue producing these seeds, does not stop their sale to farmers who plant them, and does not remove these potentially dangerous foods from the market essentially eliminating the firms product liability. Supporters of this legislation argue that these large corporations should be allowed to fast track the release of their products in order to feed the poor of developing nations, enrich crops with additional nutrients, and to infuse crops with pesticides in order to decrease spraying (Qaim, 2010, par. 1-22). However, despite these perceived benefits, the motives and history of the companies granted these new benefits have recently come under great scrutiny particularly the Monsanto Company. The magnitude of information on the history of this companys actions only serves to solidify the publics apprehension. Because of the current

DOES MONSANTO DESERVE IMMUNITY issues surrounding the viability of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), past acts of severe social irresponsibility, and numerous conflicts of interest within the United States government, the Monsanto Company should not be given the benefits provided by the Farmer Assurance Provision of 2013s Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act. The most well-known and publically debated issue surrounding genetically modified organisms is their safety and environmental viability. Many professionals in the scientific community generally discard any anti-GMO claimsregarding them as bogus conspiracy theories. However, some claims are not refuted as easily. For instance, the increase in occurrences of colony collapse disorder (CCD) in American bee colonies cannot be overlooked. A category of pesticides known as neonicotinoids has been used to spray crops and is found in common home gardening items. Neonicotinoids are toxins which greatly affect the nervous system of insects. The pesticide invades a plants pollen and nectar, which proceeds to alter the genetic structure of the crop. This, in turn, disorients and is a detriment to the homing ability of the beesultimately rendering them unable to locate the hive (Schiffman, 2012, par.3-5). Not only is this terrible for consumers (as honey is both a healthy and delectable sweetener), but also for plant life worldwide. It is safe to assume that as more colonies collapse, the spread of pollen from plant to plant will diminish, and will threaten many plant species and ecosystems. However, those who support the practice and application of genetic modification argue that there are too many potential benefits to genetically modified food, and that failing to proceed with their development and sale is foolish. A potentially promising example that these proponents cite is an insect-resistant strain of cotton, known as Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) cotton. Various studies of Indias booming cotton industry show that the use of Bt cotton, rather than conventional seeds, has increased the countrys cotton yield significantly. This has increased the

DOES MONSANTO DESERVE IMMUNITY cotton growers annual profits by an estimated $2,070,000 U.S. nationwide, and has indirectly aided Indias economy by strengthening their cotton market (Qaim, 2010, p. 555). However, the same studies also indicate that the results can only be applied to specific areas and circumstances; the increased success and profits are not as defined in countries such as the United States or Australia (Qaim, 2010, p. 552-555). Insecticide infused crops and Bt cotton, however, are not the only genetically modified organisms to be the victims of severe scrutiny. Genetically modified soys safety has also been a recent point of argument. Monsantos Roundup Ready herbicide-resistant soy is grown in 91% of U.S. soybean fields (Smith, 2010, par. 1). A recent, routine study performed by biologist Alexey V. Surov of the Institute of Ecology for the Russian Academy of Sciences and the National Association for Gene Security has shown that this genetically modified crop can cause fatal health problems in hamsters. While feeding GM soy to one group and conventional soy to another, after a few generations of reproduction, the GM fed hamsters had a rate of reproductive sterility and infant mortality that was exponentially higher than that of the control group (Smith, 2010, par. 2-9). In reporting his results, Surov asserts: We have no right to use GMOs until we understand the possible adverse effects, not only to ourselves but to future generations as well. We definitely need fully detailed studies to clarify this. Any type of contamination has to be tested before we consume it, and GMO is just one of them. (Smith, 2010, par. 26) By making this claim, Surov isnt blatantly attacking the biotechnology industry. He is merely stating, most agreeably, that the genetic modification of food is merely another public safety concern which should be researched more thoroughly than it currently is. To allow this food to be placed on the supermarket shelves without its safety guaranteed, allegedly for the betterment

DOES MONSANTO DESERVE IMMUNITY of human prosperity is pure hypocrisy; this essentially turns populations into a large pool of test animals. While the viability of these products is a significant concern, examining the track record of the companies who supply our food, particularly the Monsanto Company, is extremely pertinent. Another shocking aspect of allowing the Monsanto Company to have immunity from federal court injunctions is the fact that this company has a history of social irresponsibility that should worry the people of this country. One only needs to look at the Vietnam War as an example. Operation Ranch Hand was a military project that spanned nearly a decade (19621971) of the conflict in Southeast Asia. Its purpose was to drop mass amounts of herbicide on South Vietnamese crops (jeopardizing their food supply) and also to clear strategic paths through the jungle so that enemy troops had no ground cover. The 19 million gallons of herbicide used, primarily manufactured by the Monsanto Company, were known as Agent White, Agent Pink, Agent Blue, and the highly utilized (over 11 million gallons) Agent Orange. Dioxin, a byproduct of one of the ingredients in the Agent chemicals, is toxic and is extremely harmful to humans. In Agent Orange, dioxin levels were concentrated in excess of 1,000 times the amount found in common domestic herbicides (Warwick, 1998, par.1-3). Monsanto performed two studies which were reportedly fraudulent on dioxins, claiming that exposure does not increase your risk to contracting cancer. However, less biased studies discovered the opposite; dioxin exposure has been linked to a number of ailments including cancers, chloroacne, and liver diseases. American troops were affected by their exposure, as well as an estimated 500,000 children born in Vietnam with dioxin exposure related deformities since the 1960s (Warwick, 1998, par. 4-10). The chemicals used in Operation Ranch Hand are not the only dangerous chemicals which Monsanto has produced.

DOES MONSANTO DESERVE IMMUNITY Another extremely toxic chemical which Monsanto has produced in the past is DDT. DDT, or Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, is an extremely effective pesticide. Due to its effectiveness, it was a popular pesticide which was used from the end of World War 2 until the early 1970s when its commercial use was banned by many governments. Apart from being particularly effective at repelling and or killing insects, it has been known to harm other animalsincluding humans. DDT, however, is still used for public health reasons in countries with a prominent presence of malaria. Supporters of DDT usage for malaria prevention encourage indoor residual spraying (IRS) in order to eliminate the insects which carry the illness. As of 2006, the World Health Organization and the U.S. Agency for International Development have even openly endorsed this usage (Eskenazi et al, 2009, p.1359). However, research has indicated that DDT exposure has been linked to various cancers, miscarriage, decreased periods of lactation in new mothers, urogenital birth defects, earlier onsets of puberty, infertility, and neurodevelopmental disorders. Whats more is that these studies were merely based off of cases of outdoor exposure (Eskenazi et al, 2009, p. 1361-1364). It is difficult to predict exactly how much more these people have been affected by an increased indoor concentration, but it is safe to assume that any study conducted to determine the effects of indoor residual spraying would show even more alarming results. The manufacture and sale of products which are known to be ultimately fatal to humans is an extremely reckless act, however, it is not the only method by which a corporation can be socially irresponsible. Monsanto has also engaged in business with companies who have acted unethically at best. One particular business partner of Monsanto is, quite shockingly, Academi (formerly known as Blackwater USA). Academi is a privatized military contractor which has been and is currently employed by a variety of nations and large organizations. Their employees are often

DOES MONSANTO DESERVE IMMUNITY retired servicemen or other types of professionally trained operatives. For the past five years, Academi has been contracted by the Monsanto Company to act as an intelligence gathering force. Through the Total Intelligence Solutions agency within Academi, they have allegedly gathered information on activist groups and other skeptics, and have sent reports on their findings to Monsanto officials (Scahill, 2010, p.22-24). While some may argue that they are merely gathering data for market research, Academi has also offered Monsanto other services. Regarding a conversation he had with Kevin Wilson, Monsantos security manager for global issues, Total Intelligence chairman Cofer Black stated that [he] understands that we can span collection from internet, to reach out, to boots on the ground on legit bases protecting the Monsanto [brand] name. And, additionally that Total Intelligence would develop into acting as [the] intel arm of Monsanto (Scahill, 2010, p. 23). What should concern Americans is the fact that he mentions boots on the ground. This claim illuminates the worries of those who claim that the federal government and large corporations are attempting to tighten the stranglehold which they have on both the domestic and worldwide food supply. Biotechnology firms such as Monsanto should have marketing departments, not contracted soldiers carrying out their information gathering. It would be less disturbing to the public if the security firm in question was not already embroiled with ethical controversy. Unless one has been living under a rock for the past decade, theres a moderate chance that they have heard of the atrocities that Academi employees have committed. One example is the incident which happened on September 16, 2007 in the Nissour Square area of Baghdad, Iraq. In this incident, Academi security operatives opened fire in a busy Baghdad intersection, killing 17 innocent civilians in cold blood and wounding an additional 20. A shocking illustration of their ruthlessness is that among the victims, there was even a nine-year-old child

DOES MONSANTO DESERVE IMMUNITY (Devereaux, 2012, par1-5). F.B.I investigators found that at least 14 of the 17 killings were entirely unjustified and violated the deadly-force rules imposed on security contractors (Johnston, 2007, par.1). Manslaughter charges were brought upon the five Academi employees, but were soon dropped due to a lack of admissible evidence. However, as of April 2011, a U.S. federal appeals court reinstated the charges (Deveraux, 2012, par. 10-11). It is hard to believe in the benevolence of a company such as Monsanto, who is operating under the alleged premise of feeding the worlds starving masses, when they hire a security firm with such an abhorrent track record. It seems that they wish to employ a security firm with a history of not following the law (in a deadly manner) in order to further their cause by force. Additionally, when you sell dangerous products and engage in unethical operations, it is also beneficial to have friends in high places in government. The Monsanto Company has far too many ties with federal government officials which should not be ignored. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, a former litigator for Monsanto, has even ruled on two cases involving his former employer. Furthermore, he has ruled in their favor both times (Atkins, n.d., par.1-4). The United States code is a document which contains permanent federal legislation in this country. In regards to judicial disqualification (recusal), it does not expressly state that a judge must recuse himself if the plaintiff or defendant was their former employer. However, it does express that anything which could potentially cause bias or impartiality is grounds for judicial disqualification. While it does take a majority of justices agreeing with a position in order for a party to gain a favorable court decision, even having one partial member in the Supreme Court (without recusing themselves) is highly unacceptable. The judicial branch is a very powerful lawmaking body in the United States, one so large that every member must be as objective as possible in their rulings. Perhaps

DOES MONSANTO DESERVE IMMUNITY Thomas should learn from his colleague, Justice Stephen Breyer, who recused himself recently in Monsanto v. Geertson Seed Farm. Stephen Breyers brother, U.S. District Court Judge Charles R. Breyer, had previously ruled on the case in a lower court. Justice Breyer believed that this might affect his decision and respectfully recused himself from the case (Atkins, n.d., par.12). Other members of the federal government have also been found to have ties to the Monsanto Company. Michael Taylor, USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) administrator and FDA (Food and Drug Administration) deputy commissioner, was formerly a lobbyist for Monsanto. Margaret Miller, now a FDA administrator, was once a Monsanto employee. Islam Siddiqui, who drafted the USDA food standards which allows irradiated and GM foods to be labeled as organic, was also a former Monsanto lobbyist. The USDA, EPA, and President Obamas Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations have all had Monsanto board members in their ranks (Swanson, 2013, par. 7-10). Many people in this country believe that the federal government has entirely too much power, and furthermore, that this power is rarely used for the greater good of American citizens. Allowing this type of malfeasance and nepotism to occur within our government, especially at a time when the safety of our food supply is potentially in jeopardy, only serves to fan the flames of the publics distrust. As Americans, we hope that the representatives we elect will do what is right for us when drafting legislation. It is plain to see that the Farmer Assurance Provision does not serve the greater good of the citizens of this country. It only seems to aid large corporationsparticularly Monsantoin adding to their profits. With legislation such as this, companies who sell potentially unviable genetically modified products can do so without consequences. This type of immunity will almost certainly lead to more dangerous products being put on our supermarket shelves, and encourages morally inept acts. Additionally, former Monsanto employees working

DOES MONSANTO DESERVE IMMUNITY in government threaten the objective impartiality that is vital in the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of government. We cannot sit back and allow this type of legislation to become enacted.

10

DOES MONSANTO DESERVE IMMUNITY References Atkins, K. (n.d.). Breyer recuses self in Monsanto; critics ask: why didnt Thomas?. Lawyers USA. Retrieved on July 14, 2013 from the World Wide Web: http://lawyersusaonline.com/dcdicta/2010/04/28/breyer-recused-in-monsanto-criticsask-why-didnt-thomas/ Devereaux, R. (June 5, 2012). Blackwater guards lose bid to appeal charges in Iraqi civilian shooting case. The Guardian. Retrieved on July 20, 2013 from the World Wide Web: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/05/blackwater-guards-lose-appeal-iraqshooting Eskenazi, B., Chevrier, J., Rosas, L., Anderson, H. A., Bornman, M. S., Bouwman, H., & ... Stapleton, D. (2009). The Pine River statement: human health consequences of DDT use. Environmental Health Perspectives, 117(9), p. 1359-1367. Johnston, D., & Broder, J. (November 14, 2007). F.B.I. says guards killed 14 Iraqis without cause. The New York Times. Retrieved on July 14, 2013 from the World Wide Web: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/14/world/middleeast/14blackwater.html?_r=0 Qaim, M. (2010). Benefits of genetically modified crops for the poor: household income, nutrition, and health. New Biotechnology, 27(5), p. 552-557. Scahill, J. (2010). Blackwater's black ops. Nation, 291(14), 22-24. Schiffman, R. (April 9, 2012). Mystery of the disappearing bees: solved!. Reuters. Retrieved on July 12, 2013 from the World Wide Web: http://blogs.reuters.com/greatdebate/2012/04/09/mystery-of-the-disappearing-bees-solved/

11

DOES MONSANTO DESERVE IMMUNITY Smith, J. (April 20, 2010). Genetically modified soy linked to sterility, infant mortality in hamsters. Huffington Post. Retrieved on July 10, 2013 from the World Wide Web: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/genetically-modifiedsoy_b_544575.html Swanson, D. (May 9, 2013). Monsanto has taken over the USDA. Nation of Change. Retrieved on July 14, 2013 from the World Wide Web: http://www.nationofchange.org/monsanto-has-taken-over-usda-1368111215 Warwick, Hugh (1998). Agent Orange: the poisoning of Vietnam. The Ecologist , 28 (5), p. 264.

12