Steve,

The criminal activities of Monsanto include submitting fraudulent studies on
the health effects of dioxin. This memorandum indicates that even Lysol
contains TCDD 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodi (dioxin), but Monsanto failed to
report this information. Here is the opening of the memo....

One of the most criminal activities was to use falsified information and
provide this information to the USEPA and other agencies. For the veterans
of the Vietnam War [US and Australian] Monsanto is a criminal organization.

"These conclusions have been repeatedly utilized by EPA, the Veterans
Administration, etc., to deny any causation by dioxin of health effects of
exposed citizens, if these persons did not exhibit chloracne." [Cate
Jenkins, Ph.D]

http://purefood.org/dioxcov.html


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE....

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Criminal Investigation of Monsanto Corporation - Cover-up of Dioxin
Contamination in Products - Falsification of Dioxin Health Studies.

FROM: Cate Jenkins, Ph.D., Chemist Regulatory Development Branch (OS 332)
Characterization and Assessment Division.

TO: John West, Special Agent in Charge Office of Criminal Investigations
Center U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Building 53, Box 25227 (303)
236-5100 Kevin Guarino, Special Agent Office of Criminal Investigations
National Enforcement Investigations Center, EPA

As per our meeting yesterday, I am summarizing information available to me
supporting allegations of a long pattern of fraud by Monsanto Corporation.
The fraud concerns 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodi (dioxin) contamination of
Monsanto's dioxin-exposed workers. You indicated that you would contact me
regarding the specific documents which would be useful to your
investigation.

http://www.safe2use.com/pesticides/truelies.htm

Dow Chemical tried to establish in the public mind that dioxins were
everywhere, that they were created during combustion of wood in nature....

'Dow responded in a most unusual way. In November 1978, after an intense
four and one half month effort that cost the company $1,8 million, Dow
released a report called the "Trace Chemistries of Fire," (Rawls, 1979)
which introduced the idea that dioxin was present everywhere and that its
source was combustion and any and all forms burning (Dow, 1978). Dow
released the report at a press conference rather than in the scientific
literature, which is the standard procedure with scientific studies. The
report concluded that dioxin in the Tittabawassee and Saginaw rivers came
not from Dow, but from "normal combustion processes that occur everywhere."
A Dow scientist stated at the time that, "We now think dioxin have been with
us since the advent of fire" (Rawls, 1979).

Subsequent studies have proven the "combustion theory" claims to be more
public relations myth than scientific fact. Measurements of dioxin in lake
sediments show that dioxin levels dramatically increased after 1940,
(Czuczwa, 1984, 1985, 1986) when chemical companies such as Dow began to
make products contaminated with dioxin.

Other studies reveal that prehistoric humans, who burned wood for fuel, did
not have significant quantities of dioxin in their bodies. Tissues from
2,000-year-old Chilean Indian mummies did not have dioxin (Ligon, 1989). EPA
states in its reassessment that dioxin can be formed through natural
combustion sources, but this contribution to levels in the environment
"probably is insignificant" (USEPA, 1994a).

Despite the persistent efforts of industry to detoxify dioxin, the weight of
evidence from scientific literature today confirms its pervasive toxic
effects. Faced with the toxic truth about the dioxin they create, industry
has two choices: either stop producing dioxin, or continue to deliberately
poison the public policy debate with lies and conflicting information.
History tells us they will continue the lies until we make them own up to
the truth.'

Reprinted from:  www.alexanderlaw.com



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

We don't make this stuff up (unfortunately)

Moreover Scientific American published this on Monsanto science:

Scientific American 11/96.


CORPORATE PROFIT VERSUS SCIENCE

American trust scientists and doctors more than any other professionals,
but, recently, a number of leading scientists have expressed concern that
the credibility and effectiveness of science are being corrupted by money.
In order to maximize the profits of corporate investors, increasing secrecy
imposed on researchers is keeping valuable, and even potentially lifesaving
discoveries from reaching the public.

In times past, if a scientist discovered something exciting, he might run
down the hallways telling everyone about it. If a scientist keep quiet about
his or her work, it was so they could be the first to publish. Now,
important discoveries made under corporate-funded projects are sometimes
kept secret for many months, just to maximize corporate profits, or
minimize corporate losses. A good example is what happened during
Monsanto's campaign to gain acceptance for the controversial bovine growth
hormone.

Scientists funded by Monsanto initially reported that cows given the growth
hormone only experienced a minor increase in udder infections.  But, when
independent researchers examined the data, they found that the previously
published reports had mysteriously only analyzed a part of the data.  With
a more thorough analysis, they found that cells associated with infections
rose by about 20% in cows given the growth hormone. Because Monsanto
objected to publication of these damning results, the investigators had to
go on Canadian national television to get the news out to the public, and
the results have yet to be published.

Government funding for academic research has declined over the years, and
corporate funding has picked up some of the slack.  While it's good that
research continues to be funded, many corporations require scientists to
sign contracts delaying or even preventing the publication of any results
that will affect the bottom line - regardless of whether it deprives the
public of valuable information.  For example, when Boots Pharmaceutical
paid a researcher to compare its drug Synthroid, a synthetic thyroid
hormone, with three generic drugs, it was expected that the less expensive
generics would not be as effective. The investigation found, however, that
all were equally effective, and Boots refused to allow the paper to be
published because it would certainly cut into their $600 million yearly
sales of the drug. Fortunately for the public, the matter was later brought
to light by the Wall Street Journal.

This material is presented for private discussion, research
and educational purposes only. (Fair Use: Sec 107; H.R. 2223)
Do not publish, broadcast or otherwise distribute this material
without prior written authority.

http://www.gene.ch/gentech/1997/8.96-5.97/msg00111.html