What is Monsanto Hiding in Secret Documents?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

What is Mon­san­to hid­ing in secret doc­u­ments?

A sci­en­tist offers shock­ing com­ments.

Let’s have a fed­er­al court where the judge pre­tends the lawyers for the defense are ful­ly informed about the facts of the case. The plain­tiff, a giant cor­po­ra­tion, pre­tends it’s con­cerned about the safe­ty of the pub­lic. The press pre­tends it’s cov­er­ing the court case. Activists for the pub­lic who live more than a hun­dred miles away from the cour­t­house pre­tend they care about what hap­pens. The over­whelm­ing num­ber of fed­er­al employ­ees don’t even know there is a case. The defen­dants, who are being poi­soned by the giant cor­po­ra­tion, at one time lived on their land in an undis­turbed way—until out­siders, whose descen­dants now con­trol the court, took away the land by force. Per­fect jus­tice, cor­rect? Absolute­ly no prob­lem.” (The Under­ground, Jon Rap­poport)

Two days ago, I report­ed on a scan­dal occur­ring in the Mon­san­to vs. Maui court case:

Name­ly, heav­i­ly redact­ed doc­u­ments, which Mon­san­to has offered to the court in defense of its posi­tion that it should be allowed to con­tin­ue tox­ic pes­ti­cide and GMO exper­i­ments in Maui Coun­ty.

Fed­er­al Judge, Susan Oki Moll­way, who will decide the case, has read the full unredact­ed ver­sions of these Mon­san­to documents—but the lawyers rep­re­sent­ing the peo­ple of Maui have not. And they can’t. The blacked-out infor­ma­tion is off-lim­its to them.

This means they can’t argue their case with full knowl­edge. They’re ham­strung. To con­clude this sit­u­a­tion is unfair and ille­git­i­mate is a vast under­state­ment.

A sci­en­tist famil­iar with this court case has com­ment­ed to me about the cur­rent sit­u­a­tion.

Dr. Lor­rin Pang’s CV reads in part: retired US Army Med­ical Corps, for­mer con­sul­tant to the World Health Orga­ni­za­tion for 20 years, cur­rent­ly advi­sor to the US Con­gress for med­ical research. Amer­i­c­as Best Doc­tors list­ing.

Dr. Pang offers his impor­tant assess­ment of what might sit under­neath all those Mon­san­to blacked-out lines:

There are two wor­ries I have about the redact­ed lines which only Mon­san­to and the judge sees. What if…[the redact­ed lines] ref­er­ence a Monsanto…chemical sim­i­lar to toxaphene (banned for tox­i­c­i­ty and spread­ing hun­dreds of miles). Can she [Judge Moll­way] tell us what [Mon­san­to] chem­i­cals are sim­i­lar enough to toxaphene to be wor­ri­some? Can she rec­og­nize the chem­i­cal struc­ture of toxaphene (from mul­ti­ple choice dia­grams)? What if it is toxaphene itself? Furthermore…the [Mon­san­to legal] argu­ment depends inti­mate­ly on untest­ed com­bi­na­tions [of Mon­san­to chem­i­cal pesticides]……I need to know the num­ber of chem­i­cals used AND the amounts used to see their poten­tial for [tox­ic] over­lap. I feel I am com­pe­tent to make these assess­ments.

I don’t have access to the [un]redacted ver­sions of Mon­san­to doc­u­ments]. Only two oth­er par­ties do. 1) Mon­san­to is gross­ly biased and 2) the Judge who is not sci­en­tif­i­cal­ly qual­i­fied. If she brings in a third par­ty “inde­pen­dent” (say UH) to assess for her, they have to be both non-biased and sci­en­tif­i­cal­ly qual­i­fied. I am not even con­vinced she can rec­og­nize the sci­en­tif­ic qual­i­fi­ca­tions of her own advis­ers. For exam­ple, ask them their opin­ion on the recent rul­ing of WHO on glyphosate risk of can­cer [glyphosate is the pri­ma­ry ingre­di­ent in Monsanto’s pes­ti­cide Roundup]. On the muta­tion­al poten­tial of glyphosate for human pathogens relat­ed to antibi­ot­ic resis­tance. On the gene tox­i­c­i­ty (same mech­a­nism as can­cer) rela­tion­ship [of glyphosate] to birth defects (wide­ly pub­lished, even before the can­cer risk pub­li­ca­tions).

If [the Mon­san­to] info is redact­ed because of threat of van­dal­ism [at their secret facil­i­ty loca­tions on Maui]—that is a police issue to be resolved if it occurs, not a court deci­sion.”

Dr. Pang is rais­ing vital issues that oblit­er­ate any ratio­nale for Mon­san­to and the fed­er­al court to heav­i­ly cen­sor Mon­san­to doc­u­ments.

How in the world can Judge Moll­way eval­u­ate what Mon­san­to is say­ing about its pesticide/GMO exper­i­ments in Maui County—namely that there are no health prob­lems, the work is safe, and no one is threat­ened?

What experts will the Judge rely on? Who are they? What bias do they bring? The Judge has no way of eval­u­at­ing sci­en­tists.

Indeed, the case is already stacked in favor of Mon­san­to and against the peo­ple of Maui, and the like­ly sci­en­tif­ic experts on tap will sup­port Monsanto’s posi­tion.

This court case is a poor­ly staged cha­rade, the objec­tive of which is to exon­er­ate Mon­san­to and per­mit it to con­tin­ue to use the “open-air lab­o­ra­to­ry” of Maui as a test­ing ground for unap­proved tox­ic pes­ti­cides and GMOs.
I con­tin­ue to be aston­ished by the lack of cov­er­age this case is get­ting in the alter­na­tive press. Maui is ground-zero in the bat­tle against Mon­san­to, because the cor­po­ra­tion has estab­lished its pri­ma­ry exper­i­men­tal premis­es there.

On Elec­tion Day, the peo­ple of Maui legit­i­mate­ly vot­ed to place a tem­po­rary ban on all Monsanto/Dow exper­i­men­ta­tion in the Coun­ty. Not a label, a ban.

They vot­ed to order a deep and inde­pen­dent inves­ti­ga­tion of all Monsanto/Dow exper­i­ments in the Coun­ty.

That vote has been sus­pend­ed and sup­pressed and neu­tral­ized and stepped on by Mon­san­to and Dow’s court fil­ings.

Now, Dr. Pang has come for­ward and cor­rect­ly expressed his refusal to believe that the Judge in the case, Susan Moll­way, is even remote­ly com­pe­tent to rule.

What else do we need to know?

This is a rig-job. A legit­i­mate vote by cit­i­zens has been oblit­er­at­ed.

The “sci­ence” favor­ing Mon­san­to has been cooked.

A cor­po­ra­tion is run­ning a fed­er­al court.

Why not just say, “A Mon­san­to Fed­er­al Court has ruled that Mon­san­to is inno­cent. Don’t wor­ry, be hap­py.”