Glyphosate: Why Greenpeace, PAN and MEP Pavel Poc are Monsanto Shills

See the French translation

Accusing someone of being a Monsanto shill is a serious claim that arouses strong emotional revulsion – I know, the Risk-Monger gets called this on a near-daily basis. Sometimes though, people who may in their heart of hearts think they are doing good things (Gaia’s work!) are actually so out of touch that they are working to achieve the exact opposite. Such is the case with the present campaign against glyphosate where Greenpeace, PAN and MEP Pavel Poc are in the process of having the herbicide banned. They will in fact be doing a great service to Monsanto (and other chemical companies), hurt the environment, farmers and overall public health (not to mention making food more expensive). According to my definition – they are shilling it!

“Mr Monger, please be serious – these people, especially Pavel Poc, hate Monsanto – they wake up every day with one single relentless thought: ‘How can I hurt this evil company today?’ – How could they possibly be shilling for the Big M???”

I understand that common sense is a rare commodity with individuals and organisations with single-minded campaign obsessions (and enough dogma to fuel a jet), but let’s try to put a big picture together with a bit of reality (and less emotion … ie, each time I use the word “glyphosate”, try not to get angry!).

Some counter-intuitive thinking (after the fact):

  • Last year, glyphosate celebrated its 40th year on the market. It is an old technology that is off-patent (meaning that the 12 companies that sell it do not make a lot of money). Farmers save a lot of money and it has allowed farming to increase yields while reducing labour costs.
  • Glyphosate has been called the herbicide of the century – keeping its efficiency over four decades with a remarkably low toxicity and benign environmental profile (even giving birth to the more ecologically advanced no-till farming movement).
  • Any company that invests in research and development (in fields from pharmaceuticals to crop protection to IT) will likely have developed an innovation to any substance on the market within 5-7 years (one point being the innovation cycle – the other being to keep up with patent expiration schedules).
  • After four decades, it is certain that companies like Monsanto have developed new substances to replace glyphosate. So why haven’t they put them on the market? Well, we can only assume (besides the expensive regulatory compliance process), that their profile is in some way less advantageous compared to what is on the market (ie, glyphosate). Maybe the farmers are happy with what they have. EU regulators will always favour the better environmental-health chemical profile regardless of the cost to the consumer or society, so we can only assume that glyphosate is still in that comparative sweet-spot.
  • Any new herbicide that comes on the market will be tied to innovations in seed technologies. The farmers’ satisfaction with the efficiency of glyphosate-resistant seeds is likely slowing the rolling out of NBTs.
  • What about those well predicted superweeds that glyphosate was supposed to cause? I know worrywarts like Michael Pollan and Greenpeace have been screaming for more than a decade that weed Armageddon is just a harvest away … but it has never materialised. And that is bad news for the crop protection industry because they are sitting on these more expensive (and less attractive) alternatives that will treat the most super of weeds – these are all ready for patent … but glyphosate doesn’t seem to be going anywhere. It just keeps working!!!
  • Has anyone else noticed that there has been no serious lobbying from industry on preserving the glyphosate authorisation? Besides a few ‘tsk tsks’ and ‘industry objects’ lines, industry has been watching the show. They have not acted badly, mind you … they have just decided not to act. With EFSA and the Institute responsible for the EU’s Risk Assessment (the BfR) so vehemently opposed to the NGOs’ and IARC’s abuse of science, defending glyphosate should have been a no-brainer to win. Even the Risk-Monger, in exposing an obvious conflict of interest and unprofessional behaviour within IARC, should have got more pick-up. Nobody cared!

In other words, it is in industry’s interest for glyphosate to be retired as the main herbicide and allow new (patented) products onto the market. But because of their ethical codes of conduct, companies cannot actively try to get a product removed from markets. Fortunately, NGOs and the organic industry lobby do not have such ethical codes of conduct.

Glyphosate is like that kind uncle who visits for Christmas – everyone is happy to see him … but then he just doesn’t leave!

Farmers meanwhile are thrilled to see Uncle Glypho and the gifts he brings. Every year glyphosate continues to work like a charm, has a low toxicity environmental-health profile, it is dirt cheap and works within a wide range of seed selections. The scientific community, except for the indefatigable Christopher Portier and the mystifyingly cute IT expert, Stephanie Seneff, supports the mountain of data built up to defend the risk profile of this herbicide of the century. So how can Monsanto get this sweet uncle to leave?

Along came the perfect opportunity: Environmental Defense Fund activist, Christopher Portier, recommended that IARC do a monograph on glyphosate and then he served as the working group’s technical adviser (and he is not even a toxicologist!). Nobody in the room protested and only the Risk-Monger thought this conflict of interest and IARC’s non-transparency and poor scientific behaviour worth sharing. Pick up was low.

Cue the Patsies

The Environmental NGOs like Greenpeace, HEAL and PAN took the IARC-wafting bait and ran flawless campaigns using the usual European Parliament “tools” and taxpayer budgets from MEPs like Pavel Poc who has been holding non-stop “hearings” on glyphosate – flying in activist scientists from all over the world. Anyone who disagreed (ie, credible scientists) was called a Monsanto shill and any scientific organisation that responded with the science was accused of secretly employing Monsanto shills or Monsanto science.

It was the perfect game-plan … perfectly executed: Uncle Glypho has been branded a child molester, ostracised and never to be trusted again.

The irony is that people like Pavel Poc (photo), NGOs like PAN, Greenpeace and HEAL have been running campaigns that nobody (except the farmers and some scientists) cared about. They were working with the same interests as industry. So with all of his political initiatives, Pavel Poc was, in fact, operating just like a Monsanto shill!

People in St Louis must be pissing themselves laughing so hard.

By the time the non-binding symbolic vote got to the European Parliament today, after all of the MEPs had their pee tested for traces of that evil pesticide (I really wish I were making this up!!!), no respectable MEP (even those with a little bit of knowledge on chemistry) would dare vote to allow farmers to continue to enjoy the benefits of this product.

So everyone is happy then – we got together, expressed our common voice and made the “bad thing go away”. Well … not quite.

What about the farmers?

The farmers will not stop using herbicides unless they willingly plan to go bankrupt – they will find (worse) alternatives to protect their yields and manage their soil or demand annual derogations on glyphosate. There will be an urgent push for a better option – maybe a weed crisis will help to rush through the authorisation of other herbicides that companies will suddenly be presenting.

What about the scientists?

Outside of a few celebrity “scientists” like Portier or Seneff, whose speaking fees will rise, most scientists will have a period of about 10 years before they get enough data to see how safe the alternatives to glyphosate are. They’ll have to move into other areas to have their research funded (could I suggest endocrine disruption … the NGOs are awash with cash for that battle!).

What about the consumers?

Well, they were never at risk. But now they will likely have to pay more for their food (also via taxes to compensate the farmers). Regulators will be able to claim that by banning glyphosate, they have solved the cause of autism, cancer and that evil leaky gut, so we can now reduce health-care spending and preventative measures.

What about the Risk-Monger?

I’ll finally have time to turn to other issues like getting to finish my “How to Deal with Stupid” series – I am already running training courses on it – with one more living case study of Stupid. People often wondered why I was the only one who bothered about this issue. First I was thinking of the farmers and how valuable herbicides have been to agriculture and society over the last 50 years. I also saw it as a perfectly executed, manufactured perception campaign against a benign chemical tied to some of the things activists hated (GMOs, pesticides, conventional farming) with a clear positive scientific consensus on the favourable environmental-health profile of glyphosate. If the NGOs and the organic industry lobby could take glyphosate down, they could do anything. The case study I have developed for policy students will hopefully help the next generation of policy actors learn from today’s Class of Stupid.

Somewhere tonight, Uncle Glypho is wandering along the dark streets in Strasbourg … alone, unloved and homeless. I would offer him some beer or wine but apparently it is drenched in toxins.

18 Comments Add yours

  1. Dana says:

    I hesitate to believe that Monsanto is keen to have glyphosate taken off the market, when they have spent a lot of effort (and money) developing the next generation of glyphosate tolerance traits in several crops in North America. If they were keen to have glyphosate taken off the market, they would have launched a different system that didn’t involve glyphosate.

    As for not being able to take your own product off the market, companies do that all the time, it’s called a life cycle.

    For the most part, I agree with what you have to say, but I have to disagree on these two points.


    1. riskmonger says:

      Thanks Dana – I did not get into the details but they have another system. Problem is that there are so many other producers of glyphosate, voluntarily removing your product would assume that the farmers are not happy where they are. Most of the lobbying in Strasbourg (and Berlin) this week were from farmers.
      I am watching the opportunities with NBT innovations … and seed designers are stuck with a 40 year old technology that is still working.


      1. Riskaversemonger says:

        There’s little argument that glyphosate has been extremely popular, if not effective, for farmers over the years. Yet, it would be imprudent to overlook the swell of superweeds spawned by the (over)reliance of this herbicide. Several times throughout this article and comments you remark that glyphosate continues to work. Surely, you mean, “with the exception of the two dozen glyphosate-resistant weeds which infest millions of acres of cropland.” Perhaps the picture is not as rosey as you paint it? Since you’re for science over “stupid,” here’s some science from the heart of the US corn-soy belt/abyss.


      2. riskmonger says:

        Thanks – sustainable pulse is just a touch agenda driven, but I see where you are trying to take this. Weeds persist, any farmer will tell you that, but the headlines then suggest what, that we give up and eat weeds? Vandana Shiva praises these weeds. If glyphosate didn’t work one year in the numbers this article speaks about, then they would not use it next year.
        The “super-weeds are coming” crowd are only wrong until they’re right – for more than a decade, they have been wrong. It does not mean that some day the weeds will be more persistent, or perhaps in a few places are already more persistent. Farming is different in each location with risks in some areas and climates not happening in others. There is concern about over-reliance on one or two herbicides and that farmers should combine different ones to delay the onset of the weed resistance – cut the superweed Armageddon vocabulary – weeds evolve to survive – part of nature.
        So do you suggest we ban glyphosate? The rational is the same as saying there is an increase of bacterial resistance so we need to stop antibiotics. No – not a good idea. Maybe we need to research and develop better antibiotics … or put more into research into better herbicides. Suing the hell out of pesticide manufacturers is not a solution to the problem Sustainable Pulse wants you to believe is an epidemic.
        Maybe what you want is to make conventional farming more expensive and labour intensive … thus allowing organic to compete more. Ah, now I understand.


  2. tanguy says:

    +1 for DANA

    Monsanto is releasing on the market a new GM soybean that tolerate round-up and dicamba. Dow is doing the same with round-up + 2,4 D. Uncle glypho is here to stay.


    1. riskmonger says:

      Dicamba is an alternative to Roundup – the next generation that Monsanto will be investing heavily in (+1 billion): I would not consider tying two old pesticides as a long-term strategic business model.


      1. tanguy says:

        You’re right. The dicamba (or 2,4 D) tolerance is just a step before the next generation of biotech traits (i.e. RNA interference).


      2. riskmonger says:

        Everyone in biotech is talking NBT and the NGOs (+Le Monde) have taken notice. Where have I seen this before???


  3. maamej says:

    Interesting analysis. I’m glad I found your blog because I am trying to educate myself about these issues after years of accepting what Greenpeace etc. had to say without questioning it, & getting increasingly outraged at how I’ve been misled. However I don’t think you do your argument any favours by dissing Stephanie Seneff’s appearance. She’s clearly deluded but how she looks is irrelevant. It’s just not helpful to say these kinds of things if you want a reasoned debate (although I concede that anti-GMO activists have said far more ferocious things than ‘mystifyingly cute’).


    1. riskmonger says:

      Thanks for your comment – by saying she was cute, I had meant her arguments were cute – that without conducting any research or generating data, she was able to make wide-sweeping conclusions against glyphosate linking it to cancers, autism … I found that cute (in a juvenile sense) but mystifying (in a logical sense) – I was not thinking of her physical appearance … Oh dear, I don’t want to get into that one. Thanks for pointing that out – must be more careful with my shorthand!


      1. maamej says:

        Ah, a bit of an unusual use of the word then, thanks for clarifying. Anyway there’s now doubt she is mystifying; I saw some other slides of hers arguing that high cholesterol and sunburn are good for you!


  4. Bonnie says:

    Interesting perspective. But if Monsanto would just as soon have glyphosate discredited, why are they suing California over labeling glyphosate probably carcinogenic?


    1. riskmonger says:

      Good point – I assume that is over Prop 65 – I suspect that if a company has a product on the market and a regulator declares it to be carcinogenic, they would need to provide sufficient evidence.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s