Monsanto's Global Pollution Legacy

"'Solutia has spent approximately $100 million each year to service legacy liabilities that it was required to accept at the time of the spin-off from Monsanto,' says Solutia chairman, president and CEO John Hunter" [36]. In 2003 Solutia filed for bankruptcy.

Monsanto's three shell game hasn't fooled everyone though, "despite this self-induced identity crisis surrounding the company name Monsanto, a quick look at the people involved reveals that essentially the same cast of characters has been with the (chemical) company since it was (old) Monsanto" [37]. Additionally "the new Monsanto states in its 2001 proxy statement that the new Monsanto (not Pharmacia) is responsible for the liabilities of Solutia, Inc.(old Monsanto's subsidiary) in the event Solutia, Inc. cannot meet its obligations."

Update: In August on 2007 an agreement was tentatively reached wherein Monsanto's financial stake in Solutia would be reduced from 20% to 17% in exchange for Solutia's dropping of its claims against Monsanto. However "Equity holders said in court documents filed Aug. 7 that the settlement 'repeats the same theme that propelled Solutia into bankruptcy in the first place: a sweetheart deal that benefits Monsanto while permanently burdening Solutia with hundreds of millions of dollars in legacy liabilities, which it played no role in creating ... 'Monsanto created Solutia as a vehicle to dump massive environmental liabilities generated decades before the spinoff" [38].

Asks the Environmental Working Group "If Monsanto hid what it knew about its toxic pollution for decades, what is the company hiding from the public now? This question seems particularly important to us as this powerful company asks the world to trust it with a worldwide, high-stakes gamble with the environmental and human health consequences of its genetically modified foods" [39].

(1) Here one can see another example of Monsanto's concern with damage control and managing its image with regard to increasingly negative PR resulting from its PCB operations in general. With the Toxic Substances Act due to become law the following year and with political and public pressure mounting, Monsanto wrote in 1975: "Principally, Monsanto must not be viewed as being forced into a decision to withdraw from PCB manufacture by either government action or public pressure. Rather, key audiences must perceive Monsanto as having initiated responsible action in a manner consistent with its past reputation and practices." Well yes, it was consistant.

(2) Scott McMurray, "Denying Paternity: Monsanto Case Shows How Hard It Is to Tie Pollution to a Source; PCBs Taint Site Where Firm Used to Produce Them, But it Doesn't See a Link," Wall Street Journal June 17, 1992, pg. A1.

"Stark denials in the face of documented evidence to the contrary have been corporate policy at Monsanto and GE for decades." Eric Francis author of Conspiracy of Silence [40]

"For years, these guys said PCBs were safe, too. But there's obviously a corporate culture of deceiving the public." Mike Casey of the Environmental Working Group

 1  |  2  |  3  |  4