Monsanto illegally compiled data on hundreds of public figures - Sensationalist Headlines

Haven't found any English source reporting on this for the moment, but this is one of France's most trustworthy one: https://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2019/05/09/fichier-monsanto-des-dizaines-de-personnalites-classees-illegalement-selon-leur-position-sur-le-glyphosate_5460190_3244.html Translation of the key points: "Le Monde" gained access to a 2016 file compiled by a lobbyist think-tank on behalf of Monsanto, at a time when debate about extending the authorization of glyphosate was still raging on. Two hundred names, among which political officials, public servants, journalists, private and public sector leaders, and even scientists. Under each of them, details about their identity, opinion on glyphosate, pesticides or GMOs are specified in two meticulously sourced tables. This file, obtained by Le Monde and France 2, is part of a leak which comes from Fleishman-Hillard, a major PR and lobbying think-tank, mandated by Monsanto to assist them in protecting the use of glyphosate. France's penal code explicitly forbids compiling databases of personal information "that display political and philosophical beliefs of a person without their consent" : The legality, or lack thereof, of this file is thus clearly problematic. Interviewed by Le Monde, Fleishman-Hillard and Bayer - the new owners of Monsanto -, who couldn't "concretely identify the document", have stated they are unable to comment on the matter. "To our knowledge, none of our employees are responsible for non-conform acts", Fleishman-Hillard stated. The documents contained in this "Monsanto file" date back to the end of 2016. At the time, glyphosate, key ingredient of Roundup and most used herbicide in the world, had already been classified as "probable carcinogen" by the International Agency of Research on Cancer (IARC). The "Monsanto Papers", internal documents, which were made public during US lawsuits, hadn't been revealed yet ; that happened several weeks later. What mattered to Monsanto then was to obtain, despite the IARC classification, a renewal of the authorization for its flagship product for a duration of fifteen years, at a European level. The vote was scheduled on March 2016 among a specialist committee, but opposition from certain member-states - like France - led to its postponing. In June, the European Commission extended the authorization to 18 months: On December 31st 2017, the decision was taken. The authorization was extended, but to five years only. This is the goal Fleischman-Hillard lobbyists had in mind when they were compiling the "Monsanto file", which dates back to 2016 according to the document's title. Then-current ministers, like Stéphane Le Foll (agriculture), Ségolène Royal (environment) and Marisol Touraine (health), or who later took office: Bruno Le Maire, now finance minister, then "deputy from l'Eure". Philippe Mauguin, president of the National Institute for Agronomic Research. Xavier Bertrand, president of the Hauts-de-France region. A hundred of journalists, among which several Le Monde editors, farming union leaders... To some extent, these persons could, according to them, have an impact on the vote's outcome. Some of the affected parties are now moving to sue: https://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2019/05/09/fichier-monsanto-le-monde-porte-plainte_5460196_3244.html A complaint against unknown was filed, on the 26th of April, to the public prosecutor's office in Paris, following the discovery of documents compiling data on public figures and their opinion on glyphosate. Le Monde's accusations cover four different offenses: the "Monsanto file" involves "illicit processing of personal data" and "collection of personal data through fraudulent, disloyal or illicit means". Since those informations are filed in tables, these databases enable "digital conservation of personal data involving the political and philosophical beliefs of a person without their consent". The files being written in English gives way to suspicions of "illicit transfer of personal data subjected to or intended to be subject to treatment in a state not belonging to the European Union or to an international organisation". Each of these offenses carry five years of prison and €300,000 fines. Several Le Monde journalists appear in the "Monsanto file", but Stéphane Foucart is a particular person of interest according to Fleiscman-Hillard lobbyists. With his charts-topping ratings in "audience" and "credibility", he is presented as "strongly opposed" in one of the tables. He also appears in a document titled "Glyphosate in France, context". To illustrate "activists against the renewal of glyphosate", a slide of this PowerPoint presentation displays a photo of said journalist, side-by-side with Michèle Rivasi and Yannick Jadot, Green party MPs, and two associations' logos. Yet another example of a corporation not giving the slightest shit about violating the laws of the countries they operate in, as long as it enables them to enforce and impose their own vested interests on our political systems.

And when I say that corporations need more regulation, people just throw their hands up and go "sO YoU WaNT To STarVE unDeR SOciAlISmS?!?" as if that's what I said.

Kick them out. Nationalize their assets. Disbar them from doing business ever again.

Given this was apparently already illegal I'm not sure what you think more regulation will do. The laws need more enforcement, not strengthening.

Like the article clearly says, it's already regulated. It's illegal to compile databases of political beliefs, they just ignored the law. Adding more law is pointless unless you can start to make these companies accountable for breaking it.

Clearly there needs to be more oversight with how, when, and why corporations are collating data though, which would be put into place via more regulation.

There was a time when Monsanto spearheaded global chemical weapons disarmament and routinely supported major scientific endeavors. Then they got greedy in the 90s, and now they're more interested in regulatory capture instead of making good products or advancing science.

Agent orange was a thing way before the 90s, and so were other environmental and human disasters of their doing. I don't think there was ever a time when you could've argued that Monsanto is a force for good.

They were one of the first to rally support for the CWC and worked to establish a ton of health and safety regs back in the 60's when the rest of the industry was hostile to the idea. They sponsored Will D. Carpenter, who did a lot of the legwork rallying support internationally for the CWC/OPCW and was recognized by AAAS for his work. Agent orange wasn't solely their doing. The Brits invented it. Monsanto and a number of other chemical companies were then contracted out for manufacturing it for the US government. They backed numerous researchers that have produced groundbreaking results in the fields of chemistry, medicine, and biology. They provided what was at the time the largest support grant for cancer researchers back in the 70's.

Just because they didn't invent it doesn't mean they bear no responsibility regarding the consequences of what they manufacture? That's why people have won lawsuits against them for being exposed to agent orange and the consequences of that exposure on their health. Lots of otherwise terrible companies throw money around and spearhead initiatives that benefit society. That doesn't cancel out the bad stuff they did. Monsanto hasn't really changed its fundamental behaviour since its inception, it's just that it can now get away with a lot more shit than before because of how strongly they dominate the market.

Maybe I'm not being clear? Monsanto didn't act alone. The bulk of the chemical industry was involved and should share the blame. People tend to fixate on Monsanto now I think mainly out of unfounded fears about GMOs and try to paint them as The supervillain company. I'm biased, but I think a lot of the chemical companies out there have major problems. It's not just Monsanto.That's part of why I haven't sold my soul yet and am still working in academia for peanuts instead of a real wage. On a scale from Eli "don't patent Salk's polio vaccine and help distribute it freely" Lilly to "asked for Auschwitz to be built close by so they could make rubber and buy people to experiment on and never really apologized for it" Bayer, Monsanto was far closer to Eli Lilly prior to the 90's. Monsanto used to have a lot of scientists on their board. That changed in the 90's, and so did their corporate culture. If you talk to anyone that was there around the transition, they'll tell you how quickly shit went south. This isn't about cancelling blame or otherwise apologizing for poor behavior with regards to these companies, rather a warning about how fickle these boards are and how prone this industry is to causing major problems. The public has to stay vigilant. Even if you have a company that seems to act with public interest in mind, all it takes is a boardroom shakeup and all bets are off. The industry can not self-regulate. Monsanto was basically the original driving force for regulations in the chemical industry in the United States and just as quickly switched gears to ram everything they want through.