After the revelations about the toxicity of the dioxin TCDD, a byproduct from manufacturing the weedkiller 2,4,5-T, Monsanto did not have any second thoughts about producing it, but on the contrary, entered into a contract with the Pentagon to develop military uses for the weedkiller….War economies have always been a financial god-send of some importance for the handful of multinational firms which dominate the chemical products market. Monsanto’s researchers had already anticipated the uses of their powerful herbicide in war time, as it would allow the destruction of crops and so starve hostile armies and populations.

After tests of the herbicide in 1959 in Vietnam by the US Army, they seemed to be happy with it as at the end of two years 90% of trees and shrubs had been destroyed in the sprayed zones. These tests gave the green light to “Operations Ranch Hand” which started officially on 13 January 1962. The first goal of this operation was to clear the routes, waterways and frontiers of South Vietnam to mark out a no-man’s land ahead of the VietCong, and the second was to destroy any crops believed to be supplying the “rebels”.

From 1962 to 1971, it was estimated that 80 million litres of defoliant were unloaded over 3.3 million hectares of forests and terrain. More than 300 villages were contaminated and Agent Orange made up 60% of the defoliant used, representing 400 kilos of pure dioxin. According to a study by Columbia University (New York), published in 2003, 80 grammes of dioxin dissolved in a drinking water supply could wipe out a city of 8 million people…. [1]

The massive spraying of Agent Orange had long term effects, not only on the civilian population of Vietnam but also on the US soldiers who had been equally exposed to dioxin without precautions. What’s more, Monsanto had deliberately hidden from the army the fact that the military version of the weedkiller 2,4,5-T, or Agent Orange, contained a much stronger residual concentration of the dioxin TCDD than the usual agricultural version. A now-released internal document from the firm Dow Chemicals, dated 22 February 1965, discloses a secret meeting of the main suppliers of “Agent Orange”, including Monsanto, held to “discuss toxicological problems caused by the presence of certain highly toxic impurities” in the samples of 2,4,5-T supplied to the army. [2] Dow wanted to consider an internal study showing that “rabbits exposed to dioxin developed severe liver lesions”. The question at issue for the suppliers of 2,4,5-T was to know whether they had to warn the government about the toxicity of Agent Orange. Gerson Smoger, the lawyer for many veterans of the Vietnam war, stated that “The meeting took place in the greatest secrecy […] The question was, whether they had to tell the government. As is proven by a letter of which I also have a copy, Monsanto reproached Dow for wanting to reveal the secret. And the secret was kept for at least four years, the years in which the spraying of Agent Orange reached its peak in Vietnam. [3]

Finally in 1969, the noxiousness of the herbicide 2,4,5-T was revealed to the public via a study from the US National Institutes of Health which revealed that mice subjected to significant doses of weedkiller developed foetal malformations and gave birth to still-born babies. On the 15 April 1970, the Secretary of Agriculture announced a ban on the use of 2,4,5-T because of “the danger that it represents to health”.

In 1971, the army ceased Operation Ranch Hand and the spraying of Agent Orange, but the devastating effects have continued for long after, due to the fact of the persistence of dioxin in soil, water and the food chain, and because of its bioaccumulative character. Vietnam estimates that 150,000 children are suffering today from malformations due to Agent Orange and that 800,000 are ill…..

In 1978, Paul Reutershan, a victim affected by cancer of the intestines, brought a case against the manufacturers of Agent Orange and was quickly joined by thousands of Vietnam veterans with different symptoms, to make up the first “class action” ever brought against Monsanto. This case was illustrative of the methods of the St Louis firm when faced with the law.

In order to win the case, the veterans had to prove that they had definitely been contaminated by the dioxin present in Agent Orange during the Vietnam war, and that this TCDD dioxin was definitely the origin of their illnesses. In its defence, Monsanto replied that “Dioxin is now ubiquitous in the human population of the US as well as in the ambient environment and the food chain”….which was unfortunately true, so widespread was this form of pollution. However as the doses received by the veterans were well above those which could be absorbed in a normal context, the affair was not yet closed.

It still had to be proved that dioxin is a carcinogen and this would necessarily be via long term scientific studies, given the incubation period of cancers. Monsanto had possessed a study of this type since the Nitro accident in 1949, in which several dozen workers had been exposed to dioxin and then followed by Dr Suskind. In order to prove that dioxin did not cause cancer, Monsanto wanted to show 30 years later that the exposed workers had not developed any special pathology in comparison to with the general population. It was Dr Roush, Monsanto’s Medical Director, who was responsible for the content of studies published by Monsanto in 1980, 1983 and 1984. As one might expect, Monsanto’s studies concluded that there was a total absence of any link between exposure to the 2,4,5-T of Agent Orange, and cancer.

The veterans thus accepted an out of court settlement and on the 7 May 1984 the manufacturers of Agent Orange put $180 million on the table. The judge ordered that 45.5% of the total should be paid by Monsanto, because of the high content of dioxin in its 2,4,5-T. [4] As a result, 40,000 veterans received help of between $256 and $12,800, according to their cases. The case was over but it left a bitter taste in the mouths of veterans who had to accept damages which were rather small compared to the health care costs they were faced with.

[1] According to an estimations by JM Stellman “The extent and patterns of usage of Agent Orange and other herbicides in Vietnam”, Nature, 17 April 2003.

[2] The world according to Monsanto, MM Robin, Coédition Arte/ la découverte, 2008

[3] The world according to Monsanto, MM Robin, Coédition Arte/ la découverte, 2008

[4] P Schuk, Agent Orange on Trial. Mass Toxic Disasters in the Courts, Harvard University Press, Cambridge (Ma.), 1987, pp 86-87 and 155-164. Monsanto produced 29.5% of the Agent Orange used in Vietnam, against Dow Chemicals’ 28.6%, but some of its batches contained 47 times more dioxin than Dows’.