[REPORT] Syngenta Seeds. A Report by Terra de Direitos (Land of Rights)
Syngenta is a multinational agribusiness corporation based in Basel, Switzerland. Syngenta was the first global group to focus exclusively on agribusiness products. According to Syngenta’s Web site (www.syngentaseeds.com), the company has over 19,000 employees. In 2005, Syngenta’s revenue was over US$ 8.1 billion. Syngenta Seeds Report Terra de Direitos August 30, 2006 1. Introduction Syngenta is a multinational agribusiness corporation based in Basel, Switzerland. Syngenta was the first global group to focus exclusively on agribusiness products. According to Syngenta’s Web site (www.syngentaseeds.com), the company has over 19,000 employees. In 2005, Syngenta’s revenue was over US$ 8.1 billion. The corporation is the world’s largest producer of agrochemicals (herbicides, fungicides, insecticides), what Syngenta refers to as “crop protection�? products. Sales of agrochemicals represent 80% of Syngenta’s sales. As public awareness over the danger of agrochemicals has increased, Syngenta has diversified and increasingly focuses on commercial seed production, especially genetically-modified (GMO) seeds. Syngenta is the third largest commercial seed producer in the world, with sales from vegetable, field crop, flower and GMO seeds representing 20% of the corporation’s profits. According to Corporate Watch, “GM crops are a key part of Syngenta’s future and it has a strong interest in seeing them grown in the UK and Europe. Syngenta is one of the leaders in the field of GM crops, and GM crops form an integral part of its future plans.�? 2. Syngenta’s Creation – the Merging of the Chemical and Agricultural Capital To understand Syngenta’s development as a multinational agribusiness giant, it is necessary to understand how the commercialization of biotechnology is the result of the merging of chemical and agricultural capital - a process that has occurred since the second World War. Syngenta is a product of this process. Because documenting all of the industrial and agribusiness companies that have conglomerated to form Syngenta is beyond the scope of this report, this document highlights the major companies and their products (for more information on the corporate mergers, acquisitions and partnerships that have formed Syngenta, see http://www.syngenta.com/en/about_syngenta/timeline.aspx) Syngenta’s Roots in the Chemical Industry and the Military Industrial Complex In his article, “Agribusiness, Biotechnology and War: Ending Destructive Technologies,�? Brian Tokar states, “When we examine how our food is grown today, it becomes clear that most of the chemical “tools�? taken for granted by modern agribusiness are products of warfare…Virtually all of the leading companies that brought us chemical fertilizers and pesticides made their greatest fortunes during wartime…The handful of companies that over the past decade have used biotechnology in an attempt to radically reshape food production have their roots in wartime, have profited tremendously from war throughout their histories, and have long collaborated with military establishments to make the world a more dangerous place.�? Syngenta’s oldest predecessor was J.R. Geigy Ltd., which was founded in Switzerland in 1758, and commenced to produce industrial chemicals including paints, dyes and other products. Giegy’s rise to fame and fortune began in 1939, when researcher Paul Müller discovered the insecticidal efficacy of Dicloro Difenil Tricloroetano (DDT). DDT was invented in the search to prevent moths from feeding on wool, and its toxic effect on other insects was soon discovered. According to Tokar, during World War II, U.S. army soldiers in Europe were suffering from typhus due to lice exposure, and soldiers in the South Pacific were suffering from malaria, “So the Army looked to Geigy’s new product as the answer, and soon, two million pounds of DDT were being produced every month. Another chemical company in which Syngenta has roots is Industrial Chemical Industries (ICI), founded in Britain in 1926 with the merger of Brunner Mond Ltd, British Dyestuffs Coronation Ltd., United Alkali Co. Ltd., and Nobel Industries Ltd., an explosives company founded by Alfred Nobel, the inventor of dynamite. ICI would supply the Allied Forces during WWII with both explosives and chemicals for chemical warfare. In 1940, ICI discovered the selective properties of alphanapthylacetic acid, leading to the synthesis of the herbicides MCPA and 2,4-D. According to Tokar, the herbicide Agent Orange, derived from ICI’s 2,4-D, would later be used by the U.S. military during the Vietnam War to obliterate dense jungles. When World War II ended, the companies producing chemicals for the military industrial complex searched for new markets and uses for their products. Agriculture was their answer. According to Tokar, “Throughout the 1940s, scientists discovered the usefulness of DDT for combating a wide variety of agricultural pests quickly and with long-lasting effect…DDT became the most widely applied chemical in human history and its commercial success led to a massive increase in the production and use of chemical insecticides of all types. Revenues from insecticide production in the U.S. rose from $10 million in 1940 to $100 million in 1950 to over $1 billion today.�? The chemical industry’s need to find new markets for its chemicals coincided with the rise of industrial agriculture after WWII. With the decimation of Europe and Japan, parts of the world faced a shortage of food. U.S. agribusiness companies were poised to profit from this food shortage; thus the process of agricultural industrialization, based on mechanization and monoculture, began in earnest. Additionally, the U.S.’ new status as the global superpower allowed it to implement policies (such as massive subsidies) to benefit agribusiness companies. Industrial capital jumped on the industrial agribusiness bandwagon asserting that agrotoxins were a necessary component of industrial agriculture. Thus the relationship between agricultural capital and industrial capital began. This relationship was strengthened with the Green Revolution, which promoted industrial agriculture and the use of agrotoxins in the 1960s. In 1970 Geigy and Ciba merged to form Ciba-Giegy, a massive corporation with operations in over 50 countries. In 1994 Zeneca Group PLC was established after ICI demerged its pharmaceutical, pesticide and specialty chemicals. Zeneca merged with Astra AB of Sweden in 1998, becoming AstraZeneca. In 1996, Sandoz, another Swiss company formed in 1876, merged with Ciba-Giegy to form Novartis, the largest corporate merger in history to that date. In 2000, Novartis merged with AstraZeneca’s agribusiness to form Syngenta, the first global group to focus exclusively on agribusiness. 3. Capital Conglomeration and Improved PR with Biotechnology “It is not easy to believe that Ciba-Geigy is unaware of the correlations between death, disease, and their business. Are they primarily concerned with balancing their profits against their high-powered public ethical and legal images, or is there even something else perhaps more sinister that drives Ciba-Geigy's mindset? How good can a world leader in the death business be, after all?�? The creation of the biotechnology multinational Syngenta is partly the result of the nature of capital to conglomerate and strengthen in order to survive and spread. However, the creation of the biotechnology industry is also agribusiness capital’s answer to the poor public relations (and drops in profits) generated from the disastrous effects of the massive use of agrotoxins. Just as agrotoxins was the avenue for the chemical industry to reinvent itself after WWII, biotechnology is agribusiness’ way to reinvent itself in light of increased public awareness about the dangers of agrotoxins. During the 1960s and 70s, as the public became enlightened to the disastrous effects of agrotoxins, Ciba-Giegy, ICI and other chemical companies began to search for a way to reinvent themselves and their public image. According to Tokar, “The tremendous public outcry around the toxic effects of DDT and other pesticides during the 1960s and early 1970s was a crucial factor in the decision by Monsanto and other agrochemical giants to begin shifting their research efforts toward the brand new technology of gene manipulation. The first successful splicing of foreign (transgenic) DNA into the chromosomes of a living cell was demonstrated in 1973. By the late 1980s, Monsanto, Ciba-Geigy (now Syngenta and Novartis), and others were heavily invested in the genetic engineering of basic food crops.�? Biotechnology has allowed agribusiness capital to diversify and reinvent itself, as well as improve its public image. Corporations that have grown and profited from producing deadly chemicals now tout themselves as the pioneers of sustainable agriculture, with the intent to feed the world. Syngenta’s Attempt to Co-opt “Development�? and “Sustainable Agriculture�? According to Corporate Watch, Syngenta is “the most successful biotechnology company at co-opting the sustainable development agenda (through the Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable Development), and aligning itself with GM crops with perceived consumer benefits. Syngenta has been doing its best to make its name and business activities appear to be inextricably linked to the concept of ‘sustainable development.’�? On its Web site Syngenta states: “Syngenta is publicly committed to sustainable agriculture. Alongside its own activities in this area, the company also finances the Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable Agriculture. This non-profit organization supports sustainable food security projects in a number of countries.�? The Syngenta Foundation Web site states that the organization, “devotes its resources to promoting economically and ecologically sustainable agriculture throughout the world. Our work focuses on poverty-oriented agricultural research and development.�? The Syngenta Foundation is run by Andrew Bennett, who, until head-hunted by Syngenta was the head of environment at the UK government’s Department for International Development (DFID). In 2002, Bennett was able to gaining a place on the governing body of the Consultative Group on the International Agricultural Research centres (CGIAR). CGIAR operates international agricultural research centres and seed banks whose mission statement is: ‘To contribute to food security and poverty eradication in developing countries through research, partnerships, capacity building, and policy support, promoting sustainable agricultural development based on the environmentally sound management of natural resources.’ Yet GM Watch asserts CGIAR’s mission is more to promote the interests of Agribusiness, stating, “Industrial countries account for more than two-thirds of CGIAR financing and this is reflected in its governance structure which is fundamentally controlled by four rich industrialised countries.�? Golden Rice Syngenta’s invention and marketing of its GMO “Golden Rice�? seeds best exemplifies the multinational corporation’s attempt to reinvent itself as a company bent on humanitarian efforts. By inserting two genes from daffodil and one gene from a bacterium, Dr. Ingo Potrykus of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and Dr. Peter Beyer of the University of Freiburg in Germany managed to engineer a rice seed enhanced with beta-carotene. In August 1999, they unveiled their research and named it "Golden Rice." Shortly afterwards, they signed a deal with AstraZeneca (which later merged with Novartis to become Syngenta), which agreed to waive technological fees to enable the development of the rice for "humanitarian" purposes. As the Spanish organization Grain points out, “by a stroke of a pen, AstraZeneca was able to acquire exclusive commercial control over a technology that was developed with public funding and purportedly pursued for a humanitarian cause. The deal with AstraZeneca not only surrendered a decade of publicly-funded research to commercial control, but – more importantly – it strengthened the North’s patent hegemony worldwide. The small handful of transgenic rice grains produced in Potrykus’ laboratory provided a much-needed public relations boost for the biotech industry at a time when genetic engineering was under siege in Europe, Japan, Brazil and other developing countries. “Syngenta has been actively involved in the promotion of "Golden Rice" in rice-growing countries, and has used its development and "gift" of Golden Rice in its promotion and publicity work to flag up its humanitarian concerns and philanthropic instincts. Through Golden Rice the biotech lobby is selling the idea that GMO crops will solve problems of malnutrition…the malnutrition agenda is drawing in support from every major agricultural biotech company, CGIAR, the US Agency for International Development (USAID), and its main funder, the Rockefeller Foundation.�? However, Grain points out that the root causes of malnutrition amongst rice eating populations cannot be solved with one grain. Malnutrition reflects “an overall impact of multiple causative factors similar to those of other developing countries where rice is not a major staple. Various deficiencies including zinc, vitamin C and D, folate, riboflavin, selenium and calcium occur in the context of poverty, environmental degradation, lack of public health systems and sanitation, lack of proper education and social disparity. Poverty and lack of purchasing power is identified as a major cause of malnutrition. These are underlying issues that can never be addressed by Golden Rice.�? Additionally, research has shown that in order to obtain the required supply of Vitamin A from golden rice, “a child would have to consume absurd quantities of rice each day (9 kg of cooked rice). Moreover the required dose of vitamin A can easily be fulfilled by consuming a few carrots, yams and other vitamin A enriched substitutes. Further, since vitamin A is fat soluble and requires fats and proteins in the body to metabolize it, a malnourished child would not receive the intended benefit from consuming [Golden Rice]. This crucial point was completely ignored by the scientists in Syngenta.�? Terminator Technology (GURTS) and its Threat to Small Farmers – the True Syngenta Tecnología GURT e Ameaças á Agricultores Pequenos: Syngenta is a world leader in the development for commercial use of crops incorporating Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURTs). GURTs will enable biotech companies to retain control and ownership over their products even after they have been sold to farmers. The best known of these technologies, often known as 'Terminator' technology, is used to make crops generate sterile seed, forcing farmers to return to the biotech corporation to buy new seed every year. This technology holds major implications for small farmers’ sovereignty all over the planet, as it will undermine small farmers’ independence and force them to become dependent on agribusiness multinationals. While the ban on testing and commercialization of GURTs was upheld at the March, 2006 Meeting of Parties on Biosecurity and Biodiveristy in Curitiba, Brazil, according to a recent report by Genetics Forum, if this ban is withdrawn, “Syngenta will have the single largest interest in GURTs of all the global GM companies. Out of a total of 60 GURTs patents identified to date, Syngenta own 25, or 42 per cent. In the light of the evidence in this report, the four authors have serious concerns about the potential impact Syngenta's work on 'Terminator' and 'Traitor' technologies could have on poor farmers in the South if commercialised.�? If commercialized, GURTs will lock farmers across the world into a cycle that stops them saving seed and forces them to buy new patented seed and/or switching chemicals from biotech companies every year. Despite the promises of both of Syngenta’s predecessor companies, AstraZeneca and Novartis, not to develop technologies that would prevent farmers from growing second-generation seed, Syngenta has continued to patent and develop GURTs. 4. Syngenta’s Major Products BT Maize – Bt Milho: Perhaps Sygnenta’s most important GMO seed product is Bt maize (corn). From the 1980s onwards, the focus for the companies that merged to form Novartis, which eventually became Syngenta, was engineering Bt toxin insect resistance into crops. The outcome of this research was Bt Maximiser/Knockout insect resistant maize, which continues to be Syngenta’s most important own-brand GMO product. Syngenta also produces YieldGard® insect protection (Bt 11). Bt Maximizer/Knockout maize was given approval for commercial growing in the US in 1995, and Syngenta received import approval from the European Union in February of 1997 and June of 1998, respectively. Other GMO seed varietals – Outras Variedades de Sementes OGMs: In addition to Bt maize, Syngenta has developed a number of other GMO seeds that work in tandem with pesticides developed by other companies, including Monstano’s Roundup Ready®, and Bayer’s LibertyLink®. All NK Brand Roundup Ready® soybean varieties have been approved for import into the EU since 1996 and are free to move in all grain channels. Agrotoxic Chemicals: Syngenta owns more than 120 pesticide active ingredients and has over 20 top selling brands of pesticides. According to the Pesticide Action Network of North America (PANNA), the corporation has a 20% share of the pesticide market, and 17% of the herbicide market. Many brands of GMO seeds, of Syngenta and other companies, have been developed to work in tandem with Syngenta’s pesticides. Some of its top pesticides include: • Glysophate: The active ingredient in Sygenta’s Roundup and Touchdown pesticides. Monstano’s Roundup Ready soy was developed to resist this pesticide. • Gramaxone (active ingredient paraquat)—Swallowing as little as one teaspoonful of paraquat can be fatal. Paraquat is extremely hazardous to mammals by all routes of exposure. • AAtrex/Gesaprim (atrazine)—Atrazine is a known endocrine disruptor, which interferes with hormone function, and is also a possible human carcinogen. • Bravo (chlorothalonil)—Chlorothalonil is listed by EPA as a probable human carcinogen. • Topik (clodinafop)—According to EPA, clodinafop is a probable human carcinogen. 5. Corporate Crimes According to PANNA, “Syngenta and the companies that merged to form it are responsible for illegal chemical dumping, disastrous chemical spills and explosions, testing pesticides on people, and harassing and misleading farmers.�? In addition to crimes committed through chemical poisoning, with its entry into the GMO seed market, Syngenta has begun to commit crimes of genetic contamination through the illegal planting and sale of GMO seeds. Following are some, but certainly not all, of crimes committed by Syngenta and its predecessors: The largest case of genetic contamination in the world: Syngenta is responsible for the largest case of genetic contamination in the world. Syngenta's Bt-10 genetically-modified corn, which was approved for only animal feeds, was mixed with US grain meant for human consumption between 2001 and 2004. On Tuesday 22nd of March 2005 Sarah Hull, a spokeswoman for Syngenta, announced that farmers in four U.S. states planted 37,000 acres (15.000 ha) with the experimental Bt10 corn variety from 2001 through 2004. She refused to specify which states. While most of the corn produced from the Bt10 seeds, engineered to act as a pesticide, likely went into animal feed, some of it may have entered the human food supply, Hull said. According to GE Free Cymru, Syngenta refused to give any figures relating to the amount of contaminated grain exported, and it refused to identify the countries involved. At least twelve contaminated cargoes were stopped at Japanese ports, and two in Ireland. It is a fair assumption that other contaminated cargoes were imported, without being identified, through ports in other EC countries, and also in South Korea. Syngenta acknowledged the contamination to the public only after the story was published on the Web site of Nature magazine. According to Dr. Brian John of GE Free Cymru, Syngenta knew about the contamination of Bt11 by the illegal variety called Bt10 several months before the story was broken by Nature magazine. For at least four months Syngenta and the US regulatory authorities, including the USDA and USEPA, connived to keep the contamination incident under wraps, while contaminated grain continued to be distributed on the world market. John maintains Syngenta at first failed to reveal that Bt10 contains antibiotic resistance marker genes, but then had to admit it under pressure from independent scientists. The corporation also failed to point out that BT10 was clearly an "experimental GM variety" which never entered the US approvals process, probably because it was found to be defective or genetically unstable. Upon the public’s learning of the contamination, Syngenta initially tried to downplay the amount of contamination that had occurred. Syngenta stated that "several hundred tonnes" of contaminated maize had found its way into the food chain. This was a lie, and following revelations by GM Free Cymru and other bodies, the corporation had to admit that the real figure was around 150,000 tonnes. GE Free Cymru maintains the real figure was around 185,000 tonnes. Syngenta has also admitted that one of the Bt10 breeding lines "was commercialized in a very small amount" -- which would have been illegal even in the USA, since consent for Bt10 lines was never requested or given. Illegal planting of GMO soy in Brazil: In March 2006 it was discovered that Syngenta had illegally planted 12 hectares of GMO soy in the Brazilian state of Paraná. The planting was illegal because it occurred at an experimental site of the company that is situated within the protective boundary zone of the Iguaçu Falls National Park, which was declared the Patrimony of Humanity by the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 1986. While Syngenta had a license to practice experimental planting of seeds at the site, it was forbidden to plant GMO seeds at the site. In response to the crime, the Brazilian federal environmental agency IBAMA fined Syngenta R$ 1,000,000, or about US$ 461,000 – a fine Syngenta had not paid at the time of writing of this report. Illegal Planting of GMO maize in New Zealand: In the "Corngate" scandal in New Zealand in 2000, illegally imported GMO maize seed was planted on 178 ha of land. Later, when this leaked out, Syngenta refused to allow access to the GeneScan laboratory which carried out the testing. Cattle Deaths in Hesse, Germany: The corporation is the developer and owner of another maize variety called Bt176 which was implicated in the deaths of 12 cattle in Hesse, Germany, in 2001-2002. Bt176 is unstable and non-uniform, which means that it is illegal under EU law. When news of that scandal broke, the investigations relating to the animal deaths were short-lived and profoundly unsatisfactory, involving the mysterious disappearance of animal tissue samples that should have been examined. Syngenta gave the farmer partial compensation in 2002 but refused to provide more support in making a full investigation into the case and to recognize the GM maize as being the cause of his problems. Illegal Imports of GMOs: Northup King, a seed company owned by Syngenta, agreed to pay US$165,200 for illegally importing genetically engineered corn from Chile into the U.S., and illegally producing the Bt pesticide in eight unregistered facilities. Creation of U.S. Superfund sites: Government designated “Superfund�? sites are uncontrolled or abandoned sites where hazardous waste is located in the United States. As of January 2002, Syngenta subsidiaries, including Stauffer Chemical Company, were responsible for at least 18 Superfund sites, three of which, according to the EPA, are “extremely hazardous.�? For example, for over 20 years, a Ciba Geigy production plant in Toms River, New Jersey, dumped four million gallons a day of carcinogenic/teratogenic chemical waste into the Atlantic Ocean, 2,500 feet offshore from a popular beach. In 1992, Ciba agreed to stop the dumping and to pay US$61.35 million in fines/cleanup costs for illegal dumping of toxic waste on or near the site. Rhine Chemical Spill disaster: This industrial accident has been described as “one of the world’s most serious chemical disasters.�? During a 1986 fire at a Sandoz chemical plant, near Basel, Switzerland, up to 30 tons of at least 35 different chemicals (pesticides, dyes and heavy metals) including insecticides and tons of mercury washed into the Rhine. The spill devastated the river’s ecosystem, killing more than 500,000 fish and eliminating several species. The river was considered ‘biologically dead’ for 300 km downstream. Sandoz moved all production to Brazil by 1989 after another near-spill on the Rhine. Illegal toxic shipments: Ciba-Geigy admitted to the “mistake�? of shipping 405,000 liters of DDT to Tanzania between 1988 and 1990, a violation of the FAO Code of Conduct on the Distribution of Pesticides and a violation of the company’s own policy guidelines. Racist Testing of Toxic Chemicals: In India in 1975, Hindustan Ciba-Geigy Ltd. sprayed Nuvacron (common name: monocrotophos), a World Health Organization class IB pesticide described as "highly hazardous," on more than 40 Indian volunteers between the ages of 13 and 57. Over a period of four days, Ciba-Geigy used a plane loaded with the pesticide solution to spray the group. In 1976, Ciba-Geigy tested the carcinogen chlordimeform on six Egyptian children. Explosion at pesticide plant, Pakistan: In 1994, an explosion and fire at Ciba-Geigy’s chemical plant in Karachi, Pakistan, burned for over three hours before it was brought under control. The company stated that it lost 85 tons of pesticides in the fire, some of which drifted in a several-kilometer radius and sent firefighters and plant workers to the hospital. Thousands of Japanese suffered from Subacute-myelo-optico-neuropathy (SMON) According to Holley Knaus, “One of history’s most horrifying cases of corporate negligence involved Ciba Geigy and its drug clioquinol. Ciba started marketing clioquinol in 1934 to fight amoebic dysentery. By the time the company entered the lucrative Japanese market in 1953, it was pushing clioquinol worldwide for all forms of dysentery. Ciba was permitted to market the drug in Japan for all types of abdominal trouble, with no limitation as to dosage or length of treatment. Ciba promoted the drug throughout the 1950s and 1960s as being safe and effective, even for children, and as having no adverse permanent side effects. By 1970, 10,000 Japanese citizens, and hundreds of others worldwide, were afflicted with a little-known but devastating disease called subacute-myelo-optico- neuropathy (SMON). SMON victims suffered a tingling in the feet that eventually turned into total loss of sensation and then paralysis of the feet and legs. Others suffered from blindness and serious optic disorders. Almost 90 percent experienced sensory disturbances in the lower back and limbs. Ciba failed to respond to any of these warnings with serious investigations into the effects of the drug, instead continuing to market it in Japan as well as throughout Europe and in Indonesia, Australia, India and the United States. The Japanese were particularly devastated by SMON because it had been administered to great numbers of people in large doses over long periods of time. In Japan, SMON victims filed over 5,000 lawsuits against the company. By 1981, Ciba Geigy had paid out over $490 million to Japanese SMON victims. 30,000 Japanese were affected and 1,000 died before the drug was banned there. Marketing of Products Despite Knowledge of Health Risks Despite confidential warnings from its own researchers, Ciba- Geigy continued to market two dangerous drugs, phenylbutazone and oxyphenbutazone, which are known to cause life-threatening blood disorders. In fact, in an internal document leaked in 1983, Ciba-Geigy admitted that the drug had already caused some 700 deaths. At the time only 72 deaths had been reported. It was only in April 1985, after worldwide protest against the two drugs, that the company withdrew oxyphenbutazone and severely restricted the use of phenylbutazone. In January 1986, Ciba-Geigy Ltd. in Japan was ordered to stop operations for 20 days, after the company was found to have submitted false data to obtain permission to market 46 of its products. Supported and Profited from Apartheid in South Africa Through Syngenta’s predecessor ICI, which had as a subsidiary African Explosives and Chemical Industries, the company played a role in supporting the Apartheid regime in South Africa. According to a document sourced from the Web site of the African National Congress, in 1978 the chairman of ICI admitted that AECI was manufacturing an ingredient used in riot control gas, which was used against those protesting apartheid. The chairman defended the corporation’s production of the gas by claiming that "the use of CS gas is a relatively safe and humane method of riot control". The ANC claimed in the document, “We know that AECI is even more deeply involved in making explosives and chemicals for the apartheid regime.�? Additionally, one of Ciba-Giegy’s U.S. subsidiaries, Stauffer Chemical Company, refused to sign the Sullivan Principles, a list of principles designed for companies operating in South Africa to promote the employment of non-whites during Apartheid. The Multinational Monitor stated in 1985, “Although the list of nonsignatories is incomplete, 28 of the Fortune 500 companies doing business in South Africa have not signed the principles, according to the Eighth Report On the Signatory Companies To the Sullivan Principles. This list of nonsignatories includes: Stauffer Chemical Co…�? Racism As many of the above examples exemplify, Syngenta has a long history of racism. While it has ceased marketing many toxic products in Europe and the United States, it has continued to market and sell chemicals in developing countries where public awareness of these chemicals is lower, and government bodies are more easily manipulated to allow the commercialization of products. The Third World Network writes that Ciba-Giegy continued to test the pesticide chlordimeform on people in the Global South, when it already knew the carcinogenic nature of the chemical. “The pesticide's hazardous nature was discovered in experiments carried out by Ciba-Geigy in 1976-78, 10 years after it was introduced for commercial use…In 1976 after withdrawing the pesticide from the market, Ciba Geigy sprayed Galecron on six Egyptian volunteers between the ages of 10 and 18, all of whom wore no protective clothing for the experiment. These youngsters later suffered diarrhea, dizziness, head and stomachaches, and other symptoms of chlordimeform poisoning. Company publicity in Europe warns parents to keep their children away from Galecron. Ciba-Geigy has long been concerned about the health effects of its pesticide on its own workers. The company spent some $4.5 million improving safeguards at its factory to prevent its Swiss employees from coming into contact with the chemical. Yet Ciba- Geigy confidential reports show that levels of the chemical in field workers from Latin America and Egypt regularly exceed the maximum permitted for the company's own employees. The field workers suffer dizziness, headaches and diarrhea, the reports said.�?