In April 2009 AndrÃ©s Carrasco, an Argentinian embryologist, gave an interview to the leading Buenos Aires newspaper PÃ¡gina 12, in which he described the alarming results of a research project he is leading into the impact of the herbicide glyphosate on the foetuses of amphibians. Dr Carrasco, who works in the Ministry of Scienceâ€™s Conicet (National Council of Scientific and Technical Investigations), said that their results suggested that the herbicide could cause brain, intestinal and heart defects in the foetuses. Glyphosate is the herbicide used in the cultivation of Monsantoâ€™s genetically modified soya, which now covers some 18 million hectares, about half of Argentinaâ€™s arable land. 
Carrasco said that the doses of herbicide used in their study were â€œmuch lower than the levels used in the fumigationsâ€. Indeed, as some weeds have become resistant to glyphosate, many farmers are greatly increasing the concentration of the herbicide. According to PÃ¡gina 12, this means that, in practice, the herbicide applied in the fields is between 50 and 1,540 times stronger than that used by Carrasco. The results in the study are confirming what peasant and indigenous communities â€“ the people most affected by the spraying â€“ have been denouncing for over a decade. The study also has profound consequences for the USAâ€™s anti-narcotics strategy in Colombia, because the planes spray glyphosate, reinforced with additional chemicals, on the coca fields (and the peasants living among them).
Three days after the interview, the Association of Environmental Lawyers filed a petition with the Argentine Supreme Court, calling for a ban on the use and sale of glyphosate until its impact on health and on the environment had been investigated. Five days later the Ministry of Defense banned the planting of soya in its fields. This sparked a strong reaction from the multinational biotechnology companies and their supporters. Fearful that their most famous product, a symbol of the dominant farming model, would be banned, they mounted an unprecedented attack on Carrasco, ridiculing his research and even issuing personal threats. He was accused of inventing his whole investigation, as his results have not yet been peer-reviewed and published in a prestigious scientific journal.
According to an article in the Argentine press, after news about the study broke, Dr. Carrasco was the victim of an act of intimidation, when four men arrived at his laboratory in the Faculty of Medicine and acted extremely aggressively.
Two of the men were said to be members of an agrochemical industry body but refused to give their names. The other two claimed to be a lawyer and notary. They apparently interrogated Dr. Carrasco and demanded to see details of the experiments. They left a card BasÃlico, Andrada & Santurio, attorneys on behalf of Felipe Alejandro NoÃ«l.
Carrasco was firm in his response: â€œWhen one is dealing with a subject of limited public interest, one can keep the study secret until all the last details have been resolved. But when one uncovers facts that are important for public health, one has an obligation to make an effort to publish the results urgently and with maximum publicity.â€ Even so, he was clearly taken aback by the strength of the reaction. â€œIt was a violent, disproportionate, dirty reactionâ€, he said. â€œI hadnâ€™t even discovered anything new, only confirmed conclusions that others had reached. One has to remember, too, that the study originated in contacts with communities that have suffered the impact of agro-chemicals. They are the undeniable proof of the impact.â€ He is not intimidated: â€œIf I know something, I will not shut my mouth.â€
â€‚See: GRAIN, Twelve Years of GM Soya in Argentina â€“ a Disaster for People and the Environment, Seedling, January 2009.
Source: OCA, GRAIN: Seeds of Information, July 2009