Monsanto UK Rebuffs Guardian Unlimited for Inaccurate Reporting Essay
Monsanto UK Rebuffs Guardian Unlimited for Inaccurate Reporting
More Essay Examples on Website Rubric
Monsanto UK hits back at the daily Web newspaper Guardian Unlimited for misquoting the company’s statement on the issue of toxic waste dumping in Wales.
In its website, the agricultural and food biotechnological company cross-compared the full and actual statement it said it issued to the Guardian last January with the full quotation in the Western mail and the expurgated Guardian’s version from the article “Monsanto dumped toxic waste in UK” - Monsanto UK Rebuffs Guardian Unlimited for Inaccurate Reporting Essay introduction. The Monsanto Press Office said: “We have no further comments. The Western mail was far more accurate than the Guardian. We have nothing further to add.”
The Guardian earlier alleged in its Feb. 12, 2007 issue that evidence point to how the old Monsanto chemical company maliciously engaged the services of contractors in dumping “thousands of tonnes of highly toxic waste” in Britain’s landfill sites.
In quoting the response of Monsanto to the alleged toxic waste dumping, the Guardian doctored the latter part of the statement by removing what seem to be crucial preceding and following works to shorten the last quoted sentence. The omitted words are highlighted in the following excerpts: “Specific to the questions you posed to us, while the people involved in the manufacture of PCBs at the time and quoted in various documents are no longer with the company and probably deceased, a thorough, non-selective review of all of the documents will show that Pharmacia did inform its contractors of the nature of wastes prior to disposal, and that Pharmacia did not dump wastes from its own vehicles.”
The Guardian also reported in the same issue that Environment Agency has said that the South Wales has been found to be ‘one of the most contaminated’ in the country. However, Martin Watkins from the Environment Agency Press Office said: “All investigations to date have confirmed that there is no identifiable harm or immediate danger to human health.”
The Environment Agency became the lead enforcement authority once the site was designated as a `special site` by the local authority under Part IIA of the Act in March 2005 owing to the nature of the geology and contamination present rather than the severity of contamination. Watkins added also said: “The local authority has the lead statutory duty to investigate potential contaminated land under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.”