Monsanto
Beyond the Rows is a Monsanto Company blog focused on agriculture. Monsanto employees write about Monsanto’s business, agriculture, biotechnology, and the farmer.
Apr 06, 2009 | Read | 175 Comments » Tags: Le monde selon Monsanto, Marie-Monique Robin, Monsanto Documentary, Voleurs d'yeu, World According to Monsanto
Author: Monsantoco 
With a nod to a documentary about GM (that would be General Motors, not genetic modification)
By Chris
Back in 2006 I heard from my colleagues in Europe that a French filmmaker named Marie-Monique Robin was pestering them to participate in a film she was making. The topic? Globalization.
Globalization? Yeah, right.
If you have the misfortune of slogging through all 109 minutes of the anti-Monsanto rant that is “The World According to Monsanto,” (which consists largely of Ms. Robin typing Google searches into her computer), you’ll get to a brief audio cameo of me over the closing credits. It’s about 10 seconds of a five-minute phone conversation that apparently was recorded without my knowledge or consent. During that call, I gave her all the reasons that Monsanto wasn’t going to participate in her movie (summarized below). The only one she chose to use was that we didn’t think the movie would be “positive” toward Monsanto (good example of the selective editing she uses throughout the film).
Sounds like the punch line to a bad joke, right? “I picked up the phone, and the next thing I knew, I was in a French movie.” So how did this happen?
Here’s a brief history of our numerous interactions with Ms. Robin:
She contacted our public affairs person in France about participating in the movie. He said, “Non.”
Then she approached our lead public affairs person in Europe. He said, “Non.”
Then she tried our headquarters here in St. Louis, where she reached me. I said, “Non.”
Like the kid who asks Mom after Dad says no, she tracked down several of my colleagues in St. Louis. They all said, “Non.”
By this time, you’re probably wondering, “How come they’re all saying, ‘Non’? Could it be that…Monsanto has something to hide?”
Hardly.
The reality is that documentary films like this one are a rigged game in which the filmmakers hold all the cards, and the targets who participate are taking a sucker’s bet.
Here’s how it works: a filmmaker gets an idea and does some research (perhaps using Google searches). That research presumably provides enough information to develop a thesis, and the filmmaker then lines up interviews intended to prove that thesis. If the filmmaker is lucky or persistent enough, she can convince the target of the film to participate, lending an illusion of objectivity to an enterprise that had its mind made up before it even started. If we had said “Oui” instead of “Non,” it would have appeared that we were condoning or cooperating in Ms. Robin’s hatchet job.
Not only that, but Ms. Robin brought her own baggage with her. While many online biographies tout her award of the Albert Londres prize for her film on purported organ theft, “Voleurs d’yeu” (“Eye Thieves”), few note that the award was subsequently suspended because of reservations about the film’s accuracy. Read more here and here.
As long as Ms. Robin controlled the editing tools, we knew that Monsanto wasn’t going to get fair treatment, so we declined to participate.
After cajoling us to participate in order to provide balance (as if), all she was left with was a highly edited tape of a phone conversation and some footage of our campus.
Ms. Robin’s film has become something of a minor sensation in Europe, and she’s now a folk hero of sorts. But before you idolize her as Heroine of the Republic or finalize your views of Monsanto based on her movie, consider the facts – the facts she conveniently edited from her movie (which can be found on our Web site at For The Record; the facts she ignored in the face of direct contact with me; and the fact that her portrayal of Monsanto is completely one-sided. Given these facts , can any of her claims about Monsanto in the movie be taken seriously?
Don’t bet on it.
Additional information on allegations made in The World According to Monsanto:
Monsanto and the “Revolving Door”
Why Does Monsanto Sue Farmers Who Save Seeds?
Chris is a regular guy whose approach to each day involves trying to be the best husband, father, friend and co-worker he can – often with mixed results. He works with the scientists in Monsanto’s Technology organization, which meshes with his skill of translating complex concepts in to easily understandable language. He loves the written word and laments the quality of writing generally found on the Internet. He tries not to take himself, or the opponents of Monsanto, too seriously. He enjoys poking fun at the foibles of self-styled activist groups such as Greenpeace and PETA, a hobby he shares with his college-aged children. He is a proud member of the Monsanto Mavericks bicycling team, which raises about $100,000 per year for multiple sclerosis research. His philosophy of life can be summed up in the Shakespearean quote, “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
Category: At Monsanto
Tags: Le monde selon Monsanto, Marie-Monique Robin, Monsanto Documentary, Voleurs d'yeu, World According to Monsanto
On Indonesia, Monsanto affilliates did make illegal or improper payments to government officials between ’97 and ’02. When Monsanto became aware of the problem, we notified the appropriate officials in the US government. The responsible employees were terminated. We paid a fine and implemented a program to make sure this never happens again.
You can read about it in more detail on our Web site at http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto_today/for_the_record/monsanto_business_practice_indonesia.asp
On Indonesia, Monsanto affilliates did make illegal or improper payments to government officials between ’97 and ’02. When Monsanto became aware of the problem, we notified the appropriate officials in the US government. The responsible employees were terminated. We paid a fine and implemented a program to make sure this never happens again.
You can read about it in more detail on our Web site at http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto_today/for_the_record/monsanto_business_practice_indonesia.asp
You won t catch me eating DNA
This is addressed to those folks trying to scare me about genes in food. Don’t get stuck on stupid. And please stop trying to make some political point with trumped up science claims. It’s virtually IMPOSSIBLE to eat without eating DNA. Every organism contains genes and organisms are everywhere. Organisms are food, yes, but there are also plenty of organisms in and on food. So when you eat that delicious free-trade organically grown banana, you’re also eating the bacteria and fungi and all their viruses that come along with it. When you eat anything organic (i.e., something that was alive), you eat its DNA, genes and all. The same goes even for eating meat, even in the raw kibee I love. “Foreign” genes have been eaten by people since there were people. Frankly, even though they’re loaded with carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus, DNAs are so relatively scarce in food that they’re not even a good source for those nutrients. The value of DNA disappears when it’s in food. DNA’s only value in life is as a code and as soon as the code is broken it has no value. Eaten DNAs don’t have any effect on us because they are digested. Even if small bits of DNA could manage to survive, the cells themselves house defenses that chew it to pieces.
I appreciate the take on it that the faculty at Colorado State put together.
http://www.cls.casa.colostate.edu/TransgenicCrops/eating.html It’s predictably “academic” and, of course calls for more research, but pretty even-handed. I’m skeptical as to the value of any more research into this “eating DNA” question – seems like a waste of time, resources, and brain power.
You won t catch me eating DNA
This is addressed to those folks trying to scare me about genes in food. Don’t get stuck on stupid. And please stop trying to make some political point with trumped up science claims. It’s virtually IMPOSSIBLE to eat without eating DNA. Every organism contains genes and organisms are everywhere. Organisms are food, yes, but there are also plenty of organisms in and on food. So when you eat that delicious free-trade organically grown banana, you’re also eating the bacteria and fungi and all their viruses that come along with it. When you eat anything organic (i.e., something that was alive), you eat its DNA, genes and all. The same goes even for eating meat, even in the raw kibee I love. “Foreign” genes have been eaten by people since there were people. Frankly, even though they’re loaded with carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus, DNAs are so relatively scarce in food that they’re not even a good source for those nutrients. The value of DNA disappears when it’s in food. DNA’s only value in life is as a code and as soon as the code is broken it has no value. Eaten DNAs don’t have any effect on us because they are digested. Even if small bits of DNA could manage to survive, the cells themselves house defenses that chew it to pieces.
I appreciate the take on it that the faculty at Colorado State put together.
http://www.cls.casa.colostate.edu/TransgenicCrops/eating.html It’s predictably “academic” and, of course calls for more research, but pretty even-handed. I’m skeptical as to the value of any more research into this “eating DNA” question – seems like a waste of time, resources, and brain power.
Ewan Ross Says:
April 16, 2009 at 7:06 pm
FDA labelling remains safety based need to know. The country of origin labelling is USDA enforced and as far as I know is essentially an advertising tool – great for US agriculture, especially in times of economic woe. It seems poinless to me, and a waste of resources
—————–
Another label from North Dakota Dept of Ag that may or may not be appearing soon: “Sustainably grown.” There is still hope for a gmo label and support in Congress as well.
http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/61-2009/bill-text/JCCH0400.pdf
The USDA seems like a better avenue for gmo labeling than the FDA–unless more studies tip the burden of evidence with safety study reviews. Then labeling, the right to labels, will have to be recognized for the safety issue that it is.
Ewan Ross Says:
April 16, 2009 at 7:06 pm
FDA labelling remains safety based need to know. The country of origin labelling is USDA enforced and as far as I know is essentially an advertising tool – great for US agriculture, especially in times of economic woe. It seems poinless to me, and a waste of resources
—————–
Another label from North Dakota Dept of Ag that may or may not be appearing soon: “Sustainably grown.” There is still hope for a gmo label and support in Congress as well.
http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/61-2009/bill-text/JCCH0400.pdf
The USDA seems like a better avenue for gmo labeling than the FDA–unless more studies tip the burden of evidence with safety study reviews. Then labeling, the right to labels, will have to be recognized for the safety issue that it is.
what are some good things that monsanto does?
what are some good things that monsanto does?
Deb,
There are plenty of promotional marketing labels, such as the ND “sustainably grown” one you refer to. This is marketing, and nothing new.
As you correctly point out, there is a lack of evidence to suggest the need for GM labeling. It’s going to take A LOT of more studies to tip the evidence in favor of labeling.
USDA does not, under existing authority (laws) have the ability to label GMO food for safety reasons.
Food manufacturers currently have the the right to to label food as GM-Free (or equivalent) so long as the labeling is not misleading.
Laws can always change, for right or wrong, better or worse.
Deb,
There are plenty of promotional marketing labels, such as the ND “sustainably grown” one you refer to. This is marketing, and nothing new.
As you correctly point out, there is a lack of evidence to suggest the need for GM labeling. It’s going to take A LOT of more studies to tip the evidence in favor of labeling.
USDA does not, under existing authority (laws) have the ability to label GMO food for safety reasons.
Food manufacturers currently have the the right to to label food as GM-Free (or equivalent) so long as the labeling is not misleading.
Laws can always change, for right or wrong, better or worse.
Carey Michelle,
In your post you claim that “stupid farmers” support Monsanto. I guess that I fall into that catogery because I use Monsanto products. Thanks to Monsanto I can no till most of my ground which means the less trips across my fields the less fossil fuels I burn, and more importantly less tillage equals less erosion I have. Another advantage I see with Monsanto is that they are the only American owned ag company left. but I’m just a stupid farmer.
Carey Michelle,
In your post you claim that “stupid farmers” support Monsanto. I guess that I fall into that catogery because I use Monsanto products. Thanks to Monsanto I can no till most of my ground which means the less trips across my fields the less fossil fuels I burn, and more importantly less tillage equals less erosion I have. Another advantage I see with Monsanto is that they are the only American owned ag company left. but I’m just a stupid farmer.
Brad Says:
April 22, 2009 at 5:18 pm
As you correctly point out, there is a lack of evidence to suggest the need for GM labeling. It’s going to take A LOT of more studies to tip the evidence in favor of labeling.
=========================
How can you be so sure of that? Perhaps this is why Monsanto will not give independent scientists access to seeds for study? Any study showing a significant safety issue should be carefully considered by a responsible governmental regulating body. Scientifically speaking, that is. To do otherwise would not be scientific or responsible.
Brad Says:
April 22, 2009 at 5:18 pm
As you correctly point out, there is a lack of evidence to suggest the need for GM labeling. It’s going to take A LOT of more studies to tip the evidence in favor of labeling.
=========================
How can you be so sure of that? Perhaps this is why Monsanto will not give independent scientists access to seeds for study? Any study showing a significant safety issue should be carefully considered by a responsible governmental regulating body. Scientifically speaking, that is. To do otherwise would not be scientific or responsible.
Danny, I would appreciate if you would not put quotation marks around words that I did not write and then attribute them to me. The correct way to quote me would have been to say: “farmers who are stupid enough to do business with your company.” If you feel like being offended over a general statement about the stupidity of farmers who buy Monsanto’s toxic herbicide (it’s toxic or it would not be called herbicide, right?)and then sell it to consumers to eat and feed their families, then I am not going to try to stop you. I suppose we should all give you a great big cookie for spraying poison! There are plenty of farmers who care what consumers think and are willing to accommodate us by not spraying poison all over our food to get out of weeding their fields. Our own president has an ORGANIC garden at the White House. I hope you grow cotton, like my family members do in Hermleigh, Texas, so no one I know has to eat the food you sell covered in glyphosate.
Monsanto people:
I guess DNA is DNA just like milk is milk (although some milk contains more pus, IGF-1, and rBST than others)? If it is all the same, why not just use DNA from a more benign organism? Then people may not be so creeped out! And yes, I am familiar with the fact that these are not the only organisms used as promoters. I did read the whole article, but who cares!? That doesn’t negate the fact that viral and bacterial DNA are used the rest of the time. I don’t know who said they would never eat DNA, but it wasn’t me.
Intern, companies change their names all the time (many times for shady reasons, read: travel scam companies in Florida)and Monsanto’s other offenses weren’t so long ago, were they? They were in trouble for false advertising in the ’90s in New York, and in this decade false advertising charges in France, http://www.biotech-info.net/monsanto_propaganda1.html and lying about MON863 (caused damages in rats) http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=556517 in South Africa!? And the Indonesia situation was a bit more recent too, no? My point about the current head of the company being responsible for the division that the bribes occurred in obviously went over your heads, but that looks pretty bad to us regular folks who read about it in the Guardian. Personally, I value my reputation too much to ever work for a company that has been accused and charged with such atrocities. I mean, there are people out there who devote entire websites to hating Monsanto! Regardless of the company’s spinning off the chemicals division into Solutia, Monsanto (the company as it exists NOW) is to be held financially responsible if Solutia fails to pay on the hundreds of millions of dollars the company must pay the thousands of citizens of Anniston (and by the way, the lies about the dangers of the leaked and dumped PCBs continued well into the ’90s when a lawsuit FORCED it to be made public.) for destroying their town and keeping it a secret for decades (one internal memo read “we can’t afford to lose one dollar of business”)according to the Washington Post. Sounds kind of like the quote from Mr. Angell, but maybe that was taken out of context too? (Right!
Here is a link to that article for those of you who work for Monsanto. That way you can familiarize yourself with the facts. Y’all seem like a decent bunch of people, but I just can’t see how anyone with a concern for integrity could be associated with a company with this sort of reputation.
Best
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A46648-2001Dec31
CORRECTION (Jan. 11) — A clarification that appeared Jan. 5 regarding a Jan. 1 article mistakenly stated that the new Monsanto Co. had “no role” in an ongoing lawsuit over PCB pollution created by the old Monsanto Co. in Anniston, Ala. Solutia Inc., the company formed from the old Monsanto’s chemical operations, is the lead defendant in that case. Although officials from the new Monsanto entity told The Washington Post that they had no liability and no connection to the Anniston case, the corporation’s public securities disclosures state that it is liable for any judgments Solutia is unable to pay. (MORE LIES BY MONSANTO?) Monsanto officials declined to comment on the disclosures, citing a gag order in the Alabama case and federal securities regulations.
CLARIFICATION (Jan. 5) — A Jan. 1 article on PCB pollution in Anniston, Ala., mentioned a lawsuit scheduled to go to trial Monday. The defendant in that lawsuit is Solutia Inc., the company formed when the former Monsanto Co.’s chemical operations were spun off in 1997. The current Monsanto Co., which produces agricultural products, has no role in the litigation.
Danny, I would appreciate if you would not put quotation marks around words that I did not write and then attribute them to me. The correct way to quote me would have been to say: “farmers who are stupid enough to do business with your company.” If you feel like being offended over a general statement about the stupidity of farmers who buy Monsanto’s toxic herbicide (it’s toxic or it would not be called herbicide, right?)and then sell it to consumers to eat and feed their families, then I am not going to try to stop you. I suppose we should all give you a great big cookie for spraying poison! There are plenty of farmers who care what consumers think and are willing to accommodate us by not spraying poison all over our food to get out of weeding their fields. Our own president has an ORGANIC garden at the White House. I hope you grow cotton, like my family members do in Hermleigh, Texas, so no one I know has to eat the food you sell covered in glyphosate.
Monsanto people:
I guess DNA is DNA just like milk is milk (although some milk contains more pus, IGF-1, and rBST than others)? If it is all the same, why not just use DNA from a more benign organism? Then people may not be so creeped out! And yes, I am familiar with the fact that these are not the only organisms used as promoters. I did read the whole article, but who cares!? That doesn’t negate the fact that viral and bacterial DNA are used the rest of the time. I don’t know who said they would never eat DNA, but it wasn’t me.
Intern, companies change their names all the time (many times for shady reasons, read: travel scam companies in Florida)and Monsanto’s other offenses weren’t so long ago, were they? They were in trouble for false advertising in the ’90s in New York, and in this decade false advertising charges in France, http://www.biotech-info.net/monsanto_propaganda1.html and lying about MON863 (caused damages in rats) http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=556517 in South Africa!? And the Indonesia situation was a bit more recent too, no? My point about the current head of the company being responsible for the division that the bribes occurred in obviously went over your heads, but that looks pretty bad to us regular folks who read about it in the Guardian. Personally, I value my reputation too much to ever work for a company that has been accused and charged with such atrocities. I mean, there are people out there who devote entire websites to hating Monsanto! Regardless of the company’s spinning off the chemicals division into Solutia, Monsanto (the company as it exists NOW) is to be held financially responsible if Solutia fails to pay on the hundreds of millions of dollars the company must pay the thousands of citizens of Anniston (and by the way, the lies about the dangers of the leaked and dumped PCBs continued well into the ’90s when a lawsuit FORCED it to be made public.) for destroying their town and keeping it a secret for decades (one internal memo read “we can’t afford to lose one dollar of business”)according to the Washington Post. Sounds kind of like the quote from Mr. Angell, but maybe that was taken out of context too? (Right!
Here is a link to that article for those of you who work for Monsanto. That way you can familiarize yourself with the facts. Y’all seem like a decent bunch of people, but I just can’t see how anyone with a concern for integrity could be associated with a company with this sort of reputation.
Best
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A46648-2001Dec31
CORRECTION (Jan. 11) — A clarification that appeared Jan. 5 regarding a Jan. 1 article mistakenly stated that the new Monsanto Co. had “no role” in an ongoing lawsuit over PCB pollution created by the old Monsanto Co. in Anniston, Ala. Solutia Inc., the company formed from the old Monsanto’s chemical operations, is the lead defendant in that case. Although officials from the new Monsanto entity told The Washington Post that they had no liability and no connection to the Anniston case, the corporation’s public securities disclosures state that it is liable for any judgments Solutia is unable to pay. (MORE LIES BY MONSANTO?) Monsanto officials declined to comment on the disclosures, citing a gag order in the Alabama case and federal securities regulations.
CLARIFICATION (Jan. 5) — A Jan. 1 article on PCB pollution in Anniston, Ala., mentioned a lawsuit scheduled to go to trial Monday. The defendant in that lawsuit is Solutia Inc., the company formed when the former Monsanto Co.’s chemical operations were spun off in 1997. The current Monsanto Co., which produces agricultural products, has no role in the litigation.
I do believe in a balanced view of things, which is why, after watching the movie, I came to this blog.
I have to say though, that takes a punch at the French journalist, it doesn’t really address they issues raised in the movie.
Chris, you claim that you simply said “Non” to the journalist but then say that she edited all this other stuff out. This is your opportunity to explain what you set and put the record straight, if you feel that’s what needs to be done.
After watching the movie, and having look at Monsanto’s material, I am remain convinced that patented GM food crops are not the solution to world food issues.
The responsibility for food policy and food distribution lies with democratic government. Accountable and responsible government is the tool for managing food. Patented technology from corporations is not.
I do believe in a balanced view of things, which is why, after watching the movie, I came to this blog.
I have to say though, that takes a punch at the French journalist, it doesn’t really address they issues raised in the movie.
Chris, you claim that you simply said “Non” to the journalist but then say that she edited all this other stuff out. This is your opportunity to explain what you set and put the record straight, if you feel that’s what needs to be done.
After watching the movie, and having look at Monsanto’s material, I am remain convinced that patented GM food crops are not the solution to world food issues.
The responsibility for food policy and food distribution lies with democratic government. Accountable and responsible government is the tool for managing food. Patented technology from corporations is not.
I agree, as a consumer, I do not want to eat ANY foreign bacterial or viral DNA in my food regardless of the size of the amount used or how it is incorporated. This company is slowly killing us all off by feeding us this GARBAGE they have created out of greed. It is an absolute DISGRACE as a human being and as Americans to be associated with this company and its products since they do not value the health and safety of any of any body…all they want it that all mighty buck and it is pathetic!
I agree, as a consumer, I do not want to eat ANY foreign bacterial or viral DNA in my food regardless of the size of the amount used or how it is incorporated. This company is slowly killing us all off by feeding us this GARBAGE they have created out of greed. It is an absolute DISGRACE as a human being and as Americans to be associated with this company and its products since they do not value the health and safety of any of any body…all they want it that all mighty buck and it is pathetic!
Carey Michelle:-
I’m a little confused by the idea that any given organism is more or less “benign” than another – in human terms none of the genes currently used come from anything other than benign species (Humans are not a target species of Cauliflower Mosaic Virus, or the soil bacterium which produces Bt toxins, or Agrobacterium) – all the species currently used are as benign to humans as the plants the genes are engineered into (indeed there is more evidence that plants in general are more harmful to humans than the organisms genes are sourced from – ask anyone with gluten intolerance, soy allergies, etc etc)
Bacteria and viruses aren’t malign (well it could be argued that in general viruses are, although in a species specific manner) by nature of what they are – the biotic world would come to a crashing halt if all bacteria were to cease to exist, not to mention that the bacterial world harbors biochemistry so diverse as to make the whole of the eukaryotic world (everything multicellular plus a bunch of single celled organisms) look pretty much like a one trick pony – to discount such a wealth of potential genes due to a misguided perception that bacteria are ‘yucky’ would be a pretty sad path to follow.
Danny :- it’s great to hear that you use Monsanto products and get value from them – I’m sure everyone involved in these discussions would gain a lot from hearing how our technologies have helped you, in the real world, rather than seeing how, on paper, in drab scientific journals, people one step removed from the field think these technologies either do, or do not, make a difference.
Carey Michelle:-
I’m a little confused by the idea that any given organism is more or less “benign” than another – in human terms none of the genes currently used come from anything other than benign species (Humans are not a target species of Cauliflower Mosaic Virus, or the soil bacterium which produces Bt toxins, or Agrobacterium) – all the species currently used are as benign to humans as the plants the genes are engineered into (indeed there is more evidence that plants in general are more harmful to humans than the organisms genes are sourced from – ask anyone with gluten intolerance, soy allergies, etc etc)
Bacteria and viruses aren’t malign (well it could be argued that in general viruses are, although in a species specific manner) by nature of what they are – the biotic world would come to a crashing halt if all bacteria were to cease to exist, not to mention that the bacterial world harbors biochemistry so diverse as to make the whole of the eukaryotic world (everything multicellular plus a bunch of single celled organisms) look pretty much like a one trick pony – to discount such a wealth of potential genes due to a misguided perception that bacteria are ‘yucky’ would be a pretty sad path to follow.
Danny :- it’s great to hear that you use Monsanto products and get value from them – I’m sure everyone involved in these discussions would gain a lot from hearing how our technologies have helped you, in the real world, rather than seeing how, on paper, in drab scientific journals, people one step removed from the field think these technologies either do, or do not, make a difference.
In the interest of full-disclosure I do not work for Monsanto in any way shape or form, nor does any of the research I do depend on any funding or co-operation with Monsanto. I am a scientist.
Carey,
Different genes encode for proteins of a certain function. If you want to take a specified function and put it into a new plant (or any organism for that matter) the simplest way is to find that function somewhere in nature and take the gene that codes for it. It’s far easier to do this than to attempt to create it from scratch. There is no reason to think that the fact a single gene may come from a bacterial species is worse than if it were to come from a plant or a duck-billed platypus. And as to the fears of promoter sequences coming from viruses…I can’t be certain since I’m not one of their employees…but since it seems as though they want to control in what part of the plant the gene is turned on, that they would use promoters from the same plant that they’re transforming. You see all that promoters do is control under what conditions and in which tissues the genes are turned on. They encode no proteins of their own. They only turn things on and off. That’s all. Period.
I find it difficult to say this without sounding condescending, but if you were to take a genetics course you would learn why your concerns were unjustified. I would suggest that anyone learn about genetics it’s fascinating.
Additionally, to Dr. Moore M.D.
Actually I can guarantee you that mutations will happen. I can tell you how infrequent mutations are. 10^-8 or 10^-9 (at least according to my high school biology text this is the case, but that was many years ago). What does that mean? It means that, on average, one base pair in every 100 million to 1 billion base pairs will be mismatched. Now knowing that, does including these genes cause a higher risk of a mutation causing major problems? Since most transferred genes generally range in the length of thousands of base pairs (especially those from prokaryotes which are smaller than eukaryotic genes due to the fact that they do not contain introns, but for the sake of math we’ll say ten thousand) the chance of a mutation occurring in the transfered gene is approx 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 100,000. Easily occurred statistically in a single plant. Most mutations will have no effect, I can say this because anyone who has taken a standard genetics course knows about codon redundancies. Most of the remaining ones will have a negative impact on the protein…cause it to be terminated early, or fold wrong and trigger degradation…in which case the plant will be functionally the same as if the transgene isn’t present. In a very few cases the protein will be stable enough to continue existing and function in some different way. Of these cases, it first must not be damaging to the plant (smaller numbers)…in order to be continued on in the lineage it must also be present in a gamete (continue reducing the probability calculations). In order for the protein product to be harmful to the individual eating it would require so many mutations that the transgene would no longer be identifiable as the one that was introduced in the first place, I can say this because the protein would have to alter itself to resist the effects of proteinases in the gut of whatever is eating it (not a trivial process). Now this would require several thousands of successive generations, plus some survival advantage given to the plants producing them…but all that being the case it’s just as likely that some naturally occurring gene in the corn could do the same thing.
You want to know if the material might contain extra information that might decide to express itself due to some mutation, the answer to that is no. In general in these techniques (again cannot be certain as I don’t work for Monsanto but utilizing general Molecular biology techniques) the sequences you insert into the target are targeted, and random insertions are screened for very early in the process so that the transformants that contain them are eliminated. This targetted process is called homologous recombination. The end genetic material is lost, as is the material that was removed (again random insertions are screened for and culled from the process). In some cases they do decide to attempt random insertion though, and when they do this they find the location of insertion and again screen very heavily for favorable insertions.
As to your concern of “random gene swapping”. It’s not as random as you think. Genes can be “swapped” between chromosomes in only very specific ways. One of these occurs in meiosis (production of gametes) and is generally referred to as “crossing over”. This event occurs only between matched chromosomes. And because development of these lines usually includes breeding to homozygosity (all plants are genetically identical) this process only exchanges itself for another copy of itself. The other way this can happen is by what are commonly called “jumping genes” or transposons. These sequences contain very specific tell-tale patterns and can be avoided in the targeting sequence, and again can be screened against in the selection process. Now for that incredibly minute percentage of chances that it is duplicated in the replication process excised and reinserted in another place in the genome (and for this to happen requires a very specific sequence of extremely unlikely events) what could happen is that the promoter disrupts an existing gene in which case it’s going to cause the gene it disrupts to produce an aberrant protein which is usually a non-functional truncation. Or it’s going to insert itself into a spot that causes the plant to start expressing proteins when it shouldn’t, usually this will cause it to form tumors, in which case nature will select against the self diseasing plants. Or it’s going to insert itself into a spot in the genome that is always tightly coiled up and never expressed. But again this is going to require several generations to occur.
But then, having the education of an M.D. you should know all of this information.
In the interest of full-disclosure I do not work for Monsanto in any way shape or form, nor does any of the research I do depend on any funding or co-operation with Monsanto. I am a scientist.
Carey,
Different genes encode for proteins of a certain function. If you want to take a specified function and put it into a new plant (or any organism for that matter) the simplest way is to find that function somewhere in nature and take the gene that codes for it. It’s far easier to do this than to attempt to create it from scratch. There is no reason to think that the fact a single gene may come from a bacterial species is worse than if it were to come from a plant or a duck-billed platypus. And as to the fears of promoter sequences coming from viruses…I can’t be certain since I’m not one of their employees…but since it seems as though they want to control in what part of the plant the gene is turned on, that they would use promoters from the same plant that they’re transforming. You see all that promoters do is control under what conditions and in which tissues the genes are turned on. They encode no proteins of their own. They only turn things on and off. That’s all. Period.
I find it difficult to say this without sounding condescending, but if you were to take a genetics course you would learn why your concerns were unjustified. I would suggest that anyone learn about genetics it’s fascinating.
Additionally, to Dr. Moore M.D.
Actually I can guarantee you that mutations will happen. I can tell you how infrequent mutations are. 10^-8 or 10^-9 (at least according to my high school biology text this is the case, but that was many years ago). What does that mean? It means that, on average, one base pair in every 100 million to 1 billion base pairs will be mismatched. Now knowing that, does including these genes cause a higher risk of a mutation causing major problems? Since most transferred genes generally range in the length of thousands of base pairs (especially those from prokaryotes which are smaller than eukaryotic genes due to the fact that they do not contain introns, but for the sake of math we’ll say ten thousand) the chance of a mutation occurring in the transfered gene is approx 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 100,000. Easily occurred statistically in a single plant. Most mutations will have no effect, I can say this because anyone who has taken a standard genetics course knows about codon redundancies. Most of the remaining ones will have a negative impact on the protein…cause it to be terminated early, or fold wrong and trigger degradation…in which case the plant will be functionally the same as if the transgene isn’t present. In a very few cases the protein will be stable enough to continue existing and function in some different way. Of these cases, it first must not be damaging to the plant (smaller numbers)…in order to be continued on in the lineage it must also be present in a gamete (continue reducing the probability calculations). In order for the protein product to be harmful to the individual eating it would require so many mutations that the transgene would no longer be identifiable as the one that was introduced in the first place, I can say this because the protein would have to alter itself to resist the effects of proteinases in the gut of whatever is eating it (not a trivial process). Now this would require several thousands of successive generations, plus some survival advantage given to the plants producing them…but all that being the case it’s just as likely that some naturally occurring gene in the corn could do the same thing.
You want to know if the material might contain extra information that might decide to express itself due to some mutation, the answer to that is no. In general in these techniques (again cannot be certain as I don’t work for Monsanto but utilizing general Molecular biology techniques) the sequences you insert into the target are targeted, and random insertions are screened for very early in the process so that the transformants that contain them are eliminated. This targetted process is called homologous recombination. The end genetic material is lost, as is the material that was removed (again random insertions are screened for and culled from the process). In some cases they do decide to attempt random insertion though, and when they do this they find the location of insertion and again screen very heavily for favorable insertions.
As to your concern of “random gene swapping”. It’s not as random as you think. Genes can be “swapped” between chromosomes in only very specific ways. One of these occurs in meiosis (production of gametes) and is generally referred to as “crossing over”. This event occurs only between matched chromosomes. And because development of these lines usually includes breeding to homozygosity (all plants are genetically identical) this process only exchanges itself for another copy of itself. The other way this can happen is by what are commonly called “jumping genes” or transposons. These sequences contain very specific tell-tale patterns and can be avoided in the targeting sequence, and again can be screened against in the selection process. Now for that incredibly minute percentage of chances that it is duplicated in the replication process excised and reinserted in another place in the genome (and for this to happen requires a very specific sequence of extremely unlikely events) what could happen is that the promoter disrupts an existing gene in which case it’s going to cause the gene it disrupts to produce an aberrant protein which is usually a non-functional truncation. Or it’s going to insert itself into a spot that causes the plant to start expressing proteins when it shouldn’t, usually this will cause it to form tumors, in which case nature will select against the self diseasing plants. Or it’s going to insert itself into a spot in the genome that is always tightly coiled up and never expressed. But again this is going to require several generations to occur.
But then, having the education of an M.D. you should know all of this information.
Well, I was thinking of the E. Coli bacteria that were used in the making of rBGH. From what I have heard (and no, I am not a geneticist, but I am a consumer, and as a consumer, I don’t think I need an understanding of how viral and bacterial DNA work as promoters. If I have another option for sustenance that does not force me to eat crops made with viral and bacterial DNA, I am going to choose that form of sustenance whenever possible. Regardless of whether or not it is safe, it is just plain weird and gross! ~ How is that for scientific? You people may want to step down from your scientific pedestals for a second to just try to relate to us consumers. For example, what are the benefits of eating GMOs? Are there any? What is my incentive to eat them? For most consumers, the very IDEA of eating foods that have been made by what many would consider to be the world’s most evil company using DNA from germs is enough for them to want to avoid it when given the choice. Your company seems to understand that, since they are spending millions to prevent consumers from having that choice, despite the fact that 90% of consumers polled say they want it!) E. Coli bacteria kills people. Is that not a fact? I am well aware that not all bacteria is bad, but if you don’t understand why consumers would want to avoid eating anything that has been made using E. Coli bacterial DNA there is absolutely no use in communicating with you.
As a consumer, I should not have to take a course to determine whether or not I want to purchase or consume a food. Just the fact that you suggest a course is needed should indicate to you that the normal, everyday consumer is not going to be willing or (according to the previous poster) able to feel comfortable eating these “foods!” When the initial feeling is utter repulsion, there is no amount of explanation in the world that is going to make me change my mind IF I HAVE THE CHOICE OF EATING SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT REQUIRE SUCH EXPLANATION! THIS IS WHY YOUR COMPANY DOES NOT WANT TO GIVE CONSUMERS THAT CHOICE AND I WILL BE HONEST: THAT MAKES ME VERY ANGRY AND RESENTFUL. You may say that it is not Monsanto’s decision on how to label, but that does not stop your company from spending millions to influence how the folks who do make the decisions decide, does it? I am not usually the kind to say, “don’t confuse me with the facts; I have already made up my mind,” but in this case, when I have another option, I am going to go with that option. Besides, even after all the long scientific explanations given on this blog, I still feel that sense of repulsion when I think about the bacterial and viral DNA used in making the organisms. Then I start to think about the glyphosate the foods are covered in or the fact that there is pesticide I cannot wash off in every cell of the corn. You almost don’t even need to think about the germ DNA to get grossed out! People do not want to eat your science experiments!
What about all the other stuff I mentioned, all the charges of misconduct? No one wants to comment on the false advertising charges or the fact that Hugh Grant was rewarded for running a corrupt division which included Indonesia by being named CEO? What about the lies about MON863? What about how Monsanto is using all the water in Molokai yet claims it is an environmentally friendly company? Why was the company denied four patents recently? What about the lie that was told to the Washington Post about financial responsibility for Solutia? Intern, I am waiting to hear what you have to say about all this recent stuff! You were very quick to dismiss the Anniston story because part of it happened so long ago, but you have not weighed in on this other, more recent activity. Lies and deception abound wherever Monsanto is involved.
Well, I was thinking of the E. Coli bacteria that were used in the making of rBGH. From what I have heard (and no, I am not a geneticist, but I am a consumer, and as a consumer, I don’t think I need an understanding of how viral and bacterial DNA work as promoters. If I have another option for sustenance that does not force me to eat crops made with viral and bacterial DNA, I am going to choose that form of sustenance whenever possible. Regardless of whether or not it is safe, it is just plain weird and gross! ~ How is that for scientific? You people may want to step down from your scientific pedestals for a second to just try to relate to us consumers. For example, what are the benefits of eating GMOs? Are there any? What is my incentive to eat them? For most consumers, the very IDEA of eating foods that have been made by what many would consider to be the world’s most evil company using DNA from germs is enough for them to want to avoid it when given the choice. Your company seems to understand that, since they are spending millions to prevent consumers from having that choice, despite the fact that 90% of consumers polled say they want it!) E. Coli bacteria kills people. Is that not a fact? I am well aware that not all bacteria is bad, but if you don’t understand why consumers would want to avoid eating anything that has been made using E. Coli bacterial DNA there is absolutely no use in communicating with you.
As a consumer, I should not have to take a course to determine whether or not I want to purchase or consume a food. Just the fact that you suggest a course is needed should indicate to you that the normal, everyday consumer is not going to be willing or (according to the previous poster) able to feel comfortable eating these “foods!” When the initial feeling is utter repulsion, there is no amount of explanation in the world that is going to make me change my mind IF I HAVE THE CHOICE OF EATING SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT REQUIRE SUCH EXPLANATION! THIS IS WHY YOUR COMPANY DOES NOT WANT TO GIVE CONSUMERS THAT CHOICE AND I WILL BE HONEST: THAT MAKES ME VERY ANGRY AND RESENTFUL. You may say that it is not Monsanto’s decision on how to label, but that does not stop your company from spending millions to influence how the folks who do make the decisions decide, does it? I am not usually the kind to say, “don’t confuse me with the facts; I have already made up my mind,” but in this case, when I have another option, I am going to go with that option. Besides, even after all the long scientific explanations given on this blog, I still feel that sense of repulsion when I think about the bacterial and viral DNA used in making the organisms. Then I start to think about the glyphosate the foods are covered in or the fact that there is pesticide I cannot wash off in every cell of the corn. You almost don’t even need to think about the germ DNA to get grossed out! People do not want to eat your science experiments!
What about all the other stuff I mentioned, all the charges of misconduct? No one wants to comment on the false advertising charges or the fact that Hugh Grant was rewarded for running a corrupt division which included Indonesia by being named CEO? What about the lies about MON863? What about how Monsanto is using all the water in Molokai yet claims it is an environmentally friendly company? Why was the company denied four patents recently? What about the lie that was told to the Washington Post about financial responsibility for Solutia? Intern, I am waiting to hear what you have to say about all this recent stuff! You were very quick to dismiss the Anniston story because part of it happened so long ago, but you have not weighed in on this other, more recent activity. Lies and deception abound wherever Monsanto is involved.
I am not sure whether e coli was used to make rBST. I do know however that it has been genetically modified to make human inuslin much to the benefit of diabetics everywhere who, prior to biotech produced insulin, faced issues wiht having to use porcine insulin.
I am not sure whether e coli was used to make rBST. I do know however that it has been genetically modified to make human inuslin much to the benefit of diabetics everywhere who, prior to biotech produced insulin, faced issues wiht having to use porcine insulin.
Brad Says:
April 28, 2009 at 5:58 pm
You have a choice. Buy certified organic. Others choose not to spend the extra money. Where’s the problem here?
________________
Over and over we have went over the fact that buying organic does not guarantee the product is gmo free due to genetic contamination. If the organic crop was planted and grown using specified techniques, it may still be certified even though it is contaminated by no fault of the organic farmer. GM is eliminating our choices. Why do you keep saying that buying organic is an option? The more farmers using gm, the more likely organic will be contaminated.
Brad Says:
April 28, 2009 at 5:58 pm
You have a choice. Buy certified organic. Others choose not to spend the extra money. Where’s the problem here?
________________
Over and over we have went over the fact that buying organic does not guarantee the product is gmo free due to genetic contamination. If the organic crop was planted and grown using specified techniques, it may still be certified even though it is contaminated by no fault of the organic farmer. GM is eliminating our choices. Why do you keep saying that buying organic is an option? The more farmers using gm, the more likely organic will be contaminated.
To Carey Michelle,
First of all, I have a name and it’s not “intern”. Don’t expect me to reply to you again unless you start using it. To address some of the points you made:
“E. Coli bacteria kills people. Is that not a fact? I am well aware that not all bacteria is bad, but if you don’t understand why consumers would want to avoid eating anything that has been made using E. Coli bacterial DNA there is absolutely no use in communicating with you. ”
If you feel a “sense of revulsion” when thinking of GM food, then it’s certainly your prerogative not to eat them. However, statements like the above are the reason why you shouldn’t be trying to influence other people making that decision. If you HAD taken a class and learned a little more about biology, you might know that E coli (and other bacteria) actually live naturally within the human body. In fact, without these microbes people can develop serious health problems. Bacterial cells in the human body outnumber animal cells 9 to 1!
As for the other things you asked me about, I don’t see the point in trying to explain them to you until you demonstrate that you’re willing to open your mind and listen to both sides of the issue. You’ve already dismissed out-of-hand all of the scientific explanation that’s been given to you, so why should I waste my time telling you something else that you’re just going to ignore? Tell me that you’re willing to learn a little biology first, then I’ll tell you what I think of Hugh Grant and MON863.
To Carey Michelle,
First of all, I have a name and it’s not “intern”. Don’t expect me to reply to you again unless you start using it. To address some of the points you made:
“E. Coli bacteria kills people. Is that not a fact? I am well aware that not all bacteria is bad, but if you don’t understand why consumers would want to avoid eating anything that has been made using E. Coli bacterial DNA there is absolutely no use in communicating with you. ”
If you feel a “sense of revulsion” when thinking of GM food, then it’s certainly your prerogative not to eat them. However, statements like the above are the reason why you shouldn’t be trying to influence other people making that decision. If you HAD taken a class and learned a little more about biology, you might know that E coli (and other bacteria) actually live naturally within the human body. In fact, without these microbes people can develop serious health problems. Bacterial cells in the human body outnumber animal cells 9 to 1!
As for the other things you asked me about, I don’t see the point in trying to explain them to you until you demonstrate that you’re willing to open your mind and listen to both sides of the issue. You’ve already dismissed out-of-hand all of the scientific explanation that’s been given to you, so why should I waste my time telling you something else that you’re just going to ignore? Tell me that you’re willing to learn a little biology first, then I’ll tell you what I think of Hugh Grant and MON863.
Carey Michelle -
I think that if a certain technology invokes an unfounded feeling of unease or fear in anybody then learning more about it is always a good idea – I dont think anyone needs to go to the extent of taking organized courses in genetics or molecular biology to gain enough understanding to make an informed decision – there should be a level of communication from the people developing these technologies which can communicate the technology to the general public (something which this blog is attempting to do I think, although in general public understanding of science projects arent generally very high profile – they should be)
At present the primary benefits of eating GMOs are entirely cost related – it costs farmers less (or they profit more) to utilize GMOs in their fields, secondarily they reduce the levels of harmful pesticides and herbicides used on the food thus reducing the quantities of herbicide and pesticide that ends up making it to the end consumer – while you protest that you dont want to eat food “covered in” glyphosate it is a safe bet that any food not labelled as “organic” will have been exposed to some other herbicide, and to the best of my knowledge glyphosate is safer than other commercially used herbicides. Equally the pesticide “in every cell” replaces pesticides proven to be dangerous (class I pesticides) with a pesticide which has been proven safe. To (almost)completely avoid pesticide and herbicide residues (at levels deemed safe) your best bet is to buy certified organic – aswell as there being no labelling laws for GM foods, there are equally no laws for foods sprayed with herbicides, pesticides, fungicides etc (or indeed for conventional plants mutated with radiation or other mutagenic substances during “conventional” breeding)
Potential benefits (not yet realized) of GMOs include improved nutritional values (altered balances of omega oils, increased mineral content, reduced toxin content (cassava – a main starch for millions which has the downside of containing such high levels of cyanide that improper preparation can kill whole villages), improved environmental impact (nitrogen efficient crops are targetted to reduce fertilizer inputs by 30-60lbs of applied N per acre – not yet available but an area of investment which shows great promise)
Does E.coli kill people? Certain strains of E.Coli can cause illness which occasionally leads to death, yes. However, and this will no doubt really freak you out, in an average healthy human there are between 10 to the power 5 and 10 to the power 8 E.coli cells/g faeces (thats a whole bunch of E.coli)
I understand why some consumers would want to avoid eating anything produced by E.coli – I just dont agree with the reasoning, I feel that it is either down to a misunderstanding of what these products are, or a misunderstanding of what E.coli and bacteria are.
On the charges of misconduct – if it is true that Hugh Grant ran the division in which an employee was involved in bribery (I honestly dont know) – this is in my opinion a good thing – because, as you will no doubt be aware, Monsanto blew the whistle on itself. After becoming aware of corruption the company reported itself to the US govt – I’m pretty sure that a pathologically evil company, as you appear to presume we are, would have put the shredders in overdrive, slapped a non-disclosure agreement on the guilty party, and moved on without anyone outside the company having any knowledge of any wrong doing (unless lies and deception charges include confessing wrongdoing to an authority which can and will punish said wrongdoing, although I cant quite see how that fits)
Which lies about MON863?
The company categorically doesnt use all the water on Molokai – we’re an Ag company, our hawaii operations produce seed, to produce seed you need to produce plants, to produce plants you need to use water. If we discover corn that grows without water that’d be great but until that point any seed production facility is going to have pretty heavy water useage.
Carey Michelle -
I think that if a certain technology invokes an unfounded feeling of unease or fear in anybody then learning more about it is always a good idea – I dont think anyone needs to go to the extent of taking organized courses in genetics or molecular biology to gain enough understanding to make an informed decision – there should be a level of communication from the people developing these technologies which can communicate the technology to the general public (something which this blog is attempting to do I think, although in general public understanding of science projects arent generally very high profile – they should be)
At present the primary benefits of eating GMOs are entirely cost related – it costs farmers less (or they profit more) to utilize GMOs in their fields, secondarily they reduce the levels of harmful pesticides and herbicides used on the food thus reducing the quantities of herbicide and pesticide that ends up making it to the end consumer – while you protest that you dont want to eat food “covered in” glyphosate it is a safe bet that any food not labelled as “organic” will have been exposed to some other herbicide, and to the best of my knowledge glyphosate is safer than other commercially used herbicides. Equally the pesticide “in every cell” replaces pesticides proven to be dangerous (class I pesticides) with a pesticide which has been proven safe. To (almost)completely avoid pesticide and herbicide residues (at levels deemed safe) your best bet is to buy certified organic – aswell as there being no labelling laws for GM foods, there are equally no laws for foods sprayed with herbicides, pesticides, fungicides etc (or indeed for conventional plants mutated with radiation or other mutagenic substances during “conventional” breeding)
Potential benefits (not yet realized) of GMOs include improved nutritional values (altered balances of omega oils, increased mineral content, reduced toxin content (cassava – a main starch for millions which has the downside of containing such high levels of cyanide that improper preparation can kill whole villages), improved environmental impact (nitrogen efficient crops are targetted to reduce fertilizer inputs by 30-60lbs of applied N per acre – not yet available but an area of investment which shows great promise)
Does E.coli kill people? Certain strains of E.Coli can cause illness which occasionally leads to death, yes. However, and this will no doubt really freak you out, in an average healthy human there are between 10 to the power 5 and 10 to the power 8 E.coli cells/g faeces (thats a whole bunch of E.coli)
I understand why some consumers would want to avoid eating anything produced by E.coli – I just dont agree with the reasoning, I feel that it is either down to a misunderstanding of what these products are, or a misunderstanding of what E.coli and bacteria are.
On the charges of misconduct – if it is true that Hugh Grant ran the division in which an employee was involved in bribery (I honestly dont know) – this is in my opinion a good thing – because, as you will no doubt be aware, Monsanto blew the whistle on itself. After becoming aware of corruption the company reported itself to the US govt – I’m pretty sure that a pathologically evil company, as you appear to presume we are, would have put the shredders in overdrive, slapped a non-disclosure agreement on the guilty party, and moved on without anyone outside the company having any knowledge of any wrong doing (unless lies and deception charges include confessing wrongdoing to an authority which can and will punish said wrongdoing, although I cant quite see how that fits)
Which lies about MON863?
The company categorically doesnt use all the water on Molokai – we’re an Ag company, our hawaii operations produce seed, to produce seed you need to produce plants, to produce plants you need to use water. If we discover corn that grows without water that’d be great but until that point any seed production facility is going to have pretty heavy water useage.
Now, I just love the fact that you compare a lifesaving medical tool with MILK! I don’t remember the last time someone had to drink milk to save their life. If someone is facing death without taking insulin made from E. Coli, that is a very different situation than a biotech company using the DNA from the lethal bacteria to make our milk, no? You are very much comparing apples to oranges, and it is very obvious. I have no problem with medical biotechnology. It saves lives! We are discussing agricultural biotechnology here, and that is a very, very different topic! Your lame attempt to liken E. Coli bacterial DNA in our milk to its use in life-saving insulin is insulting to consumers’ intelligence. Just for the record, if I were going to DIE without consuming E. Coli DNA in the form of a life-saving hormone, I would. If I am just deciding on which milk to buy, I would definitely choose the milk made without using E. Coli bacterial DNA. Can you not get that? That was just a really, really lame argument, Brad
And as far as Deborah’s comment on buying organic goes, what about eating out? Consumers should not have to contact management at every restaurant they visit to see if they use organic ingredients (although I do many times to let them know that I don’t want Monsanto’s products in my food). It is so funny that your company is so arrogant that it thinks consumers should have to find ways to avoid its products instead of labeling them like they do in other countries. It is like saying that because Monsanto wants to spread its venereal disease all over our nation, the rest of us have to use condoms! We don’t appreciate it one bit! BTW, Brad, what kind of bacteria are used as promoters in Roundup Ready crops? Can you please find out what kind of bacteria were used in Monsanto’s production of rBST before it sold (probably at a loss after all the “research” and labelling lawsuits!) to Eli Lilly for what was it, $300 million? I would really like you to clarify that for us all if at all possible instead of just saying you don’t know, which seems like a total cop-out! I’ll bet I can find it myself with one google search, but I would much rather hear it from the horse’s mouth, so to speak. I am counting on you, Brad, to provide us with that information.
Still none of you want to discuss all the other issues Carey Michelle raised? Come on guys? Bring it on! Defend your awesome company from all these charges of deception and lies! WE ARE WAITING TO HEAR YOUR RESPONSE!!!
Now, I just love the fact that you compare a lifesaving medical tool with MILK! I don’t remember the last time someone had to drink milk to save their life. If someone is facing death without taking insulin made from E. Coli, that is a very different situation than a biotech company using the DNA from the lethal bacteria to make our milk, no? You are very much comparing apples to oranges, and it is very obvious. I have no problem with medical biotechnology. It saves lives! We are discussing agricultural biotechnology here, and that is a very, very different topic! Your lame attempt to liken E. Coli bacterial DNA in our milk to its use in life-saving insulin is insulting to consumers’ intelligence. Just for the record, if I were going to DIE without consuming E. Coli DNA in the form of a life-saving hormone, I would. If I am just deciding on which milk to buy, I would definitely choose the milk made without using E. Coli bacterial DNA. Can you not get that? That was just a really, really lame argument, Brad
And as far as Deborah’s comment on buying organic goes, what about eating out? Consumers should not have to contact management at every restaurant they visit to see if they use organic ingredients (although I do many times to let them know that I don’t want Monsanto’s products in my food). It is so funny that your company is so arrogant that it thinks consumers should have to find ways to avoid its products instead of labeling them like they do in other countries. It is like saying that because Monsanto wants to spread its venereal disease all over our nation, the rest of us have to use condoms! We don’t appreciate it one bit! BTW, Brad, what kind of bacteria are used as promoters in Roundup Ready crops? Can you please find out what kind of bacteria were used in Monsanto’s production of rBST before it sold (probably at a loss after all the “research” and labelling lawsuits!) to Eli Lilly for what was it, $300 million? I would really like you to clarify that for us all if at all possible instead of just saying you don’t know, which seems like a total cop-out! I’ll bet I can find it myself with one google search, but I would much rather hear it from the horse’s mouth, so to speak. I am counting on you, Brad, to provide us with that information.
Still none of you want to discuss all the other issues Carey Michelle raised? Come on guys? Bring it on! Defend your awesome company from all these charges of deception and lies! WE ARE WAITING TO HEAR YOUR RESPONSE!!!
One more thing, I would like to know how much the company’s sales of glyphosate have risen since the introduction of RR crops. Monsanto keeps saying these crops cut down on chemical use, but that makes no sense whatsoever seeing as how they are made to be used with chemicals! And regarding the superweeds that your company has created, how are farmers dealing with that? By using harsher chemicals that have been banned in other nations like 2-4-D? Why is your company using all the water on Molokai if it is so sustainable? What would we do without Monsanto!?
One more thing, I would like to know how much the company’s sales of glyphosate have risen since the introduction of RR crops. Monsanto keeps saying these crops cut down on chemical use, but that makes no sense whatsoever seeing as how they are made to be used with chemicals! And regarding the superweeds that your company has created, how are farmers dealing with that? By using harsher chemicals that have been banned in other nations like 2-4-D? Why is your company using all the water on Molokai if it is so sustainable? What would we do without Monsanto!?
Brad, I would appreciate it if you would look into what type of bacteria Monsanto used (before it sold the technology to Eli Lilly) in making rBGH, just to see what methods the company deems acceptable.
I would also like to know what kinds of bacterial or viral DNA are used as promoters in Roundup Ready and Bt crops; is that the soil bacterium mentioned by Ewan above, or are there other bacteria used as promotors?
Finally, despite Ewan’s inability to see why many consumers might consider some bacteria (like E. Coli) and viruses (like the Epstein Barre virus I suffer from, which makes me tired all the time, my glands swollen, and reduces the effectiveness of my immune system, and yes, I know you are not using that particular virus in the crops, but you can hopefully see my point! I am sure your DNA is DNA argument would be interesting to apply here)to be malign, the fact that E. Coli bacteria (a well-known germ that has killed many people)is being used or was being used to produce rBGH or any other product we eat would most likely bother many consumers. So, please provide us with that information as soon as possible, so we can continue the discussion. I would think you could find that information out pretty easily, so please don’t cop out by just saying you don’t know: FIND OUT!
Thanks!
Brad, I would appreciate it if you would look into what type of bacteria Monsanto used (before it sold the technology to Eli Lilly) in making rBGH, just to see what methods the company deems acceptable.
I would also like to know what kinds of bacterial or viral DNA are used as promoters in Roundup Ready and Bt crops; is that the soil bacterium mentioned by Ewan above, or are there other bacteria used as promotors?
Finally, despite Ewan’s inability to see why many consumers might consider some bacteria (like E. Coli) and viruses (like the Epstein Barre virus I suffer from, which makes me tired all the time, my glands swollen, and reduces the effectiveness of my immune system, and yes, I know you are not using that particular virus in the crops, but you can hopefully see my point! I am sure your DNA is DNA argument would be interesting to apply here)to be malign, the fact that E. Coli bacteria (a well-known germ that has killed many people)is being used or was being used to produce rBGH or any other product we eat would most likely bother many consumers. So, please provide us with that information as soon as possible, so we can continue the discussion. I would think you could find that information out pretty easily, so please don’t cop out by just saying you don’t know: FIND OUT!
Thanks!
Carey Michelle,
This is directly from the http://www.posilac.com website. Monsanto no longer owns the product and I wasn’t involved with Posilac so that’s the best I can do for now, but I think that answers your question about which strain was used.
The process developed by Genentech is the basic process used to produce several products other than bST, such as human insulin, interferons, and human and animal somatotropins. This technology enables new strains of bacteria to produce products that could otherwise only be produced in the host or target animal. To manufacture POSILAC, the gene that produces bST in the pituitary gland of the cow is spliced into the genetic information of an E. coli K-12 bacterium. This organism is a well-studied laboratory strain, which is modified so it cannot survive outside a carefully controlled laboratory environment and is commonly used to produce other drugs (eg, insulin). E. coli K-12 possesses a small circular piece of DNA (plasmid) into which the bovine DNA is inserted. After the vector DNA carrying the bST gene is introduced into the E. coli cells, the cells make the protein coded for by the bST gene using their own protein synthesis machinery (Figure 1)2.
As to the other comments, it’s my understanding that agrobacterium is used as a transfer agent for DNA for IR and HT traits. The agrobacterium is a transport vehicle to insert the targeted DNA. Keep in mind that DNA is just adenine, thymine, guanine, and cytosine (I had to look those up, I can’t claim that I knew them off the top of my head). A DNA segment, once removed from a sequence it’s not really anything but code, sort of similar to a lego. That lego may have been part of a castle, but once you remove that lego its no longer a castle, it’s simply a lego. Like you, I am not a geneticist but I think it’s helpful to think of DNA this way.
Of course I’m concerned about e.coli and salmonella in my foods but I don’t worry about it getting in there from biotechnology. Regardless where the DNA came from once it’s removed it’s no longer part of the original thing, it’s just a set of instructions. I am more concerned about e.coli and salmonella getting into my food from other sources… poor food handling, improper cleaning, or organic foods. And, I’m not trying to say that there is anything wrong with organic or that all organic foods are going to cause salmonella or e.coli outbreaks but if animal manure is used for fertilizer then it can be a source, but like I said, there are several sources for bacteria contamination.
The truth is that all foods have the risk of bacteria or virus contamination but it’s not from biotechnology, and that’s why I always wash my fruits/veggies (even if it’s prewashed) and thoroughly cook my meat.
PS. I’m sorry to hear you suffer from Epstein Barr. I did some quick research – is it correct that it is a life-long dormant infection that will reactivate at times?
Carey Michelle,
This is directly from the http://www.posilac.com website. Monsanto no longer owns the product and I wasn’t involved with Posilac so that’s the best I can do for now, but I think that answers your question about which strain was used.
The process developed by Genentech is the basic process used to produce several products other than bST, such as human insulin, interferons, and human and animal somatotropins. This technology enables new strains of bacteria to produce products that could otherwise only be produced in the host or target animal. To manufacture POSILAC, the gene that produces bST in the pituitary gland of the cow is spliced into the genetic information of an E. coli K-12 bacterium. This organism is a well-studied laboratory strain, which is modified so it cannot survive outside a carefully controlled laboratory environment and is commonly used to produce other drugs (eg, insulin). E. coli K-12 possesses a small circular piece of DNA (plasmid) into which the bovine DNA is inserted. After the vector DNA carrying the bST gene is introduced into the E. coli cells, the cells make the protein coded for by the bST gene using their own protein synthesis machinery (Figure 1)2.
As to the other comments, it’s my understanding that agrobacterium is used as a transfer agent for DNA for IR and HT traits. The agrobacterium is a transport vehicle to insert the targeted DNA. Keep in mind that DNA is just adenine, thymine, guanine, and cytosine (I had to look those up, I can’t claim that I knew them off the top of my head). A DNA segment, once removed from a sequence it’s not really anything but code, sort of similar to a lego. That lego may have been part of a castle, but once you remove that lego its no longer a castle, it’s simply a lego. Like you, I am not a geneticist but I think it’s helpful to think of DNA this way.
Of course I’m concerned about e.coli and salmonella in my foods but I don’t worry about it getting in there from biotechnology. Regardless where the DNA came from once it’s removed it’s no longer part of the original thing, it’s just a set of instructions. I am more concerned about e.coli and salmonella getting into my food from other sources… poor food handling, improper cleaning, or organic foods. And, I’m not trying to say that there is anything wrong with organic or that all organic foods are going to cause salmonella or e.coli outbreaks but if animal manure is used for fertilizer then it can be a source, but like I said, there are several sources for bacteria contamination.
The truth is that all foods have the risk of bacteria or virus contamination but it’s not from biotechnology, and that’s why I always wash my fruits/veggies (even if it’s prewashed) and thoroughly cook my meat.
PS. I’m sorry to hear you suffer from Epstein Barr. I did some quick research – is it correct that it is a life-long dormant infection that will reactivate at times?
Johnny,
Just keep in mind that no one who comments or writes on the blog for Monsanto is getting paid to do so. We have other jobs here at Monsanto, just check out our profiles on About the Bloggers, and we blog and answer questions when we have time between our normal workloads. So, I don’t want to speak for Brad, but he may have just been too busy to gather that research for you at the time.
I think I may have answered your question about rBST in my reply to Carey Michelle. See my comment above.
“How much the company’s sales of glyphosate have risen since the introduction of RR crops”
The company’s sales of glyphosate have risen because the popularity of RR crops, not because people are increasing the amount of herbicide that they spray. Glyphosate is not used on crops that are not Roundup Ready, so before RR crops the herbicide would not have been widely used in farming. RR crops cuts down on chemical use because while most farmers with RR crops use glyphosate they use less of it than they would use if they were using other herbicides. The ability to use glyphosate on RR crops has also contributed to the adoption of no-till farming, which prevents erosion and leaching. I might also mention that the patent on Roundup has expired and generic glyphosate is also available.
As to the ‘superweeds’, we certainly did not create them, if that’s what you are suggesting. Most farmers follow very practical approaches to weed resistance management: http://www.weedresistancemanagement.com/
I would remind you that farmers are both scientists and shrude business men. Farming is always a gamble and they do not make their product choices without significant research and knowledge. The choice of seed is not a decision that they take very lightly. I’m proud to work for a company that provides products that farmers find beneficial.
“What would we do without Monsanto?”
Well, without the biotech traits developed by Monsanto and other biotech companies, additional plantings in excess of 9 million ha of core crops would have to be grown to maintain current global production levels. So I think we’d either have more than 963 million people in the world that are undernourished (which is the current level, btw) and/or we’d be short 9 million ha which is roughly the size of the entire state of Maine.
Johnny,
Just keep in mind that no one who comments or writes on the blog for Monsanto is getting paid to do so. We have other jobs here at Monsanto, just check out our profiles on About the Bloggers, and we blog and answer questions when we have time between our normal workloads. So, I don’t want to speak for Brad, but he may have just been too busy to gather that research for you at the time.
I think I may have answered your question about rBST in my reply to Carey Michelle. See my comment above.
“How much the company’s sales of glyphosate have risen since the introduction of RR crops”
The company’s sales of glyphosate have risen because the popularity of RR crops, not because people are increasing the amount of herbicide that they spray. Glyphosate is not used on crops that are not Roundup Ready, so before RR crops the herbicide would not have been widely used in farming. RR crops cuts down on chemical use because while most farmers with RR crops use glyphosate they use less of it than they would use if they were using other herbicides. The ability to use glyphosate on RR crops has also contributed to the adoption of no-till farming, which prevents erosion and leaching. I might also mention that the patent on Roundup has expired and generic glyphosate is also available.
As to the ‘superweeds’, we certainly did not create them, if that’s what you are suggesting. Most farmers follow very practical approaches to weed resistance management: http://www.weedresistancemanagement.com/
I would remind you that farmers are both scientists and shrude business men. Farming is always a gamble and they do not make their product choices without significant research and knowledge. The choice of seed is not a decision that they take very lightly. I’m proud to work for a company that provides products that farmers find beneficial.
“What would we do without Monsanto?”
Well, without the biotech traits developed by Monsanto and other biotech companies, additional plantings in excess of 9 million ha of core crops would have to be grown to maintain current global production levels. So I think we’d either have more than 963 million people in the world that are undernourished (which is the current level, btw) and/or we’d be short 9 million ha which is roughly the size of the entire state of Maine.
Carey Michelle,
My apologies for miss quoting you. I do get frustrated when people question my intellagence because I support a company.
Ewan Ross,
Monsanto technologies helps me in multiple ways. The biggest being your corn germplasm. I have found that on my farm Dekalb genetics are always the best yielding and driest come harvest. Along with the genetics, the rootworm trait has lowered my use of insecticides by 80%. The less insecticide I handle the safer I am, and the less insecticide that goes into the enviroment. On the gmo vs. organic debate I just don’t see how we has farmers could feed a world with 9 billion people on it if all farms were organic. Every year we loss more tillable acres to development. Its a fact that yields are lowerd in organic production. Losing land and losing yield equals less food.
Carey Michelle,
My apologies for miss quoting you. I do get frustrated when people question my intellagence because I support a company.
Ewan Ross,
Monsanto technologies helps me in multiple ways. The biggest being your corn germplasm. I have found that on my farm Dekalb genetics are always the best yielding and driest come harvest. Along with the genetics, the rootworm trait has lowered my use of insecticides by 80%. The less insecticide I handle the safer I am, and the less insecticide that goes into the enviroment. On the gmo vs. organic debate I just don’t see how we has farmers could feed a world with 9 billion people on it if all farms were organic. Every year we loss more tillable acres to development. Its a fact that yields are lowerd in organic production. Losing land and losing yield equals less food.
Carey – hopefully my previous post (which posted at the same time as yours… one of the downsides of moderated posts I guess) conveys better my feelings on E.coli etc.
Johnny – the only time E.coli DNA had anything to do with rBST was during the actual production of the rBST itself – the E.coli (which as discussed in my previous post are a perfectly innocent bacterial species 99.99% of the time) was engineered to express a protein identical to regular BST, after its extraction from the bacterial medium it is indistinguishable from BST. No E.coli DNA would find its way into your milk (firstly the DNA wouldnt be present in the rBST, secondly the rBST is injected into the cow, entering the bloodstream where any foreign DNA that were present would be broken down, and finally the hormone which is accused of being present in elevated levels in rBST milk isnt even rBST itself but IGF-1 (which is present in human saliva at ~10000 times the concentrations found in any milk if memory serves)
What kind of bacteria are used as promoters? Easy answer. Bacteria and viruses arent used as promoters. It is possible that small segments of DNA from viruses which precede genes may be used (I’m convinced that in doing so the sequences would just be synthesized in the lab rather than cut out of a viral genome and pasted – although this is conjecture on my part, just seems easier) can be used – and indeed are in many transgenics both commercial and academic (I believe that the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus promoter is the most commonly used)
On reductions in chemical applications – all chemicals are not created equally. Roundup is categorically a safer chemical to apply to crops than say, atrazine. If you look at environmental impact studies of switches to roundup ready cropping systems within conventional agriculture there is a (again relying on memory here, the actual paper is posted in one of the blogs somewhere) 30% reduction in the Environmental Impact Quotient. With Bt crops the reductions can be even more significant (specifically reduction in type I pesticide useage in India)
I believe “superweeds” are covered elsewhere (short story is farmers are dealing with it just fine, and the roundup ready system is still a useful tool, soon to be supplemented with additional herbicide resistance traits to make evolution of tolerance far less likely)
Carey – hopefully my previous post (which posted at the same time as yours… one of the downsides of moderated posts I guess) conveys better my feelings on E.coli etc.
Johnny – the only time E.coli DNA had anything to do with rBST was during the actual production of the rBST itself – the E.coli (which as discussed in my previous post are a perfectly innocent bacterial species 99.99% of the time) was engineered to express a protein identical to regular BST, after its extraction from the bacterial medium it is indistinguishable from BST. No E.coli DNA would find its way into your milk (firstly the DNA wouldnt be present in the rBST, secondly the rBST is injected into the cow, entering the bloodstream where any foreign DNA that were present would be broken down, and finally the hormone which is accused of being present in elevated levels in rBST milk isnt even rBST itself but IGF-1 (which is present in human saliva at ~10000 times the concentrations found in any milk if memory serves)
What kind of bacteria are used as promoters? Easy answer. Bacteria and viruses arent used as promoters. It is possible that small segments of DNA from viruses which precede genes may be used (I’m convinced that in doing so the sequences would just be synthesized in the lab rather than cut out of a viral genome and pasted – although this is conjecture on my part, just seems easier) can be used – and indeed are in many transgenics both commercial and academic (I believe that the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus promoter is the most commonly used)
On reductions in chemical applications – all chemicals are not created equally. Roundup is categorically a safer chemical to apply to crops than say, atrazine. If you look at environmental impact studies of switches to roundup ready cropping systems within conventional agriculture there is a (again relying on memory here, the actual paper is posted in one of the blogs somewhere) 30% reduction in the Environmental Impact Quotient. With Bt crops the reductions can be even more significant (specifically reduction in type I pesticide useage in India)
I believe “superweeds” are covered elsewhere (short story is farmers are dealing with it just fine, and the roundup ready system is still a useful tool, soon to be supplemented with additional herbicide resistance traits to make evolution of tolerance far less likely)
Johnny,
It is a factual statement that insulin is made from ecoli. I pointed this out to address a misconception that the involvement of ecoli (some strains of which are highly pathogenic) in biotechnology, does not render the resulting product dangerous by association – whether it be rBST or insulin.
I do not believe there is ecoli DNA in either posilac or insulin – the protein is purified out.
Organic restaurants seem relatively abundant for those who want to avoid GM, etc. I suspect the abundance of them in a given area is market driven.
Your VD analogy is inaccurate. Numerous regulatory authorities worldwide have found currently registered GM crops to be safe. They are not dangerous or infective as is VD.
What you are suggesting is that because a vocal minority of individuals do not believe the science or regulatory authorities that GM food is safe, that we should violate existing labeling laws which are risk-based rather than value-based.
Change the law if you will – it is your legal right to attempt to do so. But don’t expect Monsanto, or anyone else to cater to your preferences in the interim.
Johnny,
It is a factual statement that insulin is made from ecoli. I pointed this out to address a misconception that the involvement of ecoli (some strains of which are highly pathogenic) in biotechnology, does not render the resulting product dangerous by association – whether it be rBST or insulin.
I do not believe there is ecoli DNA in either posilac or insulin – the protein is purified out.
Organic restaurants seem relatively abundant for those who want to avoid GM, etc. I suspect the abundance of them in a given area is market driven.
Your VD analogy is inaccurate. Numerous regulatory authorities worldwide have found currently registered GM crops to be safe. They are not dangerous or infective as is VD.
What you are suggesting is that because a vocal minority of individuals do not believe the science or regulatory authorities that GM food is safe, that we should violate existing labeling laws which are risk-based rather than value-based.
Change the law if you will – it is your legal right to attempt to do so. But don’t expect Monsanto, or anyone else to cater to your preferences in the interim.