Regardless of how much my sources hate your company, does that make the headlines false? If they are true, then what was your point again? I mean, if the only problem with the supposed credibility of these sources is that they are against Monsanto, then that is not much of a blow to that credibility! Maybe come up with something else to use against them, but I figure if you could find anything worthwhile to cite, you would have done so already.

Regarding MON863, I brought that up because a Monsanto representative is reported as having said the product did not come from Monsanto, when it obviously did. Chris, please take the time to actually read the provided links. That is why I took the time to include them. The issue was not with the safety of MON863(even though that was mentioned), but the deception of yet another company representative!

Finally, it would be much easier to balance my perspective if there wasn’t so much negative information about Monsanto out there! Seriously, if you do a google search, the first few sites are your company’s and the rest are all about how horrible your company is!

Regardless of how much my sources hate your company, does that make the headlines false? If they are true, then what was your point again? I mean, if the only problem with the supposed credibility of these sources is that they are against Monsanto, then that is not much of a blow to that credibility! Maybe come up with something else to use against them, but I figure if you could find anything worthwhile to cite, you would have done so already.

Regarding MON863, I brought that up because a Monsanto representative is reported as having said the product did not come from Monsanto, when it obviously did. Chris, please take the time to actually read the provided links. That is why I took the time to include them. The issue was not with the safety of MON863(even though that was mentioned), but the deception of yet another company representative!

Finally, it would be much easier to balance my perspective if there wasn’t so much negative information about Monsanto out there! Seriously, if you do a google search, the first few sites are your company’s and the rest are all about how horrible your company is!

The allegations you keep repeating sounded familiar, so I checked out the CSR link you included above. It’s a press release issued by an activist investor group who states in that very release that they are targeting Monsanto. They’ve cherry-picked the worst headlines in order to present a distorted view of our company.

However, in the interest of building trust, let me briefly address the issues you’ve raised.

Indonesia: you seem to be looking for an apology. Our general counsel did just that in a widely distributed news release more than four years ago:
http://monsanto.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=278
Wales: we and other responsible parties are working with environmental authorities on a cleanup plan.
West Virginia: this release parrots the allegations of a plaintiffs’ attorney who is driving a class-action lawsuit.
Advertising: it’s not uncommon for these types of agencies to have differences of opinion with the companies they oversee. You seem to be implying that, because these agencies disagree with the content of our advertising, nothing that any of our 22,000 employees say can be trusted – ever. That’s quite a leap.
MON 863: of course it’s a Monsanto product. More popularly known as YieldGard Rootworm, it’s saved farmers like Danny millions of dollars in insecticides they no longer spray on corn. Allegations of health effects in rats made by Greenpeace were repudiated by regulatory agencies around the world, including the European Food Safety Authority.

Here’s the big picture: if you get your information from sources that campaign against Monsanto or biotech, you’re going to have a “glass half full” (or glass empty) view of our company – or have difficulty trusting anyone who works here. Please get a balanced perspective. This blog is one of our attempts to provide that balance.

The allegations you keep repeating sounded familiar, so I checked out the CSR link you included above. It’s a press release issued by an activist investor group who states in that very release that they are targeting Monsanto. They’ve cherry-picked the worst headlines in order to present a distorted view of our company.

However, in the interest of building trust, let me briefly address the issues you’ve raised.

Indonesia: you seem to be looking for an apology. Our general counsel did just that in a widely distributed news release more than four years ago:
http://monsanto.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=278
Wales: we and other responsible parties are working with environmental authorities on a cleanup plan.
West Virginia: this release parrots the allegations of a plaintiffs’ attorney who is driving a class-action lawsuit.
Advertising: it’s not uncommon for these types of agencies to have differences of opinion with the companies they oversee. You seem to be implying that, because these agencies disagree with the content of our advertising, nothing that any of our 22,000 employees say can be trusted – ever. That’s quite a leap.
MON 863: of course it’s a Monsanto product. More popularly known as YieldGard Rootworm, it’s saved farmers like Danny millions of dollars in insecticides they no longer spray on corn. Allegations of health effects in rats made by Greenpeace were repudiated by regulatory agencies around the world, including the European Food Safety Authority.

Here’s the big picture: if you get your information from sources that campaign against Monsanto or biotech, you’re going to have a “glass half full” (or glass empty) view of our company – or have difficulty trusting anyone who works here. Please get a balanced perspective. This blog is one of our attempts to provide that balance.