The temporal bias is probably one of the biggest issues here – I think it would be hard to find a major player in the chemical/manufacturing industry with a 100 year history that did not have some (by current standards) history of polluting, underhand play or such like – however applying modern judgement over these acts is akin to applying modern moral judgement over literature (or indeed science) from the 1800′s and early 1900′s – doing so essentially portrays all players in a far worse light than is true in terms of the social and cultural (and in terms of alleged industrial malfeasiance safety – an area which has undergone such massive change in all areas of chemical useage in the past couple of decades that practices in about any laboratory or manufacturing plant pre 1980 would likely seem practically barbaric by modern standards) norms of the time.

The actions of Monsanto actually could be prosecuted under the RICO Act and in the future I’m betting they will. The politicians that they’d bought off will be of no use to them.

Admittedly Monsanto, like all succesful corporations, does a lot in the name of profit – I don’t however see that they take all things contrary to that as a personal attack – they are supportive of non-profit research in GM, they are supportive of utilization of their technology in non-profit areas (WEMA for instance), there probably is a degree of truth behind Monsanto, and their individual employees, seeing some of what is said as an attack (I know I am guilty of this most of the time – because most of the anti-monsanto stuff that gets tossed about generally amounts to nothing more than a made up attack (farmer suicides, health risks of GM, controlling the food supply, being ‘satan’(another gem from the ‘why I work at monsanto posting)) – an also, because most people who work at Monsanto are actually genuinely passionate about what we do (and while I’d really enjoy a 6 figure salary and a nice tidy nest egg when I finally come to retirement, it isn’t this which motivates me to do what I do – although it wouldnt hurt!) rather than being the mercenaries we are often portrayed as.

I’m also somewhat confused about how much sway you actually feel Monsanto has in US politics – my personal feel on this is that it cannot really be that much, GM alfalfa and GM sugar beets are both being held up, the regulatory process for GM crop approval costs Monsanto massive amounts of money which one would assume would be number one on the list of things to get the government to cut back on. Certainly Monsanto spends money on lobbying (it is sadly part of the political system that every company has to do this – if Monsanto were to not lobby for its interests it would be sunk by the counter-lobbying of anti-Monsanto interests) and certainly it cannot be ignored that people who have worked for Monsanto go on to work for the FDA and USDA (and vice-versa) although I’d argue that this is simply a function of people qualified in a given area moving about within their sphere of expertise – why employ people with no idea about regulatory science in positions of power within regulatory science – at a personal level it seems somewhat laughable that loyalty to a past employer would be such that one would jeapordize a current (better) job simply to further the interests of your past employer (although this may simply be that I’ve only ever existed towards the start of the food chain where your loyalty is generally as strong as your last pay check)

When you say that the scientist in you has perused many sources of information on GM crops do you not find that the vast bulk of the actual scientific evidence points to there being no discernible safety risks whatsoever with current GM crops – no feeding studies show adverse effects, 10+ years of GMOs in the food supply show absolutely no linkage to any health risk, any studies which have claimed to show effects are generally weak (such as the study under discussion in this blog) at best, anecdotal data about the health effects of GM crops are clearly overblown and ludicrous (such as the cattle dying upon eating GM cotton plants – something occuring on such a massive scale and with such a massively obvious end result would surely be easily repeatible in any number of scientific studies) – this also begs the question, what would be enough evidence, in your scientific opinion, to show that GM foods were as safe as non-GM foods for consumption (in my own opinion 15 years of data showing absolutely no significant difference is more than enough, it would however be interesting to see what those who remain opposed to some degree or another would accept above and beyond what is already out there).

Are you equally uncomfortable about the efforts of plant breeders globally – daily they mess around with the complexities of life in the hope that they will make something better (and as time progresses and technology gets better and better the dividing line between targetted genetic modification and breeding will become blurry and eventually essentially disappear) – something which has been succesfully done for over 10,000 years now – practically nothing agriculturally produced is ‘natural’ – it is all the result of people tinkering with the complexities of life (and arguably with utterly no clue whatsoever what they were messing with for 95%+ of this timespan – without any major catastrophes) and hoping to make something better. What I (and I guess others like me) don’t understand is why going in and engineering a single (or a handful) of genes in a relatively controlled manner with full knowledge of what you are doing, and with a regulatory burden of tens of millions of dollars to make sure that what you did was what you were trying to do, is seen as ‘playing god’ (whatever that means) whereas the entire process of agricultural development, from the very start, is not, despite having drastically altered wild species in most cases completely beyond recognition to create what we eat today. I can agree that just because we believe our way is right others should not have to conform. I would hope that you can see however that this is (or should be) a two way street – Just because you believe that your way is right does not mean that we should have to conform. There should be a middle ground. There should be discussion. There is no reason that GM crops cannot exist in a world with organic/home grown crops, and vice versa.

I would also disagree that modern agriculture is a failing system. Modern agriculture is the foundation of society as we know it today, short of returning to a hunter gatherer lifestyle, or at least to a subsistence lifestyle of probably 500+ years ago, the system cannot just be reset – there is absolutely no way that individuals could grow what they need to survive, and for society to carry on as it is (or even as it was 50 years ago – 500 perhaps) without the kinds of outputs modern agriculture offers today, and without increasing these outputs over coming years to meet increased global demand for sustenance.

Most of the population of the world cannot grow what they need in their own garden. I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of urban US residents couldnt, it may be possible that suburban US residents who happen to live in areas where the growing season is long enough may be able to put a significant dent in domestic consumption by utilizing the millions of acres of wasted lawn (and wasted fertilizer, water etc for said lawn) however the demand for meat is unlikely to fall in the US, and the growing demand for meat globally requires attention (because food is going to go where the money is until capitalism is no more, and the money is where people can afford meat)

I also dont agree that GM tech adds complexity to a complex system – it may seem that way, but one of the major factors behind the success of RR technology is that it vastly reduces the complexity of the agricultural system (likewise, although to a lesser extent, Bt) – indeed this is often touted as a bad point to RR tech – it apparently makes farming too easy – I would imagine all the farmers who have more time to spend with their families (or time to spend working another job, or to blog, or play video games, or whatever it is they do with the extra time not spent battling weeds) are horrified that something came along which made their lives a little easier.

So, why perpetuate a flawed system? Well, it’s the system that works, it’s the system that built the world to a level where we can have this discussion on a blog rather than having never encountered each other because we’re too busy trying to eke out an existence on our own little patch of land with none of the modern conveniences allowed to us by the freeing up of millions from food production – we’re working to improve the system, to reduce its environmental impact, to reduce the workload required to produce the food needed to keep the world going. The system you propose may work fine for a handful of people who have the the resources in terms of land, climate and time – however it is a system which has been tried, and found wanting, one which would have absolutely no chance supporting the global population as it was 30 years ago, nevermind as it will be in 30 years time.

In terms of GM crops eliminating choice – how so exactly? You claim that you can grow what you need in your own garden – surely your choice comes from here. There is an arguement that the presence of GM crops in the market is actually a boon to the organic industry (see previous blogs) – generating extra choice rather than removing choice. The arguement also falls rather flat in that it appears to demand a removal of GM crops from the system altogether, which seems rather unfair, as that is eliminating the choice for those of us who do want to eat them, or for those of us who do want to eat cheaply, or for farmers who do not want to travel back in time 15 years in terms of technology available – why should it be that the choice of the few (basing this on the recent USDA data that ~1% of US agriculture is organic) outweighs the choice of the many?

Past notwithstanding, Present Monsanto seems to do a lot in the name of profit, and takes all things contrary to that goal as a personal attack. They’re responses do all seem like spins, because in reality that is what the public faces of companies do.. they try and put the best face on they’re transactions. The business person in me understands that; all large corporations are, by definition, in it for the money; all to a certain degree effect the social and political climate around them. (In this respect, I find that Monsanto has a bit too much of a say in US Politics; it makes me uneasy when any company has the level of power and control in policy making that you do.)
Personally, though, no one, I think, likes to be spoken down to; as one of your employees called people such as I on the “why I work for Monsanto” entry… I am not a “small-person” just because I have qualms about GM crops, and your business practices in general.
The scientist in me has perused many sources of information on GM crops, from Monsanto or Monsanto friendly sources, as well as from your ‘opposition…’ and what I have found concerns me. From none of the studies can I discern whether or not GM food is safe for consumption or use. Safe is a hard word to define, though… I guess it makes me uncomfortable that producers of GM crops assume that they understand the complexities of life well enough to mess around with it and assume it’s as good as, or better than, what nature (or in some people’s cases, god) produced. Humans make mistakes, and so does (and has) Monsanto. So you can see how this “Playing God” could rub some of us the wrong way? Especially since the seeds produced can effect other plants/choices in such a way that in the future there may not be a choice? Just because you believe that your way is the right way shouldn’t mean others have to conform.

In respects to the idea behind GM seed production, I question why should we just try to patch a failing system? Why not just begin anew? What I mean by this is that GM crops seem to be, in my interpretation of Monsanto’s description, a way to patch the failing system of Mono-cropping. I know that not all can do this, but I manage to grow most of what I need in my own garden, or I can exchange my excesses for those of my neighbors. Most would say that this takes too much time (or money) and that it’s not possible for XX% of the population; but question this, what do you do with your time? Do you spend it all in your office working for the money to buy your food and your excesses? Do you spend it watching one mindless TV show after another? Or blogging? (I assure you I have some of those (bad) habits) But why do you spend your time that way? I assure you that feeding yourself isn’t as time consuming, complex, or difficult as you have been led to believe.. and at the scale of my garden, weeds, pests, and the like aren’t a problem if properly managed. Adding complexity to an already complex (and failing) system doesn’t eliminate it’s issues, it worsens them.

So why does Monsanto perpetuate a flawed system? I can understand that you’re just like all the other corporations out there, perpetuating this flawed system, but there is a certain amount of distrust, for very understandable reasons, when a corporation touts being a conscientious company, while wielding (in my opinion) too much power in government policy, and using what George Orwell called “superfluous words to say superfluous things”.. (which I’m fast approaching…) If you really want the public on your side, use simple words to convey direct ideas, get your ass out of the oval office and back into the board room, and try and realize that GM crops do eliminate choice for those of us who don’t want to eat them.

Hopefully you won’t mind holding two conversations at once. You mentioned Monsanto gives biotechnology a bad name. Time will ultimately answer that question. In the meantime, what are your hopes for biotechnology? What sorts of improvements would you like to see or do you expect to see from biotech?

To address some of your other points: In a perfect world, you’d like to have a crop that will simply out-compete weeds for resources, taste bad to insects, good to people, and be hardy enough to withstand fugal, bacterial, and viral infections and bounce back, similar to the way humans can recover from a cold with no lasting effects. In short, acrop that woult require NO inputs of any sort and simply be a plant it, forget about it, and harvest it.

The first concern is “if this stuff grows so well, can we keep it controlled and contained?” The only plant I can immediately think of that’s close to that is Kudzu. It’s a very useful plant, good for lots of stuff. And it’s eating the southeastern US and parts of Australia. Now corn doesn’t propagate by vine, so it should be a lot more manageable, but I’ve seen plenty of stray corn kernals in fields after the combine has been through. You’ll always have some spillage. There could certainly be ways around that, but it’s a concern to keep in mind.

It’s also going to be pretty difficult. Arguably, the bt trait makes crops taste bad to instects. Then there are the drought-tolerant corn varieties Monsanto is devloping and plenty of other traits I’m sure can’t be discussed.

One way to think of it is that Roundup Ready technology was the first step toward that ultimate goal of a perfect crop. Having zero inputs just isn’t a realistic goal to start with, but reducing inputs certainly is.

One way to reduce inputs is to make the crop resistant to the most broad sprectrum, potent, and safe herbicide available, which happens to be Roundup. It so happened Monsanto had Roundup already in it’s portfolio. I’ll admit, that was probably a pretty good motivator to make the technology work.

Hopefully this has given you some food for thought.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/070201_corn

Forgive me if the article is too simplistic. I was looking for one everyone could follow. There are plenty of others.

Nuno – I think I covered the two pronged reasoning behind not labelling (at least in a mandatory fashion) foods derived from GM sources – firstly, mandatory labels should probably only be used where there is a safety implication – ie where traces of nuts are possible, in cases where PKU sufferers have to avoid aspartame, etc – having mandatory labels for something which does not impact health leads to confusion. Secondly there is still a high level of misinformation and misunderstanding around GM crops (helped by nonsense like the study under discussion) which, in my mind, would lead to ‘contains GMO’ being seen as a negative label thus having a financial impact on those who utilize the technology – in an ideal world everyone would assess the data in the same way and come to the conclusion that GM was safe and great and then perhaps a voluntary labelling of ‘contains GMO’ would be a good sales pitch – which essentially is all labels such as ‘contains no HFCS’ are – there is no reason to avoid HFCS any more than there is to avoid any other empty calories (everything in moderation) but because there is a misconception that HFCS = evil labelling things as not containing it translates to $$ – the opposite effect one would see labelling GMOs.

I don’t fully agree that your satire is based around an organic crop – organic crops still impact biodiversity (all agriculture does), they utilize pesticides (from a list of approved organic pesticides), seed saving rules for commercial hybrids are essentially the same as for transgenics in most cases, and as far as I am aware there aren’t specific organic crops which provide benefits above and beyond what conventional crops provide for the third world (and infact the major agricultural revolution of our time which provided maximum benefit in a 3rd/2nd world setting was essentially the complete opposite of organic – high input high yield agriculture with the capacity to feed the ever growing population, without approximately a billion more would likely be hungry today, or would already be dead from starvation).

The comment on monopoly on seeds is also a tad confused – Monsanto broadly licenses its GM technology to seed providers across the industry, meaning that despite an approximate 90%+ penetration of the trait, Monsanto has about a 30% market share – which is not a monopoly by any standards – furthermore, as patents run out (first one due in the next couple of years) this illusory monopoly will become even more ridiculous (keep in mind that patent law is set in place essentially to provide a monopoly type situation for the inventor of a given technology, and that thus far it is the best system to foster innovation and knowledge sharing that has been developed)

Katiie – the entire study being discussed is spin. The data show absolutely no evidence of biologically meaningful differences. Unless you go to absolute extremes of ‘well you can’t prove a negative’ the data categorically shows that there is no organ damage caused by monsanto corn in the study therefore it is fair, assuming you aren’t going to bizarre philosophical extremes, to say “Not so” as thus far all the scientific data point to no impact outside the normal biological variation one would expect in a study of this nature