About “Beyond the Rows”

Beyond the Rows is a Monsanto Company blog focused on one of the world’s most important industries, agriculture. Monsanto employees write about Monsanto’s business, the agriculture industry, and the farmer.
[x] close

A Day in the Life of a Pepper Breeder: The Wow Moment

Featured Article

By Scott Milligan
Pepper Breeder

What do I do every day? Essentially, I look for a needle in very big haystack.

As a pepper breeder, I work to grow the best peppers possible. These peppers are vibrant, crunchy, juicy, flavorful – exactly the ones you want to find in the grocery store.

To grow these peppers, I search for the most desirable genetic characteristics. That’s where it gets tough – we have to look gene-by-gene for the best characteristics, the ones that make a pepper brighter or sweeter. Sometimes, we can try thousands of gene combinations before we hit on the right one.

You have to have patience, but it’s so rewarding to finally find that sequence that works. I call it a “WOW.”. It’s such a great feeling when I see a pepper in the store and think, “Hey, I made that!”

One of the most rewarding pepper projects I’ve worked on involves breeding for phytophthora resistance. Phytophthora is a fungal disease that can essentially kills the plant and we’ve been working to breed for improved resistance to it for at least 10 years. Like I said, you need to have patience. We’ve basically come up with the answer by cross breeding the pepper with wild peppers that we found to be genetically resistant to the disease.

We’re always looking ahead to see what we can do to make peppers and our 21 other vegetable crops better and more easily available to you. We look into the future, predict what factors may endanger a crop and work to breed in in genetic characteristics that can withstand the threat.

93 Responses to "A Day in the Life of a Pepper Breeder: The Wow Moment"

    • Roundup’ active ingredient is glyphosate. It is absolutely non-toxic to humans, and the best scientific evidence available suggests it breaks down rapidly in the environment.

      Agent Orange was the product of the WWII Allied R & D.

      Reply
      • Actually, Agent Orange was dioxin gone wrong. And dioxin was an herbicide readily available in the US before WWII. Agent Orange was manufactured by both Monsanto and Dow Chemical Companies.

        Reply
        • Actually, dioxin was not a herbicide. It was a contaminant in the manufacturing process, and that information was provided to the U.S. military. Some 20+ companies manufactured Agent Orange, including Monsanto and Dow.

          Reply
        • Actually, dioxin is not a herbicide at all. It is a chemical that was accidentally produced in an overheated reaction in the production of 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid, one of the ingredients of Agent Orange.

          Reply
      • Glyphosate “absolutely non-toxic.” April 25 (Reuters) – Heavy use of the world’s most popular herbicide, Roundup, could be linked to a range of health problems and diseases, including Parkinson’s, infertility and cancers, according to a new study.

        Agent Orange was used in Vietnam, with serious health effects for vietnamese and American veterans.

        Reply
        • The “new study” you site was put together by an Information Technology researcher — a few reporters fell for it and published stories about it. MIT — where the researcher is based — took the reporters to task for sloppy reporting on a non-scientific study.

          Reply
      • You sound like you make money from this, arent you ashamed ? Monsanto is murdering our food, what amount of money makes that ok ? I really do not get it .

        Reply
        • “Murdering our food” is not a fact. It is a highly inflammatory opinionated conclusion.

          Using that as a foundation to any question is premeditated misinformation.

          Reply
      • Glyphosphate is not the only active ingredient in Roundup. That is one reason why most supposedly “scientific” studies touted by Monsanto are worthless.

        Reply
  1. I love peppers. They are beautiful to grow and to eat. I mostly grow heritage peppers. I object to agribusiness srcewing up our food supply for profit. You could use genetic engineering to increase the nutrients in our food, but that is not what we see.

    Reply
    • Selective breeding IS “genetic engineering”, and humans have been doing it for many thousands of years.

      Everything you buy at Whole Foods is genetically engineering. Corn, wheat, soybeans, etc, do not exist in nature. No matter how “organic” they are, they’re still life forms that humans have created to suit our needs.

      Reply
      • By reading the article, I gathered that you have developed these peppers via conventional breeding. It’s unfortunate that you have chosen to work under the umbrella of a company that many people consider one of the least ethical companies on the planet. My own position on this company is that their naked desire for profit as evidenced by many decisions, most egregiously by their terminator seeds and the systematic attack on farmers throughout the world who have saved seeds. I assume you work for them because they can financially support your work. As you are probably an ethical person in your own life, consider the morals and ethics of the company for whom you work.

        Reply
        • Monsanto is not developing or marketing so-called “Terminator seeds.” And the “systematic attack” you claim we’re making on farmers is actually directed at a tiny minority of the farming population that doesn’t want to pay for the technology it benefits from — unlike the vast majority of farmers.

          Reply
          • Some of the farmers that Monsanto is going after do not want the benefits of Monsanto technology. In fact, they do not want anything from Monsanto, except that Monsanto keep their developments out of their fields. Monsanto appears unable to do this, except by putting these farmers out of business. That is absurd.

          • You need to cite a specific example. We’ll settle for the name of just one we’re supposedly suing who doesn’t want the benefits of our technology.

          • Give me a break – everyone knows what Monsanto has done. The lawsuits are there to prove it, claiming wherever their seeds blow they own the land, and trying to patent life. They are pushing the use of RoundUp that just increases resistance like antibiotics, try to keep farmers from saving their seeds because they want them to have to buy more from them, and over 50 former Monsanto employees are embedded in the Dept of Agriculture to ensure policy goes their way, to just name a few examples of the corrupt behavior and problems with this monster company.

          • I saw a documentary about 5 years ago. It showed a farmer being sued by Monsanto. Apparently his farm was next to a Monsanto guided farm, and some of the Monsanto seeds had been wind-blown across the field to his farm, and a small amount of “Monsanto” crop sprang up.. so you sued him. Nice. Not.

          • What is Monsanto doing to help the farmers whose fields and crops have been contaminated with Monsanto’s GMO seeds? Will Monsanto sue these farmers for ‘using’ their patented technology?

      • No, Mickey, selective breeding is NOT “genetic engineering” (with or without quotation marks). Genetic engineering is inserting genes into an organism that would have no other way of ending up there. it is a manufacturing, lab-based operation, not a field-based operation. It inserts genes taken from a different species, or even a totally different kingdom of life. This has NOT been happening for thousands or even hundreds of years, but only in the past few decades.
        In spite of what biotech corporations would have you believe, there have not been comprehensive tests showing these GMOs to be safe for human or animal consumption. They have refused to allow the GMO seeds to be used by independent researchers to do those tests, and there is mounting evidence from the farmers who use GMO crops as animal feed that the engineered feeds DO cause harm to the animals: harm in the gastrointestinal tract as well as reproductive problems.

        Reply
      • Thank you Mickey!

        Must be tough for Monsanto when so many believe the urban mythology of ‘certified organic’.

        Pyrethrenic chemical neurotoxic pesticides, those routinely used by “organic” growers, are nondifferent from pyrethroidal chemical neruotoxic pesticides, in their lethality, their half life, and their toxicity to honeybees and aquatic life.

        A quick perusal of USDA’s ‘rules for organic’ and a few minutes research would teach them, but they cling to belief, however baseless it may be.

        Such individuals unfairly attack Monsanto, based on their poor understanding of the reality.

        I often ask those who loudly proclaim ‘organic’ to be “chemical free”, how the organic farmers grow without dihydrogen monoxide… but it usually only elicits an ‘explanation’ based on the propaganda of the ‘certified organic’ marketers.

        Reply
      • The pepper breeder in this story is incorporating the same techniques utilized by humans for thousands of years to select for vegetable traits we humans enjoy, such as larger sizes, higher sugar content, etc. Granted companies like Monsanto utilize hyper fast hybridizing techniques unavailable to the ancients living in the Levant. OLD FASHION TECHNIQUE no more dangerous that eating modern day tomatoes
        There is a distinction between this type of conventional selective hybridizing and what is now referred to as genetic engineering.
        Which incorporates splicing one or a few specific gene sequences into the genome of a plant or animal – a bacterial gene spliced into the whole genome of a corn plant as an example. VERY NEW and we really don’t know what the long term consequences will be…NOBODY DOES because we’ve only been at it for a few short decades!!

        Reply
    • I like having a modern, disease-free, low-cost food supply. It’s really the only humane alternative. I also like a market-based economy, where I make the choices. Your low opinion is balanced by my high opinion of the advances science has made in this industry. Just make sure that your opinions don’t become regulations that limit my choices.

      And at the end of the day, we’re all living longer than at any point in our history. America feeds the world based on research and development such as this.

      Reply
  2. As I read the comments here it looks like Monsanto has an image problem with the public. A lot of the public has no idea of the good work that Monsanto does. I do remember the days before Roundup ready corn and beans. And there was a Whole lot more toxic chemicals being applied to farm fields ( and I am sure some of that was contaminating the environment. And the weed pressure from weeds like Johnson grass was severely impacting yields. But no one ever acknowledges Monsanto’s contributions. Many talk of GMO’s as if they (GMO’s ) are raping their Sister. With the world population soon approaching 9 Billion and Climate change intensifying farmers everywhere are under ever increasing pressure to produce more food. But no one ever seems to care about that… until of course they go to the grocery store only to find the shelves empty. Does it have to come to that before the public has a change of heart? I wish I knew more about how to do what you do. I would like to know how to stabilize a variety and how breed peppers. There is still a lot of room for improvement. I will be growing open pollinated varieties for seed production this year ( hard to find varieties that it is almost impossible to find seed for. Many of these varieties are unstable and you can only get about 8 generations out of them.

    Reply
    • Indeed, agricultural science is the only reason the human species is able to feed itself to the extent that it does. Organic produce, “sustainable farms”, etc……very cute, but if such things were mandated then humans would starve by the millions. Possibly billions. Americans, in particular, would be lying dead in heaps.

      Reply
      • The loud, very vocal and miniscule minority that opposes scientific advance call themselves “progressives” – yet they want $8 organic milk from locally-sourced cows farmed by methods from 600 years ago.

        As you say, if we let this extreme fringe have its way, people will go hungry. And that’s why we need to draw the line. Do what’s right for people, not just the elitist vegan greenpeace crowd.

        Reply
    • You lost 100% of credibility when you mention climate change. The only 1%’era that believe that are those who wish to profit by promoting a new generation of snake oil politicians i.e. vote for me and I will save us by raising taxes. Corporations can claim buy or products with tax payers money so that we can clean the filth from the air. I have eaten foods in South East Asia while living there during the winter. The food is excellent and they don’t use chemicals and toxic foods from the US are banned. While state side I buy water to drink as in Asia because the water here has pollutants from the chemical plants along the Ohio river. There has recently been toxic chemical found draining from chemical plant causing 300,000 to not be able to use the water for any reason. No all leaks get reported thus no drink the water! Where is the SS/SA? I mean to ask where is Homeland Security protecting us from people that would poison or food & water?

      Reply
    • Please tell this to the American soybean farmers trying to use heritage non GMO soybeans that have been sued out of existence by the trespass of GMO’d soybean genetics onto their fields.

      Reply
      • Can you name one American soybean farmer using heritage non-GMO soybeans who’s been sued out of existence? Just one?

        Reply
        • Here’s one for you.. Just one… Just like you asked for rather smugly. Care of Monsanto’s Wikipedia page:

          “In 1997, Percy Schmeiser discovered that canola growing on his farm was Roundup resistant. He had initially discovered that some canola growing by a roadside along one of his fields was Roundup resistant when he was killing weeds along the road; this led him to spray a three- to four‑acre section of his adjacent field and 60% of the canola survived. Schmeiser harvested the seed from the surviving, Roundup resistant plants, and planted the seed in 1998. Monsanto sued Schmeiser for patent infringement for the 1998 planting. Schmeiser claimed that because the 1997 plants grew from seed that was blown into his field from neighboring fields, that he owned the harvest and was entitled to do with it whatever he wished, including saving the seeds from the 1997 harvest and planting them in 1998.”

          Reply
  3. I pretty much agree with what Steve Mercer said. My family raised onions back in the days when farmers used much more toxic chemicals than they do now. We used both homegrown and commercial seed. In my experience, most people don’t know how crops are grown, and they are unwilling to buy produce that has blemishes, is oddly-shaped, etc. That is what I believe is driving agriculture today, as well as the pressure to increase yields. I still have concerns about the unforeseen, unintended consequences of GMOs in the area of human hormonal activity. We need more research there. But kudos to you, Scott, for your work. Never knew that peppers grew wild, but so tickled to hear that you used them!

    Reply
  4. I am no fan of Monsanto’s business practices and political stances. And if people do not want to grow or buy foods that include GMO ingredients then they should have the information they need. But, in the case of the peppers, I do not think that the new varieties include recombinant, knock out or other direct splicing, multiplying or removal of DNA. I am guessing that Monsanto may be using some biotech tools to assess what genes they have and to help direct crosses and selections, though. I hope they do not apply the draconian restrictions on farmers that accompanied some of their GMO seed sales to the peppers.

    Reply
  5. Research Monsanto and Miamisburg, Ohio. You’ll see the chemical waste and damage in the river and to that town and yes Monsanto did create Agent Orange (they just didn’t refer to themselves as Monsanto at that time)

    Reply
    • Actually, Monsanto did not create Agent Orange but the company did manufacture it for the U.S. military. And it did so under the name of Monsanto. The site at Miamisburg was operated by the Monsanto Research Corporation under contract to the Department of Energy; the contract ended in the mid-1980s.

      Reply
    • Really? … you’re taking a company to task for running a U.S. government weapons manufacturing site, under DOE supervision and DOE rules, responding to government orders for the production of (in this case) nuclear trigger materials to protect you during the Cold War? I’m not too sure but I’ll bet you cannot point out even one or two Cold War or WWII weapons sites that are not Superfund sites. It happened. Nobody with fangs or horns on their heads was running around planning an ecological problem. They were fighting a war in the only ways they knew how at the time.

      Reply
  6. The toxicity of glyphosate is not in contention, it has been found to be mostly non-toxic to humans, aside from eye, skin and mild respiratory tract irritation.

    It is the unlisted “inert” ingredients, and they’re specific combinations (which may enhance or diminish the toxic effects of one another) that deserve increased scrutiny.

    Many of these so called “inert” ingredients are anything but inert.

    Polyethoxylated tallowamine, or POEA, the surfactant that helps Roundup stick to and penetrate plant cells has been demonstrated to be quite toxic to both land and aquatic species – especially in the embryonic stages.

    Most of the studies concerning the toxicity of Roundup center on the active ingredient Glyphosate alone. The “inert” chemicals are not required to be disclosed because they are considered “proprietary trade secrets” to protect the formulations of specific “Brands” of herbicide from being copied by competitors. (Even though a routine lab analysis could easily divulge these ingredients and their concentrations to a competitor.)

    To declare Roundup “absolutely non-toxic” would be a step way, WAY- too far. In 2005, University of Pittsburgh ecologists added Roundup at the manufacturer’s recommended dose to ponds filled with frog and toad tadpoles. When they returned two weeks later, they found that 50 to 100 percent of the populations of several species of tadpoles had been killed. Granted, the manufacturer guidelines tell farmers not to spray near bodies of water, but farmers are largely self regulating and that recommendation hasn’t stopped massive amounts of agricultural run off from entering our ponds, lakes, streams, rivers and even the water supplies of much of the U.S. population.

    POEA has also been shown to cause significant damage to human embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells in concentrations at or below the recommended lawn and agricultural dose.

    Many herbicide formulations contain chemicals that react with one another to cause damaging effects that the chemicals would not cause on their own. This is basically a case where what you don’t know, can’t be proven to have hurt you.

    Reply
    • Surfactants are routinely added to herbicide formulations to break down the waxy coating on plants and allow for efficient absorption of the active pesticide ingredient. Surfactants, sometimes referred to as inert ingredients, are in soaps, shampoos, dishwashing detergents, and laundry products, which account for substantially more direct consumer surfactant exposure than indirect exposure via herbicide residues. The complete composition information of herbicide formulations is provided to the regulatory agencies responsible for approving inert ingredients, pesticides and regulatory submissions. The approval process assesses human health and environmental risk of the total formulation and all individual components, reviewing each independently and as a whole. This assessment is designed to detect any adverse contribution by materials such as surfactants.

      Monsanto has not characterized Roundup as “absolutely non-toxic” and Roundup isn’t registered for pouring into ponds.

      Reply
      • Gee, no kidding Monsanto, Roundup is totally toxic, and kills everything in water to which it applied. Nice admission.

        Reply
  7. I am not a Monsanto employee.

    Thank you for all that you do, Monsanto. Your application of the various sciences to agriculture is helping us to feed the world. The paranoia and ignorance of that portion of the public which sees an evil corporate conspiracy behind every corn plant must get wearisome to deal with. I’m guessing you feed these products to your own families, which you wouldn’t do if you were poison.

    Reply
  8. Funny thing about Monsanto is they have a staff whose sole purpose is to obtain samples from non-Monsanto seed using farms to see if any blow-over plants are growing, and if so, Monsanto sues every farmer whose crops are unknowingly contaminated with Monsanto poison seed.
    Most of these farmers cannot afford litigation and end up paying cash into Monsanto and losing their crops in the process.
    The fact that the US

    Reply
    • Actually, no one was sitting here, waiting to cut you off in mid-post. Monsanto has never — not once — sued any farmer for accidental pollination. And we don’t have a staff that goes around obtaining samples from non-Monsanto seed-using farms. Accidental pollination is not the issue here; deliberate use of Monsanto technology without paying for it is the issue.

      Reply
      • Ok, so the next question becomes, How do you know who to sue if you don’t have samples from their crops? From reading the news stories I have read that if I have a small farm and there is a neighbor with a Monsanto farm, that if Monsanto seed makes it into my garden, then when I pull in my crops to save seed for next year, If I replant a Monsanto seed by mistake I am breaking the law. Which seems to me like blaming the neighbor that gets bitten by your dog, even though your dog jumped the fence and attacked.

        Reply
  9. Monsanto has a very long history of court litigation against small farmers who try to produce healthy fruits and vegetables. Our beloved government always takes the side of Monsanto against the independent producer. It doesen’t matter which political party is in power, they will always side with Monsant. Monsanto is poisioning the planet and ensuring the elimination of crops that have the ability to sustain mankind in the event of a national catastrophy, in favor of genetically modified plants.

    Reply
    • Can you cite one example of Monsanto suing a small farmer trying to produce healthy fruits and vegetables? Just one?

      Reply
  10. It’s more about a farmer trying to produce Monsanto-free fruits and vegetables, lest they be sued for patent infringement.

    Reply
    • Monsanto has never sued anyone for accidental pollination, and it is the stated policy of the company — noted by the U.S. Supreme Court — not to do so.

      Reply
  11. What about Mo Parr? An innocent older man who made a living cleaning seed. Monstanto sued him for “aiding” farmers who saved Monsanto seeds. That’s like trying to sue a car wash for washing stolen cars. How can anyone tell the difference? Is Monsanto trying to terminate every alternative to buying their seeds? Looks like it to me.

    Reply
  12. Terrence Ingram of Apple River, Ill., owner of Apple Creek Apiaries had his bees and beehives stolen from him by the Illinois Department of Agriculture, as well as more than 15 years’ worth of research destroyed proving Monsanto’s Roundup to be the cause of Colony Collapse Disorder. Monsanto couldn’t care less about the misery they cause Americans who are trying to preserve life on this planet!

    Reply
    • The Illinois Department of Agriculture found evidence of foul brood. When they find this, they have to confiscate hives. Their findings were verified by the USDA lab at Beltsville, Maryland. This had nothing to do with Roundup.

      Reply
  13. Made the mistake of scrolling down to comments on this nice article. Good Lord, the TOTAL IQ (i.e. summed up) for all the trolls attacking Monsanto in this article don’t equal the individual that is very eloquently defending the company. Damn fine and professional responses, keep it up!

    Reply
  14. I was born and raised in Peru, a country where GMOs have been recently banned so that makes me wonder, why would a country banned GMOs if they are good?
    I agree that in order to produce large quantities of veggies/fruit for all population, we need to make sure that they have more possibility to grow and to resist any pests, etc. Can something be developed to do this without the side effect of contaminating our natural resources (rivers, etc)?
    If certain pesticides can affect the live of animals I assume they can affect the lives of humans… how can we clean the produce to eliminate that effect (without putting any more chemicals in our food)?

    Reply
  15. Roundup use is unfortunately doing it’s job – killing weeds. Milkweed is obviously by it’s name, a weed. It’s also what Monarch butterflies depend on for food. Milkweed has been significantly suppressed (some estimates have it as much as more than a 70% kill) and that has in turn seriously hurt the Monarch butterfly population.

    While it may not seem that important (pretty butterflies vs. greater food production) I think it’s a case that we’ll see what the ultimate detriment is when it’s too late to do anything about it.

    Beyond that and on a separate note, by selective breeding, we eventually breed out other versions of fruits and vegetables, leaving us ultimately open to catastrophic problems with food in the future – less diversity means it’s only going to take one or two diseases or pests to seriously compromise our food supplies.

    Reply
    • Sean – your point about lack of diversity is a good one, but it’s a consequence of modern agriculture and not just GMO crops. The answer is to keep seed banks.

      Reply
  16. Cross breeding peppers to fine tune a variant is one thing, but there are hundreds of unfriendly business practice stories on Monsanto that have been well reported and widely are available with a Google search. We’re on their blog so it is of course going to be heavily biased in their favor. It is nice that they are taking the time to respond to these comments, though.

    “many of the farmers have said they don’t want to plant crops such as corn or soy—Monsanto’s best-selling seeds are for corn and soy genetically modified to resist the company’s best-selling Roundup herbicide—for fear that their crops will become contaminated and, as a result, they will be sued by Monsanto.”

    http://www.rodalenews.com/research-feed/organic-vs-monsanto-organic-farmers-lose-right-protect-crops

    Reply
    • Todd, Monsanto has never sued a farmer, or anyone else, for accidental pollination. (And a story by Rodale News will also be heavily biased in their favor.)

      Reply
  17. I don’t understand all of this irrational Monsanto hate. We need these advances to feed the world and do so sustainably. GMO means less loss and higher output, which means less use of fossil fuels, less water waste, and less destruction of habitats of endangered species. It feels so much like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

    Reply
  18. Please do not lie about putting the sweetness back in. Produce tastes like crap nowadays. It looks gorgeous in the store and lasts a long time now, but you stole all the flavor and smells to get them pretty. I truly feel that we are a nation of obese people because the food tastes so bad we keep eating more of it to satisfy our cravings. I am very much in favor of what you do as a company but I implore you to stop worrying about getting them to market and think about the flavor. We have bred out the fat from our meats so they are tasteless and now the produce is terrible as well.

    Reply
  19. http://sustainablepulse.com/2014/03/04/150-global-scientists-condemn-retraction-seralini-gmo-study/#.Uxi3R17vY7B

    Check out this link. Elsevier journal is being boycotted because they retracted extremely credible evidence showing the harm produced to living organisms from GMO foods w/ and w/o Round-Up. Neither was good. Infertility, deformations, tumors, etc. This was a very reputable science named Seralini who is outraged by this retraction. The entire “pure” scientific community, not the “fundamentalists”, are trying to put an end to this misinformation. Science is our only tool to reach the truth, and it is being undercut by big money companies like Monsanto, Dow, Bayer, etc. This is all undertaken just so Monsanto and others can claim that no scientific evidence exists showing harm from GMO/Roundup. I hope all these hopeless, pitiful people spend their money before they die, because hell isn’t going to be so great for them.

    Message for the Monsanto posters: Please go kill yourself! Our world will be much more enjoyable without your misinformation and extremely sad rebuttals. I feel sorry for your lack of a conscience.

    Reply
    • Long before Elsevier retracted the Seralini report, eight European governments had rejected it as bad science. Seralini used rats in two-year studies that were bred to be used only in 90-day studies. This particular strain of rat will naturally get tumors 70 percent of the time. It was not reputable science — it was a result in search of study to substantiate it.

      Reply
      • Dr A. Wallace Hayes said the results were “inconclusive”, not bad science. You guys invented bad science. The retraction came just months after the arrival of a former Monsanto scientist on the editorial board of FCT. A former member of the editorial board of FCT, Marcel Roberfroid, condemned the retraction in a letter to the editor of the journal, saying, “Your decision, which can be interpreted as a will to eliminate scientific information that does not help supporting industrial interests is, in my view, unacceptable.” In a separate initiative, over 1200 scientists have pledged to boycott Elsevier over the retraction.Claire Robinson said, “It seems that the editor of FCT, Dr Hayes, effectively did the job for the GM and agrochemical industry that the expert witnesses failed to do. The witnesses couldn’t demolish the study through scientific argument, so it had to be removed from the record. That is what Séralini’s critics told Hayes to do, and he obliged.”

        I guess all the genetically modified crap has made you illiterate. You don’t seem to have the ability to read. Good luck with your horrible attack on people trying to protect themselves and their children.

        Reply
  20. The Russians discovered the tomato as they expanded south. They the took the seeds and planted them further north each year using seeds of the plants that grew in the colder climates. They continued this until they had a tomato they could grow at the edge of the arctic circle.This is selective breeding and NOT genetic engineering.

    Reply
  21. Please explain why Monsanto is promoting legislation that would prevent any GM foods, or foods containing GM content, from being clearly labeled as such? If the benefits of GM in foods are as great, and the long-term health and environmental risks as insignificant as Monsanto presents them to be, do you not trust the public to make their own informed decision as to whether or not to consume them?

    Labeling GM foods is the only way that the public will be allowed to decide what they choose to feed themselves and their families. Why is Monsanto working so hard to deny them this right?

    Reply
    • Monsanto is not opposed to labeling. What we did oppose were initiatives that were ultimately not about labeling or the public’s right to know — with broad exemptions from labeling, intricate legal processes, and other problems. We’ve been clear on this blog and Monsanto.com why we opposed these initiatives.

      Reply

Join in the conversation - add a comment.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *