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.

I understand why you have strong aversions to viruses and bacteria, given your painful experience with mono. My sister had some of the same problems with swollen lymph in her neck after her bout with mono. She even had a slightly botched neck surgery to that was supposed to help her. The surgeon cut through some muscle, creating more pain and complications. I think she is over the worst of it, but can still have flair ups. I, myself, was suffering for fatigue symptoms for years and finally figured out I had a constant case of tonsillitis and had my tonsils removed. I am still working on regaining my strength is had lost those years. I know my situation is not close to what you and my sister have.

I also have empathy for you because of the fear you have of the processes for which the biotech crops come to be. It is really one of the things that frustrates me the most. I don’t want anyone to have to be afraid, worry or panic. It is very difficult to give a clear, easy to understand short explanation of what this is to people what this is. You have seen in the blog comments, suggestions to ‘ take a biology course’. It can really take that much knowledge to understand what DNA, bacteria, proteins, promoters etc, where they are, what they come from. And, it takes advanced degree and years of experience to fully understand it. It really does tie into you medical diagnosis, too. Doctors often cannot (or will not) explain things to their patients because it is too complicated or they don’t know themselves. Then, as a patient, it is hard to understand what is going on. I count myself as very fortunate, with my education, I can usually look up medical things from good sources and figure out what is going on pretty quickly. There is a lot of bad sources of information out there. Even the what you would think in a good source can be convoluted with opinions, sensationalism and even some fear-mongering. It makes me pretty angry when I hear or see bad information the I know will cause people fear and worry.

Now that I have commiserated a bit, I will offer my personal experience with these things you fear and don’t understand. Perhaps is will give some insight in why these things are being done by the people who are doing them. I have been working in the biotech / molecular biology/microbiology field for over a decade. I have worked in labs using E.coli, yeast, fungus, plants, and animal tissues, and not just at Monsanto. I have worked with DNA, RNA, proteins and other cell parts studying various things. First let me say, the biology of how a cell works is amazing, complicate and reminds me of the miracle that life exists at all.

I can tell you in my years, of experience the E. coli used in these biotech processes is not deadly. I have been around it, in contact with it and am not dead and never got sick. In my opinion, it is pretty wussy . It has to be babied. We have to grow it in a special environment to protect it from the other bacteria and fungus that is around everywhere. Because I worked with this, I know a lot about where other bacteria is. If you really want to be grossed out, try googleing ‘gut flora’ or ‘ kitchen microbes’. I am much more scared of bacteria I would find in the world, than in the lab. Another gross fact, if you don’t want to eat bacteria (even E.coli) you will have to stop eating. (Don’t think about this too much, I try not to) There is a lot of beneficial bacteria too. Your digestive system actually needs bacteria to function. Bacteria is used to make good foods, like yogurt.

Having worked in virus lab (specifically an attenuated virus related to small pox),having to be concern about viruses that would kill bacteria I was trying to grow, and being sick form cold viruses a few times , I do have some personal experiences with those too. I am definitely not a fan of the last two. The first one was a version used to study viruses and learn more about them. The benefit of this attenuated version, is that virus mechanisms could be studied, without making the researchers sick. Viruses tend to be very host specific and need every bit of the DNA they have to work in a malignant way. That is why we could work with the attenuated version in the lab. Again, in my opinion, nature does a much better job of creating nasty ones.

Now about the DNA and coding. DNA is everywhere too. The molecular mechanism that make genes work is very complicated. (That is why you see the back and forth in the blog entries of people correcting each other about the details of the science.) DNA coding used in biotech process comes from anywhere that the genes are known about. All organisms used the same DNA ‘alphabet’, it is just different ‘words’ making the genes work. So when you say ‘DNA’ is coming from somewhere, you are taking the knowledge of the DNA ‘words’ and ‘alphabet’ and using it in a new way. It is not so easy to get it to work. Nature mixes DNA around and there are natural things that cause DNA changes (like the Sun). Nature is pretty random. Biotech processes try to reduce the randomness to fit human needs. Other beneficial biotech processes include vaccines and drugs.

I have to say one of my disappointments after coming to work at Monsanto was learning about the backlash against the technology. I have not quite figured out why environment advocates and human rights people are so against it. I am so excited about it. I was excited about it before I new the name Monsanto. Breeding and biotech work is such a step forward from heavy chemistry methods. The whole point of forwarding agriculture technology is to reduce the risk of famine. Nature itself provides some big challenges for humankind to over come – blight, rot, drought, swarms of insects, bad weather (hail, wind). Having secure food production is very important. When you expect each farmer to provided food for at least 75 people, they are going to need some good tools to do it with.

Respect fully,
-JG –
My disclosure: Woman, mother, wife, sister, daughter, friend, scientist, biochemist, Boiler, Monsanto employee, gardener, cook, nature lover …

I’d contest that the “big picture” arguement could equally apply to either side of the debate – you may not feel that some of the questions asked are being covered in a manner you’d like, we (I’m guessing I’m not the only one) feel that in general only the negative aspects of what Monsanto has done as a company are being held up as a representative sample of the company as a whole – the big picture is a lot more complex than this, and not really possible to cover in any single post (I’m sure that despite the length of your previous post there are things you may have wanted to add but didnt, just as in my overly wordy replies I’ve often deleted a paragraph or four in an attempt to make them readable) – hopefully a lot of the topics you are bringing up will get their own blog entries at some point (a lot of the accusations getting thrown around there are news to me, and considering the source you cite I have a feeling they dont necessarily paint the whole picture) – definitely take Kathleen’s advice and catalogue them all in the suggestions section, it may take a while for a response, but at least the questions will be captured in an area where they are most likely to get looked at in depth.

I think most of the questions which have been asked here (and then corrected for errors in their content) have also received answers – ie what DNA is used, why it is used – just with general corrections to the way questions are asked to attempt to better inform people about the topic – even if you still disagree with what is being done at least what you disagree with is something real rather than imagined.

How we can patent our discoveries is worthy of a blog in its own right – I attempted to cover it a little in a response to the “pig” blog, and will rehash some of that here….

Firstly, we dont patent an organism, we patent the introduction of a gene into an organism to achieve a desired outcome – patent law requires that patentable material needs specificity of purpose and non-obviousness (although obviousness here is a strictly defined legal term, as I’d imagine it is pretty obvious to anybody who gives it any thought that inserting a gene for herbicide resistance would be a good way to make a plant herbicide resistant… I guess the non-obvious part of this is which gene, and how to get it expressed).

As I discuss in the other post, when developing an invention a company has a handful of options available to it with regards to that invention, these being – keep its workings secret, patent it, release the information for anyone to use.

Keeping things secret is a great option so long as nobody else figures out how to do what you did – as soon as they do your competitive advantage is wiped out. It is also scientifically selfish as if nobody else does work it out then the invention adds nothing to the advancement of human knowledge.
Equally releasing the information instantly wipes out your competitive advantage. On the up side it advances human knowledge.
Patenting an invention gives you a legally binding competitive advantage for a limited period of time (10-20 years ish) for a full public disclosure of the science behind the invention – a win win situation in terms of profitability and the advancement of knowledge.

Keep in mind that the current estimated cost of getting a biotech trait to market is probably close to $100M – if this investment was completely unprotected then it is unlikely that it would ever occur (a main reason in my opinion for the “green” movements vehement oppostion of patent law – destroy the law, destroy the technology)

The novelty lies not in a complete restructuring of the organism (which would make it not equivalent to regular food) but in the insertion of a particular sequence of DNA which will cause the organism to produce a particular protein for a particular purpose – substantially altering one aspect of how the plant itself behaves under certain circumstances (ie insect predation, or herbicide application) while not substantially altering its nutritional value.

You bring up a lot of the same kinds of questions other people may have as well. We have a suggestion page on the blog, and we are looking to our readers to see what kinds of content they want. Its hard to address the same kinds of questions over and over again and allow blog posts to get off topic so a way of remedying that is by addressing these questions in blog posts. You can post all of your suggestions for future posts here. Thanks again for reading!

On this blog, if a poster does not word their question perfectly the answer gets distorted or no answer is even given. You guys all seem to want to focus on either one issue or another at at time, and no one who works there seems to be aware of all the recent occurrences in which the company has been accused and charged with misconduct, which is the bigger part of the issue, rather than splitting hairs over how we should make sure to say viral DNA is used as opposed to viruses and bacteria, but really, the whole germs are used because that is where you get the DNA!

Here are some exerpts and links for you all to visit to see what your company has been charged with, and I am looking forward to your comments on these specific issues:
This is from 2007:
As recent legal actions against the company demonstrate, failure of the management to oversee these issues can lead to significant liabilities. In 2005, Monsanto was forced to pay a $1.5 million fine to settle allegations that employees bribed Indonesian officials to bypass environmental laws. In January of this year, a French court fined Monsanto Agriculture France SAS and Monsanto’s French distributor, Scotts France, after a former chairman of Monsanto Agriculture France was found guilty of false advertising. Then, in February of this year, it was reported that the British Environment Agency had begun an investigation into “one of the most contaminated sites in Wales” – a former Monsanto dump that could cost more than $200 million to clean up according to a reported estimate. In October of this year, Monsanto was sued by dozens of West Virginians alleging that pollution from a now-defunct Monsanto factory caused them to contract various types of cancer; they are seeking $5 million each in compensatory damages and $300 million in punitive damages. This lawsuit is particularly worrisome to investors because it is reminiscent of a 2002 settlement in which the company agreed to pay the preponderance of a $700 million settlement to offset damages to human health and the natural environment in Anniston, Alabama.
http://www.csrwire.com/News/10407.html

YOU KNOW THE MOST SICKENING PART OF ALL THIS IS THAT THE COMPANY NEVER ADMITS GUILT OR APOLOGIZES! THAT WOULD GO A LONG WAY IN SMOOTHING THIS STUFF OVER, BUT THE ARROGANCE OF YOUR COMPANY PREVENTS THIS FROM EVER TAKING PLACE. I SUPPOSE IF THE COURTS FIND YOU GUILTY AS HAS HAPPENED IN SOME OF THESE CASES THAT IS ALL THE ADMISSION OF GUILT WE SHOULD REQUIRE?

HERE’S SOME MORE:

Monsanto addressed the ASA at length and submitted inter alia that it had a strict code of conduct and that MON 863 was not their product.

The facts are that MON 863 is indeed a product of Monsanto and that Monsanto had suppressed the evidence of serious damage to the liver and kidneys of rats in their own GM maize trials until ordered to release this evidence by a German Court. Furthermore Monsanto had applied to the South African GM regulatory authority for a commodity release permit for MON 863.
http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=556517

Here is an excerpt from an article from The New York Times that describes exactly what I mean by your company cannot see the big picture:

THE $73.5 billion global biotech business may soon have to grapple with a discovery that calls into question the scientific principles on which it was founded.

Last month, a consortium of scientists published findings that challenge the traditional view of how genes function. The exhaustive four-year effort was organized by the United States National Human Genome Research Institute and carried out by 35 groups from 80 organizations around the world. To their surprise, researchers found that the human genome might not be a ”tidy collection of independent genes” after all, with each sequence of DNA linked to a single function, such as a predisposition to diabetes or heart disease.

Instead, genes appear to operate in a complex network, and interact and overlap with one another and with other components in ways not yet fully understood. According to the institute, these findings will challenge scientists ”to rethink some long-held views about what genes are and what they do.

Biologists have recorded these network effects for many years in other organisms. But in the world of science, discoveries often do not become part of mainstream thought until they are linked to humans.

With that link now in place, the report is likely to have repercussions far beyond the laboratory. The presumption that genes operate independently has been institutionalized since 1976, when the first biotech company was founded. In fact, it is the economic and regulatory foundation on which the entire biotechnology industry is built.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0DE4DA1731F932A35754C0A9619C8B63&scp=13&sq=%22denise+caruso%22&st=nyt

Here is what Cummings says about the “central dogma of biotechnology” “The principal presumption behind GE is the idea that DNA is the ’secret to life’ and that there is a linear relationship between a gene and a trait. Dr. Richard Strohman, emeritus professor of molecular and cell biology at Berkely, says that this notion has been discredited…that, in fact, ‘the idea that there is a direct relatonship between a single gene and a single trait is completely erroneous’. He calls this idea ‘the myth of genetic determinism.”

What about the new genetic material found in the soybeans?

What about the other two sites above regarding the false advertising charges and lies about the ownership of MON863?

If Monsanto cares about consumers so much, why the arrogant comments by Brad that we should not expect the company to “cater to your preferences?” Your company does not care about consumers because it has not had to in the past, but there are some things in the works that may change that.

BTW, despite the fact that you guys are not being paid to blog here, you are still being paid by the company, and that is obviously going to skew your opinions. Again, you guys are not seeing the big picture!

One more question: How can you guys patent these “novel” organisms if they are considered to be the same as regular foods? It seems for patent purposes, they are brand new organisms, but for regulatory purposes they are nothing new at all? How can that be?

To fear all viruses because some are harmful to humans would be akin to fearing all mammals because tigers are scary and have been known to kill people.

The reason viral promoters other than more “benign” species promoters are used is because they are “designed” to operate in a fashion that is most useful to biotech – they essentially guarantee that a given protein is expressed in every cell (pretty much) – there is absolutely no reason to expect a bacterial promoter, promoter from another plant, or indeed any of the promoters from the same plant species to perform as well as a viral promoter if what you want is non-specific high expression (ie lots of the protein you’re engineering in, in as much of the plant as you can get it into) – if better promoters were available, especially from a more PR friendly point of view, I can guarantee we’d be using them (assuming someone else didnt have the patent of course!)

As Kate says, and as I alluded to, not all strains of E.coli are deadly, just as you shouldnt fear a shitzu because of the reputation pitbulls have, you equally shouldnt lump all E.coli into the ‘deadly’ category (considering the fact every human on the planet contains billions of E.coli it should be obvious that being deadly is the exception not the rule for E.coli)

I’m sorry if I appear to be nitpicking when correcting some of the ways questions are posed – I honestly feel that when people phrase their questions in a manner which expresses the facts incorrectly that there is a real need to at least correct the facts so that an understanding can be arrived at – so long as people believe that actual viruses and bacteria are being inserted into plants, and go on propagating such assumptions, biotech remains looking sinister.