First, some important things to point out: Monsanto no longer owns Posilac and does not produce rBST. Also, we don’t produce synthetic fertilizer or any fertilizer, for that matter.

Now to the much more important issues. Monsanto has a few programs in place under our pledge report that focus on educating farmers on how to farm successfully in order to benefit both their families, their community and the world.
In the U.S. we have learning centers that educate farmers about the research we have done to improve farming.

Worldwide, we recently launched Project SHARE, a four-year pilot project that aims to improve the socio-economic conditions of 10,000 small-marginal cotton and corn farmers—from 1,100 villages, across three states in India—Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan—to help them improve yield and income. We have also donated seed to various countries in need, including Malawi.
Despite what many may think, Monsanto and its employees care about the success of their customers and ensuring that they are getting the most they can out of our products. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be in business.

P.S. re BGH. Cows produce a tiny amount of a natural growth hormone, yes. (All mammels, produce some growth hormone). Monsanto produces rBGH (aka rBST) (r=recombinant) which is synthetic and injected into cows at a rate MANY times that which is natural.

Some NGO (non-government orgs) in Africa and other areas are working on helping poor farmers. One big funding source is the Gates foundation. They are getting free stuff – better seed – education and equipment that bring them into the 21st century- etc. Monsanto collaborates with NGOs to help this happen.

The PCB argument is always interesting. With anything that happened long time ago so the facts for either side can get blurry. The people that were involved are either very very old or gone form the earth (due to being old). Anyway they are not around to trust or distrust. How can one defend or prove the argument? Monsanto sold a bunch of things too.

The truth about BGH is that all cows produce it naturally in their pituitary gland.

I have worked at Monsanto for 8+ year in the research area, it seems to me the practice here is to get the new info out ASAP so people know the new technology we have to offer. Of course, we cannot be stupid about it and spill the beans to our business competitors (this is where patent protection comes in) or break trading rules.

so lets say that WEMA helps the farmers. can you say me again how many farmers are living with less than a dollar? oh yes… millions… will WEMA help them all? i dont think so.
it would be easier if you, oh so good company that cares for the hungry and the poor, leave the products for free or stop patenting and leaving everything to everyone. but you are not going to do that, for billions of reazons.
the one who is against the future is a stupid, but how can we trust a company that hid the effects of PCB on people for 30 years and then tried to redempt themselves with money.
how can we trust a company that havent prooved his products, or say that they did, and then hear from most of the cientific comunity that what you are saying is not right?
i cant, i surely cant

and by the way ignorance is a good way to control people, by hiding/denying the truth about BGH

Yet again an accredited group that has come out demanding answers and what will happen.
The great mansanto will do what characterize this article as being full of crazy people and ideas.

I have posted this on three threads and I hope one of the people being paid to respond to these blogs has something logical and truthful in response.
But as we can see ( which is also why this blog started) the truth about GM food is actually coming out in waves and it sure as hell doesnt look good. ( oh ya I know your one claim to fame is higher corn yield.) BUt everything else is generally a failure in the long term and most people are starting to see that.

ONCE AGAIN A COMPANY THAT STARTED BY DESTROYING LIFE(agent orange, pesticide and the like) SHOULD NEVER GET IN THE BUSINESS OF TRYING TO MAKE LIFE AND ALTER IT>

F. William Engdahl
Global Research,
Friday, May 22, 2009

US Doctors’ association calls for Moratorium on GMO Foods

The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) has just issued a call for an immediate moratorium on Genetically Manipulated (GMO) Foods.

In a just-released position paper on GMO foods, the AAEM states that ‘GM foods pose a serious health risk’ and calls for a moratorium on GMO foods. Citing several animal studies, the AAEM concludes ‘there is more than a casual association between GMO foods and adverse health effects’ and that ‘GM foods pose a serious health risk in the areas of toxicology, allergy and immune function, reproductive health, and metabolic, physiologic and genetic health.’ The report is a devastating blow to the multibillion dollar international agribusiness industry, most especially to Monsanto Corporation, the world’s leading purveyor of GMO seeds and related herbicides.

In a press release dated May 19, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, which describes itself as ‘an international association of physicians and other professionals dedicated to addressing the clinical aspects of environmental health,’ called immediately for the following emergency measures to be taken regarding human consumption of GMO foods:

* A moratorium on GMO food; implementation of immediate long term safety testing and labelling of GMO food.

* Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community and the public to avoid GMO foods.

* Physicians to consider the role of GMO foods in their patients’ disease processes.

* More independent long term scientific studies to begin gathering data to investigate the role of GMO foods on human health.

The AAEM chairperson, Dr Amy Dean notes that ‘Multiple animal studies have shown that GM foods cause damage to various organ systems in the body. With this mounting evidence, it is imperative to have a moratorium on GM foods for the safety of our patients’ and the public’s health.’ The President of the AAEM, Dr Jennifer Armstrong stressed that ‘Physicians are probably seeing the effects in their patients, but need to know how to ask the right questions. The most common foods in North America which are consumed that are GMO are corn, soy, canola, and cottonseed oil.’ The AAEM’s position paper on Genetically Modified foods can be found at http:aaemonline.org.

The paper further states that Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) technology ‘abrogates natural reproductive processes, selection occurs at the single cell level, the procedure is highly mutagenic and routinely breeches genera barriers, and the technique has only been used commercially for 10 years.’

The AAEM paper further states, ‘several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signalling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system.’

They add, ‘There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation as defined by Hill’s Criteria in the areas of strength of association, consistency, specificity, biological gradient, and biological plausibility. The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies.’

GMO is toxic

The AAEM paper should give grounds for official rethinking of the current quasi laissez faire regulatory stance to GMO in which the solemn word of the GMO seed companies such as Monsanto is regarded as scientifically valid proof of safety. The AAEM study is worth citing in detail in this regard:

‘Specificity of the association of GM foods and specific disease processes is also supported. Multiple animal studies show significant immune dysregulation, including upregulation of cytokines associated with asthma, allergy, and inflammation. Animal studies also show altered structure and function of the liver, including altered lipid and carbohydrate metabolism as well as cellular changes that could lead to accelerated aging and possibly lead to the accumulation of reactive oxygen species (ROS). Changes in the kidney, pancreas and spleen have also been documented. A recent 2008 study links GM corn with infertility, showing a significant decrease in offspring over time and significantly lower litter weight in mice fed GM corn. This study also found that over 400 genes were found to be expressed differently in the mice fed GM corn. These are genes known to control protein synthesis and modification, cell signalling, cholesterol synthesis, and insulin regulation. Studies also show intestinal damage in animals fed GM foods, including proliferative cell growth and disruption of the intestinal immune system. ‘

Obviously environmental issues aswell as political issues in the region also require a huge amount of work, and most probably if these could be fixed then transgenics here (or indeed better breeding/agronomy) would no longer be seen as a “fix” to a dire situation, but as a tool to increase productivity.

Even if you do only see projects like WEMA as a first aid effort – I’d argue that this is better than nothing – you dont leave a heart attack victim lying helpless while you wait for the paramedics because you believe that the absolute fix is bypass surgery or a complete change in lifestyle.

I dont believe we can afford to focus on a single “best” solution which may never come to be when multiple other approaches, while not being the “best” can alleviate suffering in the interim.

In answer to your question though (and I thought I’d put this in my first post, apparently not though..) yes, issues such as soil degradation and desertification should be addressed (as should many other issues)

So the the drought-tolerant maize discussed in the post doesn’t actually exist yet? Interesting…I heard something about an African rice that’s been doing great guns, but I can’t remember all the details.

I can appreciate the science behind GM crops, Mr. Ross, but it just seems like a band-aid measure, even though it’s done with the best of intentions. The severe environmental degredation in the sub-Saharan countries must be addressed; otherwise, it will only get worse and further impoverish the soil. The disease must be cured, not just the symptoms.

Also what are the “needed inputs” for GM seed? The assumption that because a seed is GM it somehow needs more inputs is not logical in my opinion – current commercial GM seeds may need inputs, but this is because they are put in “high performance” germplasms which have been selected to perform in high input environments – there is no reason that genes put into lower performance (or high performance in low input environment) germplasms would require more inputs (in the case of NUE or WUE genes of the future one would expect a lower input requirement)