| Revision as of 15:23, 16 October 2013 editLoftelalty46 (talk | contribs)58 edits →Bibliography← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:13, 16 October 2013 edit undo209.172.109.170 (talk) ←Replaced content with 'Monsanto is evil. It is trying to take over all of our farmers and it is succeeding. Do your part and buy good organic food from companies that care'Tag: blankingNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| Monsanto is evil. It is trying to take over all of our farmers and it is succeeding. Do your part and buy good organic food from companies that care | |||
| {{Other uses}} | |||
| {{Use mdy dates|date=March 2013}} | |||
| {{Infobox company | |||
| | name = Monsanto Company Inc. | |||
| | logo = ] | |||
| | type = ] | |||
| | traded_as = {{nyse|MON}}<br />] | |||
| | foundation = ], U.S. (1901) | |||
| | founder = ] | |||
| | location = ], U.S. | |||
| | key_people = ]<br><small>(Chairman, President and CEO)</small> | |||
| | industry = ] | |||
| | products = ]s, ]s, ] | |||
| | revenue = {{nowrap|{{increase}} US$ 11.822 billion <small>(FY 2011)</small><ref name=secdatabase.com_EDGAR_10-K-A>{{cite web|url=http://pdf.secdatabase.com/2347/0000950123-11-101537.pdf|title=2011 Annual Report, Form 10-K/A, Monsanto Company, Filing Date December 1, 2011 |publisher=secdatabase.com}}</ref>}} | |||
| | operating_income = {{increase}} US$ 2.502 billion <small>(FY 2011)</small><ref name=secdatabase.com_EDGAR_10-K-A/> | |||
| | net_income = {{increase}} US$ 1.659 billion <small>(FY 2011)</small><ref name=secdatabase.com_EDGAR_10-K-A/> | |||
| | assets = {{increase}} US$ 19.844 billion <small>(FY 2011)</small><ref name=secdatabase.com_EDGAR_10-K-A/> | |||
| | equity = {{increase}} US$ 11.716 billion <small>(FY 2011)</small><ref name=secdatabase.com_EDGAR_10-K-A/> | |||
| | num_employees = 20,600 <small>(August 2011)</small><ref name=secdatabase.com_EDGAR_10-K>{{cite web|url=http://pdf.secdatabase.com/2049/0000950123-11-098240.pdf|title=2011 Annual Report, Form 10-K, Monsanto Company, Filing Date November 14, 2011 |publisher=secdatabase.com}}</ref> | |||
| | homepage = }} | |||
| '''Monsanto Company''' is a publicly traded American ] chemical,<ref>{{cite web|title=Our History|url=http://www.monsanto.com/whoweare/Pages/monsanto-history.aspx|publisher=Monsanto - official website|accessdate=27 September 2013}}</ref> and ] ] corporation headquartered in ].<ref>"." '']''. August 12, 2009.</ref><ref>. Sec.gov.</ref> | |||
| It is a leading producer of ] (GE) ] and of the ] ], which it markets under the ] brand.<ref>{{cite news| url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304458604577490600217020934.html | work=Wall Street Journal | first=Ian | last=Berry | title=Monsanto Digs Into Seeds | date=June 26, 2012}}</ref> | |||
| Founded in 1901 by ], by the 1940s Monsanto was a major producer of plastics, including ] and ]. Notable achievements by Monsanto and its scientists as a chemical company included breakthrough research on ] ] and being the first company to mass-produce ] (LEDs). The company also formerly manufactured controversial products such as the insecticide ], ], ], and ] ] (a.k.a. bovine growth hormone). | |||
| Monsanto was among the first to ] a plant cell, along with three academic teams, which was announced in 1983,<ref>. Cls.casa.colostate.edu (January 29, 2004).</ref> and was among the first to conduct field trials of ], which it did in 1987. It remained one of the top 10 U.S. chemical companies until it divested most of its chemical businesses between 1997 and 2002, through a process of mergers and spin-offs that focused the company on ]. | |||
| Monsanto was a pioneer in applying the ] business model to agriculture, using techniques developed by ] and other biotech drug companies in the late 1970s in California.<ref>, International Society for Pharmaceutical Engineering, Inc., San Francisco/Bay Area Chapter Newsletter, Volume 13, No. 4</ref> In this business model, companies invest heavily in research and development, and recoup the expenses through the use and enforcement of ]s.<ref name="Moschini">{{cite web|url=http://www.choicesmagazine.org/magazine/print.php?article=120|title=Competition Issues in the Seed Industry and the Role of Intellectual Property |publisher=Choicesmagazine.org |date=November 21, 2009}}</ref><ref>Schneider, Keith (June 10, 1990) . the New York Times</ref><ref>Burrone, Esteban (2006) . ]</ref><ref>Economic Research Service/USDA </ref> Monsanto's application of this model to agriculture, along with a growing movement to create a global, uniform system of ] in the 1980s, came into direct conflict with customary practices of farmers to save, reuse, share and develop plant varieties.<ref>Andersen, Regine (August 2000) . Fridtjof Nansen institute Report5</ref> Its seed patenting model has also been criticized as ] and a threat to ].<ref>Shiva, Vandana (February 6, 2012) , ].</ref><ref name="Parsai">{{cite news| url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2861063.ece | place=Chennai, India | work=The Hindu | first=Gargi | last=Parsai | title=Opposition to Monsanto patent on Indian melons | date=February 5, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | title = Biopirates who seek the greatest prizes | url = http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2000/nov/15/genetics2?INTCMP=SRCH| first = John | last = Vidal | publisher =The Guardian}}</ref> Monsanto's role in these changes in agriculture (which include its litigation and its seed commercialization practices<ref name="cbsnews.com">{{Cite news| url = http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/14/business/main5978152.shtml | title = AP: Monsanto Strong-Arms Seed Industry | work=] | date = December 14, 2009}}</ref>), its current and former biotechnology products, its lobbying of government agencies, and its history as a chemical company have made Monsanto controversial. | |||
| ==History== | |||
| === In the beginning (Early 1900s) : Saccharin and chemicals === | |||
| Monsanto was founded in ], in 1901, by ], a 30‑year veteran of the pharmaceutical industry. He funded the start-up with his own money and capital from a ] distributor and gave the company his wife's maiden name. His father-in-law was Emmanuel Mendes de Monsanto, a wealthy financier of a sugar company active in ], and based in St. Thomas in the ]. The company's first product was the ] ].<ref>{{cite web|title=Our history - Early years|url=http://www.monsanto.com/whoweare/Pages/monsanto-history.aspx|publisher=Monsanto official website|accessdate=27 September 2013}}</ref> | |||
| Monsanto expanded to Europe in 1919 by entering a partnership with Graesser's Chemical Works at ], near ] Wales, to produce ], ] and its raw ingredient ], and later ] processing chemicals. This site was later sold and closed in 2010. In the 1920s Monsanto expanded into basic industrial chemicals like ] and ], and Queeny's son ] took over the company in 1928. | |||
| In 1926 the company founded and incorporated a town called Monsanto in ] (now known as ]). It was formed to provide a liberal regulatory environment and low taxes for the Monsanto chemical plants at a time when local jurisdictions had most of the responsibility for environmental rules. It was renamed in honor of Leo Sauget, its first village president.<ref name = Yes>"Yes, in My Backyard: Tiny Sauget, Illinois Likes Business Misfits," Wall Street Journal, Oct. 3, 2006 p. A1</ref> | |||
| In 1936 Monsanto acquired Thomas & Hochwalt Laboratories in ] in order to acquire the expertise of ] and Dr. Carroll A. ("Ted") Hochwalt and made it into Monsanto's Central Research Department.<ref name=Landau>Ralph Landau, , vol. 2, National Academy of Engineering</ref>{{rp|340–341}} Thomas spent the rest of his career at Monsanto until his retirement in 1970, during which time he served as President (1951–60) and Chairman of the Board (1960–65).<ref name=Bird>David Bird for the New York Times. March 31, 1982 </ref> In 1943, Thomas was called to a meeting in Washington DC with Brig. Gen. Leslie Groves, commander of the ], and with James Conant, president of Harvard University and chairman of the ] (NDRC).<ref name=Building>Dayton Daily News. September 18, 1983 </ref> They urged Thomas to become co-director of the Manhattan Project at Los Alamos with Robert Oppenheimer, but Thomas was reluctant to leave Dayton and Monsanto.<ref name=Building/> Thomas joined the NDRC, and Monsanto's Central Research Department began to conduct research for the Manhattan Project under contract from the US government.<ref>Harvey V. Moyer, ed., , Atomic Energy Commission U.S.A., July 1956</ref>{{rp|vii}} To that end, Monsanto operated the ], and later ], and assisted in the development of the first ].<ref name=Building/> | |||
| === The era of detergents and pesticides (1940s) === | |||
| In 1946, it developed "All" laundry detergent and began to market it; they sold the product line to Lever Brothers in 1957.<ref>{{cite web|author=Published: September 15, 2003 |url=http://adage.com/article/adage-encyclopedia/unilever-lever-brothers/98749/ |title=Unilever (Lever Brothers Co.) | AdAge Encyclopedia of Advertising – Advertising Age |publisher=Adage.com |date=September 15, 2003}}</ref> In 1947, one of its factories was destroyed in the ].<ref>. texashistory.unt.edu</ref> Monsanto acquired American Viscose from England's Courtauld family in 1949. In 1954 Monsanto partnered with German chemical giant ] to form ] and market ]s in the United States. | |||
| Monsanto began manufacturing ] in 1944, along with some 15 other companies.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/tokaronwar120902.cfm |title=Agribusiness, Biotechnology and War |publisher=Organicconsumers.org}}</ref> This insecticide was much welcomed in the fight against malaria-transmitting mosquitoes. Due to DDT's toxicity, its use in the United States was banned in 1972. In 1977 Monsanto stopped producing PCBs; the United States Congress banned domestic PCB production two years later.<ref>. EPA.gov (June 28, 2006).</ref><ref name = "ATSDR"/> In the 1960s and 1970s, Monsanto was also one of the most important producers of ] for ] operations in ]. | |||
| === The era of chemicals and diodes(1960s) === | |||
| In the mid‑1960s, ] and his team invented a way to selectively synthesize ] via ]. This was an important advancement because it was the first method for the ] production of pure ] compounds.<ref>William S. Knowles. . Nobel Lecture, December 8, 2001</ref> Using this method, Knowles' team designed the "first industrial process to chirally synthesize an important compound" — ], which is currently the main drug used to treat ].<ref>{{cite journal |last=Yun |first=O. |date=November 22, 2005 |title=Profile of William S. Knowles |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |volume=102 |number=47 |pages=16913–16915 |doi=10.1073/pnas.0507546102 |pmc=1287994 |pmid=16286647}}</ref> In 2001 Knowles and ] won the ]. In the mid-1960s chemists at Monsanto developed the ] for making ], which until 2000 was the method most widely used to make this important industrial chemical. In 1965 Monsanto chemists invented ], which the company then commercialized. | |||
| In 1968, it became the first company to start mass production of (visible) ] (LEDs), using gallium arsenide phosphide. This ushered in the era of solid-state lights. From 1968 to 1970, sales doubled every few months. Their products (discrete LEDs and seven-segment numeric displays) became the standards of industry. The primary markets then were electronic calculators, digital watches, and digital clocks.<ref name="Schubert">{{Cite book|author=E. Fred Schubert|title=Light-Emitting Diodes|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=2003|chapter=1|isbn=0-8194-3956-8}}</ref> Monsanto was a pioneer of optoelectronics in the 1970s. | |||
| Between 1968 and 1974, the company assumed title sponsorship of the ] event in Pensacola, Fla., that was renamed the ]. Notable winners included ] member ], in 1971. | |||
| In 1979, Monsanto established the Edgar Monsanto Queeny safety award in honor of its former CEO (1928‑1960), an annual $2,000 prize given to a member of the ] to encourage accident prevention.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.asse.org/practicespecialties/interviews/SPYAward.php |title=SPY Award Interview |publisher=Asse.org |date=April 16, 1947}}</ref> | |||
| === The era of genetically modified crops (1980s) === | |||
| Monsanto scientists became the first to ] a plant cell in 1982. Five years later, Monsanto conducted the first field tests of genetically engineered crops. | |||
| In 1985, Monsanto acquired ], a ] company focusing on pharmaceuticals, agriculture, and animal health. In 1993, Monsanto's Searle division filed a patent application for ],<ref>. accessdata.fda.gov</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.google.com/patents/US5466823 |title=Patent US5466823 – Substituted pyrazolyl benzenesulfonamides – Google Patents}}</ref> which in 1998 became the first selective ] to be approved by the U.S. ] (FDA).<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/98/20998.cfm |title=Drug Approval Package: Celebrex (Celecoxib) NDA# 20-998 |publisher=Accessdata.fda.gov}}</ref> Celebrex became a ] and was often mentioned as a key reason for ]'s acquisition of Monsanto's pharmaceutical business in 2002.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB1026684057282753560.djm,00.html | work=The Wall Street Journal | first1=Robert | last1=Frank | first2=Scott | last2=Hensley | title=Pfizer to Buy Pharmacia For $60 Billion in Stock | date=July 15, 2002}}</ref> | |||
| In 1994, Monsanto introduced a ] version of ], brand-named Posilac.<ref name = MG>{{cite web | url = http://www.monsantodairy.com/about/general_info/index.html | title = General information – Posilac| year = 2007 | publisher = Monsanto | archiveurl = http://web.archive.org/web/20080101123956/http://www.monsantodairy.com/about/general_info/index.html| archivedate = January 1, 2008}}</ref> Monsanto later sold this business off to ]. | |||
| In 1996, Monsanto purchased ], the biotechnology company that had generated the first transgenic varieties of cotton, soybeans, peanuts, and other crops, and from which Monsanto had already been licencing technology since 1991.<ref> biotechprofiles.com</ref> Monsanto first entered the maize seed business when it purchased 40% of ] in 1996; it purchased the remainder of the corporation in 1998.<ref>. Department of Justice (November 30, 1998).</ref> In 1998 Monsanto purchased ]'s seed business, which gave it access to sales and distribution facilities in 51 countries.<ref>. Justice.gov (November 30, 1998).</ref> In 2005, it finalized the purchase of ], a leading global vegetable and fruit seed company, for $1.4 billion.<ref>St. Louis Business Journal, March 23, 2005. </ref> This made it the world's largest conventional seed company at the time. | |||
| === Twenty first century - Largest seed company (early 2000) === | |||
| In 2007, Monsanto and ] announced a long-term agreement to cooperate in the research, development, and marketing of new plant biotechnology products.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://monsanto.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=27632&item=76826 |title=Monsanto Press Room |publisher=Monsanto.mediaroom.com |date=March 21, 2007}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.corporate.basf.com/de/investor/veranstaltungen/termine/070321_interview.htm?id=V00-Eq3z_CNjlbcp.*0 |title=BASF-Gruppe: Interview Dr. Jürgen Hambrecht zur Zusammenarbeit mit Monsanto |publisher=Corporate.basf.com |date=March 21, 2007}}</ref> | |||
| In October 2008, the company's Canadian division, Monsanto Canada Inc., was named one of ] by Mediacorp Canada Inc., and was featured in '']'' news magazine.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.eluta.ca/top-employer-monsanto|title=Reasons for Selection, 2009 Canada's Top 100 Employers Competition}}</ref> | |||
| In January 2010, ] named Monsanto company of the year for 2009.<ref name=ForbesPlanet>Langreth, Robert and Herper, Matthew, (19 January 2010) Forbes Magazine</ref> Also in 2010, Swiss research firm Covalence released its annual ranking of the overall ethical performance of 581 multinational corporations. Monsanto company was ranked the worst.<ref>Staff, Covalence. </ref> | |||
| ===Spin-offs and mergers=== | |||
| Through a series of transactions, the Monsanto that existed from 1901 to 2000 and the current Monsanto are legally two distinct corporations. Although they share the same name and corporate headquarters, many of the same executives and other employees, and responsibility for liabilities arising out of activities in the industrial chemical business, the agricultural chemicals business is the only segment carried forward from the pre-1997 Monsanto Company to the current Monsanto Company. This was accomplished beginning in the 1980s: | |||
| * 1985: Monsanto purchased ] for $2.7 billion in cash.<ref>. NYTimes.com (July 19, 1985).</ref><ref>. Articles.chicagotribune.com (June 30, 1986).</ref> In this merger, Searle's aspartame business became a separate Monsanto subsidiary, the ] Company. CEO of NutraSweet, ], became CEO of Monsanto from 1995 to 2000. | |||
| * 1996: Acquired ], a majority interest in Calgene, creators of the ] tomato, and 40% of ]. It purchased the remainder of DeKalb in 1998.<ref name=Troyer>Troyer, A. Forrest. ''Development of Hybrid Corn and the Seed Corn Industry.'' '''''In:''''' Handbook of Maize Genetics and Genomics. Bennetzen, Jeff L.; Hake, Sarah (Eds.) Springer, 2009, pages 87–114.</ref><ref>. Nytimes.com (May 12, 1998).</ref> | |||
| * 1997: Monsanto spun off its industrial chemical and fiber divisions into ].<ref>. Nytimes.com (December 10, 1996).</ref> This transferred the financial liability related to the production and contamination with ] at the Illinois and Alabama plants. In January, Monsanto announced the purchase of Holden's Foundations Seeds, a privately held seed business. By acquiring Holden's, Monsanto became the biggest American producer of foundation corn, the parent seed from which hybrids are made.<ref>. Nytimes.com (January 7, 1997).</ref> The combined purchase price was $925 million. Also, in April, Monsanto purchased the remaining shares of Calgene. | |||
| * 1999: Monsanto sold off NutraSweet Co. and two other companies. In December, Monsanto merged with ], and the agricultural division became a wholly owned subsidiary of the "new" Pharmacia; the medical research divisions of Monsanto, which included products such as ], were rolled into Pharmacia.<ref>. Nytimes.com (December 20, 1999).</ref> | |||
| * 2000 (October): Pharmacia spun off its Monsanto subsidiary into a new company, the "new Monsanto".<ref>{{cite news |title = Monsanto Raises $700 Million in IPO | |||
| | date = October 18, 2000 | url = http://articles.latimes.com/2000/oct/18/business/fi-38228| work=Los Angeles Times}}</ref> As part of the deal, Monsanto agreed to indemnify Pharmacia against any liabilities that might be incurred from judgments against Solutia. As a result, the new Monsanto continues to be a party to numerous lawsuits that relate to operations of the old Monsanto. (Pharmacia was bought by Pfizer in a deal announced in 2002 and completed in 2003.<ref>Andrew Ross Sorkin for the New York Times, July 15, 2002. </ref><ref>Staff, CNN/Money. April 16, 2003 </ref>) | |||
| * 2005: Monsanto acquired Emergent Genetics and its Stoneville and NexGen cotton brands. Emergent was the third largest U.S. cotton seed company, with about 12 percent of the U.S. market. Monsanto's goal was to obtain "a strategic cotton germplasm and traits platform."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.seedtoday.com/articles/monsanto_to_acquire_emergent_genetics__stoneville_and_nexgen_cotton_brands-25250.html |title=Monsanto to Acquire Emergent Genetics, Stoneville and NexGen Cotton Brands |publisher=Seed Today |date=February 17, 2005}}</ref> The vegetable seed producer ] was purchased for $1.4 billion.<ref name=wsj0612>{{cite news|url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304458604577490600217020934.html|title=Monsanto Digs Into Seeds|publisher=The Wall Street|author=Ian Berry Journal|date=2012-06-26}}</ref> | |||
| * 2007: In June, Monsanto completed its purchase of Delta and Pine Land Company, a major cotton seed breeder, for $1.5 billion.<ref>{{cite web | title = Monsanto Company Completes Acquisition of Delta and Pine Land Company, Seeks Approval of Related Divestitures | date = June 1, 2007 | url = http://news.thomasnet.com/companystory/524921}}</ref> As a condition for approval of the purchase from the ], Monsanto was obligated to divest its Stoneville cotton business, which it sold to Bayer, and to divest its NexGen cotton business, which it sold to Americot.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.hpj.com/archives/2007/jun07/jun11/Monsantoreachesagreementwit.cfm |title=Monsanto reaches agreement with Department of Justice to acqui |publisher=Hpj.com |date= June 7, 2007}}</ref> Monsanto also exited the pig breeding business by selling Monsanto Choice Genetics to Newsham Genetics LC in November, divesting itself of "any and all swine-related patents, patent applications, and all other intellectual property".<ref name=r1>{{cite web | title = Monsanto – Pig Patent | date = July 16, 2009 | url = http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/pig-patent.aspx}}</ref> | |||
| * 2008: Monsanto purchased the Dutch seed company De Ruiter Seeds for €546 million,<ref>{{cite web | title = De Ruiter Seeds Acquisition | date = March 31, 2008 | url = http://in.reuters.com/article/2008/03/31/deruiter-monsanto-idINWNAS636420080331|work=Reuters }}</ref> and sold its POSILAC bovine somatotropin brand and related business to Elanco Animal Health, a division of Eli Lilly in August for $300 million plus "additional contingent consideration".<ref>{{cite web | title = Eli Lilly and Company to Acquire Monsanto's POSILAC Brand Dairy Product and Related Business | date = August 20, 2008 | url = http://monsanto.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=629}}</ref> | |||
| * 2013: Monsanto purchased San Francisco-based ] for $930 million.<ref>. Reuters.com (October 2, 2013).</ref> | |||
| ==Corporate governance== | |||
| Current members of the board of directors of Monsanto are: | |||
| *], president of ] | |||
| *], president and CEO | |||
| *], managing partner of GenNx360 Capital Partners | |||
| *], president of Podium Prose, a speakers bureau | |||
| *], senior VP and general manager of Connected Energy Networks at ] | |||
| *], former chairman and CEO of the ] | |||
| *], chief executive officer of MPI Research Inc. | |||
| *], president of ] | |||
| *], chief executive of Health Technology Networks | |||
| *], chief financial officer of ].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.monsanto.com/whoweare/Pages/board-of-directors.aspx |title=Board of Directors |publisher=Monsanto}}</ref><ref>. Monsanto.mediaroom.com.</ref> | |||
| ==Products and associated issues== | |||
| ===Current products=== | |||
| ====Glyphosate herbicides==== | |||
| {{see also|Glyphosate}} | |||
| Monsanto chemist ] invented ] in 1970.<ref>.</ref> Monsanto is the largest producer of ] ] in the United States through its ] product line, which is used to kill ]s, especially annual broadleaf weeds and grasses that compete with commercial crops. Monsanto's last commercially relevant United States patent on glyphosate expired in 2000, and glyphosate is now produced by many companies in the US and around the world. As of 2009, sales of Roundup herbicides represent about 10% of Monsanto's yearly revenue.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14904184|title=The debate over whether Monsanto is a corporate sinner or saint|date=November 19, 2009|work=The Economist}}</ref> | |||
| In 2007, glyphosate was the most used herbicide in the US agricultural sector, with 180 to 185 million pounds ({{convert|180000000|to|185000000|lb|t|abbr=off|disp=output only}}) applied, and the 2nd most used in home and garden market where users applied 5 to 8 million pounds ({{convert|5000000|to|8000000|lb|t|abbr=off|disp=output only}}); additionally industry, commerce and government applied 13 to 15 million pounds ({{convert|13000000|to|15000000|lb|t|abbr=off|disp=output only}}).<ref name="EPAusage">US EPA 2007 Pesticide Market Estimates , </ref> While glyphosate has been approved by regulatory bodies worldwide and is less toxic than all the herbicides it replaced,<ref>Stephen O Duke and Stephen B Powles (2008) Pest Management Science Pest Manag Sci 64:319–325</ref> concerns about its effects on humans and the environment persist.<ref name="huffingtonpost defects">{{cite news| url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/24/roundup-scientists-birth-defects_n_883578.html | work=Huffington Post | first=Lucia | last=Graves | title=Roundup: Birth Defects Caused By World's Top-Selling Weedkiller, Scientists Say | date=June 24, 2011}}</ref><ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/25/roundup-herbicide-health-issues-disease_n_3156575.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular | work=Huffington Post | title=Roundup, An Herbicide, Could Be Linked To Parkinson's, Cancer And Other Health Issues, Study Shows | date=April 25, 2013}}</ref> | |||
| ====Seeds==== | |||
| {{Main|Genetically modified organisms|Genetically modified crops|Genetically modified food|Genetically modified food controversies}} | |||
| As of 2012, Monsanto's line of seed products includes agricultural seeds and vegetable seeds. | |||
| Many of Monsanto's agricultural seed products are genetically modified for resistance to herbicides, such as glyphosate. Monsanto sells glyphosate under the brand, "Roundup" – Monsanto calls these seeds "Roundup Ready". Monsanto's introduction of this system (planting glyphosate-resistant seed and then applying glyphosate once plants emerged) provided farmers with an opportunity to dramatically increase the yield from a given plot of land, since this allowed them to plant rows closer together.<ref name=HighPlainsJ>{{cite web|url=http://www.hpj.com/archives/2010/aug10/aug2/0716SeedMACOAug2sr.cfm |title=Roundup Ready soybean trait patent nears expiration in 2014 |publisher=Hpj.com |date=August 10, 2010 |author=Latzke, Jennifer M.}}</ref> Without it, farmers had to plant rows far enough apart to control post-emergent weeds with mechanical tillage.<ref name=HighPlainsJ /> Farmers have widely adopted the technology – for example over 90% of maize (]), ] (MON-Ø4Ø32-6), cotton, ], and ] planted in the United States are glyphosate-resistant, as described in the ] article. Monsanto has also developed a Roundup Ready ] (]) but it ceased development in 2004 due to concerns from wheat exporters about rejection of GM wheat by foreign markets.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.foodmanufacturing.com/scripts/ShowPR~RID~12434.asp |title=WestBred Sale Could Change Wheat Industry|publisher=Foodmanufacturing.com |date=25 September 2009 |accessdate=13 January 2012}}</ref> | |||
| As of 2009, the overall Roundup line of products including the GM seeds represented about 50% of Monsanto's business.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/29/monsanto-potash-fertilizer-personal-finance-investing-ideas-agrium-mosaic.html|title=The Seeds Of A Monsanto Short Play|last=Cavallaro|first=Matt|date=June 26, 2009|publisher=Forbes}}</ref> The patent on the first type of ''Roundup Ready'' crop that Monsanto produced (soybeans) expires in 2014.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_05/b4165019364939.htm|title=Monsanto Will Let Bio-Crop Patents Expire|date=January 21, 2010|work=Business Week}}</ref> Monsanto has broadly licensed the patent to other seed companies that include the glyphosate resistance trait in their seed products.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.monsanto.com/whoweare/Pages/seed-licensing.aspx |title=Monsanto ~ Licensing |publisher=Monsanto.com |date=November 3, 2008 }}</ref> About 150 companies have licensed the technology,<ref>. NPR.</ref> including Syngenta<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.syngenta.com/country/us/en/Seeds/Traits/SoybeanTraits/Pages/content_authoring_RR_detail_page.aspx |title=Syngenta US | Corn and Soybean Seed – Garst, Golden Harvest, NK, Agrisure |publisher=Syngenta.com}}</ref> and Dupont/Pioneer.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.pioneer.com/home/site/us/agronomy/library/template.CONTENT/guid.80D8C28A-31F7-C434-64D9-D61AAF9D661C/ |title=Agronomy Library – Pioneer Hi-Bred Agronomy Library |publisher=Pioneer.com }}</ref> | |||
| In addition, Monsanto invented and sells agricultural seeds that are genetically modified to make a crystalline insecticidal protein from '']'', known as Bt. In 1995 Monsanto's potato plants producing Bt toxin were approved for sale by the ], after having approved by the U.S. FDA, making it the first pesticide-producing crop to be approved in the United States.<ref> | |||
| Lawrence Journal-World – May 6, 1995</ref> Monsanto has subsequently developed ] (], ], ], ]), ],<ref>{{cite web|author=Crop Biotech Update |url=http://www.isaaa.org/kc/cropbiotechupdate/article/default.asp?ID=6565 |title=Monsanto's Bt Roundup Ready 2 Yield Soybeans Approved for Planting in Brazil – Crop Biotech Update (8/27/2010) | ISAAA.org/KC |publisher=Isaaa.org |date=August 27, 2010}}</ref> and ]. | |||
| Monsanto also produces seed that has multiple modifications, also known as "stacked traits" —for instance, cotton that make one or more Bt proteins and is resistant to glyphosate. One of these, created in collaboration with ], is called ]. In 2011 Monsanto launched the Genuity brand for its stacked-trait products.<ref>. SE Farm News, March 2, 2009</ref> | |||
| As of 2012, the agricultural seed lineup included Roundup Ready alfalfa; Roundup Ready canola; cotton with Bt, Roundup Ready, or both traits; sorghum hybrids; soybeans with various oil profiles, most with the Roundup Ready trait; Roundup Ready sugarbeet; and a wide range of wheat products, many of which incorporate the nontransgenic "clearfield" imazamox-tolerant<ref>{{cite web|url=http://agproducts.basf.us/products/clearfield-wheat.html |title=The CLEARFIELD Production System for Wheat|publisher=Agproducts.basf.us}}</ref> trait from BASF.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.monsanto.com/products/Pages/monsanto-agricultural-seeds.aspx |title=Monsanto ~ Agricultural Seeds |publisher=Monsanto.com |date=November 3, 2008}}</ref> | |||
| Two patents have been especially important to Monsanto's GM soybean business; one expired in 2011 and another reissued patent expires in 2014.<ref>Patently-O Blog, Sep 26, 2011. </ref> The expiration of the second patent will mean that glyphosate resistant soybeans will be "generic", which has generated a great deal of discussion in the soybean industry.<ref>Andrew Pollack for the New York Times. December 17, 2009. </ref><ref>Illinois Soybean Association </ref><ref>Monsanto Official Website </ref><ref>Jennifer M. Latzke for High Plains/Midwest Ag Journal. August 10, 2010. </ref> | |||
| In 2012 Monsanto was the world's largest supplier of vegetable seeds by value, selling $800m of seed. 95% of the research and development for vegetable seed is in conventional breeding and the company is concentrating on improving the taste of several vegetables.<ref name=wsj0612/> According to their website they sell "4,000 distinct seed varieties representing more than 20 species".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.monsanto.com/products/Pages/vegetable-seeds.aspx |title=Monsanto ~ Monsanto Vegetable Seeds |publisher=Monsanto.com}}</ref> | |||
| ===Former products=== | |||
| ====Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)==== | |||
| Until it stopped production in 1977, Monsanto was the source of 99% of the ] (PCBs) used by U.S. industry.<ref name = "ATSDR"/> The PCBs were sold under trade names such as Aroclor and Santotherm; the name Santotherm is still used for non-cholorinated products.<ref>T.R. Crompton. Ebook, Taylor & Francis 2002. ISBN 0-203-01635-1</ref>{{rp|396}} PCBs are a ], and cause cancer in animals and likely in humans as well, among other health effects;<ref name="EPA Health Effects">, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency</ref> PCBs were initially widely welcomed due to the electrical industry's need for durable, safer (than flammable ]) cooling and insulating fluid for industrial transformers and capacitors. PCBs were also commonly used as stabilizing additives in the manufacture of flexible PVC coatings for electrical wiring, and in electronic components to enhance the heat and fire resistance of the PVC.<ref>{{cite book | title = Health Concerns and Environmental Issues with PVC-Containing Building Materials in Green Buildings | author = Karlyn Black Kaley, Jim Carlisle, David Siegel, Julio Salinas | publisher = Integrated Waste Management Board, California Environmental Protection Agency, USA | month = October | year = 2006 | page = 11 | format = PDF | url=http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/publications/GreenBuilding/43106016.pdf}}</ref> They were known to be highly toxic from the beginning, but it was assumed that they would be contained in the products in which they were used. However, as leaks of transformers occurred, and toxicity problems arose near factories, their durability and toxicity became widely recognized as serious problems. PCB production was banned by the U.S. Congress in 1979 and by the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants in 2001.<ref name="ATSDR">, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, at 467</ref><ref name="EPA2">, Region 2, ]</ref><ref name="EPA">, Pesticides: International Activities, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency</ref> | |||
| =====United States===== | |||
| In the late 1960s, the Monsanto plant in Sauget, IL. was the nation's largest producer of PCBs, which remain in the water along Dead Creek in Sauget. An EPA official referred to Sauget as "one of the most polluted communities in the region" and "a soup of different chemicals"<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06276/727066-28.stm |title=Tiny Sauget, Illinois, likes business misfits |publisher=Post-gazette.com |date=October 3, 2006 |first=William |last=Spain}}</ref> | |||
| In 2002, the '']'' carried a front page report on Monsanto's legacy of environmental damage in ], related to its legal production of PCBs. Plaintiffs in a lawsuit pending at that time provided documentation showing that the local Monsanto factory knowingly discharged both ] and ]-laden waste into local creeks for over 40 years.<ref>{{Cite news|title=Monsanto Hid Decades Of Pollution|url=http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0101-02.htm|work=Washington Post| first=Michael| last=Grunwald| date=January 1, 2002}}</ref> In another story published in 2002, the '']'' reported that during 1969 alone Monsanto had dumped 45 tons of PCBs into Snow Creek, a feeder for Choccolocco Creek which supplies much of the area's drinking water, and that the company buried millions of pounds of PCB in open-pit landfills located on hillsides above the plant and surrounding neighborhoods.<ref>{{Cite news|title= PCB Pollution Suits Have Day in Court in Alabama |url=http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04EED7143AF934A15752C0A9649C8B63|work=The New York Times| first=Kevin | last=Sack | date=January 27, 2002}}</ref> In August 2003, ] and Monsanto agreed to pay plaintiffs $700 million to settle claims by over 20,000 Anniston residents related to PCB contamination.<ref>{{Cite news|title=$700 million deal announced in Anniston PCBs cases|date=August 19, 2003|url=http://www.ewg.org/node/15673|agency=Associated Press}}</ref> | |||
| As of 2012, Monsanto is associated with 11 "active" ] sites and 20 "archived" sites in the US, in the EPA's Superfund database.<ref> Seach for "Monsanto" in "Alias/Alternative Site Name" field, first in "active" sites, then "archived" sites, October 20, 2012</ref> Monsanto has been sued, and has settled, multiple times for damaging the health of its employees or residents near its Superfund sites through pollution and poisoning.<ref name="washingtonpost">{{Cite news|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A54914-2002Feb22?language=printer |title=Monsanto Held Liable For PCB Dumping | work=The Washington Post |date=February 22, 2002}}</ref><ref>. Chemicalindustryarchives.org.</ref> | |||
| =====United Kingdom===== | |||
| A ] report showed that 67 chemicals, including ] derivatives, dioxins and ]s exclusively made by Monsanto, are leaking from the ], near Groesfaen in ], an unlined porous quarry that was not authorized to take chemical wastes. It emerged that the ] had been polluted since the 1970s.<ref name='EA'>{{Cite news| title=Brofiscin Quarry | url =http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/library/publications/33833.aspx | work=] }}</ref><ref name='Dump'>{{Cite news| title=The wasteland: how years of secret chemical dumping left a toxic legacy | date= February 12, 2007| url =http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/12/uknews.pollution1 |work=The Guardian |place=UK | first=John | last=Vidal }}</ref> The government was criticised for failing to publish information about the scale and exact nature of this contamination. The UK ] estimated that it would cost £100m to ] the site, called "one of the most contaminated" in the UK.<ref name='Dump2'>{{Cite news| title=Monsanto dumped toxic waste in UK | date= February 12, 2007| url =http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/12/uknews.pollution1 | work=Guardian | place=London | first=John | last=Vidal }}</ref> | |||
| ====rBGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone)==== | |||
| {{Main|Bovine somatotropin}} | |||
| Monsanto developed and sold ] ] (also known as ] and ]), a synthetic ] that increases milk production by 11–16% when injected into cows.<ref>{{cite pmid|14620860}}</ref><ref>{{cite pmid|14620861}}</ref> In October 2008, Monsanto sold this business, in full, to ] for a price of $300 million plus additional consideration.<ref name="urlEli Lilly to Buy Monsanto's Dairy Cow Hormone for $300 million - DealBook Blog - NYTimes.com">{{Cite news|url=http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/20/eli-lilly-to-buy-monsantos-dairy-cow-hormone-for-300-million/ |title=Eli Lilly to Buy Monsanto's Dairy Cow Hormone for $300 million – DealBook Blog |work=The New York Times| date=August 20, 2008}}</ref> | |||
| The use of rBST has been controversial, with respect to its effects on cows to which it is administered and with respect to the milk produced by those cows.<ref name=Dobs>Dobson, William D. (June 1996) . University of Wisconsin-Madison Agricultural and Applied Economics Staff Paper Series No. 397</ref> | |||
| In some markets, milk from cows that are not treated with rBST is sold with labels indicating it is rBST-free; this milk has proved popular with consumers.<ref name = "nytimes milk label">, '']'', March 9, 2008</ref> In reaction to this, in early 2008 a pro-rBST advocacy group called "American Farmers for the Advancement and Conservation of Technology" (AFACT),<ref>{{cite web|url=http://itisafact.org/ |title=AFACT: American Farmers for the Advancement and Conservation of Technology |publisher=Itisafact.org }}</ref> made up of dairies and originally affiliated with Monsanto, formed and began lobbying to ban such labels. AFACT stated that "absence" labels can be misleading and imply that milk from cows treated with rBST is inferior.<ref name = "nytimes milk label" /> The organization was dissolved in 2011 but its website is still accessible.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://itisafact.org/category/news/ |title=News | AFACT: American Farmers for the Advancement and Conservation of Technology |publisher=Itisafact.org |date=April 14, 2011}}</ref> | |||
| ===Pipeline products=== | |||
| Along with other ag-biotech companies, Monsanto has been working on developing drought-resistant GM crops.<ref>Carey Gillam for Reuters. January 13, 2008 </ref> | |||
| As of 2013, Monsanto's new product line, the "Xtend Crop System" was undergoing regulatory review.<ref name=XtendOfficial> Accessed May 11, 2013</ref> The system includes seed genetically modified to be resistant to glyphoase and ], and an herbicide product including those two active ingredients.<ref name=XtendOfficial/> In May 2013 the US Department of Agriculture announced that additional reviews of the Xtend soybean would be conducted due to issues of possible environmental damage and effects on public health not presented by glyphosate alone.<ref name=NYT51013>{{cite news|title=Environmental Review to Delay Two Engineered Crops|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/11/business/energy-environment/environmental-review-to-delay-two-engineered-crops.html|accessdate=May 11, 2013|newspaper=The New York Times|date=May 10, 2013|author=Andrew Pollack}}</ref> | |||
| ===Pipeline products - cancelled=== | |||
| ====''Terminator'' seeds==== | |||
| {{Main|Genetic use restriction technology}} | |||
| Genetic use restriction technology, colloquially known as "terminator technology", produces plants that have sterile seeds. If put into use, it would prevent the spread of those seeds into the wild. It also would prevent farmers from planting seeds they harvest, requiring them to repurchase seed for every planting, although they also need to do this for ]s, because second-generation seeds are inferior, and in cases of patented transgenic seeds, where patent-holders like Monsanto enter into contracts with farmers who agree not to plant harvested seeds as a condition of purchase. | |||
| Terminator technology has been developed by governmental labs, university researchers, and companies, sometimes in collaboration and sometimes independently.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://ngin.tripod.com/353.htm |title=RAFI on new Terminator patent |publisher=Ngin.tripod.com}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=gm-104#gm-104 |title=Context of 'July 20, 1999: USDA and Delta & Pine Land Secure New Patent for Improvements in Terminator Genetic Seed Sterilization Technology' |publisher=Historycommons.org}}</ref><ref name="Warwick Terminator">{{Cite journal|first = Hugh|last = Warwick|editor-last = Wijeratna|editor-first = Alex|editor2-last = Meienberg|editor2-first = François|editor3-last = Meienberg|title = Syngenta – Switching off farmers' rights?|publisher=Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations|date = October 2000|url = http://www.fao.org/righttofood/KC/downloads/vl/docs/AH428.pdf|format = PDF}}</ref> The technology has never been known to have been used commercially.<ref name="monsanto pledge">{{cite web|url=http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/terminator-seeds.aspx |title=Monsanto ~ Is Monsanto Going to Develop or Sell "Terminator" Seeds? |publisher=Monsanto.com |date=November 3, 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.banterminator.org/The-Issues/Introduction |title=Introduction / The Issues / |publisher=Ban Terminator |date=June 1, 2007}}</ref> Rumors that Monsanto and other companies intended to introduce terminator technology have caused protests, for example in India.<ref>{{cite news| url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/465969.stm | work=BBC News | title=Farmers welcome halt of 'terminator' | date=October 5, 1999}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.columbia.edu/~sr793/doc/RHerring.pdf |title=CAS 38-4 24 Oct 2006.vp }}</ref> | |||
| In 1999, Monsanto pledged not to commercialize terminator technology, and has displayed that pledge on its website to the present day.<ref name="monsanto pledge" /><ref>{{cite news|author=John Vidal |url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/1999/oct/06/gm.food2 |title=World braced for terminator 2 |publisher=Guardian |date= October 5, 1999|place=London}}</ref> The Delta and Pine Land Company intended to commercialize the technology,<ref name="Warwick Terminator" /> but D&PL was acquired by Monsanto in 2007.<ref>. monsanto.com</ref> | |||
| ====Animal genetics==== | |||
| In the 2000s Monsanto entered into the pig breeding business via a subsidiary, Monsanto Choice Genetics. It exited the business in 2009 when it sold that business to Newsham Genetics LC in November, divesting itself of "any and all swine-related patents, patent applications, and all other intellectual property".<ref name=r1 /> | |||
| ==Legal actions and controversies== | |||
| {{see also|Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser|Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms|Bowman v. Monsanto Co.}} | |||
| Monsanto is notable for its involvement in high profile lawsuits, as both plaintiff and defendant. It has been involved in a number of ] suits, where fines and damages have run into the hundreds of millions of dollars, usually over health issues related to its products. Monsanto has also made frequent use of the courts to defend its patents, particularly in the area of agricultural ], as have other companies in the field, such as ]<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.scribd.com/doc/93431968/Pioneer-Hi-Bred-International-v-Does-1-5 |title=Pioneer Hi Bred International v. Does 1–5 |publisher=Scribd.com |date=May 14, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2001/2001_99_1996/ |title=J.E.M. Supply v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law |publisher=Oyez.org}}</ref> and ].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.hpj.com/archives/2002/Syngentasuestostopillegalsa.cfm |title=Syngenta sues to stop illegal sales of COKER seed varieties |publisher=Hpj.com}}</ref> | |||
| ===Patents=== | |||
| ====Filings==== | |||
| In 2003 Monsanto filed patent applications with claims on breeding techniques for pigs.<ref> Priority application is US provisional application 60/492,395 filed in 2003</ref><ref> Priority applications are US provisional patent applications 60/493,158 filed in 2003 and 60/553,582 filed in 2004</ref> ] claimed that Monsanto was trying to claim ownership on ordinary breeding techniques<ref>], August 2, 2005, </ref> and the filings became the target for demonstrations in Germany.<ref>{{Cite news| url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8002503.stm |work=BBC News | title=Germans protest over pig patent | date=April 16, 2009 | first=Laurence | last=Peter}}</ref> A UK news article indicated that "the practices it (Monsanto) wants to protect involve identifying genes that result in desirable traits, breeding pigs to achieve those traits and using a specialised device to inseminate sows deeply in a way that uses less sperm than is typically required".<ref>{{Cite news|author=Stephanie Condron |title=GM crop giant wants to patent a super-pig |date=August 11, 2005 |work=] | place=London |page=18 |url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-358902/GM-crop-giant-wants-patent-super-pig.html }}</ref> In Europe, the ] rejected some claims as relating to an essentially biological process excluded from patent protection,<ref>{{EPO Register|appno=04757318|patno=1651030}}</ref> but an application with claims from this set of filings was granted in 2008 and was later revoked.<ref>{{EPO Register|appno=04778518|patno=1651777|patent=yes}}</ref> In 2007 Monsanto sold Monsanto Choice Genetics (the Monsanto entity driving these patent filings) to Newsham Genetics LC of West Des Moines, Iowa. The transaction was completed in November 2007, and Monsanto is no longer in the swine breeding business nor interested in patent filings on pigs or pig breeding.<ref name=r1/> | |||
| ====Litigation==== | |||
| =====As plaintiff===== | |||
| Since the mid‑1990s, Monsanto indicates that it has filed suit against 145 individual U.S. farmers for ] and/or ] in connection with its genetically engineered seed but has proceeded through trial against only eleven farmers, all of which it won.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/saved-seed-farmer-lawsuits.aspx|author=Monsanto Company|title=Saved Seed and Farmer Lawsuits}}</ref> The ] has listed 112 lawsuits by Monsanto against farmers for claims of seed patent violations.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/CFSMOnsantovsFarmerReport1.13.05.pdf |title=TCFS-Report/comp1 }}</ref> The usual claim involves violation of a technology agreement that prohibits farmers from saving seed from one season's crop to plant the next. One farmer received an eight-month prison sentence for conspiracy to commit fraud during litigation with Monsanto<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.gene.ch/genet/2003/May/msg00044.html|author=Peter Shinkle, St. Louis Post-Dispatch|title=Farmer who lied in dispute with Monsanto will go to prison|date=May 7, 2003}}</ref> in addition to having to pay damages.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.memphisdailynews.com/editorial/Article.aspx?id=30496|author=Andy Meek, Memphis Daily News|title=Down and Out in Covington – Farmer struggles to re-emerge after $3 million judgment, prison term in Monsanto case|date=June 22, 2006|publisher=]}}</ref> | |||
| Monsanto sued the Pilot Grove Cooperative Elevator in ], on the grounds that by cleaning harvested seeds covered by Monsanto's patents so that farmers could replant them, the elevator was ] Monsanto's patents. The Pilot Grove Cooperative Elevator had been cleaning conventional seeds for decades before the development of genetic engineering and developments in patent law led to the existence of issued patents that cover seeds.<ref name="url_monsantoharvest">{{cite web|url=http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805 |title=Monsanto's Harvest of Fear }}</ref> | |||
| In one case in 2002, Monsanto mistakenly sued Gary Rinehart of ] for patent violation. Rinehart was not a farmer or seed dealer, but sharecropped land with his brother and nephew, who were violating the patent. Monsanto dropped the lawsuit against him when it discovered the mistake.<ref name="url_monsantoharvest"/> | |||
| In 1997, ] discovered that ] 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 3- to 4‑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. The initial Canadian Federal Court rejected Schmeiser's defense and held for Monsanto, finding that in 1998 Schmeiser had intentionally planted the seeds he had harvested from the wind-seeded crops in 1997, and so patent infringement had indeed occurred.<ref name="2001FCT256">{{cite web|url=http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2001/2001fct256/2001fct256.html |title=''Monsanto Canada v. Schmeiser'', 2001 FCT 256 |publisher=Decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca }}</ref> Schmeiser appealed and lost again.<ref name=FedAppealDecision>Federal Court of Appeal of Canada. </ref> Schmeiser appealed to the ] which took the case and held for Monsanto by a 5‑4 vote in late May 2004.<ref name=CanadianSC>. Scc.lexum.org.</ref> With this ruling, the Canadian courts followed the U.S. Supreme Court in its decision on patent issues involving plants and genes. Schmeiser won a partial victory, as the Supreme Court reversed on damages, finding that because Schmeiser did not gain any profit from the infringement, he did not owe Monsanto any damages nor did he have to pay Monsanto's substantial legal bills. The case caused Monsanto's enforcement tactics to be highlighted in the media over the years it took to play out.<ref>{{Cite journal|author=Smith, Gar |title=Percy Schmeiser vs. Monsanto |journal=Earth Island Journal |date=Autumn 2001}}</ref> The case is widely cited or referenced by the anti-GM community in the context of a fear of a company claiming ownership of a farmer’s crop based on the inadvertent presence of GM pollen grain or seed.<ref>CT NOFA is the Connecticut Chapter of the Northeast Organic Farming Association </ref><ref>Susan Audrey for Occupy Monsanto. February 10, 2012 </ref> "The court record shows, however, that it was not just a few seeds from a passing truck, but that Mr Schmeiser was growing a crop of 95–98% pure Roundup Ready plants, a commercial level of purity far higher than one would expect from inadvertent or accidental presence. The judge could not account for how a few wayward seeds or pollen grains could come to dominate hundreds of acres without Mr Schmeiser’s active participation, saying ‘. . .none of the suggested sources could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality evident from the results of tests on Schmeiser’s crop’" – in other words, the original presence of Monsanto seed on his land in 1997 was indeed inadvertent, but the crop in 1998 was entirely purposeful.<ref name=McHughen>McHughen A, Wager R. (2010) N Biotechnol. 27(6):724-8. Epub 2010 Mar 30. </ref> | |||
| In 2007, Monsanto sued Indiana farmer Vernon Hugh Bowman who in 1999 bought seed for his second planting from a grain elevator – the same elevator that he and others sold their transgenic crops. The case was later known as '']''.<ref name="Bowman CAFC decision">United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. MONSANTO COMPANY AND MONSANTO TECHNOLOGY LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. VERNON HUGH BOWMAN, Defendant-Appellant. Docket 2010-1068. Decided: September 21, 2011 </ref> The elevator sold the soybeans as commodities, not as seeds for planting.<ref name="Bowman CAFC decision" /><ref name=PatentDocsBowman>{{cite web|url=http://www.patentdocs.org/2011/09/monsanto-co-v-bowman-fed-cir-2011.html |title=Monsanto Co. v. Bowman (Fed. Cir. 2011) |publisher=Patent Docs |date=September 22, 2011}}</ref> He tested the new seeds, and found that as he had expected, some were resistant to glyphosate. He replanted his harvest in subsequent years for his second seasonal planting, supplementing them with more soybeans he bought at the elevator.<ref name="Bowman CAFC decision" /> He informed Monsanto of his activities.<ref name="Bowman CAFC decision" /> Monsanto stated that he was infringing their patents because the soybeans he bought from the elevator were new products that he purchased for use as seeds without a license from Monsanto; Bowman stated that he had not infringed due to ] on the first sale of seed to whatever farmers had produced the crops that he bought from the elevator, on the grounds that for seed, all future generations are embodied in the first generation that was originally sold.<ref name=PatentDocsBowman /> In 2009 the district court ruled in favor of Monsanto; on appeal, the Federal Circuit upheld the verdict.<ref name="Bowman CAFC decision" /> Bowman appealed to the ], which granted review,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/10/court-grants-7-new-cases/ |title=Court grants seven new cases (UPDATED) |publisher=SCOTUSblog |date=October 5, 2012}}</ref> then unanimously affirmed the Federal Circuit on May 13, 2013.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/business/monsanto-victorious-in-genetic-seed-case.html |title=Monsanto Wins Case on Genetically Altered Soybeans |author=Adam Liptak | publisher=''New York Times'' |date=May 13, 2013}}</ref><ref>''Bowman v. Monsanto Co. et al.'', No. 11–796, (S.Ct. May 13, 2013).</ref> | |||
| In 2009, Monsanto sued ] for patent infringement of Roundup Ready patents.<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-01/monsanto-awarded-1-billion-against-dupont-by-jury.html | work=Bloomberg | first1=Joe | last1=Whittington | first2=Andrew | last2=Harris | first3=Jack | last3=Kaskey | title=Monsanto Awarded Billion Against DuPont by Jury | date=August 2, 2012}}</ref> Dupont had licensed the patents from Monsanto already, but had added additional glyphosphate-resistance genes to its seed, which Monsanto claimed was not allowed in the license. Dupont counter-sued, claiming that Monsanto's patent was invalid. The jury handed down a verdict on August 1, 2012, finding that Dupont not only infringed, but willfully infringed, and awarded a verdict of $1 billion, the fourth-largest patent verdict in the history of the United States.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-03/monsanto-s-1-billion-win-against-dupont-appears-vulnerable-1-.html |title=Monsanto's $1 Billion Win Against DuPont Appears Vulnerable |date=August 4, 2012 | work=Bloomberg |first1=Susan |last1=Decker |first2=Jack |last2=Kaskey}}</ref> Dupont indicated it would appeal the decision. | |||
| =====As defendant===== | |||
| In 2006, the ] filed requests with the ] to revoke four patents that Monsanto has used in patent lawsuits against farmers, namely U.S. Patents Nos. 5,164,316; 5,196,525; 5,322,938, and 5,352,605. In the first round of reexamination, some claims in all four patents were rejected by the Patent Office in four separate rulings dating from February through July 2007.<ref>. ]</ref> | |||
| On March 30, 2011 the ] filed claims in federal ] in Manhattan, challenging the validity of 23 of Monsanto's patents on genetically modified seed, on behalf of the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association and 82 other farming associations.<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-29/monsanto-sued-by-organic-farmers-over-modified-seed-patents-1-.html | work=Bloomberg | first1=Susan | last1=Decker | first2=Jack | last2=Kaskey | title=Monsanto Sued by Organic Farmers Over Modified-Seed Patents | date=March 29, 2011}}</ref> The group contended that they were being forced to sue pre-emptively to protect themselves from being accused of patent infringement should their fields ever become contaminated by Monsanto's genetically modified seed.<ref> | |||
| {{Cite news | title = Canadian and US farmers sue Monsanto to protect themselves | url = http://cban.ca/Press/Press-Releases/Farmers-and-Seed-Distributors-Sue-Monsanto-to-Protect-Themselves-from-Patents-on-Genetically-Modified-Seed | location = CBAN (Canada) | date = March 30, 2011}}</ref> On February 24, District Court Judge Naomi Buchwald dismissed the lawsuit and in her ruling criticized the plaintiffs for a "transparent effort to create a controversy where none exists."<ref>. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK</ref><ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-monsanto-prevails-in-suit-brought-by-organic-growers-20120227,0,814254.story| archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20120302233623/http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-monsanto-prevails-in-suit-brought-by-organic-growers-20120227,0,814254.story| archivedate=2012-03-02|title=Monsanto prevails in suit brought by organic growers|date=February 27, 2012 | work=Reuters via Chicago Tribune}}</ref> Plaintiffs planned to appeal the decision<ref>{{Cite news | |||
| | title = Organic farmers' case against Monsanto thrown out by judge | url = http://www.latimes.com/news/local/environment/la-me-gs-judge-throws-out-farmers-case-against-monsanto-20120227,0,5279762.story | author = Kuipers, Dean | work=] | date = February 27, 2012 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|author= McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP on 3/1/2012 |url=http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/court-dismisses-pubpats-declaratory-jud-05295/ |title=Court Dismisses PubPat's Declaratory Judgment Action against Monsanto |publisher=JDSupra |date=January 3, 2012}}</ref> and did so. In June 2013 the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court decision.<ref>Dennis Crouch for Patently O Blog. Jun 10, 2013 </ref> | |||
| In February 2012, two NGOs, Navdanya and No Patent on Seeds, filed documents opposing an EU patent awarded to Monsanto covering virus resistant traits of melons.<ref>.</ref> Monsanto had acquired DeRuiter, a seed company, in 2008, which originally filed the patent application.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=EP&NR=1962578&KC=&locale=en_EP&FT=E |title=Espacenet – Bibliographic data |publisher=Worldwide.espacenet.com}}</ref> The activists claim it was not an invention of Monsanto but rather ], because the virus-resistant plants originated in ] and were registered in international seed banks; they further claimed that conventional breeding methods were used to transfer the virus resistance genes from an Indian melon to other melons and that European law prohibits patents on conventional breeding.<ref name="Parsai"/> | |||
| ===Other legal actions in North America=== | |||
| ====As defendant==== | |||
| In a case that ran from February 1984 through October 1987, Monsanto was the defendant in the longest civil jury trial in U.S. history, Kemner v. Monsanto. The case involved a group of plaintiffs who claimed to have been poisoned by dioxin in 1979 when a train derailed in Sturgeon, Missouri. Tank cars on the train carried a chemical used to make wood preservatives and "small quantities of a dioxin called 2, 3, 7, 8, TCDD... formed as a part of the manufacturing process."<ref name="Kellner appeal decision">{{cite web|url=http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=19911722576NE2d1146_11573.xml&docbase=CSLWAR2-1986-2006 |title=KEMNER v. MONSANTO CO. – July 22, 1991 |publisher=Leagle.com}}</ref> The initial outcome was mixed. "The jurors, after deliberating more than two months, agreed with Monsanto that the plaintiffs had suffered no physical harm from exposure to dioxin. But they accepted the plaintiffs' argument that Monsanto had failed to alter its manufacturing process to eliminate dioxin as a byproduct and that it had failed to warn the public about dioxin's harmfulness. Most of the plaintiffs were awarded only one dollar each for actual losses, but they were awarded $16.2 million in punitive damages."<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.nytimes.com/1987/10/24/us/spill-s-legal-odyssey.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm | work=New York Times | first=E. R. | last=Shipp | title=Spill's Legal Odyssey | date=October 24, 1987}}</ref> Monsanto appealed the judgements and won on all counts.<ref name="Kellner appeal decision"/> | |||
| In the early 1990s Monsanto faced several lawsuits over harm caused by PCBs from workers at companies such as Westinghouse that bought PCBs from Monsanto and used them to build electrical equipment.<ref>Robert Steyer. St. Louis Post-Dispatch. November 25, 1991 Settlement Doesn't End Monsanto's Woes. Accessed via Factiva September 29, 2012</ref> Monsanto and its customers, such as Westinghouse and GE also faced litigation from third parties, such as workers at scrapyards that bought used electrical equipment and broke them down to reclaim valuable metals.<ref>Supreme Court of Kentucky. MONSANTO COMPANY v. REED; MONSANTO COMPANY, Appellant, v. William REED, et al., Appellees. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION, Appellant, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, et al., Appellees. Nos. 95-SC-549-DG, 95-SC-561-DG. April 24, 1997 </ref><ref>Supreme Court of Florida. HIGH v. WESTINGHOUSE ELEC. CORP. 610 So.2d 1259 (1992) June 11, 1992 </ref> Monsanto settled some of these cases and won the others, on the grounds that it had clearly told its customers that PCBs were dangerous chemicals and that protective procedures needed to be implemented. | |||
| In 2000, ] (GLC) sued Monsanto for the $71 million shortfall in expected sales. In 1999, Monsanto had sold GLC a business unit, NSC Technologies, for approximately $125 million in cash; NSC Technologies developed, manufactured and sold chiral pharmaceutical intermediates and select bulk actives to pharmaceutical companies, including the key ingredient of ].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.icis.com/Articles/2000/01/24/103399/great-lakes-sues-monsanto-for-71m-over-nsc-sale.html |title=Great Lakes sues Monsanto for $71m over NSC sale-24/01/2000-ICIS News |publisher=Icis.com |date=January 24, 2000}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.getfilings.com/o0000912057-02-010230.html |title=GREAT LAKES CHEMICAL CORP – 10-K Annual Report – 12/31/2001 |publisher=Getfilings.com}}</ref> When sales did not meet projections, GLC sued Monsanto under federal securities laws.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/corporations/corporations-keyed-to-klein/the-duties-of-officers-directors-and-other-insiders/great-lakes-chemical-corp-v-monsanto-co/ |title=Great Lakes Chemical Corp. v. Monsanto Co |publisher=Casebriefs}}</ref> The federal case was dismissed. GLC then sued Monsanto under Delaware state law.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/3184475/litigation |title=LITIGATION – Tags: ACTIONS & defenses (Administrative law) MONSANTO Co. – Trials, litigation, etc |publisher=Connection.ebscohost.com}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://caselaw.findlaw.com/de-court-of-chancery/1283791.html |title=GREAT LAKES CHEMICAL CORPORATION v. PHARMACIA CORPORATION, C.A. No. 18276., June 29, 2001 – DE Court of Chancery | FindLaw |publisher=Caselaw.findlaw.com}}</ref> The outcome of this case is not known. | |||
| In 2003, Monsanto reached a $300 million settlement with people in Alabama affected by the manufacturing and dumping of the toxic chemical polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).<ref name=Alabama>{{cite web|url=http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/236012-ala.-sc-makes-ruling-in-cases-over-300m-monsanto-settlement |title=Ala. SC makes ruling in cases over $300M Monsanto settlement |publisher=Legal Newsline |date=May 1, 2012}}</ref> | |||
| In 2004, Monsanto, along with ] and other chemical companies, were sued in a US court by ] for the effects of its ] defoliant, used by the US military in the ].<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3798581.stm|title=Vietnam's war against Agent Orange|date=June 14, 2004 |work=BBC News | first=Tom | last=Fawthrop}}</ref><ref>, by Tom Fawthrop, November 4, 2004, CorpWatch</ref> The case was dismissed, and plaintiffs appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, which also denied the appeal. | |||
| In 2004, the world's largest ] company, Switzerland's ], launched a US lawsuit charging Monsanto with using coercive tactics to monopolize markets.<ref name="organicconsumers.org">, ]</ref> A flurry of litigation ensued, all of which was settled in 2008.<ref>. Patent Docs (May 30, 2008).</ref> | |||
| In 2005, the ] filed a Deferred Prosecution Agreement<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.law.virginia.edu/pdf/faculty/garrett/monsanto.pdf |title=United States of America v. Monsanto Company (Foreign Corrupt Practices Act) |publisher=United States District Court for the District of Columbia }}</ref> in which Monsanto admitted to violations of the ] (15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1) and making false entries into its books and records (15 U.S.C § 78m(b)(2) & (5)). Monsanto also agreed to pay a $1.5m fine. The case involved bribes paid to an Indonesian official.<ref>. BBC News (January 7, 2005).</ref> Monsanto admitted a senior manager at Monsanto directed an Indonesian consulting firm to give a $50,000 bribe to a high-level official in Indonesia's environment ministry in 2002 related to the agency's assessment on its genetically modified cotton. Monsanto told the company to disguise an invoice for the bribe as "consulting fees". Monsanto also has admitted to paying bribes to a number of other high-ranking Indonesian officials between 1997 and 2002. On March 5, 2008 the deferred prosecution agreement against Monsanto was dismissed with prejudice (unopposed by the Department of Justice) by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, thereby indicating that Monsanto had complied fully with the terms of the agreement. | |||
| In late 2006, the Correctional Tribunal of ], France, ordered two directors of Monsanto subsidiary ] to pay a €15,000 fine related to their knowledge of the presence of unauthorized ] (GMOs) in bags of seeds imported by ] on April 13, 2000.<ref>{{Cite news | title = French Monsanto subsidiary found guilty of GMO contamination | newspaper=translation of a France Nature Environnement press release | date = December 14, 2006 | url = http://www.laleva.org/eng/2006/12/french_monsanto_subsidiary_found_guilty_of_gmo_contamination.html }}</ref> | |||
| Monsanto was the subject of an investigation by the Environmental Agency of the UK regarding pollution caused by disposal of PCBs and other ] at ]. In February 2011, the Guardian reported that Monsanto had agreed to help with the costs of remediation, but did not accept responsibility for the pollution.<ref>. Guardian (February 21, 2011).</ref> A webpage at the Environmental Agency site put up at around that time states: "We have completed our extensive enquiries to identify those we consider should be held responsible under the contaminated land laws and be held liable for the cost of remediating Brofiscin Quarry. We are at an advanced stage in our consultations with BP, Veolia and Monsanto to provide them with the opportunity to help remediate the land on a voluntary basis. We expect to make further progress on this matter in the next few months. If this approach is unsuccessful, we have the power to carry out the work needed ourselves and recover our costs. The three companies have been identified under the legislation as inheriting the liabilities of companies who were associated with depositing wastes at the quarry."<ref>. Environment Agency (February 4, 2013).</ref> | |||
| In May 2013, ]-resistant ] (a GMO) that was not yet approved for release was discovered in a farm in Oregon, growing as a weed or "volunteer plant". The wheat was developed by Monsanto, and was a strain that was field-tested from 1998 to 2005 and was in the regulatory approval process before Monsanto withdrew it based on concern that importers would avoid the crop. The last field test in Oregon occurred in 2001. As of May 2013 there was no information as to how the wheat got there or whether it had entered the food supply; volunteer wheat from a former test field two miles away was tested and it was not found to be glyphosate-resistant. Monsanto faced penalties up to $1 million if violations of the ] would be found. The discovery threatened US wheat exports which totaled $8.1 billion in 2012; the US is the world's largest wheat exporter.<ref name=BloombergWheat>Alan Bjerga for Bloomberg News. May 29, 2013. </ref><ref>Andrew Pollack for the New York Times. May 29, 2013 </ref> ''New Scientist'' reported that the variety of wheat was rarely imported into Europe and doubted that the discovery of the wheat would affect Europe, but more likely destined for Asia. According to Monsanto it destroyed all the material it held after completing trials in 2004 and it was "mystified" by its appearance.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23638-monsanto-modified-wheat-mystery-deepens-in-oregon.html|title=Monsanto modified wheat mystery deepens in Oregon |author=Andy Coghlan|publisher=New Scientist|date=2013-06-03}}</ref> On Jun 14, 2013, the USDA announced: "As of today, USDA has neither found nor been informed of anything that would indicate that this incident amounts to more than a single isolated incident in a single field on a single farm. All information collected so far shows no indication of the presence of GE wheat in commerce."<ref>Staff, Food Safety News. June 17, 2013. </ref> As of August 30, 2013, while the source of the GM wheat remained unknown, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan had all resumed placing orders, and the disruption of the export market was minimal.<ref>Associated Press. August 30, 2013. </ref> | |||
| ====As plaintiff or appellant==== | |||
| In 2003, Monsanto sued ] over Oakhurst's label on its milk cartons that said "Our farmer's pledge: no artificial hormones," referring to the use of ] (rBST).<ref name="wired"/> Monsanto argued that the label implied that Oakhurst milk was superior to milk from cows treated with rBST, which harmed Monsanto's business.<ref name="wired">{{cite web | url=http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2003/09/60132?currentPage=all | title=Sour Grapes Over Milk Labeling| date=September 16, 2003 | publisher=Wired Magazine | archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/5wlecaMul | archivedate=February 25, 2011}}</ref> The two companies settled out of court, and it was announced that Oakhurst would add the word "used" at the end of its label, and note that the U.S. FDA claims there is no major difference between milk from rBST-treated and non rBST-treated cows.<ref>. Common Dreams (August 11, 2008).</ref> | |||
| In 2010, the ] ruled in case known as Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms.<ref name="Supreme Court Opinion">{{cite web|title=Monsanto Co et, al v. Geertson Seed Farms et, al. 561 U.S. ____(2010)|url=http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/09-475.pdf|publisher=United States Supreme Court}}</ref> The case concerned an injunction against the planting of Monsanto's gentically engineered ] Ready ] (RRA).<ref> Federal Register, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, June 27, 2005</ref> In 2005, the ]'s ] (APHIS) had deregulated RRA based on an ] (EA) of Monsanto's RRA.<ref name=NonregGrant> United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, October 2004</ref> In 2006, Geertson Seed Farm and others filed suit in ] against the APHIS' deregulation of RRA.<ref name=Oyez>{{cite web|last=The Oyez Project|first=IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law|title=Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms|url=http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2009/2009_09_475|publisher=The Oyez Project}}</ref> The district court disallowed APHIS' deregulation of RRA and issued an injunction against any new planting of RRA pending the preparation of a much more extensive ] (EIS).<ref> United States District Court for Northern California, Case No C 06-01075 CR, May 3, 2007</ref> The court also refused to allow a partial deregulation.<ref name="Supreme Court Opinion"/> Monsanto and others appealed that decision and lost,<ref>McEowan, Roger (January 15, 2010) Iowa State University, Center for Agricultural Law and Taxation</ref> then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2010, the Supreme Court reversed the district court's decision. They stated that before a court disallows a partial deregulation, a plaintiff must show that it has suffered irreparable injury. "The District Court abused its discretion in enjoining APHIS from effecting a partial deregulation and in prohibiting the planting of RRA pending the agency’s completion of its detailed environmental review."<ref name="Supreme Court Opinion"/> The Supreme court did not consider the district court's ruling disallowing RRA's deregulation and consequently RRA was still a regulated crop waiting for APHIS's completion of an EIS.<ref name="Supreme Court Opinion"/> At the time, both sides claimed victory.<ref>{{Cite doi|10.1038/nbt0810-770a}}</ref> This was the first ruling of the United States Supreme Court on genetically engineered crops.<ref>Koons, Jennifer (June 21, 2010) New York Times, Energy & Environment</ref> After APHIS prepared an ] for RRA, in 2012 it was deregulated again.<ref>, United States Department of Agriculture, December 2010</ref> | |||
| On January 23, 2008, the ], the ], and the Organic Seed Alliance and High Mowing Seeds filed a lawsuit against ]-] regarding their decision to deregulate a glyphosate-resistant sugar beet developed by Monsanto and KWS SAAT AG in 2005. The organizations expressed concerns regarding glyphosate-resistant sugar beets' ability to potentially cross ] with conventional sugar beet.<ref name="Roundup Ready Sugar Beet Case: Timeline">{{cite web|last=USDA-APHIS |title=Roundup Ready Sugar Beet Case: Timeline|url=http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/sugarbeet_case.shtml|date=February 4, 2011}}</ref> On September 21, 2009, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey S. White, ], ruled that USDA-APHIS had violated Federal law in deregulating glyphosate-resistant sugar beet<ref name="Roundup Ready Sugar Beet Case: Timeline"/> and on August 13, 2010 he ruled further, revoking the deregulation of glyphosate-resistant sugar beet and declaring it unlawful for growers to plant glyphosate-resistant sugar beet in the spring of 2011. As a result of this ruling, growers were permitted to harvest and process their crop at the end of the 2010 growing season, yet a ban on new plantings was enacted. After Judge White's ruling, USDA-APHIS prepared an Environmental Assessment seeking partial deregulation of glyphosate-resistant sugar beet and allowed GM seedlings to be planted.<ref name="USDA Prepares Draft Environmental Assessment on Regulatory Options for Roundup Ready Sugar Beets">{{cite web|last=USDA-APHIS |title=USDA Prepares Draft Environmental Assessment on Regulatory Options for Roundup Ready Sugar Beets|url=http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/content/2010/11/enviro_sugar_beets.shtml}}</ref> In November 2010, in response to a suit by the original parties, Judge White ordered the destruction of the plantings.<ref>Reuters. November 30, 2010 </ref> In February 2011, a federal appeals court for the Northern district of California in San Francisco, citing the Supreme Court's 2010 decision on RRA, overturned the ruling, concluding that "The Plaintiffs have failed to show a likelihood of irreparable injury. Biology, geography, field experience, and permit restrictions make irreparable injury unlikely."<ref> Filed February 25, 2011</ref> APHIS developed requirements that growers had to follow if handling glyphosate-resistant sugar beet while it was regulated. In July 2012, after completing an Environmental Impact Assessment and a Plant Pest Risk Assessment the USDA deregulated Monsanto's Roundup Ready sugar beets again.<ref> USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Biotechnology (August 7, 2012)</ref> | |||
| ====Investigations==== | |||
| =====2009 antitrust investigation===== | |||
| In 2009, Monsanto came under scrutiny from the U.S. Department of Justice, which began investigating whether the company's activities in the soybean markets were breaking ] rules.<ref name="cbsnews.com"/><ref>{{Cite news| url = http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/08/business/main5372772.shtml | title = Monsanto Focus of Antitrust Investigation | work=] | date = October 8, 2009 }}</ref> In 2010, the Department of Justice created a website through which comments on "Agriculture and Antitrust Enforcement Issues in Our 21st Century Economy" could be submitted; over 15,000 comments were submitted including a letter by 14 State Attorneys General. The comments are publicly available.<ref>. US Department of Justice. Justice.gov.</ref> On November 16, 2012, Monsanto announced that it had received written notification from the U.S. Department of Justice that the Antitrust Division had concluded its inquiry and that the Department of Justice had closed the inquiry without taking any enforcement action.<ref>{{cite web|title=Monsanto Notified that U.S. Department of Justice Has Concluded Its Inquiry|url=http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/monsanto-notified-that-us-department-of-justice-has-concluded-its-inquiry.aspx|publisher=Monsanto Company}}</ref><ref>Georgina Gustin fr the St. Louis Dispatch. November 19, 2012. </ref> Opponents of Monsanto's seed patenting and licensing practices expressed frustration that the Department of Justice released no information about the results of the inquiry.<ref>{{cite web|last=Philpott|first=Tom|title=DOJ Mysteriously Quits Monsanto Antitrust Investigation|url=http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/11/dojs-monsantoseed-industry-investigation-ends-thud|publisher=Mother Jones}}</ref> | |||
| ====Not a party, but involved==== | |||
| =====1997 WTVT news story===== | |||
| This is a case where Monsanto was not a party, but was alleged to have been involved in the events under dispute. In 1997, the news division of ] (Channel 13), a ]–] in ], planned to air an investigative report by ] and ] on the health risks associated with Monsanto's ] product, ].<ref name="sptimes.com">{{cite web|url=http://www.sptimes.com/News/081900/TampaBay/Reporter_wins_suit_ov.shtml |title=Reporter wins suit over firing |publisher=Sptimes.com |date=August 19, 2000 }}</ref> Just before the story was to air, Fox received a threatening letter from Monsanto, saying the reporters were biased and that the story would damage the company.<ref name="sptimes.com" /> Fox tried to work with the reporters to address Monsanto's concerns, and the negotiations between Fox and the reporters broke down.<ref name="sptimes.com" /> Both reporters were eventually fired. Wilson and Akre alleged the firing was for retaliation, while WTVT contended they were fired for insubordination. The reporters then sued Fox/WTVT in Florida state court under the state's ] statute. In 2000, a Florida jury found that while there was no evidence Fox/WTVT had bowed to any pressure from Monsanto to alter the story, Akre, but not Wilson, was a whistleblower and was unjustly fired.<ref name="sptimes.com" /> Fox appealed the decision stating that under Florida law, a whistleblower can only act if "a law, rule, or regulation”" has been broken and argued that the FCC's news distortion policy did not fit that definition.<ref name="decision">{{cite web|url=http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district-court-of-appeal/1310807.html |title=NEW WORLD COMMUNICATIONS OF TAMPA INC WTVT TV v. AKRE, No. 2D01-529., February 14, 2003 – FL District Court of Appeal | FindLaw |publisher=Caselaw.findlaw.com}}</ref> The appeals court overturned the verdict, finding that Akre was not a whistleblower because of the Florida "legislature's requirement that agency statements that fit the definition of a “rule” (must) be formally adopted (rules). Recognizing an uncodified agency policy developed through the adjudicative process as the equivalent of a formally adopted rule is not consistent with this policy, and it would expand the scope of conduct that could subject an employer to liability beyond what Florida's Legislature could have contemplated when it enacted the whistle-blower's statute." | |||
| =====Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories scandal===== | |||
| In 1981, four executives of ](IBT), an American ] were indicted in federal court on various counts including ] and fraud, and were convicted in 1983.<ref>{{cite pmid| 6857237 }}</ref> IBT was an industrial product safety testing laboratory that was used by pharmaceutical companies, chemical manufacturers and other industrial clients, operated one of the largest facility of its kind in the US, and performed more than one-third of all ] in the United States.<ref name=SchneiderAmicus>Schneider, Keith . Amicus Journal. Planetwaves.net.</ref> One of convicted executives was Paul Wright, a toxicologist, who had spent 18 months at IBT in the 1970s while IBT was testing an ] product that Monsanto was developing, ](TCC).<ref>Schneider, Keith , Amicus Journal, spring 1983</ref> The revelations of misconduct by IBT Labs led to the establishment of ] standards and regulations for industrial testing.<ref>Novak, Roger A. (November 2001) . Today's Chemist at Work.</ref> | |||
| In 1991, Philip Smith, a former assistant toxicologist at IBT, testified in a trial in which Monsanto was being sued by workers at Westinghouse over PCBs, that final toxicology reports on PCBs provided to Monsanto by IBT contained falsified data.<ref name='Steyer 1991-10-29'>{{cite news | first = Robert | last = Steyer | title = Lab Falsified Monsanto PCB Data, Witness Says | date = October 29, 1991 | work = St. Louis Post-Dispatch }}</ref> | |||
| ===Legal actions and controversies outside North America=== | |||
| ====Argentina==== | |||
| GM soy was approved for cultivation in Argentina in 1996. When Argentina approved the cultivation of GMO in 1996 14 million acres were used for soy production and by 2008 that area grew to 42 million acres.<ref name=SoyRepublic>. Towardfreedom.com (September 2, 2009).</ref> The growth was driven by Argentine investors' interest in buying or leasing land on which to grow soy for the export market.<ref name=SoyRepublic /> The consolidation has led to a decrease in production of many staples such as milk, rice, maize, potatoes and lentils, and as of 2004 about 150,000 small farmers had left the countryside; by 2009 in the Chaco region, 50% were displaced.<ref name=SoyRepublic /><ref name=GuardianArgentina>. ''The Guardian'' (April 16, 2004)</ref><ref>Carlos Reboratti (2010) . ] Revista de geografía Norte Grande 45: 63–76</ref> | |||
| The Guardian newspaper interviewed a Monsanto representative and reported that the representative "said that any problems with GM soya were to do with use of the crop as a monoculture, not because it was GM. 'If you grow any crop to the exclusion of any other you are bound to get problems.'"<ref name=GuardianArgentina /> | |||
| In 2005 and 2006, Monsanto addressed unlicensed use of its patented "Roundup Ready" technology by farmers and companies in Argentina by enforcing its patents on soymeal imported into Spain from Argentina, which obligated Spanish customs officials to seize the soymeal shipments.<ref>. Cropchoice.com, January 31, 2006</ref> | |||
| ====Brazil==== | |||
| Brazil had originally approved GM crops in 1998 but Brazilian advocacy groups had successfully sued to overturn the approval.<ref name=EconomistBrazil>. The Economist (October 2, 2003).</ref> In 2003 Brazil allowed a one-year exemption when GM soy was found in fields planted in the state of Rio Grande do Sul.<ref name=EconomistBrazil /> This was a controversial decision, and in response, the ] protested by invading and occupying several Monsanto farm plots used for research, training and seed-processing.<ref>. BBC News (June 3, 2003).</ref> In 2005 Brazil passed a law creating a regulatory pathway for GM crops, and the agriculture minister Roberto Rodrigues stated that "Brazilian soy farmers, who have used cloned or smuggled versions of the biotechnology company's Roundup Ready variety for years, will no longer have to worry about breaking the law or facing legal action from Monsanto as long as regulators approve the seeds for planting."<ref>. Enn.com (March 4, 2005).</ref> | |||
| ====China==== | |||
| Monsanto was criticized by Chinese economist ] for having controlled the Chinese soybean market, and for trying to do the same to Chinese corn and cotton.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wyzxsx.com/Article/Class4/201001/128373.html |title=郎咸平：孟山都的转基因帝国-大豆、玉米与棉花 |publisher=Wyzxsx.com |date=January 28, 2010 }}</ref> | |||
| ====Haiti==== | |||
| After the ], Monsanto donated $255,000 to Haiti for disaster relief<ref name=SeedDaily>, Hinche, Haiti (AFP) June 4, 2010</ref> and 60,000 seed sacks (475 tons) of hybrid (non-GM) corn and vegetable seeds worth $4 million.<ref name=BusinessWeek>{{cite web|last=Katz |first=Jonathan M. |url=http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9FMUQN80.htm |title=Monsanto gives Haiti $4 million in hybrid seeds |publisher=BusinessWeek |date=May 14, 2010}}</ref> However, a ] (CRS) rapid assessment of seed supply and demand for the 5 most common food security crops found that the Haitians had enough seed and recommended that imported seeds should be introduced only on a small scale.<ref> Catholic Relief Services, March 2010</ref> | |||
| The announcement of the donation initially raised concerns that the donation would include genetically modified seeds, but Monsanto representatives said no such seeds were included and the donation comprised conventional seed and hybrid seeds, which are produced by manually cross-pollinating plants.<ref name=BusinessWeek /> A report by Haiti Grassroots Watch (HGW) investigated the donation and responses to it.<ref name=truth>{{cite web|url=http://www.truth-out.org/monsanto-haiti/1304605989 |title=Monsanto in Haiti |publisher=Truth-out.org}}</ref> Emmanuel Prophete, head of Haiti's Ministry of Agriculture's Service National Semencier (SNS), that HGW that SNS was not opposed to the hybrid maize seeds because it at least doubles the yield of corn. Louise Sperling, Principal Researcher at the ] (CIAT) told HGW that she was not opposed to hybrids, but noted that most hybrids require extra water and better soils and that most of Haiti was not appropriate for ] hybrids. | |||
| Another concern was that some of the seeds were coated with the highly toxic ]s Maxim or ]. In the United States, ]s containing thiram are banned in home garden products because most home gardeners do not own adequate protection.<ref>. (PDF) .</ref> HGW found that the coated seeds were handled in a dangerous manner by the recipients and judged that such seeds should not have been donated.<ref name=truth /> | |||
| The seeds were donated free of charge, and were in turn sold at a reduced price in local markets.<ref name=BusinessWeek /> However, farmers feared that they were being given seeds that would "threaten local varieties"<ref name=SeedDaily /> and an estimated 8,000–12,000 farmers attended a protest of the donation on June 4, 2010 organized by a Haitian farmers' association, the Peasant Movement of Papay, where a small pile of seeds was symbolically burned.<ref>. Facebook.com.</ref><ref name=Epoch>{{cite news |title=Haiti GM food aid is a 'trojan horse' |author=Skorbach, Kristina |url=http://epoch-archive.com/a1/en/ie/nnn/2010/06-June/24/ET220610005.pdf |newspaper=The Epoch Times |date=June 24 – July 7, 2010 }}</ref> | |||
| ====India==== | |||
| Monsanto has had a controversial history in India, starting with the accusation that Monsanto used ]s in its seeds, causing demonstrations against the company. Later, its GM cotton seed was the subject of NGO agitation because of its higher cost. Indian farmers cross GM varieties with local varieties using ] to yield better strains, an illegal practice termed "seed piracy".<ref>Ghosh, Pallab (June 17, 2003) , ]</ref><ref>Beary, Habib (October 5, 1999) , BBC News</ref> In 2009, high prices of Bt Cotton were blamed for forcing farmers of the district ] into severe debts when the crops died due to lack of rain.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.hindu.com/2009/08/25/stories/2009082554841400.htm |title=Jhabua on its way to becoming Vidarbha-II? |publisher=Hindu.com |date=August 25, 2009 |place=Chennai, India}}</ref> | |||
| =====Bt resistance===== | |||
| In 2009, Monsanto scientists initially discovered that insects had developed resistance to the ] planted in ] and when studies were completed, Monsanto communicated this to the Indian government and its customers, stating that "Resistance is natural and expected, so measures to delay resistance are important. Among the factors that may have contributed to pink bollworm resistance to the Cry1Ac protein in Bollgard I in Gujarat are limited refuge planting and early use of unapproved Bt cotton seed, planted prior to GEAC approval of Bollgard I cotton, which may have had lower protein expression levels."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/india-pink-bollworm.aspx |title=Monsanto ~ Cotton In India |publisher=Monsanto.com |date=November 3, 2008}}</ref> The company advised farmers to switch to its second generation of Bt cotton – Bolguard II – which had two resistance genes instead of one.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.hindu.com/2010/03/06/stories/2010030664831400.htm|title= Bt cotton ineffective against pest in parts of Gujarat, admits Monsanto | place=Chennai, India|work=The Hindu|date=March 6, 2010}}</ref> However, this advice was criticized; an article in ] reported that "an internal analysis of the statement of the Ministry of Environment and Forests says it 'appears that this could be a business strategy to phase out single gene events and promote double genes which would fetch higher price.'"<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.hindu.com/2010/03/12/stories/2010031263690900.htm|title=Monsanto 'admission' has business motives? | place=Chennai, India|work=The Hindu|date=March 12, 2010}}</ref> | |||
| ===== Andhra Pradesh state government ===== | |||
| In the early 2000s, farmers in the state of ], were in economic crisis due to high interest rates and crop failures, leading to widespread social unrest and suicides.<ref>{{cite news| url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3855517.stm | work=BBC News | title=India PM pledge over suicide farmers | date=July 1, 2004}}</ref> Monsanto was one focus of protests with respect to the price of Bt seed and yields of Bt seed. In 2005, the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee, the Indian regulatory authority, released a study on field tests of certain Bt cotton strains in Andhra Pradesh and ruled that Monsanto could not market those strains in Andhra Pradesh because the yields were poor, and extended the ban on one of them, Mech-12 Bt, to all of south India.<ref> | |||
| {{Cite news | title = Three varieties of BT cotton rejected in Andhra Pradesh, India | url = http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/service215.htm | location = Malaysia | date = June 4, 2005}}</ref> At about the same time, the state agriculture minister barred the company from selling any Bt cotton seeds in the state, because Monsanto refused a request by the state government to provide a compensation package of about Rs 4.5 crore (about 1 Million US$) to indebted farmers in some districts, and because the government blamed Monsanto's Bt seeds for crop failures.<ref name="Andra Uproots"> | |||
| {{Cite news | title = Angry Andhra uproots Monsanto | url = http://www.financialexpress.com/news/angry-andhra-uproots-monsanto/139771/0 |work=financialexpress.com| location = Hyderabad | date = June 23, 2005 }}</ref> The order was later lifted. In 2006, the Andhra Pradesh state government tried to convince Monsanto to reduce the price at which it sold Bt seeds. When Monsanto did not reduce the price enough to satisfy the government, the state filed several cases against Monsanto and its ] based licensee Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds.<ref name="autogenerated3">, '']'', June 27, 2006</ref> | |||
| Research by ] found that there was no substantial increase in suicides, and that Bt cotton was effective in India.<ref>{{cite journal|title=Bt Cotton and Farmer Suicides in India: An Evidence-based Assessment|journal=The Journal of Development Studies|year=2011|volume=47|issue=2|doi=10.1080/00220388.2010.492863|url=http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00220388.2010.492863|accessdate=28 December 2012}}</ref> | |||
| ===== Child labor ===== | |||
| As in much of the developing world and especially in agricultural areas, ] is widespread in India's agricultural sector, which employs ~60% of ]. Child labor is especially used in seed production.<ref name="Seed production chapter">{{cite web|url=http://www.indianet.nl/cotssec3.html |title=Child Labour and Trans-National Seed Companies in Hybrid Cotton Seed Production in Andhra Pradesh |publisher=Indianet.nl}}</ref> The seed production is done mostly through child labor—it is carried out on plots owned by small farmers, who sell the seed to "seed organizers", who in turn sell the seed to public and private seed agencies and companies.<ref name="Seed production chapter" /> The public and private agencies and companies include Indian state corporations, Mahyco-Monsanto, Syngenta, and others.<ref>, India Committee of the Netherlands</ref> Monsanto's website states that the company complies with all child labor laws and that they are working towards minimizing its occurrence.<ref>. Monsanto (November 3, 2008).</ref> | |||
| =====Farmer suicides===== | |||
| {{main|Farmers' suicides in India}} | |||
| In the late 1990s and early 2000s, public attention was drawn to suicides by indebted farmers in India following crop failures.<ref name=FrontLine>. PBS (July 26, 2005).</ref> | |||
| Critics, including ], said that the crop failures could "often be traced to" Monsanto's Bt cotton, and that the seeds increased farmers' indebtedness, and argued that Monsanto misrepresented the profitability of their genetically modified cotton, Bt Cotton, causing farmers to suffer losses leading to debt.<ref name=FrontLine /><ref>. Democracy Now! (December 13, 2006).</ref><ref name=GlobalResearch>{{cite web|last=Shiva|first=Vandana|title=The Seeds of Suicide: How Monsanto Destroys Farming|url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-seeds-of-suicide-how-monsanto-destroys-farming/5329947|publisher=Centre for Research on Globalization|accessdate=14 April 2013}}</ref><ref>Peled, M. X. (Producer and Director). (2011, September 1st). (motion picture). United States: Teddy Bear Films.</ref><ref>{{cite journal|url=http://filmmakermagazine.com/40204-bitter-seeds-an-interview-with-director-micha-x-peled/ |journal=] |last=Scott |first=Daniel James|date=February 9, 2012 |title=Director Micha X. Peled on ''Bitter Seeds'' |accessdate=May 1, 2013}}</ref> In 2009, Dr. Shiva wrote that Indian farmers who had previously spent as little as 7 ] per kilogram were now paying up to Rs. 17,000 per kilo per year after switching to BT cotton.<ref>{{cite web | title = Vandana Shiva: From Seeds of Suicide to Seeds of Hope: Why Are Indian Farmers Committing Suicide and How Can We Stop This Tragedy? | date=April 28, 2009| url = http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vandana-shiva/from-seeds-of-suicide-to_b_192419.html | accessdate = 2013-05-02 | first = Vandana | last = Shiva }}</ref> More recently, in 2012 the ] (ICAR) and the Central Cotton Research Institute (CCRI) stated that for the first time farmer suicides could be linked to a decline in the performance of Bt cotton, and they issued an advisory stating that “cotton farmers are in a deep crisis since shifting to Bt cotton. The spate of farmer suicides in 2011-12 has been particularly severe among Bt cotton farmers.” <ref name=ICAR1 /> | |||
| In 2004, in response to a request from the All India Biodynamic and Organic Farming Association, the Mumbai High Court required the ] to produce a report on farmer suicides in ], and the institute submitted its report in March 2005.<ref name=InfoChange>Staff, InfoChange August 2005. </ref><ref name=TataReport>Dandekar A, et al, Tata Institute. </ref> The survey cited "government apathy, the absence of a safety net for farmers, and lack of access to information related to agriculture as the chief causes for the desperate condition of farmers in the state."<ref name=InfoChange /> | |||
| In 2008, a report published by the ], an agriculture policy ] based in Washington DC, stated that there was no evidence for an increased suicide rate following the 2002 introduction of Bt cotton.<ref name=Sheridan>{{cite web | title = Doubts surround link between Bt cotton failure and farmer suicide : Article : Nature Biotechnology | url =http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v27/n1/full/nbt0109-9.html | accessdate = 2013-05-06 }}</ref> The report stated that farmer suicides predate the official commercial introduction of Bt cotton by Monsanto Mahyco in 2002 (and its unofficial introduction by Navbharat Seeds in 2001) and that such suicides were a fairly constant portion of the overall national suicide rate since 1997.<ref name=Sheridan /><ref name = "Gruere">{{cite web|url=http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/ifpridp00808.pdf|year=2008|title=Bt Cotton and Farmer Suicides in India: Reviewing the Evidence|author=Guillaume P. Gruère, Purvi Mehta-Bhatt and Debdatta Sengupta|publisher=International Food Policy Research Institute}}</ref> The report concluded that while Bt cotton may have been a factor in specific suicides, the contribution was likely marginal compared to ] factors.<ref name=Sheridan /><ref name = "Gruere"/> | |||
| Various studies identify the important factors as insufficient or risky credit systems, the difficulty of farming semi-arid regions, poor agricultural income, absence of alternative income opportunities, a downturn in the urban economy which forced non-farmers into farming, and the absence of suitable counseling services.<ref name = "Gruere"/><ref name = "Nagraj">{{cite web|author=Nagraj, K.|year=2008|title=Farmers suicide in India: magnitudes, trends and spatial patterns|url=http://www.macroscan.com/anl/mar08/pdf/Farmers_Suicides.pdf}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Risks, Farmers' Suicides and Agrarian Crisis in India: Is There A Way Out?|author=Mishra, Srijit|publisher=Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research (IGIDR)|year=2007|url=http://www.igidr.ac.in/pdf/publication/WP-2007-014.pdf}}</ref> The ICAR and CCRI stated that the cost of cotton cultivation had jumped as a consequence of rising pesticide costs while total Bt cotton production in the five years from 2007 to 2012 had declined.<ref name=ICAR1>{{cite web | title = Ministry blames Bt cotton for farmer suicides - Hindustan Times | url =http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/Business/Ministry-blames-Btcotton-for-farmer-suicides/Article1-830798.aspx | accessdate = 2013-05-02 | first = Hindustan | last = Times}}</ref> | |||
| As of 2009, 87% of Indian cotton-growing land was used for Bt cotton.<ref>Choudhary, B. & Gaur, K. 2010. . ISAAA Series of Biotech Crop Profiles. ISAAA: Ithaca, NY.</ref> | |||
| ===False advertising=== | |||
| In 1996, the New York Times reported that: "Dennis C. Vacco, the Attorney General of New York, ordered the company to pull ads that said Roundup was "safer than table salt" and "practically nontoxic" to mammals, birds and fish. The company withdrew the spots, but also said that the phrase in question was permissible under E.P.A. guidelines."<ref>. Nytimes.com (May 29, 1997).</ref> | |||
| In 1999, Monsanto was condemned by the UK ] (ASA) for making "confusing, misleading, unproven and wrong" claims about its products over the course of a £1 million advertising campaign. The ASA ruled that Monsanto had presented its opinions "as accepted fact" and had published "wrong" and "unproven" scientific claims.<ref>{{cite web | title = Monsanto ads condemned | url = http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/1999/mar/01/gm.food?INTCMP=SRCH | first = Sarah | last = Hall | publisher =The Guardian|date=March 1, 1999 }}</ref> Monsanto responded with an apology and claimed it was not intending to deceive and instead "did not take sufficiently into account the difference in culture between the UK and the USA in the way some of this information was presented."<ref>{{cite web | title = Monsanto's Response To ASA Ruling | url = http://www.monsanto.co.uk/news/ukshowlib.php?uid=1875 }}</ref> | |||
| In 2001, French environmental and consumer rights campaigners brought a case against Monsanto for misleading the public about the ] of its ] ], on the basis that ], Roundup's main ingredient, is classed as "dangerous for the environment" and "toxic for aquatic organisms" by the ]. Monsanto's advertising for Roundup had presented it as biodegradable and as leaving the soil clean after use. In 2007, Monsanto was convicted of false advertising and was fined 15,000 euros. Monsanto's French distributor Scotts France was also fined 15,000 euros. Both defendants were ordered to pay damages of 5,000 euros to the Brittany Water and Rivers Association and 3,000 euros to the CLCV (Consommation Logement Cadre de vie), one of the two main general consumer associations in France.<ref>. Conseil-emballage.org (May 14, 1935).</ref><ref>. Terradaily.com (January 26, 2007).</ref> Monsanto appealed and the court upheld the verdict; Monsanto appealed again to the French Supreme Court, and in 2009 it also upheld the verdict.<ref>. BBC News (October 15, 2009).</ref> | |||
| In August 2012, a Brazilian Regional Federal Court ordered Monsanto to pay a $250,000 fine for false advertising. In 2004, advertising that related to the use of GM soya seed, and the herbicide glyphosate used in its cultivation, claimed it was beneficial to the conservation of the environment. The federal prosecutor maintained that Monsanto misrepresented the amount of herbicide required and stated that "there is no scientific certainty that soybeans marketed by Monsanto use less herbicide." The presiding judge condemned Monsanto and called the advertisement "abusive and misleading propaganda." The prosecutor held that the goal of the advertising was to prepare the market for the purchase of genetically modified soybean seed (sale of which was then banned) and the herbicide used on it, at a time when the approval of a Brazilian Biosafety Law, enacted in 2005, was being discussed in the country.<ref>{{cite web| title = Brazil fines Monsanto $250,000 for misleading ad – FRANCE 24 | url =http://www.france24.com/en/20120822-brazil-fines-monsanto-250000-misleading-ad }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | |||
| | title = Última Instância – TRF-4 condena Monsanto por propaganda enganosa e abusiva | url =http://ultimainstancia.uol.com.br/conteudo/noticias/57408/trf-4+condena+monsanto+por+propaganda+enganosa+e+abusiva.shtml }}</ref> | |||
| ===March Against Monsanto protests=== | |||
| {{Main|March Against Monsanto}} | |||
| A worldwide protest against Monsanto and GMOs took place on 25 May 2013.<ref>Associated Press. May 25, 2013, . ''].'' Retrieved 25 May 2013</ref> The number of protesters who took part is uncertain; figures of "hundreds of thousands"<ref name="NYToranges">Amy Harmon, July 27, 2013 </ref> or "two million"<ref name="AP">"". ''USA Today''. Associated Press. 26 May 2013. Retrieved 18 June 2013.</ref> were variously cited.<ref>Note: Editors have been unable to locate any ] that applied ] techniques to estimate the crowds. A few sources reported numbers in the hundreds of thousands; most sources followed an AP article that used the organizers' number of 2 million.</ref> According to organizers, protesters in 436 cities and 52 countries took part.<ref></ref><ref></ref><ref name="PostCourier">Quick, David (26 May 2013). "". ''The Post and Courier''. Retrieved 18 June 2013.</ref> | |||
| ==Political contributions and lobbying== | |||
| ===United States=== | |||
| Monsanto ] the ] and the ] about regulations that would affect the production and distribution of genetically engineered produce.<ref>, ] December 15, 2011, ©2012 BLOOMBERG L.P.</ref> In 2011, Monsanto spent about $6.3 million.<ref name="OpenSecrets">{{cite web|url=http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000211&year=2011 |title=Lobbying Spending Database – Monsanto Co, 2011 |publisher=OpenSecrets |date=September 17, 2012}}</ref> In comparison, the US Chamber of Commerce spent the most in lobbying in 2011, with $66.4 million, and the 20th highest spender, Pfizer, spent $12.9 million.<ref>Open Secrets Database </ref> US diplomats in Europe have worked directly for Monsanto.<ref name="07Paris4723" /> In 2008, Monsanto spent $8.8 million for ]. $1.5 million was to outside ]s with the remainder used by in-house lobbyists.<ref>, ''Open Secrets.''</ref> In 2011, total money spent on lobbying was about $6.3 million, more than any other agribusiness firm except the tobacco company Altria,<ref name="OpenSecrets"/> and $2 million of which was spent on matters concerning "Foreign Agriculture Biotechnology Laws, Regulations, and Trade." | |||
| Monsanto gave $186,250 to federal candidates in the 2008 election cycle through its ] (PAC) – 42% to ], 58% to ]. For the 2010 election cycle they gave $305,749 – 48% to ], 52% to ].<ref>, ''Open Secrets.''</ref> | |||
| Monsanto spent $8.1 million opposing the passage of ] in the US state of ], making it the largest donor against the initiative. Proposition 37, which was rejected by a 53.7% majority in November 2012,<ref>{{cite web | title = Prop 37: Californian voters reject GM food labelling | url = http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/07/prop-37-californian-gm-labelling?INTCMP=SRCH | first = Adam | last = Vaughan | publisher =The Guardian}}</ref> would have mandated the ] of ] used in the production of California food products. Biotechnology labeling is not required by the United States ] (FDA), but it has been adopted by over 40 countries. According to public disclosures, the Council for Biotechnology Information and The Grocery Manufacturers Association, have each made matching donations of $375,000 to fight the initiative.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-05-02/california-heads-for-vote-on-modified-food-labeling |title=California Heads for Vote on Modified Food Labeling |publisher=Businessweek |date=May 2, 2012}}</ref><ref name="Huffington Post">{{cite news|last=Gillam|first=Carey |title=Prop 37: California GMO Fight Pits Big Food Against Activists|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/17/prop-37-california_n_1791555.html|publisher=Huffington Post|date=August 16, 2012}}</ref> | |||
| ], a former Monsanto Vice President for ]<ref name="Fda.gov">{{cite web|url=http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/2009/ucm170842.htm|title=Noted Food Safety Expert Michael R. Taylor Named Advisor to FDA Commissioner|publisher=Fda.gov |date=July 7, 2009 }}</ref><ref name="Sandra Hoffmann 2005">Hoffmann, Sandra and Taylor, Michael R. (2005). "Toward Safer Food: Perspectives on Risk and Priority Setting," Routledge ISBN 1891853902, p. xiv.</ref><ref name=WilsonCenterBio>{{cite web|url=http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/sept_20_bios.pdf |title=Woodrow Wilson Center bio |format=PDF |date= |accessdate=2013-05-30}}</ref> and the current ] to the ] of the US Food and Drug Administration,<ref name="fda">FDA News Release July 7, 2009 </ref><ref name="foodfirst.org">{{cite web|url=http://www.foodfirst.org/en/node/2515|title=Monsanto's Man in the Obama Administration |publisher=foodfirst.org|date=August 14, 2009}}</ref> was described by ] during his tenure as Monsanto's VP for Public Policy as "Monsanto's chief rep in Washington."<ref>, Mac Graw-Hill (1999)</ref> | |||
| Monsanto is a member of the Washington D.C based ] (BIO), the world’s largest biotechnology ], which provides "advocacy, business development, and communications services."<ref>{{cite web | title = Modified crops increase herbicide use, WSU researcher says | Local News | The Seattle Times | url = http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2019418644_pesticides13m.html }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | title = About BIO | BIO | url = http://www.bio.org/articles/about-bio }}</ref> Between 2010 and 2011 BIO spent a total of $16.43 million on lobbying initiatives.<ref>{{cite web | title = Lobbying Spending Database-Biotechnology Industry Organization, 2010 | OpenSecrets | url = https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/firmsum.php?id=D000024369&year=2010 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | title = Lobbying Spending Database-Biotechnology Industry Organization, 2011 | OpenSecrets | url = https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/firmsum.php?id=D000024369&year=2011 }}</ref> | |||
| The ] (known as Monsanto Protection Act by critics) was part of a bill to provide ] to the federal government in the ongoing US budget stalemate, and was signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 26, 2013.<ref name=congress >. ]. Accessed 2013-03-30.</ref> It expires at the end of the federal fiscal year, on September 20, 2013.<ref name=snopes /> NPR stated that "the provision authorizes the USDA to grant "temporary" permission for GMO crops to be planted, even if a judge has ruled that such crops were not properly approved, only while the necessary environmental reviews are completed. That's an authority that the USDA has, in fact, already exercised in the past."<ref name=NPR>Maria Godoy for NPR, March 21, 2013 </ref> It was originally included as Section 733 in the June 2012 initial draft of the FY2013 Agriculture Appropriations bill.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://appropriations.house.gov/uploadedfiles/bills-112hr-fc-ap-fy13-agriculture.pdf|title=FY2013 Agriculture Appropriations Bill|accessdate=May 17, 2013}}</ref>{{rp|86–87}}<ref name=snopes /> Politico reported that Sen. ] (R-Mo.) authored the provision, and "said he worked with the company (Monsanto) and had a valuable partner in the late chairman, Inouye, who was sympathetic given Monsanto’s large seed operations in Hawaii."<ref name=Politico >{{cite news|title=Big Agriculture flexes its muscle|author=Rogers, D.|url=http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=14B6FB84-05E5-4CF0-AEA8-ED22A47CDDA4|newspaper=Politico|date=March 25, 2013|accessdate=May 17, 2013}}</ref> The bill's sole dissenter, Senator John Tester (D-MT), proposed an amendment to remove it from the bill, but it never went to a vote.<ref name=NPR/> Before the provision was passed, supporters said that "opponents of agricultural biotechnology have repeatedly filed suits against USDA on procedural grounds in order to disrupt the regulatory process and undermine the science‐based regulation of such products... Activist groups have made it clear they will continue to use the court system to challenge regulatory approvals of corn, soybean and other biotechnology‐derived crops, and have openly stated their intention to use litigation as a way to impede the availability of new technology to growers and consumers....If enacted, growers would be assured that the crops they plant could continue to be grown, subject to appropriate interim conditions, even after a judicial ruling against USDA. Moreover, the language would apply only to products that have already satisfactorily completed the U.S. regulatory review process and does not remove or restrict anyone’s right to challenge USDA once a determination of no plant pest risk has been made.<ref name=joint10 >{{cite web|url=http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Documents/Letter%20to%20House%20for%20Section%20733.pdf|title=Letter to Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Dicks|date=June 12, 2012|accessdate=April 30, 2013}}</ref> Opponents described it as" hidden backroom deal"<ref>{{cite news|title='Monsanto Protection Act': 5 Terrifying Things To Know About The HR 933 Provision|author=Sheets, C. A.|url=http://www.ibtimes.com/monsanto-protection-act-5-terrifying-things-know-about-hr-933-provision-1156079|newspaper=International Business Times|date=March 27, 2013|accessdate=March 29, 2013}}</ref> and after it passed the Senate, more than 250,000 petitioners signed a petition for President Obama to veto the bill on the premise that it "effectively bars federal courts from being able to halt the sale or planting of controversial genetically modified... seeds, no matter what health issues may arise concerning GMOs in the future".<ref name=snopes >. ]. Accessed 2013-03-30.</ref> In September 2013, the controversial provision was removed from the Senate version of the bill.<ref>Connor Adams Sheets (27 September 2013). . '']''. Retrieved 3 October 2013.</ref> | |||
| The Monsanto Company Citizenship Fund aka Monsanto Citizenship Fund is a ] from Monsanto that has donated over $10 million to various candidates since 2003. | |||
| <ref>Staff, National Institute on Money in State Politics. Date accessed, July 22, 2013 </ref> | |||
| <ref>Staff, Monsanto. Date accessed, July 22, 2013 </ref><ref>Federal Election Commission. </ref> | |||
| ===UK=== | |||
| During the late 1990s, Monsanto lobbied to raise permitted glyphosate levels in soya beans and was successful in convincing ] and both the UK and American governments to lift levels to 20 milligrams per 1 kilogram of soya.<ref name=captive>Monbiot, p. 265</ref> | |||
| When asked how negotiations with Monsanto were conducted ], then the ] Agriculture minister in the ], stated that all information relating to the matter would be "kept secret."<ref name=captive /> During a period of 24 months prior to the 1997 British election Monsanto representatives had 22 meetings at the departments of Agriculture and the Environment.<ref name=captive2>Monbiot, p. 266</ref> British newspapers revealed that ], an election advisor to ], went on to work as a Monsanto consultant.<ref name=captive2 /> It was also reported that a former Labour spokesperson, ], became Monsanto's media adviser at the lobbying firm ].<ref name=captive2 /> The Labour government was challenged in parliament about "trips, facilities, gifts and other offerings of financial value provided by Monsanto to civil servants" but only stated that ] had two working lunches with Monsanto.<ref name=captive3>Monbiot, p. 267</ref> It was also revealed that ], then a ] ] and Chairman of the Agriculture Select Committee, had received up to £10,000 a year from Bell Pottinger on behalf of Monsanto.<ref name=captive3 /><ref>{{cite web | title = Monsanto's lobby firm pays key MP | url = http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/1999/jul/04/uk.politicalnews |date=July 4, 1999| first = Antony | last = Barnett | publisher =The Guardian }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | title = Resign call over MP's link with GM food firm | url = http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/1999/jul/11/gm.food |date=July 11, 1999 | first = Antony | last = Barnett | publisher =The Guardian}}</ref> | |||
| ===Continental Europe=== | |||
| In January 2011, John Vidal of '']'' reported on ] documents that suggested US diplomats in Europe were responding to a request for help from Spanish government; the article says: "In addition, the cables show US diplomats working directly for GM companies such as Monsanto. 'In response to recent urgent requests by state secretary Josep Puxeu and Monsanto, post requests renewed US government support of Spain's science-based agricultural biotechnology position through high-level US government intervention.'"<ref name="07Paris4723" /><ref name="cbc.ca">{{cite news | title = U.S. targeted EU on GM foods: WikiLeaks | url = http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2011/03/08/genetically-modified-food.html| date = March 9, 2011 | publisher = ]}}</ref> The documents show that in 2009, when the Spanish government's policy allowing ] corn to be grown, as allowed under European law, was under pressure from EU interests, Monsanto's Director for Biotechnology for Spain and Portugal requested that the US government support Spain on the matter.<ref name="07Paris4723">{{cite news|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/03/wikileaks-us-eu-gm-crops|title=WikiLeaks: US targets EU over GM crops |work=] |author=Vidal, John |date=January 3, 2011 }}</ref><ref name="09MADRID482">{{cite web|url=http://www.wikileaks.ch/cable/2009/05/09MADRID482.html|title=Spain's biotech crop under threat (Wikileaks telegram 09MADRID482) |publisher=U.S. Department of State| date= May 19, 2009}}, </ref><ref>{{cite web | work = EUobserver |title=Spain a key ally of pro-GMO America, cables reveal | url = http://euobserver.com/news/31544 |date=December 20, 2010 }}</ref> The reports also indicated that Spain and the US had worked closely together to "persuade the EU not to strengthen biotechnology laws."<ref name="07Paris4723" /><ref name="cbc.ca"/> Spain was viewed as an EU member that was a key supporter of GM and there was a widespread belief in biotechnology industry that "if Spain falls, the rest of Europe will follow."<ref>{{cite web | title = U.S. Presses Europe to Worship Genetically Modified Foods |author= Estabrook, Barry | url = http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2011/01/us-presses-europe-to-worship-genetically-modified-foods/69633/|date=January 17, 2011 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | title = EE UU: "España nos pide que presionemos a Bruselas a favor de los transgénicos"|work=El Pais | url = http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?from=es&to=en&a=http://elpais.com/diario/2010/12/19/espana/1292713201_850215.html |date= December 19, 2010}}</ref> The documents also revealed that in response to an attempt by France to ban a Monsanto's MON810 in late 2007, the then US ambassador to France, ], in a bid to "help strengthen European pro-biotech voices," asked Washington to "calibrate a targeted retaliation list that some pain across the EU," in particular those countries that did not support the use of GM crops.<ref name=autogenerated1>{{cite news |url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/03/wikileaks-us-eu-gm-crops |title=WikiLeaks: US targets EU over GM crops |work=The Guardian |place=UK |author=Vidal, John |date=January 3, 2011 }}</ref><ref>Gardner, David (January 4, 2011) , Daily Mail.</ref> This activity transpired after the US, Australia, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, India, Mexico and New Zealand had brought an action against Europe via the World Trade Organization with respect to the EU's banning of GMOs; in 2006, the WTO had ruled against the EU.<ref>{{cite web | title = EE UU: "España nos pide que presionemos a Bruselas a favor de los transgénicos" |publisher=El Pais | url = http://elpais.com/diario/2010/12/19/espana/1292713201_850215.html# | date = December 19, 2010}}</ref><ref>, euractiv.com (updated May 23, 2007)</ref><ref>, World Trade Organisation.</ref> | |||
| Monsanto is a member of ], the leading biotechnology trade group in Europe. One of EuropaBio's initiatives is "Transforming Europe’s position on GM food", and it has stated that there is "an urgent need to reshape the terms of the debate about GM in Europe."<ref name="guardian.co.uk"> ''Executive summary of the EuropaBio initiative for pro-GM ambassadors programme'', The Guardian, October 20, 2011</ref><ref>EuropaBio official website: </ref> In an effort to transform European policy relating to the production and distribution of ] within the EU, EuropaBio proposed the recruitment of high profile "ambassadors" that might affect opinion on GM policy by lobbying European leaders directly. The organisation also aimed to introduce the ambassadors to high-level European ]s and ] with the goal of making a stronger case for GM within the EU.<ref name="guardian.co.uk"/><ref> John Vidal and Hanna Gersmann, ], October 20, 2011</ref><ref> ''Draft letter from EuropaBio to potential GM ambassadors seeking their involvement in the outreach programme'', The Guardian, October 20, 2011</ref> | |||
| ==US Public officials' connections to Monsanto== | |||
| Some individuals have held positions at Monsanto and in US government agencies such as the ] (FDA), ] (EPA) and the ] at various points in their careers. These include: | |||
| *Mr. Earle H. Harbison, Jr. served with the Central Intelligence Agency for 18 years, rising to the rank of Deputy Director, after which he had a career at Monsanto, rising to the roles of President, Chief Operating Officer, and Director of Monsanto, which he held from 1986 to 1993.<ref name=ForbesPlanet/> | |||
| *Michael A. Friedman, MD, was Senior Vice President of Research and Development, Medical and Public Policy for Pharmacia, and later served as an FDA deputy commissioner.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cityofhope.org/about/leadership/Pages/michael-friedman.aspx|title=Michael A. Friedman |publisher=Cityofhope.org |date=September 11, 2001}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://journals.lww.com/oncology-times/Fulltext/2003/06250/Dr__Michael_Friedman,_After_Serving_at_the_NCI,.15.aspx|title=Dr. Michael Friedman, After Serving at the NCI, FDA, and Pharmacia, Returns to Academia as CEO of City of Hope|doi=10.1097/01.COT.0000289833.46951.54 |publisher=Journals.lww.com|date=June 25, 2003}}</ref> | |||
| *] was an assistant administrator at the ] (EPA) before she was a vice president at Monsanto from 1995 to 2000. In 2001, Fisher became the deputy administrator of the EPA.<ref name="url_monsantoharvest"/> | |||
| *] was an assistant to the ] (FDA) commissioner before working as an attorney for ], a private-sector law firm that represented Monsanto among other clients.<ref>{{cite web | title = New FDA deputy to lead food-safety mandate | url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/13/AR2010011304402.html | first = Lyndsey | last = Layton | publisher = The Washington Post}}</ref><ref>Palast, Gregory (February 21, 1999) , The Guardian</ref> He later served as deputy commissioner for policy to the FDA on food safety between 1991 and 1994 during which time the FDA approved rBST.<ref name="url_monsantoharvest"/> He was accused of a conflict of interest, but a federal investigation cleared him. Following his tenure at the FDA, Taylor returned to Monsanto as Vice President for Public Policy.<ref name="Fda.gov"/><ref name="Sandra Hoffmann 2005"/><ref name="WilsonCenterBio"/> On July 7, 2009, Taylor entered government as Senior Advisor to the Commissioner of the US Food and Drug Administration for the Obama administration.<ref name="fda" /><ref name="foodfirst.org"/> | |||
| *United States Supreme Court Justice ] worked as an attorney for Monsanto in the 1970s. Thomas wrote the majority opinion in the 2001 Supreme Court decision J. E. M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.<ref name="cornell1996">{{cite web|url=http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-1996.ZS.html |title=J. E. M. Ag Supply, Inc. V. Pioneer Hi-Bredinternational, Inc|publisher=Law.cornell.edu }}</ref> which found that "newly developed plant breeds are patentable under the general utility patent laws of the United States."<ref name="url_monsantoharvest"/><ref name="cornell1996"/><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/articles/harl/HarlMar02.htm|title=Key Supreme Court ruling on plant patents – McEowen, Harl March 2002 |publisher=Extension.iastate.edu |date=January 18, 2002}}</ref> | |||
| *] served on Monsanto's board after serving in government as a trade representative.<ref name="url_monsantoharvest"/> | |||
| *] served as the first head of the ](EPA) in 1970, was subsequently acting Director of the ], and then ]. From 1983 to 1985, he returned as EPA administrator. After leaving government he joined the Board of Directors of Monsanto; he is currently retired from that board.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://ruckelshauscenter.wsu.edu/about/Ruckelshaus.bio.html|title=Ruckelshaus.bio |publisher=Ruckelshauscenter.wsu.edu}}</ref> | |||
| *Between serving for Gerald Ford and George W. Bush, Former Secretary of Defense ] was chairman and chief executive officer of ], a pharmaceutical company which produced aspartame apparently while working on an ulcer drug. Monsanto bought the company in 1985, and re-branded aspartame as NutraSweet. Rumsfeld's stock and options in Searle were $12 million USD at the time of the transaction.<ref name="url_monsantoharvest"/> | |||
| ==Sponsorships== | |||
| Monsanto has been the corporate sponsor of many attractions at ] and ]. | |||
| At Disneyland they include: | |||
| * Hall of Chemistry (1955 to 1966)<ref name="HallOfChemistry">. Yesterland.com.</ref> | |||
| * Fashions and Fabrics through the Years (from 1965 to 1966)<ref name="HallOfChemistry"/> | |||
| * ] (from 1957 to 1967)<ref>. Alum.mit.edu (April 30, 2010).</ref><ref>. Yesterland.com.</ref> | |||
| * ] (from 1967 to 1986)<ref>. Yesterland.com.</ref> | |||
| And at Walt Disney World they include: | |||
| * Magic Eye Theatre at ] {{Citation needed|date=July 2012}} | |||
| * ] {{Citation needed|date=July 2012}} | |||
| All attractions that the company has ever sponsored (except for the Magic Eye Theatre, in the Future World section of Epcot) were located in ]. {{Citation needed|date=July 2012}} | |||
| Echoing Monsanto's sponsorship of Tomorrowland, in the second episode of the first season of '']'', "]", a Moon carnival ride named "The Goophy Gopher Revue" is said to have been sponsored/owned by "Monsanto".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.imsdb.com/transcripts/Futurama-The-Series-Has-Landed.html |title=The Series Has Landed at IMSDb |publisher=Internet Movie Database}}</ref> | |||
| == See also == | |||
| {{Portal|Companies|Agriculture and Agronomy}} | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| ===Books and movies critical of Monsanto=== | |||
| ====Books==== | |||
| * ] ''Stolen Harvest: The Hijacking of the Global Food Supply'' South End Press 2000 ISBN 0896086070 | |||
| * ] ''The World According to Monsanto: Pollution, Corruption, and the Control of the World’s Food Supply'' | |||
| ====Movies==== | |||
| * '']'' | |||
| * '']'' | |||
| * '']'' | |||
| * '']'' | |||
| * '']'' | |||
| * '']'' | |||
| ==References== | |||
| {{Reflist|30em}} | |||
| https://commons.wikimedia.org/File%3AMonsanto_Company.jpg | |||
| ==Bibliography== | |||
| * Forrestal, Dan J. (1977). ''Faith, Hope & $5000: The Story of Monsanto'', Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-671-22784-X. | |||
| * Monbiot, George (2000). ]: The Corporate Takeover of Britain. Pan Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-330-36943-5. | |||
| ==External links== | |||
| {{Commons category-inline|Monsanto Company}} | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| {{Monsanto}} | |||
| {{Genetic engineering}} | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
Revision as of 18:13, 16 October 2013
Monsanto is evil. It is trying to take over all of our farmers and it is succeeding. Do your part and buy good organic food from companies that care