Monsanto Company
(Statement)

Monsanto Responds To Michael Pollan's Essay "Playing God In The Garden"
(New York Times Magazine, 25/10/98)

Dear Mr Pollan:

We understand that a technology with the power and the promise of biotechnology should and will stimulate concern and debate. That is clearly good. But we also believe that such a discussion requires a degree of objectivity, a commitment to the facts, and a willingness to consider the full range of responsible viewpoints that were notably absent from your essay, "Playing God in the Garden" (NY Times Magazine, 25 October).

Organic farming is one means of food production in this country, with its own set of production standards and criteria; as such, it is an important part of our food chain. Many of its goals, such as the reduction in the use of pesticides in food production, are integral to biotechnology, and are widely welcomed and shared.

The real issue here, and one that you ignore, is sustainable agriculture and the growing food demand here and abroad. The classic definition of sustainable development centers on the use of a natural resource to meet today's needs without compromising the needs of the future. Nowhere is that more clearly focused than in agriculture.

Today, we meet the world's food needs with a limited resource base (6 million square miles of land in production) that is not likely to expand significantly unless we destroy more rain forests and wetlands. Simply to feed an increased population, that base will need to produce 60 - 100% more food in the next 30 years or so and to do so without causing irreversible environmental damage. Today, the productivity of that land is being inexorably degraded through massive erosion (25 billion tons of topsoil lost each year), promiscuous irrigation (causing salinity and mineralization of soil) and through unsustainable use of chemicals.

What your story didn't tell is this: biotechnology is the single most promising approach to feeding a growing world population while reducing damage to the environment.

Farming that combines conservation tillage and seeds improved through biotechnology have been proved in a number of studies (made available to you, Mr. Pollan) to reduce soil erosion by 90%, increase soil tilth and fertility, and increase crop yields to farmers. According to your essay, plowing is a key part of organic farming, yet at the same time, the elimination of plowing through conservation tillage helps capture CO₂ in the soil ("carbon sequestration"), and reduces CO₂ levels in the atmosphere. This is now recognized as an important tool in helping manage global climate change.

The benefit of biotechnology in farming does not put its proponents at odds with organic farming; it simply acknowledges that we all play various roles in contributing to a healthy and abundant food supply now, and ensuring that we can do so in the future without major assaults to our environment. Biotechnology is one useful I would submit essential -- tool to help achieve that goal.

While we recognize no one possesses the Holy Grail in agriculture, what is troubling is that, in spite of being an organic gardener yourself, you failed to present the views of the many independent plant scientists and agriculture experts who tell a story about biotechnology and sustainability very different from your personal view. Troubling because you interviewed many of these experts and were provided with information from many sources -- such as Green Revolution founder and Nobel Prize winner Norman Borlaug, Ph.D., botanist Roger Beachy, and sustainable development champion and former President Jimmy Carter.

What makes those omissions all the more disturbing is that of the only two "outside experts" (neither a plant scientist) that you cited in this essay, one, Andrew Kimbrell, head of the self-styled International Center on Technology Assessment, is, in fact, as you know, neither an expert nor an objective voice, but rather a long-time public antagonist of biotechnology (among his many causes over the years). As recently as this month, Mr. Kimbrell has written two highly inflammatory, and wildly inaccurate, articles critical of Monsanto in the most recent edition of a British magazine, styled the "voice of radical green thought for over 30 years."

To ignore well-known and responsible supporters of biotechnology, and rely on radical polemicists is to mislead readers as to the true nature of the issues and the debate.

The products of agricultural biotechnology, such as the New Leaf Potato, have been proven safe for humans, animals and the environment by a regulatory system that is comprehensive and integrated, involving three Federal agencies. Products like Monsanto's New Leaf Potato, improved to include the Bt protein, are just as safe for consumers and the environment as the organic potatoes grown in your garden. In fact, our potatoes have been tested far more thoroughly for safety than have your organic potatoes.

When you question the adequacy of regulatory review, you do not inform the reader that the human safety of the product was determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, after review of extensive test results. In addition, both the FDA and USDA have reviewed, in this case, the New Leaf Potato. These multi-agency reviews do, in fact, work well.

I might add here, in clarification of my own quote in the essay, that it was obviously not my intention to imply, as you seem to, that we are indifferent to the safety of our food products. Rather, I thought my point was clear: for obvious reasons, society should not entrust decisions about food safety solely to companies which are seeking to market new products. That, of course, is why we have independent regulatory agencies.

With regard to resistance in pests, that is an issue we take seriously. We were the first company in this industry to implement resistance management programs for our customers. We have been working cooperatively with the government to create the right approach to refuges and resistance for each crop that uses Bt, and unlike others, we use the contract we have with growers to enforce our refuge/set-aside requirements. And for many crops, that includes no pesticide spraying in refuge areas.

Resistance management is not a new issue for agriculture. All methods of controlling weeds, insects and disease must in some way deal with potential issues of mutation and adaptation. Historically, one solution has been the creation of ever more powerful, and potentially harmful, chemicals. The careful stewardship of the insecticide Bt, that provides an environmentally sustainable means of controlling pests to all farmers, organic or not, is in the long-term self-interest of Monsanto and every other company in this industry. Varieties of Bt will be available to all farmers, no matter how they use it, and it serves no one's interest, especially ours, to see this technology rendered obsolete in the matter of a few years.

The more the public understands the critical role that biotechnology is playing in agriculture the better we will all be able to meet the food and population challenges of the next century. Unfortunately, "Playing God in the Garden" only further confuses and obscures rather than clarifies or explains the real issues in the evolution of modern biotechnology.

Sincerely,

Philip S. Angell
Director Corporate Communications
Monsanto Company