Monsanto Company (Statement)

Monsanto Responds to Molly Ivins' Article "Let's Try Making Green Bluebonnets Instead"
(Forth Worth Star-Telegram, 05/01/99)

By parroting the propaganda of a small but vocal number of biotechnology critics, Molly Ivins (Let's Try Making Green Bluebonnets Instead, 05/01/99) actually contributes to stifling greater public understanding of biotechnology that she so ardently calls for in her column. A reasoned and informed dialogue on these issues has been underway for more than 20 years among physicians, nutritionists, biologists, agronomists, regulators and educators to name a few. Ms. Ivins conveniently ignores the facts, the science and the logic at the heart of that debate.

As a result, Ms. Ivins, perhaps inadvertently, winds up misleading the public rather than contributing to their understanding of this complex issue. For example, Ms. Ivins quotes Union of Concerned Scientists representative Jane Rissler: "the purpose of biotechnology is to increase the profits of manufacturers by persuading farmers to use more herbicides." Not a scientific statement, rather a social comment on capitalism. Conceding the point that Monsanto does seek to make a profit from our technologies, the rest of the argument is simply factually wrong.

Many agricultural biotechnology applications reduce the use of chemical pesticides and herbicides. For example, Monsanto's insect resistant cotton and potatoes eliminate the use of millions of gallons of chemicals each year. This does not translate into "persuading farmers to use more herbicides."

As noted in a recent Business Week article, over the past two years some 200 Indian farmers were driven to suicide distraught by the loss of their crops to bollworms and "such a tragedy might have been averted by Bollgard, a strain of cotton genetically engineered by Monsanto." Indian farmers, like farmers world wide, are seeking practical solutions to help them fight pests, reduce use of expensive chemicals and improve yields and profitability. Field trials conducted by Indian farmers on Monsanto cotton seeds and no-till farming methods are now showing promising results - contrary to Ms. Ivins' assertions. The initial results of the Indian crop field tests, most of which were not destroyed, prove this point showing yield increases of 20% and more while at the same time reducing pesticides applications by over 70%.

Ms. Ivins also raises sensational fears over potential Technology Protection Systems (TPS), misnamed "Terminator" by technology critics. She failed to note, however, that Monsanto does not now own and did not develop this technology -- it was developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and a company that we are seeking to acquire. TPS is not today commercially viable and will not be before the completion of many years of development, testing and government and scientific oversight.

More importantly, and contrary to Ms. Ivins' assertion, nothing about TPS forces farmers to stop saving seeds. Farmers who today save seed can continue to do so. TPS could provide farmers in the developing world faster access to the improved yields, quality and nutritional traits, as well as the reduced need for chemical herbicides that genetically improved seeds provide -- if they so choose.

In fact, farmers the world over already make choices like this when they choose to annually purchase and plant hybrid seeds rather than save seed. For instance, 40% of India's cotton crop today derives from annually purchased hybrid seeds.

In contrast to the critics cited by Ms. Ivins, global statesmen like Jimmy Carter, Nobel Peace Prize Winners Norman Borlaug and Oscar Arias, as well as The United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), the World Health Organization, The National Academy of Sciences and hundreds of renowned scientists and agricultural experts around the world believe that developing biotechnology is critical to meeting global health, nutrition and environmental needs in the 21st Century.

Contrary to her assertion, both the World Bank and the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) both strongly endorse the potential of biotechnology to help meet the future food and environmental needs in the developing world. Thanks to the Internet, their information is easily accessible to those with the time and inclination to look.

Had Ms. Ivins contacted us or done additional research with the many regulatory and research organizations involved with the agricultural biotechnology she might have written a very different and more informed column.

We at Monsanto welcome an informed debate over the issues of biotechnology and welcome comments at our U.S. web site www.monsanto.com or at Monsanto UK. You'll find Ms. Ivins column posted here as we welcome all points of view, however uninformed we believe them to be.