Monsanto – Myths & Facts

Monsanto_Myths_and_Facts_ENMonsanto gets lots of awards: for sustainability, innovation, corporate equality, cultural competence, corporate responsibility, top science employer— even for being a Great Place to Work.

At the same time, the Internet abounds with tales of another Monsanto of allegedly dark past and purpose. Many of these tales have been repeated so often, by so many people, that they have become lore, no matter how wrong they are.

Our new Monsanto Myths & Facts guide provides a set of factual statements about Monsanto as well as responses to the most common myths that you might encounter, especially online, where fact-checking seems to be in particularly short supply. It is for anyone who wants to learn more, and includes lots of links to additional sources of information. The leaflet is available in the following languages:

We also have an animated slideshow version of the booklet on our YouTube channel.

We hope that you find it useful, and welcome any feedback you have.

Paper versions of the leaflets are available on request. Please use the Contact form.

Monsanto Public Affairs Europe, Middle East and Africa


51 comments to Monsanto – Myths & Facts

  • Neven  says:

    You’re not fooling anyone.

    • Brandon Mitchener  says:

      Thanks for your comment. Obviously our goal is stop other people from fooling people. There’s little societal value in the spread of misinformation.

  • Gene Yakub  says:

    Historically, in man’s attempts to interfere with and control nature there has been a severe backlash against human beings. The actual effects of this horrendous interference are not yet apparent, they require a several cycles of planting and harvest and consumption which you have not yet allowed for.
    Plus, the weed killer ROUNDUP used by your products has been proven to play havoc with all types of natural components put there in the first place to balance the ecological requirements of healthy farming.
    Your goal stated above is a load of codswallop. You are only after making money on the back of we foolish, gullible humans while you can.

    • Brandon Mitchener  says:

      Thanks for your comment. Unbeknownst to most people, Monsanto does take responsibility for its seeds and other products seriously and tests them all extensively before, during and after they are put on sale. Every product that we put on the market complies with current laws and regulations and is accompanied by recommendations on safe use in accordance with national laws and regulations.
      Farming by itself is “unnatural” in the sense that trees and crops don’t normally plant themselves in neat rows, but people have been doing that for thousands of years, and their ability to do that is considered fundamental to the development of human civilization. Roundup has been used successfully by farmers around the world for decades, helping them produce more food, fuel and fibre with less land, water, energy, waste and worry (weeds!) than they did before. That, in turn, has helped make food more affordable and accessible to people who need it. You may choose to believe this or not believe it, but farmers are not stupid and would not do things that knowingly damage their soil. Most of our customers worldwide are small farmers who depend on them entirely for their income and to provide for their families. Would they really buy the same Monsanto products year after year if, as you argue, this was not in the best interests of themselves and their customers, including you and me?

      • timothy roberts  says:

        The current laws and regs are bought with your millions of dollars haha

      • Mats Böök  says:

        You mention small farmers buying your products year after year as if they’ve fallen in love with it. If their soil is once saturated with Roundup, how would it be possible to plant other than Roundup Ready varieties in the same soil ever again? Evidence showing Roundup is not bio-degradable has been shown, and as I understand it you’ve even removed the “Bio-degradable” claim from your packaging.

        • Brandon Mitchener  says:

          With all due respect that statement about only ever being able to plant Roundup Ready varieties afterwards is fairly ridiculous… We don’t sell any Roundup Ready crops in Europe but still plenty of Roundup. It’s used by wheat farmers, rice farmers, Christmas tree farmers, olive and orange and lemon and maize and (non-GM!) soybean farmers. They often use it just before planting, in order to ensure that the new crop doesn’t have to compete with weeds in the first few weeks of life. This gives the crop a head start against the weeds. The fact is Roundup does degrade in the soil, but there is no standard European definition of biodegradable (which is the background to a certain legal case that we lost, because something that was considered biodegradable in one country wasn’t in another country). Biodegradability depends on the soil, the weather and lots of factors but we can assure you that Roundup degrades in the soil, otherwise farmers wouldn’t be able to plant just a couple of weeks after they’ve sprayed it…

      • Toby Jennings  says:

        It was once thought safe to put lead in petrol/ gasoline, and all governments beleived the scientists that claimed so…… I will steer well clear of your arguments and products, that is the right you seek to deny me.

        • EU Corporate Engagement Team  says:

          Science constantly evolves and that is a great thing. But you can’t ignore the current scientific consensus on technologies either.
          EU Corporate Engagement Team

  • Matt b  says:

    Like the above comment says… You are not fooling anyone. I’m waiting for the day that you “Monsanto” cannot refute the fact that you were wrong and you cause mass genocide through your poison. No different to fluoride, all comes out in the wash eventually and you will be held accountable for your crimes to humanity. Brainwashed employees, you should be ashamed of yourselves for being so thick. By the way, yes they would buy the same products year after year because they do what they are told like good little sheep. Its called ignorance.

    • Brandon Mitchener  says:

      Dear Matt, We’re sorry you’re not convinced by what we’re doing. We respect everyone’s right to buy organic and avoid fluoride toothpaste if that works for them. It’s not particularly helpful to see people like yourself think we are guilty of crimes against humanity while lauding some people who deny the access of others to life-sustaining foods for benefits to society. As our CTO is fond of saying, it’s not our business to tell people what to eat or how many kids to have–just to try to make balanced diets accessible to those who are already there. So far we have seen no comparable vision from the anti-Monsanto crowd.

  • Dennis Janssen  says:

    Dear Monsanto,

    It amazes me that people dont see the potential in GMOs. It really annoys me to see that the organic movement and antiscience movements are making it difficult to solve some big problems we are facing on our planet with lies of woo. The natural fallacy is a common bias blinding people for the truth. People just dont see that everything in this world is nature. Something unnatural can’t really excist. We are all bound to these rules of nature and altering some organics is still natures way. I’ve been advocating this on fb and I see what your up against and just wanna say, there are people that believe in GMOs. Although I understand the fear and mistrust of people I have a hard time with the blame game. I dont think companies are evil, they just follow the rules of economy and try to protect their interests. If you wanna be mad about something be mad about the rules of the system. I myself think the patent claiming is a bad thing and should be banned from this world but I can not blame companies for doing it. Its just how these things work in this day and age. I also think everything should be open source and companies should be more honest about there products and should stop manipulating people with psychology tricks. But hey people, reality check, that world is something to dream about but impossible in this era.If people really didnt want it this way, they would not buy all the “unhealthy” processed foods in the first place. Its strange to see that in this discussion everyone wants the government to control this with legislation but themselves want to be free to buy what they want and believe what they want to believe. Euhm…people, make up your mind.
    Hope you find a way to get the public behind GMOs cause it could better the world and create balance in nature.
    We could solve so many problems that it hurts me to see all the ignorance about this subject which is blocking progress.

    Good luck,


    • Brandon Mitchener  says:

      Dennis, Thanks for your comment. As I hope you know, GMOs are not our business focus in Europe, but globally we do believe they’re one tool that can help farmers, including very small scale farmers, improve their harvests while reducing waste. We are strong believers in the value of intellectual property as an inecentive for research and development spending, most of which results in innovation that is useful to society, directly or indirectly. It’s hard to imagine a world in which companies would invest billions of dollars (we invest about $4 million a day) in R&D withhout some financial incentive for doing so. If all your competitors, or customers, can immediately copy your product, what is the point of spending the money? Patents and other forms of IP were created for a reason, because society recognized the need to reward those willing to take this kind of business risk. Contrary to polular misconception, a patent is no guarantee of a return on an investment! Many investments don’t pay off. That’s why it’s all the more important to be able to eke out a reasonable profit from those that do. Best regards, Brandon Mitchener for Monsanto Europe

  • Bob  says:

    Nice PR and images here!

  • Dennis Janssen  says:

    Dear Brandon,

    Thank you for the response. I know that GMOs are not the major focus for Monsanto in Europe. This is probably because our agriculture has already high standards and more effective then the poorer countries. Afcourse soil also plays a role why we do not have the need for GMO. Also strong legitlation in Europe makes it harder to get it approved for use. This is good for safety but it also is a bit strange to see that believes sometimes come for facts when antiscience find enough support to block progress.
    The patent thing I do understand. I just dream of a world without money and competition. Humankind would be better when working together instead of this ratrace. Our competitive society isnt the most efficient way for progressmanaging our small planet. I myself love the venus project filosophy but I see we are a long way from this hollistic dream. It would be so much better when science and facts would rule instead of politicians whom represent believes and greed. We have so much knowledge it hurts to see its not being used in the most efficient way. People need more education on subjects ( like GMO ) so we can implement our knowledge to the fullest. I have a dream!

  • Karla Kollumna  says:

    How can you lie to yourselves this hard?
    Just go and compare the view, the smell, the taste and the ground of ecological gardens to the ones growing your manipulated seeds using chemicals.
    Humanity did not survive for thousands of years with agriculture by killing all other plants except the ones we want. Not by killing off all bugs which want to feast on the desired plant. And now you, and granted, also other companies come with big money and convince people with clever marketing to spray poison on their food.
    And granted also, in the first year(s) there might be a drastic increase in efficiency- After that the farmers find their former healthy topsoil as rotten ground.

    But just go ahead- Think of cleverly crafted blogarticles, mediacampaigns and sponsorships of ecological organisations while others do hard work on their farm, slowly killing their ecosystems with your products.

    To the ones at Monsanto having doubt about their bosses and their product- Please, quit your job while you still can. You are doing horrible things but you can still quit it.

    • Brandon Mitchener  says:


      Thanks for writing. Many people often seem to assume that Monsanto is full of a bunch of Mr. Burns types who are only in this for the money. That just isn’t true, though.

      Many of our top executives are farmers and grew up on farms, both in the U.S. and in other countries. And many of us believe that we’re very moral people, helping to do the right thing by the planet by helping farmers produce more, better and more affordable food to feed a rapidly growing population with less land, water, energy, waste and worry. Some of us even buy some organic food for personal reasons not related to unfounded fears. For example, I buy organic meat and dairy products for animal welfare reasons, because I saw first-hand as a journalist the difference that Europe’s organic agriculture rules had on animal welfare (I don’t buy any other organic foods). But I also know that most people can’t afford organic food, which is generally about 30% more expensive than non-organic alternatives. Less than 5% of Europe’s population buys organic food. That means that 95% of Europe’s citizens make a conscious decision every time they go shopping NOT to buy organic food. The choice is there, and people choose to buy food that is produced efficiently. Ultimately, making more efficient use of the agricultural land that is already under cultivation around the world reduces pressure on the world’s true natural spaces: forests, mountains, rivers, lakes and oceans.

      I would also like to correct your apparent belief that organic agriculture doesn’t use chemicals. See: and and Some of the pesticides used in organic farming, including copper sulphate, are downright terrible for the environment despite being “natural.” Lead and arsenic and mercury are also natural, but that doesn’t make them edible.

      Thanks again for reading our blog and for writing to us. We doubt we will have convinced you, but maybe you will take the time to read more about organic farming and see that it is not really a workable alternative to the agricultural system that feeds the majority of the world’s 7.5 billion people today.

  • Otto Reinstra  says:

    Dear Mr. Brandon Michener, you are wrong. It is not hard at all to “imagine a world in which companies would invest heavily in R&D without some financial incentive for doing so”. In fact, I work for a company that does just that. It is called a public company, and unlike Monsanto it works in the interest of society as a whole, not in the interest of a few investors.
    I think farming and food production should remain in the public demain, transparent to all, and allowing open innovation.
    You will probably keep saying that your greed-is-good philosophy is wonderful for everybody, but as the above comment said, you’re not fooling anyone. You’re hurting society, for example by your recent attacks on the WHO.

    • Brandon Mitchener  says:

      Where to start? 1) There are manny public sector scientists who do some of the same kinds of work as Monsanto. Golden rice is a great example, developed by public sector scientists for a humanitarian purpose–to help poor people in developing countries get more Vitamin A in their diets and avoid blindness and premature death. But anti-GM activists have blocked even those projects that don’t have a profit motive. 2) Then there’s the question of scale. Yes, sure, public sector entities can invest in things, too, but those that invest the most tend to be private industry–because their is a potential profit if their investment results in something that people want to buy. You may not like capitalism–and it sounds like you don’t–but that’s the way business in many countries operates. Monsanto, for its part, invests $4 million a day in R&D, and would be highly unlikely to invest this much if there were not some potential and gainful recovery of that investment. 3) This is all the more true because of the huge regulatory and political hurdles that anyone faces with GM products, whether they be companies or governments or non-profits. Mandatory tests and long review periods have inflated the cost of getting a new GM trait approved to the point that many public sector organisations who have products that would merit approval cannot afford the process to get them approved–which, in turn, makes it less likely for them to get the next research grant.

  • Angelo Liotta  says:

    I had a scientific education and I think that solution to problems like food supply for all mankind will come from advances in science. That’s why I disagree with an ideological approach against GMO technology not supported by scientific evidences, like many environmental activists have. I think as well that big companies like Monsanto have knowledge and means necessary to give all of us a better tomorrow, and making money is not a crime if you pursue these goals with fairness.

  • Dennis Janssen  says:

    So Brandon,

    What’s with all the banning on glyphosate because it is a carcinogen?
    Some stores don’t sell roundup anymore in the Netherlands. Also a lot of negative media reporting. I was always nonbeliever because this pesticide is around so long. What’s up?

    • Brandon Mitchener  says:


      Thanks for your question. We’ve seen some stores opportunistically removing glyphosate-based weed killers from their cataglogues, but also seen others incereasing sales as a business opportunity. The stores that opt for supposedly “natural” alternatives typically put out press releasses; the stores that are happily selling Roundup and similar products just get on with “business as usual.” Guess which activity generates the headlines?

      For the record, no responsible organisation or scientist has said that glyphosate is a carcinogen because there is simply no evidence for that. In fact, the resent classiciation of glyphosate by IARC as a “probable carcinogen” flies in the face of findings by regulatory agencies for the past 40 years, which have repeatedly determined that glyphosate is not a carcinogen, doesn’t have mutagenic effects, etc. The difference is that IARC looks at potential hazards, while regulators look at risks based on real-world exposure scenarios. There are perfectly natural substances that are also hazardous and worrisome by IARC’s standards–but that classification says nothing about whether there are perfectly safe, prudent ways of using or living with those substances. We’ve published a nice blog post by our chief toxicologist on this:

  • Ionel  says:

    If we can and have nothing to hide, please answer this questions to the people:

    1. Have Monsanto ever conducted a study on large enough number of mice and/or humans and for at least 5-10 years with scientist form any non-profit organization and media representatives as witnesses monitoring the study in order to prove that all your products are harmless to humans and the environment?

    2. Do all the staff, especially owners and shareholders of Monsanto (and all other companies related), eat every day the vegetables produced with the help of it’s products? Prove it! Film/Record step by step from harvesting through preparing and eating it.

    • Brandon Mitchener  says:

      Thanks for your questions, which we’re happy to answer.

      To your first question, it’s highly unlikely that Monsanto or any other comapny has done 5-10 year studies in mice or any other rodents, since that exceeds their natural lifespans. Laboratory rats, which are often used for toxicity studies, generally only live two years, for example. Monsanto’s products, whether seeds or chemical products, are tested according to the law, which in Europe certainly dissuades companies and anyone else from conducting unnecessary animal tests that constitute needless animal cruelty. Moreover, our products are approved by governments, often after scientific review by experts that considers the full body of public and proprietary research available on the products under consideration. In the case of the EU’s ongoing review of glyphosate, for example, Monsanto was required by law to submit every scientific study and reference at its disposal, helpful or unhelpful, so that regulators–not Monsanto–can decide which are the most relevant for an environment, health and safety assessment. You can read our position on animal testing of GM seeds here.

      To your second question, Monsanto employees and shareholders eat the same foods as anyone else. We employ vegans as well as carnivores and people who may buy organic food for animal welfare reasons even as they frown on unsubstantiated claims that organic food is healthier or better for the environment. You can read our public response to the myth that Monsanto only serves organic food in its U.S. headquarters cafeteria here. You can also find numerous videos of Monsanto employees eating Monsanto products on our U.S. YouTube channel here.

  • Nils Anders Lunde  says:

    If it is so safe, why do you not label it GMO?

    • Brandon Mitchener  says:

      All of our seeds carry product names that make clear whether they are GM or non-GM. Farmers know exactly what they are buying. We don’t sell seeds directly to consumers.

      • Nils Anders Lunde  says:

        So what you say is that: it is the farmer who is responsible for labeling their products with GMO or NON GMO? OR producer`s of different foods containing GMO or NON GMO? Am i right? Best regards, Nils

        • Brandon Mitchener  says:

          Labeling rules depend on the country. In Europe, everything is required to be labeled, and is, and has been for more than 10 years. In the U.S., with very few exceptions mandatory labeling has been reserved for information that is relevant to health or nutrition, which isn’t the case with GM ingredients, whatever people might choose to believe. The science is clear that GM and non-GM ingredients are essentially equivalent from a nutritional or health point of view. You can find more information about our position on food labeling here:

      • Albert Knigg  says:

        The discussion is, as with so many,dealing with a so called “luxury Problem”.
        If everything was grown organic we would have a 50% drop in food production on a world -wide scale. The resulting starvation and wars for food distribution would mean a terrible consequence. If we want to keep production rising to meet the challenges of a growing world population without Glyphosate (not even considering GMO`s here) we would have to use substitutes (MCPA, 2.4 D, -DIMs and FOP`s and many other selective herbicides) which are also legal to use now, but are much slower in defractioning in the soil, more expensive and more complicated to use. There is simply no other unselective herbicide with such Little environmental Impact available on the market.
        So, I may ask- which is the real ethical decision / discussion ? Its alsays easy to bash capitalism, science and farmers with a full belly sitting in front of a telly
        I am an independent farmer and not linked to Monsanto in any way.
        thank you for Glyphosate !

        • Nils Anders Lunde  says:

          Hmmm, can`t say i agree with your comment regarding 50% drop. In fact there has been test`s where you see a gmo grain with a non gmo grain. The none gmo grain had twice the number of grain on it and it was twice the thickness. To bad i don`t remember where this was shown, but i`m sure you can find it on the net.

        • M.Veel  says:

          “50% drop in food production” is an assumtion. Running out of fossil fuel will completely stop you to harvest in the actual agro-industry-model of being bigger, at wider scale, and working for more money and market power.

        • Honoris Causa  says:

          Do you know how much food we throw away?Plus most of the food is used for meat production.It is far from eighter GMO or we die.
          Science institutions need money too.There has been revelation that half of scientific papers that are released are false because scientist are pushed by economic reasons to continually produce work to justify the money spend.
          Globalization means monopoly.
          GMO’s don’t taste the same,don’t have the same nutrition value,harm the environment,the social and economic order.Solution is decentralised agriculture,better management.

          • EU Corporate Engagement Team  says:

            We completely agree that food waste is terrible and we even wrote a recent blog post about it:
            But, eliminating waste cannot feed the 900 million people — many of whom are farmers — who have to go to bed hungry every day. If you are against waste, you should embrace efficiency, which is exactly what
            we do.
            On globalisation, it’s normal for companies that employ highly qualified scientists to encourage those scientists to publish the results of their research. What’s important is that papers in the best
            scientific reviews are peer reviewed.
            On GMOs those statements just aren’t true. While organic food may have slightly higher levels of some micronutrients (according to some studies) those differences are negligible relative to the higher cost of organic food. Plus, blind tests and even consumer organisations say there is no difference between the taste of organic and more intensely (efficiently) farmed produce.
            The scientific consensus on safety issues currently all agree that genetically modified crops are safe to eat as any other food.
            Four main sources and links below:
            World Health Organization:
            American Medical Association:
            National Academy of Sciences:
            American Association for the Advancement of Science:

            EU Corporate Engagement Team

          • Honoris Causa  says:

            “But, eliminating waste cannot feed the 900 million people”- the number of those who starve is equal to the number of obese,at the same time 25-30% is wasted.I just point that out so it is obvious it is a management problem and not technological.
            “On globalisation, it’s normal for companies that employ highly qualified scientists to encourage those scientists to publish the results of their research.”I don’t get it?I was writing about monopoly and how anti-competitive practices you implement put unprecedented control on food in your hands.
            “What’s important is that papers in the best
            scientific reviews are peer reviewed.”-this statemant has no weight.Peer review might be just another group under your influence.We have peer reviews that are independent and totally not in support of yours.
            ” Plus, blind tests and even consumer organisations say there is no difference between the taste of organic and more intensely (efficiently) farmed produce.”- again statement that is not supported by anything.I happen to know the difference between a supermarket tomato and a normal(aka organic ) tomatoes my grandparents produce.The tomatoes might not be GMO but the use of pesticides itself obviously has its impact.You cannot compare summer tomatoes to winter tomatoes for instance.Its like comparing plastic with food.
            “The scientific consensus on safety issues currently all agree that genetically modified crops are safe to eat as any other food.” Safety standards might be sufficient for them to declare it safe,but this is again not a thrustworthy argument.In the beginning of nuclear technology there were numerous radioactive items sold to the population by promoting the new discovered radiation as health promoting-from dishes to thorium toothpaste…Safe limits are generally adjusted as of best interest.Radiation savety limits have risen a couple of times in Japan and Usa since Fokushima.
            What about bee die outs in relation to your products.This is HUGE.No amount of neurotixins are safe,sorry.

          • EU Corporate Engagement Team  says:

            We represent under 10% of the agricultural market; hardly a globally dominant force.
            The scientific method, which is part of the peer review process, is a wonderful invention and for over 350 years it has taken us from ignorance to intellectual and technological enlightenment. Scientists use
            careful observation, experimentation, measurement and importantly test their explanations by trying to refute them.
            Why would we want to stop that progress? It makes no sense, especially because we rely on scientific progress to move forward.
            Did you know the organic industry uses pesticides too? Sometimes, they are more toxic than what is used on conventional crops.
            Like anything it is always the dose that makes the poison.
            The scientific consensus is that bee losses, where they have been noticeable, have been due to the V. destructor mite over many decades. This mite attacks bees in their hives directly, and has affected European and North American colonies. Take a look at the research.
            EU Corporate Engagement Team

      • Edith  says:

        Can’t you see that Nature is a Perfectly well organised cosmic system.

        Try beans + pumpkins + Corn (In Latin America) without your deadly genes and you’ll double production…

        And you’ll make money without destruction.

        Send you Light so that your narrow minded spirit will evolve!

        I feel sorry for you,poor Monsanto’s slave

  • Sasa from Serbia  says:

    Dear Monsanto,

    I hope that You will keep your hands away from our Christian countries. We can produce seeds and everything else we need for agriculture ourselves. Genetically modified plants is the last thing we need.

    Many of us are coming back to the organic production, with heirloom varieties. In few years we hope that this natural way of production will dominate in our countries, and that EVERYTHING harmful, including Mac, Coke and Your seeds, will be banned. I am sure it will. God will not allow You to poison us forever! And if You know God, please accept this friendly advice and keep Your hands off Serbia, Russia, Greece and other Orthodox Christian countries, also off all other countries that don’t wont Your sick products.

    • EU Corporate Engagement Team  says:

      Thanks Sasa for your comment. So you’re aware over 99.5% of our seed products in Europe are conventional/traditional and non-GMO. Consumers are free to decide what they want to choose for their meals, e.g. organic or conventional. Farmers in Eastern Europe have been working with us for many years. We as an organisation are primarily a business to business company; hence, we typically don’t interact with consumers, mostly farmers. Our code of conduct is to work under EU and national rules. In Eastern Europe our staff work only on conventional seeds using classical breeding methods.

      Also in regards to nature artificial and natural selection are key drivers of evolution, not only related for human beings and animals, but also plants or seeds (which are living organisms that change over time). Technology such as phones, computers, cars and medicine (gene therapy), etc. all change over time too. Here’s a scientific reference from the University of Utah for more information about evolution:

      EU Corporate Engagement Team

  • Sasa from Serbia  says:

    Dear EU Corporate Engagement Team,

    Regarding your business philosophy, we are aware that it is b2b, but unfortunately, the harm your products make is b2c. Even if your seeds distributed to Eastern Europe aren’t officially GM, they still make enough harm. For example, higher level of aflatoxins in dairy products in my country are primarily caused by use of Pioneer’s corn seeds, whose membrane is much thinner than in our hybrids, therefore these are much more susceptible to fungal infections.

    Besides, we are aware that you are being poisoning people and nature with genetically modified organisms in USA intensively and aggressively, and it is only a matter of time when you will get green light to do so in the EU. We all know that you will not hesitate to distribute GM products when barriers disappear, so this tale about non-GMO products currently in use does not make any difference.

    Regarding the reference about evolution, one thing is selective breeding, which is often necessary, and another one is manipulation with genes, toxins and “viruses”, which is what your company also does. These kind of unnatural genes can be horizontally transfered to other species in nature, as well as to animals and people eating GM food, especially if it is not cooked. Studies have already shown that GM organisms can make a lot of health harm to experimental animals, and I am being wondering why this did not have any effect on you to stop the genocide.

    There is literally no way for you to make people believe that your products are harmless, because science and facts are not on your side. And you are not on the side of the nature and people’s real interests, but solely on the profit, as well on the genocidal policy of the new world order. At this moment you can only rely on corruption of politicians, but this, even if managed to happen in EU, will not last forever. And especially it won’t last in our Orthodox Christian countries, as we will be released soon from any harmful influence coming from western secret societies.

    Despite everything, I appreciate your kind response, but I strongly oppose your genocidal business policy and this is for sure opinion of majority people of the world.

    • EU Corporate Engagement Team  says:

      Thanks for your answer Sasa,

      Below is a brief explanation on some of your points:

      I can’t speak for Pioneer but a lot of the seeds that Monsanto sells in Eastern Europe are hybrids. I just checked and in Serbia all the seeds we sell are conventional seeds, not GM. I have talked with a number of farmers in Romania for example and they have a more positive perception of us and the quality of what we provide to them. We want life, people and crops to thrive as the people that work here are human beings too.

      Actually the studies you mention that say GMOs cause harm do not agree with what the majority of scientists who understand the technology say. The scientific consensus is that all the major bodies currently agree that genetically modified crops are safe to eat as any other food. Please read the four main sources from very credible global sources:

      World Health Organization:
      American Medical Association:
      National Academy of Sciences:
      American Association for the Advancement of Science:

      There have been years of misinformation and lies about us spread online. If you’re interested below is a page dedicated to addressing a lot of the myths you may have read:

      We are only one part of a very large agricultural industry as we partner with farmers, researchers, governments, NGOs, universities and others.
      We hope one day you will see differently and have a nice day.

      Kind regards,
      EU Corporate Engagement Team

      • Sasa from Serbia  says:

        Dear Monsanto EU Corporate Engagement Team,

        Real, objective and competent scientific studies regarding GM organisms can be found all over the world, as well as on the Internet, so I will not be listing them here. Briefly, they prove that your products do much harm to experimental animals and that both altered genes and chemicals used for your products’ engineering are harmful for living beings. It is completely incomprehensible that well educated minds like those in Monsanto’s team cannot understand that nature does not need such an aggressive, genetically manipulated hybridization, which is in its essence inhuman – genocidal, greedily financially motivated and made for the purpose of a complete control over the people and an irreversible alteration of the nature.

        Secondly, institutions you have listed above are all corrupted and overtaken by the NWO lobby, as well as governments in countries where GM products are accepted and where your products enjoy an above the average political and logistical support. This can be clearly seen with the example of harmful Payoneer’s seeds I mentioned above, where purchase price for Pioneer’s corn has been higher than for other hybrids, so conscienceless big farmers unfortunately have been motivated to work exclusively with that brand. And my question is – how is it possible that a foreign country’s brand, worse and much harmful then any other domestic brand, can have such an advantage on our market? The only logical answer is – CORRUPTION, backed by NWO secret channels and western secret intelligences’ influence on political decisions in our country.

        All these things you are being doing to the world will not last forever. In few years you will not exist as a company, because God will not allow you to destroy what He has made and will not allow you to win a battle you are being doing against a humanity. I sincerely hope that workpeople in the company will understand that they are a part of a big and mean conspiracy and that soon, after this monster of the company terminates, they will manage to find from a moral aspect more decent work, in an environment where the collective conscious and unconscious are more human.

        Best regards from Serbia.

        • EU Corporate Engagement Team  says:

          Dear Sasa,

          It would have been great if you had read at least one of the links we sent. They were meant to guide you on the views of organisations that not only provide reviews on GM products, but also the medicines we all use. If we cannot trust the scientific process or modern technology then the medicines we use today when we’re sick, and take for granted, or the computers we’re writing on now wouldn’t even exist.

          We cannot speak for other companies that you mention, but here in Europe we have to follow local laws and rules, because we couldn’t operate otherwise.

          You have very strong views about us and science generally, but all we can say is we are a company made up of human beings who care for nature and we are listening here in Europe. Farmers can decide to buy our seeds just like you can choose what coffee to buy.

          Kind regards,
          EU Corporate Engagement Team

  • Darrell  says:

    Dear Monsanto, When you stop sueing people by your immoral reasoning, poisening the enviroment, all for money mentallity, truthful transparancy on your products and the long term effect on the enviroment, forcing it on countries with little or no choice,bribing, oops I mean lobbying weak, greedy, easily misled politicians, ridiculous and restrictive farmer contracts and production of harmful pesticides then maybe we would believe you. Do you wonder why people do not trust you or anything you say.

  • Dianne Cobb  says:

    Monsanto has had its way with USA and knows it needs Europe to squash people from protesting. How is it that well over 80% of people in USA and my country Canada want labeling, yet are continually rebuffed. Monsanto has spent mega sums to fight labeling which makes NO SENCE. If anything, it adds to distrust. Monsanto and other GE corporations want us to believe food that looks plump and uniform and lacking in nutrients is what people want. I will not eat chemicals knowingly. It is not GE science that is disturbing, It is the disconnect Monsanto has with PEOPLE, tricking and suing farmers worldwide who object to their farms being invaded by predatory GMO seeds. I did research on heart attack deaths world wide. Most countries in Europe are significantly lower than North America. USA trumps Canada in heart deaths likely because Canadian farmers are not pushed as hard to grow GMO’s. Canada also does not use Monsanto hormones in milk, banned when EU banned them. Do you see my point?
    After all that I have read, I stopped eating corn, soy, canola, aspartame and sugar including derivatives of such in processed foods. Four years later, my health as an older person is much improved. That is my proof and all those who know me see it now. Monsanto will not survive public opinion. We may have to find other ways to grow foods, but we will!

    • EU Corporate Engagement Team  says:

      Dear Dianne,

      Thanks for your comment.
      We understand your questions and will address each one in turn because we know many consumers share your beliefs and because we absolutely share your interest helping people make smart choices about their diets. We all want to eat healthy and live healthy lifestyles. As you know there are always at least two sides to any story:
      On your first point about labelling we agree with food labelling based on science and facts. This means labeling things that are relevant to health, but not labeling everything consumers say they want to see labeled, including DNA, for no good reason. See a recent 7-minute interview from December 2015 on CBS television with our CEO on the debate over GMOs and food labeling:

      Moreover, a labeling system already exists for people like you who are really concerned about GMOs and pesticides: the voluntary organic label, which has been in use for two decades. The organic label provides consumers choice but doesn’t stigmatise the non-organic foods that 95% of consumers buy for no good reason.

      Regarding your next point about us suing farmers: Despite what you might read in the activist echo-chamber online, Monsanto has never sued a farmer when trace amounts of our patented seeds or traits were present in a farmer’s field as an accident or as a result of inadvertent means. It is that simple and we have publicly committed:

      “It has never been, nor will it be, Monsanto’s policy to exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of our patented seeds or traits are present in a farmer’s fields as a result of inadvertent means.”


      In terms of contracts, farmers who grow GM crops in the U.S. and Canada understand that they are agreeing to use the seed only for the planting of one commercial crop and that they will not save or replant seeds produced from the seeds they purchase without paying a license fee. These contracts only apply to biotech seeds.
      Fact: Monsanto has never sued a farmer when trace amounts of our patented seeds or traits were present in the farmer’s field as an accident or as a result of inadvertent means:

      In those rare cases that actually went to court, it has always emerged that the farmer was knowingly planting our seeds while trying to avoid paying for them—a practice which in any other sector is called piracy or just plain theft.
      Regarding your point about growth hormones in milk: Here’s an extract from a Science Blog and the longer story (including scientific references) for you to read to separate myth from fact:
      “In 1993, FDA approved commercial use of synthetic recombinant Bovine somatotropin or growth hormone ( rbST or rbGH) in injection form to be used in cows to increase milk yield. It was marketed under name Posilac (company Monsanto). It has shown to increase milk yield in cows by 10-15 %. On other hand there are some reports showing that use of recombinant somatotropin/growth hormones increases the incidence of mastitis, lameness and some reproductive issues in the cows. Increased mastitis can be linked to high use of antibiotics for treatment and secretion of antibiotic residue in milk and meat products. In 1990, FDA evaluated pharmaceutical company studies and concluded that the use of recombinant bovine growth hormone (rbGH) in dairy cattle presents no increased health risk to consumers and nutritional quality of milk and meat from rBST-treated cows is equivalent to that of milk and meat from untreated cows.”

      ScienceBlogs story: Growth hormones in milk: myth/fact

      By the way, Monsanto sold that business to Eli Lilly & Co. in 2008, so it has been out of our portfolio for almost a decade.
      So much for the myths. How about some facts now? Did you know that while Monsanto is strong in a few crops such as maize, rapeseed, cotton and soybeans, our seeds represent a small fraction of the seeds planted worldwide? In fact, about two-thirds of seed planted globally is non-commercial, farmer-saved seed. Of that commercial seed market, two-thirds of the seed volume comes from private breeding programmes and one-third from national or public institutions.
      Did you know that we have also just committed to ensure all of our crop operations globally are carbon neutral by 2021 through data science and precision engineering practices and partnering with farmers? In the U.S. alone, this could reduce emissions from carbon dioxide equal to 233 million barrels of oil per year.


      We are glad to hear from consumers like you because it gives us an opportunity to address some of the myths about us head-on. You can also ask questions, and see answers to questions other people have already asked, at our Discover Monsanto website:

      The below link is our Monsanto Pledge and commitment to how we do business. It is a declaration that compels us to listen more, to consider our actions and their impact broadly and to lead responsibly:

      Lastly, prominent scientific organisations agree that genetically modified crops are as safe to eat as any other food. Please read the statements from these very credible global sources:

      World Health Organization:

      European Commission:

      Health and Safety Executive of the UK government:

      American Medical Association:

      National Academy of Sciences:

      American Association for the Advancement of Science:

      There have been years of misinformation and lies about us spread online. If you’re interested below are pages dedicated to addressing a lot of the myths you may have read.


      If you have more questions please do ask us,
      EU Corporate Engagement Team.

  • Boris  says:

    Dear all, I actually took the time to go through the complete discussion on this page because I am interested in the topic and I have to thank Monsanto representatives for supporting their points with useful links, including non-Monsanto resources. I see the topic is very hot and exceedingly emotional and I would love to see the critics and opponents of Monsanto to make the same effort as Monsanto representatives and to support their (often very) emotional claims with some factual data. It is easy to make boldest allegations without any proof. Also a friendly advise to read the books by David McRaney to have it easier to spot our very human fallacies, e.g. “confirmation bias” etc.. It is sad and worrisome that such an important topic resembles the biologists against creationists discussion – scientific, logical arguments against emotional claims.

    • EU Corporate Engagement Team  says:

      Dear Boris,
      We just want to thank you for your rational and very thoughtful post.
      Kind regards,
      EU Corporate Engagement Team.

Leave a reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>