The Monsanto Company is a U.S.-based multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation. It is the world's leading producer of the herbicide glyphosate, marketed as "Roundup". Monsanto is also the leading producer of genetically engineered (GE) seed; it provides the technology in 90% of the world's GE seeds. It is headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.

Agracetus, owned by Monsanto, exclusively produces Roundup Ready soybean seed for the commercial market. In 2005, it finalized purchase of Seminis Inc, making it the world's largest conventional seed company.

Monsanto's development and marketing of genetically engineered seed and bovine growth hormone, as well as its aggressive litigation, political lobbying practices, seed commercialization practices and "strong-arming" of the seed industry have made the company controversial around the world and a primary target of the alter-globalization movement and environmental activists. As a result of its business strategies and licensing agreements, Monsanto came under investigation by the U.S. Justice Department in 2009

Brief History

Monsanto was founded in St. Louis, Missouri, in 1901, by John Francis Queeny, a 30-year veteran of the pharmaceutical industry. He funded the start-up with his own money and capital from a soft drink distributor, and gave the company his wife's maiden name. His father in law was Emmanuel Mendes de Monsanto, wealthy financier of a sugar company active in Vieques, Puerto Rico and based in St. Thomas in the Danish West Indies. The company's first product was the artificial sweetener saccharin, which it sold to the Coca-Cola Company. It also introduced caffeine and vanillin to Coca-Cola, and became one of that company's main suppliers.

In 1919, Monsanto established its presence in Europe by entering into a partnership with Graesser's Chemical Works at Cefn Mawr near Ruabon, Wales to produce vanillin, salicylic acid, aspirin and later rubber.

In its third decade, the 1920s, Monsanto expanded into basic industrial chemicals like sulfuric acid, and the decade ended with Queeny's son Edgar Monsanto Queeny taking over the company in 1928.

The 1940s saw Monsanto become a leading manufacturer of plastics, including polystyrene, and synthetic fibers. Since then, it has remained one of the top 10 US chemical companies. Other major products have included the herbicides 2,4,5-T, DDT, and Agent Orange used primarily during the Vietnam War as a defoliant agent (later proven to be highly carcinogenic to any who come into contact with the solution), the artificial sweetener aspartame (NutraSweet), bovine somatotropin (bovine growth hormone (BST), and PCBs. Also in this decade, Monsanto operated the Dayton Project, and later Mound Laboratories in Miamisburg, Ohio, for the Manhattan Project, the development of the first nuclear weapons and, after 1947, the Atomic Energy Commission.

Monsanto began manufacturing DDT in 1944, along with some 15 other companies. The use of DDT in the U.S. was banned by Congress in 1972, due in large part to efforts by environmentalists, who persisted in the challenge put forth by Rachel Carson and her book Silent Spring in 1962, which sought to inform the public of the side effects associated with the insecticide, which had been much-welcomed in the fight against malaria-transmitting mosquitoes. As the decade ended, Monsanto acquired American Viscose from England's Courtauld family in 1949.

1

In 1954, Monsanto partnered with German chemical giant Bayer to form Mobay and market polyurethanes in the US.

In 1968, Monsanto became the first organization to mass-produce visible LEDs, using gallium arsenide phosphide to produce red LEDs suitable for indicators.

Monsanto was a pioneer of optoelectronics in the 1970s. In 1968 they became the first company to start mass production of Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs). 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.

In the 1960s and 1970s, Monsanto became one of 10-36 producers of Agent Orange for US Military operations in Vietnam.

In 1980, Monsanto established the Edgar Monsanto Queeny safety award in honor of its former CEO (1928–1960), to encourage accident prevention.

Monsanto scientists became the first to genetically modify a plant cell in 1982. Five years later, Monsanto conducted the first field tests of genetically engineered crops.

Through a process of mergers and spin-offs between 1997 and 2002, Monsanto made a transition from chemical giant to biotech giant. Part of this process involved the 1999 sale by Monsanto of their phenylalanine facilities to Great Lakes Chemical Corporation (GLC) for $125 million. In 2000, GLC sued Monsanto because of a $71 million dollar shortfall in expected sales.

In 2001, retired Monsanto chemist William S. Knowles was named a co-winner of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his research on catalytic asymmetric hydrogenation, which was carried out at Monsanto beginning in the 1960s until his 1986 retirement.

Throughout 2004 and 2005, Monsanto filed lawsuits against many farmers in Canada and the U.S. on the grounds of patent infringement, specifically the farmers' sale of seed containing Monsanto's patented genes. In some cases, farmers claimed the seed was unknowingly sown by wind carrying the seeds from neighboring crops, a claim rejected in Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser. These instances began in the mid to late 1990s, with one of the most significant cases being decided in Monsanto's favor by the Canadian Supreme Court. By a 5-4 vote in late May 2004, that court ruled that "by cultivating a plant containing the patented gene and composed of the patented cells without license, the appellants (canola farmer Percy Schmeiser) deprived the respondents of the full enjoyment of the patent." With this ruling, the Canadian courts followed the U.S. Supreme Court in its decision on patent issues involving plants and genes.

As of February 2005, Monsanto has patent claims on breeding techniques for pigs which would grant them ownership of any pigs born of such techniques and their related herds. Greenpeace claims Monsanto is trying to claim ownership on ordinary breeding techniques. Monsanto claims that the patent is a defensive measure to track animals from its system. They furthermore claim their patented method uses a specialized insemination device that requires less sperm than is typically needed.

In 2006, the Public Patent Foundation filed requests with the United States Patent and Trademark Office to revoke four patents that Monsanto has used in patent lawsuits against farmers. In the first round

2

of reexamination, claims in all four patents were rejected by the Patent Office in four separate rulings dating from February through July 2007. Monsanto has since filed responses in the reexaminations.

In October 2008, the company's Canadian division, Monsanto Canada Inc., was named one of Canada's Top 100 Employers by Mediacorp Canada Inc., and was featured in Maclean's newsmagazine. Later that month, Monsanto Canada Inc. was also named one of Manitoba's Top Employers, which was announced by the Winnipeg Free Press newspaper.

In January 2010, Monsanto was named company of the year by Forbes.

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 purchases G. D. Searle & Company. In this merger, Searle's aspartame business becomes a separate Monsanto subsidiary, the NutraSweet Company. CEO of NutraSweet, Robert B. Shapiro, goes on to become CEO of Monsanto from 1995 to 2000.

1996: Acquires 49.9% of Calgene, creators of the Flavr Savr tomato in April and another ~5% in November.

1997: Monsanto spins off its industrial chemical and fiber divisions into Solutia Inc. This transfers the financial liability related to the production and contamination with PCBs at the Illinois and Alabama plants. In January, Monsanto announces the purchase of Holden's Foundations Seeds, a privately held seed business owned by the Holden family, along with its sister sales organization, Corn States Hybrid Service, of Williamsburg and Des Moines, Iowa, respectively. The combined purchase price totals $925 million. Also, in April, Monsanto purchases the remaining shares of Calgene.

1999: Monsanto sells NutraSweet Co. and two other companies. 2000: Monsanto merges with Pharmacia and Upjohn, and ceases to exist. Later in the year,

Pharmacia forms a new subsidiary, also named Monsanto, for the agricultural divisions, and retains the medical research divisions, which includes products such as Celebrex.

2002: Pharmacia spins off its Monsanto subsidiary into a new company, the "new Monsanto." As part of the deal, Monsanto agrees 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.

2005: Monsanto purchases Seminis, a leading global vegetable and fruit seed company, for $1.4 billion.

2007: In June, Monsanto completes its purchase of Delta and Pine Land Company, a major cotton seed breeder, for $1.5 billion. Monsanto exits 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."

2008: Monsanto purchases the Dutch seed company De Ruiter Seeds for €546 million, and sells its POSILAC bovine somatotropin brand and related business to Elanco Animal Health, a division of Eli Lilly and Company in August for $300 million plus "additional contingent consideration".

3

The Birth, Innovations, and Aspirations of the Company in different Agricultural Related Fields

1. Beginnings

The year was 1901. John F. Queeny, a 42-year-old purchasing agent for the Meyer Brothers Drug Company, had been thinking about moonlighting and starting a business to manufacture the artificial sweetener saccharin, the first company to do so outside of Europe. John's employer favored the endeavor but didn't want to alienate suppliers in Germany. So he asked John to name his new company something other than his last name, a name familiar to his German suppliers. So John named the company Monsanto after his wife, Olga Monsanto Queeny.

John's motivation was simple: to supply his customers with a sweetener that would do the job of sugar but at one-sixth the cost. Amazingly, one pound of saccharine would do the job of 500 pounds of sugar. That motivation was the start of a goal that has endured at Monsanto, helping customers to do more with less.

His first employees were from Switzerland. At first, his wife Olga had to translate conversations because John didn't speak German. Both employer and employees alike showed an entrepreneurial spirit, working long hours and making do with used equipment and very restrictive budgets.

Growth came slowly. The company might not have survived if it were not for an unusual customer who bought Monsanto's entire production run in 1903 and 1905. Competitors in Europe and the US tried to force the company out of business, but John persevered, added new offerings to his product line and slowly began to make a profit.

Because John was not an overnight success, he would probably be the most surprised at what his company has grown into. But the legacy of resourcefulness, innovation, hard work and creativity has extended through the decades to make Monsanto into a company he'd be proud of.

2. Fertilizers

Monsanto's first entry into agriculture did not occur until the mid-1940s. Edgar Queeny, John F. Queeny's son and CEO of Monsanto at the time, owned a 600-acre farm and understood the frustrations of farmers. Monsanto's first agricultural product was called Santobane, an insecticide to control corn borer and other insect pests. Other agricultural products followed, but they were only part of an equation designed to help farmers. Farmers also needed fertilizers, and Monsanto began to try to meet that need by producing fertilizer at its plant in Norfolk, Virginia.

In 1955, Monsanto acquired Lion Oil Company because chemical companies were changing from coal tar to petrochemicals as their starting ingredient for many products. One of the products Lion Oil produced was ammonia to manufacture ammonium nitrate fertilizer, one of the largest chemical fertilizer products in the US.

In 1959, Monsanto, with a long history of innovation, installed a Ramo-Wooldridge RW-300 closed loop computer in the Luling, Louisiana, plant, making the facility the first computer-controlled ammonia plant in the world.

4

The 1960s marked further agricultural change for Monsanto. Three new ammonia plants were built in Nebraska and Iowa to increase volume and to be geographically closer to customers and their seasonal demands. The plant in Muscatine, Iowa also became the first plant to produce agricultural chemicals like Lasso® herbicide.

During this time Monsanto developed the E-2 process, which kept ammonium nitrate fertilizer granules (prill) from sticking together or "caking." This innovative free flowing process allowed fertilizer to be shipped over longer distances and arrive in a form that farmers could easily spread on their fields.

In the mid-1960s, Monsanto established Monsanto Agricultural Centers, or MACs. They were retail operations, something new to Monsanto, and provided all the fertilizer and pesticides a farmer might need, including testing and product application to fields in some cases.

By 1982, Monsanto began phasing out of the fertilizer business, but for many years those important fertilizer products provided a financial foundation that other Monsanto agricultural products were built upon, all of them with one aim--to make farmers more productive.

3. AG Chemical

In the mid-1950s, Monsanto chemists began discovering new agricultural products to help farmers. Although there were a few chemists dedicated to the agricultural effort, most of the compounds evaluated and developed came from chemists working in other divisions of Monsanto who sent samples to the Ag group for testing.

Two of these products arrived on the market in 1956. Randox® and Vegadex® herbicides were developed to help with annual grasses and certain broadleaf weeds when few alternative herbicides were available. Randox killed weeds in corn or soybeans, increasing corn yields by six or more bushels per acre and soybean yields by three to six bushels per acre. Vegadex killed grasses that infested beans, beets, corn, and salad crops, especially in soils that were sandy. Both were in high demand by farmers and were quite successful.

In the late 1950s, the pressing needs of agriculture were immense. In the US, it was estimated that $13 billion worth of crops were lost or not planted due to weeds, insects and plant diseases. Monsanto committed even more resources to agriculture, building 25,000 square feet of labs, offices, conference rooms, libraries and eight new greenhouses.

In 1960 and 1962, Avadex® and Avadex BW herbicides were commercialized to control wild oat infestations, hampering the production of flax, wheat, sugar beets, peas, and barley on 21 million acres in the US. Also in 1962, Rogue® herbicide was introduced as an important new herbicide for rice production.

In an example of the best executed science not working out, Lambast herbicide, which controlled lambsquarters in safflower, was developed with great promise but was later dropped because it cost more to produce than farmers were willing to pay.

In 1964, Ramrod® herbicide was released as a real breakthrough for grassy and broadleaf weeds. It controlled numerous weeds but also was very selective by not harming a sizeable list of important

5

crops. It worked in almost all soil types as well as wet and dry conditions. The winning entry to name the product came from a contest conducted among Monsanto secretaries. (See What's in a Name)

In 1969, Monsanto introduced a product that proved to be a blockbuster, Lasso® herbicide. It was a pre-emergent herbicide for corn and soybeans (applied before the weeds emerged), and was very quickly found to be a huge help to farmers. Lasso went on to become the No. 1 corn and soybean herbicide in the US for more than 20 years, helping Monsanto to move into the first tier of agricultural producers.

4. Roundup® Herbicides

The year was 1970. Rachel Carson's book, "Silent Spring," had been published eight years earlier, and the Environmental Protection Agency had just been formed. The word "ecology" was commonly used, and concerns for the environment were passionate and widespread. Nine years of intense research for new, safe herbicides had come up empty, and it seemed Monsanto had reached a dead end.

A young chemist named John Franz, who had recently been transferred to the Ag division, began work with another scientist, Dr. Phil Hamm, the head of Monsanto's herbicide screening program. Hamm was excited about two compounds that had been recently submitted by chemists from another part of Monsanto, compounds that initially were studied as water softeners. Hamm wondered if there might be some use for the compounds as herbicides and asked Franz to study them.

Franz proceeded to study how these compounds metabolized within plants. He theorized that a beneficial compound might be produced during the plant's metabolic process, and if he was lucky, he might be able to synthesize one of these compounds. The third compound he synthesized would prove to be one that would change the face of farming.

The molecule John Franz discovered was called glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's original Roundup® herbicide formulation. The test results of the initial screening were so spectacular that Monsanto skipped the second screening and went straight to field trials. The first report from the trials was one word, "Eureka." The herbicide was found to be successful not just with annuals but perennial weeds, killing not just the leaves but the roots as well. Academic participants and growers who assisted with the field trials had one question: "Where can I buy this stuff?"

The original Roundup herbicide allowed farmers to kill almost every weed that emerged from the soil, thus decreasing the need for tilling to control weeds and suffering soil erosion in the process. This Roundup product also seemed to be the perfect environmental solution at the perfect time. It was found to decompose into natural products -- carbon dioxide, phosphoric acid, and ammonia -- and was also found to be safe for humans and wildlife. Environmentally speaking, the original Roundup herbicide proved to be one of, if not the safest, herbicides in history.

Roundup agricultural herbicides are now available to farmers in 130 countries and control more than 125 of the world's toughest weeds. For his discovery, John Franz received the National Medal of Technology in 1987 and was inducted to the U.S. Inventors Hall of Fame in 2007.

5. Animal AG

6

Monsanto's first involvement with animal agriculture was in the late 1950s, when the company produced a protein supplement called MHA for animal feeds. About the same time, Monsanto developed a product called Santoquin®, an antioxidant for preserving the nutritional value of feeds and dehydrated forage. In 1969, Farmer's Hybrid Companies, which bred hybrid breeding swine, was acquired.

Then in 1976, Monsanto acquired a small equity position in Genentech, a pioneering company exploring a brand new field called biotechnology. One of the first products Genentech researched was bovine somatotropin, also known as BST, a naturally occurring hormone in dairy cows that affects the amount of milk they produce.

Decades earlier scientists had tried to discover ways of collecting BST to be injected into cattle. The process increased milk production but also proved to be exceedingly expensive. Monsanto hoped to discover a way of genetically producing BST in a more economical way. If they were successful, farmers could experience an increase in milk production of 10 percent or more.

In 1979, Genentech systhesized BST for Monsanto and it was expected to be on the market by the mid 1980s. The product would be called POSILAC®, and because it was the very first bio-tech animal or plant product in the world, there were understandable concerns about its safety.

Years and years of study and testing ensued throughout the world. In 1987, Monsanto submitted POSILAC to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for approval. Research results in the form of 593 binders were submitted, enough single sheets of paper to equal the height of a 16-story building. And then the waiting began.

In 1988, South Africa became the first country to approve POSILAC for use in dairy cows. The following year, Czechoslovakia was the first location where POSILAC was available for sale. Finally, in 1993, six years after its initial submission, POSILAC was approved for use in the US.

When POSILAC was approved, Dr. David Kessler, the commissioner of the FDA, remarked, "This has been one of the most extensively studied animal drug products to be reviewed by the agency." After review by independent authorities, agencies, and regulatory bodies in 20 countries, POSILAC was determined safe.

Since 1994, the product has been sold to farmers around the world and has helped to produce milk efficiently. The business was sold to Eli Lilly Co. in 2008.

6. Biotech

Biotechnology. Ask most people what the term means and they'll likely shrug their shoulders. Yet biotechnology holds the possibility of helping mankind in monumental ways.

The field began in 1973, when university scientists were successful at transferring genetic material from one organism to another. To the layman this might not seem like a significant event, but it opened up the possibility of improving plants much more rapidly and efficiently than what had been tried for centuries through cross pollination and breeding. So biology suddenly offered great possibilities, but most of Monsanto's scientists were chemists. One of the few Monsanto scientists investigating these new biological developments was Dr. Ernie Jaworski.

7

In 1979, Monsanto CEO John Hanley hired a university professor named Howard Schneiderman, asking him to make Monsanto "a world-class molecular biology company." Schneiderman quickly formed a new Molecular Biology Group and asked Ernie Jaworski to lead it. The two added more to their team, hiring four research scientists: Stephen Rogers, David Tiemeier, Robb Fraley, and Rob Horsch. Research labs were added to U building on Monsanto's Creve Coeur campus, and the quest was on.

One of the first goals was to develop a methodology to transfer cloned genes into plant cells and then regenerate healthy, fertile plants from those cells. In January 1983, Monsanto scientists succeeded for the first time in history to modify a plant cell through biotechnology. Nobel laureate Norman Borlaug summed it up by saying, "Their work heralded the birth of agricultural biotechnology, both as a science and as an industry, and placed the US at the forefront of this new science."

One month later, Monsanto scientists again for the first time in history succeeded in growing whole plants from genetically modified cells. In April, the offspring of those genetically modified plants were found to have the same new traits as their parents. The goal set a few years earlier had been reached.

In 1984, to bolster these new research efforts, the first buildings of Monsanto's Life Sciences Research Center were completed in Chesterfield, Missouri. The labs would eventually house more than 1000 employees and provided state of the art labs, growth chambers, and facilities for biotechnology research. At the same time, Wall Street was growing anxious because Monsanto was investing billions of dollars with nothing yet to show for it.

In 1987, the US Department of Agricuture gave Monsanto the go-ahead for field tests of genetically modified tomato plants. The tomatoes were modified to tolerate Roundup® agricultural herbicide and resist two plant diseases. The tests were successful, and a revolution in agriculture had begun. As a result of biotechnology, farming has become more productive and easier. None of it would have been possible without the courage and determination of a few early pioneers who kept working when there was no guarantee of success.

7. Seeds

Why would Monsanto have an interest in seeds? Because if scientists are able to improve a plant's ability to grow and protect itself through breeding and biotechnology, seeds are the way of distributing those advancements to farmers.

For thousands of years, plant breeders have identified the best properties in flowers and plants and tried to pass them on to make more desirable varieties. These traditional methods of plant breeding were often successful but usually quite slow. Using new technologies to pass on traits from one plant generation to another, Monsanto scientists are accelerating the process and breeding better plants faster than any other time in history.

In 1995, the US government approved Roundup Ready® soybeans, NewLeaf® insect-protected potatoes, and Bollgard® insect-protected cotton, Monsanto's first commercial seed products resulting from biotech research.

8

Roundup Ready soybeans were modified with a gene that made them tolerant of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup® herbicides. When weeds emerged in a farmer's soybean field, he could spray his field with Roundup herbicide, controlling the weeds but leaving the soybeans unharmed. The secret to designing Roundup Ready crops was discovered years earlier in a glyphosate-resistant bacterium found at Monsanto's glyphosate plant in Luling, Louisiana. Scientists were able to take DNA from the bacterium and insert it into plants, making them resistant to glyphosate.

NewLeaf potatoes and Bollgard cotton each were given genes that protected them from insect pests, significantly decreasing the need to spray fields with pesticides. The more plants were able to protect themselves, the less farmers needed to spray potentially harmful products into the environment.

To collect seeds from plants with the best characteristics, Monsanto began acquiring and partnering with seed companies that owned outstanding seed germplasms. Germplasms are similar to bloodlines in thoroughbred racehorses. Fast horses produce fast offspring. The same is true with seed germplasms and the plants they create. Between 1996 and 1998, Monsanto acquired a number of seed companies including Agracetus, Inc., Calgene, Inc., Asgrow, Holden's Foundation Seeds, Corn States Hybrid LLC and DeKalb Genetics Corporation.

As Monsanto scientists became better able to engineer beneficial traits in plants, they realized they could "stack" beneficial traits, breeding plants with multiple benefits within the same plant. A plant could be modified to tolerate Roundup herbicide, protect itself from insects, and produce larger yields, all within the same plant.

The beneficial genetic traits Monsanto scientists are discovering continue to expand. Such traits have the potential to allow farmers around the world to grow plants that are higher-yielding, able to protect themselves from disease and pests, able to use water more efficiently, and plants that are healthier for us and our families. These traits are important, but they will also allow farmers to farm in an environmentally friendly way, in a world we all must share and live in.

Environmental and health record

According to an anonymous 2001 document obtained by the Center for Public Integrity, Monsanto has been identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as being a "potentially responsible party" for 56 contaminated sites (Superfund sites) in the United States. 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. In 2004 The Wildlife Habitat Council and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's National Environmental Performance Track presented a special certificate of recognition to Monsanto Company during WHC's 16th Annual Symposium.

Monsanto is the largest producer of glyphosate herbicides through its popular brand, Roundup.

Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications (referring to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration) explained the company's regulatory philosophy to Michael Pollan in 1998: "Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is FDA's job."

1. Genetically modified organisms

9

Much of Monsanto's seed products are specifically genetically modified, to make them resistant to Monsanto produced agricultural chemicals, such as "Round Up" herbicide. In a study published in the International Journal of Biological Sciences, researchers applied a different statistical analysis on raw data obtained from Monsanto and concluded that these GM corn (maize) varieties induced a state of hepatorenal toxicity. They suggested that the presence of the new pesticides associated with the inserted genes were responsible, although the possibility that this could be due to a mutation during the transformation process was not excluded.

2. Terminator seed controversy

In June 2007, Monsanto acquired Delta & Pine Land Company, a company that had patented a seed technology nicknamed Terminators. This technology, which was never known to have been used commercially, produces plants that have sterile seeds so they do not flower or grow fruit after the initial planting. This prevents the spread of those seeds into the wild, however it also requires customers to repurchase seed for every planting in which they use Terminator seed varieties. Farmers who do not use a terminator seed could also be affected by his neighboring farmer that does through natural pollination. In recent years, widespread opposition from environmental organizations and farmer associations has grown, mainly out of the concerns that hypothetical seeds using this technology could increase farmers' dependency on seed suppliers.

Despite the fact that in 1999, Monsanto pledged not to commercialize Terminator technology, Delta Vice President, Harry Collins, declared at the time in a press interview in the Agra/Industrial Biotechnology Legal Letter, ‘We’ve continued right on with work on the Technology Protection System (TPS or Terminator). We never really slowed down. We’re on target, moving ahead to commercialize it. We never really backed off.’

3. rBGH (recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone)

Monsanto sparked controversy nationwide with the introduction of Bovine somatotropin, abbreviated as rBST and commonly known as rBGH. It is a synthetic hormone that is injected into cows to increase milk production. IGF-1 is a hormone stimulated by rBGH in the cow's blood stream, which is directly responsible for the increase in milk production. IGF-1 is a natural hormone found in the milk of both humans and cows causing the quick growth of infants.

Though this IGF-1 occurs naturally in mothers' milk to be fed to their infants it produces adverse effects in non-infants, behaving as a cancer accelerator in adults and non-infants; this biologically active hormone is associated with breast cancer (correlation shown in premenopausal women), prostate cancer, lung cancer and colon cancers.

A Monsanto-sponsored survey of milk showed no significant difference in rBST levels in milk labeled as "rBST-Free" or "organic milk" vs milk not labeled as such.

According to The New York Times Monsanto's brand of rBST, Posilac, has recently (March 2008) been the focus for a pro-rBST advocacy group called AFACT, made up of large dairy business conglomerates and closely affiliated with Monsanto itself. This group has engaged in large-scale lobbying efforts at the state level to prevent milk which is rBST-free from being labeled as such. As milk labeled as hormone-free has proved enormously popular with consumers, the primary justification by AFACT for their efforts has been that rBST is approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and that the popularity of milk sold without it is damaging what they claim to be the right of dairy producers to use a technology that maximizes their profits.

10

Thus far, a large-scale negative consumer response to AFACT's legislative and regulatory efforts has kept state regulators from pushing through restrictions that would ban hormone-free milk labels, though several politicians have tried, including Pennsylvania's agriculture secretary Dennis Wolff, who tried to ban rBST-free milk labeling on the grounds that "consumers are confused". The statement by Agriculture Secretary Wolff was reported by pro-biotech site Earth Friendly-Farm Friendly which elaborated on the issues of rBGH/rBST labelling:

"Consumers are getting confused with the extra labels," said Pennsylvania Ag Secretary Dennis Wolff. "They deserve a choice, and so do producers. But from the standpoint of safety, all milk is healthy milk. Our milk is a safe product. The Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture is not in a position to say use rBST or not. The key word is: choice. I used rBST from day one of its approval to the last day that I milked cows. It was an important management tool on my dairy farm. What we oppose is the negative advertising or the selling of fear. If producers are asked to give up production efficiency and if that efficiency nets them $3000 or $10,000 a year for their dairy farm… That's a lot of money.

Proposed labeling changes have been floated by AFACT lobbyists in New Jersey, Ohio, Indiana, Kansas, Utah, Missouri and Vermont thus far.

In October 2008, Monsanto sold this business, in full, to Eli Lilly for a price of $300 Million plus additional considerations.

4. Pollution in Anniston, Alabama

In 2002, The Washington Post carried a front page report on Monsanto's legacy of environmental damage in Anniston, Alabama related to its legal production of polychlorinated biphenyls(PCBs), a chemical once used as a common electrical insulator, 40 years ago. Plaintiffs in a pending lawsuit provided documentation showing that the local Monsanto factory knowingly discharged both mercury and PCB-laden waste into local creeks for over 40 years. In a story on 27 January, The New York Times 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. The company also buried millions of pounds of PCB in open-pit landfills located on hillsides above the plant and surrounding neighborhoods. In August 2003, Solutia and Monsanto agreed to pay plaintiffs $700 million to settle claims by over 20,000 Anniston residents related to PCB contamination.

Legal issues

Monsanto is notable for its involvement in high profile lawsuits, as both plaintiff and defendant. It has been involved in a number of class action 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 biotechnology.

As defendant

In 1971, the US government filed suit against Monsanto over the safety of its original product, saccharin; Monsanto eventually won, after several years in court.

It was sued, along with Dow and other chemical companies by veterans for the side effects of its Agent Orange defoliant, used by the US military in the Vietnam War.

11

Monsanto was the defendant in the longest civil jury trial in U.S. history, Kemner v. Monsanto. This case ran from February 1984 through October 1987. The case involved a group of plaintiffs who claimed to have been poisoned by dioxin in a 1979 chemical spill that occurred in Sturgeon, Missouri.

In 2000, GLC sued Monsanto for the $71 million shortfall in expected sales.

In 2004, the world's largest agrichemical company, Switzerland's Syngenta, launched a US lawsuit charging Monsanto with using coercive tactics to monopolize markets. There are several lawsuits going both ways between Monsanto and Syngenta.

In 2005, the US DOJ filed a Deferred Prosecution Agreement in which Monsanto admitted to violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1) and making false entries into its books and records (15 U.S.C § 78m(b)(2) & (5)).

In late 2006, the Correctional Tribunal of Carcassone, France, ordered two directors of Monsanto subsidiary Asgrow to pay a €15,000 fine related to their knowledge of the presence of unauthorized GMOs in bags of seeds imported by Asgrow on 13 April 2000.

As plaintiff

Since the mid-1990s, it has sued some 150 individual US farmers for patent infringement in connection with its genetically engineered seed. The usual claim involves violation of a technology agreement that prohibits farmers from saving seed from one season's crop to plant the next, a common farming practice. One farmer received an eight-month prison sentence for violating a court order to destroy seeds, in addition to having to pay damages, when a Monsanto case turned into a criminal prosecution.

In 2003, Monsanto sued Oakhurst Dairy in Maine for advertising that its milk products did not come from cows treated with bovine growth hormone, claiming that such advertising hurt its business. The president of Oakhurst responded by saying,

"We ought to have the right to let people know what is and is not in our milk."

Because Monsanto specializes in production of genetically modified seeds for crops such as corn, soybeans, and cotton, the company has financial interest in protecting its intellectual property. Such patents are supported by the U.S. government under free-trade considerations, though Monsanto's large market share over the seed-buying market leaves little choice between Monsanto or its top competitor, DuPont. This genetic engineering has brought more problems than just cornering the market.

In 1998, Monsanto's patented genes were discovered in the canola grown on Percy Schmeiser's farm. As a result, Monsanto sued Percy Schmeiser for patent infringement for growing genetically modified Roundup-resistant canola. The trial judge ruled that Schmeiser had intentionally planted the seeds, ruling that the "infringement arises not simply from occasional or limited contamination of his Roundup susceptible canola by plants that are Roundup resistant. He planted his crop for 1998 with seed that he knew or ought to have known was Roundup tolerant." This high profile case, Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser, went to the Supreme Court level. The 1998 case was portrayed in the media as a classic David and Goliath confrontation.

12

Monsanto representative Trish Jordan commented: "This is very good news for us, Mr. Schmeiser had infringed on our patent." After years of legal wrangling, in 2004 the case was heard by the Canadian Supreme Court. The Court ruled in favor of Monsanto, rejecting Schmeiser's argument that by not using Roundup herbicide on the canola, he did not "use" the plant gene. The Court ruled that farming is an activity that requires human intervention, and so by planting the crops, Schmeiser was "using" the plant gene. However, Schmeiser also won a partial victory, with the Supreme Court disagreeing with the damages given by the trial judge. The Supreme Court stated that since Schmeiser did not gain any profit from the infringement, he did not owe Monsanto any damages. Though the amount of damages were low (C$19,382), this also meant that Schmeiser did not have to pay Monsanto's substantial legal bills.

The case did cause Monsanto's enforcement tactics to be highlighted in the media over the years it took to play out.

Monsanto has asked Spanish customs officials to inspect soymeal shipments to determine if they use Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" technology. Monsanto claims that 30% of Argentina's production uses black market-purchased Roundup Ready seed. Monsanto has petitioned to change the royalty collection system so that royalties are collected at harvest rather than upon purchase of the seed.

Related legal actions

1. In USA

In 1997, it was alleged a local FOX affiliate cooperated with Monsanto in suppressing an investigative report on the health risks associated with Monsanto's bovine growth hormone product, Posilac. Posilac, a synthetic hormone used to increase milk production in cows, while banned in many first-world countries, is used in the United States. Steve Wilson and Jane Akre disagreed with the inclusion of material in the story they felt was slanted or misleading. Both reporters were eventually fired. Wilson and Akre alleged the firing was for retaliation, while the FOX affiliate contended they were fired for insubordination. The reporters then sued Fox in Florida state court, claiming they could not be fired for refusing to do something that they believed to be illegal. In 2000, a Florida jury found that while there was no evidence FOX had bowed to any pressure from Monsanto to alter the story, Akre, but not Wilson, was unjustly fired. The decision in Akre's favor was then overturned in 2003 by an appeals court because the whistleblower's statute under which the original case had been filed did not actually apply to the case. The court held that Fox News had no obligation to report truthfully, and the First Amendment protects their right to lie. Therefore, the court held that firing a reporter for refusing to lie is not actionable under the whistleblower statute. The story can be seen in the feature length documentary film The Corporation.

2. Monsanto vs Andhra Pradesh Government in India

The state of Andhra Pradesh, India, at first resisted Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) cotton; however, as it has proved immensely popular with farmers, they have attempted to control its price. In 2005, after the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee, the Indian regulatory authority, released a fact-finding statement, the state agriculture minister barred the company from selling cotton seeds in the state of Andhra Pradesh. The order was later lifted. More recently, the Andhra Pradesh state government filed several cases against Monsanto and its Mumbai based licensee Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds, after they challenged the order directing the company not to charge a trait price of more than Rs. 900 per pack of 450 grams of Bt. Cotton seed. The Andhra Pradesh State Government has also sought a compensation package of about Rs 4.5 crore (about 1 Million US$) to be paid by the company to farmers affected in some districts.

13

3. Dumping of toxic waste in the UK

Between 1965 and 1972, Monsanto paid contractors to illegally dump thousands of tons of highly toxic waste in UK landfill sites, knowing that their chemicals were liable to contaminate wildlife and people. The Environment Agency said the chemicals were found to be polluting groundwater and the atmosphere 30 years after they were dumped.

The Brofiscin quarry, near Cardiff, erupted in 2003, spilling fumes over the surrounding area, but the local community was unaware that the quarry housed toxic waste.

A UK government report shows that 67 chemicals, including Agent Orange derivatives, dioxins and PCBs exclusively made by Monsanto, are leaking from one unlined porous quarry that was not authorized to take chemical wastes. It emerged that the groundwater has been polluted since the 1970s. The government was criticised for failing to publish information about the scale and exact nature of this contamination. According to the Environment Agency it could cost £100m to clean up the site in south Wales, called "one of the most contaminated" in the UK.

4. Indonesian bribing convictions

In January 2005, Monsanto agreed to pay a $1.5m fine for bribing an Indonesian official. 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, in a bid to avoid Environmental impact 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. Monsanto faced both criminal and civil charges from the Department of Justice and the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Monsanto has agreed to pay $1m to the Department of Justice and $500,000 to the SEC to settle the bribe charge and other related violations.

On 5 March 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.

5. Fined in France for false advertising

Monsanto was fined $19,000 in a French court on 26 January 2007 for misleading the public about the environmental impact of its herbicide Roundup. A former chairman of Monsanto Agriculture France was found guilty of false advertising for presenting Roundup as biodegradable and claiming that it left the soil clean after use.

Environmental and consumer rights campaigners brought the case in 2001 on the basis that glyphosate, Roundup's main ingredient, is classed as "dangerous for the environment" and "toxic for aquatic organisms" by the European Union. 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 consumers group.

Cooperation with BASF

Monsanto is cooperating with BASF in research, development and marketing of biotechnology.

14

Resistance in Europe

Europeans have been resisting genetically modified food for a long time. Monsanto has been facing stiff resistance from the European Union over its portfolio of GM foods. Their approval is important for Monsanto as the EU’s position on GM foods influences the global debate. The GM industry has never gained wholehearted approval from the public in the EU. There have been several laws passed on this subject, and EU legislation of 2003 asked for strict rules on labeling, traceability and risk assessments of GM foods by all the biotech companies. The Regulation of 2004 laid down procedures on traceability and labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and all products produced using GMOs. The mandatory labeling legislation extends its requirement to all food and food ingredients produced from GMOs regardless of the detectable presence of DNA or protein within the final food product. These actions severely affected Monsanto as labeling foods as GM would stigmatise the foods. In the EU, there has been a moratorium on the approval of new GM crops since 1998 caused by the public anxiety over the potential risks of GM foods.

Monsanto is asking the US government to maintain its strong pressure on the European Union legislation for the introduction of GMO foods. After moves in France to ban a Monsanto GM corn variety, the US embassy recommended that 'we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU'.

Soybean in Argentina

Monsanto claims one of its greatest success stories has been genetically modified soybean (Roundup Ready soya) grown and sold in Argentina, South Africa, and across the USA. There are claims that its use increased soya production by 75% and increased yields by 173% over five years until 2002, giving good profitability to farmers. This was good news for the farmers who saw GM soya as a cash crop which had a good export potential as feed for cattle. Therefore, Argentine farmers relied on GM soya as their only produce. In 2004, there were questions being raised about the actual benefits, scientists claimed that the consequences of growing RR soya in Argentina included a massive exodus of small farmers from the countryside because they could no longer make a living (as they could not afford GM soya) or were driven off their land.

Monsanto reasoned that the soil degradation and increased use of pesticides was not due to the use of its GM Soya. It maintains that farmers need to rotate crops in order to allow the soil to recover. Farmers should grow GM soya and then rotate it with corn or other food crops. However, due to the growing demand of soya, farmers in Argentina did not rotate crops and grew only soya, resulting in damage to the soil.

Criticism

1. In Germany

In 2004, Monsanto filed two patent applications for processes which controlled the breeding of pigs with a specific marker gene which attracted criticism from Greenpeace. Both applications were sold to Newsham Genetics in 2007. Although one of the applications was objected to by the European Patent Office as relating to an essentially biological process excluded from patent protection and later abandoned, the second application was granted in 2008 and became the target for extensive demonstrations in Germany. Protests were caused by allegations that Monsanto was patenting the breeding of all pigs, although certain people might say just the idea of patenting any form of life is

15

completely abhorrent. Monsanto claimed that the patent applies only to pigs which were bred using a specific Monsanto technology capable of locating genes which increase pig size.

2. In Brazil

In 2003, a Brazilian organization of farmers protested Monsanto by invading a Monsanto research center in Goias.

3. In China

Monsanto is criticized by Chinese economist Lang Xianping for having controlled the Chinese soybean market, and for trying to do the same to Chinese corn and cotton.

4. In India

Monsanto has had a controversial history in India, starting with the accusation that Monsanto used terminator genes 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 plant breeding to yield better strains, an illegal practice termed "seed piracy".In 2009, high prices of Bt Cotton were blamed for forcing farmers of the district Jhabua into severe debts when the crops died due to lack of rain.

In March 2010, Monsanto admitted that insects had developed resistance to the Bt Cotton planted in Gujarat. The company advised farmers to switch to its second generation of Bt cotton - Bolguard II - which had two resistance genes instead of one. However, this advice was widely slammed by critics and even the Government of India who claimed that the admission by Monsanto was more of a business strategy. Maharastra Seeds, a Monsanto subsidiary, conducted several illegal trials in India and fields growing the GM seed were eventually burned in large scale protests.

Child labor

A subsidiary of Monsanto is alleged to employ child labor in the manufacture of cotton-seeds in India. The work involves handling of poisonous pesticides such as Endosulfan and the children get less than Rs.20 (less than half a US dollar) per day.

Farmer suicides

Some struggles facing Indian farmers are detailed in the article "Seeds of Suicide: India's Desperate Farmers" on Frontline.] The transition to using the latest pest-resistant seeds and the necessary herbicides has been difficult. Farmers have used genetically modified seeds promoted by Cargill and Monsanto hoping for greater yields. Resulting debts from such gambles with genetically modified seeds have led some farmers into the equivalent of indentured servitude. More than 4,500 farmers have committed suicide, which some claim is mostly due to mounting debt caused by the poor yields, increased need for pesticides, and the higher cost of the Bt cotton seed sold by Monsanto.

A report released by the International Food Policy Research Institute in October 2008 provided evidence that the cause of farmer suicide in India was due to several causes and that the introduction of Bt cotton was not a major factor. It argues that the suicides predate the introduction of the cotton in 2002 and has been fairly consistent since 1997. Other studies also suggest the increase in farmer suicides is due to a

16

combination of various socio-economic factors. These include debt, the difficulty of farming semi-arid regions, poor agricultural income, absence of alternative income opportunities, the downturn in the urban economy forcing non-farmers into farming, and the absence of suitable counseling services.

5. In the United Kingdom

Prior to 1977 Monsanto dumped thousands of tons of waste containing PCBs(Polychlorinated biphenyl) in a quarry near Groesfaen, Wales.

6. In the United States

The non-profit Center for Food Safety listed 112 lawsuits by Monsanto against farmers for claims of seed patent violations. The Center for Food Safety's analyst stated that many innocent farmers settle with Monsanto because they cannot afford a time consuming lawsuit. Monsanto is frequently described by farmers as "Gestapo" and "Mafia" both because of these lawsuits and because of the questionable means they use to collect evidence of patent infringement.

Monsanto is responsible for more than 50 United States Environmental Protection Agency Superfund sites, attempts to clean up Monsanto Chemical's formerly uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.

As of May 2008, Monsanto is currently engaged in a campaign to prohibit dairies which do not inject their cows with artificial bovine growth hormone from advertising this fact on their milk cartons.[24]

When the Federal Trade Commission did not side with Monsanto on this issue, the company started lobbying state lawmakers to implement a similar ban. Pennsylvania Agriculture Secretary Dennis Wolfe attempted to prohibit dairies from using labels stating that their milk does not contain artificial bovine growth hormone, but public outcry led Governor Edward Rendell to step in and reverse his secretary's position, stating: "The public has a right to complete information about how the milk they buy is produced."

Missouri

Gary Rinehart of Eagleville, Missouri was sued by Monsanto in 2002, who claimed that he had violated their Roundup Ready Soybean patent. Rinehart is not a farmer or seed dealer, but he still had to spend money for his legal defense. Monsanto eventually dropped the lawsuit, but never issued an apology, admitted to making a mistake, or offered to pay for Rinehart's legal expenses. This is not the only case of aggressive, misconstrued action on the part of Monsanto. Monsanto has been accused of showing up at farmers' houses, making accusations, and demanding records.

Monsanto sued the Pilot Grove Cooperative Elevator in Pilot Grove, Missouri, claiming that offering seed cleaning services to farmers was tantamount to inducing them to pirate Monsanto seeds. The Pilot Grove Cooperative Elevator had been cleaning seeds for decades before companies such as Monsanto could patent organisms.

In order for the FDA to determine if Monsanto's growth hormones were safe or not, Monsanto was required to submit a scientific report on that topic. Margaret Miller, one of Monsanto's researchers, put the report together. Shortly before the report submission, Miller left Monsanto and was hired by the

17

FDA. Her first job for the FDA was to determine whether or not to approve the report she wrote for Monsanto. In short, Monsanto approved its own report.

Illinois

In 1926, when environmental policy was generally governed by local governments, Monsanto Chemical Company founded and incorporated the town of Monsanto, later renamed Sauget, Illinois, to provide a more business friendly environment for one of its chemical plants. For years, the Monsanto plant in Sauget was the nation's largest producer of polychlorinated biphenyls. And although polychlorinated biphenyls were banned in the 1970s, they remain in the water along Dead Creek in Sauget.

Alabama

Monsanto is accused of encouraging residents of Anniston, Alabama to use soil known by the company to be contaminated with PCBs as topsoil.

References

http://www.monsanto.com/whoweare/Documents/swfs/monsanto_history.swf?theme_str=/whoweare/Documents/xml/_theme.xml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto

18