Monsanto
Nominated for Worst Corporate Offender
Nominated by Matthew Carroll () – Tuesday 21 February 2006
Reasons for this nomination
Monsanto has lied to the public about it's intention to commercialise sterile seeds ("terminator technology") and proved yet again that Corporate Social Responsibility by huge multinationals is a myth.
In 1999, in an open letter that has now been removed from their website (pdf screenshot) Monsanto publicly committed "not to commercialize sterile seed technologies, such as the one dubbed ‘Terminator.’" Now Monsanto has reneged on that commitment, in an act that threatens food sovereignty, Indigenous Peoples' rights, and small scale farmers around the world. Monsanto now states that it "made a commitment not to commercialize sterile-seed technologies in food crops. It continues to stand by that commitment today, but Monsanto people constantly reevaluate this stance as technology develops." (Emphasis added.)
This betrayal of the public trust and clear intention to put profit before safety is the reason I believe Monsanto deserves the Worst Corporate Offender award.
Supporting info
Original Monsanto pledge not to commercialise Terminator Technology (pdf sreenshot)
Monsanto's revised 'pledge' (3.5MB pdf from monsanto.com)
From the report:
“Issue Discussion: Genetic Use Restriction Technology
In 1999, some stakeholders expressed fears that a sterile-seed technology then under development by the US government and a cotton seed company might lead to dependence for poor smallholder farmers. In response, Monsanto made a commitment not to commercialize sterile-seed technologies in food crops. It continues to stand by that commitment today, but Monsanto people constantly reevaluate this stance as technology develops.
Sterile-seed technologies represent only one type of a larger class of genetic use restriction technologies (GURTs). One technology under investigation would turn a trait on or off so that the plant expresses the trait only in the first generation. In subsequent generations, the genetic material would be inactive and would slowly disappear since it affords no selective advantage. This technology would give inventors an opportunity to protect some of their intellectual property rights in biotech traits.
The responsible approach is to investigate the range of available GURTs and the appropriate applicators. To the end, Monsanto is engaged in dialogue with experts and interested parties to learn what technology applications might be available and how they could be used to address biotech stewardship, maintenance of intellectual property rights, and protection of the needs and rights of farmers. Monsanto does not rule out the potential development and use of one of these technologies in the future. The company will continue to study the risks and benefits of this technology on a case-by-case basis.” (emphasis added)