I would like your comments regarding this article:

http://www.nationofchange.org/organic-farming-and-gardening-101-refuting-monsanto-lie-gmo-necessary-feed-world-1375712810

Expert response from Community Manager

Tuesday, 25/11/2014 12:04

Thanks for pointing out this article published online by Nation of Change. It raises a lot of questions and makes several points about Monsanto that we’re glad to address. Monsanto supports everyone’s ability to choose how to grow food. Unfortunately this is not the perception that many people have about our company. Far from being opposed to organic farming, we use some of our fruit and vegetable seed in organic farming. In addition to mischaracterizing Monsanto’s views of organic agriculture, the article comments on the safety of glyphosate and GMO crops by citing information that has been widely discredited and is not supported by reliable scientific evidence.

Glyphosate has a strong safety profile and a long history of being used safely by farmers, homeowners and landscapers. I use it at my own house. I’m trained as a toxicologist, and I’ve looked at the same data everyone can find online through EPA’s website and the National Pesticide Information Center. If any of the claims made in the article were true, I wouldn’t use glyphosate. The fact is, however, that glyphosate can be used in many settings, including food production, without causing human health impacts. There have been numerous questions posted to GMO Answers about glyphosate safety. Here are three questions about glyphosate with responses from experts not employed by Monsanto: http://tiny.cc/my9qhx, http://tiny.cc/ulbrhx , http://tiny.cc/qqbrhx.

GMO safety is, of course, much of the focus of this site, and there are hundreds of responses explaining how GMO safety assessment works and the science behind it. The article raises several claims that have been addressed elsewhere, but it also references the idea that GMO crops are harmful to farm animals, specifically that GMOs cause reproductive ailments and organ failure. Considering that about 95 percent of the food-producing animals in the United States consume feed containing GMOs, it would stand to reason that farmers would see some indication of harm if these allegations were true. The largest expense for farmers involved in animal agriculture is feed, so producing animal products efficiently (ratio of salable products to feed inputs) is very important to their operations. And animal producers need to replace livestock, which puts a priority on reproductive performance. A new study by Dr. Alison van Eenennaam at the University of California and published in the Journal of Animal Science examined this exact question by considering the US Department of Agriculture’s animal performance data for the past 29 years. The data cover the period just before the introduction of GMOs through the present and tell us about the health and productivity of over 100 billion animals. If the scenario suggested by Nation of Change were true, it is not apparent in Van Eenennaam’s analysis, which shows that the adoption of GMOs as animal feed has had no discernible impact on the health and productivity of food-producing animals in the United States.

Monsanto’s employees take the safety of our products seriously. We collaborate every day with farmers and external scientists to find solutions for ensuring the availability of safe and affordable food while avoiding unnecessary use of natural resources such as land and water. Contrary to what many people say in online publications, we believe all production methods, including organic, have a place in ensuring the world’s food supply.