Does Monsanto have a healthy and robust professional policy of not permitting the employees who used to work for them from working in positions where they may have to make decisions about GMOs e.g. the FDA or other Govt. positions?

Expert response from Scott Baucum, Esq.

Director of Business Conduct, Bayer Crop Science

Tuesday, 01/12/2015 12:03

One objection opponents of biotechnology have raised is the fact that some former government employees have gone to work for Monsanto (or industry), and some former industry employees now have jobs in the public sector. Some critics say this shows conspiracy by the industry and the government. Such theories ignore the simple truth that people regularly change jobs to find positions that match their experience, skills and interests. Both the public and private sectors benefit when employers have access to the most competent and experienced people. In every business sector, experienced and highly talented individuals are likely to change jobs to better match and expand their experience, skills and interests.  It is equally important to note that a person that once worked for a company OR for an agency can remain impartial and/or exercise proper business conduct. With this in mind, Monsanto does not have a policy that limits an employee from pursuing a career of his or her choosing. However, both Monsanto and most government agencies have a policy directing proper management of conflicts of interest. The U,S. government policy can be found here.

This government policy states the following:  

Subpart E – Impartiality in Performing Official Duties

There may be circumstances other than those covered by Subpart D in which employees should not perform official duties in order to avoid an appearance of loss of impartiality. Subpart E contains two disqualification provisions addressing those appearance issues.

The first provision, entitle “Personal and business relationships,” states that employees should obtain specific authorization before participating in certain government matters where their impartiality is likely to be questioned. The matters specifically covered by this standard include those:

• Involving specific parties, such as contracts, grants, or investigations, that are likely to affect the financial interests of members of employees’ households; or
• In which persons with whom employees have specific relationships are parties or represent parties. This would include, for example, matters involving recent employers, employers of spouses or minor children, or anyone with whom the employees have or seek a business or financial relationship.

There are procedures by which employees may be authorized to participate in such matters when it serves the employing agency’s interests. The process set out in Subpart E should be used to address any matter in which an employee’s impartiality is likely to be questioned.

In these cases, the government would decide if there is a conflict of interest regarding a decision about GMOs.

Also, here is a link to additional restrictions placed on political appointees that is stricter than limitations put on non-political appointees.