We started as a small company founded in 1901 to become a multinational conglomerate that is operating in various countries. And here they continue their global impact. Monsanto has started its most lucrative business venture yet. They are starting with genetically modified crops and soon over the years, they will develop as the major player in bioengineering success. But as any of their success stories, it have impacted the lives of millions of people worldwide. Together with their harmless herbicide and their terminator seeds, they have started to change the way our food is being grown.

Monsanto may not exist anymore under that name. Even their website is gone from the internet. but it’s still not likely that we have heard the last of them. They have paved the way for all the other similar companies who disregard the environment and the safety of people all in the name of profit. With the newest lawsuits against them and the millions of dollars they need to pay in damages to its victims we dare hope that maybe they will change their ways. The story is not finished with Monsanto. We will hear all about them in years to come.

Monsanto & genetically modified crops

Monsanto is a corporation that specializes in creating GMO (genetically modified organism) technology and genetically altering seeds, especially soy, to improve crop yield. Their “terminator seeds” are modified to only last one generation to ensure that farmers have to purchase new seeds from the organization. This method poses an environmental concern being that it significantly reduces crop diversity and introduces many GMOs into the earth.

Monsanto is a major producer of genetically modified seeds. Genetic modification occurs when a company changes an organism’s genetic code to give it new traits. For Monsanto, this has translated into seeds that are resistant to its pesticide Roundup, which contains the chemical glyphosate. This allows farmers to use this pesticide to kill pests while leaving their crops intact. Because Monsanto has a patent on its genetically-modified products, farmers cannot reuse Monsanto seeds for future crops but must purchase them from Monsanto each year. Monsanto will file lawsuits against farmers who intentionally violate this agreement. The organization has filed more than 140 lawsuits against farmers and has settled with 700 farmers out of court for patent violations.
Farmers who have attempted to challenge this have not been successful. Many support Monsanto’s right to have control over products that they have spent a significant amount of investment on.
While there may be some agreement on Monsanto’s right to sue farmers who intentionally violate their intellectual property agreements, what about organic or family-owned farms whose crops are inadvertently contaminated with genetically-modified seeds? A major concern among organic farmers is that seeds are often carried on the wind or by pollinators to other fields. This makes it possible for Monsanto’s genetically-modified seeds to contaminate organic crops. The court of appeals has found that Monsanto cannot sue a farmer with a contaminated crop if the contamination constitutes less than one percent of the crop. Monsanto has also reiterated that it will not file lawsuits against farmers whose crops are unintentionally contaminated with their seeds.

However, the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association as well as several farmers filed a lawsuit against Monsanto in March 2011. They wanted greater protection against the company—in particular, a promise that Monsanto would not sue organic or family-owned farms that did not have licenses with Monsanto. The farmers claimed that they are currently only protected if less than one percent of their crops are contaminated. They believe it is unfair for Monsanto to have the ability to file a lawsuit against them if contamination occurred that was unintentional. Monsanto sought to have the lawsuit dismissed. The federal appeals court threw out the lawsuit, and the Supreme Court refused to hear it. They ruled that Monsanto’s promises do not create conflict with
organic farmers who might experience contamination.

Supporters of organic farmers cite the fact that 90 percent of soybeans and 80 percent of corn crops in the nation are genetically modified, so contamination of organic crops is likely. They believe that it does not matter whether less than one percent of the crop is contaminated or not—if contamination was unintentional, it should be treated as such. There is open skepticism of Monsanto’s promise not to sue for inadvertent contamination. However, Monsanto says that a blanket promise stating it would not sue farmers who did not have licensing agreements with the company would be detrimental to its profitability.

The agricultural giant Monsanto has sued hundreds of small farmers in the United States in recent years in attempts to protect its patent rights on genetically engineered seeds that it produces and sells.

The study, produced jointly by the Center for Food Safety and the Save Our Seeds campaigning groups, has outlined what it says is a concerted effort by the multinational to dominate the seeds industry in the US and prevent farmers from replanting crops they have produced from Monsanto seeds.

In its report, called Seed Giants vs US Farmers, the CFS said it had tracked numerous lawsuits that Monsanto had brought against farmers and found some 142 patent infringement suits against 410 farmers and 56 small businesses in more than 27 states. In total the firm has won more than $23m (£14.8m) from its targets, the report said.

Monsanto & Roundup

Roundup Ready crops are crops genetically modified to be resistant to the herbicide Roundup. Roundup is the brand name of a herbicide produced by Monsanto. Its active ingredient glyphosate was patented in the 1970s. Roundup is widely used by both people in their backyards and farmers in their fields. Roundup Ready plants are resistant to Roundup, so farmers that plant these seeds must use Roundup to keep other weeds from growing in their fields.

The first Roundup Ready crops were developed in 1996, with the introduction of genetically modified soybeans that are resistant to Roundup. These crops were developed to help farmers control weeds. Because the new crops are resistant to Roundup, the herbicide can be used in the fields to eliminate unwanted foliage. Current Roundup Ready crops include soy, corn, canola, alfalfa, cotton, and sorghum, with wheat under development.

Roundup Ready crop seeds have notoriously been referred to as “terminator seeds.” This is because the crops produced from Roundup Ready seeds are sterile. Each year, farmers must purchase the most recent strain of seed from Monsanto. This means that farmers cannot reuse their best seed.

Roundup, the most popular and profitable weed killer ever sold, uses glyphosate as its most active ingredient. Glyphosate is toxic to most broadleaf plants and grasses. It kills most plants it comes into contact with, instead of targeting certain weeds or plants.

Monsanto, a now-defunct company, developed the product. Because glyphosate kills anything it touches, Monsanto developed plant seeds that were genetically modified to resist the damage of Roundup. This is when residential Roundup sales skyrocketed.

However, as the years went on, science questioned the safety of glyphosate. Studies have shown that the chemical might cause illness in humans and cause damage to the environment. The International Agency for Research on Cancer categorizes glyphosate as possibly carcinogenic to humans—essentially, the IARC is saying this toxin may cause cancer.

In 2018, Roundup was purchased by Bayer. By then, consumers had filed thousands of lawsuits linking Roundup to cancer. The most common cancer associated with Roundup is non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Bayer committed to begin in 2023 replacing “its glyphosate-based products in the U.S. residential Lawn & Garden market with new formulations that rely on alternative active ingredients.”

Monsanto has settled over 100,000 Roundup lawsuits, paying out about $11 billion as of May 2022. There are still 30,000 lawsuits pending. This includes 4,000 cases in multidistrict litigation (MDL) in California. MDL cases are not class-action suits. Instead, they group cases together so that instead of answering the same question repeatedly in each separate lawsuit, the courts can resolve some specific issues for all of them at once.

In June 2022, the Ninth Circuit filed a decision in a Roundup case. In the court’s opinion, the Ninth Circuit urged the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reconsider its conclusion that Roundup does not cause substantial harm to people or the environment. Also in that month, the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by Bayer in another Roundup case.

In July 2022, the 11th Circuit ruled that Bayer had failed to adequately warn about the risk of cancer from Roundup.

Most lawsuits against Monsanto and, subsequently, Bayer, have been settled. But in 2018, one of the first cases went to trial where a jury found in favor of a California school groundskeeper who used Roundup frequently for many years. The plaintiff’s lawyers showed he was exposed to glyphosate repeatedly, and that was the cause of his cancer.

While the jury did not find that the use of Roundup caused the individual’s cancer, it found that Monsanto and Bayer didn’t do enough to warn the plaintiff that Roundup could cause cancer. Because of that failure, the jury awarded the plaintiff nearly $300 million in damages.

While the EPA suggests that there’s no direct link, the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s stance is more in line with scientific evidence. A study from the University of Washington found that exposure to glyphosate increased an individual’s risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma by 41%. That is significant.

The CDC recently released findings that up to 80% of Americans may have traces of Roundup in their urine, showing they have been exposed to it. Considering that 200 million pounds of Roundup are sprayed annually on U.S. crops, it is not surprising most of the population has been exposed to it.

Monsanto & BST

Bovine somatotropin (BST) is a natural protein hormone that regulates milk production in cows. The hormone can be produced using recombinant DNA technology. This synthetic hormone is called rBST. When injected into cows, rBST can increase milk production by 10% to 20%.

The Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved rBST on November 5, 1993, but use was delayed for 90 days under a provision in the Omnibus Budget and Reconciliation Act passed by Congress in August 1993. Sales of Monsanto’s rBST product, Posilac, were allowed to begin on February 3, 1994, following the completion of a report by the federal executive branch reviewing available evidence on the impact of rBST use.

Despite the FDA approval and the availability of Posilac for use on dairy farms, there continues to be a great deal of controversy surrounding rBST. Some have expressed concern about human health effects due to potential increases in milk antibiotic residues resulting from alleged higher levels of mastitis in cows administered rBST. Other human health concerns include increases in IGF-1 (Insulin-like growth factor) levels and the possible spread of a central nervous system disorder known as spongiform encephalopathies. Other potential human health concerns have also been expressed, but these are the principal ones. Among bovine health concerns that have been raised are lowered resistance to infectious diseases, increased stress, increased mastitis, and lowered fertility.

After years of scientific debate and public controversy, the F.D.A. in 1993 approved the commercial use of rBST, basing its decision in part on studies submitted by Monsanto. That decision allowed the company to market the artificial hormone. The effect of the hormone is to increase milk production, not exactly something the nation needed then—or needs now. The U.S. was actually awash in milk, with the government buying up the surplus to prevent a collapse in prices.

Monsanto began selling the supplement in 1994 under the name Posilac. Monsanto acknowledges that the possible side effects of rBST for cows include lameness, disorders of the uterus, increased body temperature, digestive problems, and birthing difficulties. Veterinary drug reports note that “cows injected with Posilac are at an increased risk for mastitis,” an udder infection in which bacteria and pus may be pumped out with the milk. What’s the effect on humans? The F.D.A. has consistently said that the milk produced by cows that receive rBGH is the same as milk from cows that aren’t injected: “The public can be confident that milk and meat from BST-treated cows is safe to consume.” Nevertheless, some scientists are concerned by the lack of long-term studies to test the additive’s impact, especially on children.

From the beginning, some consumers have consistently been hesitant to drink milk from cows treated with artificial hormones. This is one reason Monsanto has waged so many battles with dairies and regulators over the wording of labels on milk cartons. It has sued at least two dairies and one co-op over labeling.

Critics of the artificial hormone have pushed for mandatory labeling on all milk products, but the F.D.A. has resisted and even taken action against some dairies that labeled their milk “BST-free.” Since BST is a natural hormone found in all cows, including those not injected with Monsanto’s artificial version, the F.D.A. argued that no dairy could claim that its milk is BST-free. The F.D.A. later issued guidelines allowing dairies to use labels saying their milk comes from “non-supplemented cows,” as long as the carton has a disclaimer saying that the artificial supplement does not in any way change the milk.

On this issue, the tide may be shifting against Monsanto. Organic dairy products, which don’t involve rBGH, are soaring in popularity. Supermarket chains such as Kroger, Publix, and Safeway are embracing them. Some other companies have turned away from rBGH products, including Starbucks, which has banned all milk products from cows treated with rBGH. Although Monsanto once claimed that an estimated 30 percent of the nation’s dairy cows were injected with rBST, it’s widely believed that today the number is much lower.

What is happening with Monsanto now?

This is the end of Monsanto as the world has long known it.

New owner Bayer announced that it will nix the brand name as soon as possible when its $66 billion acquisition of Monsanto is expected to be complete.

The merger, approved by the Justice Department will create the largest seed and agrochemical company on Earth, uniting Bayer’s pesticide business with Monsanto’s genetically modified crop portfolio.

In the process of amassing that portfolio, Monsanto has become one of the most hated large companies in the world. Its name is regularly splashed across protest banners and invoked in arguments against the alleged harms of pesticides and GMOs.

The decision to drop Monsanto’s name is part of a wider campaign to win back consumer trust, said Liam Condon, president of Bayer’s Crop Science Division. Bayer chief executive Werner Baumann said the company would redouble its efforts to engage with critics.

Bayer AG’s $63 billion Monsanto purchase has suffered regulatory delays, mounting legal claims, and now will yield lower earnings for the year than earlier forecast. Still, the company’s CEO says he has “no regrets.”

While acquiring Monsanto made Bayer the biggest seed and agricultural chemicals maker in the world, the purchase has been dogged by a series of challenges from regulators and legal pitfalls.

After officials around the world scrutinized the deal’s effect on competition in the consolidating agriculture industry, a legal battle over the weed killer Roundup, one of Monsanto’s most important products, came to the fore.

The deal continued to generate headaches when a California court awarded $289 million to a school groundskeeper who claimed that the herbicide had helped cause his cancer. As of late August, some 8,700 people were seeking damages over glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup—a number that has risen steadily in recent months. More cases are expected, Bayer said.

Bayer contends that Roundup is safe. The company said it’s set aside money for a “vigorous” defense, without saying how much is that going to cost them in the future.

How to avoid Monsanto products?

It seems that more and more people don’t want to use their products anymore. The government distribution can tell us that they are still safe. They can show us hundreds of studies that are made and presented by the same company that sells us poisonous chemicals. The truth is that nobody wants to risk their lives anymore. But to avoid a company that rules the world in seed manufacturing and chemical distributing can be quite hard.

For farmers that refuse to buy genetically modified seeds the best option would be to use heirloom seeds. The heirloom seeds have special characteristics that are desirable in plants. Gardeners have been saving these seeds and handing them down through the generations to ensure that these unique plants stay around for the coming years. Heirloom seeds are open-pollinated, which means that, unlike hybrid seeds, they will produce plants with most of the characteristics of their parent plant. If a seed is being passed down through generations, you have to know it is special. The quality, flavor, hardiness, and beauty of these plants are exceptional. These heirloom seeds have passed several quality tests and do well in your gardens. Heirloom seeds are GMO-free. In other words, heirlooms are not genetically modified – their DNA has not been artificially changed with the genes of other unrelated species.

To better know which brands you need to avoid you need to check the list of companies that Monsanto is doing business with. We need to learn exactly which products we need to avoid. The list of products produced by Monsanto is available online. They also produce non-GMO seeds but if you still don’t have faith in their products then maybe you can avoid them all together.

If you’re not sure if your local company has products from Monsanto you can always ask them to provide you with a list so you know what you need to avoid. Some companies have now started to have things like the Safe Seed Pledge. While they are completely voluntary and non-binding there is still some safety in buying from such companies that are making an effort to provide healthy and safe alternatives for their customers. Hopefully, in the future, the government will get more involved in creating clear labels and certificates to gain new public trust and give us a choice on which products we want to use in our daily lives.