Print This PageDoes Monsanto have undue influence on the Government?
Opponents have accused Monsanto and others of improperly influencing governments that have adopted laws or policies supportive of agricultural biotechnology. This simply is not the case.
Monsanto has long been an advocate for improving agriculture with the tools of biotechnology. We believe biotechnology can help make agriculture more productive and sustainable. Forty years from now there will be an additional 3 billion people to feed, clothe and supply with energy. Technology, including biotechnology, is a key element in helping farmers meet the world’s expanding needs.
One of government’s roles in biotechnology is to evaluate input from all sides and make sound policy decisions that benefit the public good. Monsanto, our partners and our opposition have all been active with nearly every government in the world to advocate respective positions on agricultural biotechnology. This is the way it should be. It’s the right and duty of all to participate in such processes.
- Monsanto, like our opponents, does advocate our position before governments. We advocate for supportive policies, regulations and laws which are based on principles of sound science.
- We follow local laws regarding our efforts with governments and conduct routine audits to ensure our efforts are transparent, appropriate and legal.
- In any case where improper and potentially illegal actions are made by company employees or contractors, (See Monsanto Business Practices in Indonesia), they are reported to the proper authorities.
Monsanto and the “Revolving Door”
One objection opponents of biotechnology have raised is the fact that some former U.S. government employees have gone to work for Monsanto, and some company employees have left the company to take jobs in the public sector. Some critics allege that this somehow constitues collusion by Monsanto and the government.
These allegations 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. It makes perfect sense that someone in government who has concluded biotechnology is a positive, beneficial technology might go to work for a biotech company, just as someone who believes otherwise might find employment in an organization which rejects agricultural biotechnology.
The sheer numbers of countries, not to mention farmers, who have embraced agricultural biotechnology, suggest that it’s not undue influence but instead useful technology and sound science that have been the deciding factors.
