2015 Monsanto Shareholder Resolution

Unfortunately, the shareholder resolution was withdrawn in October 2014 and will not be voted on at the 2015 Annual Shareholder Meeting. More details of the demise of the shareholder resolution can be viewed here [PDF].

On August 11, 2014, the following shareholder resolution was submitted to the Monsanto Company:

WHEREAS:
Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide and its key active ingredient, glyphosate, have been linked to various health problems, including chronic kidney disease, https://truth-out.org/news/item/24876-monsantos-herbicide-linked-to-fatal-kidney-disease-epidemic-will-ckdu-topple-monsanto autism, https://www.autismone.org/content/autism-explained-synergistic-poisoning-aluminum-and-glyphosate-stephanie-seneff birth defects, https://earthopensource.org/index.php/reports/roundup-and-birth-defects-is-the-public-being-kept-in-the-dark mammary tumors and pre-mature death, https://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/14 breast cancer, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23756170 blood cancer, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24762670 ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1241196/ Parkinson’s, and https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0892036212000438 celiac disease and gluten intolerance. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24678255

Roundup has never been tested or assessed for long-term safety for regulatory purposes. However, independent studies show it is highly toxic to animals and humans. Glyphosate alone is toxic, and some of the added ingredients (adjuvants) in Roundup are, on their own, toxic. In addition, some of these adjuvants increase the toxicity of glyphosate by enabling it to penetrate plant and animal cells more easily. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1257596/

Roundup is toxic to beneficial gut bacteria but non-toxic to pathogenic bacteria. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23224412

Roundup depletes the body of macro and micronutrients. https://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/48190923/glyphosate-reduces-shoot-concentrations-mineral-nutrients-glyphosate-resistant-soybeans

Roundup interferes with CYP enzymes, disrupts the biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids by gut bacteria, and impairs serum sulfate transport. https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416 The consequences include gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer’s disease.

People exposed to the spraying of Roundup suffer https://www.reduas.fcm.unc.edu.ar/report-from-the-first-national-meeting-of-physicians-in-the-crop-sprayed-towns/ increased incidence of infertility, birth defects, miscarriages, cancers, genetic damage (which can lead to cancer and birth defects), toxic liver disease, neurological developmental problems, kidney failure, respiratory problems, and allergies.

In 2014 in Brazil, the Federal Public Prosecutor https://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2014/15365 requested the Justice Department suspend the use of glyphosate herbicides, and ordered the National Health Surveillance Agency to re-evaluate the toxicity of glyphosate.

Herbicide-tolerant Roundup Ready crops increased herbicide use in the U.S. by an estimated 527 million pounds between 1996 and 2011. https://www.enveurope.com/content/24/1/24

Roundup is commonly found in streams, rain and air in agricultural areas of the US. https://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2909#.U9vktKi1Z0M

Roundup has been found in the blood, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21338670 urine, https://www.foeeurope.org/sites/default/files/press_releases/foee_media_briefing_glyphosate.pdf and breast milk https://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/27/us-monsanto-roundup-epa-idUSKBN0E72IH20140527 of city dwellers.

Parents https://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_30153.cfm and pediatricians https://gmoinside.org/downsides-to-gmo-infant-formula-we-asked-a-pediatrician/ who have monitored children’s exposure to Roundup, have found that health improves when the herbicide is removed from their systems through an organic diet.

RESOLVED:
Shareholders request that the Board establish an independent panel, controlling for conflict of interest, to publish by July 2015, at reasonable cost and excluding proprietary information, a report analyzing the extent to which Monsanto’s Roundup/glyphosate may cause the above health problems, and describing public policy initiatives, and Monsanto policies and activities, to phase out or restrict uses of Roundup/glyphosate that increase human exposure.

Supporting Statement: Proponents believe the report should include all evidence linking Roundup, glyphosate, or Roundup’s inert ingredients or adjuvants, to the above health problems.

— Read the 2014 Shareholder Resolution

Monsanto Rejects GMO Labeling Shareholder Proposal in SEC Proxy Statement

Proxy Item No. 4: Shareowner Proposal One

This proposal was submitted by Adam Eidinger, Washington, D.C. As of July 30, 2013, Mr. Eidinger indicated that he held 75 shares of Monsanto common stock. The proposal has been carefully considered by the board of directors, which has concluded that its adoption would not be in the best interests of the company or its shareowners. For the reasons stated after the proposal, the board recommends a vote “Against” the shareowner proposal.

The proposal and supporting statement are presented as received from the shareowner proponent in accordance with the rules of the SEC, and the board of directors and the company disclaim any responsibility for its content. We will furnish, orally or in writing as requested, the address of the proponent of this shareowner proposal promptly upon written or oral request directed to the company’s Secretary.

Information regarding the inclusion of proposals in Monsanto’s proxy statement can be found on page 82 under Shareowner Proposals for 2015 Annual Meeting.

Shareowner Statement
WHEREAS:

• Genetic engineering is the direct manipulation of an organism’s genome using biotechnology.
• For thousands of years, mankind has modified plants through grafting, artificial selection, and without the use of genetic engineering.
• Transgenic DNA produced through modern genetic engineering is not found in natural foods and was not in the food supply of previous generations of mankind.
• Americans have the right to know what they are eating.
• U.S. law does not require the labeling of patented biotechnology in foods sold in grocery stores.
• Company stands by its products and believes they are safe.
• Due to the uncertainty regarding the potential negative side effects of genetic engineering on humans, animals, and the environment, it is imperative that the Company be transparent with customers concerning our labeling efforts.
• The Company’s Pledge [1] says that we will ensure that “information is available, accessible, and understandable.”
• Transparency provides consumers the power to decide what kind of foods are grown on farms and served on dinner tables.
• Over 60 countries around the world have regulations concerning the labeling of foods produced using genetic engineering.
• In 2002, the Company said “Food Labeling. It has Monsanto’s Full Backing” in regards to the labeling of genetically engineered foods in the United Kingdom.
• In 2013, there was legislation introduced in over two dozen U.S. state legislatures concerning the labeling of foods created using genetic engineering.
• The state legislatures of Connecticut and Maine have passed legislation requiring foods sold in those states to be labeled if they were produced using genetic engineering, but only 4 or more other New England states pass similar legislation.
• The Company spent $8,112,866.55 in 2012 to prevent California residents from voting to increase transparency in their state’s food labels.
• As of July 2013, the Company has spent $242,156.25 to prevent Washington state residents from voting to increase transparency in their state’s food labels.
• The money spent by the Company to prevent legislation that discloses whether food produced using genetic engineering dilutes shareowners earnings per share.
• The Company believes that nationwide regulations are needed to prevent 56 different state & territory food labeling laws.

RESOLVED: The Monsanto Board shall prepare a report, at reasonable expense and omitting proprietary information, assessing any material financial risks or operational potential impacts on the Company in order to:

• Work with the FDA to develop food labeling guidelines for American consumers that discloses whether genetic engineering was used to produce the food;
• Work with the FDA to develop standard threshold of 0.9% or higher for foods created with genetic engineering
• Analyze the inclusion of U.S. patent numbers on American food labels where patented biotechnology was used to produce the food;

The report shall be available by July 1, 2014 and be posted online on our Company’s website. In order to ensure that our Company upholds its pledge of transparency, we urge a vote FOR this resolution.
[1] “Our Pledge” – Transparency: https://www.monsanto.com/whoweare/Pages/monsanto-pledge.aspx

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECOMMENDS A VOTE “AGAINST” THE FOREGOING PROPOSAL FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:

Food is one of the most important and significant facets of our world. It is a critically important issue to everyone and is the focus of debates and dialogues from the halls of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization in Rome, to the grocery store aisles in Buenos Aires, to the open markets in Cairo. There are diverse points of views on everything from food security, to subsidies, to sustainable intensification, to loss and waste, to distribution systems and even to labeling. It matters to people where food comes from, how it is produced, and how food safety is ensured. As a seed company that participates in the agriculture food value chain, we are actively listening to and participating with others in this dialogue about food. In addition:

• Our work in agriculture represents just one component of a broad and diverse food value chain that involves many parties. The proponent is seeking a report about the impact of the company’s working with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to effect a change in labeling on consumer food products. These are not Monsanto products nor are they manufactured, controlled, packaged or labeled by our company. We sell seed to farmers, who often sell their crop harvest to a grain processor, who sells grain or ingredients to a food company, who may further process the ingredients, then manufacture the food item, which it then sells to a retailer, who ultimately sells the finished product to a consumer. As a company that is focused on agricultural productivity and which sells products to farmers our position in the chain does not afford us the expertise that would inform an assessment of consumer food packaging information.
• Genetically modified (GM) crops are but one important tool that farmers may choose in engaging in sustainable agriculture. Farmers, whether they adopt conventional, GM or organic seeds, employ a variety of production practices to control weeds and pests and improve the yield of their crops. In order to reduce the need for topical controls or other practices, millions of farmers around the world choose to control weeds and pests, and protect their crops’ yield, through GM seeds, which incorporate a new gene in the seed, such as a protein from a bacterium that is commonly applied over the top of conventional and organic crops to control pests.
• We support current FDA guidance on food labeling which is based on the attributes of the food itself. In the United States, the FDA regulates the safety and labeling of foods and food products derived from crops (conventional, GM, and organic), and all must meet the same safety requirements. FDA guidance requires labeling of food products containing ingredients derived from GM crops if there is a meaningful difference in composition, nutrition or safety between that food and its counterpart derived from conventional crops. In the absence of such a difference, the FDA has determined that mandatory labeling is not required. The American Medical Association (AMA) supports the FDA’s approach and approved a formal statement asserting that there is no scientific justification for special labeling of foods containing GM ingredients. FDA guidance does not require labeling of production practices used by farmers employing conventional or organic methods to control weeds and pests and improve their yields.
• We support voluntary labeling to support consumer choice, provided the label is truthful and not misleading. We recognize that some consumers may prefer to avoid foods that contain GM ingredients. Food companies recognize this as well, and are providing these customers the choices they prefer through organic offerings or by voluntarily labeling their products “non-GM”. People who prefer to purchase non-GM foods can easily find such products. The FDA allows food manufacturers to label their products voluntarily to indicate certain attributes or production methods (e.g., organic, conventional or GM), provided the label is truthful and not misleading. We support this approach and are pleased to sell our seed products to farmers employing any of these production methods. For more information about our views on consumer choice and proposals that would mandate labeling of food products containing GM ingredients, please visit https://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/food-labeling.aspx.
• We believe that mandatory labeling of GM ingredients where there is no meaningful difference in nutrition or safety could confuse and mislead consumers. Demands for mandatory labeling of GM ingredients as a matter of consumer choice may instead lead to a reduction in consumer choice by misleading consumers into thinking products bearing such a label are not safe, are less nutritious or are otherwise inferior to similar products without the label. Indeed, the pejorative connotation of a mandatory label could result in consumers viewing it as a warning statement that could scare them about the foods they have come to like and trust. The suggestion advanced in the proposal is that the company should advocate for the proponent’s preference for labeling consumer food products, which is contrary to the position we have stated publicly and contrary to the views of our customers and the food value chain.
• We support transparency and dialogue about biotechnology and our products, both with our customers and with consumers. In the United States, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, of which the company is a member, recognizes that some consumers may have questions about GM production methods and food ingredients and is providing information through a dedicated website, https://factsaboutgmos.org/. This site informs readers that if the ingredient label on a food or beverage in the U.S. indicates that the product contains corn or soy, the product most likely contains ingredients derived from GM seeds because a very high percentage of corn and soy in the United States is grown from GM seed products. In addition, www.monsanto.com, provides extensive information about biotechnology benefits and safety, generally, and Monsanto’s genetically modified seed products, specifically. Recently, Monsanto has worked with other seed companies to make additional information about agricultural biotechnology available to interested consumers. The website GMOanswers (https://www.gmoanswers.com) invites consumers to ask questions about agricultural biotechnology. General safety and benefits questions are addressed by independent experts; company-specific questions are addressed by company representatives.
• Assessing the inclusion of U.S. patent numbers related to biotechnology on American food labels is unrelated to our business and such labeling would likely be disruptive to the food supply chain. The consumer food product labels that the proposal suggests analyzing are unrelated to our business of selling seed products to farmers. The proposed assessment would provide no meaningful information to shareowners. The proposal appears to suggest that the inclusion of patent numbers on product labels might serve as indicia that a product contains ingredients derived from GM seeds. The food manufacturer would then be burdened with significant compliance challenges if required to specifically identify the variety of seeds that produced grain that was ultimately processed in the food. Given the extensive pre-commercial food safety assessment and regulatory reviews by government officials, the U.S. food system operates effectively and efficiently in managing commodity crops, such as corn, soy and cotton. A separate program would be required to harvest, crush, store, transport and process by particular seed varieties, in order to enable labeling to that level of specificity, and would undermine the system.

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECOMMENDS
A VOTE “AGAINST”
THIS SHAREOWNER PROPOSAL
AND YOUR PROXY WILL BE SO VOTED IF THE PROPOSAL IS PRESENTED
UNLESS YOU SPECIFY OTHERWISE

SOURCE: Page 76, Monsanto Company Proxy Statement, Securities and Exchange Commission

During the Cold War 2,4-D was an Agent of Biological Warfare

Currently, the USDA is reviewing GMO crops designed to withstand 2,4-D and Dicamba. However, 50 years ago 2,4-D, otherwise known as 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid, was considered a agent of biological warfare that could kill farmers crops. Agent Orange, used by the U.S. military as part of its herbicidal warfare program, Operation Ranch Hand, during the Vietnam War from 1961 to 1971, caused thousands of birth defects. Agent Orange is half 2,4-D and half 2,4,5-T, which means these GMO crops are very toxic to humans and the environment. Worse, if approved, these toxic GMOs wouldn’t be required to be labeled.

“Before disaster strikes.. What the Farmer Should Know About Biological Warfare”
Federal Civil Defense Administration Handbook, 1955

POSSIBLE METHODS OF ATTACK

The methods of attack which seem more likely are:
1. Destructive dusts from airplanes carrying chemical plant growth inhibitors, such as 2,4-D or 2,4,5-T.
2. Large scale aerial dissemination of disease-producing spores.
3. Secret introduction of foreign plant diseases or insects new to this country.

Boycott the Grocery Manufacturers Association Member Companies

Below is the current list of companies that are fighting to stop GMO labeling through their membership with the Grocery Manufacturers Association. As October 1, 2013, the GMA has spent $7,222,500.00 in the state of Washington to prevent the passage of Initiative 522.

BOYCOTT THE FOLLOWING COMPANIES UNTIL THEY CANCEL THEIR MEMBERSHIP WITH THE GROCERY MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION!

(more…)

New Monsanto Shareholder Resolution Supports GMO Labeling

TO:
Monsanto Company
Corporate Secretary
David Snively
800 North Lindbergh Blvd.
Mail Stop A3NA
St. Louis, Missouri 63167

RE: Shareholder Proposal

Dear Corporate Secretary,

As a beneficial owner of Monsanto Company stock, I am submitting the enclosed shareholder resolution for inclusion in the proxy statement for the 2014 meeting in accordance with Rule 14a-8 of the General Rules and Regulations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”). I am the beneficial owner, as defined in Rule 13d-3 of the Act, of at least $2,000 in market value of Monsanto common stock. I have held these securities for more than one year as of the filing date and will continue to hold at least the requisite number of shares for a resolution through the shareholder’s meeting. I have enclosed a copy of Proof of Ownership as well. I or a representative will attend the shareholder’s meeting to move the resolution as required.

Sincerely,
Adam Eidinger
Activist Shareholder

WHEREAS:

• Genetic engineering is the direct manipulation of an organism’s genome using biotechnology.
• For thousands of years, mankind has modified plants through grafting, artificial selection, and without the use of genetic engineering.
• Transgenic DNA produced through modern genetic engineering is not found in natural foods and was not in the food supply of previous generations of mankind.
• Americans have the right to know what they are eating.
• U.S. law does not require the labeling of patented biotechnology in foods sold in grocery stores.
• The Company stands by its products and believes they are safe.
• Due to the uncertainty regarding the potential negative side effects of genetic engineering on humans, animals, and the environment, it is imperative that the Company be transparent with customers concerning our labeling efforts.
• The Company’s Pledge [1] says that we will ensure that “information is available, accessible, and understandable.”
• Transparency provides consumers the power to decide what kind of foods are grown on farms and served on dinner tables.
• Over 60 countries around the world have regulations concerning the labeling of foods produced using genetic engineering.
• In 2002, the Company said “Food Labeling. It has Monsanto’s Full Backing” in regards to the labeling of genetically engineered foods in the United Kingdom.
• In 2013, there was legislation introduced in over two dozen U.S. state legislatures concerning the labeling of foods created using genetic engineering.
• The state legislatures of Connecticut and Maine have passed legislation requiring foods sold in those states to be labeled if they were produced using genetic engineering, but only after 4 or more other New England states pass similar legislation.
• The Company spent $8,112,866.55 in 2012 to prevent California residents from voting to increase transparency in their state’s food labels.
• As of July 2013, the Company has spent $242,156.25 to prevent Washington state residents from voting to increase transparency in their state’s food labels.
• The money spent by the Company to prevent legislation that discloses whether food produced using genetic engineering dilutes shareowners earnings per share.
• The Company believes that nationwide regulations are needed to prevent 56 different state & territory food labeling laws.

RESOLVED:

The Monsanto Board shall prepare a report, at reasonable expense and omitting proprietary information, assessing any material financial risks or operational potential impacts on the Company in order to:

• Work with the FDA to develop food labeling guidelines for American consumers that discloses whether genetic engineering was used to produce the food;
• Work with the FDA to develop a standard threshold of 0.9% or higher for foods created with genetic engineering;
• Analyze the inclusion of U.S. patent numbers on American food labels where patented biotechnology was used to produce the food;

The report shall be available by July 1, 2014 and be posted online on our Company’s website.

In order to ensure that our Company upholds its pledge of transparency, we urge a vote FOR this resolution.

[1] “Our Pledge” – Transparency: https://www.monsanto.com/whoweare/Pages/monsanto-pledge.aspx

Guest Post: Trans-Pacific Partnership and Monsanto

Trans-Pacific Partnership and Monsanto

by Barbara Chicherio

Something is looming in the shadows that could help erode our basic rights and contaminate our food. The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) has the potential to become the biggest regional Free Trade Agreement in history, both in economic size and the ability to quietly add more countries in addition to those originally included. As of 2011 its 11 countries accounted for 30% of the world’s agricultural exports. Those countries are the US, Australia, Brunei, Chile, Canada, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. Recently, Japan has joined the negotiations.

Six hundred US corporate advisors have had input into the TPP. The draft text has not been made available to the public, press or policy makers. The level of secrecy around this agreement is unparalleled. The majority of Congress is being kept in the dark while representatives of US corporations are being consulted and privy to the details.

The chief agricultural negotiator for the US is the former Monsanto lobbyist, Islam Siddique. If ratified the TPP would impose punishing regulations that give multinational corporations unprecedented right to demand taxpayer compensation for policies that corporations deem a barrier to their profits.
There appears not to be a specific agricultural chapter in the TPP. Instead, rules affecting food systems and food safety are woven throughout the text. This agreement is attempting to establish corporations’ rights to skirt domestic courts and laws and sue governments directly with taxpayers paying compensation and fines directly from the treasury.

Though TPP content remains hidden, here are some things we do know:

· Members of Congress are concerned that the TPP would open the door to imports without resolving questions around food safety or environmental impacts on its production.

· Procurement rules specifically forbid discrimination based on the quality of production. This means that public programs that favor the use of sustainably produced local foods in school lunch programs could be prohibited.

· The labeling of foods containing GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) will not be allowed. Japan currently has labeling laws for GMOs in food. Under the TPP Japan would no longer be able to label GMOs. This situation is the same for New Zealand and Australia. In the US we are just beginning to see some progress towards labeling GMOs. Under the TPP GMO labels for US food would not be allowed.

· In April 2013, Peru placed a 10-year moratorium on GMO foods and plants. This prohibits the import, production and use of GMOs in foods and GMO plants and is aimed at safeguarding Peru’s agricultural diversity. The hope is to prevent cross-pollination with non-GMO crops and to ban GMO crops like Bt corn. What will become of Peru’s moratorium if the TPP is passed?

· There is a growing resistance to Monsanto’s agricultural plans in Vietnam. Monsanto (the US corporation controlling an estimated 90% of the world seed genetics) has a dark history with Vietnam. Many believe that Monsanto has no right to do business in a country where Monsanto’s product Agent Orange is estimated to have killed 400,000 Vietnamese, deformed another 500,000 and stricken another 2 million with various diseases.

Legacies of other trade agreements that serve as a warning about the TPP. Trade agreements have a history of displacing small farmers and destroying local food economies. Ten years following the passage of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) 1.5 million Mexican farmers became bankrupt because they could not compete with the highly subsidized US corn entering the Mexican market.

In the same 10 years Mexico went from a country virtually producing all of its own corn to a country that now imports at least half of this food staple. Mexican consumers are now paying higher prices for Monsanto’s GMO corn.

With little or no competition for large corporations Monsanto, DuPont and Syngenta now control 57% of the commercial food market.

While the TPP is in many ways like NAFTA and other existing trade agreements, it appears that the corporations have learned from previous experience. They are carefully crafting the TPP to insure that citizens of the involved countries have no control over food safety, what they will be eating, where it is grown, the conditions under which food is grown and the use of herbicides and pesticides.
If the TPP is adopted the door will be open wider for human rights and environmental abuse. Some of the things we should expect to see include:
· more large scale farming and more monocultures;
· destruction of local economies;
· no input into how our food is grown or what we will be eating;
· more deforestation;
· increased use of herbicides and pesticides;
· more industrial pollution;
· increased patenting of life forms;
· more GMO plants and foods; and
· no labeling of GMOs in food.

Together these are a step backwards for human rights and a giant step towards Monsanto’s control of our food.

Please pass the word to others about the TPP as most Americans are unaware of this trade agreement or its ominous effects if passed.

Barbara Chicherio is treasurer of the Gateway Green Alliance and National Committee member of the Green Party USA.