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

Monsanto Company Proxy Item No. 5: Shareowner Proposal

This proposal was submitted by Harrington Investments, Inc., 1001 2^nd Street, Suite 325, Napa, CA 94559, as lead proponent of a filing group. 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 proponents in accordance with the rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the board of directors and the company disclaim any responsibility for its content. We will furnish, orally or in writing as requested, the name, address and claimed share ownership position of the proponents 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 77 under Shareowner Proposals for 2014 Annual Meeting.

Shareowner Statement

Whereas:

The labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is an increasing matter of concern among state legislators across the United States;

Whereas:

Vermont, Alaska, Maine and Nebraska have passed laws requiring labeling of GMOs and at least fifteen states have offered legislation that would require similar labeling;

Whereas:

The biological and physical movement of material derived from genetically engineered crops is difficult and sometimes impossible to control or recall;

Whereas:

Many domestic and global food markets demand foods with zero or near-zero levels of material derived from genetically modified organisms;

Whereas:

Genetically modified crops have been found to contaminate conventional (non-GMO) and organic farms, threatening farmers’ livelihoods, and affecting critical food supply, and imposing a significant financial burden on farmers seeking to satisfy markets for GMO-free products;

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 with:

• Seed contamination, including costs of seed replacement, crop and production losses and clean up, decontamination and continued testing of affected seeds;
• Ongoing buffer zone control, including production acreage losses and on-going maintenance required to secure or maintain access to contamination-sensitive markets;
• Crop, production, and post-harvest losses and associated costs of market rejections, including temporary or permanent market losses resulting from GMO contamination;
• Loss of organic or other third-party certification due to GMO contamination and any costs associated with additional record-keeping, testing or surveillance required to regain certification or retain certification on impacted operations;
• Well water testing and/or groundwater cleanup contamination if found;
• Removal and destruction of contaminated GMO plants;
• Pollinator losses and related damages, e.g. to non-target organisms;
• Soil contamination and on-going related mitigation and remediation costs; and
• Damage to farmers’ reputation, livelihood, and standing in the community.

The report shall also discuss the impact of such a policy regarding such issues and related public policies on our customers and consumers, and shall be available by July 1, 2013.

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

Disclosure of material financial risks or operational impacts on the company is required by SEC reporting requirements and we take seriously our responsibility to identify, analyze and transparently report such risks or potential impacts. Existing processes and procedures are in place that are intended to ensure compliance with SEC disclosure requirements relating to the topics raised by the proponent. An additional report to restate such risks or impacts as suggested in the proposal would be redundant and provide no meaningful additional information to shareowners.

We are committed to the practice of product stewardship which includes careful attention to coexistence and identity preservation. More details are available on our website at https://www.monsanto.com/ourcommitments/Pages/product-stewardship.aspx [2] For example,

• Our Technology Use Guide, which is updated annually, distributed to our customers and posted on our website, provides information specifically about coexistence and identity preservation to our customers, including general instructions for management of mechanical mixing and pollen flow.
• We engage in robust, ongoing dialogue with the seed trade, agricultural value chain and academic community to address the complex subject areas encompassed by the shareowner proposal in a manner consistent with best industry practice. These are routinely discussed in these settings and are well known to the company individuals responsible for identifying and reporting material risks and potential impacts.
• Monsanto is a founding member of “Excellence Through Stewardship,” the agricultural biotechnology industry’s global initiative for advancing best practices in stewardship and quality management. As a member, Monsanto is subject to regular global compliance audits to ensure best practices are being followed. See https://www.excellencethroughstewardship.org/ [2] for more information about this initiative.

Constructive coexistence among diverse segments of agriculture is well established and practiced. It is commonplace to find different agricultural production methods working effectively side by side based on well established practices and a long, successful history in agriculture. Careful management of these production methods is in the interest of all concerned – our company, our customers, the value chain and consumers.

• Farmers and seed companies rely on standards and best practices in seed and grain production, harvest, handling and transportation to support production, distribution and trade of products from different agricultural systems. This is essential to preserve the identity of products to meet market specifications. Examples of identity preserved production include certified seed, specialty oil or protein crops, and crops that meet commercial contract specifications such as organic and non-genetically enhanced specifications.
• Based on historical experience generally accepted agricultural practices to manage production to meet quality specifications have been established. Among these practices are appropriate seed sourcing, field management, storage and handling practices. This array of agricultural planning tools and practices maintains product integrity and quality specifications.

[2] Information contained on this website is for informational purposes only and is not incorporated by reference into this proxy statement.

Source: U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission