In response to the first point:

I stand corrected. I will add that in the context in which the statement was made the mistake isn’t all that consequential, since from a business perspective “licensed for one year” has the same force as “sterile.” But still, the correction is necessary so as not to entangle my argument with another dispute about so-called terminator technology. It’s true, as far as I’m aware, that Monsanto responded to pressure not to commercialize terminator technology. Three cheers for public pressure and for response to it! Let’s have more of both.

To answer the second point:

Suicides in India are indeed a complex issue. As far as I understand it, Monsanto wasn’t the only company involved and the messiness of doing business in India confused responsibility somewhat. Although suicide has been a means of resolving impossible debts for some time, this particular epidemic of suicide has been attributed directly to failed agricultural policies involving GM crops. (see http://tr.im/sl5j and http://tr.im/sl5T)

I really appreciate the time you have taken to do the research for your writing. I’ve been following your mindcasting on Twitter, and it’s been interesting to watch. I work at Monsanto and wanted to respond to a few items.

1) We do not sell sterile seeds. This is a common misconception. Seeds are viable, and that’s therefore one of the reasons we have growers sign an agreement stating they will not replant the offspring the next season. This is more of a concern in soybeans, where the offspring is genetically consistent with that of the parent seed. In corn, where hybrids are more the norm, farmers buy seed each year because the hybrid vigor decreases in subsequent generations, but the seed is not sterile. Additionally, hybrids were introduced before the advent of GMO or biotech. We have made a commitment not to sell sterile seed: http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto_today/for_the_record/monsanto_terminator_seeds.asp

2) Indian suicides are a complex issue, and occurred long before the introduction of GMOs. We’ve covered this issue extensively on our Web site. Here is another link: http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto_today/for_the_record/india_farmer_suicides.asp

I would agree that for a long time we have been focused on the producer, helping him/her to increase his yields, reduce pesticides including insecticides, and become overall more profitable. Seed costs are figured by examining what other inputs the technology is replacing (i.e. insect-tolerant corn means less insecticide spraying so insecticide costs are transferred to seed price). However, there is more research being done to discover ways GMO can benefit consumers – both public and private. One such example is Monsanto’s work into soybeans that will provide a land-based source of Omega-3s.

http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto_today/2009/pledge_omega3_soybeans.asp

Thanks for the opportunity to comment.