6 votes

Letter To The Ceo Of Monsanto - Finished - Join Me!

Please express your thoughts regarding the letter below. I will be submitting via US certified, return-receipt and restricted delivery mail next week. Thank you in advance for any and all interest in my concerns regarding GMO's.

November 13, 2013

Monsanto Company
Attn: Hugh Grant, CEO
800 N. Lindbergh Blvd.
St. Louis, MO 63167

To the direct and sole attention of Hugh Grant, Chief Executive Officer of Monsanto,

This letter has been sent in order to express one man’s sole impression of the work by which Monsanto has and continues to garner ownership of nature itself by methods of biotechnology. I would like to bring attention to a statement you made regarding human rights and how such statement has partially prompted this letter.

“As an agricultural and technology company committed to human rights, we have a unique opportunity to protect and advance human rights. We have a responsibility to consider not only how our business can benefit consumers, farmers, and food processors, but how it can protect the human rights of both Monsanto’s employees and our business partners’ employees.” - Hugh Grant - Monsanto's website.

Is it possible for you to explain how Monsanto’s opportunity to protect and advance human rights is unique when ultimately contingent upon and assured by the manipulation and genetic modification of the life code of selective and staple crops? I find it difficult to accept the claim of the protection of human rights when seemingly reduced to some presumed permissibility to morph and therefore claim ownership by governmental approval of patent. Ownership of and the profits acquired by derision of the structural and fundamental integrity of the genealogy of life doesn’t seem an admirable use of opportunity in order to protect or advance the rights of human beings.

The responsibility you state for the benefit of consumers, farmers and food processors is not easily recognized in the shadows of global controversy and the outright banning of GMO foods/ingredients in most developed countries. Even the importation of GMO foods/ingredients is banned by many countries and the most recent opposition to your responsibilities in the consideration of consumer benefit has been massively supported in the presentment of legislation in California and Washington. Can you explain how your responsibility extends to the benefit of consumers when Monsanto gave over $8 million to assist in the defeat of Proposition 37 in California and $4.8 million to assist in the defeat of I-522 in Washington State this month?

The call for labeling is growing and it would seem that if Monsanto is advocating the protection and advancement of human rights as a unique opportunity and commitment, such advocacy would be displayed in forthright and transparent revelation of the modifications they so esteem and deem necessary to the benefit of consumers, farmers and food processors. The argument against GMO’s and/or the labeling of GMO’s is not an argument lost in translation. The argument is for and about our children and their future, their ability to regulate and support their own health without the disadvantageous task of deciphering what foods do or do not contain modified genealogies.

The ultimate matter of importance is that people have the endowed right to know what they are not only ingesting, but what they are allowing their children to ingest, especially when our children are dependent upon the decisions we make for them. The ultimate matter of importance also pertains to the infringement upon our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Not only does genetic modification directly infringe upon the life coding by its very alteration of it, the subsequent infringement upon the lives of those consuming the genetically modified foods is inevitable. And the fact that ALL of those consumers are being kept aloof of the genetic tampering albeit to the tune of millions of dollars is not only embarrassing, but quite shameful.

This letter is not advocating Federal legislation for labeling GMO’s under penalties of fine or otherwise. This letter is not even advocating State legislation for labeling GMO’s under penalties of fine or otherwise. This letter is advocating for the human right to education and transparency regarding a fundamental and global necessity for Organic, Non-GMO food as a means to health, self-preservation and survival itself. What consideration has been given by Monsanto to the recent spate of Indian-farmer suicides due to bearing witness to the destruction of the integrity of their generational crops, misrepresentation of profitability of genetically modified cotton, the destruction of alternatives and the increasing vulnerability of monocultures creating a context for debt and agrarian distresses? Is this how Monsanto is serving some ideal of protecting and advancing human rights?

Monsanto settled in 1984 along with Dow Chemical to pay a $180 million settlement to American Vietnam war veterans who were complaining of long-lasting effects from the use of Agent Orange. I wouldn’t necessarily categorize this as giving consideration on the part of Monsanto as it was only due to the injurious effects of a product they patented and manufactured for warfare-turned efforts. Was the $100 million paid in the form of royalties to the University of California, who claimed violations were made by Monsanto to its patent of bovine somatotropin (Posilac) an example of genuine consideration for Monsanto’s consumers, farmers or food processors? Are the antitrust issues arising from fear that Monsanto is seeking to have an agricultural monopoly and the lawsuits filed in accord with these fears an example of Monsanto’s genuine consideration for consumers, farmers or food processors?

In September of 2012 a French study was published showing the effects of Monsanto’s NK603 - a seed variety made tolerant to dousings of Roundup on laboratory rats. These rats were fed a lifetime diet of the genetically modified corn or were exposed to its top-selling weed killer Roundup or were given water containing Roundup at levels permitted in the United States. It was found that those rats died earlier than those on a standard diet. These rats suffered mammary tumors and multiple organ damage inclusive of severe liver and kidney damage according to the study’s findings. The study was published in the peer-review journal Food and Chemical Toxicology and was presented at a news conference in London.

This study was conducted by researchers that flagged previous safety concerns based on a shorted study of 90 days of rats fed such GMO diets. Such researchers involved in this study, namely Gilles-Eric Seralini of the University of Caen and colleagues said that 50 percent of males and 70 percent of females died prematurely due to Monsanto’s NK603, compared with 30 percent and 20 percent in the control group. What consideration has Monsanto given to the protection of human rights by virtue and release of such study? Is it not concerning enough that such illnesses sprung in another species or that the correlation between what you have patented for ingestion is shown to increase the probability of such illnesses? What consideration has Monsanto given regarding human rights when studies such as these display such disparity in the efficacy and safety of GMO ingredients?

What authority does Monsanto have to assume the permissibility of those life-forms they modify and engineer? What authority do the United States Patent Office and other International Patent Offices have in order that such resources of survival be subject to modes and processes for the granting of ownership over them? And what authority therein do these governmental bodies have in order that such ownership is granted to corporate, artificial persons whose better interests lie in maintaining human rights for their employees and business partners’ employees by their so-called advances to hold progressive and monopolized patents on altered and unnatural life forms?

It would be greatly appreciated and is expected that if you hold your responsibilities genuinely for the benefit of us as consumers you will find importance in responding to the questions posed in this genuine letter of concern. Thank you for your time and I look forward to your genuine response.

With the utmost sincerity,

Peace and Love always.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Complete revision


I am approaching this from a completely different angle.

Father - Husband - Son - Spirit - Consciousness

The single greatest impact

we can have on Monsanto is to choose non-GMO, Organic foods. My letter will most likely be delegated to a subordinate for a template response, but at least I sent one. It is the only way I can sleep at night.

Father - Husband - Son - Spirit - Consciousness

and bingo was his name...

and bingo was his name...

The point is...

I don't want to eat unnatural, genetically altered foods! When did we [Monsanto] receive permission to play [God] and make profits in doing so...it is fundamentally unjustified.

Father - Husband - Son - Spirit - Consciousness

Thanks Granger...

I will adjust...but I can't help but believe Monsanto was behind this retraction in some monetary way.

Father - Husband - Son - Spirit - Consciousness

Too many people

think they cannot make a difference by writing and expressing their hearts through written means. If you are writing from the heart, you are an activist of the most important kind.

Father - Husband - Son - Spirit - Consciousness

Are there willing DP'ers

who will affix your signature to this letter?

Father - Husband - Son - Spirit - Consciousness

The Pen

Just before I read your post yesterday, I saw this article http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/29/us-science-gm-retr...

(Reuters) - The publisher of a controversial and much-criticized study suggesting genetically modified corn caused tumors in rats has withdrawn the paper after a year-long investigation found it did not meet scientific standards.

Reed Elsevier's Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT)journal, which published the study by the French researcher Gilles-Eric Seralini in September 2012, said the retraction was because the study's small sample size meant no definitive conclusions could be reached.

Because of the article which you refer in your letter has been retracted, whether you agree or not, the company that published the report retracted it.

I felt at the time, I didn't want to be a downer to your letter, but I do believe that it needs to be adjusted because of this news, and you may want to read up on Monsanto because they are preparing a promotion campaign.

I appreciate your effort

but aren't we past writing letters to these criminals?

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

I'm not...

and sadly too many are...like I said earlier, imagine for a second 1,000,000 letters sent on the same day to this person...imagine the impact of popular, genuine inquiry.

Father - Husband - Son - Spirit - Consciousness

OK, a million letters, maybe

But they would all have to be different and not just signed off on. I do think if a million Americans sent him a fish wrapped in newspaper it would have a better effect

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

So why not be #2

we have nothing left to lose.

Father - Husband - Son - Spirit - Consciousness

Because for me personally I am beyond believing letters will

work. How about burning them at a stake? We can use a copy of your letter as fire starter!

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

Fair enough then...

but violence isn't the way...and you are correct that my letter could be a fire starter!

Father - Husband - Son - Spirit - Consciousness

Isn't what they are doing violent against all mankind?

Good luck with your letter!!!!!

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

DJP333's picture

Bump and Bravo!

we are what we eat

"It’s not pessimistic, brother, because this is the blues. We are blues people. The blues aren’t pessimistic. We’re prisoners of hope but we tell the truth and the truth is dark. That’s different." ~CW

Nice Picture!

But, sadly if you do eat GMO it is like killing yourself with a gun.