Dear Readers,
I have hoped for years that this would continue to happen. After all it is the shareholders that control the company and assess risks as well as ensure that the company is doing a job that not only is profitable but also just. Hopefully this will start a real trend in accountability.
Onward,
Thomas
Shareholder to Monsanto: Be Transparent about Genetically Engineered Food Risks
Sarah Damian
Food Integrity Program, November 4 2011
http://foodwhistleblower.org/blog/22-2011/243-shareholder-to-monsanto-be-transparent-about-genetically-engineered-food-risks-
Biotechnology giant Monsanto continues to tout the benefits of genetically
engineered crops without seriously acknowledging any risks despite concerns
repeatedly raised by farmers, citizen activists and other whistleblowers. Given
the desire to satisfy investors and future profitability, it's not surprising
Monsanto has only emphasized the alleged positives of its products.
However, one of its shareholders has urged Monsanto to be more balanced by
reporting the potential liabilities (that have already been voiced by many).
According to the Santa Barbara Independent, Harrington Investments Inc. (HII) -
a self-identified socially responsible investment advisory firm - submitted in
August a "resolution requesting Monsanto publish a study on the financial risks
and impacts of its genetically modified products."
As a shareholder, HHI can propose corporate changes that may then be voted on at
shareholder meetings every January. In its press release, HHI points out the
multi-hundred million dollar settlements relating to GMOs "that may have an
adverse impact on Monsanto shareholder value."
Directly implicated in actions harming farmers' livelihoods, the environment,
and public health (as mentioned in the press release and frequently brought up
on our FIC blog), Monsanto failed to pass HHI's rigorous social and
environmental screens that determine whether the company can be an investment
option for the firm's clients.
In addition to pushing Monsanto to be more open about all of its financial risks
(another shareholder pressed the company in 2005), HHI has previously raised
other accountability concerns. The Santa Barbara Independent writes:
In 2007, HII submitted a binding bylaw amendment attempting to erode Monsanto's
ability to protect directors after they violated their legal or ethical duties
in cases that negatively impacted the environment, public health, or human
rights. That request was unsuccessful, but HII views its corporate dealings as a
tug of war with a little give and, hopefully, a little get.
HII Research and Advocacy Director Jack Ucciferri believes just probing about
the risks of genetic engineering will bring transparency higher on the radar
screen of fellow shareholders (that, in turn, can hold Monsanto accountable) and
"make progress promoting the issue in the bigger picture."
Monsanto will likely oppose the request to detail its dirty laundry, as the
agribusiness behemoth has consistently disregarded resistance to its so-called
world-hunger-saving crops, and has been a foe to truth-telling in general. But
HHI's position helps bring food integrity issues to the forefront that are hard
to ignore.
As FIC reported earlier this year, Monsanto lobbied in favor of
anti-whistleblower legislation proposed in Iowa. Meanwhile, the company has been
infamous for intimidating farmers that it believes have violated seed patents,
even inadvertently.
But the threats posed by GE crops continue to be unveiled, including by honest
insiders. In a 2006 article posted by Jeffrey Smith (head of the Institute for
Responsible Technology and author of "Seeds of Deception"), former Monsanto
sales representative Kirk Azevedo explains the ostracism he faced when raising
public health concerns regarding Monsanto's GE crops. Proteins produced by the
GE crops "can have allergenic or toxic properties, but no one at Monsanto had
done a safety assessment on them," Azevedo said.
Despite being ignored, his claims have since been echoed by scientists as "one
of the many possible dangers that are not being evaluated by the biotech
industry's superficial safety assessments," the article asserts.
It's easy to guess why Monsanto hasn't delved into the dangers posed by its own
creations. Such financial risk would mean accepting the fact that GE crops are
not a stable investment and would question the technology's viability as the
answer to food needs. But if more and more shareholders speak out and buttress
the concerns of whistleblowers, Monsanto might have to finally address the risks
of GE crops and be held responsible for their impacts on the planet and its
residents.
Sarah Damian is New Media Associate for the Government Accountability Project,
the nation's leading whistleblower protection and advocacy organization.
|
| The Genetic Engineering Blog is produced by Thomas Wittman and EcoFarm,
and supported by a generous donation from the Newman's Own Foundation. |
