Why is everything they persue tied to global domination. Their seed patents are ridiculous. Use their product once and basically you are contract bound for life. Why is this ALWAYS their ultimate goal? Also, why are their past and present products being found out to be so bad for human health? They have had RD departments forever and yet the side effects of their products are being treated as new information to them. Awful similar to the cigarette gameplans of old.

I am getting older and forgetful. But with Monsanto all my complaints origion derrive from the use of their "round up ready" seeds. I recall news reports from years back on if you used their seeds for say corn one year they could sue you the next year if you did not use them because of carry over crops. Also claiming suits against neighboring fields because of cross pollination. Now the chemicals in their products that are insecicide driven are also being found unhealthy in humans and cattle which are fed the crop products. The weed kller is just that it was sooooo toxic to all forms of life but never really reported as harmful until monsanto got out of that businesss. Sorry no sources, but you may want to just google claims against them. Good luck, hope to see your posting of the interview!

NaturalNews.com has many articles on Monsanto.

One of note to me was a death bed letter by an EPA official telling her colleagues not to bend and break rules for the evil giant any longer and to make public the false safety studies Monsanto paid to publish and buried others such as the studies that showed canceringens of glyphosate and GMO products destroying gut flora etc. They touted their GMO rice as a poverty and hunger elminating product but between the contract requirements, not being allowed to save seed year to year as farms have done for millennia and the pollution caused by glyphosate. Also they hid how much more water it takes to grow than native grains as well.

They have waged wars in farmers trolling their farms and suing them until they lose their land, are bankrupt and impoverished one farmer in tbe documentary I watched vad discovered GMO "round up ready" canola after he bought and paid for Round Up and used it to spray his land next to major road ways go control weeds under power lines and fence lines etc. The seeds must have blown from wind or out of trucks in transit to or from the neighboring farms and he didnt want it on his property to begin with. Monsanto sued and sued him. Tens of thousands in lawyers.

Evil company through and through. I hope you look up these articles. Monsanto pays a lot for control of any journalists or even forum or reddit posts will suddenly get swarmed by hired responders pretending to be organic commenters.

And now they are joined with Bayer. That's insane and not going to be good for us or the environment. I wonder at the move. Probablh have some GMO based pharmaceuticals in the pipeline.

You're absolutely right. If you're going into an interview with multiple employees, you'll need good sourcing or they'll wipe the floor with your questions and spin everything to sound positive. I'll dig up some links when I have the opportunity.

I noticed the first few responses didn't include sourcing, so I'll offer a few links on general topics that fall within the realm of something that could lead to a more informed exchange with these employees. I will say that I'm very appreciative of what you're doing, but caution you to be careful dealing with the PR team for one of the world's most powerful corporate entities. Whoever you are, changes are they have more experience burying bad publicity than you do in generating it. I don't mean that to sound disparaging towards you, but rather to acknowledge their propensity for coming out on top.

Monsanto hides Roundup links to cancer

Glyphosate in urine

Glyphosate ruled to "probably" cause cancer

California Proposition 65 - Roundup links to cancer

Why have they spent so much money fighting GMO labeling bills?

Why does Monsanto sue farmers who replace their crops the following year?

How do you deal, in terms of corporate culture, with the Agent Orange legacy?

Also what do you think of this popular stance consisting in noting that modern agro-industry is the successor, and essentially a refurbished version of, WW2 war industry? (Whereby explosives manufacturers convertd into fertilizers, combat gas/chemicals vendors became pesticide supplier, and machinery/tank/artillery builders devlopped the modern tractor). How does Montsanto fit into this equation?

It'd be easier to formulate questions if we knew the job titles of who you were interviewing.

I assuming PR? Most large corporations I've worked for not only had a strict no press contact, I was restricted in what I could discuss with friends and family.

And they've the go ahead to speak on the record on any subject? Very little upside with tons of potential downside. Well done!

If you give their names, I'll be happy to reach out to their external relations Mr and give you their titles.

I'm not sure how big the difference is between the mainland Monsanto departments vs Hawaii Monsanto departments (or if there is even a difference at all), but thought it was relevant to reiterate that.

You may want to look into that.. :)

Looking forward to the interview!

How'd you arrange it, and why do you think they are willing to speak on the record for someone with a new channel on YouTube, especially with non PR folk?

That sounds awesome!

Keep up the good work!

http://www.richroll.com/podcast/zach-bush-353/

1. How is it that the U.S. government always gives Monsanto a pass on their actions, regardless of how evil, dishonest & harmful they may be.

2. Did Bayer acquire Monsanto as part of a contest to become the most evil corporation possible?

1) why won’t you allow farmers to collect their own seeds?

2) will you prosecute someone whose non-Monsanto crop mixes with patented seeds through natural pollination?

3) are you still pursuing “terminator genes” that make plants sterile after one growth cycle? Do you recognize how dangerous this could be to non-Monsanto crops through cross-pollination?

3.) If they're sterile how can they pollinate? Pollination is plant reproduction dude.and Monsanto isn't persuing it, they've promised not to do.

2) complete myth that has never happened, Monsanto will only prosecute if you willfully replant you GMO seeds, and thus break IP laws.

1) farmers rarely reharvest seeds it's time consuming and a money drain. They re buy seeds every year. But to answer your question it takes millions of dollars to make GMO traits. If they allowed plants to be replanted, someone could steal all of that work and make cheap knock offs.

3) a sterile plant could still pollinate. The stamen could absolutely still release pollen while the pistil cannot bind it or make a viable seed. I’m a microbiologist, I understand how this works and have had face to face contact with employees at their STL headquarters. I know what I’m talking about.

2) this has absolutely happened multiple times in Latin America. Research their partnership with Twist DX and the field test kits designed exactly for catching people using Monsanto genetics regardless of cross pollination

1) again - Latin America and other developing nations absolutely collect seeds. Monsanto has global influence and actively lobbies for laws to “protect their patent” at the cost of local farmers who can’t afford their products.

Do some research about their practices, especially in Argentina and get back at me. Not a conspiracy person, just a real scientist who is friends with the people who work first hand on these projects.

3.) If it can release pollen (reproduce )it's not technically sterile, semantics and guess. But Monsanto hasn't and isn't planning to implement GURT technology. It bought the company that owns the patent, but has vowed never to use the patent.

2.) This has never happened, organic farmers took Monsanto to court because they were afraid if their fields were pollinated by Monsanto that the latter would sue them. The judge asked them to give him any example were this has happened, the organic farmers couldn't find even one. Their case was tossed out. By the way when farmers do actually violate monsanto's IP, when Monsanto wins they give the money to charity.

1.) Saving seed is empirically inefficient, you need to store it, without rodents getting into it. And you need to designate a portion of your field to making new plants, which cuts into you profits. There is no reason to save seed in these modern times. By the way non GMO crops under patent will also disallow saving seed, clearfield wheat for example.

3) "I promise I won't do it, you can trust me". Reminds me of a Henry Rollins song 2) Just google "Monsanto patent suits" and you'll find hundreds of cases. Here's one for free: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/farmers-use-of-genetically-modified-soybeans-grows-into-supreme-court-case/2013/02/09/8729f05a-717c-11e2-ac36-3d8d9dcaa2e2_story.html?utm_term=.dd3f72a6b25d

1) Again - you don't understand developing world agriculture, where Monsanto has the most to gain. Developing governments are much more prone to corruption and Monsanto is very much interested in laws that keep their profits rolling in for share holders. Just research Monsantos practices at grain elevators in Argentina.

To be clear, I'm all for companies making a profit on good products. I am against forcing someone to use your product. I'm also against copyright in perpetuity. If I buy music, I should be able to sell it and someone else buy it used. If I pay a plumber to work on my house, I don't have to give him a portion of my house sale. Once someone buys the seeds, it's up to them to do as they please

3.) The company doesn't want to do it, with IP and patent laws they can already restrict replanting. Anything more is superfluous.

1.) Farmers in India are a nice look into how wrong this is. Even they don't save plants because hybrids don't necessarily propogate the same kind of traits in the next generation. The farmers would only get a percentage of the benefit of the seeds. If those farmers you speak of are using hybrid non GMO seeds, they're already aware of this. Saving seed will be phased out by Hybrid breeding technology not GMO's. No one is forced to buy monsanto's seeds if you need to replant your seeds, buy non patented seeds but the consequences of that is that your neighbor who went with patented hybrids will make more than you in profit (Bt corn for example).

I'm also against copyright in perpetuity. If I buy music, I should be able to sell it and someone else buy it used.

Monsanto's seeds aren't copyrighted they're patented. Utility patents last 20 years and then they're public domain. Monsanto GM soy is currently off patent. But in this case it, alluding to your music example, these aren't similar situations. It would be like you buying music, burning millions and millions of copies and then selling them. Farmers make thousands of plants with millions of seeds. There are intellectual property laws for a reason. Another reason is that since the seeds are hybrids, you'll be giving them seeds that might work and some that might not, so the product is an inferior copy, that won't breed true.

Here’s one scholarly article for you about the kit for testing: https://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2016/3145921/

Here’s another for you: https://www.wsj.com/articles/monsanto-cancels-plan-to-sell-gmo-seed-in-argentina-1463523453

What's wrong with that in particular. They want to recoup investment on their seeds. Don't see anything inherently evil in that.

Don't take the bait folks.

You have a lot of straw men and non-sequiturs.

First - there is no logic saying that seed replanting wastes land. You need to grow a plant in the first place to get a seed. The net land used is the same whether it’s the farmer or a seed manufacturer. That argument is null. In the case of a hybrid, you need to grow two plants to get one target seed. You’re actually less efficient for land use. Do you understand how a hybrid is made? You cut the stamen from one plant and the pistil from another. Then you manually cross pollinate. Two plants for one seed.

Second - there’s a one to one relationship between seed and plant. If I buy a seed I get one plant. What I do with that plant should be up to me. If you need more money to recoup your expenses, either charge more for the seed or learn to cut waste from your process. That’s the great thing about biology compared to pharmacology- life perpetuates itself.

Third - the major grain crops are all grown to seed because the seed is the fruit. Your argument about losing land letting a plant go to seed is incorrect and null.

The only way Monsanto seed performs better than any other hybrid is the roundup ready stack. There is a wealth of peer reviewed data that says this practice leads to consumers ingesting glyphosate because the plant tolerated the chemical. Monsanto spends a lot of money to stop labeling laws that lets consumers know what they eat. Look at the recent changes in Vermont. If everything was on the up and up, why would they want to hide? Wouldn’t they advertise “this is the greatest corn ever?” Why do they have monthly seminars with employees telling them “the talking points” in case someone asks? I’ve worked in the food industry my entire career and the only companies with “talking point” lessons were ones doing something dubious. I worked at a large bottled water company (owned by a Swiss parent company) that bought off a vote in Maine that went against the will of the citizens. Convenient that that state legislator now works for the same company... when you’ve seen it first hand, you see through the talking points.

Last - any sources? I think I’ve given you three that you ignored and then replied with opinion presented as fact. Source for the statement about farmers in India?

I'm not sure how big the difference is between the mainland Monsanto departments vs Hawaii Monsanto departments (or if there is even a difference at all), but thought it was relevant to reiterate that.

You may want to look into that.. :)

Looking forward to the interview!

How'd you arrange it, and why do you think they are willing to speak on the record for someone with a new channel on YouTube, especially with non PR folk?