Editing Monsanto (section)

== Legal affairs ==
{{main|Monsanto legal cases}}
Monsanto engaged in high-profile lawsuits, as both plaintiff and defendant. It defended lawsuits mostly over its products' health and environmental effects. Monsanto used the courts to enforce its patents, particularly in agricultural [[biotechnology]], an approach similar to that of other companies in the field, such as [[Pioneer Hi-Bred|Dupont Pioneer]]<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.scribd.com/doc/93431968/Pioneer-Hi-Bred-International-v-Does-1-5|title=Pioneer Hi Bred International v. Does 1–5|date=May 14, 2012|publisher=Scribd.com}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2001/2001_99_1996/|title=J.E.M. Supply v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International &#124; The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law|publisher=Oyez.org}}</ref> and [[Syngenta]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.hpj.com/archives/syngenta-sues-to-stop-illegal-sales-of-coker-seed-varieties/article_1d4dfb89-877b-5c7e-9900-7a2795b67210.html|title=Syngenta sues to stop illegal sales of COKER seed varieties|date=January 2002|publisher=Hpj.com|access-date=March 1, 2015|archive-date=January 29, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200129111538/https://www.hpj.com/archives/syngenta-sues-to-stop-illegal-sales-of-coker-seed-varieties/article_1d4dfb89-877b-5c7e-9900-7a2795b67210.html|url-status=dead}}</ref> Monsanto also became one of the most controversial large corporations in the world, over a range of issues involving its industrial and agricultural chemical products, and GM seed.<ref name="wp-bayer">{{cite news |last1=Dewey |first1=Caitlin |title=Why 'Monsanto' is no more |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/04/why-monsanto-is-no-more/ |access-date=September 28, 2018 |newspaper=Washington Post |date=June 4, 2018}}</ref> In April 2018, just prior to Bayer's acquisition, Bayer indicated that improving Monsanto's reputation represented a major challenge.<ref name="reuters-Bayer">{{cite news |title=Bayer CEO says Monsanto's reputation is a 'major challenge' |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bayer-agm/bayer-ceo-says-monsantos-reputation-is-a-major-challenge-idUSKBN17U127 |access-date=September 28, 2018 |publisher=Reuters |date=April 28, 2018}}</ref> That June, Bayer announced it would drop the Monsanto name as part of a campaign to regain consumer trust.<ref name="wp-bayer" />

===Argentina===
Argentina approved ''Roundup Ready'' soy in 1996. Between 1996 and 2008 soy production grew from 14 million acres to 42 million acres. The growth was driven by Argentine investors' interest in export markets.<ref name="SoyRepublic">[http://www.towardfreedom.com/32-archives/environment/1600-the-soy-republic-of-argentina The Soy Republic of Argentina]. Towardfreedom.com (September 2, 2009).</ref> The consolidation led to a decrease in production of many staples such as [[milk]], [[rice]], [[maize]], [[potato]]es and [[lentils]]. As of 2004, about 150,000 small farmers had left the countryside; as of 2009, 50% in the Chaco region.<ref name="SoyRepublic" /><ref name="GuardianArgentina">[https://www.theguardian.com/science/2004/apr/16/gm.food GM soya 'miracle' turns sour in Argentina]. ''The Guardian'' (April 16, 2004).</ref><ref>Carlos Reboratti (2010) [https://web.archive.org/web/20130606074701/http://www.geo.puc.cl/html/revista/PDF/RGNG_N45/art05.pdf "A sea of soybean: Consequences of the new agriculture in Argentina (Un mar de soja: La nueva agricultura en Argentina y sus consecuencias)"]. [[Norte Grande Geography Journal]] Revista de geografía Norte Grande 45: 63–76.</ref>

''[[The Guardian]]'' reported that a Monsanto representative had said, "any problems with GM soya were to do with use of the crop as a monoculture, not because it was GM. If you grow any crop to the exclusion of any other you are bound to get problems."<ref name="GuardianArgentina" />

In 2005 and 2006, Monsanto attempted to enforce its patents on soymeal originating in Argentina and shipped to Spain by having Spanish customs officials seize the soymeal shipments. The seizures were part of a larger attempt by Monsanto to put pressure on the Argentinian government to enforce Monsanto's seed patents.<ref>[http://www.cropchoice.com/leadstrygmo013106.html Seeds of conflict take root in debate over Michigan farming bill]. Cropchoice.com, January 31, 2006.</ref>

In 2013 environmentalist groups objected to a Monsanto corn seed conditioning facility in [[Malvinas Argentinas, Córdoba]]. Neighbours objected to the risk of environmental impact. Court rulings supported the project,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.lavoz.com.ar/noticias/politica/monsanto-podra-continuar-con-obra-civil-pero-no-con-operativa|title=Monsanto podrá continuar con obra civil pero no con operativa|date=April 23, 2013|publisher=La Voz|language=es}}</ref> but environmentalist groups organised demonstrations and opened an online petition for the subject to be decided in a popular [[referendum]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.argenpress.info/2013/12/monsanto-contamina-el-medio-ambiente-y.html|title=Monsanto contamina el medio ambiente y también la democracia|last=Marín|first=Emiliom|date=December 2, 2013|publisher=Argenpress.info}}</ref> The court rulings stipulated that while construction could continue, the facility could not begin operating until the [[environmental impact report]] required by law had been duly presented.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.lavoz.com.ar/politica/ratifican-que-monsanto-podra-continuar-con-la-obra-civil|title=Ratifican que Monsanto podrá continuar con la obra civil|date=October 10, 2013|publisher=La Voz|language=es}}</ref>

In 2016 Monsanto reached an agreement with Argentina's government on soybean seed royalty payments. Monsanto agreed to give the Argentine Seed Institute (Inase) oversight over crops grown from Monsanto's Intacta genetically modified soybean seeds. Before the agreement, Argentine farmers generally avoided royalties by using seeds from previous harvests or purchased from non-registered suppliers. Inase agreed to delegate testing to grain exchanges. About 6 million sample tests were to be conducted annually. Seeds that appear to be GMOs may be tested again using a [[polymerase chain reaction]] test.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-14/monsanto-argentina-seed-pact-said-to-become-effective-next-week|title=Monsanto-Argentina Seed Pact Said to Become Effective Next Week|last=Gonzalez|first=Pablo Rosendo|date=2016-06-14|newspaper=Bloomberg.com|access-date=2016-12-15}}</ref>

===Brazil===
Brazil is the second largest producer of GMO soy. In 2003 GM soy was found in fields planted in the state of [[Rio Grande do Sul]].<ref name="EconomistBrazil">[http://www.economist.com/node/2102001 "GM crops in Brazil: An amber light for agri-business"]. ''The Economist'' (October 2, 2003).</ref> This was a controversial decision, and in response, the [[Landless Workers' Movement]] protested by invading and occupying several Monsanto farm plots used for research, training and seed-processing.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/2961284.stm Americas | Brazil activists target Monsanto]. BBC News (June 3, 2003).</ref> In 2005 Brazil passed a law creating a regulatory pathway for GM crops.

===China===
Monsanto was criticized by [[China|Chinese]] economist [[Larry Hsien Ping Lang|Larry Lang]] for controlling the Chinese soybean market, and for trying to do the same to Chinese corn and cotton.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.wyzxsx.com/Article/Class4/201001/128373.html |title=郎咸平：孟山都的转基因帝国-大豆、玉米与棉花 |publisher=Wyzxsx.com |date=January 28, 2010  |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100328142034/http://www.wyzxsx.com/Article/Class4/201001/128373.html |archive-date=March 28, 2010  }}</ref>

===India===
{{main|Farmers' suicides in India}}
In the late 1990s and early 2000s, public attention was drawn to suicides by indebted farmers following crop failures.<ref name=FrontLine>[https://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/rough/2005/07/seeds_of_suicid.html FRONTLINE/WORLD. Rough Cut. Seeds of Suicide]. PBS (July 26, 2005).</ref> For example, in the early 2000s, farmers in [[Andhra Pradesh]] (AP) were in economic crisis due to high-interest rates and crop failures, leading to widespread unrest and farmer suicides.<ref>{{cite news| url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3855517.stm | work=BBC News | title=India PM pledge over suicide farmers | date=July 1, 2004}}</ref> Monsanto was one focus of protests with respect to the price and yields of Bt seed. In 2005, the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee, the Indian regulatory authority, released a study on field tests of certain Bt cotton strains in AP and ruled that Monsanto could not market those strains in AP because of poor yields.<ref>The Hindu Business Line. May 26, 2005 [http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/todays-paper/tp-agri-biz-and-commodity/nuziveedu-launches-bt-cotton-strains/article2178519.ece Nuziveedu launches Bt cotton strains]</ref> At about the same time, the state agriculture minister barred the company from selling Bt cotton seed, because Monsanto refused a request by the state government to provide pay about Rs 4.5 crore (about one million US$) to indebted farmers in some districts, and because the government blamed Monsanto's seeds for crop failures.<ref name="Andra Uproots">{{Cite news |title=Angry Andhra uproots Monsanto |url=http://www.financialexpress.com/news/angry-andhra-uproots-monsanto/139771/0 |work=financialexpress.com |location=Hyderabad |date=June 23, 2005}}</ref> The order was later lifted.

In 2006, AP tried to convince Monsanto to reduce the price of Bt seeds. Unsatisfied, the state filed several cases against Monsanto and its [[Mumbai]]-based licensee, Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds.<ref name="autogenerated3">[https://web.archive.org/web/20110512173248/http://www.hindu.com/2006/06/27/stories/2006062704310700.htm A.P. Government files contempt petition before MRTPC against Monsanto], ''[[The Hindu]]'', June 27, 2006.</ref> Research by [[International Food Policy Research Institute]] found no evidence supporting an increased suicide rate following the introduction of Bt cotton and that Bt cotton.<ref>{{cite journal|title=Bt Cotton and Farmer Suicides in India: An Evidence-based Assessment |journal=The Journal of Development Studies |year=2011 |volume=47 |issue=2 |doi=10.1080/00220388.2010.492863 |last1=Gruère |first1=Guillaume |last2=Sengupta |first2=Debdatta |pages=316–37 |pmid=21506303|s2cid=20145281 }}</ref><ref name="Sheridan">{{cite journal |title=Doubts surround link between Bt cotton failure and farmer suicide : Article: Nature Biotechnology |journal=Nature Biotechnology |url=http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v27/n1/full/nbt0109-9.html |access-date=May 6, 2013|date=January 2009 |volume=27 |issue=1 |pages=9–10 |doi=10.1038/nbt0109-9 |last1=Sheridan |first1=Cormac |pmid=19131979 |s2cid=82412990 }}</ref> The report stated that farmer suicides predated commercial introduction in 2002 (and unofficial introduction in 2001) and that such suicides had made up a fairly constant portion of the overall national suicide rate since 1997.<ref name="Sheridan" /><ref name="Gruere">{{cite web |url=http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/ifpridp00808.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110511180115/http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/ifpridp00808.pdf |archive-date=2011-05-11 |url-status=live |year=2008 |title=Bt Cotton and Farmer Suicides in India: Reviewing the Evidence |author=Guillaume P. Gruère, Purvi Mehta-Bhatt and Debdatta Sengupta |publisher=International Food Policy Research Institute}}</ref> The report concluded that while Bt cotton may have been a factor in specific suicides, the contribution was likely marginal compared to [[socio-economic]] factors.<ref name="Sheridan" /><ref name="Gruere" /> As of 2009, Bt cotton was planted in 87% of Indian cotton-growing land.<ref>Choudhary, B. & Gaur, K. 2010. [http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/biotech_crop_profiles/bt_cotton_in_india-a_country_profile/download/Bt_Cotton_in_India-A_Country_Profile.pdf Bt Cotton in India: A Country Profile]. ISAAA Series of Biotech Crop Profiles. ISAAA: Ithaca, NY.</ref>

Critics including [[Vandana Shiva]] said that the crop failures could "often be traced to" Monsanto's Bt cotton, that the seeds increased farmer indebtedness and argued that Monsanto misrepresented the profitability of their Bt Cotton, causing losses leading to debt.<ref name="FrontLine" /><ref>[http://www.democracynow.org/2006/12/13/vandana_shiva_on_farmer_suicides_the Vandana Shiva on Farmer Suicides, the U.S.-India Nuclear Deal, Wal-Mart in India and More]. Democracy Now! (December 13, 2006).</ref><ref>Peled, M. X. (Producer and Director) (September 1, 2011). [http://teddybearfilms.fatcow.com/2011/10/01/bitter-seeds-2/ ''Bitter Seeds''] (motion picture). United States: Teddy Bear Films.</ref><ref>{{cite journal |url=http://filmmakermagazine.com/40204-bitter-seeds-an-interview-with-director-micha-x-peled/ |journal=[[Filmmaker (magazine)|Filmmaker]] |last=Scott |first=Daniel James|date=February 9, 2012 |title=Director Micha X. Peled on ''Bitter Seeds'' |access-date=May 1, 2013}}</ref> In 2009, Shiva wrote that Indian farmers who had previously spent as little as ₹7 ([[rupees]]) per kilogram were now paying up to ₹17,000 per kilo per year for Bt cotton.<ref>{{cite news |title=Vandana Shiva: From Seeds of Suicide to Seeds of Hope: Why Are Indian Farmers Committing Suicide and How Can We Stop This Tragedy? | date=April 28, 2009| url = https://www.huffingtonpost.com/vandana-shiva/from-seeds-of-suicide-to_b_192419.html |access-date=May 2, 2013 |first=Vandana |last=Shiva |work=Huffington Post}}</ref> In 2012 the [[Indian Council of Agricultural Research]] (ICAR) and the Central Cotton Research Institute (CCRI) stated that for the first time farmer suicides could be linked to a decline in the performance of Bt cotton, and advised, "cotton farmers are in a deep crisis since shifting to Bt cotton. The spate of farmer suicides in 2011–12 has been particularly severe among Bt cotton farmers."<ref name="ICAR1" />

In 2004, in response to an order from the Bombay High Court the [[Tata Institute of Social Sciences|Tata Institute]] produced a report on farmer suicides in [[Maharashtra]] in 2005.<ref name="InfoChange">Staff, InfoChange August 2005. {{usurped|1=[https://web.archive.org/web/20160307171856/http://infochangeindia.org/agriculture/books-a-reports/644-farmer-suicides-in-maharashtra-since-2001-says-tiss-report.html 644 farmer suicides in Maharashtra since 2001, says TISS report]}}</ref><ref name="TataReport">Dandekar A., et al., Tata Institute. [http://www.vnss-mission.gov.in/htmldocs/Farmers_suicide_TISS_report.pdf "Causes of Farmer Suicides in Maharashtra: An Enquiry. Final Report Submitted to the Mumbai High Court March 15, 2005".] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130809074417/http://vnss-mission.gov.in/htmldocs/Farmers_suicide_TISS_report.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090704201549/http://www.vnss-mission.gov.in/htmldocs/Farmers_suicide_TISS_report.pdf |archive-date=2009-07-04 |url-status=live |date=August 9, 2013 }}</ref> The survey cited "government apathy, the absence of a safety net for farmers, and lack of access to information related to agriculture as the chief causes for the desperate condition of farmers in the state."<ref name="InfoChange" />

Various studies identified the important factors as insufficient or risky credit systems, the difficulty of farming semi-arid regions, poor agricultural income, absence of alternative income opportunities, a downturn in the urban economy which forced non-farmers into farming and the absence of suitable counseling services.<ref name="Gruere" /><ref name="Nagraj">{{cite web|author=Nagraj, K. |year=2008 |title=Farmers suicide in India: magnitudes, trends and spatial patterns |url=http://www.macroscan.com/anl/mar08/pdf/Farmers_Suicides.pdf  |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110512173317/http://www.macroscan.com/anl/mar08/pdf/Farmers_Suicides.pdf |archive-date=May 12, 2011 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Risks, Farmers' Suicides and Agrarian Crisis in India: Is There A Way Out?|author=Mishra, Srijit|publisher=Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research (IGIDR)|year=2007|url=http://www.igidr.ac.in/pdf/publication/WP-2007-014.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110118215816/http://www.igidr.ac.in/pdf/publication/WP-2007-014.pdf |archive-date=2011-01-18 |url-status=live}}</ref> ICAR and CCRI stated that the cost of cotton cultivation had jumped as a consequence of rising pesticide costs, while total Bt cotton production in the five years from 2007 to 2012 had declined.<ref name="ICAR1">{{cite web | title = Ministry blames Bt cotton for farmer suicides – Hindustan Times |url=http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/Business/Ministry-blames-Btcotton-for-farmer-suicides/Article1-830798.aspx |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130722005640/http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/Business/Ministry-blames-Btcotton-for-farmer-suicides/Article1-830798.aspx  |archive-date=July 22, 2013 |access-date=May 2, 2013 |first=Hindustan |last=Times}}</ref>

===United Kingdom===
{{Main|Brofiscin Quarry}}
[[Brofiscin Quarry]] was used as a waste site from about 1965 to 1972 and accepted waste from [[BP]], [[Veolia]] and Monsanto.<ref name=WalesOnline>Staff, Wales Online. October 17, 2011 [http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/local-news/remedial-work-start-quarry-1805774 Remedial work to start on quarry]</ref><ref>Burges Salmon LLP. April 12, 2012 [http://www.inhouselawyer.co.uk/index.php/environment/9839-changes-to-the-contaminated-land-regime Changes to the contaminated land regime] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140903061851/http://www.inhouselawyer.co.uk/index.php/environment/9839-changes-to-the-contaminated-land-regime |date=September 3, 2014 }}</ref> A 2005 report by [[Environment Agency Wales]] (EAW) found that the quarry contained up to 75 toxic substances, including [[heavy metals]], [[Agent Orange]] and PCBs.<ref name=WalesOnline/><ref name=BBC2011-06>BBC June 15, 2011 [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-13768700 Brofiscin Quarry pollution at Groesfaen to be cleaned]</ref>

In February 2011, Monsanto agreed to help with the costs of remediation, but did not accept responsibility for the pollution.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/feb/21/monsanto-brofiscin-pollution|title=Monsanto agrees to clean up toxic chemicals in South Wales quarry|date=February 21, 2011|access-date=June 5, 2013|newspaper=The Guardian|last1=Levitt|first1=Tom}}</ref><ref name=EAW1>{{cite web|url=http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/library/publications/122041.aspx|archive-url=http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140328084622/http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/library/publications/122041.aspx|archive-date=March 28, 2014|title= EA responsibility|publisher=Environment Agency Wales|access-date=June 5, 2013}}</ref> In 2011, EAW and the Rhondda Cynon Taf council announced that they had decided to place an engineered cap over the waste mass,<ref>Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council [http://www.rctcbc.gov.uk/en/environmentplanningandwaste/pollution/brofiscin/brofiscin.aspx RCTCBC "Brofiscin" site] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140902060620/http://www.rctcbc.gov.uk/en/environmentplanningandwaste/pollution/brofiscin/brofiscin.aspx |date=September 2, 2014 }} Accessed September 1, 2014</ref> and stated that the cost would be £1.5 million; previous estimates had been as high as £100 million.<ref name=BBC2011-06/><ref>BBC, February 12, 2007, 22:48 [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/6355835.stm £100m site clean up cost denied]</ref>

=== United States ===

==== PCBs ====
In the late 1960s, the Monsanto plant in [[Sauget, Illinois]], was the nation's largest producer of [[polychlorinated biphenyl]] (PCB) compounds, which remained in the water along Dead Creek there. An EPA official referred to Sauget as "one of the most polluted communities in the region" and "a soup of different chemicals".<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06276/727066-28.stm |title=Tiny Sauget, Illinois, likes business misfits |publisher=Post-gazette.com |date=October 3, 2006 |first=William |last=Spain}}</ref>

In [[Anniston, Alabama]], plaintiffs in a 2002 lawsuit provided documentation showing that the local Monsanto factory knowingly discharged both [[Mercury (element)|mercury]] and PCB-laden waste into local creeks for over 40 years.<ref>{{Cite news|title=Monsanto Hid Decades Of Pollution|url=http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0101-02.htm|newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]|first=Michael|last=Grunwald|date=January 1, 2002|access-date=May 26, 2013|archive-date=November 8, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201108111529/https://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0101-02.htm}}</ref> In 1969 Monsanto dumped 45 tons of PCBs into Snow Creek, a feeder for [[Choccolocco Creek]], which supplies much of the area's drinking water, and buried millions of pounds of PCB in open-pit landfills located on hillsides above the plant and surrounding neighborhoods.<ref>{{Cite news|title= PCB Pollution Suits Have Day in Court in Alabama |url=https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04EED7143AF934A15752C0A9649C8B63|work=The New York Times| first=Kevin | last=Sack | date=January 27, 2002}}</ref> In August 2003, [[Solutia]] and Monsanto agreed to pay plaintiffs $700 million to settle claims by over 20,000 Anniston residents.<ref>{{cite news |author=The Associated Press |title=$700 Million Settlement in Alabama PCB Lawsuit |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/21/business/700-million-settlement-in-alabama-pcb-lawsuit.html |work=The New York Times |date=August 21, 2003}}</ref>

In June 2020, Bayer proposed paying $650 million to settle local PCB lawsuits, and $170 million to the attorneys-general of New Mexico, Washington and the District of Columbia.<ref name=bayerpays /> Monsanto was acknowledged at the time of the settlement to have ceased making PCBs in 1977, though State Impact of Pennsylvania reported that this did not stop PCBs from contaminating people many years later.<ref name=bayerpays /> State Impact of Pennsylvania stated "In 1979, the EPA banned the use of PCBs, but they still exist in some products produced before 1979. They persist in the environment because they bind to sediments and soils. High exposure to PCBs can cause birth defects, developmental delays, and liver changes." On November 25, 2020, however U.S. District Judge [[Fernando M. Olguin]] rejected the proposed $650 million settlement from Bayer and allowed Monsanto-related lawsuits involving PCB to proceed.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.semissourian.com/story/2853810.html|title=Bayer's $650 Million PCB Pollution Settlement Rejected by Judge|first1=Joel|last1=Rosenblatt|first2=Mark|last2=Chediak|publisher=Claims Journal|date=December 1, 2020|access-date=December 15, 2020}}{{dead link|date=October 2022|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}</ref>

In January 2025, Monsanto was ordered to pay $100 million to four people who say they were sickened by PCBs at a school in [[Monroe, Washington#Education|Monroe, Washington]].<ref>{{cite news | last1=Pierson | first1=Brendan | last2=Knauth | first2=Dietrich | title=Jury orders Bayer to pay $100 million over PCBs in Washington school | date=January 14, 2025 | url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/bayer-must-pay-100-million-latest-trial-over-pcbs-washington-school-jury-finds-2025-01-14/ | work=reuters.com }}</ref>

==== Polluted sites ====
As of November 2013, Monsanto was associated with nine "active" [[Superfund]] sites and 32 "archived" sites in the US, in the EPA's Superfund database.<ref>[http://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/srchsites.cfm EPA superfund search engine] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121024164408/http://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/srchsites.cfm |date=October 24, 2012 }} Search for "Monsanto" in "Alias/Alternative Site Name" field, first in "active" sites, then "archived" sites, October 20, 2012</ref> Monsanto was sued and settled multiple times for damaging the health of its employees or residents near its Superfund sites through pollution and poisoning.<ref name="washingtonpost">{{Cite news|url=http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-338869.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150402115751/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-338869.html  |archive-date=April 2, 2015 |title=Monsanto Held Liable For PCB Dumping | newspaper=The Washington Post |date=February 22, 2002}}</ref><ref>[http://www.chemicalindustryarchives.org/dirtysecrets/annistonindepth/toxicity.asp "The Inside Story: Anniston, AL In-depth: Monsanto knew about PCB toxicity for decades"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050718082623/http://www.chemicalindustryarchives.org/dirtysecrets/annistonindepth/toxicity.asp |date=July 18, 2005 }}. Chemicalindustryarchives.org.</ref>

==== GM wheat ====

In 2013 a Monsanto-developed transgenic cultivar of [[glyphosate]]-resistant [[genetically modified wheat|wheat]] was discovered on a farm in Oregon, growing as a weed or [[volunteer (botany)|"volunteer plant"]]. The final Oregon field test had occurred in 2001. As of May 2013, the GMO seed source was unknown. Volunteer wheat from a former test field two miles away was tested and was not found to be glyphosate-tolerant. Monsanto faced penalties up to $1 million over potential violations of the [[Plant Protection Act]]. The discovery threatened world-leading US wheat exports, which totaled $8.1 billion in 2012.<ref name="BloombergWheat">Alan Bjerga, [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-29/monsanto-modified-wheat-unapproved-by-usda-found-in-oregon-field.html "Monsanto Modified Wheat Not Approved by USDA Found in Field"], ''Bloomberg News''. May 29, 2013.</ref><ref>Andrew Pollack, [https://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/30/business/energy-environment/genetically-engineered-wheat-found-in-oregon-field.html "Modified Wheat Is Discovered in Oregon"], ''The New York Times'', May 29, 2013.</ref> This wheat variety was rarely exported to Europe and was more likely destined for Asia. Monsanto said it had destroyed all the material it held after completing trials in 2004 and it was "mystified" by its appearance.<ref>{{cite magazine|url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23638-monsanto-modified-wheat-mystery-deepens-in-oregon.html|title=Monsanto modified wheat mystery deepens in Oregon |author=Andy Coghlan|magazine=New Scientist|date=2013-06-03}}</ref> On June 14, 2013, the USDA announced: "As of today, USDA has neither found nor been informed of anything that would indicate that this incident amounts to more than a single isolated incident in a single field on a single farm. All information collected so far shows no indication of the presence of GE wheat in commerce."<ref>Staff, ''Food Safety News''. June 17, 2013. [http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2013/06/gmo-wheat-found-in-oregon-was-isolated-incident-says-usda/#.Ub_B8ufksl8 GMO Wheat Found in Oregon Was Isolated Incident, Says USDA]</ref> As of August 30, 2013, while the source of the GM wheat remained unknown, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan had all resumed placing orders.<ref>Associated Press. August 30, 2013. [http://bigstory.ap.org/article/source-gmo-wheat-oregon-remains-mystery "Source of GMO wheat in Oregon remains mystery".] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130914124347/http://bigstory.ap.org/article/source-gmo-wheat-oregon-remains-mystery |date=September 14, 2013 }}</ref>

==== Cancer risks of Roundup ====

Monsanto has faced controversy in the United States over claims that its herbicide products might be carcinogens. There is limited evidence that human cancer risk might increase as a result of occupational exposure to large amounts of glyphosate, as in agricultural work, but no good evidence of such a risk from home use, such as in domestic gardening.<ref name=cruk>{{cite web |publisher=Cancer Research UK |title=Food Controversies—Pesticides and organic foods |url=http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-cancer/diet-and-cancer/food-controversies#food_controversies4 |date=2016 |access-date=November 28, 2017}}</ref> The [[scientific consensus|consensus]] among national pesticide regulatory agencies and scientific organizations is that labeled uses of glyphosate have demonstrated no evidence of human carcinogenicity.<ref name=Tarazona>{{cite journal |last1=Tarazona |first1=Jose V. |last2=Court-Marques |first2=Daniele |last3=Tiramani |first3=Manuela |last4=Reich |first4=Hermine |last5=Pfeil |first5=Rudolf |last6=Istace |first6=Frederique |last7=Crivellente |first7=Federica |title=Glyphosate toxicity and carcinogenicity: a review of the scientific basis of the European Union assessment and its differences with IARC |journal=Archives of Toxicology |date=April 3, 2017 |volume=91 |issue=8 |pages=2723–2743 |doi=10.1007/s00204-017-1962-5 |pmid=28374158 |pmc=5515989|bibcode=2017ArTox..91.2723T }}</ref> Organizations such as the [[World Health Organization]] (WHO), the [[Food and Agriculture Organization]], [[European Commission]], Canadian [[Pest Management Regulatory Agency]], and the German [[Federal Institute for Risk Assessment]]<ref>{{cite web |title=The BfR has finalised its draft report for the re-evaluation of glyphosate – BfR |access-date=August 18, 2018 |url=https://www.bfr.bund.de/en/the_bfr_has_finalised_its_draft_report_for_the_re_evaluation_of_glyphosate-188632.html}}</ref> have concluded that there is no evidence that glyphosate poses a carcinogenic or [[genotoxic]] risk to humans.{{citation needed|date=April 2019}} However, one international scientific organization, the [[International Agency for Research on Cancer]] (IARC), affiliated with the WHO, has made claims of carcinogenicity in research reviews; in 2015 the IARC declared glyphosate "probably carcinogenic".<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Cressey |first1=Daniel |title=Widely used herbicide linked to cancer |url=https://www.nature.com/news/widely-used-herbicide-linked-to-cancer-1.17181 |journal=Nature |year=2015 |doi=10.1038/nature.2015.17181 |s2cid=131732731 |access-date=April 1, 2019|doi-access=free }}</ref>

As of October 30, 2019, there were 42,700 plaintiffs who said that glyphosate herbicides caused their cancer after the IARC report in 2015 linking glyphosate to cancer in humans.<ref name="8K Roundup lawsuits">{{cite news |title=Bayer's Monsanto faces 8,000 lawsuits on glyphosate |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bayer-glyphosate-lawsuits/bayers-monsanto-sued-by-8000-plaintiffs-on-glyphosate-idUSKCN1L81J0 |publisher=Reuters |access-date=September 11, 2018 |date=2018-08-23}}</ref><ref name=NatureonWHO2015>{{cite journal |first1=Daniel |last1=Cressey |name-list-style=vanc |url=http://www.nature.com/news/widely-used-herbicide-linked-to-cancer-1.17181 |title=Widely used herbicide linked to cancer |journal=Nature |date=March 25, 2015 |doi=10.1038/nature.2015.17181 |s2cid=131732731|doi-access=free }}</ref><ref name="IARC Mono 112">{{cite book |url=https://monographs.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/mono112.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180808103032/https://monographs.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/mono112.pdf |archive-date=2018-08-08 |url-status=live |title=IARC Monographs, Volume 112. Glyphosate, in: Some Organophosphate Insecticides and Herbicides |last1=International Agency for Research on Cancer |date=2017 |publisher=IARC/WHO |location=Lyon |pages=321–412}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Bayer's Roundup Headache Grows as Plaintiffs Pile Into Court |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-30/bayer-is-now-facing-42-700-plaintiffs-in-roundup-litigation |access-date=31 October 2019 |work=Bloomberg |date=October 30, 2019}}</ref> Monsanto denies that Roundup is carcinogenic.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/15/health/roundup-herbicide-cancer-allegations/index.html|title=Patients: Roundup gave us cancer as EPA official helped the company|first=Holly |last=Yan |others=Photographs by John Francis Peters for |publisher=CNN |access-date=2018-08-13}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{cite news |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/10/health/monsanto-johnson-trial-verdict/index.html |title=Jurors give $289 million to a man they say got cancer from Monsanto's Roundup weedkiller |first=Holly |last=Yan |publisher=CNN |access-date=2018-08-13}}</ref>

In March 2017, 40 plaintiffs filed a lawsuit at the [[Alameda County Superior Court]], a branch of the California Superior Court, asking for damages caused by the company's glyphosate-based weed-killers, including Roundup, and demanding a jury trial.<ref name="rec">{{cite news|last1=Breitler|first1=Alex|title=SJ, Lode residents among those suing Monsanto claiming Roundup linked to cancer|url=http://www.recordnet.com/news/20170327/sj-lode-residents-among-those-suing-monsanto-claiming-roundup-linked-to-cancer|access-date=2017-04-25|publisher=The Stockton Record|date=2017-03-27}}</ref> On August 10, 2018, Monsanto lost the first decided case. Dewayne Johnson, who has [[Non-Hodgkin lymphoma|non-Hodgkin's lymphoma]], was initially awarded $289 million in damages after a jury in San Francisco said that Monsanto had failed to adequately warn consumers of cancer risks posed by the herbicide. Pending appeal, the award was later reduced to $78.5 million.<ref>{{cite news |title=Monsanto appeals Roundup cancer verdict |url=https://phys.org/news/2018-11-monsanto-appeals-roundup-cancer-verdict.html |work=Phys.org |access-date=November 30, 2018}}</ref><ref name="ABC7">{{cite web |title=Roundup maker Monsanto appeals $78.5 million verdict over Bay Area man's cancer |url=https://abc7news.com/society/roundup-maker-monsanto-appeals-$785-million-verdict-over-bay-area-mans-cancer/4728882/ |website=ABC7 San Francisco |access-date=November 30, 2018 |date=November 21, 2018}}</ref> In November 2018, Monsanto appealed the judgement, asking an appellate court to consider a motion for a new trial.<ref name="ABC7"/> A verdict on the appeal was delivered in June 2020 upholding the verdict but further reducing the award to $21.5 million.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Egelko |first1=Bob |title=Award to Vallejo groundskeeper in Monsanto cancer case slashed again - verdict upheld |url=https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Award-to-Vallejo-groundskeeper-in-Monsanto-cancer-15421705.php |access-date=3 March 2021 |work=San Francisco Chronicle |date=21 July 2020}}</ref>

On March 27, 2019, Monsanto was found liable in a federal court for Edwin Hardeman's non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and ordered to pay $80 million in damages. A spokesperson for Bayer, by this time the parent company of Monsanto, said the company would appeal the verdict.<ref>{{cite news |last=Levin |first=Sam |title=Monsanto found liable for California man's cancer and ordered to pay $80m in damages |url=https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/mar/27/monsanto-trial-verdict-cancer-jury |work=[[The Guardian]] |date=March 27, 2019 |access-date=March 28, 2019 }}</ref>

On May 13, 2019, a jury in California ordered Bayer to pay $2 billion in damages after finding that the company had failed to adequately inform consumers of the possible carcinogenicity of Roundup.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-13/bayer-loses-its-third-trial-over-claims-roundup-causes-cancer |title=Bayer's $2 Billion Roundup Damages Boost Pressure to Settle |publisher=Bloomberg News |access-date=2019-05-14}}</ref> On July 26, 2019, an Alameda County judge cut the settlement to $86.7 million, stating that the judgement by the jury exceeded legal precedent.<ref>{{cite news |title=Judge cuts $2 billion award for couple with cancer to $86.7 million in Roundup lawsuit |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/07/26/judge-cuts-billion-award-couple-with-cancer-million-roundup-lawsuit |date=2019-07-26 |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |first=Taylor |last=Telford |access-date=2019-07-27}}</ref>

In June 2020, Monsanto acquisitor Bayer agreed to settle over a hundred thousand Roundup cancer lawsuits, agreeing to pay $8.8 to $9.6 billion to settle those claims, and $1.5 billion for any future claims. The settlement does not include three cases that have already gone to jury trials and are being appealed.<ref name=bayerpays>{{cite news |last1=Chappell |first1=Bill |title=Bayer To Pay More Than $10 Billion To Resolve Cancer Lawsuits Over Weedkiller Roundup |url=https://www.npr.org/2020/06/24/882949098/bayer-to-pay-more-than-10-billion-to-resolve-roundup-cancer-lawsuits |access-date=12 July 2020 |publisher=NPR |date=24 June 2020}}</ref>

====Dicamba lawsuits====
Following a lawsuit by a [[peach]] farmer alleging that Dicamba used as a weed killer drifted in the wind from adjacent crops to destroy his peach orchards, a [[Missouri]] trial jury found in February 2020 that Monsanto and codefendant [[BASF]] were negligent in design of Dicamba and failed to warn farmers about the product, awarding $15 million for losses and $250 million in [[punitive damages]].<ref name="ruff">{{cite news |url=https://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/monsanto-basf-will-pay-250-million-punitive-damages-first-dicamba-trial |title=Monsanto, BASF Will Pay $250 Million In Punitive Damages In First Dicamba Trial |author=Corrine Ruff |date=15 February 2020 |work=St. Louis Public Radio |access-date=15 February 2020}}</ref> On February 14, 2020, the jury involved in a Missouri lawsuit involving tree damage caused by dicamba drift ruled against Bayer and its co-defendant BASF and found in favor of Bader Farms owner Bill Bader.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.stltoday.com/business/local/jury-finds-in-favor-of-missouri-peach-grower-in-lawsuit/article_adcb9979-ca3e-557b-878e-7be4e301adbc.html|title = Jury finds in favor of Missouri peach grower in lawsuit against Bayer, BASF| date=February 14, 2020 }}</ref> In June 2020, Bayer agreed to a settlement of up to $400 million for all 2015–2020 crop year dicamba claims, not including the $250 million judgement which was issued to Bader.<ref name=bayerpays /> On November 25, 2020, U.S. District Judge [[Stephen N. Limbaugh Jr.|Stephen Limbaugh Jr.]] reduced the punitive damage amount in the Bader Farms case to $60 million.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.semissourian.com/story/2853810.html|title=District Judge orders reduction of punitive damages in dicamba case|first=J.C.|last=Reeves|publisher=Southeast Missourian|date=December 15, 2020|access-date=December 15, 2020}}{{dead link|date=October 2022|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}</ref>

=== Improper accounting for incentive rebates ===
From 2009 to 2011, Monsanto improperly accounted for incentive rebates. The actions inflated Monsanto's reported profit by $31 million over the two years. Monsanto paid $80 million in penalties pursuant to a subsequent settlement with the [[U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission|US Securities and Exchange Commission]].<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/11/business/for-monsanto-whistle-blower-a-22-million-award-that-fell-short.html|title=Monsanto Whistle-Blower: $22 Million Richer, but Not Satisfied|last=Morgenson|first=Gretchen|date=2016-09-09|work=The New York Times|access-date=2017-12-22|language=en-US|issn=0362-4331}}</ref> Monsanto materially misstated its consolidated earnings in response to losing market share of Roundup to generic producers. Monsanto overhauled its internal controls. Two of their top CPAs were suspended and Monsanto was required to hire, at their expense, an independent ethics/compliance consultant for two years.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2016/33-10037.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160405051304/http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2016/33-10037.pdf |archive-date=2016-04-05 |url-status=live|title=ORDER INSTITUTING ADMINISTRATIVE AND CEASE-AND-DESIST PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO SECTION 8A OF THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, SECTIONS 4C AND 21C OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AND RULE 102(e) OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES OF PRACTICE, MAKING FINDINGS AND IMPOSING REMEDIAL SANCTIONS AND A CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER|website=SEC.gov|access-date=October 4, 2016}}</ref>

===Alleged ghostwriting===

A review of glyphosate's carcinogenic potential by four independent expert panels, with a comparison to the [[International Agency for Research on Cancer|IARC]] assessment, was published in September 2016. Using emails released in August 2017 by plaintiffs' lawyers who are suing Monsanto, ''[[Bloomberg Business Week]]'' reported that "Monsanto scientists were heavily involved in organizing, reviewing, and editing drafts submitted by the outside experts." A Monsanto spokesperson responded that Monsanto had provided only non-substantive cosmetic copyediting.<ref>{{cite news|title=Monsanto Was Its Own Ghostwriter for Some Safety Reviews|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-09/monsanto-was-its-own-ghostwriter-for-some-safety-reviews|newspaper=Bloomberg.com|date=August 9, 2017 |access-date=October 26, 2017}}</ref>

In 2017, ''The New York Times'' reported that a 2015 article attributed to researcher and columnist [[Henry I. Miller]] had been drafted by Monsanto.<ref name=nytmill>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/business/monsantos-sway-over-research-is-seen-in-disclosed-emails.html|title=Monsanto's Sway Over Research Is Seen in Disclosed Emails|date=2 August 2017|access-date=2 August 2017|work=[[The New York Times]]}}</ref> According to the report, Monsanto asked Miller to write an article rebutting the findings of the [[International Agency for Research on Cancer]], and he indicated willingness to do it if he "could start from a high-quality draft".<ref name=nytmill/> Forbes later removed Miller's blog from Forbes.com and ended their relationship.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/business/monsantos-sway-over-research-is-seen-in-disclosed-emails.html|title=Monsanto Emails Raise Issue of Influencing Research on Roundup Weed Killer|last=Hakim|first=Danny|date=2017-08-01|work=The New York Times|access-date=2019-12-08|issn=0362-4331}}</ref>