“I think [Monsanto] has a great story to tell, and I truly, truly believe in what we’re doing,” says Larry Gilbertson, molecular biologist and site team leader at Monsanto Cambridge. Monsanto? You might have paused at the name, familiar with the biotech company’s reputation. Perhaps you’ve heard that the company sues farmers for replanting seeds, or remember Monsanto as the manufacturer of Agent Orange. If you take issue with the company for these or other alleged iniquities, you’re not alone. Monsanto is the 4th most hated company in the U.S. The company’s image suffers from its association with big agriculture and GMOs—not to mention its purported corporate greed and environmental irresponsibility. I, too, am familiar with the criticism—if not vilification—of Monsanto and have often wondered whether it is justified. In order to cull the facts from fiction, I wanted to hear Monsanto’s side of the story—and found myself traveling to Monsanto’s offices in Cambridge to meet long-time Monsanto scientist Larry Gilbertson.
Nestled among the big biotech offices in Kendall Square, Monsanto’s building is nondescript—giving no hint of the company’s high profile. Gilbertson greets me in the lobby, and escorts me through security to Monsanto’s offices. Monsanto’s modest reception area is sparsely decorated—unless you count the bookshelves of biology textbooks and the dry-erase board reminding employees, “Don’t forget! Larry is making pancakes tomorrow.”
My inquiries regarding Gilbertson’s pancake-making skills provide an immediate icebreaker and segue into a discussion of the more substantive aspects of his job. Whether talking about team building or his work—it is clear Gilbertson loves what he does. Gilbertson studied biology as an undergrad, and later earned a PhD in molecular biology. He keeps a replica of a DNA molecule on his desk, and apparently another on his nightstand at home. After completing his PhD, Gilbertson decided to “try out” industry, thinking a position at Monsanto might be a temporary job. He was, however, immediately impressed with the caliber of his coworkers, and within a week decided, “That’s it. I’m staying here forever.”
Twenty years later, Gilbertson stands in front of me, clad in Converse and safety goggles, and enthusiastically leads me on a tour of his lab. At Cambridge Monsanto, Gilbertson and his team focus on insect resistant proteins. A typical day involves studying proteins and molecules, and cloning and assembling genes. Gilbertson points to petri dishes and notebooks with carefully coded experiments, describing how the goal is to “make crops better,” by taking genes from one organism, and engineering and assembling them into another. When he senses my confusion regarding the term, “protein optimization,” he insists on showing me what he means. “Hold on,” he says. “Let me go get a prop.” Gilbertson returns with a fist-sized model of a protein, and describes the trial and error process by which scientists make slight changes in the structure of proteins to bring out traits in genes—for example drought resistance, or heat tolerance.
After touring the lab, Gilbertson and I sit down and discuss some of the more controversial topics regarding Monsanto and its GMOs.
SAFETY
I ask Gilbertson about public opinion on GMOs: a recent study finds 57% of U.S. consumers feel GMOs are unsafe to eat; social media fuels fears of “Frankfoods” – like tomatoes with fish tails – and geneticists “playing God” with common crops; studies imply Monsanto Roundup Ready crops are carcinogenic; and many consumers argue GMOs haven’t been in existence long enough to prove there aren’t unseen risks.
Contrary to popular opinion, Gilbertson contends GM crops are actually safer to consume than conventionally grown crops. He points out that the process of regulating a GMO takes twelve years, half of which includes toxicity and allergy tests. A conventional crop undergoes no such evaluation.
The scientific community endorses Gilbertson’s views. 88% of scientists from the American Association for the Advancement of Science believe GMOs are safe, and the American Medical Association and the World Health Organization also agree. Americans have been consuming GMOs for three decades, and there has yet to be a case of adverse effects.
To drive his point home, Gilbertson launches into a story: a few years back, he attended a farmers’ market with his sister and saw a farmer selling multicolored cauliflower, grown through a process called mutagenesis. This means that the cauliflower seeds were bombarded with radiation in order to produce gene mutations that resulted in different colors. Mutagenesis, despite its frequent use, is largely believed to be less precise and safe than transgenic gene transfer, because it can result in unanticipated gene changes.
When Gilbertson’s sister complimented the crazy-looking mutant vegetable, he asked her, “How do you know it’s safe?” Gilbertson laughs as he remembers her response: “Because I know Bob, [the farmer]. Bob would never do anything dangerous.” And Gilbertson says, “well what about me? I would never do anything dangerous.”
PATENTS
Monsanto’s reputation for patenting its GMO seeds, charging high prices, and requiring farmers to sign contracts agreeing not to replant them each year is another controversy I raise with Gilbertson. Monsanto, along with only nine other large corporations, controls 75% of the global seed market, arguably eliminating market competition, and decreasing seed variety—which, in turn, threatens biodiversity and food-system resilience.
When I brought up the controversy of GMO ownership I barely got out the word, “patent,” when Gilbertson stopped me, saying, “Hold on. I have another prop for you.”
Gilbertson returns, proudly bearing a large plaque. Every time employees receive a patent, he explains, they are awarded a plaque. Gilbertson has 27. He modestly tells me this plaque was earned for discovering a method for altering a gene, and mentions that genes and plants can be patented as well. Gilbertson emphasizes that the scientific community, as well as plant breeders, has been taking advantage of the patenting process for years—long before the advent of GMOs.
Gilbertson explains patenting enables researchers to protect and recoup their investment—preventing competitors from immediately producing replicas at low cost. For GMOs this investment is huge. It costs over $100,000,000 to bring a GMO seed to market, and as Gilbertson reasons, if farmers don’t pay for the seed year after year, biotech companies wouldn’t be able to recoup expenses, turn a profit, and invest in future crop improvements.
And why, exactly are these enhanced seed varieties so important? Gilbertson argues that with an increasing population, shrinking land for agriculture, and climate change, biotech will help increase crop yields without destroying the environment. “As if all that weren’t already bad enough,” he says, diets are shifting toward more protein consumption. Gilbertson acknowledges that biotech is only part of the solution, arguing that breeding and precision farming will be crucial as well. He mentions that this is actually where Monsanto is headed; the company has been buying data companies like Climate Corps and Precision Planting in order to produce seeds that will render the farm as efficient and environmentally friendly as possible. This is why Gilbertson loves his job. He smiles as he tells me, “I get to do science every day with really smart people. The bonus is I get to do it in a way that can really impact the world.”
And about that reputation? Monsanto is working on that too. Employees are actively encouraged to engage more, speaking with others about the company and its work. Gilbertson is no exception. He’s eager to talk to anybody, anytime, about anything. “I wish everybody loved GMOs. I wish everybody loved Monsanto,” he says, as he escorts me downstairs after our interview. As he shakes my hand, bike helmet under arm ready to commute home from work, I offer to connect him with anyone willing to hear his story.