How many people are offered the chance to move over a thousand miles away to spend the summer on the beach? This year, I had the opportunity to do just that! I moved from Des Moines, Iowa to Galena, Maryland for an internship with Monsanto’s North American Field Testing and Operations (NAFTO) team, leaving the endless Iowa corn fields behind for the beautiful Chesapeake Bay.

I grew up in Des Moines, Iowa, the state’s capital, and I attend Iowa State University. Des Moines is a big city, so people are often curious about how I became interested and involved in agriculture. I have always been passionate about hunger issues and science, so I chose to pursue a degree that would allow me to help feed the world’s growing population. My interest in learning the science behind how we help nourish our growing world, and how policies and funding impact food access led me to choose a double major:  Agriculture & Society and Seed Science. Through this field of study, I am learning how agricultural policy and seed science work together; it is a major that will help me contribute to solutions related to hunger issues via an agronomic research based career.

This summer, I was one of four NAFTO interns hired by Monsanto, but I was the only one assigned to the Eastern Shore in Maryland. On the Chemistry team, I was responsible for creating a guide that would be used to teach people how to evaluate and rate herbicides in a consistent manner. This task required me to learn about various herbicides, research rating scales that have been used in past, and connect with Chemistry team members across many different Monsanto locations. Prior to the internship, I had only completed one course in herbicides which equipped me with a basic overview of how they work and how they should be used. However, during my internship, I quickly discovered that I had a lot to learn if I were to be successful in explaining to others how herbicides should be rated. Everyone at the Galena site was very helpful in answering my questions and directing me to resources that proved to be useful. This experience taught me the importance of asking for clarification when needed, because people are always willing to help. Additionally, the connections with team members outside of my Galena site provided me with varying perspectives and feedback, which are essential to the successful outcome of any project.  This assignment offered great networking opportunities, challenged me to take initiative and to think outside of the box.

Outside of work, I spent most of my free time exploring Maryland’s Eastern Shore. I didn’t know much about Maryland, and knew even less about the small town of approximately 600 people that would be home for the summer. I remember writing a report about Maryland in grade school, but the only thing that stuck with me from that assignment was the Maryland state flag and that everyone loved Maryland crabs! During my first week there, I had crab every way possible—crab cakes, crab dip, crab soup, crab pizza, crab on burgers—it seemed that all of the foods in Maryland contained crab. However, I went from crab overload to crab cravings once I returned to the Midwest, as it is impossible to find fresh Maryland crabs in Iowa.

I met a lot of great people at Monsanto who were willing to explore the Eastern Shore with me. We went to Rehoboth Beach, Ocean City, the Delaware State Fair, weekly movie nights, bowling, and mini golfing. I also went boating in the Chesapeake Bay where we caught huge Rockfish, and I learned how to pick freshly steamed crabs. Friends even convinced me to try a Maryland delicacy known as Scrapple, which is like Spam and can be eaten with breakfast foods. I had so much fun with my new friends; since they knew the area, I ventured beyond the tourist locations to the places that the locals enjoyed as well. I appreciate my entire Maryland experience, and wouldn’t change it for the world.

This Monsanto internship pushed me outside of my comfort zone both personally and professionally by exposing me to unfamiliar information, people and situations. From learning to network, to taking initiative on projects, and communicating broadly across the company’s sites, I discovered how to let go of my shy personality and explore these new opportunities that awaited me. I am returning to Iowa State University this fall for my senior year with a fresh perspective!

This season, with new dicamba herbicide technology available to farmers and continuing discussions about glyphosate resistance, it’s especially important to remember to utilize a variety of weed control approaches to minimize the potential for selection of herbicide resistance. Farmers should keep in mind the importance of diversifying their weed management strategies, including using non-chemistry options as well as herbicides with multiple effective sites of action. This diversity is also key for the important task of properly managing new herbicides, like XtendiMax® with VaporGrip® Technology, to help create longevity for that technology.

Because no two fields are the same, farmers must have access to the right combination of products and practices that work best for their individual needs. For years, Monsanto has partnered with weed scientists, academics, agronomists and industry partners to help provide these weed management solutions to farmers. By combining efforts, like those noted below, farmers can continually evolve their weed management strategies and help minimize the potential for developing resistant weed populations.

• Use multiple weed control approaches, which can include herbicides, cover crops, tillage, crop rotation and proper planting timing. Overusing any one tool, no matter how well that tool works, can lead to resistance. Choosing a diverse mix of products and practices is vital to both properly managing weeds and helping technologies endure on the farm.
• When selecting herbicides, utilize the right combination of effective herbicides that fit your specific farm. This includes using herbicides from different site of action groups to help avoid developing weed populations that can be resistant to herbicides.
• Implement best management practices, including controlling weeds before they reach four inches tall, utilizing herbicides at the right time and in the right rate and scouting fields following an herbicide application to ensure weed control, among others. The goal is to leave no weeds in the field that can set seed and contribute to future weed management challenges.
• Ensure applicators understand and follow all label directions for any herbicide being used, including use rates, tank mix and nozzle requirements, wind speed requirements and all other label specifics. It is the responsibility of the applicator to comply with all product labels and state and local regulations.
• Confirm spray pattern overlap and ensure adequate coverage of herbicide(s) by applying within current approved nozzle choice and pressure (visit xtendimaxapplicationrequirements.com for specific application requirements, including approved nozzles). In fields with increased weed pressure, increasing the spray volume applied per acre to 15GPA or greater is recommended.

Farmers with questions about weed management strategies or certain herbicides can get in touch with their local extension agent, agronomist or state or local pesticide regulatory agency. They also can check out Roundup Ready PLUS Crop Management Solutions, which provides expert weed management recommendations and best management practices, including emphasizing the importance of utilizing herbicides with multiple effective sites of action.

Want to know more about the latest crop protection tools or herbicide resistance? Visit roundupreadyxtend.com or ask us your questions at discover.monsanto.com.

Having spent my life in agriculture, one of the things I love about people in my field is our ability to come together when there’s a need, such as helping a neighbor harvest a crop or pitching in to move livestock. There’s a need right now—there are ranchers and farmers in Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas suffering from losses because of wildfires that occurred this month.

These wildfires spread so fast—moving 40 miles per hour according to some reports—that farmers and ranchers could not move fast enough to protect their livestock, land, crops and homes from the fires. And some ranchers, in trying to protect their livestock, sadly lost their lives in the fires.

The damage is widespread. Thousands of cattle, including new calves, burned in the fire. It will take years to rebuild herds. Fences were destroyed as well. By some estimates, it costs $10,000 per mile of fence. Hundreds of thousands of acres of grassland—which would have been used as feed for the cattle this spring and summer—also burned. It will take several months for that grass to regrow—and that’s depending if it rains.

As someone who grew up raising cattle in western Missouri, I can sympathize with the ranchers who lost livestock. Raising livestock is hard but rewarding work. From calving to weaning, a special bond is formed between rancher and animal. I can’t imagine what it must have been like to see your herd, your pasture and your fences, and maybe even your home, wiped away in a matter of minutes.

It will take a long time before everything is back to “normal” for the farmers, ranchers and citizens of these areas. But as I watched the stories of the people affected by the fire and those who helped unfold on social media, I drew inspiration. Because, as someone who was raised in rural America and still farms today, I know the fabric of rural life and farming binds us together. When someone is in need, farmers and ranchers and rural towns pitch in to help. Whether you are a row crop or livestock farmer, we are in this together.

It was amazing to watch on social media how farmers from throughout the Midwest came together to pool their resources and send help to the Great Plains. I watched several people share videos of loads of hay and fencing supplies being delivered from farmers from Illinois, Indiana, Iowa and Missouri and all over the Midwest.

And they did this for free, because they care.

They made a selfless choice to deliver their excess supplies of hay so that their agriculture friends in another part of the country would have feed for the animals that survived. They volunteered their time, money and resources to support others.

As I watched this unfold online, I thought, “What can Monsanto do to help?” After all, some of these farmers and ranchers are our customers.

Today, Monsanto announced it is donating $50,000 to each of the state farm bureaus of Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas, for a total of $200,000. The state bureaus will then be able to choose how best to use the donations. Our efforts are small compared with the hard work and dedication others have contributed so far to the efforts to rebuild the areas. These efforts will take a long time. We aim to remain committed to working with the farm bureaus, other organizations and people in the affected region to be there through the long haul.

Agriculture has seen its share of tough and challenging times. The tragedies of the Great Plains wildfires are now in the history books as another one of those times. But, as with the previous challenging experiences, we know that rural America always comes through to help. That’s what we do.

If you haven’t seen the news or social media reports of the wildfires in the Great Plains states of Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas, I encourage you to visit these sites to learn more and contribute, if you are so inclined.

Colorado Farm Bureau

Kansas Farm Bureau

Oklahoma Farming and Ranching Foundation

Texas Farm Bureau

These allegations are false. Monsanto scientists did not ghostwrite the paper. The paper and its conclusions are the work of Dr. Williams, Dr. Kroes and Dr. Munro. The paper also underwent the journal’s rigorous peer review process before it was published.

Because plaintiffs’ attorneys are taking a single comment in a single email out of context to attempt to mischaracterize the role of a Monsanto scientist, Dr. William Heydens, who earned his PhD. in Toxicology from the University of Michigan in 1984, we are setting the record straight and taking the unusual step of publicly disclosing some of his sworn and transcribed testimony from a deposition regarding his involvement with the Williams et al (2000) paper.

Consistent with standard practices for academic and scientific peer-reviewed publications, the contributions of Dr. Heydens and other Monsanto experts were fully and publicly listed in the “Acknowledgements” section of the Williams et al (2000) paper, which stated, “[We] thank the toxicologists and other scientists at Monsanto who made significant contributions to the development of the exposure assessments and through many other discussions. The authors were given complete access to toxicological information contained in the great number of laboratory studies and archival material at Monsanto in St. Louis, Missouri, and elsewhere. Key personnel at Monsanto who provided scientific support were William F. Heydens, Donna R. Farmer, Marian S. Bleeke, Stephen J. Wrattens, and Katherine H. Carr.”

Although 15 years later Dr. Heydens referred to such fully acknowledged contributions as ghostwriting, he described his actual role in the Williams et al paper under oath as follows: “I made some minor editorial contributions to that 2000 paper that do not mount to the level of a substantial contribution or an intellectual contribution and, thus, I was only recognized in the acknowledgements and not as an author, and that was appropriate for the situation.”

He further clarified, “It was things like editing relatively minor things, editing for formatting, just for clarity, really just for overall readability to make it easier for people to read in a more organized fashion.”

The authors of the Williams et al (2000) paper are internationally recognized experts in the fields of toxicology, genotoxicity and carcinogenicity. Their paper synthesized a vast amount of scientific data on glyphosate developed from the 1970’s through 2000. Based on this vast data set and the overwhelming weight of evidence, the authors wrote, “It is concluded that, under present and expected conditions of new use, there is no potential for Roundup herbicide to pose a health risk to humans.”

The conclusion of Williams et al (2000) is consistent with the findings of regulatory authorities around the world, a branch of the World Health Organization that analyses pesticide residues, and one of the largest databases ever compiled on an agricultural product. To be clear: No regulatory body in the world considers glyphosate to be a carcinogen.

Plucking a single email out of 10 million pages doesn’t change this fact.

Science is always a collaborative process.  Our scientists often exchange ideas with, provide information to, and collaborate with third-party experts.  As a company built on sound science, these collaborations are critical to our ability to deliver new tools and innovations for farmers, and they are governed by the highest principles of integrity and transparency.

“The complexity and scale of the initiatives in the Digital Edge 50 show how quickly organizations are progressing to the next phase of digital transformation,” said Anne McCrory, Digital Edge program chair and Group VP, Customer Experience and Operations, IDG Enterprise Events. “They are taking advantage of new capabilities, such as AI and deep machine learning, to enhance their mobile and analytics practices worldwide. They are finding dramatic results from the cloud, and serving customers in faster and more elegant ways. Their adoption of agile, extreme programming and completely reworked business processes show how even the most traditional businesses can go big with digital with the right vision and leadership.”

“With a need to meet growing demand, Monsanto is leveraging cutting-edge technologies, data and analytics to improve data access and decision making across our product pipeline,” said Jim Swanson, Monsanto Chief Information Officer. “Our digital transformation is already delivering benefits to growers by ensuring even greater product availability and quality.”

This is the second consecutive year Monsanto has won the Digital Edge Award for its innovative IT practices. In early 2016, Monsanto received the award for developing a free platform (now called FarmRise™, Mobile Farm Care) that provides 4 million smallholder farmers with access to key agricultural insights and weather forecasts via SMS text, as well as advisory on seeds and planting, and agronomic practices with respect to pest and disease management through voice-recorded messages.

We were especially disappointed because we engaged with this reporter on multiple occasions over several months to provide interviews, background information and recommendations of third-party experts and resources.  Much of this context was omitted from the article.  As a result, the article may create unfortunate confusion and concern among consumers who are unfamiliar with modern agricultural practices.

As we told the reporter on multiple occasions, analyzing yield trends across geographies is complex because agronomic characteristics, maturity rates and other factors have to be taken into consideration.  Making comparisons across very broad geographies – such as the United States and Europe – is especially difficult.  Focusing on a comparison between smaller regions allows for better control of those variables and a more accurate comparison.

For instance, in a new analysis on the Huffington Post, Monsanto’s Chief Technology Officer, Dr. Robb Fraley, analyzes yield trends between the Canadian province of Ontario and the country of France.  These two regions are agronomically similar.  The big difference?  GMOs are common in Ontario but not used in France.  From 1997 to 2015, corn yields increased in Ontario by 51 percent, while French yields only grew about 10.5 percent.

Importantly, while this increase is significant, yield improvement is only one of the many benefits GMOs offer to modern agriculture.  Let’s look more broadly at those benefits.

The article completely overlooked the benefits of GMOs for farmers in the developing world – an area where this new technology is truly changing lives, particularly when it comes to food security.  According to Qaim and Kouser (2013), access to insect-resistant GMO cotton in India has increased family incomes and improved calorie consumption significantly.  Indeed, because of access to GMOs, food insecurity among Indian cotton-producing households has fallen by 15 to 20 percent.

GMOs and other modern agricultural tools have also helped accelerate the adoption of practices such as conservation tillage and no-till, which helps increase carbon sequestration in soil.  Brookes and Barfoot (2016) calculated that in 2014 alone, conservation tillage enabled by glyphosate-tolerant GMO corn and soybean removed 22.4 billion kilograms of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.  That’s the equivalent of taking 10 million cars off the road for a year.  That benefit alone should make headlines.

The article also made misleading claims regarding the use of pesticides on GMOs.  Brookes and Barfoot also report that GMOs have reduced pesticide spraying from 1996 to 2015 by 8.2 percent.

In addition, despite the article’s alarmist language about pesticide safety, it is important to note that all pesticides registered for use in the United States have undergone rigorous health and safety evaluations by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  These assessments ensure that pesticides can be used safely according to their label instructions, whether they are being used on GMOs, conventional or organic crops.

It’s easy for anyone to cherry-pick numbers to make a misleading argument.  But it’s impossible to argue with the real-world benefits both large and smallholder farmers have seen around the world.

As a company, we are committed to delivering new tools and innovations to growers to help nourish our world in a more sustainable way.  We believe GMOs are one important tool, among many, that will help feed our growing world.  We invite readers of the Times piece to dig deeper than the headlines and explore the benefits of GMOs for themselves.  A great place to start is at discover.monsanto.com or GMOAnswers.com.

Here’s a running list of links to responses by farmers, academics and others who are providing accurate information and setting the record straight on misinformation in the article as well.

• Andrew Kniss: The tiresome discussion of initial GMO expectations
• Kevin Folta: Rehashing a Tired Argument
• Steven Novella: The Times Gets it Wrong on GMOs
• Jayson Lusk: New York Times on GMOs
• Robb Fraley: Biotechnology Makes a Difference
• Karen Batra: NYT Misses the Point on Yields, Pesticides and What Farmers Need
• Nathanael Johnson: What the New York Times missed with its big GMO story
• Daniel R. Pearson: NYT Article Understates the Benefits of GMOs

Do you know what it is like to be hungry? Not the “I’m hungry, I need a snack” kind of hungry. Real hunger, as in starvation. According to the World Food Programme, one in eight people in the world suffer from hunger or starvation, so maybe you do know. If it’s something you’ve only seen on TV though, let me tell you what it’s like.

At the beginning of starvation, you feel extremely hungry. Then, the hunger pangs go away, and you get weaker and weaker – to the point that you’re barely able to walk. You do not have hopes or dreams. All you care about is finding something to fill your stomach. During this time, you develop night blindness due to malnutrition. You cannot see anything at night. It’s like having your eyes blindfolded.

How do I know this? I survived four years of chronic hunger and starvation under the Khmer Rouge communist dictatorship in Cambodia. This is why I am passionate about producing enough food for everyone on the planet, and I believe agricultural technologies can make it possible.

I was born in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. I had a normal life before I was 7-years-old. My dad, a self-employed businessman, was able to provide us a decent living. April 17, 1975 was like any other day. We went about our business. But suddenly during mid-morning, we heard gunfire. The next thing we knew, the Khmer Rouge had taken over the city and country.

A civil war had been going on between the government and the Khmer Rouge. Initially, we were elated because we thought the war had finally ended and life would be better. We were dead wrong. By that afternoon, the Khmer Rouge forced everyone to immediately leave the city. We took what we could carry, thinking we’d return home in a few days. We didn’t realize that our lives were changing for the worse.

For the next four years, life under Khmer Rouge rule was hell. We were forced to grow rice and dig reservoirs using only primitive methods: hoes and bamboo baskets carried on our heads or back were the extent of the tools we were given. One bowl of rice or rice porridge, twice a day, was all we were given to eat. We scavenged all kinds of things that under normal circumstances would not be considered food, like poisonous tree roots or a tough piece of leather, in order to fill our stomachs and survive. Many died as a result of execution, starvation or chronic hunger-induced diseases. There were 13 people in my family when we were forced to leave our home, but only five of us survived through the end.

I never imagined that someday I would help develop agricultural technologies to enable farmers to produce more with less. I, like millions of Cambodians, did not expect to have a bright future, especially with no formal education during and after the Khmer Rouge reign.

When I was 16, I was fortunate enough to be able to come to the United States and go to school for the first time. With all of the help I received along the way from many kind people, I was able to earn my college degree. After I completed my Ph.D., I joined Monsanto as a research scientist to help develop agricultural biotechnology. Working at Monsanto is a perfect fit for me because I’m able to contribute to agricultural technology development that can help to enable the production of enough food for the growing population and for minimizing hunger in the world.

There are many interconnected factors involved in world hunger. To solve this problem, producing enough food to feed the growing population must be part of the solution, and that food production needs to be consistent to minimize unstable markets. This means that we need to continue to develop agricultural technologies so we can produce more with less input per acre. Monsanto is at the forefront of this agricultural technology development. To produce enough food to feed the growing population in a sustainable way, we need to have different technologies and biotechnology is one of them.

I have been working in agricultural biotechnology for 16 years and see the benefits it provides. Weed control is a challenging task because farmers need to minimize crop injury while eliminating the competition from weeds for water and nutrients. Now, weeds can be effectively and efficiently controlled with herbicide-tolerant crop technology without the worry of crop injury. Herbicide-tolerant traits allow no-till farming, which retains soil moisture and minimizes soil erosion. Insect-resistant traits enable the plants to protect themselves against insects without the need of insecticidal spray, which is good for the environment. These are just some of the examples where agricultural biotechnology can improve crop yields and protect our environment.

I believe in agricultural biotechnology. I want to participate on the work to eliminate hunger so no other child, or adult, has to experience what I did. Imagine with me a world without hunger. To make this vision a reality, agricultural technology must be part of the solution.

Anthony Samsel and the activist group Moms Across America have suggested recently that glyphosate is found in vaccines. Nothing from Anthony Samsel’s results provides reliable evidence that glyphosate is present in vaccines. Everything that regulatory agencies and credible scientists know about glyphosate tells us this outcome is extremely unlikely. Unfortunately, such sensational allegations only serve to spark unwarranted fear and confusion and make finding reliable information much more difficult. In this post, I will discuss how this accusation is not credible by looking into the science behind the testing method.

Anthony Samsel has not published in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal any detail about what he or others did, so I can only comment based on incomplete and vague information.  Usually, I refrain from commenting on articles that haven’t been published in peer-reviewed journals, because that is the gold standard for the scientific community. If someone publishes science, reviewed by your peers, it carries weight; it deserves my attention to learn more about the science. However, Samsel’s study is not published in a peer-reviewed journal. I’m making an exception here, because it is irresponsible to scare parents about a matter as critical as children’s vaccinations.

It’s important to understand the background of the testing method used by Anthony Samsel, whose other claims have been rebutted elsewhere (“Medical Doctors weigh in on Glyphosate Claims” and “Condemning Monsanto With Bad Science Is Dumb”). The testing method used here for vaccines appears to be a method that was developed as a quick and inexpensive screening test for water samples to decide whether additional testing with a more expensive and precise method is needed. Simply put, because of this method’s potential for false positives at very low concentrations, a negative result of the test on water means no further testing is required; a positive result means one should conduct the more expensive test to confirm. This quick and inexpensive screening test has only been shown to work well in water – not vaccines, not wine, not beer, not milk, not eggs. Just water.

The activist group Moms Across America, the same group now helping promote Anthony Samsel’s vaccine allegations, previously used this quick and inexpensive testing method to incorrectly claim the detection of glyphosate residues in breast milk. After Moms Across America claimed to find glyphosate residues in breast milk using this method, a professor at Washington State University, Dr. Michelle McGuire, led a study to collect and analyze different samples using a more precise and validated method. Dr. McGuire found no glyphosate residues in breast milk. A previous study from New Zealand, a subsequent study in the United States and two subsequent studies from Germany also found no evidence of glyphosate residues in milk, and all of these studies reported an extensive validation of the assays.

Similarly, the method used by Anthony Samsel to generate data on vaccines was recently used to claim that glyphosate is present in eggs. Subsequent testing by the Food and Drug Administration, again using a valid method, did not detect glyphosate in eggs. Together, these results indicate that the quick and inexpensive test used to generate data on glyphosate in vaccines has been pushed beyond its reliable limits. One can only speculate that the motive here is to provoke fear and concern where none reasonably exists.

Glyphosate is a weed killer that inhibits a pathway found in plants, but not in humans or animals. Glyphosate is not a carcinogen, and it has a 40-year history of safe use. Like any weed killer, glyphosate has been extensively reviewed and approved for use by the U.S. EPA and other global regulatory authorities. For more information, please visit Monsanto.com/glyphosate.

What is Carbon Neutral Crop Production, and why is it important?

Crops use the process of photosynthesis to naturally convert carbon-dioxide from the atmosphere into oxygen and organic carbon in the form of plant biomass, roots and grain. However, the use of tillage, fuel, fertilizer, manure and other inputs used to grow crops also release carbon-dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHG) back into the atmosphere. Carbon-neutral cropping is a system that has the potential to absorb and store at least as much carbon in the form of soil carbon as is emitted (in the form of GHG) in the production of the crop. By turning crops from “net emitters” into “net sequesters” of carbon, carbon-neutral cropping can be an important tool for mitigating the amount of GHG emissions from agriculture.

What is ICF, and what does their recent report tell us about Carbon Neutral Crop Production?

ICF International is a leading analytics provider specializing in assessments of products during their complete life cycle. ICF was commissioned by Monsanto to independently assess the GHG mitigation potential of several crop-based strategies from “cradle to farm-gate”. This means accounting for emissions on the field as well as upstream emissions associated with creation of the inputs such as fertilizers.

What was most surprising about the results that ICF reported?

First, it was surprising to learn that the mitigation potential of a handful of near-term strategies could reduce cropland emissions by 1/3 to ½ of current emission levels. Second, the strategies with the biggest potential were precision nutrient management, cover crops, and reduced tillage. These are strategies that are already in use but have experienced limited adoption so far. If fully deployed, they have the potential to make farmers more efficient and profitable while also becoming more sustainable.

How does the ICF report affect Monsanto’s commitment to become carbon neutral by 2021?

This report is an important third-party scientific verification of the mitigation potential of the crop-based strategies that Monsanto is planning to promote and support in order to reach carbon neutrality as a company.

Where do we go from here? What are the next steps?

The next steps include continuing the development of an operational plan that supports business growth while ramping up carbon neutral practices on Monsanto’s seed production footprint as well as on our customers’ farms. Monsanto has an extensive suite of products and services that will need to be harnessed to support and enable carbon neutral crop production.

For example:

• Roundup-Ready® Xtend and Intacta RR2 PRO™ systems enables reduced/no-till by controlling weeds, even those that are glyphosate-resistant, and allowing cover crops to be removed to make way for planting of other crops.
• Crops that contain a Bt trait as well as corn marketed as Disease-Shield™ reduce insecticide use and enable cover crop use with fewer pest issues.
• Climate Corporation’s FieldView™ and Nitrogen Advisor™, and newly-announced in-field sensor network will enable more precise application of crop inputs.
• The Alliance is developing products that can help crops in a variety of ways – like improving nutrient uptake, promoting growth and yield, and providing insect control and disease protection. This new class of microbial solutions is designed to and to do so in a sustainable way that benefits agriculture, consumers, the environment, and society as a whole.
• Monsanto’s advanced molecular breeding pipeline is increasing crop productivity faster than conventional breeding, which allows greater food production from existing farmland. This is critical in limiting the need for deforestation or agricultural expansion into sensitive ecosystems.

How will consumers benefit from this initiative?

Consumers will benefit by knowing tomorrow’s agriculture, which utilizes the best technology available, will continue to provide a safe and resilient food supply while reducing the use of land, water, and other precious resources. Consumers may feel confused in the face of mega-trends and enormous challenges, but one thing the advent of social media has shown is that individuals can make a difference. By voting with their shopping carts, consumers can send powerful messages to food retailers, starting a cascade of market signals that reach all the way to food producers. By becoming informed about which ag technologies help enable sustainable practices – such as reduced tillage, cover crops, precision agriculture, and sustainable intensification on the best farmland – consumers can purchase food that was produced using methods that improve soil health and the environment.

This summer, I had the opportunity to work for Monsanto as a Commercial Finance Intern, and it has definitely been my favorite job experience!  Growing up in St. Louis, Missouri, I knew that Monsanto was a global agriculture company, but I didn’t know much more about it than that.  My love for agriculture truly began when I was young; I had the opportunity to drive around my uncle’s farm and saw some of the corn that he grew.  This experience led me to think about how interesting life as a farmer must be, and I wanted to learn more about the process that farmers go through to produce the food that we eat everyday. This exposure piqued my interest in the agriculture industry, which led me to Monsanto later in life.

When I entered college, I never thought about agriculture from a business perspective.  With most of my classes revolving around banking and various financial institutions, it was hard to understand how Monsanto fit into the business world.  Thankfully, due to Monsanto’s presence at multiple career events hosted by the University of Missouri, I was able to meet a few Monsanto recruiters who helped me to see how a finance student would fit into Monsanto’s work force.  The recruiters assured me that Monsanto’s vision, enabling farmers to grow more food while conserving more natural resources, provides a real opportunity for business majors to add value within the company.  Luckily, after a round of interviews with those same recruiters, I accepted a job with Monsanto as a Commercial Finance Intern.

Since I lacked experience in the ag industry when I came to Monsanto, I was nervous and wondered how I would fit in. However, my initial fears were soon relieved thanks to the incredible efforts of the U.S. Commercial team.  They answered all of the questions that I had about agriculture and encouraged me to network with various departments in the company, which enabled me to gain a strong understanding of Monsanto’s business functions.

Branches of Promise statue on Monsanto’s Creve Coeur campus.

Through my internship, I was able to add value to Monsanto’s customers by using business analytics to evaluate specific grower financing programs at a regional level.  As a result, business area leads at Monsanto now have a better understanding of the effectiveness of some of the financing programs—and can pass that same value on to customers.  For me, this type of work is right in line with my values, as I’ve always wanted to work for a company that makes a positive impact on people.  I believe that I was able to directly help Monsanto’s growers through my role, which made doing the work easy for me.  It not only felt great to help growers, but having the opportunity to assist my co-workers with various projects that were necessary to the business was empowering.  Towards the end of my internship, I was asked, “Did you ever feel like an intern?”  My answer to this question was, “No; instead, I felt like a full-time employee.”  This is the benefit of working for Monsanto as a college student; rather than doing mundane work, the company gives students challenging responsibilities and the necessary resources to finish the job, which leaves interns feeling proud to have completed the work that was assigned.

The reason that I decided to apply to be a Monsanto Student Ambassador was simple: I enjoyed the culture of the company, the work that I did, and the people who surrounded me.  I knew that my role as a student ambassador would enable me to assist in recruiting high-performing students, especially those who may have never considered agriculture as a viable destination for someone with a business background.  As an ambassador, I want to get in front of as many students as I can and help them to understand not only what Monsanto does today, but how they too, can be a part of Monsanto’s vision moving forward.  If my work as a student ambassador only helps one student, then it will have been worth my effort.

I appreciate every opportunity that Monsanto has given me, and I cannot wait to return after graduation next spring—only this time, it will be as a full-time employee.

Learn more about student opportunities at Monsanto:

Facebook.com/MonsantoJobs          Twitter.com/MonsantoJobs 
https://www.linkedin.com/company/monsanto