Introduction As the proverb goes, “when we sow our thoughts, we reap our language; when we sow our language, we reap our actions; when we sow our actions, we reap our habits; when we sow our habits, we reap our character; when we sow our character, we reap our destiny.” In this way a thought is like a seed. If sown intentionally, a thought can yield language that opens the heart, opens the mind, and in turn, opens the hand of peace. The purpose of this sermon is to offer a collegial hand of peace, in the form of a letter, addressed to one of the most influential people in the world. It is a letter that intentionally plants a seed: a seed that, if grown collectively, can heal some of the most critical relationships of our time. This public letter, is addressed to Mr. Hugh Grant, the Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer of Monsanto, a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation that produces over 90% of the world’s genetically engineered seeds , such as soy, corn and cotton. Monsanto is one of the largest producers of glyphosate herbicides and, because of numerous broken relationships, has become a controversial enterprise. A copy of this letter will be sent to leaders of numerous national and international agencies with the intent that the ideas presented here will elicit a public conversation about, not only, our relationship with one another but also our relationship with food. It is urgent that we collaborate in creating a public forum by which we can collectively study one of the most critical moral issues of our time: sovereign seeds.

Public Letter to Mr. Grant

November 10, 2009

Mr. Hugh Grant Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Monsanto Company 800 N. Lindbergh Blvd. St. Louis, MO 63167 USA

Dear Mr. Grant, The following letter was publicly read aloud on November 1, 2009 at the First Unitarian Church of Philadelphia, established by Joseph Priestley in 1796. I share the name of our founder to explain that because his discoveries laid the foundation for modern chemistry we pride ourselves using science to guide our spiritual and ethical lives. We are a religious people who believe in responsibly participating in the interdependent web of existence of which we are all a part. We are an inquiry-driven people who believe in each person’s free and responsible search for truth and meaning. My letter has seven parts, each dedicated to ask you a moral question about Monsanto’s relationships. The first question concerns farmers; the second, your relationship with consumers; third, your relationship with the media; fourth, your relationship with universities; fifth, your relationship with governments; sixth, your relationship with creation; and seventh, your relationship with your conscience. The letter closes with a simple request that we meet to publicly discuss these questions in person. I will begin with the stewards of the land.

Relationship with Farmers Your company’s relationship with farmers is naturally strained: humanity has traveled from localized agrarian societies to the three pronged junction of the age of industrialization and the age of technology and the age of globalization. As a result, small farms are being replaced with industrial farms. Natural seeds are being replaced with genetically engineered seeds. Local food production is being replaced with international systems to mass-produce food not only for people with access to that food, but also for the non-human animals produced by those industrial farms. I understand that two of Monsanto’s goals are, one, to genetically modify seeds that will produce plants to withstand the herbicide intended to control area weeds, and two, to genetically engineer seeds that will produce plants that create a higher yield and use less acreage. By patenting the science used to redesign the DNA of a seed, your company legally receives a financial return on its investment. Patent laws protect your seeds from being duplicated, allowing you the legal right to create use-agreements with farmers that prevent them from reselling the seeds or using the seeds from one harvest for the next. This system has led Monsanto to invest over $10,000,000 annually to hire a legal team of 75 attorneys to litigate those who breach your technology agreements, over which there have been at least 138 lawsuits, of which less than a dozen have gone to trial . Critics of these practices perceive Monsanto as creating a chilling effect in the farming industry, aware that most farmers do not have the financial resources to invest in legal representation and therefore prematurely settle. I read about a court that ruled against a farmer who breached an agreement by saving the seeds ; another was sentenced to eight months in prison for destroying seeds ; yet another farmer was sued because the wind pollinated his land with seeds from a neighboring farm . I also read critiques about seeds not producing the yields as advertised , and that the crops are requiring more herbicide , , , and concerns that genetically modified animal feed may be causing cattle and pigs to be sterile . These examples are shared to highlight the tension with your company’s relationship with farmers , leading me to my first question. Throughout human history, farming was a localized craft intended to empower people to feed themselves. It has since become a prodigious global industry requiring farmers to be chemists and entrepreneurs, politicians and legal scholars. From the reporting about your company, it is clear to me that farmers have questions about the science of seeds, they have concerns about business agreements, they have apprehensions about the political process, and they have anxiety about potential litigation. These complexities damage not only your reputation but also the historic role farmers have played in society. How will you help restore farmers’ dignity by making it a dual priority to reconcile your relationships with them and to encourage farmers to study the environmental impacts of these innovations while openly communicating their findings? In doing so, you would collectively restore credibility to a dignified role of farmers historically known as stewards of the land whose self-determination and autonomy can benefit everyone.

Relationship with Consumers My second question is about your relationship with consumers. It is critical for us to understand whether what we ingest preserves health. We have concerns that we may be participating in a system without full awareness of the impacts of our collective decision, not only for our health but the health of animals and the environment. For example, Canadian, Italian, German and British studies that found genetically modified crop-DNA in the milk, blood, liver, kidneys and intestinal tissue of animals who were fed genetically modified crops , , , , , , , , . These studies raise concerns that consumers are being exposed to this altered DNA by consuming dairy and meat products. There are also several studies that express concerns about the injection of the growth hormone IGF-1 in cattle who are fed genetically modified crops . It has been argued that when consumed by humans the milk produced from these cows accelerate the growth of cells in humans, including those associated with breast cancer , prostate cancer , lung cancer and colon cancers , . However, your own studies show that there is no significant difference in milk labeled as “organic milk” as compared to milk without those labels . Our own state Agriculture Secretary Dennis Wolff, said “the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture is not in a position to” put warning labels on milk because it would evoke fear in the consumer. Whether or not the labels are there, those of us who read these scientific studies are afraid. Without the ability to fully understand what we are consuming, we make the conjecture that genetically modified crops fed to hormone-injected animals have negative impacts on the health of farm animals and humans. This leads me to ask simply, how will you support the creation of a system to label all genetically modified foods so that consumers can understand not only how our food is made but also its impact on our health?

Relationship with Media My third question is also about transparency, an ethic your company has publicly pledged to uphold. It is my understanding that one of the goals of your company is to increase productivity in order to feed the world’s hungry. However, it is not clearly communicated in the media how much of the food produced is dedicated to those without access to food as compared to how much is grown for animal feed, biofuels and processed foods in wealthy countries . Meaning, consumers are not confident in the authenticity of a slogan that claims to end world hunger. Another example illustrates this same point. Ten years ago, delegates from the countries of Africa, “strongly objected that the image of the poor and hungry from [their] countries” was being used by “giant multinational corporations to push a technology that [they considered to be] neither safe, environmentally friendly, nor economically beneficial to [Africans].” They made clear that they did not want to be recipients of genetically modified foods or to have their people be represented in your promotional material. Meaning, they challenged your company to not mislead consumers. And yet, last week a French Court sentenced Monsanto for producing a “misleading” commercial that claimed the herbicide Roundup glyphosate was “biodegradable” and left “the soil clean.” The court said the advertisement, quote, “avoids the potential danger of the product by the use of reassuring words and by misleading the consumer.” This case highlights a chronic strain in your company’s relationship with the media, leading me to ask the following question. What will you do to produce truthful advertisements, to encourage reporters to responsibly investigate stories about your products, and to treat all individuals and groups of people with decency and respect? In doing so, you have the opportunity to rebuild public confidence so they may have trust in your word.

Relationship with Universities I understand that you have been seeking to rebuild trust with Universities, which leads me to ask the fourth question. In February, a group of influential scientists reported to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that Monsanto was preventing “university scientists from fully researching the effectiveness and environmental impact of the industry’s genetically modified crops.” They say they “must seek permission from the seed companies before researching genetically engineered seeds. Sometimes that permission is denied or the company insists on reviewing any findings before they can be published.” One scientist from the University of Minnesota said, “If a company can control the research that appears in the public domain, they can reduce the potential negatives that can come out of any research” . Mr. Grant, the research university plays a unique role in civil society: academic freedom allows researchers to investigate the pressing issues of our time. In doing so, scholars are keepers of an intellectual heritage; they are stewards of our common knowledge, which is betrayed if scholars are legally prevented from producing new knowledge. There is one way Monsanto can transform its image of being a restrictive, closed corporation that seeks to control information: use the open source technology model. How will you follow the lead of software developers who made their source codes accessible and created a transparent process by which innovations were advanced and profits made? The same can be true of open source biotechnology . Imagine the transformation in your company’s image if seed-codes were open to peer-based collaboration and public research. We could all partake in the advancement of the science, ensuring that no harm is done to people, animals or the earth. As the proverb goes, “all of us are smarter than any one of us.” Maybe Monsanto’s next innovation will be the production of a wikiseed ? Imagine an open-source code for the seed that invites scientists from around the world into a peer-based collaboration. Such a business strategy would quell concerns about the privatization of the world’s seeds. After all the seed is the origin of the food chain. In this way, the wikiseed would allow four freedoms : (1) the freedom for anyone to grow any seed; (2) the freedom to study how the seed works and alter it to achieve different results; (3) the freedom to redistribute seed codes so as to help any world citizen; and (4) the freedom to improve the seed, to release advancements (and modified versions in general) to the public, so that the whole world community benefits. Public access to the genetic code is a precondition to these freedoms. This leads me to ask my fifth question about your relationship with governments.

Relationship with Governments Just as there are concerns about the privatization of seeds there are concerns about the politicization of seeds. Citizens of the world are rightfully worried about governments allowing the establishment of an oligopoly, that is, a small number of multi-national corporations controlling the world’s food supply . This is made possible when companies like Monsanto hold seed patents in hundreds of countries. In the U.S. alone Monsanto and DuPont own nearly all the patents on soy seeds. The patent protects your company for 20 years, thereby ensuring that the seed will eventually become part of the public domain; however, these protections for the public do not take into consideration the practice of a company’s replacing one patented seed with another for an indefinite amount of time. For example, a company can distribute to farmers the seeds patented in year one, which is replaced with a new use agreement protecting the seeds licensed in year five, which are soon replaced by new seeds patented in year ten. As a result, the patented seed in year one will become available to the public in year 20 but farmers will be bound by other use agreements on more advanced seeds. I wonder if this business model establishes a de facto breach on patent laws and prevents the most fruitful seeds from being in the public domain. As a result, there is widespread concern about corporate colonization over what gives life, leading me to ask the fifth question. Mr. Grant: How will Monsanto honor, respect and protect seed sovereignty, defined as the right of people and self-governed states to democratically determine their own seed policies ? By doing so, your company would demonstrate respect for three legacies: self-determination, shared access and equal opportunity to grown one’s own food. The purpose is to simply grant all people the right to plant and reap one’s own destiny.

Relationship with Creation Monsanto’s relationship with creation may in fact determine our collective destiny, the subject of my sixth question. During World War II, Monsanto played an important role in the Manhattan Project to develop the atom bomb and by the mid-20th century Monsanto became one of the top chemical companies in the U.S., eventually producing DDT and Agent Orange used in the Vietnam War to defoliate the environment . Five years ago, your company and Solutia, a spin-off of Monsanto, agreed to a $700 million dollar settlement because of the environmental damage your companies caused when dumping 45 tons of PCB pollutants and mercury into the local creeks of Anniston, Alabama. These toxins not only contaminated the environment but also the area’s drinking water , , . I respectfully ask, will you ensure that a supermajority of Monsanto’s fiscal and human resources go toward guaranteeing that our vital ecosystems will never again be contaminated? Will you make a public promise to guarantee the world citizenry that Monsanto will spend the next century healing, not harming, the environment; healing, not harming, any animals or humans? Mr. Grant, when can we meet to organize a group of interfaith clergy and bioethicists to craft a twenty-first-century Hippocratic Oath for biotechnology? We could develop an oath based on the principles of biolmedical ethics , such as nonmaleficence, beneficence and justice, to be signed by all Monsanto’s employees who agree to do no harm.

Relationship with Your Conscience Before you answer, let your conscience be your guide. For the secret to my seventh question is found in the paradox of my preaching philosophy. I believe that no one listens to my sermons; rather they take the opportunity to listen to that which is within and beyond. My aim for crafting this sermon as a public letter is to ask you: will you take this opportunity to listen to the God of your understanding, to listen to your conscience, and to follow your moral compass? Monsanto needs a moral leader, not simply for the sake of the company but for the world community. My prayer for you is simple: may you hold sacred the responsibility to plant ideas that inspire thoughts and actions that cultivate not only your character but also our shared destiny. An ancient parable serves as my closing prayer, dedicated to you: “We pick fruit from trees we did not plant. We draw water from wells we did not dig. This is as it should be, so long as we dig and plant for those who will come after.”

Faithfully,

Reverend Nathan C. Walker First Unitarian Church 2125 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 701-9072 revnate@philauu.org

April 13, 2007 ALTAMONTE SPRINGS, Fla - A gunman robbing a convenience store allowed the clerk to call 911 and apologized after the woman said she might be having a heart attack. But he still took $30 and cigarettes, authorities said. The masked man entered the Kangaroo Express store early Saturday in this Orlando suburb and pointed what appeared to be a semiautomatic handgun at 60-year-old clerk Mary Parker, according to surveillance audio/video released Thursday. He demanded access to the safe, but she said she didn’t have the keys. He told her to empty the cash register into a bag. He then pulled up a stool for her to sit down and told her he was doing this because no one would hire him and he had bills to pay. http://bit.ly/3YIc59

July 2007 WASHINGTON (AP) - Police on Capitol Hill are baffled by an attempted robbery that began with a handgun put to the head of a teenager and ended in a group hug. It started about midnight on June 16 when a group of friends was finishing a dinner of marinated steaks and jumbo shrimp on the back patio of a District of Columbia home. That’s when a hooded man slid through an open gate and pointed a handgun at the head of a 14-year-old girl. “Give me your money, or I’ll start shooting,” he said, according to D.C. police and witnesses. Everyone froze, including the girl’s parents. Then one guest spoke. “We were just finishing dinner,” Cristina “Cha Cha” Rowan, 43, told the man. “Why don’t you have a glass of wine with us?” The intruder had a sip of their Chateau Malescot St-Exupery and said, “Damn, that’s good wine.” The girl’s father, Michael Rabdau, 51, told the intruder to take the whole glass, and Rowan offered him the whole bottle. The robber, with his hood down, took another sip and a bite of Camembert cheese. He put the gun in his sweatpants. The story then turns even more bizarre. “I think I may have come to the wrong house,” he said before apologizing. “Can I get a hug?” Rowan, who works at her children’s school and lives in Falls Church, Va., stood up and wrapped her arms around the armed man. The four other guests followed. “Can we have a group hug?” the man asked. The five adults complied. The man walked away a few moments later with the crystal wine glass in hand. Nothing was stolen, and no one was hurt. Once he was gone, the group walked into the house, locked the door and stared at each other - speechless. Rabdau called 911, and police came to take a report and dust for fingerprints. Police classified the case as strange but true. Investigators have not located a suspect. The witnesses thought he might have been high on drugs. “We’ve had robbers that apologize and stuff but nothing where they sit down and drink wine. It definitely is strange,” said Cmdr. Diane Groomes, adding that the hugs were especially unusual. “The only good thing is they would be able to identify him because they hugged him.” http://bit.ly/3e55WJ

February 11, 2008 NEWARK, Del. – A Delaware woman received a strange phone call at work on Wednesday. A burglar called to let her know that the dog had been let out. Allegedly, Sara Sheats-McDonald broke into a home in New Castle County Wednesday morning. But in the process she let out the homeowner’s dog. Apparently this caused the 33-year old to be so concerned for the pet’s welfare that she alerted the owner to the status of the dog being outside. Upon receiving the call, the unidentified homeowner called the police. When police arrived at the home, Sheats-McDonald was still present. She was enjoying the comfort of the home with lit candles, a slice of cake and a glass of milk. While the suspect was taken without incident, she later kicked an officer who was putting her in a police cruiser. She is charged with burglary, theft and offensive touching of a police officer. http://bit.ly/2pwumR

June 3, 2009 GARDEN CITY, N.Y. - A Long Island convenience store owner confronted by a bat-wielding would-be robber said Tuesday he decided to show mercy on the man after seeing him collapse into tears and claim he was only committing the crime to support his starving family. The store owner provided the man with $40 and a loaf of bread and made him promise never to rob again. “This was a grown man, crying like a baby,” Mohammad Sohail, owner of the Shirley Express convenience store about 65 miles east of New York City, told The Associated Press in a telephone interview. The man dropped the bread, picked up the bat and tucked the $40 into his waistband before fleeing, said Suffolk County police Sgt. John Best. Sohail, who moved to the United States from Pakistan about 20 years ago, said he was getting ready to close his store shortly after midnight on May 21 when a man in his 40s entered with a bat in his hand. Sohail said he tried to stall for a moment and then grabbed a rifle he keeps behind the counter and ordered the assailant to drop the bat. The would-be thief dropped to his knees and begged for forgiveness, Sohail said. “He started crying that he was out of work and was trying to feed his hungry family,” he said. “I felt bad for him. I mean, this wasn’t some kid.” He said he tossed $40 to the man, who then stood up and told Sohail he wanted to become a fellow Muslim. Sohail said he then pretended to swear the man into the Muslim faith and two ended up shaking hands. Sohail said he went to the back of the store to get some milk to give to the man, but when he returned the man had fled. He said he called police and reported the attempted robbery, but he doesn’t want to press charges if the man is ever caught. Best said detectives have reviewed a store surveillance video of the attempted holdup, but said it would be difficult for anyone to identify the suspect because he was wearing a mask. Sohail, who said he had never been the victim of a robbery attempt, said he didn’t expect any accolades for what he had done. “I’m a very little man. I just did a good job,” said the married father of one. “I have a good feeling in my heart. I feel very good.” http://bit.ly/wkjBs

October 20, 2009 INDIANAPOLIS — A man who police said was involved in a bizarre robbery in which he hugged and prayed with a frightened store clerk turned himself in after his mother saw him on TV. Indianapolis police Lt. Jeff Duhamell said Gregory Smith, 23, had a gun when he went to the Advance America Store in the 900 block of East Washington Street Monday. Police said Smith jumped behind the counter and pointed a gun at the female clerk, but then became remorseful when she began crying and talking about God “He, at that time, starts to basically console her,” said Indianapolis police Detective Kevin Wethington. Police said the robber told the clerk that he hated to do it, but times are hard and he has a 2-year-old child to support. Surveillance video showed the clerk praying with the robber, who even went so far as to hug the frightened female clerk. “They were actually praying at this point about the decisions that he’s making,” Wethington said. When the clerk pleaded with the gunman not to shoot her, police said he made a shocking gesture to put her at ease. “He reaches down, hands her the bullet out of his gun,” Wethington said. After 30 minutes of conversation with the clerk, the robber grabbed about $20 from the register and the clerk’s cell phone before he left, investigators said. Police said Smith was identified in a police photo lineup on Tuesday. He is expected to be charged with robbery. http://bit.ly/4eL5Hi

October 22, 2009 ORLANDO A burglar with a conscience returned a keepsake containing a boy’s ashes to his Orlando mother after seeing the woman talk about it on television. The ashes were in a small vial that looks like a necklace. It, along with jewelry, money, a television and other things were swiped when Emely Santana’s home was ransacked this week. Santana is still grieving the June death of 18-year-old son Giovanni Perez. She picks up his urn when she’s sad to feel closer to him, and planned to give the necklace to her mother. Santana got her wish on Wednesday. The stolen vial reappeared in the back of her car, wrapped in the comics section of the newspaper. The other things are still gone, but the grieving mom said she can replace those. http://bit.ly/1PhBHi

http://www.philauu.org/uploads/Sermons/Separation%20of%20Religion%20&%20State%20-%20Sermon%20final.pdf

I remain busy changing the world in Florida. I am happy here. Love, Jackie