IN RESPONSE to your article Revealed: Sussex’s pension pot funds fracking companies, printed Wednesday, July 23, I wanted to clarify a couple of points in case you write about the subject again.

The first centres around product labelling and the statement you referenced from the Organic Consumers Association that Monsanto has ‘fought hard to prevent labelling laws’.

The truth is we support voluntary labelling and our position on labelling is exactly the same as the US Federal Drug Administration (FDA).

We support a science-based approach and we support labelling GM ingredients if the food is different or has a different nutritional property.

We also respect every person’s right to choose the foods they eat and support voluntary labelling that provides choice, such as organic labelling and GMO-free marketing labels as long as they are accurate and not misleading.

In addition, for those who want to avoid foods containing GMOs, the products produced and labelled according to USDA’s National Organic Program already provides an option.

What we do oppose are initiatives that mandate GM labelling in the absence of any risk.

Since most consumers expect food labels to provide nutrition and safety information, mandatory labelling could imply that food products containing these ingredients are somehow inferior to their conventional or organic counterparts.

Additionally, it would force consumers to pay more for the food they need.

In regards to Agent Orange, I just wanted to make sure that you know that the former Monsanto Company was one of nine wartime government contractors who were directed to manufacture Agent Orange.

The government set the specifications for making Agent Orange and determined when, where, and how it was used. Agent Orange was only produced for and used by the government. Thanks so much.

Charla Marie Lord Monsanto Company