Can Soy Be ‘Responsible’? GM Soy Certification, the Monsanto–WWF Controversy, and the End of the Amazon Soy Moratorium

In 2009 and 2010, dozens of environmental and farming organizations accused one of the world’s best-known conservation groups of helping to greenwash genetically modified soybeans. The target was the Round Table on Responsible Soy (RTRS), a certification initiative co-founded by WWF that brought together soy traders, food companies, banks, and NGOs. Its standard allowed genetically modified soy, including Monsanto’s Roundup Ready varieties, to be certified as “responsible.” Monsanto was among the participants. As The Ecologist reported, protesters staged a Monsanto-themed mock circus, complete with a panda, outside WWF’s Netherlands office.

Headlines at the time framed it as Monsanto and WWF teaming up to greenwash the Amazon. The reality was a more complicated argument about how to reduce deforestation in a global commodity market, one that has taken on new urgency. In 2026, the most successful private agreement to keep soy out of the Amazon, the Amazon Soy Moratorium, effectively unraveled, while the European Union prepares to enforce a law requiring proof that imported soy is deforestation-free. This article explains what the RTRS is, why its GM policy drew fire, how the Soy Moratorium worked and why it collapsed, and what these developments mean for the food system.

Why Soy Is at the Center of Deforestation Debates

Soybeans are one of the world’s most important crops, and South America, led by Brazil, is the largest exporter. Soy expansion has driven the conversion of large areas of natural vegetation in Brazil’s Amazon and Cerrado regions and in Argentina, Paraguay, and Bolivia, either directly, by clearing forest for fields, or indirectly, by pushing cattle ranching deeper into forest as soy takes over existing pasture.

Most of that soy is not eaten by people directly. According to Our World in Data, more than three-quarters of global soy, 77 percent, is fed to livestock for meat and dairy production, and only about 7 percent is used directly for human foods such as tofu, soy milk, edamame, and tempeh. The rest goes mainly to vegetable oil, biofuels, and industrial uses. That means the soy footprint of most diets in Europe, North America, and China is embedded in chicken, pork, eggs, dairy, and farmed fish.

What the Round Table on Responsible Soy Is

The RTRS grew out of efforts in the mid-2000s to create sustainability criteria for soy. WWF and the Swiss retailer Coop had earlier developed the Basel Criteria for Responsible Soy Production, which excluded genetically modified soy, but few producers could meet them. The RTRS was formally established in 2006 as a broader multi-stakeholder body, with members from producers, traders and processors, manufacturers, retailers, finance, and civil society. The organization sets a voluntary production standard and certifies farms that meet it, and buyers can purchase certified soy through physical supply chains or through credits.

The RTRS standard addresses legal compliance, labor conditions, community relations, environmental responsibility, and good agricultural practices, including rules on clearing native vegetation. Later versions of the standard tightened deforestation and conversion requirements, adding cutoff dates after which land converted from natural ecosystems cannot be certified.

What made the RTRS controversial from the start was its decision to be what WWF called “technologically neutral.” Unlike the Basel Criteria, the RTRS certifies both conventional and genetically modified soy. That decision brought the largest players in South American soy, where most production was genetically modified, into the scheme. It also brought the scheme into direct conflict with groups that saw GM soy as inherently incompatible with sustainability.

The 2009–2010 Backlash

When the RTRS adopted its standard in 2009, more than 80 organizations signed a statement opposing it. As FoodNavigator reported, they called for the RTRS to be abandoned, argued that its standards were too weak to protect biodiversity, and said GM soy should be excluded. A Friends of the Earth campaigner told the publication that increased herbicide use associated with GM soy made it impossible to call it sustainable, and that the only responsible soy was less soy.

WWF defended its position. Its forest conversion program coordinator told FoodNavigator that the organization’s core issue was deforestation and loss of natural habitat, and that shifting the industry required engaging the industry as a whole. At the time, GM soy accounted for most of Argentina’s crop and a majority of Brazil’s. Excluding it, WWF argued, would limit the standard to a small niche and leave the rest of production, and the forests it threatened, untouched. WWF said it would continue promoting labeling of non-GM RTRS soy.

In a September 2010 open letter, a coalition coordinated by the Global Forest Coalition rejected the “responsible” label outright. The letter argued that industrial soy production in South America had caused deforestation, displacement of small farmers, pesticide exposure, and damage to local food systems, and that labeling large-scale GM soy as responsible would aggravate those problems. It criticized RTRS lobbying, alongside Monsanto, for carbon credits for soy at the 2009 Copenhagen climate conference. It also noted that major Brazilian industry groups, including the farmers’ association Aprosoja and the traders’ association Abiove, had themselves distanced from the RTRS over its deforestation clause.

That last detail is often lost in retellings. The RTRS was attacked from both sides: environmental and farming groups considered it too weak, while parts of the Brazilian soy industry considered its deforestation rules too strict.

Monsanto’s Role, and What Happened to Monsanto

Monsanto’s participation in the RTRS was a lightning rod because the company was the dominant supplier of GM soy traits in South America. Its Roundup Ready soybeans, engineered to tolerate the herbicide glyphosate, allowed farmers to spray fields after crops emerged, simplifying weed control and supporting no-till farming, which reduces soil erosion. Critics linked the same system to heavy herbicide use, the spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds, and pesticide exposure in rural communities.

A 2016 analysis by Charles Benbrook in Environmental Sciences Europe documented the steep rise in glyphosate use in the United States and globally after herbicide-tolerant crops were introduced, and estimated that such crops account for a majority of global glyphosate use. On the other side, a 2014 meta-analysis by Wilhelm Klümper and Matin Qaim in PLOS ONE found that, averaged across studies, GM crop adoption had increased yields and farmer profits and reduced chemical pesticide use, with the pesticide reductions driven mainly by insect-resistant crops rather than herbicide-tolerant ones.

Monsanto itself no longer exists as an independent company. Bayer completed its acquisition in 2018 and retired the Monsanto name. The glyphosate litigation that followed in the United States, and the ongoing global debate about herbicide-tolerant crops, are separate stories, but they explain why the Monsanto name attached to any sustainability initiative generated immediate suspicion.

The Amazon Soy Moratorium: A Different Approach

While the RTRS debate was playing out, a separate initiative was quietly becoming one of the most effective anti-deforestation measures in the world. The Amazon Soy Moratorium was launched in 2006, after a Greenpeace campaign linked soy from newly cleared Amazon land to European food chains. Under the agreement, major grain traders pledged not to buy soy grown on land in the Brazilian Amazon that had been deforested after a cutoff date, which was later set at July 2008. Signatories included Cargill, Bunge, ADM, Louis Dreyfus, and China’s Cofco, along with industry associations, environmental groups, and the Brazilian government as a supporter.

Unlike certification, which rewards farms that opt in, the moratorium worked by closing the main market to soy from newly deforested Amazon land. Traders used satellite monitoring to identify farms that had cleared forest after the cutoff and refused to buy from them. According to Mongabay, the moratorium is estimated to have kept at least 18,000 square kilometers of rainforest standing. Soy production in the Amazon biome continued to grow during this period, but mostly on land that had already been cleared for pasture, showing that expansion and forest protection were not necessarily incompatible.

How Satellite Monitoring Made the Moratorium Work

Part of what made the Soy Moratorium effective, compared with many voluntary pledges, was that compliance could be checked from space. Brazil’s national space research institute, INPE, has monitored Amazon deforestation by satellite for decades through its PRODES and DETER systems. Moratorium participants combined those deforestation maps with maps of soy planting, identified farms where soy was grown on land cleared after the cutoff date, and placed those farms on a list that traders agreed not to buy from. Independent audits reviewed the process.

This combination of public satellite data, clear rules, and a small number of powerful buyers made the agreement enforceable in practice. A farmer who cleared forest could still sell soy to smaller buyers or to domestic markets, but lost access to the major export traders who dominated the market. The model has been studied as a template for other commodities, such as cattle, where supply chains are longer and harder to trace because animals move between multiple ranches before slaughter.

The same monitoring infrastructure remains in place after the moratorium’s collapse. Researchers and NGOs can still track whether soy expands onto newly deforested land, which means the effects of the traders’ exit should become visible in data within a few growing seasons.

How the Moratorium Unraveled

Opposition to the moratorium grew among soy farmers, particularly in Mato Grosso, Brazil’s largest soy-producing state. Farmer groups argued that the pact went beyond Brazilian law. Under Brazil’s Forest Code, landowners in the Amazon may legally clear a limited share of their property, and farmers who did so after 2008 could comply with the law yet still be shut out of the major traders’ supply chains. Farm lobby Aprosoja called the moratorium illegal and discriminatory against producers who followed the Forest Code.

In late 2024, Mato Grosso passed a law removing state tax benefits from companies that participate in agreements restricting purchases from legally cleared land. That law was challenged in Brazil’s Supreme Court. In parallel, Brazil’s antitrust regulator, CADE, opened an investigation into whether the moratorium amounted to a buyers’ cartel. CADE ordered the moratorium suspended in August 2025; a federal court reinstated it about a week later. On September 30, 2025, CADE’s council voted to suspend it again with a delay, so that the suspension would take effect at the start of 2026. CADE’s president argued that foreign multinationals should not be allowed to regulate a product essential to food supply.

The decisive blow came through the tax law. In early January 2026, Mato Grosso’s governor announced that Abiove, the association representing major traders including ADM, Bunge, Cargill, Cofco, and Louis Dreyfus, had informed the state that it and many of its members were leaving the pact. About two-thirds of the companies that had participated no longer appeared on the moratorium’s website. Abiove said companies would remain individually responsible for their own conservation commitments. WWF called the decision an environmental setback; Greenpeace said it violated promises made to investors and international markets.

In August 2026, Brazil’s Supreme Court issued a split outcome. It rejected farmers’ claims that the moratorium itself was unlawful, shielding traders from potentially large damages claims. But it upheld state measures, including Mato Grosso’s, that revoked tax benefits for companies participating in it. Environmental groups said the ruling effectively confirmed the end of the moratorium as a sector-wide agreement.

The Cerrado Problem

Even at its strongest, the Soy Moratorium covered only the Amazon biome. Brazil’s Cerrado, a vast tropical savanna south and east of the Amazon, received no equivalent protection. The Cerrado is one of the most biodiverse savannas on Earth, holds large amounts of carbon in its deep-rooted vegetation and soils, and feeds several of South America’s major river systems. It is also where most recent soy expansion in Brazil has taken place, including in the agricultural frontier known as MATOPIBA, covering parts of Maranhão, Tocantins, Piauí, and Bahia.

Because much Cerrado clearing is legal under the Forest Code, which requires landowners there to preserve a smaller share of native vegetation than in the Amazon, zero-deforestation commitments that rely only on legality do little to slow it. Environmental groups have pushed for commitments covering conversion of all natural ecosystems, not only forests, and for supply-chain rules that apply to the Cerrado as well as the Amazon. This “leakage” of expansion from protected to unprotected regions is one of the central weaknesses of biome-specific agreements.

The EU Deforestation Regulation

As private agreements weaken, regulation is becoming the main tool. The European Union’s Regulation on deforestation-free products, Regulation (EU) 2023/1115, requires companies that place soy, cattle, palm oil, cocoa, coffee, rubber, and wood on the EU market, or export them from it, to prove that the products were not produced on land deforested or degraded after December 31, 2020, and that they were produced legally in the country of origin. Companies must collect geolocation data for the plots where commodities were grown and carry out due diligence.

Implementation has been delayed twice. According to the European Commission, following amendments in December 2024 and December 2025, the regulation applies to large and medium operators from December 30, 2026, and to micro and small operators from June 30, 2027. Unlike the Soy Moratorium, the EU rule covers all forests regardless of biome and does not depend on voluntary participation by traders. It does, however, focus on forests; conversion of non-forest ecosystems such as much of the Cerrado is not fully covered, a limitation critics have highlighted.

The EU is a major buyer of Brazilian soy, though China buys considerably more. How strictly the EU rule is enforced, and whether large buyers in other markets adopt similar requirements, will shape how much the end of the moratorium matters for forests in practice.

Comparing the Approaches

The various efforts to make soy less damaging differ in scope, enforcement, and treatment of GM crops. The table below summarizes the main ones.

The Social Side of Soy Expansion

Debates over soy often focus on forests and carbon, but many of the groups that opposed the RTRS in 2009 and 2010 emphasized social impacts. Rapid expansion of large-scale soy farming in parts of South America has been associated with conflicts over land, pressure on Indigenous and traditional communities, consolidation of small farms into large holdings, and exposure of rural residents to pesticide drift from aerial and ground spraying. In Paraguay and Argentina in particular, community groups and researchers have documented health and land concerns in soy-growing regions.

Certification schemes, including the RTRS, include criteria on labor rights, land tenure, and community relations, and supporters argue that certified farms must meet standards that many uncertified farms do not. Critics argue that the most serious social impacts come from the scale and structure of soy expansion itself, which certification of individual farms does not address. Both views have merit, and they help explain why the debate over “responsible” soy has never been only about technology or trees.

Was It Greenwashing?

“Greenwashing” means making a product or company appear more environmentally responsible than it is. Whether the RTRS fits that description depends on what one thinks certification should accomplish.

Critics make several arguments. By certifying GM soy grown in large monocultures, the RTRS lends a sustainability label to the production model many see as the core problem. Certification covers only a small share of global soy, so it can burnish the image of buyers while most of their supply remains uncertified. Credit-based purchasing, where a company buys certificates representing certified production rather than physically segregated soy, means the soy actually fed to animals in a supply chain may come from anywhere. And voluntary standards depend on the willingness of powerful companies to accept rules that constrain them.

Defenders respond that excluding GM soy would have confined the standard to a tiny niche and left the bulk of production untouched. They argue that the most important sustainability issue for soy is where it is grown, not whether it is genetically modified, and that engaging the largest producers and traders is the only way to change practices at scale. They point to the RTRS’s tightening of land conversion rules over time and to its role in building traceability and monitoring systems.

The 2026 collapse of the Soy Moratorium adds a sobering data point to this debate. The most effective private measure against soy-driven deforestation did not fail because its critics were right or wrong about GM crops. It failed because state governments and farm lobbies pressured traders to leave, and voluntary agreements had no legal backstop. That experience strengthens the case of those who argue that binding regulation, rather than voluntary certification, is ultimately necessary.

Brazil’s Forest Code in Brief

Much of the fight over the moratorium turns on Brazil’s Forest Code, the national law governing how much native vegetation private landowners must keep. The code requires rural properties to maintain a “legal reserve” of native vegetation, with the required share depending on the biome. In the Amazon forest, the reserve requirement is generally 80 percent of the property; in Cerrado areas within the Legal Amazon it is lower, and in the Cerrado outside the Legal Amazon it is lower still. Properties must also protect areas such as riverbanks and hilltops. The code was substantially revised in 2012, a change critics said amounted to an amnesty for some earlier illegal clearing.

These rules mean that some deforestation is legal. A farmer in the Amazon who keeps 80 percent of a property forested may lawfully clear the remaining share. The Soy Moratorium went further than the law by excluding soy from any Amazon land cleared after 2008, legal or not. That gap is precisely what farm groups objected to, and why the EU regulation, which requires both legality and no deforestation after 2020, is designed to cover both conditions.

Enforcement of the Forest Code itself has varied with political priorities. Brazil’s rural environmental registry (CAR) requires landowners to map their properties, which has improved monitoring, but registration is self-declared and verification has lagged.

What This Means for Shoppers

For consumers in North America and Europe, soy-related deforestation can feel distant. Few people buy Brazilian soybeans directly, and tofu or soy milk sold in the United States is usually made from North American soybeans. But the link runs through animal products. Soybean meal is a core ingredient in feed for chickens, pigs, farmed fish, and dairy cattle, and a large share of the soy traded internationally ends up in those feed rations.

A few practical points follow from that:

Plant-based soy foods are a small part of the problem. Because only about 7 percent of soy is eaten directly, switching from meat to tofu does not increase soy demand; it typically reduces it, since producing animal protein requires far more feed soy than the protein people get from eating soy directly.

Animal products carry most of the soy footprint. Poultry and pork, often thought of as lower-impact meats, rely heavily on soybean meal. Buyers who care about deforestation can look for brands and retailers with published, time-bound deforestation- and conversion-free sourcing commitments for feed, and for evidence of progress rather than only pledges.

Certification labels on animal products are rare. Few consumer products carry a responsible soy mark, because the soy is an input to feed rather than an ingredient. Company sustainability reports, and independent assessments of those reports by environmental groups, are often the best available information.

Organic and non-GM labels address different questions. Organic livestock must be fed organic feed, which excludes GM soy, but organic standards do not by themselves guarantee that feed came from land that was not recently deforested. Non-GM labels address crop genetics, not land conversion.

What to Watch Next

Several developments will determine whether the end of the Soy Moratorium leads to a new wave of soy-driven clearing in the Amazon.

Trader commitments. Major traders have said they will keep individual conservation commitments. Satellite monitoring by researchers and NGOs will reveal whether soy purchases from newly cleared Amazon land increase.

EU enforcement. The EU Deforestation Regulation’s application date of December 30, 2026 for large and medium companies is the next major test. How the Commission classifies countries by risk, and how member states enforce due diligence, will matter.

Chinese demand. China is the largest buyer of Brazilian soy. Its approach to deforestation in supply chains, including any requirements set through bilateral agreements or by major Chinese buyers such as Cofco, will have a large influence.

Brazilian federal policy. Brazil’s federal government has supported the moratorium and has made reducing deforestation a public priority. Whether federal enforcement of the Forest Code, combined with international market requirements, can fill the gap left by the private agreement remains uncertain.

The Cerrado. Pressure is growing to extend protections to non-forest ecosystems. Any movement toward conversion-free commitments covering the Cerrado would be a significant shift.

Frequently Asked Questions

Did WWF partner with Monsanto?

Both were participants in the Round Table on Responsible Soy, a multi-stakeholder initiative WWF helped found. The RTRS standard allowed GM soy to be certified, which led critics to accuse WWF of helping greenwash Monsanto’s products. WWF said its priority was reducing deforestation and that engaging the whole industry, including GM soy producers, was necessary.

What is the Amazon Soy Moratorium?

A voluntary agreement launched in 2006 under which major grain traders pledged not to buy soy grown on land in the Brazilian Amazon deforested after July 2008. It is credited with keeping at least 18,000 square kilometers of forest standing.

Has the Soy Moratorium ended?

In practical terms, largely yes. After Mato Grosso removed tax benefits for participating companies, the traders’ association Abiove and many major traders began exiting in January 2026. In August 2026, Brazil’s Supreme Court upheld the state tax measures while rejecting claims that the moratorium itself was illegal.

Is RTRS-certified soy non-GMO?

Not necessarily. RTRS certifies both GM and non-GM soy. Buyers who want non-GM soy need a separate non-GM claim or certification.

Does eating tofu cause Amazon deforestation?

Very little. Only about 7 percent of global soy is eaten directly as food, and much soy for tofu and soy milk in North America and Europe is grown locally. Most internationally traded soy goes to animal feed.

What is the EU Deforestation Regulation?

An EU law requiring companies to prove that soy, cattle, palm oil, cocoa, coffee, rubber, and wood placed on the EU market were not produced on land deforested after December 31, 2020. It applies to large and medium operators from December 30, 2026.

References

1. FoodNavigator. WWF defends position on Round Table on Responsible Soy. June 3, 2009. foodnavigator.com
2. Global Forest Coalition. Open Letter: Growing Opposition to Round Table on Responsible Soy. September 13, 2010. globalforestcoalition.org
3. The Ecologist. WWF and Monsanto: is GM soy now okay? theecologist.org
4. Round Table on Responsible Soy Association. responsiblesoy.org
5. Our World in Data. Soy. ourworldindata.org
6. Benbrook CM. Trends in glyphosate herbicide use in the United States and globally. Environmental Sciences Europe. 2016;28(1):3. PMID 27752438
7. Klümper W, Qaim M. A meta-analysis of the impacts of genetically modified crops. PLOS ONE. 2014;9(11):e111629. PMID 25365303
8. Mongabay. Brazil suspends Amazon Soy Moratorium, raising fears of deforestation spike. August 2025. mongabay.com
9. Mongabay. Brazil soy deal that curbs Amazon deforestation to be suspended in 2026. October 2025. mongabay.com
10. The Poultry Site (Reuters). Brazil soy traders move to exit Amazon deforestation pact. January 6, 2026. thepoultrysite.com
11. The Poultry Site (Reuters). Brazil court ruling opens door to Amazon deforestation for soy. August 13, 2026. thepoultrysite.com
12. European Commission. Regulation on deforestation-free products. environment.ec.europa.eu

Last updated: September 26, 2026