The Denison Pequotsepos Nature Center in Mystic deserves a chance to utilize its new policy for the acceptance of corporate gifts. Some activists, however, want a definitive declaration that it will not have any association with the Monsanto Co., the powerful international agrochemical and biotechnology corporation.

The controversy began when the private, nonprofit nature center accepted a $5,000 gift from Monsanto to fund a school program, "Plants & Pollinators: Perfect Partners," that taught first-graders about bees, butterflies and bats.

Monsanto may hold the title as the most controversial publicly traded American corporation. It is also among the most successful. Declaring no donations will be accepted from the company may make critics feel good, but it's not sound policy.

Monsanto is neither the evil empire depicted by it critics nor the benevolent company using science to feed the world, as portrayed in its marketing campaigns. It is a corporation focused on maximizing profit. To that end, it spends lavishly on political campaigns - $11 million the past two years according to Opensecrets.org - to influence lawmakers and avoid inconvenient regulation.

Like any corporation, Monsanto zealously defends its products - herbicides, pesticides and genetically modified seeds that it argues are greatly boosting agricultural productivity, but which critics contend have dire environmental and human health implications.

It is hard to reconcile the mission of the nation center - "to inspire an understanding of the natural world and ourselves as part of it - past, present and future" - with accepting a Monsanto gift.

Monsanto and other science-driven agricultural companies are trying to alter the natural world in unprecedented ways at the molecular level. While plant breeding has been used by humans for thousands of years, alternating the DNA of plants to make them more resistant to pests, poisons, drought and other conditions is relatively new and the implications still evolving.

Monsanto focuses on industrial-scale crops such as corn, cotton, soybeans, canola and alfalfa. It developed crops resistant to its herbicide Roundup, making it easier for farmers to kill weeds. Unfortunately, some weeds became resistant and harder to kill with Roundup and other poisons.

Organic farmers are concerned because seeds and pollen from genetically engineered alfalfa crops have been found to contaminate organic alfalfa, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).

While DNA-altered corn has reduced the amount of insecticides needed to control insects, it has been accompanied by increases in the treatment of corn seed with neonicotinoid insecticides, reports the UCS. Researchers have recently tied neonicotinoids with the collapse of honeybee colonies. In 2009, 26 academic entomologists (who study insects) wrote to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to complain they could not adequately research these genetically altered crops because patents protect access to the genetic information about the seeds and plants.

As for the claim that genetically engineered crops will help feed the developing world, the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) - a report supported and endorsed by several U.N. agencies, the World Bank, and dozens of countries - concluded in 2009 that non-genetically engineered agriculture cost less, was more effective and should be prioritized.

Given such controversy surrounding Monsanto, the nature center is not reapplying for the grant. Its new policy "encourage(s) gift-making that promotes our mission, programs and reputation." The executive director and advancement chair must preapprove a potential donor's gifts if there is a potential conflict with the nature center's image or mission, according to the rules change.

A petition with 150 signatures demands more - a ban on any "alliance" with Monsanto. The approach by the board of trustees is the better option for a couple of reasons. The actions of the donor, not its name or reputation, should drive the organization's decision to seek or accept a gift. Blacklisting a particular company would invite demands for adding others to the list.

If some feel the trustees are not following the policy, they are free to raise objections. This approach will better suit the nonprofit than symbolically delivering the head of Monsanto to its critics.