• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why is Monsanto so hated?

stevea said:
There is no evidence of that sort of gene flow. Instead roundup resistant weeds are developing/evolving in response to the heavy reliance on roundup/gylphosate.
Click to expand...

Whatever the mechanism may be, those weeds now exist and are spreading very fast in other people's fields.

stevea; said:
6800670]WRONG ! Agrobacterium transfer their bacterial DNA to plants - it's a one-way transfer. Now agrobacteria have been modified in lab to introduce selected "GMO" plasmids into plants, but that is nothing like the bogey man you are trying to invent.

I am not suggesting that horizontal gene transfer (very rare in higher plants) is not a huge looming problem associated with GMOs, but telling lies and crying wolf is not helpful.
Click to expand...

Hate to break it to you, but they will transcribe just about any plasmid that has the right markers, and the _only_ modification that was made in the lab was inserting a specific one. Since bacteria exchange plasmids all the time, technically it can only take one bacterium with such a payload to not only multiply and spread it, but pass the plasmid around to other agrobacteria.

And it's not even necessary for it to escape from a lab. Infecting plants in the field has also been used extensively.

But really, plasmids get around. GM plasmids used in soy have been even found in the bacteria in some humans' gut. While the consensus is that they didn't get that from eating GM soy, nevertheless it's an illustration of those plasmids showing up just about everywhere, and where you expect them the least.

If you want to tell me that they show up everywhere _except_ in agrobacteria in the wild, I'm afraid that that kinda strains my suspension of disbelief.

stevea; said:
Evidence !

You can get GMO gene transfer to related wild crops by cross pollinization. There are no know cases of GMO plasmids horizontal transfer "in the field", despite your repeated claims to the contrary. Thanks for the alarmist woo; it's what I expect on this forum.
Click to expand...

Regardless of whether you believe it or not, nevertheless there are multiple studies showing those genes appearing in wild maize for example. E.g.,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1680848.stm

Now while that was probably by pollination -- and in this particular case I didn't claim it was by agrobacteria, but it's irrelevant anyway -- nevertheless you have something that is a non-cultivated grass that's showing up even in remote mountains and generally places where nobody cultivated anything, killing insects and wiping out plant species that don't have the GM genes too.

stevea; said:
There was concern that Bt pollen might kill friendly insects at a distance, but this appears to not be the case in practice.
Click to expand...

Yes, because the effects of strictly polen of one plant on strictly one species, which is actually what was tested in regards to the monarch butterfly, is all that matters ;)

stevea; said:
A lot of these concerns will likely be addressed in future GMO crops where one will be unable to re-propagate from offspring seed.
Click to expand...

Right, and you'll somehow also get rid of all those plasmids in the wild, many introduced by infecting plants in the field ;)
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
What do you think selective breeding is? The genes are being modified. That's how you get hybrids. But of course, it's not bad when the Indians (ooops, "Native Americans") do it, because they lived in harmony with nature, as opposed to those evil scientists in their sterile, man made labs. I bet they even work with chemicals! <gasp!!!>
Click to expand...

So basically this is an argument from being unable to even understand what's being discussed?
 
Last edited:
Aepervius said:
There are many grounds why they are hated : they essentially for example sued a farmer contaminated by their seed for replanting them. And they seem to go for a no-replanting no-reseeding policy which has quite a certain implication for the 3rd world.
Click to expand...

It’s not just policy, they sell hybrid seeds. Hybrids grow well the first generation but yields decline dramatically in subsequent generations, well below even the traditional seeds the farmers were planting.

It isn’t quite as bad in North America where we have a couple suppliers to choose from but essentially one you start using hybrid seeds you are at the mercy of the company selling them. This is one of the main reasons there really is no money in farming any more. If you want to make money from farming it’ll come from tax breaks and land value appreciation.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
That seems to be the way you are treating it.
Click to expand...

Seeing you reduce it all to the stupid oversimplification of its being kinda like selective breeding, kinda leaves me with few other options as how to name it. It's either Dunning-Kruger problems or a strawman. Take your pick.

But just to make it clear: nobody is against it because of being science, or because of it happening artificially. At least nobody in this thread. So, you know, you can take your canned BS retorts to some place where they're actually answering to something someone actually said.

It being kinda like genes that evolved naturally -- and indeed, virtually all of the GM genes _are_ genes that evolved naturally in other organisms -- doesn't preclude the need to test them for safety, for a start. The genes that produce atropine in Nightshade or the alcaloid cocktail in Hemlock or the botox in that infamous bacterium, are also quite naturally evolved, but that doesn't make them safe for human consumption.

Copying genes into food _should_ see some serious testing, to see that the result is indeed harmless for humans. Precisely because not all natural genes are good for ya.

And then there is the issue that sometimes they copy a bit too much. Cases where they copied an allergen into a plant that didn't have it, do exist. Again, it being a natural or possible to evolve naturally, doesn't override the fact that it's an unwanted addition.
 
Puppycow said:
I've read that to the end. It makes some valid points about possible over-litigiousness on the part of Monsanto and some environmental issues from decades ago but for the most part it's a one-sided hatchet job.
Click to expand...
I didn't present the article as truth, I presented it as an example of why people hated Monsanto. The OP asked why people hated them, not why should they hate them.

Monsanto has a long history with toxic chemicals, of saying things are fine when they are not, and are now saying things like GM crops are fine. I feel fine with GM crops, myself, but a lot of people don't, and that is going to cause mistrust and hatred.

I don't think it was in that article, but another one. A farmer got fined around 1.2-1.3 million for holding seed in his barn. The seed did not belong to him, but to his friend. So, yes, that was against the terms they both signed with Monsanto, and should be punished. But, in contrast, had that been cocaine he would have been fined thousands. I really don't think that farmer was doing the company over a million in damages. Perhaps it was an entirely fair verdict - but if as a farmer you hear "Farmer Joe was fined $1.2MM for some bags of seed" you are probably not going to like the suing company.

Or how about the story about how they went after the co-op - trying to sue them for washing seeds, which in itself is no way illegal. Note they weren't suing for washing Monsanto seeds, which is against the sales agreement, but just washing in general, because they might inadvertantly wash Monsanto seeds with this service.

And of course dairy farmers hate them - I'm not concerned about milk from cows that received growth hormone, but a lot of people are. Dairies were putting "no rBGH" on the side of their jugs, only to be sued by Monsanto. We can argue woo or not, but shouldn't people be able to know where their food comes from, especially if the provider wants to volunteer the information. I mean, you can buy "maple syrup", or "Vermont maple syrup", though I don't feel the distinction counts for much besides feel goodiness or making sure you are putting your money in a Vermonters pocket. But even Monsanto agrees that rBGH increases health risks in cows, and believe it or not some people care about that and would prefer to buy milk not produced in such a way. Monsanto is fighting that tooth and nail.

Their biotech is awesome, and who can blame them for seeing what the market will bear in regards to seed prices and related programs (no seed washing clauses). In the process they've become a de facto monopoly, and supposedly have made it hard for competitors to license their technology.

I don't know - it's hard to sort truth out from all the rhetoric. But all these concerns, true or not, along with the older stuff like dioxins and PCB dumping, are why people fear and hate the company.
 
Last edited:
stevea said:
Tippit - your OPINION that Monsanto's non-propagation license is flawed or unenforceable is irrelevant. The legal mechanism is that Monsanto attempts to enforce and then the defendant can make a case to the court that contract is flawed. There is nothing wrong with anyone trying to enforce an explicit contract.
Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting that Monsanto's contracts are unenforceable, what I'm saying is that there is a precedent for society deciding that certain types of contracts should not be legally recognized. The problem I have with Monsanto's business model, is that it essentially requires "farm police" to determine what seed is being used.

Your uninformed opinion about "business model" defies the 80 years of US plant patents which of course imply (non-)propagation licenses. Everything from roses, barley cultivars to fruit trees are patented, and have been for decades. Get a clue.
Click to expand...

I am against patent and copyright law, so it follows that I have a problem with patent law as it applies to the food that we eat. I don't think giant corporations should have a legal claim on the basis of what may or may not be growing on someone's property. I am entitled to my opinion. If you want to cheerlead for a greedy company that is risking the public health, and externalizing unknown costs, be my guest.

Agreed - so how does hating Monsanto solve that problem ? Does hating Bayer, Novartis, Aventis, and AgrEvo improve the situation ? How about hating China's agriculture ministry with their Bt63 rice - is that helpful too ? Would things be better or substantially different if we waited a few years to allowed China and Korea to dominate GMO crop production ?
Click to expand...

Your argument is that because two countries with dismal human rights records are playing god with the food that we eat, that we require to EXIST, that criticism of Monsanto is unwarranted? Really?
 
For those new to the Economics forum, it's worth noting that Tippit thinks US currency is counterfeit. So you may want to keep that in mind when reading his responses.
 
Last edited:
The Central Scrutinizer said:
Beneficiaries.
Click to expand...
The farmers themselves agree, voting both with their mouth and pocketbooks. However, the relations between farmers and the company are such that, if somebody else came up with an equivalent seed, farmers would leave Monsanto in droves.

To try for an analogy - we all (mostly) agree that downloading music is stealing. But the RIAA goes for a scorched earth policy - you could get sued for millions for downloading a small personal collection - had you stole the same number of CDs from a store you'd get a modest fine. I don't blame the RIAA for protecting their interest (I don't download warez), but it's the sort of thing a heck of a lot of people don't perceive as a major ethical problem. After all, people traded mix cassettes for a few decades without worrying about million dollar lawsuits. Of course, the internet takes the effect of that sort of thing to a whole new level, but it "feels" the same. Same with patented seeds. Farmers have always washed seeds - it would be wasteful to just purposefully throw it away. It doesn't "feel" wrong, even though it is, since they could essentially reduce or eliminate their purchases from a company that put billions into creating the tech.

Scorched earth policies over what "feels like" minor infractions is never going to make you "most beloved company of the year".
 
Last edited:
Glad you brought this up, I was going to comment on Tippit's version of what's going on as further proof that the subscription system, so forcefully vaunted as viable by the freetards, would be attacked by the same freetards once put in place. It happened with GM crops, and it happened with music. Typical hypocrisy

roger said:
To try for an analogy - we all (mostly) agree that downloading music is stealing. But the RIAA goes for a scorched earth policy - you could get sued for millions for downloading a small personal collection
Click to expand...

This isn't at all true. The RIAA doesn't have the mandate (they aren't given the legal right by those they represent) to sue for downloading. Contrary to many article titles, such as ones brought up in this very forum, they never have.

The only RIAA lawsuits have been for people UPloading copyrighted media, NOT DOWNloading it

This is typical freetardism mythology just like how "the music industry" (the guys who invented mp3 technology) are against mp3 technology. Its a lot like the stoner lore that cops aren't allowed to lie to you during a drug sale.

Its pretty telling that so much of media spread this lore like wildfire, and now all of a sudden when newspaper's are reduced to thin little inserts they amazingly stopped pushing it
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
For those new to the Economics forum, it's worth noting that Tippit thinks US currency is counterfeit. So you may want to keep that in mind when reading his responses.
Click to expand...

I think I'll just read what he actually says and decide for myself if it has merits or not. Ad-hominem duly noted, but, as they say, even a broken watch is right twice a day.
 
pipelineaudio said:
This isn't at all true. The RIAA doesn't have the mandate (they aren't given the legal right by those they represent) to sue for downloading. Contrary to many article titles, such as ones brought up in this very forum, they never have.

The only RIAA lawsuits have been for people UPloading copyrighted media, NOT DOWNloading it

This is typical freetardism mythology
Click to expand...
Well, perhaps you should inform the newspapers and courts.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,96797,00.html
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-03-23-riaa-suits_x.htm
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704584804575644610726717900.html
http://www.torontosun.com/tech/news/2010/11/04/15967161.html

Less snarkily, 'downloading' is pretty much understood to involve using file sharing services, which by default makes you a sharer. My point and analogy stands. Million dollar plus lawsuits over some downloaded songs strikes no one as fair (including the judge in the last linked article, where a woman received first a $1.9MM and then a $1.5MM fine for 24 songs! Two CDs worth of music!).

I mean, these seeds cost $1/lb. Getting sued for millions, dragged through the courts for years, is a tad excessive.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom