Is Monsanto Eeeeevuuuullll ?

[Mister Agenda]

But if Monsanto sells fertile seeds their frankenfood varieties will conquer the world. Weren't concerns about fertile GM seeds spreading and hybridizing outside laboratory conditions one of the reasons Monsanto was pressured to make sterile seeds? Sounds like most of the same people will think they're evil either way.

We're on the verge of a GM-based green revolution in the poorest parts of the world stuck with the crappiest growing conditions and the main thing holding it back is anti-GM propaganda when NO GM food has EVER been shown to be harmful to humans or other crops. Setting a higher priority on stroking Luddite, anti-corporate prejudices than on helping people in extreme or severe poverty get enough food to eat and have a little prosperity...now THAT's evil. I don't care if Monsanto is run by Lex freakin' Luthor, what they're doing in Africa will do more to improve the lives of a hundred million people than all the organic-produce-only fair-trade-coffee-buying Prius-driving hemp-wearing bleeding hearts who have ever lived, put together. There's nothing wrong with any of that stuff...but it's companies like Monsanto that have helped to increase the wealth of the world about 1800% in the last 100 years and moved us from a world where 80% of the human population was in extreme or severe poverty to one where less than 35% of the world's population is that poor. Economic growth and business innovation can lift another billion out of poverty in the next 20 years and all we have to do is get out of the way. Better crops for Africa is key to countries like Mali achieving enough development to reach the bottom rung of the economic ladder, to getting to the point where they can start climbing out of poverty. I know in twenty years, with hardly anyone left in extreme poverty and less than 20% in severe poverty, there will still be people crying out against corps for not caring, for exploiting the poor, for not being good citizens and so forth. They still won't comprehend the role that multinationals played in making their world possible and will still think that pure motives are more important than good results. C'est la vie.

 

[GreyICE]

But if Monsanto sells fertile seeds their frankenfood varieties will conquer the world. Weren't concerns about fertile GM seeds spreading and hybridizing outside laboratory conditions one of the reasons Monsanto was pressured to make sterile seeds? Sounds like most of the same people will think they're evil either way.

And the global cooling scare perpetrated by a few bad scientists proves that global warming isn't occurring, because global cooling didn't occur either.

We're on the verge of a GM-based green revolution in the poorest parts of the world stuck with the crappiest growing conditions and the main thing holding it back is anti-GM propaganda when NO GM food has EVER been shown to be harmful to humans or other crops. Setting a higher priority on stroking Luddite, anti-corporate prejudices than on helping people in extreme or severe poverty get enough food to eat and have a little prosperity...now THAT's evil. I don't care if Monsanto is run by Lex freakin' Luthor, what they're doing in Africa will do more to improve the lives of a hundred million people than all the organic-produce-only fair-trade-coffee-buying Prius-driving hemp-wearing bleeding hearts who have ever lived, put together. There's nothing wrong with any of that stuff...but it's companies like Monsanto that have helped to increase the wealth of the world about 1800% in the last 100 years and moved us from a world where 80% of the human population was in extreme or severe poverty to one where less than 35% of the world's population is that poor. Economic growth and business innovation can lift another billion out of poverty in the next 20 years and all we have to do is get out of the way. Better crops for Africa is key to countries like Mali achieving enough development to reach the bottom rung of the economic ladder, to getting to the point where they can start climbing out of poverty. I know in twenty years, with hardly anyone left in extreme poverty and less than 20% in severe poverty, there will still be people crying out against corps for not caring, for exploiting the poor, for not being good citizens and so forth. They still won't comprehend the role that multinationals played in making their world possible and will still think that pure motives are more important than good results. C'est la vie.

What the hell? Even their press releases aren't that self-congratulatory.

I hope you weren't expecting this to get a pass on a skeptical forum. [citation needed]

 

[Mister Agenda]

Which is pretty much already happening anyway. Large farms are ALWAYS more insulated from temporary setbacks.

As for the contract being unenforceable, see: rule of law. Our country has it. If countries don't, simply deal on the country level. It's a problem, yes, but it's significantly better than risking famine based on Monsanto's goodwill.
So does hiring assassins to kill everyone who breaks the contract. Many things that solve one particular problem create several others.

Why not sell the seed, engineered to be sterile, for the first ten year,s then only after that start offering it in a non-sterile version, with a new seed available in a sterile version? Follow the model used by prescription drugs and generics...a time period where sterility is allowed in order for the company to recoup R & D costs, then it's opened up.
I don't see any option other than banning them. There is no such thing as basd science, but there certainly is technology that should never be used.

Oh and by the way, they've never really proven that the terminator plants won't cross pollinate. There's a significant risk of cross-pollinization. How does that fit into your libertarian economic model?

It doesn't fit into my ecological model. You're worried that sterile plants will cross-pollinate with fertile plants which will then...what? Things that don't reproduce tend not to spread much.

There's no such thing as a libertarian economic model, although most libertarians find free-market oriented economic theories persuasive, libertarianism hasn't created any schools of economics. One could argue that the reverse may have happened to some degree. The libertarian approach to the scenario you describe would be for the injured parties to recover their damages from Monsanto via mediation or the courts.

 

[Mister Agenda]

And the global cooling scare perpetrated by a few bad scientists proves that global warming isn't occurring, because global cooling didn't occur either.

No it doesn't. And I don't see the relevance as I am not positing contradictory doomsday scenarios, I'm pointing out that Monsanto will receive heavy criticism whether it sells sterile GM seeds or fertile GM seeds.

What the hell? Even their press releases aren't that self-congratulatory.

As I neither work for nor represent Monsanto, my comments were not self-congratulatory at all.

I hope you weren't expecting this to get a pass on a skeptical forum. [citation needed]

I would be happy to help you direct your own research. The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) has a site you might enjoy, I'm sure I picked up much of my info there. I also recommend the OXFAM site. Jeffrey Sachs 'End of Poverty' is enlightening and relevant reading, as is anything by William Easterly.

 

[krazyKemist]

However, I don't see how that has bearing on whether or not it's evil to desing crops to be sterile; although it does defeat my argument of creating factory-farm monopolies above (they'd stay with higher-yield traditionals). But then again, this is simpyl the varieties of soybean designed for Roundup resistence...would this apply to other species and other GM modifications?

Those species are made for industrial agriculture. That means they are fine under conditions which prevail here, like monoculture, the possibility to add mineral fertiliser and to use irrigation, mechanized soil work and crop picking.

The situation is very different in india. Farms tend to be smaller, not to practice monoculture, employ people for soil working and crop picking. These farmers cannot afford to buy mineral fertilizer, and do not have consistent access to irrigation. For them, their traditional crops offer better resistance, and the poor's economy depends on the jobs manual farming gives to them. Monsanto has tried to penetrate this market in a sly way (promising better yields to farmers) and has been strongly objected there for what I consider good reasons.

Another thing is that GM crops make me uneasy. One reason is that they can contaminate traditional crops, mostly by cross-polination. So basically, that means that you can refuse to buy from monsanto, but your field may be contaminated by GM crops, and you may later be accused of using the seed illegally, and face a costly and time-consuming trial, even if you can prove that you are not at fault.

Another reason is that this transmission can also happens directly, with the splice inserting itself in a haphasard way in wild plants. Gene insertion in a random spot is not necessarily a good thing. It can cause other things besides conferring the desired resistance to bugs, fungus or whatever. It can also cause increases or decreases in gene expression. That may considerably change the properties of an organism. Imagine for example that a splice inserts itself in celery plant in such a way that it increases the production of psoralen (a toxic chemical normally produced by celery in self-defense) tenfold ? The GM crop may have been tested and found safe, but the contaminated plant has not. Well, under the assumption that a GM is of identical composition as the original plant (GRAS), it may even not be tested at all !

 

[Mister Agenda]

Don't all of those issues also apply to non-GM crops? If I try a new crop that is supposed to have enhanced resistance to a particular disease due to good old-fashioned plant breeding, can't it cross-pollinate other crops and wild plants? Can't a gene from my new crop (or any of my crops) wind up inserted in a random spot in another plant? Doesn't this sort of thing happen all the time? What makes it so much worse if the crop is GM instead of the product of decades of specialized breeding?

 

[AkuManiMani]

Is Monsanto Eeeeevuuuullll ?

I'd say its the tool of pathologically selfish and criminally irresponsible people.

They aren't out to hurt anybody so I would call them 'evil'. They just wanna rake in cash and don't give a #*$@ if anyone gets hurt in the process.

 

[PixyMisa]

You mean, in the hypothetical situation that has already occurred in America and several other countries, using a hypothetical technology which has already been developed might cause problems?

You're claiming that America currently relies on a single source for all its agricultural needs every year and that source has a single point of failure?

You're nuts.

Wow, yes, I do think that's a real-world problem. I happen to live in the real world where Monsanto and DuPont do supply the vast majority of seeds for the United States of America, and viciously and angrily prosecute anyone who saves seeds to replant fields, assuring their monopoly.

So?

Would they use terminators minus the UN ban? Most assuredly. And that means the vast majority of crops grown in the US would be terminators.

Or, y'know, not.

That's why your whole argument is ridiculous. If you were saying that this is a bad idea, that the risks might outweigh the benefits, many of us would agree. But you're saying instead that Monsanto is "evil" because of a hypothetical outcome of something they haven't actually done.

 

[AkuManiMani]

That's why your whole argument is ridiculous. If you were saying that this is a bad idea, that the risks might outweigh the benefits, many of us would agree. But you're saying instead that Monsanto is "evil" because of a hypothetical outcome of something they haven't actually done.

Hes saying they're 'evil' because they are actively seeking to create a food monopoly, and have blatantly lied on numerous occasions about the toxicity of many of their products among other things.

 

[PixyMisa]

Hes saying they're 'evil' because they are actively seeking to create a food monopoly, and have blatantly lied on numerous occasions about the toxicity of many of their products among other things.

The latter half of that makes sense. It refers to things Monsanto has actually done.

The former half isn't true (isn't possible) and wouldn't be of any significance even if it were true. Monsanto wants a monopoly in its field? Name a company that doesn't.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Monsanto wants a monopoly in its field? Name a company that doesn't.

True enough. But trying to monopolize food in starving third world nations, erm...thats kinda eff'd up

 

[The Mad Hatter]

Those species are made for industrial agriculture. That means they are fine under conditions which prevail here, like monoculture, the possibility to add mineral fertiliser and to use irrigation, mechanized soil work and crop picking.

Not necessarily - if you look at the benefits of, say, Bt crops, the farmers who would normally have walked through their fields spraying pesticides benefit much more than those who drop it from an aeroplane. For example, a "dramatic reduction in pesticide applications in Bt cotton fields has also been reported in China, and the proportion of farmers with pesticide poisoning has been reduced from 22% to 4.7%" according to this article in TRENDS in Plant Science.

I don't really buy the monoculture argument. There are over 1000 varieties of herbicide-tolerant soybeans in the US in cultivation. To me, this is a great opportunity to preserve the diversity out there because it allows pure and sterile lines to be protected. But there's a good chance I'm confusing your argument with another common one. Forgive me if that's the case.

The situation is very different in india. Farms tend to be smaller, not to practice monoculture, employ people for soil working and crop picking. These farmers cannot afford to buy mineral fertilizer, and do not have consistent access to irrigation. For them, their traditional crops offer better resistance, and the poor's economy depends on the jobs manual farming gives to them. Monsanto has tried to penetrate this market in a sly way (promising better yields to farmers) and has been strongly objected there for what I consider good reasons.

And you don't think they would benefit from Bt crops, which drastically reduce the cost of pesticides? The biggest benefits of GM crops are in the input costs; not necessarily the yield. Roundup Ready crops, regardless of what, regretfully, Monsanto claims, are not expected to increase yields.

I'm not sure what fertilizers and irrigation has to do with it.

Another thing is that GM crops make me uneasy. One reason is that they can contaminate traditional crops, mostly by cross-polination. So basically, that means that you can refuse to buy from monsanto, but your field may be contaminated by GM crops, and you may later be accused of using the seed illegally, and face a costly and time-consuming trial, even if you can prove that you are not at fault.

Unless you knowingly plant GM crops in violation of the contract, Monsanto will pay all the cleanup costs. I have yet to hear of an unfair case in this area. Activists often point to Percy Schmeiser, but it's quite blatantly obvious that he knowingly destroyed his own crops to plant RR crops without permission.

Another reason is that this transmission can also happens directly, with the splice inserting itself in a haphasard way in wild plants. Gene insertion in a random spot is not necessarily a good thing.

It's possible, but that's exactly what happens with in nature with transposons and retroviruses. The effects of course depend on the specific variety. Herbicide-tolerant crops are less fit in the wild; Bt crops are more fit. Also, this is not specific to biotechnology.

It can cause other things besides conferring the desired resistance to bugs, fungus or whatever. It can also cause increases or decreases in gene expression. That may considerably change the properties of an organism. Imagine for example that a splice inserts itself in celery plant in such a way that it increases the production of psoralen (a toxic chemical normally produced by celery in self-defense) tenfold ?

Also not specific to GMOs - in fact, this has happened with hybrid celery that was causing rashes on people's hands. The probability of a single-gene insertion causing this change pales in comparison to the probability of natural hybridization causing it. Why does nobody worry when thousands of genes are introduced at once?

The GM crop may have been tested and found safe, but the contaminated plant has not. Well, under the assumption that a GM is of identical composition as the original plant (GRAS), it may even not be tested at all !

As far as I know, the FDA, EPA, and USDA all require certain tests to be performed on GMOs, even if every ingredient is GRAS.

 

[GreyICE]

No it doesn't. And I don't see the relevance as I am not positing contradictory doomsday scenarios, I'm pointing out that Monsanto will receive heavy criticism whether it sells sterile GM seeds or fertile GM seeds.

Which has absolutely no bearing on whether or not that criticism is valid. It's a red herring. You're bringing in an absolutely irrelevant factoid, linking it to an absolutely irrelevant conclusion, and then trying to create an equivalence between two positions that you've presented no evidence for.

As I neither work for nor represent Monsanto, my comments were not self-congratulatory at all.

And as I don't think you're an idiot, why are you posting this?

I would be happy to help you direct your own research. The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) has a site you might enjoy, I'm sure I picked up much of my info there. I also recommend the OXFAM site. Jeffrey Sachs 'End of Poverty' is enlightening and relevant reading, as is anything by William Easterly.

Hmm.
http://www.agra-alliance.org/work/seeds.html

Wow. They don't even mention Monsanto. I'm inclined to say you're making garbage up. Seems totally fake to me, if your best citation is that.

 

[littlehulkster]

Monsanto is evil, but GMO food is probably the single greatest scientific advancement of the 20th century.

 

[B3LYP/CEP-31G(d)]

No one who develops an efficient process for producing vinegar for fries can rightly be called evil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_process

 

[Mister Agenda]

Which has absolutely no bearing on whether or not that criticism is valid. It's a red herring. You're bringing in an absolutely irrelevant factoid, linking it to an absolutely irrelevant conclusion, and then trying to create an equivalence between two positions that you've presented no evidence for.

I'm getting that you don't think my comment is relevant. I think it is. I'm getting that you think I am trying to say both positions are equivalent. I am not.

And as I don't think you're an idiot, why are you posting this? Hmm.

A better question would be why would you say I was being self-congratulatory in the first place. I posted that in hopes it would lead you to consider what you're saying and stick to discussing the issue rather than venting on me because I hold a different view than you. Thank you for not thinking I'm an idiot though. My response to what I think you meant to say is that I feel strongly about poverty issues and have a particular interest in subjects that affect Africa.

http://www.agra-alliance.org/work/seeds.html

Wow. They don't even mention Monsanto. I'm inclined to say you're making garbage up. Seems totally fake to me, if your best citation is that.

It isn't. I'm a little behind the times. My opinions on the economics of poverty tend to be more influenced by books on the economics of poverty by economists working in the field of poverty issues than on easily-digested websites and blogs. If you refer back to my post, I said very little specifically about Monsanto. I favor them based on their work in GM food, arguably the basis for a second green revolution. If Haliburton put their efforts into developing biotechnologies that have the potential to feed hundreds of millions of hungry people, I would cut them more slack too. I apologize if I gave the impression that AGRA is about Monsanto. It's about feeding Africa. I'm glad you read it.

You can actually say I'm making garbage up, it's pretty much the same thing as saying you're inclined to say it.

I said a lot in my post. If you would care to pick a single thing you think I'm lying about, I'm willing to take the time to address that, one example should suffice to make either your point or mine. I'll say up front: I do not claim that Lex Luthor has anything to do with Monsanto or that he is not a fictional character.

 

[GreyICE]

You're claiming that America currently relies on a single source for all its agricultural needs every year and that source has a single point of failure?

You're nuts.

And you're creating a strawman.

IF Monsanto and DuPont implemented the Terminator technology, the majority of the crops grown in the US would have a single point of failure. As it stands they do not, because the crops do NOT have Terminator technology.

Or, y'know, not.

That's why your whole argument is ridiculous. If you were saying that this is a bad idea, that the risks might outweigh the benefits, many of us would agree. But you're saying instead that Monsanto is "evil" because of a hypothetical outcome of something they haven't actually done.

[/QUOTE]
No, I'm actually saying they're evil because of their bribing of government officials and illegal toxic waste dumping. Those documented cases proved in courts should pretty much prove that law, to them, is something they bludgeon other people with, not something they have to follow. The terminators is just my biggest concern with them at the moment.

I'm getting that you don't think my comment is relevant. I think it is. I'm getting that you think I am trying to say both positions are equivalent. I am not.

Explain how the fact that they'll have critics no matter what they do on one issue (pretty much a given, see illegal toxic waste dumping) has any influence on the validity of those concerns.

A better question would be why would you say I was being self-congratulatory in the first place. I posted that in hopes it would lead you to consider what you're saying and stick to discussing the issue rather than venting on me because I hold a different view than you. Thank you for not thinking I'm an idiot though. My response to what I think you meant to say is that I feel strongly about poverty issues and have a particular interest in subjects that affect Africa.

Why did you edit my post? It was so unnecessary.

It isn't. I'm a little behind the times. My opinions on the economics of poverty tend to be more influenced by books on the economics of poverty by economists working in the field of poverty issues than on easily-digested websites and blogs. If you refer back to my post, I said very little specifically about Monsanto. I favor them based on their work in GM food, arguably the basis for a second green revolution. If Haliburton put their efforts into developing biotechnologies that have the potential to feed hundreds of millions of hungry people, I would cut them more slack too. I apologize if I gave the impression that AGRA is about Monsanto. It's about feeding Africa. I'm glad you read it.

I did read it actually. It's a great plan. It doesn't do much to reduce my concerns about a country with a proven record of playing fast and loose with the rules, when people's lives were on the line.

You can actually say I'm making garbage up, it's pretty much the same thing as saying you're inclined to say it.

No, I'm saying you're not referencing your sources. I'm not saying you're making crap up, I'm saying from my perspective you might as well be making it up if I can't find what you're talking about.

I said a lot in my post. If you would care to pick a single thing you think I'm lying about, I'm willing to take the time to address that, one example should suffice to make either your point or mine. I'll say up front: I do not claim that Lex Luthor has anything to do with Monsanto or that he is not a fictional character.

Okay, lets start simple:

What are these yield benefits to the GM revolution? What sort of percentages are we talking here? I want 20% minimum before I call it a revolution.

Show that Monsanto increased the wealth of the world by 1800%.

Document how multinational corporations were responsible for the rise of the United States, China, Japan, and other countries that went from backwards, reasonably impoverished status to international superpowers from 1900 to 2000.

 

[Hellbound]

Actually, I have another point in regards to the cross-pollination argument:

If the Terminator plants are sterile...doesn't that mean they can't cross-polinate? Are they truely sterile, or do they just not produce viable seeds (but still produce viable pollen)?

If they're truely sterile, then this throws a lot of arguments out...arguments that would still be considerations if the plants were not sterile. I'll have to look into it a bit deeper and see.

 

[GreyICE]

Actually, I have another point in regards to the cross-pollination argument:

If the Terminator plants are sterile...doesn't that mean they can't cross-polinate? Are they truely sterile, or do they just not produce viable seeds (but still produce viable pollen)?

Yup. Exactly what happens. They still produce pollen and seeds just fine, the seeds are just sterile. The pollen can pollinate a non-sterile plant and make future generations sterile. Which is a nice time bomb for some poor farmer.

 

[Hellbound]

Time-bomb? Only if they plant traditional seeds and Terminator seeds close enough for cross-pollination. Being a known problem, I wouldn't necessarily call that a time bomb.

But, I can see where this could be an issue with one farmer contaminating the field of another; so someone using reuseable seed could be unfairly held to the single seed/single year standard being proposed for GM seed.

I wonder if it's possible to make a Terminator type plant that would not cross-pollinate? I think pollination is required for the development of the seeds/fruit (the parts that, generally, we're wanting for food).