Monsanto

[Susheel]

By the way, great post Segnosaur.

 

[kellyb]

So....

Don't give a man a fish, he might starve tomorrow?

Don't teach a man to fish, he might have kids and they'll starve when the fish run out?

Is that the logic here?

"address all complaints to the Monsanto Corporation."

Apparently that is the logic.
Jesus.

 

[Skeletor]

Even if each and every Monsanto employee was a completely greedy bugger, who sits and twirls their long moustaches while dreaming of drowning kittens, that doesn't necessarily mean that GMO technology is bad. There are farmers out there who, despite the fact that they have to pay, still find their improved crop yields justify the added expense.

First off, your whole post is excellent, Segnosaur!
I'm pretty sure the anti-GMO crowd does envision Monsanto just as you describe, eager to poison the world with their Frankenstein creations, and laughing all the way to the bank. However, I'm certain that the yield/quality/ease of use are worth it, or farmers would be buying their seeds elsewhere.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

However, I'm certain that the yield/quality/ease of use are worth it, or farmers would be buying their seeds elsewhere.

As a farmer always asks me, every time I see him, "Why are people opposed to Monsanto? We get higher yields using a lot less fertilizer and pesticides than we did 30 years ago".

 

[kookbreaker]

Ummm... Polio vaccines? Tell us more. I've never heard of polio vaccines "backfiring".

I can only think of one of two things, none of which were the vaccines' fault, more human faults.

1) Some of the people giving the vaccine shots were untrained or lacked resources and were re-using the needles. The result was a spread of diseases including AIDS.

2) A few Islamic fundies got it into their heads that the Polio vaccine caused sterility and told their followers as much. Result was anti-West hysterics.

The Polio vaccine worked as advertised, however.

 

[Skeletor]

As a farmer always asks me, every time I see him, "Why are people opposed to Monsanto? We get higher yields using a lot less fertilizer and pesticides than we did 30 years ago".

Is it a fear of progress and innovation? I don't understand it either, but I also have a better background in the sciences than most people. Not to mention that GMO foods, however safe they are, are an easy target for unfounded rumors. Anyone remember the controversy over irradiated food? A perfectly safe method of eliminating bacteria in meats and vegetables, but because it involves radiation, woo purveyors tell us somehow it will alter the composition and make us glow in the dark.

I can only think of one of two things, none of which were the vaccines' fault, more human faults.

1) Some of the people giving the vaccine shots were untrained or lacked resources and were re-using the needles. The result was a spread of diseases including AIDS.

2) A few Islamic fundies got it into their heads that the Polio vaccine caused sterility and told their followers as much. Result was anti-West hysterics.

The Polio vaccine worked as advertised, however.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't polio vaccines administered orally? That's how I got my vaccination done 30+ years ago anyway.

 

[Brainster]

Ummm... Polio vaccines? Tell us more. I've never heard of polio vaccines "backfiring".

It absolutely killed the market for iron lungs. Which was owned by a widow and her children, not some evil corporation.

 

[L.Y.S.]

Yet in your earlier posts you certainly gave the impression that GMO technologies should be avoided by African nations.

I said they should be avoided?

As long as you realize that around here, the term 'skeptical' does not mean "automatic doubt of all claims". It means following the evidence.

Who doubts everything? My concerns stem mostly from Africa's already poor condition. Your perception of the fact is your perception of the fact. Are you naïve enough to believe that things or products are just given? Everything has a purpose, reason, or an expectation of collateral. That collateral might be increased good relations with the press and the public, or later the dependency of customers on a product. Anything is possible. If you ever sit in on an actual Monsanto board meeting let me know.

Right now, the majority of the evidence points to GMO being of net benefit (to Africa and the world). The "skeptical" thing to do is to accept the evidence.

Right now the majority of evidence has been controlled and safe guarded by a select group of individuals. I will concede that this was initially the cause of massive public outcry from inconclusive evidence. Nevertheless, from my understanding of the situation, GMO companies do not allow free testing of their products by individual scientists. When some evidence which is not in favor of their product is revealed to the public, it is often yanked. At least it was on the occasion I read of it.

Ummm... Polio vaccines? Tell us more. I've never heard of polio vaccines "backfiring".

This is an entirely different issue, but one of the more popular explanations for the rise of HIV/AIDS entails that doctors had very poor sterilization practices while giving hundreds of thousands of children injections, which is not entirely unbelievable. Africa still suffers from poor sanitation practices when it comes to medical equipment. It is actually the largest cause of acquiring HIV/AIDS in Africa after mass rapes and truck stops. Again, the intentions were good, but there were uncalculated risks. While poor sterilization practices were not the sole cause of the spread of AIDS in Africa, it is understood that it was one of the primary catalysts.




As for your argument about free royalties and the like, do we know if this product is free? If so great, if not, how predictable. Africa is already in a banking and loans crisis, the vast majority of governments and farmlands already owe substantially more than what they can actually pay back. If it’s free then excellent.

Do we know if the varieties that they are giving to the local farmers are frakenseeds or not?

First of all, as I pointed out, Monsanto is allowing the use of some of its patents royalty-free. (So yes, it is doing something charitable.... now, maybe they find it beneficial from a public-relations point of view, but they're still donating.)

From my understanding this project was the joint endeavor of Bill Gates and Monsanto. That is to say that Bill Gates purchased the product with which to distribute to the farmers. If any other groups were involved then I don’t know. I saw this on an ABC special the other day. The special in particular did not go into depth about all parties involved, just that Bill Gates was teaming up with Monsanto to distribute crop to poor African farmers.

 

[L.Y.S.]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't polio vaccines administered orally? That's how I got my vaccination done 30+ years ago anyway.

It can also be injected. This was the most prevalent method used in Africa to combat Polio in the earlier days.

 

[L.Y.S.]

Turns out that Bill Gates was indeed involved in the donation of crops just like I figured. Including the Golden Rice.

http://indianapublicmedia.org/eartheats/bill-gates-monsanto-team-world-hunger/

Again, it was not an act of charity, as I suspected. Bill Gates donated the crop. As he will with other crops. It's apart of his drive to end world hunger.

 

[Segnosaur]

Yet in your earlier posts you certainly gave the impression that GMO technologies should be avoided by African nations.

I said they should be avoided?

Well, in post 360, you stated: GMO crops will not prevent starvation, but will make it worse in the long term..

Certainly doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement to me.

Your perception of the fact is your perception of the fact. Are you naïve enough to believe that things or products are just given? Everything has a purpose, reason, or an expectation of collateral. That collateral might be increased good relations with the press and the public, or later the dependency of customers on a product. Anything is possible. If you ever sit in on an actual Monsanto board meeting let me know.

To be honest, I really have no idea what exactly you were trying to say. Perhaps you were trying to sound profoundly philosophical but I really found that statement baffling.

Right now, the majority of the evidence points to GMO being of net benefit (to Africa and the world). The "skeptical" thing to do is to accept the evidence.

Right now the majority of evidence has been controlled and safe guarded by a select group of individuals.[/quote]
Errr... not really. The evidence has been published in a wide variety of peer reviewed journals, accessible by a large number in the scientific community. And any individual (scientific or layman) certainly has their ability to run side-by-side comparisons of GMO vs. "Organic" crops.

I will concede that this was initially the cause of massive public outcry from inconclusive evidence. Nevertheless, from my understanding of the situation, GMO companies do not allow free testing of their products by individual scientists.

Your understanding is wrong. How exactly do you think Monsanto will be able to crush independent research? That's bordering on the territory of a conspiracy theory.

When some evidence which is not in favor of their product is revealed to the public, it is often yanked. At least it was on the occasion I read of it.

Please... by all means, provide your evidence. Is it from a reputable source? Or is it from some "pro-organic" web site?

Ummm... Polio vaccines? Tell us more. I've never heard of polio vaccines "backfiring".

This is an entirely different issue...

Then why bring it up? You specifically mentioned polio vaccines backfiring.

As for your argument about free royalties and the like, do we know if this product is free?

Ummm... yes. I provided a link showing that Monsanto is making the golden rice patents available royalty free. Came from the BBC (which generally has a pretty good reputation.)

if not, how predictable. Africa is already in a banking and loans crisis, the vast majority of governments and farmlands already owe substantially more than what they can actually pay back.

Even in situations where Monsanto is charging royalties/license fees (they are letting their patents on golden rice be used royalty free, but they may still be charging royalties on other products), if a farmer finds the better yeilds due to the use of GMO products outweigh the cost of the seeds, they'll be better off financially to use them even with the added expense of the seeds.

Africa does need help financially, but that doesn't necessarily mean each and every company that does business there must automatically give away its products for free.

Do we know if the varieties that they are giving to the local farmers are frakenseeds or not?

Ummm, frankenseeds?

Given the fact that golden rice contains vitamin A (something lacking in the diets of many in the 3rd world), then the farmers will be working with GMO seeds. They will also be able to replant as necessary.

From my understanding this project was the joint endeavor of Bill Gates and Monsanto.

Bill Gate's charity is certainly involved. (I don't think anyone's ever claimed otherwise). But Monsanto is still allowing its pantents to be used royalty free. Gates is not "buying the patents". Its a donation made by Monsanto.

 

[Henry Bannister]

As a farmer always asks me, every time I see him, "Why are people opposed to Monsanto? We get higher yields using a lot less fertilizer and pesticides than we did 30 years ago".

Have you seen:

h t t p : / / w w w.alternet.org/food/why-monsanto-wrong-about-gm-crop-promises ?

Sorry can't link directly but I thought it was an interesting piece.

 

[theprestige]

Turns out that Bill Gates was indeed involved in the donation of crops just like I figured. Including the Golden Rice.

Again, it was not an act of charity, as I suspected. Bill Gates donated the crop. As he will with other crops. It's apart of his drive to end world hunger.

You lost me. How is donating crops in a drive to end world hunger not an act of charity?

 

[marplots]

You lost me. How is donating crops in a drive to end world hunger not an act of charity?

Because it comes with Windows 8 pre-installed?

 

[Brainster]

Have you seen:

h t t p : / / w w w.alternet.org/food/why-monsanto-wrong-about-gm-crop-promises ?

Sorry can't link directly but I thought it was an interesting piece.

Here's your link fixed up.

I note this comment:

Collier “made the offhand remark during his talk that because Europe has shunned GMOs [genetically modified organisms], it's lost productivity compared to the US,” Heinemann recalls. “That seemed odd to me. So while he was talking, I went to the FAO [UN Food and Agriculture Organization] database and I had a look at yields for corn. And over the short term, from 1995 to 2010, the US and Western Europe were neck and neck, there was no difference at all. So his assertion that lack of GMOs was causing Europe to fall behind didn't seem true.”

Here's a look at the EU-27 Yield. With the exception of two years, the EU's yield has ranged from 6-7 metric tons per acre. The US data goes back quite a bit further, so you can see the steady improvement, but using the 1999- on data as was used for the EU, the US yield has ranged from 8-10 metric tons per acre.

So I'm already a bit suspicious about his "neck and neck" description. Looking at all the years, the US has averaged about 2.85 metric tons more per acre in corn yield. That's 41% more. The only way that's neck and neck is if the EU is a hummingbird and the US is a giraffe.

 

[Wayward son]

Have you seen:

h t t p : / / w w w.alternet.org/food/why-monsanto-wrong-about-gm-crop-promises ?

Sorry can't link directly but I thought it was an interesting piece.

I only made it 3 paragraphs in when I came across this piece a couple days ago. When the author of the piece made it seem as though the lead author of the study in question was neutral towards GMOs and just awww-shucks wound up with those results. Jack Heinemann is one of the most notorious anti-gmo professors in the world with previous anti-gmo junk papers and several very far out there claims. Seems on par with claiming that someone like Fred Singer is neutral on the climate change issue. And it is not like the author of the piece was not aware of this. He has previously been a go-to guy for other anti-gmo pieces of hers. In my view she should have at least had the decency to represent him accurately if she is trying to pass him off as an authority. If a journalist is being deceitful, I stop reading.

As for his paper....I took a look at it, and it seems like a pile of crap to me. Brainster already mentioned suspicion of the claims. Bottom line is for some bizarre reason he chose 1986 through 2010 for a comparison of gmo/non-gmo yield increases....which is pretty stupid as GMO corn was not in use until 1996. Or...actually, pretty smart as it got Heinemann the results he was looking for. If you actually compare the yield increases since 1996 the US comes out ahead of the EU (although it is not significant), while from 1961 until 1995 the EU comes out ahead in terms of average yearly yield increases.

 

[Brainster]

I only made it 3 paragraphs in when I came across this piece a couple days ago. When the author of the piece made it seem as though the lead author of the study in question was neutral towards GMOs and just awww-shucks wound up with those results. Jack Heinemann is one of the most notorious anti-gmo professors in the world with previous anti-gmo junk papers and several very far out there claims.

I don't know if this means anything, but I will throw it out there for information purposes. When I googled Heinemann, I found his bio at the U of Canterbury (NZ), and this part jumped out at me:

Genetics and molecular biology of prokaryotic and eukaryotic microorganisms; horizontal gene transfer, particularly conjugation; effects of stress, particularly induced by antibiotics; evolution and risk assessment; influence of language on science, eugenics.

Italics added for emphasis.

Now as it happens, I have come across mentions of prokaryotic and eukaryotic organisms in the last few years, specifically with regard to Lynn Margulis.

Margulis has some strong credentials, as noted in the Wikipedia entry:

She is best known for her theory on the origin of eukaryotic organelles, and her contributions to the endosymbiotic theory, which is now generally accepted for how certain organelles were formed. She showed that animals, plants, and fungi all originated from Protists.

She was also married for a time to Carl Sagan, which buys her some pop science credibility. But she's also a bit of a kook; she buys into the Gaia hypothesis, doesn't believe that HIV causes AIDS and is also a 9-11 Truther.

Again, not sure there is a connection, just throwing it out.

 

[Segnosaur]

h t t p : / / w w w.alternet.org/food/why-monsanto-wrong-about-gm-crop-promises ?

Sorry can't link directly but I thought it was an interesting piece.

...Jack Heinemann (author of a paper referenced in the above article) is one of the most notorious anti-gmo professors in the world with previous anti-gmo junk papers...As for his paper....I took a look at it, and it seems like a pile of crap to me. Brainster already mentioned suspicion of the claims. Bottom line is for some bizarre reason he chose 1986 through 2010 for a comparison of gmo/non-gmo yield increases....which is pretty stupid as GMO corn was not in use until 1996.

I kind of figured there were issues with the paper, and taking a date range which included both GM and non-GMO strains seems like a rather poor use of data.

I also wondered why he was concentrating so much on the yields, since as far as I know, the genetic modifications deal more with pesticide resistance; it may have a secondary effect of increasing yields, but the primary reason for modifications was to reduce pesticide use. (And when pesticide use is discussed, he only gives data for France.)

What I'm curious about is how this ever passed peer review in the first place. Is the "International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability" not a proper peer-reviewed journal? Or are they a bit more lax in their standards?

 

[Brainster]

I kind of figured there were issues with the paper, and taking a date range which included both GM and non-GMO strains seems like a rather poor use of data.

I also wondered why he was concentrating so much on the yields, since as far as I know, the genetic modifications deal more with pesticide resistance; it may have a secondary effect of increasing yields, but the primary reason for modifications was to reduce pesticide use. (And when pesticide use is discussed, he only gives data for France.)

What I'm curious about is how this ever passed peer review in the first place. Is the "International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability" not a proper peer-reviewed journal? Or are they a bit more lax in their standards?

I note that they let you download the paper itself, which is unusual. Credentialed journals usually require you to subscribe and do not charge to publish the writers; bogus journals, like the notorious Bentham Open Journals charge the authors but are free to read. Looking at their submission guidelines it appears that this journal goes both ways:

Taylor & Francis Open Select provides authors or their research sponsors and funders with the option of paying a publishing fee and thereby making an article permanently available for free online access – open access – immediately on publication to anyone, anywhere, at any time. This option is made available once an article has been accepted in peer review.

 

[Henry Bannister]

Here's your link fixed up.

I note this comment:



Here's a look at the EU-27 Yield. With the exception of two years, the EU's yield has ranged from 6-7 metric tons per acre. The US data goes back quite a bit further, so you can see the steady improvement, but using the 1999- on data as was used for the EU, the US yield has ranged from 8-10 metric tons per acre.

So I'm already a bit suspicious about his "neck and neck" description. Looking at all the years, the US has averaged about 2.85 metric tons more per acre in corn yield. That's 41% more. The only way that's neck and neck is if the EU is a hummingbird and the US is a giraffe.

Ta for fixing the link.

The increase in the figures you gave from 1999 to 2013 was 6 to 8 MT/HA for EU-27 (1.33 increase) compared to 8 to 10 MT/HA for USA (1.25 increase). Looks neck to neck to me – even with Europe ahead as Heinemann said.

Yes the yields are higher in the US, but they started out higher before GMO so the higher yield isn’t down to GMO. It’s the increase in yield we were talking about – so the figures you gave do tend to support what Heinemann said.

The EU-15 yields were incidentally similar to those of the USA up to 1998 so it looks like yields dropped when countries with lower yields joined the EU to take it to 27 instead of 15 countries. (I presume anyway, I’m going by what I understand of the paper – I’m not expert in matters agricultural).

If that’s comparing hummingbirds and giraffes you must have some seriously small and mutant giraffes in the US.