Skeptics and GMO Labeling

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I've been trying to tell my idiot hippie friends this for years.

Personally, I think their objections to GMO's boil down to "someone's making too much money from it".

Yep.

I personally think the main objection is to glyphosate resistant and Bt GMOs and somehow the label "GMO" developed a bad connotation which ruined GE technology in general. Although you do have a point about "someone's making too much money from it". Monsanto did use RR tech and the profits derived to aggressively dominate the markets they are in. That obviously generated a whole lot of ill will.

Whole Foods has almost the exact same revenue as Monsanto (roughly $15B), and they aggressively dominate the local, organic, fair trade market, yet the idiot hippies don't seem to mind. Odd, that.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

First off I am no hippie. Secondly Monsanto is the company that generated their own bad reputation and for good reason. The fact that Monsanto's poor reputation rubbed off onto GMOs in general is actually quite sad. Only a very naive person would deny that is the primary origin of the anti-GMO sentiment though. Monsanto is bad--->Monsanto is the largest producer of crop GMOs--->therefore we can't trust GMOs.

I personally don't agree with that logic. But I am not so naive as to ignore that's one of the primary drivers of the anti-GMO sentiment.

Of course, the "bad reputation" is mostly based on nonsense believed by the idiot hippies. Ironic, isn't it?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Of course, the "bad reputation" is mostly based on nonsense believed by the idiot hippies. Ironic, isn't it?

Sure. Losing a 700 million dollar lawsuit or numerous other unethical activities has absolutely nothing to do with it.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Sure. Losing a 700 million dollar lawsuit or numerous other unethical activities has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Multiple citations needed, obviously.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Multiple citations needed, obviously.

Not in the mood for your obfuscation today. I have posted many references multiple times and on multiple threads here at ISF and previously when it was JREF. Not interested in a boring repetition of finding the same sources over again for you when you are too lazy to research anything yourself.

 

[Segnosaur]

Of course, the "bad reputation" is mostly based on nonsense believed by the idiot hippies. Ironic, isn't it?

Sure. Losing a 700 million dollar lawsuit or numerous other unethical activities has absolutely nothing to do with it.

I'm sure they have lost multiple lawsuits. But any multinational company that is the size of Monsanto will probably have had various lawsuits or accusations leveled against it. (The bigger the company, the more chance of lawsuits.) That doesn't necessarily mean the company is a paragon of virtue. And when they do stuff wrong they should be punished.

It just seems that Monsanto gets more blame and criticism than they should.

(And that's not counting the lawsuits Monsanto has won, but still gets bad press, just because "Hey, they're Monsanto. Who cares if they won legally, they're still evil.")

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I'm sure they have lost multiple lawsuits. But any multinational company that is the size of Monsanto will probably have had various lawsuits or accusations leveled against it. (The bigger the company, the more chance of lawsuits.) That doesn't necessarily mean the company is a paragon of virtue. And when they do stuff wrong they should be punished.

It just seems that Monsanto gets more blame and criticism than they should.

(And that's not counting the lawsuits Monsanto has won, but still gets bad press, just because "Hey, they're Monsanto. Who cares if they won legally, they're still evil.")

The biggest scandal came out in the Anniston Alabama lawsuit because they subpoenaed internal documents from Monsanto. Very incriminating documents. Here is one:

"The committee believes there is little probability that any action that can be taken will prevent the growing incrimination of specific polychlorinated biphenyls (the higher chlorinated-e.g. Aroclors 1254 and 1260) as nearly global environmental contaminants leading to contamination of human food (particularly fish), the killing of some marine species (shrimp), and the possible extinction of several species of fish eating birds." [Confidential Report of Aroclor "Ad Hoc" Committee; October 2, 1969]

"It is impossible to establish a limit as to what can be discharged "safely". Investigation has shown that the waters in receiving streams below the Anniston Plant contain significant (parts per million) concentrations of PCB. More ominous perhaps is the fact that sediment in the bottom of these streams miles below our plants may contain up to 2% Aroclor." ["Confidential Report of Aroclor Ad hoc Committee"; October 2, 1969]

But what was Monsanto's ultimate action? Well first off they kept dumping PCBs anyway. That continued for years although they did reduce it somewhat. Next was to manipulate government regulators and scientific fraud:

"Joe Crockett, Secretary of the Alabama Water Improvement Commission, will try to handle the problem quietly without release of the information to the public at this time." [Hodges to Bergen Confidential FYI and Destroy; August 7, 1970]

"Dear Joe:
The attached table summarizes a comparison of the 3 revised AROCLOR reports (1242, 1254, 1260).

In two instances, the previous conclusion of "slightly tumorigenic" was changed to "does not appear to be carcinogenic". The latter phrase is preferable. May we request that the AROCLOR 1254 report be amended to say "does not appear to be carcinogenic". [Levinskas Monsanto to J.C. Calandra IBT: re: AROCLOR 2-year Rat Feeding Studies; July 18, 1975]

Easy enough to commit scientific fraud in house, just rewrite the reports, example above. A bit harder to manage it with so called "independent labs". They figured out a way though:

In March 1971, IBT hired Dr. Paul L. Wright (section head of rat toxicology), one of Monsanto's toxicologists, to oversee its PCB testing. He was convicted of scientific fraud in 1983. The EPA ruled that less than 10 percent of the over 2000 toxicology studies done there that they reviewed are scientifically valid.

So if you think manipulating government regulatory agencies and scientific fraud are not enough to ruin a company's reputation, then you are quite naive. There is of course a lot more. but I don't want to stray too far off topic. Ethics in science is VERY important and I simply refuse to lend any credibility to anything Monsanto says. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me for being a poor skeptic.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Not in the mood for your obfuscation today. I have posted many references multiple times and on multiple threads here at ISF and previously when it was JREF. Not interested in a boring repetition of finding the same sources over again for you when you are too lazy to research anything yourself.

Translation: I have nothing

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The biggest scandal came out in the Anniston Alabama lawsuit because they subpoenaed internal documents from Monsanto. Very incriminating documents. Here is one:





But what was Monsanto's ultimate action? Well first off they kept dumping PCBs anyway. That continued for years although they did reduce it somewhat. Next was to manipulate government regulators and scientific fraud:





Easy enough to commit scientific fraud in house, just rewrite the reports, example above. A bit harder to manage it with so called "independent labs". They figured out a way though:

In March 1971, IBT hired Dr. Paul L. Wright (section head of rat toxicology), one of Monsanto's toxicologists, to oversee its PCB testing. He was convicted of scientific fraud in 1983. The EPA ruled that less than 10 percent of the over 2000 toxicology studies done there that they reviewed are scientifically valid.

So if you think manipulating government regulatory agencies and scientific fraud are not enough to ruin a company's reputation, then you are quite naive. There is of course a lot more. but I don't want to stray too far off topic. Ethics in science is VERY important and I simply refuse to lend any credibility to anything Monsanto says. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me for being a poor skeptic.

You do realize that 1970's Monsanto <> 2015 Monsanto, right? You're posting as if you didn't know that.

 

[cosmicaug]

You do realize that 1970's Monsanto <> 2015 Monsanto, right? You're posting as if you didn't know that.

That would seem to be the case.

However, the original claim was that "Monsanto is the worst thing to happen to genetic engineering". Monsanto is both the name of, effectively, two different companies and a brand. It seems to be at least somewhat true that those things are attached to this particular seed company because it retained the name of the parent company even if this particular seed company, is, for all practical purposes, an altogether different company than the parent company from which it inherited that name.

So much as I may hate to agree with Red Baron Farms, strictly from the standpoint of public relations, he may be at least partially correct (though I think it may be more complicated than that).

 

[cosmicaug]

Ran into this one from Kevin Folta again and it seemed relevant to this thread:

 

[ThunderChunky]

First off I am no hippie. Secondly Monsanto is the company that generated their own bad reputation and for good reason. The fact that Monsanto's poor reputation rubbed off onto GMOs in general is actually quite sad. Only a very naive person would deny that is the primary origin of the anti-GMO sentiment though. Monsanto is bad--->Monsanto is the largest producer of crop GMOs--->therefore we can't trust GMOs.

I personally don't agree with that logic. But I am not so naive as to ignore that's one of the primary drivers of the anti-GMO sentiment.

People's opinions of Monsanto really have nothing to do with what Monsanto has done. The Luddites/hippies/organic industry lie about Monsanto/GMOs and people believe them. Otherwise reasonable people are going around repeating the lies Monsanto sues farmers for accidental pollination or that Monsanto is causing Indian farmers to kill themselves. People are uncomfortable with gene patents and biotech because it's complicated law and complicated technology (and it's new). This allows unscrupulous morons to outright lie and fear monger. Like when your hero of polyface farms goes around saying autism is caused by GMO foods. There's also the angle that Monsanto is a powerful corporation, so people's anti-corporate biases play a role too.

 

[ThunderChunky]

That would seem to be the case.

However, the original claim was that "Monsanto is the worst thing to happen to genetic engineering". Monsanto is both the name of, effectively, two different companies and a brand. It seems to be at least somewhat true that those things are attached to this particular seed company because it retained the name of the parent company even if this particular seed company, is, for all practical purposes, an altogether different company than the parent company from which it inherited that name.

So much as I may hate to agree with Red Baron Farms, strictly from the standpoint of public relations, he may be at least partially correct (though I think it may be more complicated than that).

Ask people why they hate Monstanto and they will repeat some modern falsehood perpetuated by the organic industry. They aren't going to name things that happened 50 years ago. If they do the latter, it's because they tried the former in front of a skeptic and got torn apart so they went digging for some other reason to hate the company,

 

[Puppycow]

Sure. Losing a 700 million dollar lawsuit or numerous other unethical activities has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Here's a list of legal cases involving Monsanto.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases

Could you point out which case you are talking about?

 

[Puppycow]

You do realize that 1970's Monsanto <> 2015 Monsanto, right? You're posting as if you didn't know that.

What does that mean? It's a different company?

 

[cosmicaug]

Ask people why they hate Monstanto and they will repeat some modern falsehood perpetuated by the organic industry. They aren't going to name things that happened 50 years ago. If they do the latter, it's because they tried the former in front of a skeptic and got torn apart so they went digging for some other reason to hate the company,

I think you are right. That's part of what should go into my "I think it may be more complicated than that" comment. Another part is simply the bizarre singling out of this particular company (for instance, another thing antis like to scream about is Agent Orange being manufactured by Monsanto & yet there's no hate reserved for Dow --which has its own agricultural sciences division and makes its own GMOs, by the way-- which was another contractor manufacturing the stuff).

 

[marplots]

Ran into this one from Kevin Folta again and it seemed relevant to this thread:


[qimg]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BlNgPf0CQAAp8dg.jpg[/qimg]

I can do it.

Aaaay, this tastes like sugar - regular sugar beets.

Be happy, this one's organic!

See? They are all the same - GMO.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

What does that mean? It's a different company?

On September 1, 1997, as a divestiture of the Monsanto Company chemical business, Solutia was split from Monsanto. This transferred the financial liability related to the production and contamination with PCBs at the Illinois and Alabama plants. They also bought Holden's Foundations Seeds and the rest of Calgene in that same year. Solutia then filed for bankruptcy on December 17, 2003, in response to the significant litigation surrounding various products, part of which is listed above.

In 1999 Monsanto sold off NutraSweet Co. and merged with Pharmacia & Upjohn, and the agricultural division became a wholly owned subsidiary of the "new" Pharmacia; the medical research divisions of Monsanto, which included products such as Celebrex, were rolled into Pharmacia. Then in less than one year Pharmacia spun off its recently acquired Monsanto subsidiary into a new company, the "New Monsanto".

Ever since this divestiture, merging and divestiture again, Monsanto has been proudly proclaiming they are a "New Monsanto" not at all the (evil) Monsanto that did all those bad things before. Sort of being reborn I guess.

Pardon my sarcasm but it is much like the Shell Game scam done by con artists. Now you see me now you don't. Only on a much larger scale.

 

[Wayward son]

Only a very naive person would deny that is the primary origin of the anti-GMO sentiment though. Monsanto is bad--->Monsanto is the largest producer of crop GMOs--->therefore we can't trust GMOs.

I deny this completely. I was part of the early anti-gmo movement. Rarely was Monsanto mentioned. Very rarely. If you go back to early documentaries like "Fed Up" from 2002 Monsanto was rarely mentioned...maybe once or twice in passing in the documentary. Even in Canada, the home of the Percy Schmeiser lie, Monsanto was rarely mentioned....possibly because at the time of the supreme court case the media recognized Percy Schmeiser for the liar that he was, and so did the prominent environmentalists I hung out with. They sided with Schmeiser despite knowing that his claim about accidental contamination was clearly absurd. So it took a while for the myth to grow beyond the fringe of the fringe. If you go to say the UK where the movement gained steam from the BSE scare and Pusztai's crap research...it also wasn't about Monsanto.

My personal experience is that Monsanto was being elevated to its devil position about the time I left the anti-gmo movement. That was in the couple years leading up to the truly crap anti-gmo/anti-monsanto documentaries: "The World According to Monsanto" and "Food Inc" etc. Earlier documentaries like "Fed Up" were just as amazingly full of crap on every point they made, but they likely didn't become popular because the lacked a specific devil to focus on.

As Eric Hoffer's classic work "The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements" claims - mass movements don't need a god to succeed, but they do need a devil - real or imagined. So if Monsanto had not existed, the movement would have needed to create it....and indeed they did. The opposition to Monsanto was not there at the start because it takes a lot of years to make up the whole bunch of stories that the movement made up about Monsanto.

 

[Dancing David]

So what harm is caused to consumers that would warrant mandatory labeling of food products?