Educate me about Monsanto

[Springfield]

All over the facebooks and the twitters, people are raging against Monsanto. They are raging hard. Apparently they are responsible for fat people, dead people, sick people, gluten incompatible people, people with allergies, all sorts of stuff.

They are worse than Michael Vick so far as I can tell and that's pretty bad.

So. What's up with this Monsanto guy?

[Forehead]

Middling defensive tackle from UVA?

[Riggo-toni]

They pioneered gmo wheat designed to be resistant to pesticides -pesticides they manufacture. Then they sue other farmers for patent royalties if their Frankenstein wheat ends up in the farmer's harvest, even if it potentially happened by accidental pollination from neighboring fields.

[TradeTheBeal!]

Like many other modern global corporations, they appear to exert undue political influence via lobbying efforts and undermine the "of the people, for the people" aspect of our democracy.

[Springfield]

Is there any upside to a company like Monsanto? Other than cost?

[Larry]

They pioneered gmo wheat designed to be resistant to pesticides -pesticides they manufacture. Then they sue other farmers for patent royalties if their Frankenstein wheat ends up in the farmer's harvest, even if it potentially happened by accidental pollination from neighboring fields.

Or at least, as I understand it, that's what their attackers claim.

 

(One of the things their attackers claim.  They have lots of attackers.  In a wide variety of flavors.) 

But we had a thread on the subject of patent law and their lawsuits, a while back. Somebody posted links to three of their lawsuits.

And every single person one of the examples that were posted, (Granted, there were only three. And no doubt they've sued hundreds, maybe thousands of farmers), got Monsanto genes in their crops (accidentally, they claim. And I haven't seen anybody so much as attempt to prove otherwise).

But then they took their partially-resistant crop, (which they just somehow knew was partially resistant, even though they had absolutely nothing to do with it becoming resistant, it just happened), and treated it with pesticide, (thus killing off all of the plants that didn't "accidentally" have Monsanto's genes), to turn their partially resistant crop into a fully resistant crop, and then continued to use their now-fully-resistant crop, for multiple years, knowing that it was resistant, and treating it accordingly.

In short, as far as I'm aware, every person they've sued is kinda, sorta, like somebody who's run off a billion copies of a DVD which they knew was copyrighted, and tried to claim that well, they found this one DVD by the side of the road, therefore since they didn't pay for the first copy, they're allowed to make as many more copies as they want.

Now, maybe it was just a case of those three examples having that trait in common. but the thread went on for a few weeks, and nobody came in with some other example, that didn't also have that same thing in common. (The person spraying pesticide on his crops, to kill off the non-resistant ones, and then using his now-fully-resistant crop, and treating it in a way that proves that he knew it was now resistant.)

[skinsmarydu]

They pioneered gmo wheat designed to be resistant to pesticides -pesticides they manufacture. Then they sue other farmers for patent royalties if their Frankenstein wheat ends up in the farmer's harvest, even if it potentially happened by accidental pollination from neighboring fields.

Aren't they also part of the reason RoundUp has to be re-formulated every few years? And there was something about re-purchasing the seed instead of using the seed formed from the crop? (or am I confusing this with another story?)

[PeterMP]

Monsanto makes roundup resistant crops.

 

You can spray the crops with round up and they do not die.

 

They have a patent on the seeds.

 

They enforce their patent.

 

To my knowledge, they have not lost a single law suit.

 

To my knowledge, they have not actually sued anybody where the courts did not find that the person INTENTIONALLY planted a field with seeds they thought would contain Round Up resistant seeds, then sprayed the field with Round Up to kill anything that is not Round Up resistant, and then used the seeds from those plants for crops in the future and treated them with Round Up.

 

People HAVE claimed that Monsanto threatened to sue them over contamination that did not come from intentionally planted seeds.  They have refused to sell their product to people that they think, but cannot prove have infringed on their patents.

 

Organic farmers sued Monsanto claiming they were threatening them for accidental contamination of Monsanto genes/plants.  None of them could actually produce documentation, and the courts threw the case out.

 

People can farm and not use Round Up resistant seed.  It has been done for a long time.

 

They generally have an awful environmental record.  Early on, the company even formed its own town when environmental regulations were more local in nature to create an area with lax environmental laws.

 

Before GMO, they were generally involved in herbicides, pesticides (and still are), and PCBs and in the context of producing those chemicals have a bad environmental record.

Aren't they also part of the reason RoundUp has to be re-formulated every few years? And there was something about re-purchasing the seed instead of using the seed formed from the crop? (or am I confusing this with another story?)

 

If you use their seeds, you are not allowed to keep the product of the crop for future use.

 

I don't think RoundUp being re-formulated.

 

There is an issue with RoundUp resistance, which is tied to the GMOs that they have produced so they have/are coming out with other generations of plants and herbicides.

 

**EDIT**
I also hate these types of threads.  I feel bad having to defend a company like Monsanto.

[PeterMP]

Is there any upside to a company like Monsanto? Other than cost?

 

The products that they produce are very useful.  Otherwise farmers wouldn't use them, and there would be no issue.

[drtdrums]

I find the Supreme Court decision that they own all genetic descendants of their seeds incredibly moronic and short-sighted for many reasons.

I also believe they are ridiculously litigious.

Oh, and the nutritional value/ramifications of their foods is highly questionable.

They're darn good at what they do though.

[Larry]

**EDIT**

I also hate these types of threads.  I feel bad having to defend a company like Monsanto.

Agreed.

I assume that they're pretty much the caricature of the evil greedy corporation, scheming away to poison the world.

I mean, it's hard to paint a good picture of a company who's main claim to fame is producing a poison, selling the poison, and then offering to sell plants which are resistant to the poison they sell. (A plant who's big selling point is "you can spray our poison on our plant, and it will still grow, anyway, and then you can sell the plants that you sprayed the poison on".)

But, I also have this compulsion to point out facts that I think are being missed.

[Larry]

I find the Supreme Court decision that they own all genetic descendants of their seeds incredibly moronic and short-sighted for many reasons.

I can understand the argument. But it's also a fact that they have to rule that way, or else rule that all genetic patents are completely useless.

I mean, the alternative is "OK, you've created this new, commercially desirable, organism. you are now allowed to sell it once, at which time the person you sold the first one to is allowed to sell your product, without paying a single dime of the development costs."

 

I also believe they are ridiculously litigious.

 

 

And yet we've had two posters opine that, at least as far as we're aware, they have only sued people who have engaged in systematic, knowing, deliberate infringement.  I think over multiple years. 

 

Oh, and the nutritional value/ramifications of their foods is highly questionable.

 

Millions of farmers seem to be of the opinion that their products are worth the money. 

 

And they are experts in making that decision.  And it's their money. 

[drtdrums]

Like I said, they're really good at what they do. Farmers are paid for yield, and Monsanto's crops have amazing yield. Monsanto, yield-wise, is a godsend.

 

Given that many woo-woo folks are preaching how unhealthy Monsanto crops are, my natural reaction is to be dismissive of the hysteria. I don't think there's any such thing as a free lunch, though, and having done a great deal of research on the effects of consumed foods on our genetic code, I simply can't toss out my concerns. I don't eat grains anyway anymore (stupid food sensitivities...good lord, I miss beer), so I dodge most Monsanto foods by default (I also eat organic vegetables, free range grassfed beef, etc). Hey, maybe I'm a woo woo guy lol.

 

Regarding the patent issue, I'm sure you understand the counter-argument, so I won't waste your time. I understand the argument for multi-generation patents, but think the obvious flaws greatly outweigh the benefits (of which I can only come up with "It makes more money for the inventor.").

[JamesMadisonSkins]

The documentary Food, Inc. is a great view of the controversy. Of course, you could argue that it's biased, but it will certainly scare you into at least considering the food you eat. Manufactured, mass-produced food, especially wheats, are not meant to be consumed by our body. Hence the bloated, inflamatory foods that lead to obesity and disease. 

 

If you stick to oganic, grass-fed, locally sourced/grown food and stay away from anything in a box or sold in a package, you should be good. You don't have to be perfect about it, but if you can limit the processed foods, you're sure to be healthier. Monsanto and the other super-food corporations push for foods that have longer shelf-lives and thus, are less natural for consumption and nutritional value. As a society, we've never been less healthy ... and as a society, we've never had more corporation-controlled food system. Not a coincidence. 

[PeterMP]

No difference in cancer risk or nutritional value (for the most part) between organic and non-organic foods.

 

http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v110/n9/full/bjc2014148a.html

[The Evil Genius]

As someone who is gluten intolerant, the super gluten wheat that is grown nowadays kills me. From what I have read on the subject, the wheat grown in my grandparents era would have little to no effect on the majority of people with gluten problems (with the obvious exception of those who truly have Celiacs or other diseases that gluten exacerbates). 

 

So there's that (not that I can tie Monsanto explicitly to it - I just know they produce some of it).

[Larry]

Regarding the patent issue, I'm sure you understand the counter-argument, so I won't waste your time. I understand the argument for multi-generation patents, but think the obvious flaws greatly outweigh the benefits (of which I can only come up with "It makes more money for the inventor.").

Name a way to effectively give the creator of an organism, an effective patent over said organism, if such patent ends the first time the organism reproduces.

[ixcuincle]

Monsanto sets monopolies for their product which drive hard working american farmers out of business. Monsanto also releases GMO which are responsible for crises like Bt Toxin incident. 

 

I don't really care much about GMO but Monsanto is a company which does things unethically. 

[Larry]

Monsanto sets monopolies for their product which drive hard working american farmers out of business. Monsanto also releases GMO which are responsible for crises like Bt Toxin incident.

Never heard of this "Bt Toxin incident".

Google for "Bt Toxin", and the first hit I get is a Snopes article, claiming that a a lot of claims about Monsanto corn causing all kinds of evil things, are false.

 

But I have no clue if I'm looking at the same thing that you're talking about. 

[SoCalSkins]

Every crop we eat is the result of artificial selection made by humans. The fear over GMO is almost as unscientific as the anti-vaccine crowd.

GMO golden rice that is beta carotene fortified can prevent half a million cases of blindness and and a million deaths a year in the developing world but the anti-GMO hysteria has slowed its distribution.

Genetic modification of foods and human cells is the science that will keep humanity moving toward longer life spans and better quality of life. Thwarting science not based on facts but on conspiracy theories and hysteria benefits no one.

Like any technology play, there are going to be some huge winners. Like Apple Google etc were in computing. Having American companies lead the pack benefits us in the global economy.

[zoony]

I'm pretty sure that Mark Brunell is their CEO

[Larry]

Every crop we eat is the result of artificial selection made by humans. The fear over GMO is almost as unscientific as the anti-vaccine crowd.

GMO golden rice that is beta carotene fortified can prevent half a million cases of blindness and and a million deaths a year in the developing world but the anti-GMO hysteria has slowed its distribution.

Genetic modification of foods and human cells is the science that will keep humanity moving toward longer life spans and better quality of life. Thwarting science not based on facts but on conspiracy theories and hysteria benefits no one.

Just an opinion, but I suspect that you're probably going a bit overboard, here.

Yeah, farmers have artificially selected their crops. But nowhere nearly as much, nor as rapidly, as we're doing, nowdays. And such selection was typically done at a very low level. Farmer Bob might do one thing, but bus actions only affected his own crops. His neighbors' were different. (That, I suspect, may be the really scary threat on the horizon, with all of this technology: A tendency towards a lack of biological diversity.)

[PeterMP]

As someone who is gluten intolerant, the super gluten wheat that is grown nowadays kills me. From what I have read on the subject, the wheat grown in my grandparents era would have little to no effect on the majority of people with gluten problems (with the obvious exception of those who truly have Celiacs or other diseases that gluten exacerbates). 

 

So there's that (not that I can tie Monsanto explicitly to it - I just know they produce some of it).

 

Maybe your great great grandparents, but no not your grandparents.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23311690

 

In response to the suggestion that an increase in the incidence of celiac disease might be attributable to an increase in the gluten content of wheat resulting from wheat breeding, a survey of data from the 20th and 21st centuries for the United States was carried out. The results do not support the likelihood that wheat breeding has increased the protein content (proportional to gluten content) of wheat in the United States. Possible roles for changes in the per capita consumption of wheat flour and the use of vital gluten as a food additive are discussed.

[PeterMP]

Every crop we eat is the result of artificial selection made by humans. The fear over GMO is almost as unscientific as the anti-vaccine crowd.

GMO golden rice that is beta carotene fortified can prevent half a million cases of blindness and and a million deaths a year in the developing world but the anti-GMO hysteria has slowed its distribution.

Genetic modification of foods and human cells is the science that will keep humanity moving toward longer life spans and better quality of life. Thwarting science not based on facts but on conspiracy theories and hysteria benefits no one.

Like any technology play, there are going to be some huge winners. Like Apple Google etc were in computing. Having American companies lead the pack benefits us in the global economy.

 

And with any new technology there are risks and going to be unexpected problems.

 

This should not necessarily prevent us from going forward with GMOs, but we should go forward with our eyes wide open and with an expectation that unexpected things are going to go wrong (and they already have, to some degree. Monsanto had predicted that it would be decades before Round Up resistance spread to weeds, but it already has).

 

There's no crime in being careful.

Monsanto sets monopolies for their product which drive hard working american farmers out of business. Monsanto also releases GMO which are responsible for crises like Bt Toxin incident. 

 

I don't really care much about GMO but Monsanto is a company which does things unethically. 

 

The licensed their technology to Pioneer a long time ago, which as been since bought out by DuPont.  There was a legal battle over what actually the agreement allowed Pioneer/Dupont to do, but today if you prefer you can go through Dupont.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/27/business/monsanto-and-dupont-settle-fight-over-roundup-ready-technology.html?_r=0

 

Or not use their product at all.

 

It isn't like framers haven't farmed without them.

 

And the patent expires next year.

[ixcuincle]

Never heard of this "Bt Toxin incident".

Google for "Bt Toxin", and the first hit I get is a Snopes article, claiming that a a lot of claims about Monsanto corn causing all kinds of evil things, are false.

 

But I have no clue if I'm looking at the same thing that you're talking about. 

 

I am a big Disney guy just like you now. I got Nemo and Mickey and the Muppets and Pooh now 

 

http://www.seedbuzz.com/knowledge-center/article/impact-of-bt-cotton-seeds-on-indian-agriculture

And with any new technology there are risks and going to be unexpected problems.

 

This should not necessarily prevent us from going forward with GMOs, but we should go forward with our eyes wide open and with an expectation that unexpected things are going to go wrong (and they already have, to some degree. Monsanto had predicted that it would be decades before Round Up resistance spread to weeds, but it already has).

 

There's no crime in being careful.

 

The licensed their technology to Pioneer a long time ago, which as been since bought out by DuPont.  There was a legal battle over what actually the agreement allowed Pioneer/Dupont to do, but today if you prefer you can go through Dupont.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/27/business/monsanto-and-dupont-settle-fight-over-roundup-ready-technology.html?_r=0

 

Or not use their product at all.

 

It isn't like framers haven't farmed without them.

 

And the patent expires next year.

 

I remember reading in the Post about how farmers had been driven against other farmers and driven out of business because of the monopoly. I used to care a lot more about this stuff when I was studying my biotechnology degree, but I moved on from that. When I was researching this stuff though, I did spend a lot of time researching Monsanto and Bt Toxin, as well as the crisis in India and RoundUp. It is my educated opinion that although GMO are safe, it might take time until they're proven enough to be out there in public. There is still outcry over GMO even if they might be safe, and even if humans have been "modifying" animals for centuries (we in fact modify animals now to put them in mass-produced lots...did you know animals used to eat grass instead of corn?)