Monsanto

Been meaning to start this for a while, if for nothing else than simply to post news stories about this unbelievably dangerous corporation which gains almost no media coverage as it silently changes the definition of food for the entire world, for no other apparent advantage than its own profit

Evidently Whole Foods just rolled over and they're going to stop calling genetically modified seeds 'non-organic' foods / 'unpure' crops. i.e. they're about to deregulate organically modified crops.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_22449.cfm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hirshberg/speaking-with-one-voice-t_b_816447.html

It's the example I always bring up when I discuss that we can't vote directly on the things that actually affect us. And I can't believe they don't have a higher profile; they're clearly the corporate subject in the film 'Michael Clayton' but not mentioned by name. But they certainly can't be stopped if people aren't even aware of what they're doing.

Ha ha! Oops. Catching up here: the USDA deregulated organically modified crops on Thursday. we're only getting the editorials about it now on the subject of Whole Foods rolling over.

http://usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentidonly=true&contentid=2011/01/0035.xml

These are the seeds which bees are going to be crosspollinating with the rest of the US stock

http://web.mit.edu/demoscience/Monsanto/impact.html#bigbusiness

Roundup Ready seeds have what is known as "terminator technology;" seeds that are grown for a second generation are sterile. Farmers need to purchase seeds from Monsanto each year if they want to continue to use their crops.

i suppose it isn't really surprising that the logic of computer software sales is being applied to agriculture, however, it feels alien and corrupt, probably because it is agriculture.

fwiw if seeds are sterile, they're not exactly going to cross-pollinate by definition

The only possibility would be test plots or fields grown for seed were within range of normal plots, and that's still pretty unlikely. Then again, Monsanto is aggressive enough they might try to sue you for sterilizing your field, lol.

I still think terminator traits are dumb, but... I dunno, I'm not going to post about it while at work since I work for a M0nsanto c0mpetitor.

For what its worth, Monsanto floated the idea of terminator seeds and then rapidly backed down after the public uproar. In a number of big markets (India, Brazil) they're outlawed.

Generally, I prefer organic (particularly on foods like berries and bell-peppers that are very liberally doused with pesticides). But I find some GMOs fine. I don't have much of a problem with adding genes for better nutrition, drought resistance or glyphosate (Roundup's generic name) tolerance, the latter just an enzyme and like all the others it gets digested. Other, more persistent herbicides were (and remain) way more damaging. I am wary of the Bt toxin gene. Organic vegetables are often dusted with Bacillus thuringiensis, but at least you have the option of washing off their Bt toxin before it does things like:

Once activated, the endotoxin binds to the gut epithelium and causes cell lysis by the formation of cation-selective channels, which leads to death. (to insects)

Thanks for your take on that Sanpaku. I was unfairly rude to u on the oil spill thread (i.e. apologies) but I agree w/most of yr perspective on this... especially the critical seed-saving aspect. I live in an activist bubble but from my skewed POV ppl have been ragging on Monsanto nonstop for the last ten years.

The only possibility would be test plots or fields grown for seed were within range of normal plots, and that's still pretty unlikely.

This has happened a lot, actually - in one case Monsanto sued the farmer whose crops were contaminated for "stealing" their patented genetics.

Thanks for starting this thread Milton!

the awl had a great (and extremely depressing) article recently that touched on monsanto's presence in haiti after the earthquake:

http://www.theawl.com/2011/01/our-government-funded-mission-to-make-haiti-christian-your-tax-dollars-billy-grahams-son-monsanto-and-sarah-palin

we're all gonna die

pretty much

fwiw if seeds are sterile, they're not exactly going to cross-pollinate by definition

But the POLLEN is what cross-pollinates, ie sterile crops cross-pollinate with non-Monsanto crops, turning them into sterile Monsanto crops, which are then legally owned by Monsanto, even though the farmer never planted Monsanto crops

once these things are deregulated, bees & wind will carry them. & Monsanto is already legendary for suing farmers who've never purchased Monsanto seeds for growing their own saved seeds that had become contaminated by their patented, genetically modified seeds. they have patented a food variant that kills off the non-patented version of itself.

glad to hear a word from Sanpaku or anywhere that they've backed down from Terminator seeds - I've been searching for evidence that it was or was not in these seeds, and couldn't find anything either way. that was one of those examples of corporate greed trumping human welfare that was almost beyond imagination.

There's an online pdf paper called 'What Is Wrong with Round Up Ready Alfalfa' that makes a good point: countryside weed variants of Alfalfa that are pesticide resistant are likely to spread everywhere.

fwiw: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_technology

It kind of dances around the issue, but the point of the technology is it's seed-based and not pollen-based. In other words, you could "protect" patented technology with it because it won't propagate.

afaik Monsanto isn't the only company who's been able to create these genomics in a lab, but it's not a commercially viable thing so no one has any plans to use it.

I really wish I had time to argue on this thread!

I'm not sure anyone's arguing since we're all pretty much dissing and defining here

I would start the argument.

Monsanto fills me with disgust (probably literally sometimes, if i'm eating shitty food).
the farmer sleeve references is a canadian - percy schmeiser - he fought for years and finally won a relatively small settlement - http://www.percyschmeiser.com/

the lefts demonization of gm foods is p unthinking and anti-science imo but w/e monsanto is terrible

i agree - there's good food science, incl gm in some instances that i've read about, but montanto-style industrialization of food is cheap and dirty and sociopathically profit-driven

as a teenage reader of lol adbusters i remember monsanto being one of their biggest boogeymen but i have some ~issues~ w/ a lot of the rhetoric around 'industrialzed agriculture' & how & who determines what food is the most 'natural'. its a tough, weird issue in that i think ppl (myself certainly included) get caught up in signifiers & sorta culture debates, which ends up sidelining some of the broader policy stuff

it was p lol tho to read atul gawande give the dept. of agriculture as a model for reorganizing the health care system

a lot of the rhetoric around 'industrialzed agriculture' & how & who determines what food is the most 'natural'

there was an essay i remember reading in one of those alt-collections from the 90s (i think) - either Apocalypse Culture or Amok Journal or something like that - about how the invention of agriculture ruined human society. does anyone else know of this?

i'm guessing it was written by this dude

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

I'm curious to know what my dad would think of this thread. He comes from a family that has traditionally been and, for the most part, still is mostly farmers. He's always been a big supporter of small farmers and getting involved in causes to support local farmers. He also spend the majority of my childhood selling Monsanto products to many of the same farmers. He doesn't do that anymore, but it would be interesting to hear his thoughts. My knee-jerk reaction, knowing as little about this as I do, is to obviously hate on Monsanto. But I also know that without them, my family might not as regularly had food on the table when I was growing up.

looks like three slam dunks for Monsanto in a single month

http://www.truth-out.org/feds-approve-monsanto-herbicide-resistant-crops67796

a little more on Monsanto & Haiti. apparently the seeds Monsanto donated last year were Terminator seeds.

http://www.truth-out.org/the-new-earthquake-manifest-haiti-monsantos-destiny66930

I appreciated Sanpaku's post upthread about how they backed down on Terminator after the uproar & how they're now illegal in India & Brazil, but they are illegal there now only in response to this:

Diminished yields, health problems and weakened prospects to buy the next season's seeds in consequence of and combined with that binding contract with Monsanto have driven many rural farmers to poverty, and subsequently led to a rash of farmer suicides in rural India. Since 1997, more than 182,936 Indian farmers have committed suicide, according to a recent study by the National Crime Records Bureau. "As seed saving is prevented by patents as well as by the engineering of seeds with non-renewable traits, seed has to be bought for every planting season by poor peasants. A free resource available on farms became a commodity which farmers were forced to buy every year. This increases poverty and leads to indebtedness. As debts increase and become unpayable, farmers are compelled to sell kidneys or even commit suicide," Indian author Vandana Shiva noted in her 2004 article "The Suicide Economy Of Corporate Globalisation."

I don't mean to sound like a Luddite, really don't, so I'm all for Jeff or the other posters working for GMO companies starting more of a pushback instead of me just compiling the tired old arguments. Would simply love to hear conversation on this subject in more places in general, really.

http://www.truth-out.org/usda-approved-monsanto-alfalfa-despite-warnings-new-pathogen-discovered-genetically-engineered-crops

http://www.biofortified.org/2011/02/extraordinary-claims/

good, thanks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEX654gN3c4

Michael Hart, a conventional livestock family farmer, has been farming in Cornwall for nearly thirty years and has actively campaigned on behalf of family farmers for over fifteen years, travelling extensively in Europe, India, Canada and the USA.

In this short documentary he investigates the reality of farming genetically modified crops in the USA ten years after their introduction. He travels across the US interviewing farmers and other specialists about their experiences of growing GM

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/01/the-very-real-danger-of-genetically-modified-foods/251051/

As a teaser, I quote here the first two sentences:

"Chinese researchers have found small pieces of ribonucleic acid (RNA) in the blood and organs of humans who eat rice. The Nanjing University-based team showed that this genetic material will bind to proteins in human liver cells and influence the uptake of cholesterol from the blood."

It goes on from there, obv.

One response to that article: http://biologyfiles.fieldofscience.com/2012/01/why-did-atlantic-publish-this-piece.html

I sympathize with that scientist's frustration with the bad analogies and the way it blows an unsubstantiated fear into what reads like a factual headline. It's fear-mongering and not completely rational.

So, nothing has been proven by this article in terms of danger. But her metaphor that this study is simply 'opening a door' for other people to follow up on doesn't rest well either -- the entire reason why most of the article isn't devoted to the study, but to underlining Monsanto's reliance on substantial equivalence to evade FDA testing, is to suggest that this open door complicates the entire concept of 'substantial equivalence'? I admittedly don't understand all the science, and I appreciate you sending these linked rebuttals -- anti-Monsanto sentiment is too often just sentimental horror at the idea of food being tampered with, but one can find plenty of reasons not to trust them

Honestly, as much as I'd like to, it's really hard to defend many of the actions of Monsanto. They have made some great breakthroughs in ag science, but like many people have mentioned, the dubious business practices certainly have tainted that. I know there are many well meaning scientists that work for them, that are true interested in the betterment of agriculture, but don't agree with the business practices. It sucks that Monsanto is the biggest game in town and are the only ones with the massive amount of money to throw at R&D. And they are the only ones with enough money to deal with all the regulation of the R&D of genetically engineered plants. Some argue that deregulation is the best way to combat this, because the little guys just can't deal with it (I know wacky idea, and not one I entirely agree with).

You're right with your last point about the anti-Monsanto sentiment and it's that sentiment that drives me nutso. People treat food as sacred and think that the alteration of it seems intrinsically wrong.

well -- I am certainly up for this research being done. but if there's anything should be treated as sacred, it is food. the scientists I talk to usually understand the depth of what they're doing, and the managers who risk-assess QA of their work under profit constraints usually don't

i.e. I usually trust the scientists; I don't trust this company

as much as I'd like to

why would you like to defend Monsanto

fwiw I'm not against the intersection of science and food (my grandfather was this guy but Monsanto's motives as a corporation are 100% suspect

this is probably known to most people reading the thread, but even if you ignore GMOs entirely, Monsanto is just a terrible, terrible, terrible monster:

-* Headquartered near St. Louis, Missouri, the Monsanto Chemical Company was founded in 1901. Monsanto became a leading manufacturer of sulfuric acid and other industrial chemicals in the 1920s. In the 1930s, Monsanto began producing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). PCBs, widely used as lubricants, hydraulic fluids, cutting oils, waterproof coatings and liquid sealants, are potent carcinogens and have been implicated in reproductive, developmental and immune system disorders.

• The world’s center of PCB manufacturing was Monsanto’s plant on the outskirts of East St. Louis, Illinois, which has the highest rate of fetal death and immature births in the state. By 1982, nearby Times Beach, Missouri, was found to be so thoroughly contaminated with dioxin, a by-product of PCB manufacturing, that the government ordered it evacuated. Dioxins are endocrine and immune system disruptors, cause congenital birth defects, reproductive and developmental problems, and increase the incidence of cancer, heart disease and diabetes in laboratory animals.
• By the 1940s, Monsanto had begun focusing on plastics and synthetic fabrics like polystyrene (still widely used in food packaging and other consumer products), which is ranked fifth in the EPA’s 1980s listing of chemicals whose production generates the most total hazardous waste.
• During World War II, Monsanto played a significant role in the Manhattan Project to develop the atom bomb.
• Following the war, Monsanto championed the use of chemical pesticides in agriculture, and began manufacturing the herbicide 2,4,5-T, which contains dioxin. -* Monsanto has been accused of covering up or failing to report dioxin contamination in a wide range of its products.
• The herbicide “Agent Orange,” used by U.S. military forces as a defoliant during the Vietnam War, was a mixture of 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D and had very high concentrations of dioxin. U.S. Vietnam War veterans have suffered from a host of debilitating symptoms attributable to Agent Orange exposure, and since the end of the war an estimated 500,000 Vietnamese children have been born with deformities.
• In the 1970s, Monsanto began manufacturing the herbicide Roundup, which has been marketed as a safe, general-purpose herbicide for widespread commercial and consumer use, even though its key ingredient, glyphosate, is a highly toxic poison for animals and humans. In 1997, The New York State Attorney General took Monsanto to court and Monsanto was subsequently forced to stop claiming that Roundup is “biodegradable” and “environmentally friendly.”
• Monsanto has been repeatedly fined and ruled against for, among many things, mislabeling containers of Roundup, failing to report health data to EPA, and chemical spills and improper chemical deposition. In 1995, Monsanto ranked fifth among U.S. corporations in EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory, having discharged 37 million pounds of toxic chemicals into the air, land, water and underground.
• Since the inception of Plan Colombia in 2000, the US has spent hundreds of millions of dollars in funding aerial sprayings of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicides in Colombia. The Roundup is often applied in concentrations 26 times higher than what is recommended for agricultural use. Additionally, it contains at least one surfactant, Cosmo-Flux 411f, whose ingredients are a trade secret, has never been approved for use in the US, and which quadruples the biological action of the herbicide.
• Not surprisingly, numerous human health impacts have been recorded in the areas affected by the sprayings, including respiratory, gastrointestinal and skin problems, and even death, especially in children. Additionally, fish and animals will show up dead in the hours and days subsequent to the herbicide sprayings.
• In the 1980s and early 1990s, Monsanto was behind the aggressive promotion of synthetic Bovine Growth Hormone, approved by the FDA for commercial sale in 1994, despite strong concerns about its safety. Since then, Monsanto has sued small dairy companies that advertised their products as free of the artificial hormone, most recently bringing a lawsuit against Oakhurst Dairy in Maine.
• In August, 2003, Monsanto and its former chemical subsidiary, Solutia, Inc. (now owned by Pharmacia Corp.), agreed to pay $600 million to settle claims brought by more than 20,000 residents of Anniston, AL, over the severe contamination of ground and water by tons of PCBs dumped in the area from the 1930s until the 1970s. Court documents revealed that Monsanto was aware of the contamination decades earlier.

Their business model wrt gm plants is incredibly sleazy, too, regardless of the ecological effects

why would you like to defend Monsanto

― locally sourced stabbage (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, January 11, 2012 5:03 PM (21 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

yeah i had this exact question....

For fun and profit.

Monsanto sucks in a lot of ways but the "tinkering with nature" hysteria is really tiresome. Most of the (non-GMO) plants and animals we eat have already been aberrations to "nature" for hundreds or thousands of years thanks to selective breeding.

Even if I didn't mind tampering with my food, Monsanto would be the last entity I'd want touching it.

amonsanto

Some argue that deregulation is the best way to combat this, because the little guys just can't deal with it (I know wacky idea, and not one I entirely agree with).

Monsanto doesn't think it's a wacky idea!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_R._Taylor

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_24644.cfm

Not only was it exposed that the U.S. is threatening nations who oppose Monsanto with military-style trade wars, but that many U.S. diplomats actually work directly for Monsanto.

In 2007 it was requested that specific nations inside the European Union be punished for not supporting the expansion of Monsanto's GMO crops. The request for such measures to be taken was made by Craig Stapleton, the United States ambassador to France and partner to George W. Bush. Despite mounting evidence linking Monsanto's GM corn to organ damage and environmental devastation, the ambassador plainly calls for 'target retaliation' against those not supporting the GM crop. In the leaked documents, Stapleton states:

"Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits. The list should be measured rather than vicious and must be sustainable over the long term, since we should not expect an early victory. Moving to retaliation will make clear that the current path has real costs to EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voices."

I know it's not the main problem being addressed in this article, but I've seen the organ damage study referenced a lot. Just to refute that, here is one scientist's take on the problems with the study and conclusions reached: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/01/15/gm-corn-organ-failure-lots-of-sensationalism-few-facts/

Trade wars, government corrupt, environmental devastation, sure, I wouldn't put it past them. But organ damage from GMO corn, not likely.

Not that this is a totally reassuring thought, but if there was a food product introduced into the mainstream food supply -- one that, in fact, was found in almost EVERYTHING we eat -- and it caused organ failure, wouldn't you see a sudden and alarming rise in organ failure?

> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/01/15/gm-corn-organ-failure-lots-of-sensationalism-few-facts/

interesting

though the last three paragraphs are hardly reassuring

there was an essay i remember reading in one of those alt-collections from the 90s (i think) - either Apocalypse Culture or Amok Journal or something like that - about how the invention of agriculture ruined human society. does anyone else know of this?

this was prob Jared Diamond?

it's a common anti-civ talking point, see Derrick Jensen, John Zerzan, Chellis Glendinning, etc. Diamond would fit in there as well.

I mean he wrote a lil piece that had exactly that as its thesis.

http://www.ditext.com/diamond/mistake.html

boop

http://m.examiner.com/green-living-in-national/monsanto-lobbyist-uses-power-as-fda-food-czar-to-target-amish

I'm sure this guy is an evil tool head but it's hard to defend raw milk. Seriously.

I'm trying to be careful with what I post to this thread, because for whatever reason the anti-Monsanto sentiment is already at fever pitch right now; countless FB posts with a lot of false information (Monsanto owns Blackwater), old information or hyperbole (whole foods)

But cracking down on the Amish with armed raids for selling their own milk seems a little extreme?

Actually I'll back down on this one a bit, reading up on the raw milk craze of the last ten years. I don't suspect these kinds of raids as base acts of removing the competition, but if they really are pulling guns on the Amish, that does seem like an overreaction

True, agree. Just ask them nicely to hand it over.

my 4-5 facebook friends who occasionally post about chemtrails are all about the Mansato hate right now

also Monsanto

Gus Mansanto

http://naturalsociety.com/monsanto-bee-collapse-buys-bee-research-firm/#ixzz1sUCsUIfh

Monsanto, the massive biotechnology company being blamed for contributing to the dwindling bee population, has bought up one of the leading bee collapse research organizations. Recently banned from Poland with one of the primary reasons being that the company’s genetically modified corn may be devastating the dying bee population, it is evident that Monsanto is under serious fire for their role in the downfall of the vital insects. It is therefore quite apparent why Monsanto bought one of the largest bee research firms on the planet.

The most recent Harvard study linked Bee Colony Collapse Disorder to imidacloprid - a pesticide. Not corn or corn syrup. The pesticide can be transmitted via corn syrup or pollen the report said. Nothing to do with genetically modified corn. This story got changed somewhat to "Pesticide-laden corn syrup lead to CCD" which not what the study demonstrated.

I don't know of a credible report that links CCD to genetically modified corn. Anyone?

By the way, when I said "this got changed somewhat" I mean some websites who report on environmental issues reported it that way and it got passed around Facebook etc like that.

what is the deal with the "Monsanto Protection Act"? Seeing this phrase on facebook, but

http://www.travelerstoday.com/articles/5497/20130327/monsanto-protection-act-snuck-through-passage-congress.htm

http://www.ibtimes.com/monsanto-protection-act-5-terriying-things-know-about-hr-933-provision-1156079#

SEC. 735. In the event that a determination of non-regulated
status made pursuant to section 411 of the Plant Protection Act
is or has been invalidated or vacated, the Secretary of Agriculture
shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon request
by a farmer, grower, farm operator, or producer, immediately grant
temporary permit(s) or temporary deregulation in part, subject to
necessary and appropriate conditions consistent with section 411(a)
or 412(c) of the Plant Protection Act, which interim conditions
shall authorize the movement, introduction, continued cultivation,
commercialization and other specifically enumerated activities and
requirements, including measures designed to mitigate or minimize
potential adverse environmental effects, if any, relevant to the
Secretary’s evaluation of the petition for non-regulated status, while
ensuring that growers or other users are able to move, plant,
cultivate, introduce into commerce and carry out other authorized
activities in a timely manner: Provided, That all such conditions
shall be applicable only for the interim period necessary for the
Secretary to complete any required analyses or consultations related
to the petition for non-regulated status: Provided further, That
nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the Secretary’s
authority under section 411, 412 and 414 of the Plant Protection
Act.

what are barack obama's flaws?

he's so perfect that he intimidates everyone else

it's possible that he cares TOO much. also, sometimes he may be a little too good at doing things, which can discourage those around him who feel that they cannot "keep up". sometimes, arguably, he works too hard - again, intimidating his co-workers.

I can't form a rational opinion about this issue because I find the anti-GMO crowd to be obscenely obnoxious

yeah there's something about the GMO panic crowd that seems just like two notches more sane than the anti-vaccine crowd (and there's obvious overlap) and that prejudices me. I'm mistrustful of monsanto, but I also feel kind of like "Ok, make a case for me WHY it would be dangerous to take a gene from one species and put it in a different species." Like "we don't know all the potential effects" isn't a good enough argument. I have no fucking idea what will happen if I mix my dish soap with some tomato juice, baking soda and pepto bismol and put it in the microwave for 30 seconds, but that doesn't mean I have a good reason to believe it would be dangerous.

p sure that the reason monsanto is bad has more to do with hugeness.

big farming:gmo panic::big pharma:vaccine panic

yeah I am on board with the antitrust and IP concerns, but the "Monsanto Protection Act" seems to be more about food safety fears that don't strike me as warranted.

I found this:

http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/03/28/monsanto-protection-act-anti-gmo-conspiracy-theorists-lose-it-over-minor-deregulation/

very sorry for linking to anything called "skeptical libertarian" but it's the first site I've found that actually gets into the details of what the legislation actually does, and their analysis mostly sounds convincing

I can't form a rational opinion about this issue because I find the anti-GMO crowd to be obscenely obnoxious

― Heyman (crüt), Thursday, March 28, 2013 11:36 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

otm, otm for everything tbh

just wanted to belatedly respond to the above post

The most recent Harvard study linked Bee Colony Collapse Disorder to imidacloprid - a pesticide. Not corn or corn syrup. The pesticide can be transmitted via corn syrup or pollen the report said. Nothing to do with genetically modified corn. This story got changed somewhat to "Pesticide-laden corn syrup lead to CCD" which not what the study demonstrated.

I don't know of a credible report that links CCD to genetically modified corn. Anyone?

― everything, Monday, April 23, 2012 10:37 PM (11 months ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

If it wasn't clear, I was not trying to link CCD directly to genetically modified corn. Of course, use of imidacloprid has increased dramatically with the global marketing of Monsanto's Roundup + Roundup Ready GMO product chain over the last ~15 years.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/29/science/earth/soaring-bee-deaths-in-2012-sound-alarm-on-malady.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

The European Union has proposed to ban their use on crops frequented by bees. Some researchers have concluded that neonicotinoids caused extensive die-offs in Germany and France.

Neonicotinoids are hardly the beekeepers’ only concern. Herbicide use has grown as farmers have adopted crop varieties, from corn to sunflowers, that are genetically modified to survive spraying with weedkillers. Experts say some fungicides have been laced with regulators that keep insects from maturing, a problem some beekeepers have reported.

Eric Mussen, an apiculturist at the University of California, Davis, said analysts had documented about 150 chemical residues in pollen and wax gathered from beehives.

“Where do you start?” Dr. Mussen said. “When you have all these chemicals at a sublethal level, how do they react with each other? What are the consequences?”

Experts say nobody knows. But Mr. Adee, who said he had long scorned environmentalists’ hand-wringing about such issues, said he was starting to wonder whether they had a point.

Of the “environmentalist” label, Mr. Adee said: “I would have been insulted if you had called me that a few years ago. But what you would have called extreme — a light comes on, and you think, ‘These guys really have something. Maybe they were just ahead of the bell curve.’”

Of course, use of imidacloprid has increased dramatically with the global marketing of Monsanto's Roundup + Roundup Ready GMO product chain over the last ~15 years.

I had to read a few articles to double-check, but you're talking about a seed treatment as a pesticide and a seed product that has resistance to a herbicide. The two may have both become popular in the same timeframe, but they're not otherwise related?

Hurting 2, that article you linked referred to "GMO expert Gregory Conko." Google tells me that Conko is better known as a right-wing thinktank guy who writes predictable articles

Gregory Conko is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington, DC.
Henry I. Miller, a physician and fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, was the founding director of the FDA's Office of Biotechnology.

they became popular in the same timeframe because they are being marketed by Monsanto as an integrated line of products

Roundup = their herbicide, patented in the 70's
Roundup Ready = their line of GM seeds which somehow does not die when you spray Roundup on it, 1996

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Monsanto.27s_Roundup

if a company is good at making poison, and at making food, why not combine those two into one irresistible product?

Milton, imidacloprid is an insecticide and Roundup (glyphosate) is an herbicide

apologies for my conflation, I hear your point clearly now. Admittedly a bit emotional after reading that ny times article.

imidacloprid is apparently not Monsanto, it is Bayer?

that changes everything. I love asprin.

mon petit santo

x-post

so we have the published anti-GMO cliches on one side and the conservative thinktank and libertarian ones on the other...

ah dammit didn't think of searching for a thread with this title

When it became law that corporations could patent organisms, we saw one of the most breathtaking power grabs ever devised. The difficulty with putting all this power to fuck with the foundations of life on earth into the hands of mega corporations is that mega corporations are greedy, short-sighted, profit-driven entitities which will predictably act to fuck over everyone on earth if it will enrich their corporate officers and shareholders and bury the competition. If the Chief Executive Lizard of Monsanto (or Bayer) could with impugnity become the new Pharoah, it would not blink twice before it reached for that crown and scepter.

http://www.monsanto.com/investors/Pages/stock-performance.aspx

Yeah this "Monsanto Protection Act" thing I'm like 90% sure after reading it that it's pretty minor. It basically prevents federal courts from IMMEDIATELY, during an interim period, halting the use/planting/sale of GMO foods in the event of some kind of adverse finding. But federal courts are not typically the avenue by which food safety is regulated anyway -- in fact as far as I can tell the only reason this provision even exists is that certain GMO foods have been given a special regulated status that other foods don't have, so the provision only comes into play if a regulatory body decides to deregulate them and then a court tries to stop them from doing that.

In any case, this certainly does not in any way "protect Monsanto from litigation" as some people are claiming.

Like, farmers can still sue Monsanto, individual consumers can still sue Monsanto, the Government can still sue Monsanto.

but I also feel kind of like "Ok, make a case for me WHY it would be dangerous to take a gene from one species and put it in a different species." Like "we don't know all the potential effects" isn't a good enough argument.

fyi we have been cross-breeding for over 100 years, which is a form of genetic modification, except with traditional cross-breeding you introduce all of the traits/genes of one plant into another instead of just the aspects that you want (whereas w/ science lab-y genetic modification you can isolate just the traits/genes that you want to introduce into the new strain); in a lot of ways sciencey genetic modification can be *safer* than traditional cross-breeding, which the anti-GMO crowd seems to have v little qualms with. Like, at this point, iirc virtually everything has been genetically modified at some point due to cross-breeding.

All that is from my friend who is pursuing a PhD in genetics at Yale.

The difficulty with comparing traditional cross-breeding with genetic modification is that there is no traditional way to cross-breed cats with jellyfish, or corn with sequoias. Traditional cross-breeding is a method whereby humans select modifications that were theoretically possible without human intervention. This is not true of direct genetic modification as it is practised in the lab.

If a jellyfish cat is wrong then I don't want to be right.

The difficulty with comparing traditional cross-breeding with genetic modification is that there is no traditional way to cross-breed cats with jellyfish, or corn with sequoias. Traditional cross-breeding is a method whereby humans select modifications that were theoretically possible without human intervention. This is not true of direct genetic modification as it is practised in the lab.

― Aimless, Thursday, April 4, 2013 11:38 AM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

that's true, it's just that assuming that that = more likely to be dangerous seems like subscribing to some kind of Intelligent Design/frankenstein's monster/don't tamper with mother nature fallacy, as though nature had somehow put the jellyfish genes on this shelf and the corn jeans on this shelf because they should never be mixed. Again "we don't know what will happen" isn't a convincing argument to me -- why SHOULD something happen?

it's pretty obv to me that jellyfish corn should happen immediately

this has been going on for a while now guys

http://images.wikia.com/capcomdatabase/images/9/97/CatDog_by_deadPxl.jpg

I agree that there is a chance that splicing genetic material from a jellyfish into a cat might result in a cat which is in some way superior for human purposes than could be achieved in any other way. This opens amazing possibilities. Where I start to have misgivings is when these exotic modifications are injected into the food supply by profit-driven corporations.

The profit motive is wholly driven by the desire for personal benefit. As Adam Smith noticed, this drive can be harnessed for public good. But he never made the mistake of thinking that the profit motive never results in public harm. He understood that strong laws and regulations must place limits around individual selfishness and canalize it into safe boundaries.

Most of the bitching and moaning I hear about how the public are idiots who don't understand how wonderful genetic modification is comes from interested parties with a profit motive. Your friend the PhD in genetics is an interested party just like any of us.

What I mostly hear the public demanding are extremely strong safeguards against unwanted side effects from sloppy, selfish, shortsighted or malicious use of genetic modification. Very few people are saying this new science must be strangled in its crib and buried at midnight with a stake through its heart. We, the public, get that this is powerful stuff. We're convinced. It was the scientists who convinced us. We've seen powerful new technologies unleashed with no regard for their consequences. This science strikes at the very core of life. That's heavy stuff in the hands of mere humans. We want to be protected from its potential excesses.

That position is extremely reasonable even if it makes genetic scientists gnaw at their fingers in exasperation. We don't exist for their pleasure. Fuck 'em. I want to go slow on this shit.

jellyfish corn tho

it's sweet, nutritious, and stings the fuck out of your face

lol at aimless deploying the interested party line the right's been using in their anti-science tirades for years. huger lol at his deploying their 'fuck scientists' line also.

'of course scientists say global warming is occurring! that's how they get grant money!'

most current PhD students are being driven by intellectual curiosity moreso than profit motive, given that research assistants don't make that much money

"a cat which is in some way superior for human purposes"

trying to figure out what those may be. liek it could glow in the dark?

"this corn has a real bite to it!"

all decisions should be made by uninterested parties with no stake in the outcome btw. leads to v. thoughtful discussions.

seriously dumbest anti-science thing i've read on ilx since josh in chicago argued that non-native species of mosquitos shouldn't be eradicated thru non-pesticide means cuz of 'nature'.

it's fine, when mankind wipes itself from the face of this planet, nature will continue

Satisfying one's intellectual curiosity is a personal gratification. That is to say, it has selfish elements in it. When the average scientist is on the trail of an exciting new discovery, that feeling of excitement is very compelling. The idea that somewhere down the road this discovery may be put to horrific uses is unlikely to deter that scientist from going forward. The ability to live a life of intellectual excitement pursuing his field is strongly motivating to the average scientist. You cannot deny that.

As for global warming, that is a red herring. Argument by analogy where the analogy is weak.

why don't you just say "science scares me so I wish people would proceed slower with this" since that's what your arguments boil down to; it's not even an indefensible position to take

balls, you are talking trash

why don't you just say

Reduce argument to a walking erection joke has been done, dan.

so has the ad hominem attack

are you referring to "dumbest argument"?

Satisfying one's intellectual curiosity is a personal gratification

"why should we subsidize intellectual curiosity?" - ronald reagan

at least the right is more honest that they don't believe science, are scared and confused by what they do believe, and don't really give a fuck about the environment or whether poor ppl die anyway

Lefty science denialism is the worst.

now genetic modification and personal gratification -- i thing i see where this is going.

yeah but you can't deny that scientists deliberately became scientists and enjoy science and - brace yrself - even paid to do science (some, though not as many as some think, may even find their jobs exciting. they get off on that excitement. they live for it. they come to need it. and eventually, they'll do anything for it.), so of course when you ask one of them about something they're gonna give you some science answer which of course we have no method of testing or verifying. you can't deny this.

To be clearer, the anti-global warming argument is that scientists are fabricating data in order to perpetuate their jobs in a bogus scientific field, and pretending a threat exists in order to add urgency to our need to employ them, so they can save us from this non-existant threat. And those who originated this argument and pay to propagate it clearly profit from the burning of fossil fuels.

By contrast, I am not arguing that anything the scientists are saying is bogus, but rather that the knowlege they are finding, the techniques they create and the claims they publish are all obviously otm. So, to say this is anti-science is incorrect. But just as chemistry PhDs work for chemical companies and mathematics PhDs now work for Wall Street banks, genetic engineers work for Monsanto and other agribusinesses.

The argument is not over whether the science is correct or the scientists are corrupting their data, but an entirely different argument over how to put this new knowlege into the world, and how to do it in such a way that unforeseen consequences are kept to a minimum. I say that profit-driven corporations are not trustworthy enough to make these decisions without oversight.

I say that balls equating this with the anti-global warming argument is superficial and tendentitous, and he is just skating on the thin ice of "lol anti-science" to make his analogy work. If he wants to get into it, let him develop his argument beyond "lol". Otherwise, I get to call bullshit.

feel free druid

The distinction of the scientific method is that it establishes factual knowlege, based on testable hypotheses, repeatable experiments with measurable results, full disclosure of findings, peer review and eventual consnsus among experts in the field. It works just fine, thank you. But scientists who work for Monsanto are not the ones who decide how Monsanto will profit from their work. Those decisions are made by marketers, lawyers, and managers.

Fuck it, if you all want to insist that I am frightened and confused when faced by omg genuine science then feel free. I've made my points. Misunderstand and distort them however you wish. I'm done clarifying. It's your sandbox now.

i will say that the one geneticist i know does work from time to time for monsanto and last year we were all 'how can you be a scientist and vote republican?'. boy has he been laughing it up the past few weeks. gmos are pretty heavy regulated (and the 'monsanto protection act' doesn't change this fwiw) but if you want to actually make an argument for more regulation feel fee, i'm down (feel free to be consistent in applying it to raw milk and homeopathy while you're at it). if you want to actually make an argument against monoculture or about reforming our intellectual property laws (there are even pro-science arguments to be made here though that might make some uncomfortable, the warm loving embrace of mother nature and all that), i'm down. but if you want to make an argument against agriculture that feeds more ppl and reduces negative enviromental impact though and your argument is 'someone somewhere will make money off it, possibly even lawyers' i'm gonna lol, esp if you cloud it w/ vague worry of 'unforseen consequences'. if the 'unforseen consequences' don't have anything to do w/ science (or professional self serving scientists w/ their lies and their extremely exciting lives) let me assure you that regulating gmos out of existence won't actually lead to the overthrow of capitalism. it won't even lead to the overthrow of big agriculture.

You have just provided arguments against about half a dozen things I never argued for. I see though that you had the integrity to make your ascription of these positions to me provisional.

yeah i'm waiting for you to make an actual argument, any argument beyond 'i dunno guys, i getting bad vibes about this'. anytime you're ready.

aimless tbf your concern appears to be rooted completely in your distrust of big ag; we can all sympathize, but the science isn't on your side. watch that video that was posted in the other thread, if you haven't. it's probably a good intro for well meaning enviros

Aimless balls

distrust of big ag is fine, I just don't get why we should disproportionately distrust this one particular kind of big ag

i mean

Aimless balls beef

xp

My argument: when the public demands strong safeguards to regulate the introduction of genetically modified plants and animals into generalized use they are not being anti-science, but rather are recognizing the potential for abuses or harms which are inherent in the capitalist system. When they are sceptical of corporate-financed research into questions of safety, their scepticism is justified by past experience (see the pharmaceutical industry). When they perceive that the stakes are even greater with gmo organisms than with drugs, because food is grown under far less contained and controlled circumstances than the manufacture of drugs and food is consumed by everyone while drugs are consumed by only a fraction of the population, they have a rational point. When they are wary of the potential for industry capture of regulatory agencies producing weak or negligent oversight of industry, they are not imagining this potential. When they maintain a public clamor over these potential dangers, they are using the one political power they have to counteract the many institutional forces which tend to favor profit over safety. And when opponents say that all this amounts to luddite fear and ignorance, they are using scorn and ridicule in place of addressing the legitimacy of these concerns.

If any of those statements is the equivalent of saying gmo foods ought to be banned because omg frankenfood, then you can kick me in the crotch. If you would like to argue against the rationality of any of these, then quote it directly and state why it is misguided or wrong.

Or was I supposed to be defending a completely different set of positions that you find it more convenient to dismiss?

when exactly is when there

clarify

This is like talking to a weight/fortune machine.

i was thinking sarah palin on my end but, again, feel free to clarify

troll

Here are some more bad vibes

http://occupymonsanto360.org/2013/03/02/syngenta-charged-for-covering-up-livestock-deaths-from-gm-corn/

There is still no explanation provided by the authorities as to the cause of death of Gloeckner’s cows. The biotech industry claims that Bt toxins are quickly digested in the stomach and are only effective in insect target species. However, a recent study has found the toxin in the blood of over 80 % of women and their unborn children tested in Canada [5]. Because naturally existing Bt toxins from the soil bacterium have been used for a long time, long-term toxicology and health risk assessments on Bt proteins in GM crops were not done. However, there are important differences between the naturally produced toxins that can be washed off the crops, as opposed to genetically modified toxins that are part and parcel of the GM crop. Independent studies have shown that basing health assessments on flawed scientific assumptions is not only arrogant, but foolish.

Scientific studies dating from the 1990s have identified Bt toxins as potent immunogens, with Cry1Ac inducing immune responses in mice similar to the cholera toxin [6]. Farm workers dealing with Bt cotton have consistently reported allergic responses requiring hospitalisation in some cases (see [7] More Illnesses Linked to Bt Crops, SiS 30). Binding of Cry1Ac to the intestine of mice has been shown, with concomitant diarrhoea symptoms [8]. A meta-analysis of 3 month feeding studies in laboratory animals found that Bt maize led to changes in blood protein levels indicative of abnormal liver metabolism (see [9] GM Feed Toxic, Meta-Analysis Confirms, SiS 52). A recent study finds Cry1Ab toxic to human kidney cells, causing cell death at low doses (see [10] Bt Toxin Kills Human Kidney Cells, SiS 52).

almost every claim that author makes is causally specious. i'd like to read an article that's published somewhere a little more reputable than "occupymonsanto360.org"

i should say "seem", because i'm not reading the other websites the author linked to

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2793308/

ok i read that paper. the authors essentially say that the evidence monsanto provided to regulators is really flawed, due either to low standards required by regulating bodies or by deliberately misleading research methods employed by the investigators. to be honest i'm not familiar with the statistical methods they used to interpret the data they were given (methods they had to use since the sample sizes were so small), but their conclusion essentially is that the results are troubling; they call for additional research with longer follow-up, and they m/l echo that nature editorial by saying the research should be more independent. i agree w/ that, and monsanto is awful. the evidence that GM food is harmful is still very weak, though

the evidence that GM food is harmful is still very weak, though

I agree with you, but this paper suggests that the only reason why that is so is probably because no one has yet done the research. and while the minimal research that has been done is far from definitive, it is already far from encouraging -- the only mammals which were tested before market were rats, which developed kidney & liver problems within 3-5 months -- not long enough to prove causation, but that's been the extent of the testing. there's that, and there's the Bt toxins showing up in blood tests instead of being filtered by our livers as advertised: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1388888/GM-food-toxins-blood-93-unborn-babies.html

there was no popular vote to allow this into 87% of our corn supply, and therefore most of what we use to feed our animal livestock, which we then eat. when it comes to the wisdom of splicing a protein that causes an insect's stomach to explode into our own food chain, I would think the burden of proof would be on those arguing for, not those against -- and what this paper is telling us is that the burden has really not been met

the wikipedia post on these issues links to rebuttals on both of the studies I mention: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_maize#Safety_issues

I understand why some have become allergic to anti-GMO activism, especially now that it's reached peak level facebook .jpg dissemination, and I'm pro-GMO research in the abstract. I've certainly got more to read about this, and I appreciate the conversation.

Harking back to my points made upthread, if a corporation holds a patent on a GMO, it is in the interest of that corporation to protect that patent from anything which may tend to lessen its eventual profitability. Hence, if a corporation is required to provide studies and data upon the safety of introducing a GMO into the general environment, it is in the interests of that corporation to provide the very least data acceptable to regulators and to present it in the most favorable possible light.

A market-oriented conservative might argue that the true interest of the corporation is to do due diligence and avoid the liability of introducing a harmful product, but this overlooks the obvious fact that few of their customers will have the financial means or the sophistication to supplement the corporation's original faulty research with better research of greater depth and breadth, and that most government regulatory agencies or research universities can be co-opted through political influence or money. Therefore, if the product makes big profits, those same profits can be used to subvert the system and protect the corporation from liability.

it's easier to beg for forgiveness than to ask for permission

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512008149

Some critics have emphasized that no adverse effects have been reported on either farm animals or in the human population of the USA who have consumed an unknown mixture GMO crop derived food. Such claims are scientifically unsound for the following reasons. First, it is important to note that there have been neither epidemiological studies of the human population nor monitoring of farm animals in an attempt to correlate any ill-health observed with the consumption of a given GM crop. Second, it should be recalled that farm animals are not reared to live for the entire duration of their natural lifespan, and thus usually do not live long enough to develop long-term chronic diseases, which contrasts with the rats in our life-long experiment. If any studies in lactating cows are conducted, biological analyses performed are far less complete than those done in regulatory tests using rodents including in our study. Third, as there is no labeling of GMO food and feed in the USA, the amount consumed is unknown, and no “control group” exists. Thus, without a clear traceability or labeling, no epidemiological survey can be performed.

This is from Séralini's 'Answers to critics: Why there is a long term toxicity due to a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize and to a Roundup herbicide'

The journal that published the study has responded to critics by inventing a new position on their board for an ex-Monsanto employee. The comments on this article are concerning: http://independentsciencenews.org/science-media/the-goodman-affair-monsanto-targets-the-heart-of-science/

A peer-reviewed study on Bt mammal toxicity pulled after publication: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23146696

someone on FB posted this "simple list of companies to avoid"

http://fracturedparadigm.com/2013/04/02/boycott-monsanto-a-simple-list-of-companies-to-avoid/

so all I have to do is make sure my money never ever ends up in the hands of people who drink soft drinks... got it.

Also, be absolutely sure that your money never ends up in the hands of Hershey's Nestle!

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/31/unapproved_genetically_modified_monsanto_wheat_found_in_oregon/

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-30/wheat-drops-as-global-crop-outlook-counters-u-s-planting-delays.html

Wheat in Chicago fell, headed for the biggest monthly loss since February, after Japan suspended imports from the U.S., where the government discovered an unapproved, genetically modified strain growing in an Oregon field.

Japan, the biggest buyer of U.S. wheat behind Mexico, suspended imports of western-white wheat and feed wheat from the U.S., said Hiromi Iwahama, the director for grain trade and operation at the agriculture ministry. Scientists said the rogue wheat in Oregon was a strain tested from 1998 to 2005 by Monsanto Co. (MON), the world’s top seedmaker. Japan also canceled a purchase of 24,926 metric tons of white wheat.

gree hee hee

This is front page news in Oregon, it is a big deal.

huh, i never knew Oregon was a wheat producer

Now the proud owners of Blackwater aka Xe Services (and now Academi?)

wait really? googling it there's much noise on this subject but everyone's source seems to be this three-year-old scahill article about monsanto being one of blackwater's clients. it's got this hilariously scary bit

One of the most incendiary details in the documents is that Blackwater, through Total Intelligence, sought to become the "intel arm" of Monsanto, offering to provide operatives to infiltrate activist groups organizing against the multinational biotech firm.

which i hadn't known (although note "sought to"), but it doesn't say monsanto bought the company. the two highest results for "monsanto blackwater" are articles called, respectively, "Yes, Monsanto Actually DID Buy the BLACKWATER Mercenary Group!" and "No, Monsanto actually DIDN'T buy Blackwater." the former does not fill me w confidence:

Xe (now Academi) has, indeed, been purchased, and while there’s no way of DOCUMENTING who the new owners really are, the logical conclusion would be that Monsanto, who had been employing them prior to the sale are the new owners.

idk if that's the logical conclusion. still, plenty to get high and contemplate for doomy thrills in biotech giants buddying up to mercenary crusader giants even without outright purchase.

Chipotle goes GMO-free, Monsanto et al freak out: http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2876517/as_chipotle_goes_gmofree_monsantos_worst_fear_is_coming_true.html

This is such a rare opportunity to lol at everyone involved, because lol @ Chipotle for caving to Food Babe and her ilk and lol @ Monsanto for getting fucked by it (however minimally).

Most definitely can't post on this from work, will check in later.

This is such a rare opportunity to lol at everyone involved

p much

middle class white people doing their part to raise food prices for everyone, gotta love it

middle class white people doing their part to raise food prices for everyone prevent the patenting and monopolizing of food, gotta love it

Monsanto fears nothing more than losing market share due to market forces it does not fully control. In that it is like any other monopolist or aspiring monopolist.

Companies are probably right to fear a critical mass of people who don't know what they are talking about.

Suppose 50 million Americans decided to avoid GMO corn and soy, while the remaining 250 million ate GMO corn and soy without blinking. What is the worst result of this scenario for Monsanto? It would mean a loss of profits. For humanity, what difference would it make?

btw, the major difference in Monsanto gmo crops is not crops with a higher yield per acre or food with greater nutrition, but the ability to spray Roundup onto fields without killing the gmo plants.

SV I am genuinely surprised that you are a Monsanto apologist

I mean sure, liberal anti-GMO activism is problematic on many levels, but this company has a well-documented evil streak

Companies are probably right to fear a critical mass of people who don't know what they are talking about.

hmm I would think this is their bread and butter tbh

I'm not arguing in Monsanto's favour by any means but the ability of the internet to force change through the spreading of panic is something companies can legitimately complain about. I'm as sceptical of Monsanto as anyone but I'd rather the debate was around the credible science / politics of GMOs than the chemtrails-type fearmongering that seems to have taken over. It might be the right result for the wrong reasons in this case but idk if that is always going to be true.

that's a fair point, thanks for clarification

conflating Monsanto and GMO is problematic imo, even if they have been on the breaking edge of the wave

yes, definitely, my issue is with the patenting and the lawsuits

any particular lawsuits? science patents are pretty fucked across the board, imo

I'm against the entire legal principle that allows the patenting of a genetic code

mh:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowman_v._Monsanto_Co.

http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-patents-sue-farmers-547/

same story, different article:

http://www.rodalenews.com/research-feed/organic-vs-monsanto-organic-farmers-lose-right-protect-crops

The company is notorious for suing those farmers when their non-GMO crops become contaminated by GMOs growing in nearby fields.

The Bowman case is interesting in that it is kind of a self-defeating move and was done almost completely as trolling. iirc he had previously purchased seed, signed the contracts involved with that seed, and then decided he was going to be clever and try to get something for free, and in fact rub it in the face of the people who sold him the original seed. I can't vouch for the completeness of this article, but it gets into the fact that he was a licensee who was trying to get around a license he signed: http://www.patentdocs.org/2011/09/monsanto-co-v-bowman-fed-cir-2011.html

I think the legislation, as-is, is problematic although the public understanding of plant breeding is more so. If hybrid maize was saved and planted year-over-year, you'd have a completely different crop than originally planted -- hybrids do not breed true. I'm less versed with the soy end of things (as is the industry, as soy is a distant second as far as planted acres go), but I believe the same holds true.

It's worth noting that the last article isn't about Monsanto suing anyone -- it's about a group preemptively suing Monsanto. It's also inconsistent in that they start out with

The company is notorious for suing those farmers when their non-GMO crops become contaminated by GMOs growing in nearby fields.

The judge dismissed the case on the grounds that none of the plaintiffs had actually been sued by Monsanto and therefore their reasons were "unsubstantiated."

yeah, that might be repeating misinformation from the Saskatchewan case. that's what I get for a cursory search.

you are correct abt hybrids not breeding true, I think that is the case for all crops

fwiw, Monsanto's background in crop biotech is illuminating as far as their motives go

Until the 80s, they were pretty much completely a chemical company, but (as several companies did) they decided that biotechnology was going to be huge and started tinkering with plant genetics in the 80s. They didn't really bring anything to market until the mid-90s, at which point they licensed the technology to many companies, and got into the maize business. That was in 1996 -- they didn't actually own any means of commercial production before then, afaik.

Following that, they bought as many of the mid-sized maize seed companies as they could. Others have been bought or merged into other corporations. As far as mass industrial feed stock goes, the majority is Roundup Ready seed.

a better article, which notes that many farmers settle because they can't afford to go to court:

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/05/monsanto200805

What I know from friends/family involved in farming (of the corn variety) and what I've heard in my professional career, you can break down the corn industry like this:

• Small growers, low acreage: No real net positive for buying expensive seed. They use the same seed year-over-year, or more likely just buy something cheap and local. If they own equipment it's old or small-scale. Pretty unsophisticated as far as chemicals go (you see bugs, you spray for bugs?)
• Mid-sized growers: Might own some of their own equipment, might rent out or pay teams to come harvest/spray. Real entry level for the high-end seed, more likely to take shortcuts, very interested in whatever it takes to get better yield. Unsophisticated about chemicals, but can afford them.
• Large-scale operations: Own large tracts of contiguous land, tens of thousands of acres. Own really expensive equipment. Precision agriculture, including yield monitoring by location, fertilizer and chemical application appropriate down to the acre. Probably have drones flying over their fields.

that VF article kind of shows the way they are being assclowns, though -- afaik, they hire jerks to lurk around farms that have signed a license agreement, wait for them to plant seed that wasn't purchased under that agreement but has patented traits, and then drop paperwork

the fact that their goons can't even tell which farmer (or store owner) is which is kind of the prime indicator that they don't give a shit about farmers, even while they're buying up seed companies

corn farming is so fucking weird these days. there's a yearly show called the "f4rm progress show" that bounces between Iowa and Illinois and the weirdest moment, attending it probably six or so years ago, was seeing a machine that was planting seed in a field at a precise depth that varied by that square foot's soil conditions, ground temperature, etc. followed by a FFA kid in high school with messed up teeth asking me if I could grab a free sample of chaw for him from this chewing tobacco booth

I think Monsanto will even sue farmers who have genetically modified seeds blow into their land without even planting it on purpose

uh we just went over that case

They haven't, iirc, although people will constantly claim they have

there has been at least one high-profile misunderstanding of that:

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

All claims relating to Roundup Ready canola in Schmeiser's 1997 canola crop were dropped prior to trial and the court only considered the canola in Schmeiser's 1998 fields. Regarding his 1998 crop, Schmeiser did not put forward any defence of accidental contamination.

however, the Oregon wheat case referred to above seems to have been the result of accidental contamination - but afaik nobody is being sued there.

If you're curious and/or a complete masochist, page 32 of this pdf appears to be the 2015 technology use agreement:
http://www.monsanto.com/sitecollectiondocuments/technology-use-guide.pdf

yes, definitely, my issue is with the patenting and the lawsuits

― sleeve, Friday, May 22, 2015 4:51 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

right and i won't begrudge that, but this revive was about a food company ditching GMO ingredients. different issue

chipotle is full of shit, I go into there and wear a little towel over my eyes as if I was eating an ortolan, so as to not see the "gmo free" banner

I know a few beekeepers, and most of the concern I see about Monsanto/GMOs is about the effect on bee populations from using additional pesticide. Can anyone point to a good, solid article that defends against this?

The bee issue is complex and most likely related to insecticides, if there is a link. I know a single study was about honeybee confusion in presence of glyphosate (a herbicide), but that was in isolation and was fairly circumstantial. There's a stronger case for neonicotinoids (a seed treatment, which a seed is coated in, in order to avoid predation of the seed and seedlings) being toxic to bees, but I am not aware of any evidence that it happens when used as intended.

There is a case in Europe where a field was planted with a neonicotinoid treatment that was powdered, it was windy, and it blew on to a neighboring field that was pollinating. Pretty atypical, not how that pesticide is recommended to be used.

The "articles that defend against" policy is kind of one of those "can you show an article saying you didn't beat your wife?" things. I think there might be something messing with honeybees, but every agriculture chemical-based argument I've read is usually a petition saying "ban neonicotinoids and glyphosate and save the bees!"

also worth noting that people throw neonicotinoids under the weird GMO umbrella (and under the Monsanto thread!) when it's just a nicotine-like chemical

fwiw original Roundup (glyphosate) isn't under patent anymore and you can buy it generically.

also, the glyphosate tolerance gene? for soybeans, it's no longer under patent. it's expired elsewhere, but as of this year, it's open in the US

yeah it is my understanding that a lot of nicotine-based pesticides actually qualify for organic certification.

I will try to look up some good links for the neonicotinoid/bee issue, it's been talked about a lot in the Willamette valley lately.