Monsanto

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!"