7 ms·

Why Does Everyone Hate Monsanto? (2014)

31 points by woodfordb 10y ago

danbruc 10y ago
More advertising seems wasted money to me - pro Monsanto people don't matter, anti Monsanto people will only see it as propaganda. Just label GMOs really obviously and let the people decide. Without any labeling or non-obvious labeling it is hard or impossible to avoid GMOs if you want to - for rational reasons or not - and being wholly against GMOs becomes your only real option. There are of course still a lot of other issues like cross contamination and what not but I think it would make a really got start.
- lukeschlather 10y ago
  You can create poisonous food with conventional techniques. The problem with the anti-GMO movement is that they're focusing on gene splicing without worrying about conventional methods. Labeling and testing cultivars is not a bad idea, but simply labeling "GMO" vs. "non-GMO" gives a false sense of security. http://boingboing.net/2013/03/25/the-case-of-the-poison-potato.html http://boingboing.net/2013/03/25/the-case-of-the-poison-pota...
  - danbruc 10y ago
    I don't see how GMO labeling could make the situation worse, as far as I can tell people are currently not looking at the potatoes in front of them wondering whether they may contain excessive amounts of alkaloids or not. People are buying their groceries according to price, past experiences, looking at the photo on the box and maybe reading the nutritional content. They are already eating a lot of stuff they better avoided and they do so knowingly. If they want to know whether it contains GMOs, tell them.
- unchocked 10y ago
  The problem with labeling GMO's is that you're taking what ought to be a regulatory issue (is this GMO objectively safe?) and kicking it down I to the team of popular culture (do I the consumer think buying this GMO is safe for me?). Consumers are ill-equipped to make this decision, and if continually confronted by warning labels many will choose to avoid GMO containing foods "just to be safe". When a critical mass of consumers feel this way it will just be a cultural fact that GMO's are "unsafe" and food producers will avoid using them to avoid being seen as purveyors of "unsafe food". Something similar happened to nuclear power, and we got coal power instead. GMO's enable the intensive agriculture needed to support 7+ billion people with a lower environmental impact than would otherwise be possible, and the technology is still primitive. I don't want it to be stopped in it's tracks by mob psychology.
  - danbruc 10y ago
    80 % of the world population has - more or less freely - decided to believe in invisible gods guiding the fate of mankind, sometimes with dire consequences, and we protect their right to do so. Should we force them to abandon this irrational nonsense for some greater good? I may not like the consequences of people acting irrationally but I like the idea of forcing people to believe The Right Thing™ even less. They feel about being forced to live with GMOs exactly the same way you feel about being forced to live with coal power, it's just a matter of on which side of the debate you are, both sides strongly believe to be on the right one.
    - pdkl95 10y ago
      > Should we force them to abandon this irrational nonsense No. Nor should we support their delusions. > both sides strongly believe to be on the right one What they believe is irrelevant. Having "strong beliefs" doesn't make those beliefs rational or worthy of respect. Labeling should be based on facts.
      - danbruc 10y ago
        »Contains [no] GMOs« would totally be based on facts. It should be an informational label, not a warning label.
        unchocked 10y ago
        You can't separate those things.
        danbruc 10y ago
        Why not? Make it blue, not red or green. Maybe even have it on everything, with and without GMOs, to avoid implicitly expressing any bias. People will surly complain that it is not red and has no skull and crossbones, but that's life.
        10y ago
aftbit 10y ago
I don't understand the anti-labeling group, except perhaps as an obvious lobbying effort by those selling GMO seeds. Giving people accurate information about what they eat seems to be net positive. Most people will buy the cheapest thing, some will buy the non-GMO things. How's that different from today's "organic" labeling?
- OMFGscience 10y ago
  The issue is that there's no scientific reason to be opposed to GMOs. They're perfectly safe to eat and not worse for the environment. The organic lobby has successfully demonized GMOs to the general population, and now they want to have them labeled to scare people away from eating them. Do you really think we should be legally requiring the labeling of something that doesn't actually matter, in response to a successful marketing campaign by the competition?
  - cowmix 10y ago
    Safe or not, I do not want to buy or support GMO food because I know there's probably a patent behind the seeds that can screw over farmers (and by proxy everyone else).
    - beefman 10y ago
      Conventional cultivars are widely patented too.
    - pdkl95 10y ago
      > probably a patent Then you want labeling about patents, not "genetic modification".
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      The farmers know well enough what they are buying when they buy single season crops. It's been the norm ever since the green revolution (modern hybrids often don't breed true http://www.foodrenegade.com/hybrid-seeds-vs-gmos/ http://www.foodrenegade.com/hybrid-seeds-vs-gmos/ ). They are making an economic decision when they buy and plant any crop, and they are good at making it (it's a low margin business).
BinaryIdiot 10y ago
The comments on this article are painful. Monsanto certainly has a huge problem and that problem is PR. People call them an evil monopoly, but they're not a monopoly. They're the second biggest, sure, but they have lots of competitors behind them, too. Almost every single thing I read that's negative about Monsanto is either a fabrication or spun so heavily that the truth is too distorted. Honestly, so much negative press really distracts from where you can find negative issues with the company.
- Karunamon 10y ago
  I think it's a combination of things: 1- the name. Monsanto sounds like a Saturday morning cartoon villain. 2- the whole concept of patenting a life form rubs many the wrong way 3- previous bad behavior, I.e. Agent orange. 4- self-reinforcing bad information That's no excuse for making things up whole cloth,but it at least explains some of it.
  - belorn 10y ago
    To expand on the patent issue, it not only about Monsanto patenting life but also how they go around and enforce it. Rather than selling a product that the farmer can use as they wish, monsanto demands payment for each harvest. Its if like a car manufacturer were to patent some new effective engine but then went to demand a cut each time the customer went and filled up the tank. Its not a deal that feels fair, and it makes people feel like someone got tricked.
    - roel_v 10y ago
      You realize you're saying this to an audience of which at least half either works on saas or would like to, right?
    - BinaryIdiot 10y ago
      >Rather than selling a product that the farmer can use as they wish, monsanto demands payment for each harvest. "Demands"? Many GMO products don't create their own seeds so famers have to re-buy them. They do this before the harvest, not for each harvest. I've talked to farmers before and for some types of crops it's a freaking godsend for them. I don't think "demands" is the right word. It's closer to a subscription service more than a "demand". Are you saying Google "demands" payment when you sign up to Google Apps? etc...
crispytx 10y ago
Agent Orange.
- fiatmoney 10y ago
  No one seems to still have a grudge against Dow.
- pdkl95 10y ago
  An entire generation has past. The people current working at Monsanto are not the people involved with Agent Orange. Carrying hatred into a multi-generation blood feud isn't helping anything useful. If you want be angry at Monsanto, blame them for the things they are currently doing. Their ideas about patents are dangerous, and they learned predatory business practices from Romney (Bain Capital).
amelius 10y ago
> Why Does Everyone Hate Monsanto? Because they forgot to set their corporate motto to "Don't be evil".
yummyfajitas 10y ago
In other news, 80% of Americans want food containing gaining DNA to be labelled - comparable to the number that are concerned about dihydrogen monoxide. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/01/17/over-80-percent-of-americans-support-mandatory-labels-on-foods-containing-dna/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
- crdoconnor 10y ago
  Ctrl-F "roundup". Ctrl-F "glyphosphate".... Hmm, nothing found - especially curious for a CATO author who berates the American public's scientific understanding. In other, other apparently unreported news, Monsanto's GM foods were designed to be extra resistant to the pesticides they sell. This pesticide, specifically: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx800218n http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx800218n "Glyphosate Formulations Induce Apoptosis and Necrosis in Human Umbilical, Embryonic, and Placental Cells" It's important to focus on the fact that the GMO plants themelves without the extra pesticides they were designed to sustain are totally, 100% safe, though. Signed, CATO (Koch funded think tank, closely allied with Monsanto)
crdoconnor 10y ago
PR fluff pieces probably don't answer this question as cogently as wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#Legal_actions_and_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#Legal_actions_and_con...
swehner 10y ago
Is from the year 2014.
- dang 10y ago
  Thanks; added.
deepnet 10y ago
Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser[1] is one datum. The Schmeisers lost their heirloom corn they had been growing for generations when a neighbour grew Monsanto corn, which pollinated some of the Schmeiser's plants. Because Monsanto had patented Roundup-ready corn, the Schmeisers lost the right to grow their unpatented family corn as some contained patented DNA. The court ruled 5% contamination was enough to assert IP rights and the Schmeisers could no longer grow their corn. Seized ownership by genetic contamination is clearly a huge risk. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeiser https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmei...
- adanto6840 10y ago
  If you read the linked Wikipedia entry, the first paragraph makes it pretty clear that your re-telling of the story is, at the least, not fully accurate: "The case drew worldwide attention and is widely misunderstood to concern what happens when farmers' fields are accidentally contaminated with patented seed. However by the time the case went to trial, all claims had been dropped that related to patented seed in the field that was contaminated in 1997; the court only considered the GM canola in Schmeiser's 1998 fields, which Schmeiser had intentionally concentrated and planted from his 1997 harvest. Regarding his 1998 crop, Schmeiser did not put forward any defence of accidental contamination." Emphasis added. They did not put forward the defense of accidental contamination because it was indeed not accidental; instead, they were trying to add traits of the GM crop into their own. Where you stand on that practice may vary, but they certainly were [intentionally] taking advantage of the superior traits of the GM crop. Whether or not it should be allowed to be intellectual property is a completely different thing, but given that it can be considered IP right now, the corporation would be foolish to not protect their IP and therefore their financial interests for their shareholders.
  - deepnet 10y ago
    I have heard this idea the Schmeisers benefited from Monsanto's Roundup-ready and I disagree. The Schmeisers didn't use Roundup, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled they experienced no benefit from the Monsanto Genes. For the wider picture this is moot: intentionality was about liability - the contamination lost them their heirloom regardless. This is of grave concern to Nations as it could well mean in a few generations none of that species can be grown without Monsanto permission and license fees.
nerdponx 10y ago
This article is part of the problem. People care about seed patents and farmer suicides too, but I don't see any mention of those in the first half of the article. It's a shame, because all this hate should be directed at the food industry more broadly, including Cargill, ADM, and their armies of lobbyists
api 10y ago
I've wondered for a while if there's evil black hat PR agencies out there that charge protection money. "There's going to be an anti-GMO backlash and everyone is going to pick a villain. Pay us and we can make sure it isn't you." There are many agricultural biotechnology companies. Maybe Monsanto didn't pay.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  Monsanto has, IIRC, something like 80% of the seed market. There aren't really any comparable firms in the market.
cm2187 10y ago
The problem is that many people are vehemently against GMO without having a clue. I remember of a famous french actress protesting on TV that people were forced to eat GMO. And saying in disgust "It's disgusting, I don't even want to eat DNA!" On GMO and Monsanto I recommand a recent .net rocks: http://dotnetrocks.com/?show=1298 http://dotnetrocks.com/?show=1298
- undersuit 10y ago
  They don't have a clue? Great maybe you could give me a clue on which french actress you're talking about. Vague and nebulous anecdotes drive me crazy.
  - cm2187 10y ago
    I think it was either Emmanuelle Beart or Beatrice Dalle. Why, does that make a difference?
nickpsecurity 10y ago
Let's try this one although I hold it against Fox and corporate media more than Monsanto: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw
djzkf 10y ago
If you were a farmer interested in GMOs what would you google? Monsanto. They don't have a PR problem, they're the greatest PR geniuses of all times.
ourmandave 10y ago
Speaking of PR mis-steps... I do remember seeing a TV ad a long time ago. Their new short-lived tagline was, "Without chemicals, life itself would be impossible." https://www.flickr.com/photos/jbcurio/8740859605 https://www.flickr.com/photos/jbcurio/8740859605 But to me it came across as, "Without Monsanto, life itself would be impossible."
shanacarp 10y ago
Because of the problems of genetic diversity and the lack of public seed, even if chunks of Monsanto research is funded by the public in public research/land grant universities through public grants. EG:While large chunks of cornell's Ag program does end up with some sorts of patents (I think) - much of the fees associated with the introduction of a new plant are paid directly by the consumer (eg: this grape https://doubleavineyards.com/arandell https://doubleavineyards.com/arandell - new yorkers pay lower royalty fees to grow it). Furthermore, this grape (as an example) is considered public seed. I can, my neighbor can, whoever can, breed it with other grapes, sequence it, eat it, take cutting for creating new vines, whatever. If Cornell^ decided to partner with Monsanto for Flint Corn, the flint corn may not be released to me to do that (hence the lawsuits, and why Monsanto buys/has huge internal labs on top of partnering with state universities) The other issue of lack of public seed is the lack of genetic diversity, especially over the long term. One of big reasons why we have GM bananas is we only grow one kind of banana (cavendish). Imagine that applied to wheat, and then a grass disease mutates while Monsanto patents hold. If Monsanto wheat is 80% of wheat in the US, that disease is going to have a field day. Public seed is insurance that tinkers can tinker with genetics, thereby increasing genetic diversity of wheat in the field, tomatoes, what have you. Right now we bank seed and have started z"heirloom seed" orgs like Seed Savers exchange. GM food theoretically has a place in there, but not if it is seen as a way of creating monoculture instead of tinkerers (which is what has happened) We'll see if the fields turn ^Cornell does partner with outside organizations for plant breeding purposes.

31 points by woodfordb 10y ago

More advertising seems wasted money to me - pro Monsanto people don't matter, anti Monsanto people will only see it as propaganda. Just label GMOs really obviously and let the people decide. Without any labeling or non-obvious labeling it is hard or impossible to avoid GMOs if you want to - for rational reasons or not - and being wholly against GMOs becomes your only real option. There are of course still a lot of other issues like cross contamination and what not but I think it would make a really got start.

lukeschlather 10y ago
You can create poisonous food with conventional techniques. The problem with the anti-GMO movement is that they're focusing on gene splicing without worrying about conventional methods. Labeling and testing cultivars is not a bad idea, but simply labeling "GMO" vs. "non-GMO" gives a false sense of security. http://boingboing.net/2013/03/25/the-case-of-the-poison-potato.html http://boingboing.net/2013/03/25/the-case-of-the-poison-pota...
- danbruc 10y ago
  I don't see how GMO labeling could make the situation worse, as far as I can tell people are currently not looking at the potatoes in front of them wondering whether they may contain excessive amounts of alkaloids or not. People are buying their groceries according to price, past experiences, looking at the photo on the box and maybe reading the nutritional content. They are already eating a lot of stuff they better avoided and they do so knowingly. If they want to know whether it contains GMOs, tell them.
unchocked 10y ago
The problem with labeling GMO's is that you're taking what ought to be a regulatory issue (is this GMO objectively safe?) and kicking it down I to the team of popular culture (do I the consumer think buying this GMO is safe for me?). Consumers are ill-equipped to make this decision, and if continually confronted by warning labels many will choose to avoid GMO containing foods "just to be safe". When a critical mass of consumers feel this way it will just be a cultural fact that GMO's are "unsafe" and food producers will avoid using them to avoid being seen as purveyors of "unsafe food". Something similar happened to nuclear power, and we got coal power instead. GMO's enable the intensive agriculture needed to support 7+ billion people with a lower environmental impact than would otherwise be possible, and the technology is still primitive. I don't want it to be stopped in it's tracks by mob psychology.
- danbruc 10y ago
  80 % of the world population has - more or less freely - decided to believe in invisible gods guiding the fate of mankind, sometimes with dire consequences, and we protect their right to do so. Should we force them to abandon this irrational nonsense for some greater good? I may not like the consequences of people acting irrationally but I like the idea of forcing people to believe The Right Thing™ even less. They feel about being forced to live with GMOs exactly the same way you feel about being forced to live with coal power, it's just a matter of on which side of the debate you are, both sides strongly believe to be on the right one.
  - pdkl95 10y ago
    > Should we force them to abandon this irrational nonsense No. Nor should we support their delusions. > both sides strongly believe to be on the right one What they believe is irrelevant. Having "strong beliefs" doesn't make those beliefs rational or worthy of respect. Labeling should be based on facts.
    - danbruc 10y ago
      »Contains [no] GMOs« would totally be based on facts. It should be an informational label, not a warning label.
      - unchocked 10y ago
        You can't separate those things.
        danbruc 10y ago
        Why not? Make it blue, not red or green. Maybe even have it on everything, with and without GMOs, to avoid implicitly expressing any bias. People will surly complain that it is not red and has no skull and crossbones, but that's life.
        10y ago

aftbit 10y ago

I don't understand the anti-labeling group, except perhaps as an obvious lobbying effort by those selling GMO seeds. Giving people accurate information about what they eat seems to be net positive. Most people will buy the cheapest thing, some will buy the non-GMO things. How's that different from today's "organic" labeling?

OMFGscience 10y ago
The issue is that there's no scientific reason to be opposed to GMOs. They're perfectly safe to eat and not worse for the environment. The organic lobby has successfully demonized GMOs to the general population, and now they want to have them labeled to scare people away from eating them. Do you really think we should be legally requiring the labeling of something that doesn't actually matter, in response to a successful marketing campaign by the competition?
- cowmix 10y ago
  Safe or not, I do not want to buy or support GMO food because I know there's probably a patent behind the seeds that can screw over farmers (and by proxy everyone else).
  - beefman 10y ago
    Conventional cultivars are widely patented too.
  - pdkl95 10y ago
    > probably a patent Then you want labeling about patents, not "genetic modification".
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    The farmers know well enough what they are buying when they buy single season crops. It's been the norm ever since the green revolution (modern hybrids often don't breed true http://www.foodrenegade.com/hybrid-seeds-vs-gmos/ http://www.foodrenegade.com/hybrid-seeds-vs-gmos/ ). They are making an economic decision when they buy and plant any crop, and they are good at making it (it's a low margin business).

BinaryIdiot 10y ago

The comments on this article are painful. Monsanto certainly has a huge problem and that problem is PR. People call them an evil monopoly, but they're not a monopoly. They're the second biggest, sure, but they have lots of competitors behind them, too. Almost every single thing I read that's negative about Monsanto is either a fabrication or spun so heavily that the truth is too distorted. Honestly, so much negative press really distracts from where you can find negative issues with the company.

Karunamon 10y ago
I think it's a combination of things: 1- the name. Monsanto sounds like a Saturday morning cartoon villain. 2- the whole concept of patenting a life form rubs many the wrong way 3- previous bad behavior, I.e. Agent orange. 4- self-reinforcing bad information That's no excuse for making things up whole cloth,but it at least explains some of it.
- belorn 10y ago
  To expand on the patent issue, it not only about Monsanto patenting life but also how they go around and enforce it. Rather than selling a product that the farmer can use as they wish, monsanto demands payment for each harvest. Its if like a car manufacturer were to patent some new effective engine but then went to demand a cut each time the customer went and filled up the tank. Its not a deal that feels fair, and it makes people feel like someone got tricked.
  - roel_v 10y ago
    You realize you're saying this to an audience of which at least half either works on saas or would like to, right?
  - BinaryIdiot 10y ago
    >Rather than selling a product that the farmer can use as they wish, monsanto demands payment for each harvest. "Demands"? Many GMO products don't create their own seeds so famers have to re-buy them. They do this before the harvest, not for each harvest. I've talked to farmers before and for some types of crops it's a freaking godsend for them. I don't think "demands" is the right word. It's closer to a subscription service more than a "demand". Are you saying Google "demands" payment when you sign up to Google Apps? etc...

crispytx 10y ago

Agent Orange.

fiatmoney 10y ago
No one seems to still have a grudge against Dow.
pdkl95 10y ago
An entire generation has past. The people current working at Monsanto are not the people involved with Agent Orange. Carrying hatred into a multi-generation blood feud isn't helping anything useful. If you want be angry at Monsanto, blame them for the things they are currently doing. Their ideas about patents are dangerous, and they learned predatory business practices from Romney (Bain Capital).

amelius 10y ago

> Why Does Everyone Hate Monsanto? Because they forgot to set their corporate motto to "Don't be evil".

yummyfajitas 10y ago

In other news, 80% of Americans want food containing gaining DNA to be labelled - comparable to the number that are concerned about dihydrogen monoxide. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/01/17/over-80-percent-of-americans-support-mandatory-labels-on-foods-containing-dna/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...

crdoconnor 10y ago
Ctrl-F "roundup". Ctrl-F "glyphosphate".... Hmm, nothing found - especially curious for a CATO author who berates the American public's scientific understanding. In other, other apparently unreported news, Monsanto's GM foods were designed to be extra resistant to the pesticides they sell. This pesticide, specifically: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx800218n http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx800218n "Glyphosate Formulations Induce Apoptosis and Necrosis in Human Umbilical, Embryonic, and Placental Cells" It's important to focus on the fact that the GMO plants themelves without the extra pesticides they were designed to sustain are totally, 100% safe, though. Signed, CATO (Koch funded think tank, closely allied with Monsanto)

crdoconnor 10y ago

PR fluff pieces probably don't answer this question as cogently as wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#Legal_actions_and_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#Legal_actions_and_con...

swehner 10y ago

Is from the year 2014.

dang 10y ago
Thanks; added.

deepnet 10y ago

Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser[1] is one datum. The Schmeisers lost their heirloom corn they had been growing for generations when a neighbour grew Monsanto corn, which pollinated some of the Schmeiser's plants. Because Monsanto had patented Roundup-ready corn, the Schmeisers lost the right to grow their unpatented family corn as some contained patented DNA. The court ruled 5% contamination was enough to assert IP rights and the Schmeisers could no longer grow their corn. Seized ownership by genetic contamination is clearly a huge risk. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeiser https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmei...

adanto6840 10y ago
If you read the linked Wikipedia entry, the first paragraph makes it pretty clear that your re-telling of the story is, at the least, not fully accurate: "The case drew worldwide attention and is widely misunderstood to concern what happens when farmers' fields are accidentally contaminated with patented seed. However by the time the case went to trial, all claims had been dropped that related to patented seed in the field that was contaminated in 1997; the court only considered the GM canola in Schmeiser's 1998 fields, which Schmeiser had intentionally concentrated and planted from his 1997 harvest. Regarding his 1998 crop, Schmeiser did not put forward any defence of accidental contamination." Emphasis added. They did not put forward the defense of accidental contamination because it was indeed not accidental; instead, they were trying to add traits of the GM crop into their own. Where you stand on that practice may vary, but they certainly were [intentionally] taking advantage of the superior traits of the GM crop. Whether or not it should be allowed to be intellectual property is a completely different thing, but given that it can be considered IP right now, the corporation would be foolish to not protect their IP and therefore their financial interests for their shareholders.
- deepnet 10y ago
  I have heard this idea the Schmeisers benefited from Monsanto's Roundup-ready and I disagree. The Schmeisers didn't use Roundup, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled they experienced no benefit from the Monsanto Genes. For the wider picture this is moot: intentionality was about liability - the contamination lost them their heirloom regardless. This is of grave concern to Nations as it could well mean in a few generations none of that species can be grown without Monsanto permission and license fees.

nerdponx 10y ago

This article is part of the problem. People care about seed patents and farmer suicides too, but I don't see any mention of those in the first half of the article. It's a shame, because all this hate should be directed at the food industry more broadly, including Cargill, ADM, and their armies of lobbyists

api 10y ago

I've wondered for a while if there's evil black hat PR agencies out there that charge protection money. "There's going to be an anti-GMO backlash and everyone is going to pick a villain. Pay us and we can make sure it isn't you." There are many agricultural biotechnology companies. Maybe Monsanto didn't pay.

dragonwriter 10y ago
Monsanto has, IIRC, something like 80% of the seed market. There aren't really any comparable firms in the market.

cm2187 10y ago

The problem is that many people are vehemently against GMO without having a clue. I remember of a famous french actress protesting on TV that people were forced to eat GMO. And saying in disgust "It's disgusting, I don't even want to eat DNA!" On GMO and Monsanto I recommand a recent .net rocks: http://dotnetrocks.com/?show=1298 http://dotnetrocks.com/?show=1298

undersuit 10y ago
They don't have a clue? Great maybe you could give me a clue on which french actress you're talking about. Vague and nebulous anecdotes drive me crazy.
- cm2187 10y ago
  I think it was either Emmanuelle Beart or Beatrice Dalle. Why, does that make a difference?

nickpsecurity 10y ago

Let's try this one although I hold it against Fox and corporate media more than Monsanto: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw

djzkf 10y ago

If you were a farmer interested in GMOs what would you google? Monsanto. They don't have a PR problem, they're the greatest PR geniuses of all times.

ourmandave 10y ago

Speaking of PR mis-steps... I do remember seeing a TV ad a long time ago. Their new short-lived tagline was, "Without chemicals, life itself would be impossible." https://www.flickr.com/photos/jbcurio/8740859605 https://www.flickr.com/photos/jbcurio/8740859605 But to me it came across as, "Without Monsanto, life itself would be impossible."

shanacarp 10y ago

Because of the problems of genetic diversity and the lack of public seed, even if chunks of Monsanto research is funded by the public in public research/land grant universities through public grants. EG:While large chunks of cornell's Ag program does end up with some sorts of patents (I think) - much of the fees associated with the introduction of a new plant are paid directly by the consumer (eg: this grape https://doubleavineyards.com/arandell https://doubleavineyards.com/arandell - new yorkers pay lower royalty fees to grow it). Furthermore, this grape (as an example) is considered public seed. I can, my neighbor can, whoever can, breed it with other grapes, sequence it, eat it, take cutting for creating new vines, whatever. If Cornell^ decided to partner with Monsanto for Flint Corn, the flint corn may not be released to me to do that (hence the lawsuits, and why Monsanto buys/has huge internal labs on top of partnering with state universities) The other issue of lack of public seed is the lack of genetic diversity, especially over the long term. One of big reasons why we have GM bananas is we only grow one kind of banana (cavendish). Imagine that applied to wheat, and then a grass disease mutates while Monsanto patents hold. If Monsanto wheat is 80% of wheat in the US, that disease is going to have a field day. Public seed is insurance that tinkers can tinker with genetics, thereby increasing genetic diversity of wheat in the field, tomatoes, what have you. Right now we bank seed and have started z"heirloom seed" orgs like Seed Savers exchange. GM food theoretically has a place in there, but not if it is seen as a way of creating monoculture instead of tinkerers (which is what has happened) We'll see if the fields turn ^Cornell does partner with outside organizations for plant breeding purposes.