21 ms·

Monsanto Attacks Scientists After Studies Show Trouble for Its New Weedkiller

623 points by zymhan 9y ago

diogenescynic 9y ago
They also pay shills to spread propaganda in the comments sections anywhere Monsanto is discussed. It’s particularly obvious since it’s the same users, with the same talking points, commenting within minutes. The same 5-10 pro-Monsanto accounts on Reddit show up in most discussions. I suspect this is going on for many other aspects of our life and it’s downright paranoia inducing.
- Dlotan 9y ago
  I think this is really tricky. On the one hand I like other viewpoints to discuss such a difficult topic. On the other hand I don't want to get corporate shills. Also the filter bubble point, which brings you to only wanting to hear your own opinion. The way hackernews handles this most of the time is way better by letting people make a disclaimer.
  - alexandercrohde 9y ago
    How is it tricky? If a company wants to defend itself, it shouldn't do so via paid individuals masquerading as private parties ("Let Nothing Go"), the only purpose of that is to misrepresent public opinion and appeal to bandwagon bias.
    - 09bjb 9y ago
      "Should" (in any moral sense) and "Monsanto" don't play nicely together.
  - NotSammyHagar 9y ago
    Open discussion is welcome. But I cannot ever remember when paid shills are helpful, in my experience.
    - Dlotan 9y ago
      I like it in cases I just misunderstood something and they point out, why I'm wrong. Ofc with a disclaimer but even without they usually have good knowledge of the topic so they should also be heard.
      - NotSammyHagar 9y ago
        Where is this place where there are paid shills who identify themselves who make helpful comments? I'm surprised it exists.
        Dlotan 9y ago
        Hackernews, whenever there is someone with Disclaimer: I work for xy
- Wintamute 9y ago
  Checks diogenescynic's comment history for evidence of anti corporate shill shilling
  - diogenescynic 9y ago
    Google astroturfing... it’s a huge industry. Not a made up conspiracy theory. It’s as benign as a filing thousands of individual orders with different book stores to get a new author listed on the NYTimes best seller list and as malicious as making up fake personalities to promote obvious lies. Public relations, public affairs, and marketing companies are heavily involved.
    - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
      Here is an interesting study from a couple years back about astroturfing reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/netsec/comments/38wl43/we_used_sock_puppets_in_rnetsec_last_year_and_are/ https://www.reddit.com/r/netsec/comments/38wl43/we_used_sock...
    - Wintamute 9y ago
      I'm not disagreeing with you dude, just running with your "downright paranoia inducing" comment ... never mind ...
- 09bjb 9y ago
  Yeah this one has been tricky. I haven't bothered to spend a ton of time on it, but I've done a deep dive or two on a user's history when it seems suspicious...and often had my suspicions amplified. Lots of pro- industry stuff and not a lot of discussion on other topics. Sometimes it's just people who work in the industry and have a huge portion of their identity influencing their view...which given that they have some expertise and lingo complicates things. But sometimes it's just a laughably one-dimensional HN account.
- searine 9y ago
  Or maybe, juuuust maybe, people have different opinions about things. Imagine that.
  - realusername 9y ago
    It looks too systematic for it to be real accounts, their comments are only on monsanto subjects or other pro-corporate PR, real users also show interests in other things.
    - searine 9y ago
      That's exactly the kind of empty talking point BIG ORGANIC wants you to spew. All carefully calculated to get you to buy their overpriced luxury product! Look, people disagree about things. Get over it.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - deadmetheny 9y ago
        Don't kid yourself. People can and do disagree, but they doesn't preclude the fact that astroturfing absolutely does happen as well, and it's absolutely a problem.
        searine 9y ago
        >but they doesn't preclude the fact that astroturfing absolutely does happen as well, and it's absolutely a problem. Occam's razor. What is more likely : A. This normal person on the internet disagrees with me. B. There is a multinational conspiracy to control the narrative on topic X and in reality everyone universally agrees with me that topic X is a bad thing.
        deadmetheny 9y ago
        You are hopeless.
- lsmarigo 9y ago
  I suspect (hope) you're being downvoted for being off-topic because what you describe is a serious problem. There are multiple PR/Media orgs that specialize in this now and they're far more advanced than using the same accounts.
  - Pica_soO 9y ago
    There should be NN trained on eathing accounts posting stories with near-similar content who have been proven wrong.
- ConceptJunkie 9y ago
  I'm sure you are much joking ha ha! Monsanto does not need properganda as it is a wanderful company who's products make everyones life better. Monsanto feeds the world, don't you know?
- dang 9y ago
  Please don't invoke the astroturfing/shillage meme here unless you have something specific (i.e. more substantive than someone happening to hold a divergent view) to point to. It isn't that what you said is wrong, it's that this topic leads to bottom-of-the-barrel discussion quality, like the below. It's always the same and it's tedious. That's why we added a bit about it to the HN guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Real astroturfing and shilling exist, but internet users also frequently imagine it. There's no way out of this hall of mirrors—discussions just die there—so we all need to have the discipline to avoid it by default. If anyone thinks they're seeing real astroturfing on HN they should email us so we can investigate.
alexandercrohde 9y ago
On a different note I recommend you also google "Let Nothing Go." [Monsanto is being accused in court of hiring 3rd parties to shill public forums including facebook, and it's alleged the internal name of that program is "Let Nothing Go"]
- smhost 9y ago
  I couldn't find anything besides Russian propaganda outlets. Do you have links to any reputable sources?
  - CalChris 9y ago
    Bloomberg https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-07-13/does-the-world-s-top-weed-killer-cause-cancer-trump-s-epa-will-decide https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-07-13/does-the-... This reminds me of the campaign against Rachel Carson.
  - alexandercrohde 9y ago
    Actual court briefing: https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/MDLLetNothingGomotion.pdf https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/MDLLetNothingGo...
    - smhost 9y ago
      Appreciated.
    - dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
      That's simply appalling. What an absurd situation. It seems like everyone knows what a monster Monsanto has become but nobody can actually do anything about it.
      - sova 9y ago
        Not until there is advocacy for the health of the soil and surrounding environs. If there were a Ministry of Soil and Earth that they had to answer to, they wouldn't be able to pull half the stuff they do. Unfortunately Evil pays well in the short term.
zymhan 9y ago
NPR has been reporting on the issues farmers have had with Dicamba for months now http://www.npr.org/search/index.php?searchinput=dicamba http://www.npr.org/search/index.php?searchinput=dicamba http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/10/13/557607443/with-ok-from-epa-use-of-controversial-weedkiller-is-expected-to-double http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/10/13/557607443/wit... http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/10/07/555872494/a-wayward-weed-killer-divides-farm-communities-harms-wildlife http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/10/07/555872494/a-w... http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/07/06/535669282/damage-from-wayward-weedkiller-keeps-growing http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/07/06/535669282/dam... http://www.npr.org/2017/06/14/532879755/a-pesticide-a-pigweed-and-a-farmers-murder http://www.npr.org/2017/06/14/532879755/a-pesticide-a-pigwee... It's not surprising that Monsanto would try use their widespread influence to stop research on their product. Monsanto has claimed that the issue with Dicamba drifting and killing crops in fields that it wasn't applied to was the fault of the farmers mis-application of Dicamba. Evidence now shows that Dicamba will evaporate from the soil _after_ being applied to crops safely, meaning that it cannot be prevented from drifting into other fields and killing innocent farmer's crops.
- srcmap 9y ago
  Looks like a good case for class action lawsuit for all the surrounding farmers that have suffer damage from this. There are scientific proof, clear documented $$$ damage, etc. Any idea why it has not initiated yet?
  - saluki 9y ago
    It's in the works. I'm hearing radio law firm ads in the midwest asking for farmers who have suffered Dicamba crop damage to call them.
    - dexterdog 9y ago
      So the law firms may do well while the farmers will get maybe half of their lost crops back.
  - 9y ago
pwinnski 9y ago
Monsanto claims they've solved the problem independent weed scientists are talking about, but won't show their work. So do we believe that Monsanto is right about their multi-billion dollar strategy and won't show their work for mysterious reasons, or do we believe that they're lying to protect their multi-billion dollar strategy and won't show their work for the obvious reason that it doesn't exist? I'll be interested to see how HN responds to this. On the one hand, by and large we're probably pretty friendly to the sort of hacking Monsanto wants to do. Not that we're all on board with GMO crops, but I'd say we collectively lean that way. On the other probably stronger hand, independent scientists should win out over corporations with this crowd. I mean, there's an awful lot of corporate love here, but science trumps all, right? Then there are the paid shills, and those who show up to remind us all that there are the paid shills.
- austincheney 9y ago
  > I'll be interested to see how HN responds to this. Why? This has no bearing on the validity or existence of claimed Monsanto research.
  - moomin 9y ago
    It has everything to do with politics, though. And that’s where this ultimately plays out.
    - austincheney 9y ago
      Umm, no. Perhaps this is important to people who read news and need entertainment, but otherwise it is utterly relevant. In an eventual lawsuit evidence is far more important than hurt feelings.
- ghostbrainalpha 9y ago
  I like how you break things down. But serious question, do you get accused of "overthinking it" a lot?
  - 9y ago
grabcocque 9y ago
Wait, the US allows widespread use of potentially catastrophic chemical substances without conducting independent research of its safety or efficacy? America circa 2018 everyone.
- alexandercrohde 9y ago
  I used to consider this type of sarcastic response counterproductive, but based on my research the facts are pretty disconcerting. - There are over 1,200 active chemically distinct pesticide active-ingredients - For every pesticide registered for use there are at least as many that have been pulled from use ("deregistered"). There is no official record for which of these 1000+ chemicals have been deregistered for health reasons.
- drharby 9y ago
  Before you start the reddit-esqur circlejerk, this is a trend globally and is only growing
- vixen99 9y ago
  Where's the sarcasm?
  - grabcocque 9y ago
    Yes, I wasn't being sarcastic. More suffused with resigned horror.
lsmarigo 9y ago
This reminds me of the Tyrone Hayes story https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/02/10/a-valuable-reputation https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/02/10/a-valuable-rep...
reacweb 9y ago
How many documentaries do we need to stop using these poisons (and to put these people in jail) ? We are breathing volatile pesticides. IMHO, the short term plan of Mosanto is to make money with weeds by killing concurrent weeds and the long term plan is to make money with drugs to cure all the illness caused by these poisons.
- roblabla 9y ago
  Don't worry, monsanto already has vertically integrated your life as if it was a mere product: They're planning to merge with Bayer, a pharmaceutical group[0]. So while Monsanto is actively trying to kill you, Bayer is actively trying to heal you. Isn't that great ? [0]: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-monsanto-m-a-bayer-eu/eu-starts-in-depth-probe-of-bayer-monsanto-deal-idUSKCN1B21GJ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-monsanto-m-a-bayer-eu/eu-...
  - mi100hael 9y ago
    FWIW Bayer is acquiring them outright, not merging.
techer 9y ago
Same old shit. This was doing the rounds: https://twitter.com/GeorgeMonbiot/status/920935967082639360 https://twitter.com/GeorgeMonbiot/status/920935967082639360 and this http://swns-digital.com/2KU4-15FL6-095I05M7FE/cr.aspx http://swns-digital.com/2KU4-15FL6-095I05M7FE/cr.aspx Hi Monty We have a story that we thought might be of interest to you, looking at plans to ban key chemicals in weed-killers. Quick Pitch: Green-fingered Brits could soon be forced to weed their entire gardens by HAND if Brussels bureaucrats ban a chemical found in the biggest selling weed-killers, it has emerged. More: For more than 40 years glyphosate has been the key component of weed-killers such as Round-Up, enabling keen gardeners to eradicate menaces such as knotweed, hogweed, bindweed and black grass. But environmental activists Greenpeace and a string of anti-pesticide socialist MEPs want it banned despite it being certified as safe by numerous chemical and food safety agencies. Experts fear a vote in favour of removing the chemical will leave gardeners to rely on less effective weed-killers, or even further down the line products which contain a fast-tracked replacement chemical. News Copy can be downloaded from our online newswire.
- urspx 9y ago
  Wow, this really has everything – the poor Brits against the evil Brussels bureaucrats and environmental activists.
- zymhan 9y ago
  This isn't about Glyphosate (Round Up), this is about Dicamba
  - ceejayoz 9y ago
    You're missing the point of the comment. The same company produces both products, and has a long history of manipulating media coverage in this manner.
    - tptacek 9y ago
      By "manipulating media coverage", you mean "having a PR team that pitches stories"? Because virtually every company listed on the NASDAQ does that --- as does every company that has ever issued a press release.
peterwwillis 9y ago
To me the question isn't if weedkiller is bad for ecological systems or plants: it obviously is. The question is, why the hell do we use it when we've had agrarian societies for 10,000 years? I see basically two areas where weedkillers are typically used: agriculture, and aesthetic. For agriculture, weeds can be a fierce problem. On small gardens it's possible to use various tactics to control weeds without chemicals. But on large farms, usually a variety of tactics need to be used to control weeds, and chemicals end up being the simplest and quickest. But they are certainly not required. Here is one list of non-chemical weeding options: https://thefanningmill.com/2015/05/27/infographic-weed-control-strategies/ https://thefanningmill.com/2015/05/27/infographic-weed-contr... Really I think we should be having a conversation about whether the risks of chemical weeding are worth the benefit, which is primarily just an economic one from agricultural exports. We can easily provide for our nation's agro needs without dangerous weeding techniques, and at about half to a quarter of the current amount we produce. On top of this, our diets in general are hampered by the crazy way we consume specific foods. We let "consumer demand" drive what crops are grown and brought to market, even though it's been shown that consumers often demand things that are bad for them, or are overly picky. We consume too much food in general, but consuming less would hurt the economy, even if it would make us healthier and reduce healthcare costs. And we give up the option of purchasing from small local farms in order to get more food for less money. Not to mention the fact that processed foods are still in high demand, as well as meats which place burdens on both agriculture and environment. Weedkiller seems like a good place to start this conversation. Do we need weedkiller? Do we need such gigantic amounts of just a few crops? Do we need giant farms owned by a few companies? Do we really need to eat oranges year round? And should we really be letting vendors [whose primary objective is profit, not health or choice] control what foods we are given the option to eat?
- Boothroid 9y ago
  Isn't the problem that food prices would have to increase hugely if we were to switch to less industrialised forms of agriculture, and thus the poor would suffer worst of all? Overall though I agree with you - it's said that the British were never as healthy as under rationing. We don't need anywhere near as much as we produce, and would all look and feel better eating less. And less cash going to Monsanto - who IMHO seem to be a truly sinister outfit - would be a welcome side benefit.
Nicholas7900 9y ago
COMPOSITE HACKS • If Truly you Are In Need Of A PROFESSIONAL LEGIT HACKER Who Will Get Your Job Done Efficiently With Swift Response, Congratulations, You Have Met the Right HACKERS We are a group Of Professional HACKERS , a product of the coming together of Legit Hackers from the Dark-Web, (pentaguard ,CyberBerkut , RedHack , Black Hat, Anonymous ) we have been existing for over 12 years, our system is a very loose and decentralized command structure that operates on ideas rather than directives. you can also find us on the dark web at :http://my7cic3ax7oznkvu.onion http://my7cic3ax7oznkvu.onion (Tor Only) Frankly speaking, I always give a 100% guarantee on any job i am been asked to do, because we have always been successful in Almost all our jobs for over 12years and our clients can testify to that . To hack anything needs time though, but we can provide a swift response to your job depending on how fast and urgent you need. Time also depends on what exactly you want to hack and how serious you are. Enough time with social engineering is required for hacking. So if you want to bind us in a short time, then just don't contact us because We can't hack within one hour,sorry. Basically, time depends on your luck. If its good luck, then it is possible to hack within one hour but, if its in the other way round, it would take few hours. I have seen FAKE HACKERS claiming they can hack in 1hr , but there is no REAL HACKER who can say this (AVOID THEM). Please Note : we have only one contact email : compositehacks@gmail.com we will be happy to have you join over 2000 satisfied clients around the world to use our services. We provide prove of job before payment We offer services like: Hacking Whatsapp account giving you access to the person's whatsapp messages and history . You can check out our Latest Whatsapp Hack video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_LtFUVMcxY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_LtFUVMcxY Initiating Bank Wire Transfers at a resonable fee and completely untracable . Hacking any smart phone giving you access to all activities on the phone like , text messages , call logs , instant messenger chats and other information. Hacking Facebook , Instagram , Twitter and every other social network Accounts. Hacking Websites to deface , retrive information, edit information or give you admin access . Hacking into school's websites (server) to change grades without any trace . . Hacking any email service provider like Gmail , Yahoo, Comcast , Aol , Hotmail any others . Location Tracking. Hacking and selling credit cards , amazon , walmart , paypal , bank logs . Selling of untracable phones (even the pentagon can not track our phones). . Selling of Tutorial packs for Beginner Ethical Hackers You can also contact us for other Cyber Attacks And Hijackings, we do almost All. Contact us: compositehacks@gmail.com
saalweachter 9y ago
There's a hilarious parallel here between Monsanto and your average tech company that had an innovative hit. Glyphosate was an awesome herbicide and Roundup Ready crops a big hit, but between the expiration of patents and the introduction of generic glyphosate-resistant crops and the increase in glyphosate-resistant weeds, it's losing its value, both to the company and to the consumers. So they need another hit. And like a million tech companies before them, they took an uninspired rehash of their first hit, ignored feedback from early adopters and internal dogfood about glaring problems with the new product and are trying to push it as the second coming. And now they're lashing out at anyone who says it isn't, and insist their new product is as revolutionary as their first. Only, you know, it's not bloggers and tech journalists they're mad at, it is farmers and scientists. It's almost funny when it happens to someone else.
- Pica_soO 9y ago
  Growing a better world!
socrates1998 9y ago
Yep, they have been attacking people who criticize them for years. Nassim Taleb has done a good job of calling them out. The sad part is all the "scientists" who take money from them to do "research" and, shockingly, find only positive things about Monsanto's products.
- DoodleBuggy 9y ago
  > The sad part is all the "scientists" who take money from them to do "research" and, shockingly, find only positive things about _________ products. Broadly applicable
- philipkglass 9y ago
  The scientists don't even have to be shills if Monsanto controls publication of results. Pay for 15 studies from above-the-board researchers. Only publish the 6 that didn't find harm. Later meta-studies from totally disinterested parties will also find a preponderance of evidence for "no harm," just due to selective publication practices that aren't directly visible. At least that's how drug companies have systematically biased studies in favor of their products without needing to find amoral shill scientists. The way to prevent it is trial pre-registration, so that all trials are known about, not just the ones that turn out favorable after completion.
  - icelancer 9y ago
    >>The way to prevent it is trial pre-registration, so that all trials are known about, not just the ones that turn out favorable after completion. Is this not required? I am required to pre-register my clinical trials well in advance, and they are publicly searchable worldwide.
samfriedman 9y ago
More broadly, Monsanto's aggressively anti-farmer and anti-scientist positions (and poor optics/PR) have done immense damage to the public perception of GMO crops and foods. GM food is a technology that offers the possibility to greatly expand yield, nutrition and hardiness of crops: it is essential to the continued improvement of our world food supply. But with Monsanto at the helm (or at least most frequently associated), their unethical business practices shine a bad light on GMOs as an entire field. It's a shame that the forerunner in this extremely important area could not act as more of a positive envoy on behalf of GM technology.
- tptacek 9y ago
  "Aggressively anti-farmer"?
  - mcguire 9y ago
    They are blaming this situation on misapplication.
- 7sigma 9y ago
  Whats also sad is that all GM technology is seen through the anti Monsanto filter. I was appalled when Greenpeace and other called Golden Rice a trojan horse conspiracy, despite the fact that its free, can help with Vitamin A deficiency and has proven to be safe. The amount of FUD and science denying rhetoric that Greenpeace directed at Golden Rice or any public backed GM effort is basically reminded me of the press releases from climate change denying groups. Whats also hypocritical of Greenpeace is that they are fine with mutation based on radioactivity (that has been practiced since the early 20th century and where we get a lot of our varieties from today)
  - Chathamization 9y ago
    After two decades they're still struggling to create a viable Golden Rice product.[1] At the same time, some areas have seen a large drop in vitamin A deficiencies. One has to wonder if Golden Rice is actually a good way to solve this problem. [1] https://source.wustl.edu/2016/06/genetically-modified-golden-rice-falls-short-lifesaving-promises/ https://source.wustl.edu/2016/06/genetically-modified-golden...
throwawaymanbot 9y ago
What does an evaporated/evaporating Dicamba cloud do to the insect population? (The ones that do nothing destructive to plants, such as bees, etc.)
rwoodley 9y ago
This is not the only Roundup related issue. I wish there was more discussion about the impact of these herbicides on insect populations. For instance the Monarch butterfly population has dropped 90% due to herbicides such as Roundup. No public discussion. https://www.ecowatch.com/david-suzuki-how-to-save-the-monarch-butterfly-1882035035.html https://www.ecowatch.com/david-suzuki-how-to-save-the-monarc... http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/01/monarch_butterfly_decline_monsanto_s_roundup_is_killing_milkweed.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201... Michigan State study: http://makewayformonarchs.org/i/archives/2682 http://makewayformonarchs.org/i/archives/2682
- tptacek 9y ago
  Part of the reason there might not have been much public discussion is that the underlying story is not that Roundup directly affects butterflies, but, according to the study, it is simply very effective at eliminating weeds that the butterflies were relying on --- making this less a story about Monsanto and more about the impact of industrial-scale farming on local fauna.
  - jstewartmobile 9y ago
    Guns don't kill people. People kill people.
gumby 9y ago
Just to tie this back to the more common HN topics (don't get me wrong, this is an extremely important story both for scientific and cultural (attack on science) reasons): The reason we use pesticides and weed killers is mainly to reduce the labor input. Once we have cheap, non-fossil-fueled agricultural robots, then a large percentage of our food plant production can be cheap and, by today's standards, "organic" (perhaps better since organic farms can use different pesticides). I spent some time kicking around an ag robot startup idea. Farmers have low margins and tend to be conservative, but the successful ones† are all spreadsheet jockeys who are much more comfortable than those in other sectors to swap op ex for cap ex. And in the usual B2B the killer ROI is within a year. In Ag it's within 10 years. Not an easy market technically but on the business side pretty straighforward. It's not a panacea; not all pests are amenable to mechanical (hand or machine) removal (e.g. phylloxera) and the Haber-Bosch process will still be important, but a HUGE reduction in chemical application is very likely. And with robots, no-till and other soil-saving processes can become economically valuable in the short term (NT has always been valuable in the long term, but people don't live/think on that time scale). † which is all of them today in the US, and to a great degree in Europe; the unsuccessful ones were long since bought out
- exelius 9y ago
  I really wish it worked that way; but agriculture still has a number of scarce resources (namely land and water) that will require the adoption of productivity-increasing tools to boost the productivity of a given plot of land or to increase efficiency of water use.
  - gumby 9y ago
    > I really wish it worked that way; but agriculture still has a number of scarce resources (namely land and water) that will require the adoption of productivity-increasing tools to boost the productivity of a given plot of land or to increase efficiency of water use. What you say is not incompatible with my assertion. Labor is a productivity-increasing tool. If you weed and prune your yield goes up. If you water (but not too much) yield goes up. If you remove pests, yield goes up. Etc. Those are all labor-intensive, so if it's cheaper to use a machine or chemical to do it, you do. And in fact robots are likely to be able to individually water plants more efficiently than either a human or a standard irrigation system. Which people will do if it is cheaper than current irrigation (flood, or drip primarily today, depending on crop and conditions). Sure, I believe fertilizers will still be needed and some other chemicals as well. But many of these pesticides and herbicides have "unfortunate" side effects (e.g. destruction of the rhizome) which also reduce productivity so avoiding them has a double benefit. And note that there is some evidence that artificial fertilization and overwatering may be reducing the nutritional value of grasses (think of it as "the same number of nutrients divided by a larger amount of plant matter". The mechanism, if real, is more complex, but that's an analogy). ‡ I don't mean productivity in the macroeconomic definition of "economic output per labor hour" but in the sense you used it: "economic output per unit area"
distrill 9y ago
> These are proprietary products. Until they release those formulations for testing, we're not allowed to [test them]. This can't be true, or I must be missing something. Why can't they buy these chemicals as "farmers" and test them?
- embedded 9y ago
  "In this case, Monsanto denied requests by university researchers to study its XtendiMax with VaporGrip for volatility - a measure of its tendency to vaporize and drift across fields. The researchers interviewed by Reuters - Jason Norsworthy at the University of Arkansas, Kevin Bradley at the University of Missouri and Aaron Hager at the University of Illinois - said Monsanto provided samples of XtendiMax before it was approved by the EPA. However, the samples came with contracts that explicitly forbade volatility testing." https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-pesticides-dicamba-insight/scant-oversight-corporate-secrecy-preceded-u-s-weed-killer-crisis-idUSKBN1AP0DN https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-pesticides-dicamba-in...
JepZ 9y ago
Ever since we saw 'We Feed the World' we knew what kinda company Monsanto is. For those who havn't seen the movie, I strongly advise to watch it. It is said to be the most successful austrian documentary. German: https://archive.org/details/WE_FEED_THE_WORLD_DEUTSCH https://archive.org/details/WE_FEED_THE_WORLD_DEUTSCH Sadly I could not find a link to the english stream, but here is a link to the english version of the website: http://www.we-feed-the-world.at/en/index.htm http://www.we-feed-the-world.at/en/index.htm
eip 9y ago
Monsanto's work in reducing human fertility is absolutely vital to the survival of all life on earth. If they have to fight dirty to win it's a small price to pay.
- jstewartmobile 9y ago
  Weren't they also responsible for colony collapse disorder?
  - cholantesh 9y ago
    And many other things in our slouch toward Gomorrah.
  - eip 9y ago
    That is mostly Bayer.
wonderwonder 9y ago
If you haven't read it, Paolo Bacigalupi's SF novel The Windup Girl is a very good take on the future of companies like this run amok.
wannabag 9y ago
>Monsanto — and farmers who want to use dicamba — have been fighting back. In Arkansas, where state regulators proposed a ban on dicamba during the growing season next year, Monsanto recently sued the regulators, arguing that the ban was based on "unsubstantiated theories regarding product volatility that are contradicted by science." Meanwhile in Europe, countries are considering signing free trade agreements with Canada and US (CETA and TTIP). How would anyone in their right mind want to open up the door to allowing companies to sue governments? (if you wonder, this is part of these trade deals and the kind of attitude Monsanto is putting here is exactly what they could reproduce once their products are "threatened by regulations") Yet, only the far left are fighting this in bigger European countries. I'm not sure people grasp the implications! I'm not politically aligned with the far left but this is clearly a loss of sovereignty against the power or money. Kind of gets me wondering what the point of voting would become... Ok, maybe I'm a little left leaning (in European terms that is)
- Jesus_Jones 9y ago
  This has been coming up in the media, especially in the context of NAFTA being renegotiated. I can't believe that big business supporter Trump and the US Govt would remove this, but that's one aspect of NAFTA I'd like to see changed.
yalph 9y ago
This is the first time I am reading objective comments about Monsanto. Thanks, HN. Even reddit is full of Monsanto shills.
victor106 9y ago
Attack the science not the scientists if you defer with their opinion.
arca_vorago 9y ago
I'm just copying an old comment: I've been telling HN about this, and mostly derided for it. I was working as a sysadmin for a bigag company in 2010 or so, who touted themselves as good ol local farm people who take care of their own. Come to find out, the millions the owner got to fund his extravagant lifestyle (besides from daddy), was from selling some of the genetic modifications to Monsanto. I was in the middle of my Decartes reset after getting back from Iraq, and dug into Monsanto. Monsanto is one of the worst companies in America. As a constitutionalist, my primary issue is with their blatant undermining and corruption of the legal process, for example a SCOTUS who formerly worked for them refusing to recuse himself from relevant cases, infiltration and takeover of the top positions at the FDA and other regulatory capture issues, and the stifling of free speech through their massive propaganda machine, which includes online. As a military person, I came to find out they were the ones who had been responsible for agent orange in Vietnam. Something many of my friends and family have directly had to deal with. (to be fair, it was a different business than the current Monsanto, the same in name only) I learned they were one of the main sources of lobbying to allow patenting of organtic material (so they could patent genes in their gmos), that they created the BT killer strain of seeds designed to prevent farmers from saving their seeds, (incidentally Monsanto gmo seed business has been tied to large numbers of farmer suicides in India), and have brought legal action against farmers who saved their seeds. They have participated in farm mergers in aquisitions to the point that almost no farm is truly a family farm anymore, and they have been involved in illegal waste dumping more than once. Once I learned all these things, I quit the job on principle. As luck would have it, the good ol rich guy who "would always take care of his people" subsequently, a year later, sold the company and fired half the staff... and now the local "community", despite protests from many of the farmers, decided to give Monsanto a 5.8 million dollar tax break to built a state of the art facility because it will "bring jobs". To top it all off, our anti-trust, anti-monopoly laws seem to be completely dead and ignored, because the Bayer Monsanto $66bn merger seems to be full steam ahead at the moment. They have created a sitution that requires more chemicals, causes more nitrogen runoff, have drastically reduced seed diversity (therefore setting up a massive crop failure potential across many crops), and continue to ignore GMO warnings. Having sysadmined in a bigag company with a genetics department, and at a genetics company, my primary issues with GMO's is that there is a lack of rigourous scientific testing, especially over longer time frames. It wasn't uncommon to see a new GMO go from testing to prod within a year! That's not enough time to truly understand the implications of those kinds of products. Not to mention, as the article suggests, that they have artifically affected the actual science to be in their favor regardless of the real results. If there ever is ecocide, Monsanto will be the primary hand to have caused it. I am willing to bet roundup will be the new agent orange. And finally, for your viewing pleasure: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM Relevant past comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9009446 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9009446 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12893325 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12893325 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12559024 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12559024 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12398969 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12398969
cwkoss 9y ago
Can farmers sue if their crops are damaged by dicamba being used upwind of them?
- searine 9y ago
  Yes, lawsuits from pesticide drift are common. If you negligently spray your fields and ruin your neighbors field, you're at fault. This kind of thing isn't new, and has little to do with GMOs. Pesticide drift has been a issue for 100 years, and GMOs actually helped relieve it by shifting farmers to less volatile chemicals.
harrisreynolds 9y ago
Does Monsanto add any value to the world? Everything I read about them for several years now makes me wish the company would just die.
sitkack 9y ago
Monsanto is fucking genius. This is the kinda can do attitude I associate with American Capitalism. Get other people to break the law for you and create a network effect that no-one can run away from. Buying stock in Monsanto.
deftturtle 9y ago
When are we just going to shut Monsanto down???
Animats 9y ago
There's a new approach that competes with Monsanto's herbicide-resistant crops. Robotic weeding is finally here.[1] John Deere just bought Blue River Robotics for $305 million. They make a unit that's towed behind a tractor. Cameras look down at the plants, and when they see something that looks like a weed, it gets zapped. No need for herbicide-resistant crops. This is for vegetables and row crops, rather than field crops. It's been used on cotton and lettuce so far. For lettuce, it's weeding as a service. They bring in the machines and do the job at a flat fee per acre. They're doing 35,000 acres in California and Arizona now. This isn't experimental. It's out there working in fields. Bosch has a similar product. Blue River kills with a spray. Bosch either pounds the weed into the ground or zaps it with a laser. [1] http://www.bluerivertechnology.com/ http://www.bluerivertechnology.com/
- blacksmythe 9y ago
  >> Blue River kills with a spray. An extremely clever idea that I saw previously was to zap weeds with concentrated fertilizer. Rather than being toxic to nearby plants, it is actual beneficial.
seltzered_ 9y ago
Slightly OT, but this made me wonder about David Friedberg, who founded Climate Corp, acquired by Monsanto. In 2013 he wrote a letter about the acquisition and clarified his stance on Monsanto ( https://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/why-the-climate-corporation-sold-itself-to-monsanto https://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/why-the-climate-corp... ). In 2016 he stepped down for an advisory role ( https://www.wsj.com/articles/monsanto-executive-david-friedberg-shifting-to-advisory-role-1458763510 https://www.wsj.com/articles/monsanto-executive-david-friedb... ) .
nebelwerfer2k 9y ago
The sad part is that amaranth is actually a healthy crop. the palmer amaranth specifically is edible, nutritious and very climate and drought resistant. it's just not as profitable in the US compared to corn or soybeans and therefore it is destroyed and considered a pest. that's really sad if you ask me, because they undergoe such troubles to kill a field crop. why not just embrace it and farm it??
- dbcurtis 9y ago
  What are the November amaranth futures trading at right now? Nobody will plant something they can't sell.
nebelwerfer2k 9y ago
I don't understand why they not just farm amaranth (pig weed). it's a healthy nutritious crop, regarded as food in other countries and the palmer amaranth especially is very drought resistant and resilient. but because soy and corn is more profitable in the US they undergoe so much trouble to kill what would otherwise considered to be a perfect choice of crop.
TotallyHuman 9y ago
Monsanto is without doubt the most non-ethical, profiteering, corrupted, evil company on earth.

623 points by zymhan 9y ago

They also pay shills to spread propaganda in the comments sections anywhere Monsanto is discussed. It’s particularly obvious since it’s the same users, with the same talking points, commenting within minutes. The same 5-10 pro-Monsanto accounts on Reddit show up in most discussions. I suspect this is going on for many other aspects of our life and it’s downright paranoia inducing.

Dlotan 9y ago
I think this is really tricky. On the one hand I like other viewpoints to discuss such a difficult topic. On the other hand I don't want to get corporate shills. Also the filter bubble point, which brings you to only wanting to hear your own opinion. The way hackernews handles this most of the time is way better by letting people make a disclaimer.
- alexandercrohde 9y ago
  How is it tricky? If a company wants to defend itself, it shouldn't do so via paid individuals masquerading as private parties ("Let Nothing Go"), the only purpose of that is to misrepresent public opinion and appeal to bandwagon bias.
  - 09bjb 9y ago
    "Should" (in any moral sense) and "Monsanto" don't play nicely together.
- NotSammyHagar 9y ago
  Open discussion is welcome. But I cannot ever remember when paid shills are helpful, in my experience.
  - Dlotan 9y ago
    I like it in cases I just misunderstood something and they point out, why I'm wrong. Ofc with a disclaimer but even without they usually have good knowledge of the topic so they should also be heard.
    - NotSammyHagar 9y ago
      Where is this place where there are paid shills who identify themselves who make helpful comments? I'm surprised it exists.
      - Dlotan 9y ago
        Hackernews, whenever there is someone with Disclaimer: I work for xy
Wintamute 9y ago
Checks diogenescynic's comment history for evidence of anti corporate shill shilling
- diogenescynic 9y ago
  Google astroturfing... it’s a huge industry. Not a made up conspiracy theory. It’s as benign as a filing thousands of individual orders with different book stores to get a new author listed on the NYTimes best seller list and as malicious as making up fake personalities to promote obvious lies. Public relations, public affairs, and marketing companies are heavily involved.
  - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
    Here is an interesting study from a couple years back about astroturfing reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/netsec/comments/38wl43/we_used_sock_puppets_in_rnetsec_last_year_and_are/ https://www.reddit.com/r/netsec/comments/38wl43/we_used_sock...
  - Wintamute 9y ago
    I'm not disagreeing with you dude, just running with your "downright paranoia inducing" comment ... never mind ...
09bjb 9y ago
Yeah this one has been tricky. I haven't bothered to spend a ton of time on it, but I've done a deep dive or two on a user's history when it seems suspicious...and often had my suspicions amplified. Lots of pro- industry stuff and not a lot of discussion on other topics. Sometimes it's just people who work in the industry and have a huge portion of their identity influencing their view...which given that they have some expertise and lingo complicates things. But sometimes it's just a laughably one-dimensional HN account.
searine 9y ago
Or maybe, juuuust maybe, people have different opinions about things. Imagine that.
- realusername 9y ago
  It looks too systematic for it to be real accounts, their comments are only on monsanto subjects or other pro-corporate PR, real users also show interests in other things.
  - searine 9y ago
    That's exactly the kind of empty talking point BIG ORGANIC wants you to spew. All carefully calculated to get you to buy their overpriced luxury product! Look, people disagree about things. Get over it.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - deadmetheny 9y ago
      Don't kid yourself. People can and do disagree, but they doesn't preclude the fact that astroturfing absolutely does happen as well, and it's absolutely a problem.
      - searine 9y ago
        >but they doesn't preclude the fact that astroturfing absolutely does happen as well, and it's absolutely a problem. Occam's razor. What is more likely : A. This normal person on the internet disagrees with me. B. There is a multinational conspiracy to control the narrative on topic X and in reality everyone universally agrees with me that topic X is a bad thing.
        deadmetheny 9y ago
        You are hopeless.
lsmarigo 9y ago
I suspect (hope) you're being downvoted for being off-topic because what you describe is a serious problem. There are multiple PR/Media orgs that specialize in this now and they're far more advanced than using the same accounts.
- Pica_soO 9y ago
  There should be NN trained on eathing accounts posting stories with near-similar content who have been proven wrong.
ConceptJunkie 9y ago
I'm sure you are much joking ha ha! Monsanto does not need properganda as it is a wanderful company who's products make everyones life better. Monsanto feeds the world, don't you know?
dang 9y ago
Please don't invoke the astroturfing/shillage meme here unless you have something specific (i.e. more substantive than someone happening to hold a divergent view) to point to. It isn't that what you said is wrong, it's that this topic leads to bottom-of-the-barrel discussion quality, like the below. It's always the same and it's tedious. That's why we added a bit about it to the HN guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Real astroturfing and shilling exist, but internet users also frequently imagine it. There's no way out of this hall of mirrors—discussions just die there—so we all need to have the discipline to avoid it by default. If anyone thinks they're seeing real astroturfing on HN they should email us so we can investigate.

alexandercrohde 9y ago

On a different note I recommend you also google "Let Nothing Go." [Monsanto is being accused in court of hiring 3rd parties to shill public forums including facebook, and it's alleged the internal name of that program is "Let Nothing Go"]

smhost 9y ago
I couldn't find anything besides Russian propaganda outlets. Do you have links to any reputable sources?
- CalChris 9y ago
  Bloomberg https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-07-13/does-the-world-s-top-weed-killer-cause-cancer-trump-s-epa-will-decide https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-07-13/does-the-... This reminds me of the campaign against Rachel Carson.
- alexandercrohde 9y ago
  Actual court briefing: https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/MDLLetNothingGomotion.pdf https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/MDLLetNothingGo...
  - smhost 9y ago
    Appreciated.
  - dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
    That's simply appalling. What an absurd situation. It seems like everyone knows what a monster Monsanto has become but nobody can actually do anything about it.
    - sova 9y ago
      Not until there is advocacy for the health of the soil and surrounding environs. If there were a Ministry of Soil and Earth that they had to answer to, they wouldn't be able to pull half the stuff they do. Unfortunately Evil pays well in the short term.

zymhan 9y ago

NPR has been reporting on the issues farmers have had with Dicamba for months now http://www.npr.org/search/index.php?searchinput=dicamba http://www.npr.org/search/index.php?searchinput=dicamba http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/10/13/557607443/with-ok-from-epa-use-of-controversial-weedkiller-is-expected-to-double http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/10/13/557607443/wit... http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/10/07/555872494/a-wayward-weed-killer-divides-farm-communities-harms-wildlife http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/10/07/555872494/a-w... http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/07/06/535669282/damage-from-wayward-weedkiller-keeps-growing http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/07/06/535669282/dam... http://www.npr.org/2017/06/14/532879755/a-pesticide-a-pigweed-and-a-farmers-murder http://www.npr.org/2017/06/14/532879755/a-pesticide-a-pigwee... It's not surprising that Monsanto would try use their widespread influence to stop research on their product. Monsanto has claimed that the issue with Dicamba drifting and killing crops in fields that it wasn't applied to was the fault of the farmers mis-application of Dicamba. Evidence now shows that Dicamba will evaporate from the soil _after_ being applied to crops safely, meaning that it cannot be prevented from drifting into other fields and killing innocent farmer's crops.

srcmap 9y ago
Looks like a good case for class action lawsuit for all the surrounding farmers that have suffer damage from this. There are scientific proof, clear documented $$$ damage, etc. Any idea why it has not initiated yet?
- saluki 9y ago
  It's in the works. I'm hearing radio law firm ads in the midwest asking for farmers who have suffered Dicamba crop damage to call them.
  - dexterdog 9y ago
    So the law firms may do well while the farmers will get maybe half of their lost crops back.
- 9y ago

pwinnski 9y ago

Monsanto claims they've solved the problem independent weed scientists are talking about, but won't show their work. So do we believe that Monsanto is right about their multi-billion dollar strategy and won't show their work for mysterious reasons, or do we believe that they're lying to protect their multi-billion dollar strategy and won't show their work for the obvious reason that it doesn't exist? I'll be interested to see how HN responds to this. On the one hand, by and large we're probably pretty friendly to the sort of hacking Monsanto wants to do. Not that we're all on board with GMO crops, but I'd say we collectively lean that way. On the other probably stronger hand, independent scientists should win out over corporations with this crowd. I mean, there's an awful lot of corporate love here, but science trumps all, right? Then there are the paid shills, and those who show up to remind us all that there are the paid shills.

austincheney 9y ago
> I'll be interested to see how HN responds to this. Why? This has no bearing on the validity or existence of claimed Monsanto research.
- moomin 9y ago
  It has everything to do with politics, though. And that’s where this ultimately plays out.
  - austincheney 9y ago
    Umm, no. Perhaps this is important to people who read news and need entertainment, but otherwise it is utterly relevant. In an eventual lawsuit evidence is far more important than hurt feelings.
ghostbrainalpha 9y ago
I like how you break things down. But serious question, do you get accused of "overthinking it" a lot?
- 9y ago

grabcocque 9y ago

Wait, the US allows widespread use of potentially catastrophic chemical substances without conducting independent research of its safety or efficacy? America circa 2018 everyone.

alexandercrohde 9y ago
I used to consider this type of sarcastic response counterproductive, but based on my research the facts are pretty disconcerting. - There are over 1,200 active chemically distinct pesticide active-ingredients - For every pesticide registered for use there are at least as many that have been pulled from use ("deregistered"). There is no official record for which of these 1000+ chemicals have been deregistered for health reasons.
drharby 9y ago
Before you start the reddit-esqur circlejerk, this is a trend globally and is only growing
vixen99 9y ago
Where's the sarcasm?
- grabcocque 9y ago
  Yes, I wasn't being sarcastic. More suffused with resigned horror.

lsmarigo 9y ago

This reminds me of the Tyrone Hayes story https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/02/10/a-valuable-reputation https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/02/10/a-valuable-rep...

reacweb 9y ago

How many documentaries do we need to stop using these poisons (and to put these people in jail) ? We are breathing volatile pesticides. IMHO, the short term plan of Mosanto is to make money with weeds by killing concurrent weeds and the long term plan is to make money with drugs to cure all the illness caused by these poisons.

roblabla 9y ago
Don't worry, monsanto already has vertically integrated your life as if it was a mere product: They're planning to merge with Bayer, a pharmaceutical group[0]. So while Monsanto is actively trying to kill you, Bayer is actively trying to heal you. Isn't that great ? [0]: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-monsanto-m-a-bayer-eu/eu-starts-in-depth-probe-of-bayer-monsanto-deal-idUSKCN1B21GJ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-monsanto-m-a-bayer-eu/eu-...
- mi100hael 9y ago
  FWIW Bayer is acquiring them outright, not merging.

techer 9y ago

Same old shit. This was doing the rounds: https://twitter.com/GeorgeMonbiot/status/920935967082639360 https://twitter.com/GeorgeMonbiot/status/920935967082639360 and this http://swns-digital.com/2KU4-15FL6-095I05M7FE/cr.aspx http://swns-digital.com/2KU4-15FL6-095I05M7FE/cr.aspx Hi Monty We have a story that we thought might be of interest to you, looking at plans to ban key chemicals in weed-killers. Quick Pitch: Green-fingered Brits could soon be forced to weed their entire gardens by HAND if Brussels bureaucrats ban a chemical found in the biggest selling weed-killers, it has emerged. More: For more than 40 years glyphosate has been the key component of weed-killers such as Round-Up, enabling keen gardeners to eradicate menaces such as knotweed, hogweed, bindweed and black grass. But environmental activists Greenpeace and a string of anti-pesticide socialist MEPs want it banned despite it being certified as safe by numerous chemical and food safety agencies. Experts fear a vote in favour of removing the chemical will leave gardeners to rely on less effective weed-killers, or even further down the line products which contain a fast-tracked replacement chemical. News Copy can be downloaded from our online newswire.

urspx 9y ago
Wow, this really has everything – the poor Brits against the evil Brussels bureaucrats and environmental activists.
zymhan 9y ago
This isn't about Glyphosate (Round Up), this is about Dicamba
- ceejayoz 9y ago
  You're missing the point of the comment. The same company produces both products, and has a long history of manipulating media coverage in this manner.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    By "manipulating media coverage", you mean "having a PR team that pitches stories"? Because virtually every company listed on the NASDAQ does that --- as does every company that has ever issued a press release.

peterwwillis 9y ago

To me the question isn't if weedkiller is bad for ecological systems or plants: it obviously is. The question is, why the hell do we use it when we've had agrarian societies for 10,000 years? I see basically two areas where weedkillers are typically used: agriculture, and aesthetic. For agriculture, weeds can be a fierce problem. On small gardens it's possible to use various tactics to control weeds without chemicals. But on large farms, usually a variety of tactics need to be used to control weeds, and chemicals end up being the simplest and quickest. But they are certainly not required. Here is one list of non-chemical weeding options: https://thefanningmill.com/2015/05/27/infographic-weed-control-strategies/ https://thefanningmill.com/2015/05/27/infographic-weed-contr... Really I think we should be having a conversation about whether the risks of chemical weeding are worth the benefit, which is primarily just an economic one from agricultural exports. We can easily provide for our nation's agro needs without dangerous weeding techniques, and at about half to a quarter of the current amount we produce. On top of this, our diets in general are hampered by the crazy way we consume specific foods. We let "consumer demand" drive what crops are grown and brought to market, even though it's been shown that consumers often demand things that are bad for them, or are overly picky. We consume too much food in general, but consuming less would hurt the economy, even if it would make us healthier and reduce healthcare costs. And we give up the option of purchasing from small local farms in order to get more food for less money. Not to mention the fact that processed foods are still in high demand, as well as meats which place burdens on both agriculture and environment. Weedkiller seems like a good place to start this conversation. Do we need weedkiller? Do we need such gigantic amounts of just a few crops? Do we need giant farms owned by a few companies? Do we really need to eat oranges year round? And should we really be letting vendors [whose primary objective is profit, not health or choice] control what foods we are given the option to eat?

Boothroid 9y ago
Isn't the problem that food prices would have to increase hugely if we were to switch to less industrialised forms of agriculture, and thus the poor would suffer worst of all? Overall though I agree with you - it's said that the British were never as healthy as under rationing. We don't need anywhere near as much as we produce, and would all look and feel better eating less. And less cash going to Monsanto - who IMHO seem to be a truly sinister outfit - would be a welcome side benefit.

Nicholas7900 9y ago

COMPOSITE HACKS • If Truly you Are In Need Of A PROFESSIONAL LEGIT HACKER Who Will Get Your Job Done Efficiently With Swift Response, Congratulations, You Have Met the Right HACKERS We are a group Of Professional HACKERS , a product of the coming together of Legit Hackers from the Dark-Web, (pentaguard ,CyberBerkut , RedHack , Black Hat, Anonymous ) we have been existing for over 12 years, our system is a very loose and decentralized command structure that operates on ideas rather than directives. you can also find us on the dark web at :http://my7cic3ax7oznkvu.onion http://my7cic3ax7oznkvu.onion (Tor Only) Frankly speaking, I always give a 100% guarantee on any job i am been asked to do, because we have always been successful in Almost all our jobs for over 12years and our clients can testify to that . To hack anything needs time though, but we can provide a swift response to your job depending on how fast and urgent you need. Time also depends on what exactly you want to hack and how serious you are. Enough time with social engineering is required for hacking. So if you want to bind us in a short time, then just don't contact us because We can't hack within one hour,sorry. Basically, time depends on your luck. If its good luck, then it is possible to hack within one hour but, if its in the other way round, it would take few hours. I have seen FAKE HACKERS claiming they can hack in 1hr , but there is no REAL HACKER who can say this (AVOID THEM). Please Note : we have only one contact email : compositehacks@gmail.com we will be happy to have you join over 2000 satisfied clients around the world to use our services. We provide prove of job before payment We offer services like: Hacking Whatsapp account giving you access to the person's whatsapp messages and history . You can check out our Latest Whatsapp Hack video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_LtFUVMcxY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_LtFUVMcxY Initiating Bank Wire Transfers at a resonable fee and completely untracable . Hacking any smart phone giving you access to all activities on the phone like , text messages , call logs , instant messenger chats and other information. Hacking Facebook , Instagram , Twitter and every other social network Accounts. Hacking Websites to deface , retrive information, edit information or give you admin access . Hacking into school's websites (server) to change grades without any trace . . Hacking any email service provider like Gmail , Yahoo, Comcast , Aol , Hotmail any others . Location Tracking. Hacking and selling credit cards , amazon , walmart , paypal , bank logs . Selling of untracable phones (even the pentagon can not track our phones). . Selling of Tutorial packs for Beginner Ethical Hackers You can also contact us for other Cyber Attacks And Hijackings, we do almost All. Contact us: compositehacks@gmail.com

saalweachter 9y ago

There's a hilarious parallel here between Monsanto and your average tech company that had an innovative hit. Glyphosate was an awesome herbicide and Roundup Ready crops a big hit, but between the expiration of patents and the introduction of generic glyphosate-resistant crops and the increase in glyphosate-resistant weeds, it's losing its value, both to the company and to the consumers. So they need another hit. And like a million tech companies before them, they took an uninspired rehash of their first hit, ignored feedback from early adopters and internal dogfood about glaring problems with the new product and are trying to push it as the second coming. And now they're lashing out at anyone who says it isn't, and insist their new product is as revolutionary as their first. Only, you know, it's not bloggers and tech journalists they're mad at, it is farmers and scientists. It's almost funny when it happens to someone else.

Pica_soO 9y ago
Growing a better world!

socrates1998 9y ago

Yep, they have been attacking people who criticize them for years. Nassim Taleb has done a good job of calling them out. The sad part is all the "scientists" who take money from them to do "research" and, shockingly, find only positive things about Monsanto's products.

DoodleBuggy 9y ago
> The sad part is all the "scientists" who take money from them to do "research" and, shockingly, find only positive things about _________ products. Broadly applicable
philipkglass 9y ago
The scientists don't even have to be shills if Monsanto controls publication of results. Pay for 15 studies from above-the-board researchers. Only publish the 6 that didn't find harm. Later meta-studies from totally disinterested parties will also find a preponderance of evidence for "no harm," just due to selective publication practices that aren't directly visible. At least that's how drug companies have systematically biased studies in favor of their products without needing to find amoral shill scientists. The way to prevent it is trial pre-registration, so that all trials are known about, not just the ones that turn out favorable after completion.
- icelancer 9y ago
  >>The way to prevent it is trial pre-registration, so that all trials are known about, not just the ones that turn out favorable after completion. Is this not required? I am required to pre-register my clinical trials well in advance, and they are publicly searchable worldwide.

samfriedman 9y ago

More broadly, Monsanto's aggressively anti-farmer and anti-scientist positions (and poor optics/PR) have done immense damage to the public perception of GMO crops and foods. GM food is a technology that offers the possibility to greatly expand yield, nutrition and hardiness of crops: it is essential to the continued improvement of our world food supply. But with Monsanto at the helm (or at least most frequently associated), their unethical business practices shine a bad light on GMOs as an entire field. It's a shame that the forerunner in this extremely important area could not act as more of a positive envoy on behalf of GM technology.

tptacek 9y ago
"Aggressively anti-farmer"?
- mcguire 9y ago
  They are blaming this situation on misapplication.
7sigma 9y ago
Whats also sad is that all GM technology is seen through the anti Monsanto filter. I was appalled when Greenpeace and other called Golden Rice a trojan horse conspiracy, despite the fact that its free, can help with Vitamin A deficiency and has proven to be safe. The amount of FUD and science denying rhetoric that Greenpeace directed at Golden Rice or any public backed GM effort is basically reminded me of the press releases from climate change denying groups. Whats also hypocritical of Greenpeace is that they are fine with mutation based on radioactivity (that has been practiced since the early 20th century and where we get a lot of our varieties from today)
- Chathamization 9y ago
  After two decades they're still struggling to create a viable Golden Rice product.[1] At the same time, some areas have seen a large drop in vitamin A deficiencies. One has to wonder if Golden Rice is actually a good way to solve this problem. [1] https://source.wustl.edu/2016/06/genetically-modified-golden-rice-falls-short-lifesaving-promises/ https://source.wustl.edu/2016/06/genetically-modified-golden...

throwawaymanbot 9y ago

What does an evaporated/evaporating Dicamba cloud do to the insect population? (The ones that do nothing destructive to plants, such as bees, etc.)

rwoodley 9y ago

This is not the only Roundup related issue. I wish there was more discussion about the impact of these herbicides on insect populations. For instance the Monarch butterfly population has dropped 90% due to herbicides such as Roundup. No public discussion. https://www.ecowatch.com/david-suzuki-how-to-save-the-monarch-butterfly-1882035035.html https://www.ecowatch.com/david-suzuki-how-to-save-the-monarc... http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/01/monarch_butterfly_decline_monsanto_s_roundup_is_killing_milkweed.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201... Michigan State study: http://makewayformonarchs.org/i/archives/2682 http://makewayformonarchs.org/i/archives/2682

tptacek 9y ago
Part of the reason there might not have been much public discussion is that the underlying story is not that Roundup directly affects butterflies, but, according to the study, it is simply very effective at eliminating weeds that the butterflies were relying on --- making this less a story about Monsanto and more about the impact of industrial-scale farming on local fauna.
- jstewartmobile 9y ago
  Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

gumby 9y ago

Just to tie this back to the more common HN topics (don't get me wrong, this is an extremely important story both for scientific and cultural (attack on science) reasons): The reason we use pesticides and weed killers is mainly to reduce the labor input. Once we have cheap, non-fossil-fueled agricultural robots, then a large percentage of our food plant production can be cheap and, by today's standards, "organic" (perhaps better since organic farms can use different pesticides). I spent some time kicking around an ag robot startup idea. Farmers have low margins and tend to be conservative, but the successful ones† are all spreadsheet jockeys who are much more comfortable than those in other sectors to swap op ex for cap ex. And in the usual B2B the killer ROI is within a year. In Ag it's within 10 years. Not an easy market technically but on the business side pretty straighforward. It's not a panacea; not all pests are amenable to mechanical (hand or machine) removal (e.g. phylloxera) and the Haber-Bosch process will still be important, but a HUGE reduction in chemical application is very likely. And with robots, no-till and other soil-saving processes can become economically valuable in the short term (NT has always been valuable in the long term, but people don't live/think on that time scale). † which is all of them today in the US, and to a great degree in Europe; the unsuccessful ones were long since bought out

exelius 9y ago
I really wish it worked that way; but agriculture still has a number of scarce resources (namely land and water) that will require the adoption of productivity-increasing tools to boost the productivity of a given plot of land or to increase efficiency of water use.
- gumby 9y ago
  > I really wish it worked that way; but agriculture still has a number of scarce resources (namely land and water) that will require the adoption of productivity-increasing tools to boost the productivity of a given plot of land or to increase efficiency of water use. What you say is not incompatible with my assertion. Labor is a productivity-increasing tool. If you weed and prune your yield goes up. If you water (but not too much) yield goes up. If you remove pests, yield goes up. Etc. Those are all labor-intensive, so if it's cheaper to use a machine or chemical to do it, you do. And in fact robots are likely to be able to individually water plants more efficiently than either a human or a standard irrigation system. Which people will do if it is cheaper than current irrigation (flood, or drip primarily today, depending on crop and conditions). Sure, I believe fertilizers will still be needed and some other chemicals as well. But many of these pesticides and herbicides have "unfortunate" side effects (e.g. destruction of the rhizome) which also reduce productivity so avoiding them has a double benefit. And note that there is some evidence that artificial fertilization and overwatering may be reducing the nutritional value of grasses (think of it as "the same number of nutrients divided by a larger amount of plant matter". The mechanism, if real, is more complex, but that's an analogy). ‡ I don't mean productivity in the macroeconomic definition of "economic output per labor hour" but in the sense you used it: "economic output per unit area"

distrill 9y ago

> These are proprietary products. Until they release those formulations for testing, we're not allowed to [test them]. This can't be true, or I must be missing something. Why can't they buy these chemicals as "farmers" and test them?

embedded 9y ago
"In this case, Monsanto denied requests by university researchers to study its XtendiMax with VaporGrip for volatility - a measure of its tendency to vaporize and drift across fields. The researchers interviewed by Reuters - Jason Norsworthy at the University of Arkansas, Kevin Bradley at the University of Missouri and Aaron Hager at the University of Illinois - said Monsanto provided samples of XtendiMax before it was approved by the EPA. However, the samples came with contracts that explicitly forbade volatility testing." https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-pesticides-dicamba-insight/scant-oversight-corporate-secrecy-preceded-u-s-weed-killer-crisis-idUSKBN1AP0DN https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-pesticides-dicamba-in...

JepZ 9y ago

Ever since we saw 'We Feed the World' we knew what kinda company Monsanto is. For those who havn't seen the movie, I strongly advise to watch it. It is said to be the most successful austrian documentary. German: https://archive.org/details/WE_FEED_THE_WORLD_DEUTSCH https://archive.org/details/WE_FEED_THE_WORLD_DEUTSCH Sadly I could not find a link to the english stream, but here is a link to the english version of the website: http://www.we-feed-the-world.at/en/index.htm http://www.we-feed-the-world.at/en/index.htm

eip 9y ago

Monsanto's work in reducing human fertility is absolutely vital to the survival of all life on earth. If they have to fight dirty to win it's a small price to pay.

jstewartmobile 9y ago
Weren't they also responsible for colony collapse disorder?
- cholantesh 9y ago
  And many other things in our slouch toward Gomorrah.
- eip 9y ago
  That is mostly Bayer.

wonderwonder 9y ago

If you haven't read it, Paolo Bacigalupi's SF novel The Windup Girl is a very good take on the future of companies like this run amok.

wannabag 9y ago

>Monsanto — and farmers who want to use dicamba — have been fighting back. In Arkansas, where state regulators proposed a ban on dicamba during the growing season next year, Monsanto recently sued the regulators, arguing that the ban was based on "unsubstantiated theories regarding product volatility that are contradicted by science." Meanwhile in Europe, countries are considering signing free trade agreements with Canada and US (CETA and TTIP). How would anyone in their right mind want to open up the door to allowing companies to sue governments? (if you wonder, this is part of these trade deals and the kind of attitude Monsanto is putting here is exactly what they could reproduce once their products are "threatened by regulations") Yet, only the far left are fighting this in bigger European countries. I'm not sure people grasp the implications! I'm not politically aligned with the far left but this is clearly a loss of sovereignty against the power or money. Kind of gets me wondering what the point of voting would become... Ok, maybe I'm a little left leaning (in European terms that is)

Jesus_Jones 9y ago
This has been coming up in the media, especially in the context of NAFTA being renegotiated. I can't believe that big business supporter Trump and the US Govt would remove this, but that's one aspect of NAFTA I'd like to see changed.

yalph 9y ago

This is the first time I am reading objective comments about Monsanto. Thanks, HN. Even reddit is full of Monsanto shills.

victor106 9y ago

Attack the science not the scientists if you defer with their opinion.

arca_vorago 9y ago

I'm just copying an old comment: I've been telling HN about this, and mostly derided for it. I was working as a sysadmin for a bigag company in 2010 or so, who touted themselves as good ol local farm people who take care of their own. Come to find out, the millions the owner got to fund his extravagant lifestyle (besides from daddy), was from selling some of the genetic modifications to Monsanto. I was in the middle of my Decartes reset after getting back from Iraq, and dug into Monsanto. Monsanto is one of the worst companies in America. As a constitutionalist, my primary issue is with their blatant undermining and corruption of the legal process, for example a SCOTUS who formerly worked for them refusing to recuse himself from relevant cases, infiltration and takeover of the top positions at the FDA and other regulatory capture issues, and the stifling of free speech through their massive propaganda machine, which includes online. As a military person, I came to find out they were the ones who had been responsible for agent orange in Vietnam. Something many of my friends and family have directly had to deal with. (to be fair, it was a different business than the current Monsanto, the same in name only) I learned they were one of the main sources of lobbying to allow patenting of organtic material (so they could patent genes in their gmos), that they created the BT killer strain of seeds designed to prevent farmers from saving their seeds, (incidentally Monsanto gmo seed business has been tied to large numbers of farmer suicides in India), and have brought legal action against farmers who saved their seeds. They have participated in farm mergers in aquisitions to the point that almost no farm is truly a family farm anymore, and they have been involved in illegal waste dumping more than once. Once I learned all these things, I quit the job on principle. As luck would have it, the good ol rich guy who "would always take care of his people" subsequently, a year later, sold the company and fired half the staff... and now the local "community", despite protests from many of the farmers, decided to give Monsanto a 5.8 million dollar tax break to built a state of the art facility because it will "bring jobs". To top it all off, our anti-trust, anti-monopoly laws seem to be completely dead and ignored, because the Bayer Monsanto $66bn merger seems to be full steam ahead at the moment. They have created a sitution that requires more chemicals, causes more nitrogen runoff, have drastically reduced seed diversity (therefore setting up a massive crop failure potential across many crops), and continue to ignore GMO warnings. Having sysadmined in a bigag company with a genetics department, and at a genetics company, my primary issues with GMO's is that there is a lack of rigourous scientific testing, especially over longer time frames. It wasn't uncommon to see a new GMO go from testing to prod within a year! That's not enough time to truly understand the implications of those kinds of products. Not to mention, as the article suggests, that they have artifically affected the actual science to be in their favor regardless of the real results. If there ever is ecocide, Monsanto will be the primary hand to have caused it. I am willing to bet roundup will be the new agent orange. And finally, for your viewing pleasure: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM Relevant past comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9009446 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9009446 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12893325 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12893325 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12559024 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12559024 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12398969 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12398969

cwkoss 9y ago

Can farmers sue if their crops are damaged by dicamba being used upwind of them?

searine 9y ago
Yes, lawsuits from pesticide drift are common. If you negligently spray your fields and ruin your neighbors field, you're at fault. This kind of thing isn't new, and has little to do with GMOs. Pesticide drift has been a issue for 100 years, and GMOs actually helped relieve it by shifting farmers to less volatile chemicals.

harrisreynolds 9y ago

Does Monsanto add any value to the world? Everything I read about them for several years now makes me wish the company would just die.

sitkack 9y ago

Monsanto is fucking genius. This is the kinda can do attitude I associate with American Capitalism. Get other people to break the law for you and create a network effect that no-one can run away from. Buying stock in Monsanto.

deftturtle 9y ago

When are we just going to shut Monsanto down???

Animats 9y ago

There's a new approach that competes with Monsanto's herbicide-resistant crops. Robotic weeding is finally here.[1] John Deere just bought Blue River Robotics for $305 million. They make a unit that's towed behind a tractor. Cameras look down at the plants, and when they see something that looks like a weed, it gets zapped. No need for herbicide-resistant crops. This is for vegetables and row crops, rather than field crops. It's been used on cotton and lettuce so far. For lettuce, it's weeding as a service. They bring in the machines and do the job at a flat fee per acre. They're doing 35,000 acres in California and Arizona now. This isn't experimental. It's out there working in fields. Bosch has a similar product. Blue River kills with a spray. Bosch either pounds the weed into the ground or zaps it with a laser. [1] http://www.bluerivertechnology.com/ http://www.bluerivertechnology.com/

blacksmythe 9y ago
>> Blue River kills with a spray. An extremely clever idea that I saw previously was to zap weeds with concentrated fertilizer. Rather than being toxic to nearby plants, it is actual beneficial.

seltzered_ 9y ago

Slightly OT, but this made me wonder about David Friedberg, who founded Climate Corp, acquired by Monsanto. In 2013 he wrote a letter about the acquisition and clarified his stance on Monsanto ( https://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/why-the-climate-corporation-sold-itself-to-monsanto https://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/why-the-climate-corp... ). In 2016 he stepped down for an advisory role ( https://www.wsj.com/articles/monsanto-executive-david-friedberg-shifting-to-advisory-role-1458763510 https://www.wsj.com/articles/monsanto-executive-david-friedb... ) .

nebelwerfer2k 9y ago

The sad part is that amaranth is actually a healthy crop. the palmer amaranth specifically is edible, nutritious and very climate and drought resistant. it's just not as profitable in the US compared to corn or soybeans and therefore it is destroyed and considered a pest. that's really sad if you ask me, because they undergoe such troubles to kill a field crop. why not just embrace it and farm it??

dbcurtis 9y ago
What are the November amaranth futures trading at right now? Nobody will plant something they can't sell.

nebelwerfer2k 9y ago

I don't understand why they not just farm amaranth (pig weed). it's a healthy nutritious crop, regarded as food in other countries and the palmer amaranth especially is very drought resistant and resilient. but because soy and corn is more profitable in the US they undergoe so much trouble to kill what would otherwise considered to be a perfect choice of crop.

TotallyHuman 9y ago

Monsanto is without doubt the most non-ethical, profiteering, corrupted, evil company on earth.