5 ms·

> 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 oth

by jobu 9y ago

> 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. This is a _huge_ issue for Monsanto. There was an estimated 3 million acres of damage to non-dicamba resistant crops last year. Right now Monsanto is claiming that 88% of the crop damage was caused by improper application (wrong nozzles, spraying to close to other crops, etc.), but the evaporation tests could throw a wrench in that claim. The current Dicamba formula is not supposed to evaporate, so if it does then Monsanto could be on the hook for a lot more damage than previously thought.

wonderwonder 9y ago
For a normal company one could believe this. But Monsanto is like the energy / coal companies in that they are deeply entrenched in politics via lobbyists and campaign contributions. It's very difficult to go to war with a company that has the support of the government and a virtually unlimited budget. Even if they are sued and lose, the fine will most likely be a percentage point of their operating profits. Essentially the drift is a positive for them. Neighboring crop fields are damaged. The farmers cannot afford to sue Monsanto or fear doing so, and their only recourse is to switch over to Monsanto branded seeds next season. Another interesting tactic is that if you plant a Monsanto crop for a season, you are not allowed to use any seeds generated by that crop to plant the next season, you have to purchase new seeds every season. [Edit: This next point was debunked] In addition if any seeds blow onto a neighbors farm and those seeds grow, that farmer can and will be sued by Monsanto for growing their IP.
- vishvananda 9y ago
  The last point about seed blowing has been debunked. It is listed as myth number 2 here: http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top...
  - wonderwonder 9y ago
    I stand corrected
  - oldsklgdfth 9y ago
    I find it distrubing that some of the most widely used arguments against Monsanto can be myths. It makes me really question the information I get whether supportive/critical. That aside they are pretty evil.
  - xigency 9y ago
    I wouldn't say this is a conclusive debunking. According to your source from 2012: > So why is this a myth? It's certainly true that Monsanto has been going after farmers whom the company suspects of using GMO seeds without paying royalties. And there are plenty of cases — including Schmeiser's — in which the company has overreached, engaged in raw intimidation, and made accusations that turned out not to be backed up by evidence. > But as far as I can tell, Monsanto has never sued anybody over trace amounts of GMOs that were introduced into fields simply through cross-pollination. Another source [1] says, "its report, called Seed Giants vs US Farmers, the CFS said it had tracked numerous law suits that Monsanto had brought against farmers and found some 142 patent infringement suits against 410 farmers and 56 small businesses in more than 27 states." I wonder how judiciously the NPR reporter reviewed these 142 patent infringement suits to discern whether none concerned small amounts of cross-contamination. Color me skeptical. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto-sues-farmers-seed-patents https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto... (2013) [2] Primary source: https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/seed-giants_final_04424.pdf https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/seed-giants_final_...
    - maxerickson 9y ago
      They sue for patent infringement when someone sprays Roundup on plants from seeds that they didn't pay royalties on, not just when someone grows contaminated seeds. I'm not sure how I feel about that. There's lots of potential for biopatents to be harmful but there is also a pretty huge gray area.
    - 9y ago
- Gustomaximus 9y ago
  Would this also salt the earth for switching away from Montesanto seeds for a few years while reminant chemicals remain?
KGIII 9y ago
To put that 3 million into perspective, the US has about 90 million acres of just corn.
- ifdefdebug 9y ago
  So that would be > 3%, which is huge.
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    There's 300 million acres of cropland in the US. 400 million more of pasture. https://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Online_Resources/Highlights/Farms_and_Farmland/Highlights_Farms_and_Farmland.pdf https://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Online_Resou... 3 million is still pretty big.
  - KGIII 9y ago
    Not really, no. We grow so much extra corn that it's easily recouped. Don't get me wrong. This is a problem. This is not okay. It's just this isn't quite Set The World Ablaze And Panic level bad. Is mostly just annoying. Of those three million acres, they were 'damaged' which is different than 'destroyed.' I suspect we will still have plenty of HFCS and ethanol.
    - maxerickson 9y ago
      It's not just corn: The new "low volatility" versions of dicamba didn't stay where they belonged. They drifted into nearby fields, damaging crops there — mostly soybeans, but also vegetables and orchards.
      - gbrown 9y ago
        Also, there's no reason to suspect that it damaged only economically important plants. Nearby wildlife would plausibly be impacted.

by jobu 9y ago

wonderwonder 9y ago

For a normal company one could believe this. But Monsanto is like the energy / coal companies in that they are deeply entrenched in politics via lobbyists and campaign contributions. It's very difficult to go to war with a company that has the support of the government and a virtually unlimited budget. Even if they are sued and lose, the fine will most likely be a percentage point of their operating profits. Essentially the drift is a positive for them. Neighboring crop fields are damaged. The farmers cannot afford to sue Monsanto or fear doing so, and their only recourse is to switch over to Monsanto branded seeds next season. Another interesting tactic is that if you plant a Monsanto crop for a season, you are not allowed to use any seeds generated by that crop to plant the next season, you have to purchase new seeds every season. [Edit: This next point was debunked] In addition if any seeds blow onto a neighbors farm and those seeds grow, that farmer can and will be sued by Monsanto for growing their IP.

vishvananda 9y ago
The last point about seed blowing has been debunked. It is listed as myth number 2 here: http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top...
- wonderwonder 9y ago
  I stand corrected
- oldsklgdfth 9y ago
  I find it distrubing that some of the most widely used arguments against Monsanto can be myths. It makes me really question the information I get whether supportive/critical. That aside they are pretty evil.
- xigency 9y ago
  I wouldn't say this is a conclusive debunking. According to your source from 2012: > So why is this a myth? It's certainly true that Monsanto has been going after farmers whom the company suspects of using GMO seeds without paying royalties. And there are plenty of cases — including Schmeiser's — in which the company has overreached, engaged in raw intimidation, and made accusations that turned out not to be backed up by evidence. > But as far as I can tell, Monsanto has never sued anybody over trace amounts of GMOs that were introduced into fields simply through cross-pollination. Another source [1] says, "its report, called Seed Giants vs US Farmers, the CFS said it had tracked numerous law suits that Monsanto had brought against farmers and found some 142 patent infringement suits against 410 farmers and 56 small businesses in more than 27 states." I wonder how judiciously the NPR reporter reviewed these 142 patent infringement suits to discern whether none concerned small amounts of cross-contamination. Color me skeptical. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto-sues-farmers-seed-patents https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto... (2013) [2] Primary source: https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/seed-giants_final_04424.pdf https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/seed-giants_final_...
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    They sue for patent infringement when someone sprays Roundup on plants from seeds that they didn't pay royalties on, not just when someone grows contaminated seeds. I'm not sure how I feel about that. There's lots of potential for biopatents to be harmful but there is also a pretty huge gray area.
  - 9y ago
Gustomaximus 9y ago
Would this also salt the earth for switching away from Montesanto seeds for a few years while reminant chemicals remain?

KGIII 9y ago

To put that 3 million into perspective, the US has about 90 million acres of just corn.

ifdefdebug 9y ago
So that would be > 3%, which is huge.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  There's 300 million acres of cropland in the US. 400 million more of pasture. https://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Online_Resources/Highlights/Farms_and_Farmland/Highlights_Farms_and_Farmland.pdf https://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Online_Resou... 3 million is still pretty big.
- KGIII 9y ago
  Not really, no. We grow so much extra corn that it's easily recouped. Don't get me wrong. This is a problem. This is not okay. It's just this isn't quite Set The World Ablaze And Panic level bad. Is mostly just annoying. Of those three million acres, they were 'damaged' which is different than 'destroyed.' I suspect we will still have plenty of HFCS and ethanol.
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    It's not just corn: The new "low volatility" versions of dicamba didn't stay where they belonged. They drifted into nearby fields, damaging crops there — mostly soybeans, but also vegetables and orchards.
    - gbrown 9y ago
      Also, there's no reason to suspect that it damaged only economically important plants. Nearby wildlife would plausibly be impacted.