7 ms·

How would this be different from a purpose of any other company on the face of the Earth? They all exist to make money. And killing off your customers (or poiso

by Fins 9y ago

How would this be different from a purpose of any other company on the face of the Earth? They all exist to make money. And killing off your customers (or poisoning them) is not necessarily a winning long-term strategy.

TangoTrotFox 9y ago
Cigarette companies would disagree. The goal, as always, is the maximum extraction of short to medium term extraction of revenue. So long as you're not immediately killing your customers off, profits often greatly exceed costs. And actually that part about not even immediately killing them off is not entirely true. Check out the 'pinto memo.' [1] When Ford was manufacturing the Pinto they discovered a critical flaw with the vehicle that could cause the gas tank to explode in rear end impacts, resulting in grievous injury or death. It would have cost about $10/car to fix the problem, but in an analysis - the 'pinto memo' - they discovered that it would cost less just to settle the cases of injury and death. They chose to not spend that $10/car and hundreds of people did end up burning to death because of it. Fords' latest revenue numbers were $157 billion. Phillip Morris' latest revenue figures were $78 billion. It's for these reasons that I think things like consumer choice and information are critical. Genetically engineered foodstuffs are not inherently good or bad. Any given invention can be good or bad. This decision by the FDA, paired with their adamant stance against any sort of labeling, means they're forcing customers to simply take it on faith that companies like Monsanto have the customers' best interests in mind, even when doing otherwise could potentially be more beneficial for Monsanto. And now finally to top all of this we also have regulatory capture. Obama created a special position new head role at the FDA, which he half jokingly referred to as the 'Czar of Foods'. He then appointed one Michael R. Taylor [2] to it. Taylor is former vice president lawyer and lobbyist for Monsanto whose legal career was pinned by a case in which he argued that companies ought be allowed to add at least a small amount of carcinogenic chemicals to processed foods. This capture goes well beyond corruption. You, indirectly, had Monsanto regulating Monsanto. [1] - https://www.motherjones.com/politics/1977/09/pinto-madness/ https://www.motherjones.com/politics/1977/09/pinto-madness/ [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_R._Taylor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_R._Taylor
- Fins 9y ago
  As I recall, eventually cigarette companies had to pay out quite a bit of money, in the US at least, and now have significant limitations on their advertising activities. Last I checked, smoking rates are dropping pretty much everywhere. And trying to hide problems, in the end, did not work out that well either for Ford, or for VW, or others. Depends on how "long" that long-term is, really. I am all for complete information and disclosure, but it has to be somehow balanced with the general public being more clueless than it wants to think it is, and enormous amount of outright propaganda from the "GMOs are scary" and "Monsanto is teh devil" crowd.
  - TangoTrotFox 9y ago
    Cigarette companies today are literally more profitable than ever. They've killed and continue to kill their customers and are making a killing doing it. Har har. The fines they paid (and continue to pay) amount to a completely negligible fraction of their profit (not even their revenue!). Companies can and do engage in malicious behavior for profit when the yields are great enough. Your opinions of the public aside, you don't get to force people to use things because you think they should, except for the tiny handful of exceptions where not using something would cause an immediate public danger - such as vaccines. In some cases inferior products do win out, or good products die out. That's fine. If you cannot create a compelling case for your product in the public eye, then your product dies. [1] - https://www.npr.org/2017/04/24/525441653/u-s-tobacco-profits-soar-despite-drop-in-number-of-smokers https://www.npr.org/2017/04/24/525441653/u-s-tobacco-profits...
    - Fins 9y ago
      And also, I doubt that you will find people these days who are not aware of tobacco dangers. That tobacco companies still make a good profit just shows that if you have a legal (although Mr. Escobar might argue that legality isn't required either) product that people want, you'll make money. You will lose significant money if you are hiding its dangers, though. By the logic in the second paragraph, what's the difference between vaccines and GMO food? Is it that anti-vaxxer idiots endanger people here, while anti-GMO idiots starve people way over there?

by Fins 9y ago

TangoTrotFox 9y ago

Cigarette companies would disagree. The goal, as always, is the maximum extraction of short to medium term extraction of revenue. So long as you're not immediately killing your customers off, profits often greatly exceed costs. And actually that part about not even immediately killing them off is not entirely true. Check out the 'pinto memo.' [1] When Ford was manufacturing the Pinto they discovered a critical flaw with the vehicle that could cause the gas tank to explode in rear end impacts, resulting in grievous injury or death. It would have cost about $10/car to fix the problem, but in an analysis - the 'pinto memo' - they discovered that it would cost less just to settle the cases of injury and death. They chose to not spend that $10/car and hundreds of people did end up burning to death because of it. Fords' latest revenue numbers were $157 billion. Phillip Morris' latest revenue figures were $78 billion. It's for these reasons that I think things like consumer choice and information are critical. Genetically engineered foodstuffs are not inherently good or bad. Any given invention can be good or bad. This decision by the FDA, paired with their adamant stance against any sort of labeling, means they're forcing customers to simply take it on faith that companies like Monsanto have the customers' best interests in mind, even when doing otherwise could potentially be more beneficial for Monsanto. And now finally to top all of this we also have regulatory capture. Obama created a special position new head role at the FDA, which he half jokingly referred to as the 'Czar of Foods'. He then appointed one Michael R. Taylor [2] to it. Taylor is former vice president lawyer and lobbyist for Monsanto whose legal career was pinned by a case in which he argued that companies ought be allowed to add at least a small amount of carcinogenic chemicals to processed foods. This capture goes well beyond corruption. You, indirectly, had Monsanto regulating Monsanto. [1] - https://www.motherjones.com/politics/1977/09/pinto-madness/ https://www.motherjones.com/politics/1977/09/pinto-madness/ [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_R._Taylor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_R._Taylor

Fins 9y ago
As I recall, eventually cigarette companies had to pay out quite a bit of money, in the US at least, and now have significant limitations on their advertising activities. Last I checked, smoking rates are dropping pretty much everywhere. And trying to hide problems, in the end, did not work out that well either for Ford, or for VW, or others. Depends on how "long" that long-term is, really. I am all for complete information and disclosure, but it has to be somehow balanced with the general public being more clueless than it wants to think it is, and enormous amount of outright propaganda from the "GMOs are scary" and "Monsanto is teh devil" crowd.
- TangoTrotFox 9y ago
  Cigarette companies today are literally more profitable than ever. They've killed and continue to kill their customers and are making a killing doing it. Har har. The fines they paid (and continue to pay) amount to a completely negligible fraction of their profit (not even their revenue!). Companies can and do engage in malicious behavior for profit when the yields are great enough. Your opinions of the public aside, you don't get to force people to use things because you think they should, except for the tiny handful of exceptions where not using something would cause an immediate public danger - such as vaccines. In some cases inferior products do win out, or good products die out. That's fine. If you cannot create a compelling case for your product in the public eye, then your product dies. [1] - https://www.npr.org/2017/04/24/525441653/u-s-tobacco-profits-soar-despite-drop-in-number-of-smokers https://www.npr.org/2017/04/24/525441653/u-s-tobacco-profits...
  - Fins 9y ago
    And also, I doubt that you will find people these days who are not aware of tobacco dangers. That tobacco companies still make a good profit just shows that if you have a legal (although Mr. Escobar might argue that legality isn't required either) product that people want, you'll make money. You will lose significant money if you are hiding its dangers, though. By the logic in the second paragraph, what's the difference between vaccines and GMO food? Is it that anti-vaxxer idiots endanger people here, while anti-GMO idiots starve people way over there?