6 ms·

Lots of smart people have problems with Monsanto's business practices rather than GMO specifically.

KC8ZKF 8y ago
Maybe we should have "Non-Monsanto" labels then, instead of "Non-GMO."
sametmax 8y ago
Also, the fact is that Monsanto, which has had trouble with its ethical reputation, is very adamant about GMO. So if you don't trust Monsanto for most things, you will especially not trust it to tell you the truth about the safety of its products nor about the completeness of their tests to ensure said safety.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Also, the fact is that Monsanto, which has had trouble with its ethical reputation, is very adamant about GMO. It's adamant about the safety of its GMO lines and (in the case of Roundup Ready) the pesticide products that are complementary to them. It's, OTOH, also a big producer of non-GMO seed and actively markets products to the organic food industry.
- nradov 8y ago
  What specifically has Monsanto done that was unethical?
  - sametmax 8y ago
    It creates seeds you can't harvest, plant and grow again to maintain a captive market. When it can't do that, it sues farmers that harvest, plan and grow the seed it wants to protect. This includes Monsanto's crops contaminating other crops like in the Vernon Hugh Bowman case. It also promoted (at least in France) round up as biodegradable but we eventually found out it didn't, and went to contaminate the drinking water. Which is a problem, given that glyphosate based products are currently in the process of being banned in Europe. The answer from Monsanto to that has been ghostwriting reports and pretend they didn't come from them.
    - nradov 8y ago
      The Supreme Court unanimously disagreed with you on Bowman v. Monsanto so I fail to see what was unethical there. In fact Vernon Bowman intentionally violated a contract that he voluntarily entered into so it seems clear he was the unethical party.
      - sametmax 8y ago
        Legality and ethics are very different things.
        nradov 8y ago
        Not at all. US law is pretty much in line with the national consensus on ethics (although perhaps not with your personal ethics). There are occasional discrepancies but when the national consensus undergoes major shifts the laws are usually revised accordingly within a few decades.
        sametmax 8y ago
        US people can't remotely agree on death penalty, marijuana usage, gun control, gay support, the church, abortion, war, trump or snowden. In a country where it's legal to openly give money to politicians, spy on all citizens and by pass habeas corpus. I really doubt your statement.
        nradov 8y ago
        So you agree with me that there are no clear universal ethical standards in some areas. You still haven't shown how Monsanto's actions were unethical.
        sametmax 8y ago
        Yes. Lying about harmful products you are selling is something unethical to my taste. At this point, I expect you to disagree.
dragonwriter 8y ago
Most of those, too, turn out to be supported by myths about specific cases they have been spread by anti-GMO propagandists.
namibj 8y ago
In my case it's with the hard push to Hybrids, which is a major risk for the stability of the world's food supply (due to the strong mono culture, it's relatively easy for a willing player to first stock up on food, and then deliver pests for all major food hybrids that are only as effective because they are hybrids and not a healthy pool of genetic diversity. Also, if the hybrid seeds producing facilities were to be targeted, at the right time, it might not be possible to coordinate sufficient seeding of the available seeds, which the farmers might not even know how to plant/grow, as the non-hybrids are rather different from the hybrids, as far as optimum growing parameters go. The primary issue with Monsanto specifically would then be that they actively try to prevent farmers from using non-hybrid seeds. Also, one would be surprised how well grains grow without pesticides, if the land is properly cared for. There was a time before pesticides were as widely available, and they did not have the time to weed the whole field by hand ;)
- nradov 8y ago
  If it's so easy to deliver pests which target those crops then why hasn't any terrorist group done it yet? The reality is that it would be extremely difficult, perhaps impossible with current technology. Farmers aren't stupid. Monsanto has no way to prevent them from using non-hybrid seeds. Farmers will plant whichever seeds they expect to deliver the highest ROI. Grain production before pesticides was far lower. Back then famines were common rather than something that only happened during wartime. Don't ask us to return to the dark ages.
  - jacobush 8y ago
    What about Monsanto suing everyone?

Maybe we should have "Non-Monsanto" labels then, instead of "Non-GMO."

Also, the fact is that Monsanto, which has had trouble with its ethical reputation, is very adamant about GMO. So if you don't trust Monsanto for most things, you will especially not trust it to tell you the truth about the safety of its products nor about the completeness of their tests to ensure said safety.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> Also, the fact is that Monsanto, which has had trouble with its ethical reputation, is very adamant about GMO. It's adamant about the safety of its GMO lines and (in the case of Roundup Ready) the pesticide products that are complementary to them. It's, OTOH, also a big producer of non-GMO seed and actively markets products to the organic food industry.
nradov 8y ago
What specifically has Monsanto done that was unethical?
- sametmax 8y ago
  It creates seeds you can't harvest, plant and grow again to maintain a captive market. When it can't do that, it sues farmers that harvest, plan and grow the seed it wants to protect. This includes Monsanto's crops contaminating other crops like in the Vernon Hugh Bowman case. It also promoted (at least in France) round up as biodegradable but we eventually found out it didn't, and went to contaminate the drinking water. Which is a problem, given that glyphosate based products are currently in the process of being banned in Europe. The answer from Monsanto to that has been ghostwriting reports and pretend they didn't come from them.
  - nradov 8y ago
    The Supreme Court unanimously disagreed with you on Bowman v. Monsanto so I fail to see what was unethical there. In fact Vernon Bowman intentionally violated a contract that he voluntarily entered into so it seems clear he was the unethical party.
    - sametmax 8y ago
      Legality and ethics are very different things.
      - nradov 8y ago
        Not at all. US law is pretty much in line with the national consensus on ethics (although perhaps not with your personal ethics). There are occasional discrepancies but when the national consensus undergoes major shifts the laws are usually revised accordingly within a few decades.
        sametmax 8y ago
        US people can't remotely agree on death penalty, marijuana usage, gun control, gay support, the church, abortion, war, trump or snowden. In a country where it's legal to openly give money to politicians, spy on all citizens and by pass habeas corpus. I really doubt your statement.
        nradov 8y ago
        So you agree with me that there are no clear universal ethical standards in some areas. You still haven't shown how Monsanto's actions were unethical.
        sametmax 8y ago
        Yes. Lying about harmful products you are selling is something unethical to my taste. At this point, I expect you to disagree.

dragonwriter 8y ago

Most of those, too, turn out to be supported by myths about specific cases they have been spread by anti-GMO propagandists.

namibj 8y ago

In my case it's with the hard push to Hybrids, which is a major risk for the stability of the world's food supply (due to the strong mono culture, it's relatively easy for a willing player to first stock up on food, and then deliver pests for all major food hybrids that are only as effective because they are hybrids and not a healthy pool of genetic diversity. Also, if the hybrid seeds producing facilities were to be targeted, at the right time, it might not be possible to coordinate sufficient seeding of the available seeds, which the farmers might not even know how to plant/grow, as the non-hybrids are rather different from the hybrids, as far as optimum growing parameters go. The primary issue with Monsanto specifically would then be that they actively try to prevent farmers from using non-hybrid seeds. Also, one would be surprised how well grains grow without pesticides, if the land is properly cared for. There was a time before pesticides were as widely available, and they did not have the time to weed the whole field by hand ;)

nradov 8y ago
If it's so easy to deliver pests which target those crops then why hasn't any terrorist group done it yet? The reality is that it would be extremely difficult, perhaps impossible with current technology. Farmers aren't stupid. Monsanto has no way to prevent them from using non-hybrid seeds. Farmers will plant whichever seeds they expect to deliver the highest ROI. Grain production before pesticides was far lower. Back then famines were common rather than something that only happened during wartime. Don't ask us to return to the dark ages.
- jacobush 8y ago
  What about Monsanto suing everyone?