5 ms·

Why is hating Monsanto stupid? Or are you just saying people bandwagon on hating them? I’ve seen a few too many documentaries on the terrible things they do in

by kylnew 8y ago

Why is hating Monsanto stupid? Or are you just saying people bandwagon on hating them? I’ve seen a few too many documentaries on the terrible things they do in the farm industry that put consumers’ and farmers’ wellbeing at risk. Monsanto milk isn’t even allowed in Canada because of the hormones they (are/were?) putting in cows. They’ve basically cornered the soybean market through litigation. Let the hate live on, IMO.

cm2012 8y ago
One example: The main thing they're hated for is patenting GMO seed varieties in support of their roundup pesticide product line. Roundup works by making seed varieties that work just like normal plants but are immune to the roundup pesticides. So a farmer can place pesticide on a field, and it will only kill weeds, not their crops. The "hate evil Monsanto for destroying nature" bandwagon ignores that: 1) 99% of anti-gmo stuff is anti-science fear mongering. There are very few good general anti-GMO arguments. 2) Farmers love roundup because it increases crop productivity per acre sustainably. 3) Using roundup greatly decreases the amount of pesticide needed per acre of crops, since it can be targeted so much more precisely. So it makes the world's water supplies and crops cleaner overall. 4) Because round-up seeds are so great, farmers sometimes try to grow it without paying licensing fees (because why would you if you can get away with it?). 5) Monsanto is very legally aggressive defending its seed patents, since why would anyone pay to license their seeds if you can just steal it? Monsanto spent a lot of money developing the science for roundup seeds. 6) Monsanto has never sued someone for accidentally having round-up seeds (cross contamination). They have an amazing win rates on their lawsuits specifically because they only target cut and dry cases. 7) But the bandwagon is against the evil Monsanto, so people are overly credulous on the farmer side. The vast majority of things Monsanto is criticized for play out just like the above. As a separate example, check out this Quora answer for, "Is Monsanto evil?": https://www.quora.com/Is-Monsanto-evil https://www.quora.com/Is-Monsanto-evil. And let me know which side seems more reasonable to you. Documentaries are an awful way to disseminate accurate knowledge. It's 90% emotion driven, and almost always has a narrative to tell that they're not going to want pesky facts to get in the way of.
- kylnew 8y ago
  Thanks for sharing this info. Too bad the milk story isn’t covered because that one bothers me most and obviously Health Canada among other countries agreed it was wrong to be putting these steroids in the cows. I’m not sure this convinced me that one side is more reasonable than the other but it sheds some light on what’s true vs unfair. I also agree documentaries need to always be taken with a heavy dose of salt, and I do read beyond them after the fact to confirm information though it’s easiest to remember off hand the emotional appeal they tend to drive home.
  - randomdata 8y ago
    The milk story is not covered because it is not a milk story, it is an animal welfare story. "Although it was determined that it did not pose a health risk to humans, there were animal health concerns, and therefore it was never approved for sale in Canada."[1] The milk is considered to be safe by Health Canada. Growth hormones, with a few notable exceptions, are banned for all animals in Canada. [1] https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/veterinary-drugs/factsheets-faq/hormonal-growth-promoters.html https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health...
- YellowCode 8y ago
  Nice shill. I also wake up everyday and thank Monsanto for Colony Collapse Disorder.
  - cm2012 8y ago
    I've been on HN for 10 years and have never worked for any agriculture or chemical related company.
  - chang1 8y ago
    FWIW, it looks like Monsanto is trying to do something about it: https://www.wired.com/2016/08/jerry-hayes-how-to-save-the-bees-monsanto/ https://www.wired.com/2016/08/jerry-hayes-how-to-save-the-be...
  - 8y ago
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

by kylnew 8y ago

cm2012 8y ago

One example: The main thing they're hated for is patenting GMO seed varieties in support of their roundup pesticide product line. Roundup works by making seed varieties that work just like normal plants but are immune to the roundup pesticides. So a farmer can place pesticide on a field, and it will only kill weeds, not their crops. The "hate evil Monsanto for destroying nature" bandwagon ignores that: 1) 99% of anti-gmo stuff is anti-science fear mongering. There are very few good general anti-GMO arguments. 2) Farmers love roundup because it increases crop productivity per acre sustainably. 3) Using roundup greatly decreases the amount of pesticide needed per acre of crops, since it can be targeted so much more precisely. So it makes the world's water supplies and crops cleaner overall. 4) Because round-up seeds are so great, farmers sometimes try to grow it without paying licensing fees (because why would you if you can get away with it?). 5) Monsanto is very legally aggressive defending its seed patents, since why would anyone pay to license their seeds if you can just steal it? Monsanto spent a lot of money developing the science for roundup seeds. 6) Monsanto has never sued someone for accidentally having round-up seeds (cross contamination). They have an amazing win rates on their lawsuits specifically because they only target cut and dry cases. 7) But the bandwagon is against the evil Monsanto, so people are overly credulous on the farmer side. The vast majority of things Monsanto is criticized for play out just like the above. As a separate example, check out this Quora answer for, "Is Monsanto evil?": https://www.quora.com/Is-Monsanto-evil https://www.quora.com/Is-Monsanto-evil. And let me know which side seems more reasonable to you. Documentaries are an awful way to disseminate accurate knowledge. It's 90% emotion driven, and almost always has a narrative to tell that they're not going to want pesky facts to get in the way of.

kylnew 8y ago
Thanks for sharing this info. Too bad the milk story isn’t covered because that one bothers me most and obviously Health Canada among other countries agreed it was wrong to be putting these steroids in the cows. I’m not sure this convinced me that one side is more reasonable than the other but it sheds some light on what’s true vs unfair. I also agree documentaries need to always be taken with a heavy dose of salt, and I do read beyond them after the fact to confirm information though it’s easiest to remember off hand the emotional appeal they tend to drive home.
- randomdata 8y ago
  The milk story is not covered because it is not a milk story, it is an animal welfare story. "Although it was determined that it did not pose a health risk to humans, there were animal health concerns, and therefore it was never approved for sale in Canada."[1] The milk is considered to be safe by Health Canada. Growth hormones, with a few notable exceptions, are banned for all animals in Canada. [1] https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/veterinary-drugs/factsheets-faq/hormonal-growth-promoters.html https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health...
YellowCode 8y ago
Nice shill. I also wake up everyday and thank Monsanto for Colony Collapse Disorder.
- cm2012 8y ago
  I've been on HN for 10 years and have never worked for any agriculture or chemical related company.
- chang1 8y ago
  FWIW, it looks like Monsanto is trying to do something about it: https://www.wired.com/2016/08/jerry-hayes-how-to-save-the-bees-monsanto/ https://www.wired.com/2016/08/jerry-hayes-how-to-save-the-be...
- 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]