134 ms·
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
by 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 agoThanks 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 agoThe 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 agoNice shill. I also wake up everyday and thank Monsanto for Colony Collapse Disorder.
- cm2012 8y agoI've been on HN for 10 years and have never worked for any agriculture or chemical related company.
- chang1 8y agoFWIW, 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...
- cm2012 8y agoExcept Monsanto's methodology reduces total pesticide usage, not increases it. And CCD is a complicated issues, for which no serious person would claim any one company is the cause. This is exactly the bandwagon shit I'm talking about.
- randomdata 8y agoNeonics come from Bayer, marketed under the Bayer CropScience brand, and a few other companies that are not Monsanto. He is able to use Monsanto in a tongue-in-cheek way thanks to the semi-recent acquisition by Bayer, but Monsanto's direction as an independent company had no direct relationship with neonics, other than Monsanto, like all seed vendors, being a customer.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- flyinghamster 8y ago> 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. Or, alternatively: Farmer Joe plants heirloom seeds that are quite rightfully his. Farmer Bob plants patented GMO seeds, which then cross-pollinate with Farmer Joe's heirloom crop. Next year, Monsanto sues Farmer Joe into oblivion (or otherwise forces him into pay-pay-paying them forevermore) for "stealing their technology."
- SparkyMcUnicorn 8y agoYes. It's nearly impossible for farmers corn to NOT cross-pollinate.
- throwawayjava 8y agoI don't really have a horse in this race., but if you're going to make this point, you really should be responding to parent's 6th point, not parent's 5th point. Parent already answered this criticism.
- cm2012 8y ago"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."
- jcranmer 8y agoMonsanto isn't doing that. If you actually look at the cases that Monsanto sues, it's not "Joe noticed some of his non-GMO crop was getting cross-pollinated from GMO crop, so he told his workers to spray glyphosate like mad on the non-GMO crop and collect the stuff that remained."
- kup0 8y agoI have been strongly anti-Monsanto for a while. Thank you for the Quora link (https://www.quora.com/Is-Monsanto-evil https://www.quora.com/Is-Monsanto-evil). After reading it and its sources, I'm finding it hard to maintain the same criticisms I have long held, in the face of this data. I think I blindly jumped on the bandwagon without realizing it. That's not to say that Monsanto is necessarily guilt-free. I'm also curious if the Monsanto chemical company and seed company at any point in any sense were connected, or not. That bit is still a bit confusing to me, because certainly there are issues with the chemical Monsanto from the 60s. It's also unclear exactly how farmers feel about Monsanto and the whole seed reuse / patent issue. I've heard arguments that they want new seed all the time anyway, and then I've heard arguments that it hurts them financially to not be able to collect seed for replanting. Neither of these arguments appear to be coming from farmers, which complicates the matter. That said, I do still feel like I have a philosophical issue with the idea of IP, in particular the patenting of seeds, but that's not a Monsanto-specific issue even though they are involved it it (it's a widespread practice) and I think that issue gets conflated because of the "stolen seed" / "cant recover/save seeds from the new plant" problem that patents introduce - this kind if IP control often tends to bring emotionally-driven rebuke, though I can understand why.
- cm2012 8y agoI appreciate your open mind. Here's a balanced and well researched article from a farmer if you want to read more: https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2017/02/14/without-glyphosate-farming-look-like/ https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2017/02/14/without-glypho....
- kup0 8y agoThanks! Checking it out. The more I look into this the more I am feeling like there is less and less to hold against Monsanto, save my general feelings about patents. I almost feel bad that it took until now, until your HN comment pointing it out for me to question my stance. I feel like everything you're sending me I could have found myself from searching. As someone who considers myself a proponent of facts, analysis, data, science... I'm wondering how I got scooped up in this and didn't challenge myself. Certainly a lesson learned. Even in the comments on that article, nearly everyone making anti-Monsanto claims avoids providing any sources, yet the responses to them provide plenty of evidence to the contrary. I'd like to read some valid, solid, data-proven criticisms of Monsanto. I am absolutely willing to entertain any if people can provide them or point me in the right direction. I'll be doing some research on my own now, inspired by this discussion. Part of the issue is that the internet, documentaries, news articles, etc are all a minefield of misinformation anymore, and we've got to be incredibly careful in our consumption of it.