5 ms·

For those looking for some background on Monsanto, take the time to read through this Vanity Fair article from 2008: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features

For those looking for some background on Monsanto, take the time to read through this Vanity Fair article from 2008: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805 http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto....

mcknz 15y ago
Food, Inc. is also valuable: http://www.foodincmovie.com/ http://www.foodincmovie.com/
- thepointyhat 15y ago
  +1 for this. I know people who have dealt with those asshats even at a corporate level and they are intent on becoming OCP from Robocop - I shit you not. When you control the food, you control the people.
dionidium 15y ago
I don't think this article is as damning as many of the commenters seem to think. - The section addressing the lawsuits includes a lot of "farmers say this" type statements. It's not very long on facts. It even admits that some farmers simply aren't aware of their obligations in many cases. The only case that was actually litigated that I'm aware of is Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser -- a case in which the farmer almost certainly was saving seeds in violation of his contract with Monsanto. - The section on past environmental violations can be mostly ignored in the context of this deal. It might be an interesting historical conversation, but Monsanto is no longer a chemical company. Cloudant has not struck a deal with the company described in that section. - I'm sympathetic to the opposition on the labeling debate, but it's a labeling debate! It should take more than a labeling debate to generate comparisons to Nazi Germany (as more than one commenter has done below).
- davidandgoliath 15y ago
  "The only case that was actually litigated..." Certainly -- because most give in vs. the threat of a lawsuit that'll put them in financial ruins. There's no EFF or ACLU for farmers, though I'm now thinking there should be.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    I think we need to be careful with the notion that the most sympathetic party is most likely to be right.
    - davidandgoliath 15y ago
      Wholeheartedly agree. Monsanto's tactics in this situation are the greater evil, imho. The approach is the issue. I'm not under the assumption that every farmer is innocent, but Monsanto's actions against him/her lead my heart to plead on behalf of the farmer nonetheless. The tactics of Monsanto show me where their heart is, $2mm a day or not in research expenditures.
      - tptacek 15y ago
        I don't understand your argument at all. Monsanto is a business, not a research laboratory or a charity.
        sitkack 15y ago
        Nor do they have morals or ethics. Only profit.
        tptacek 15y ago
        I just read a bunch of your old comments so I could understand who I'm talking to. You're clearly a pretty smart person. And you've been here for a little while now, so you're presumably somewhat invested in the community on HN. With that in mind, help me understand what you hoped to communicate with this comment. Did you feel like you were maybe pointing out something I hadn't considered? Did you expect a comment like this might change anyone's mind? Or cause someone to say, "you know what, I hadn't thought of Monsanto this way before"?
        sitkack 15y ago
        I was railing against the idea that business is one thing, and that as long as behavior is not illegal that it is ok. I feel like we are infected with a more virulent form of 1905. Ethics exist everywhere for all time, they don't belong in a free speech zone. The idea that, business is business. Of course it is, that is a tautology. We both did the snarky comment dance. I am going to outline an analogous skit, imagine you are at a cocktail party with a bunch of friends and this dude is there and he is funny and charming, but his barbs dig too deep he drinks too much wine and he tries to sow the seeds of discontent between you and your girl friend. You exclaim to your friends that his guy is total narcissistic ass and you want him out. Ahhh they tell you, tptacek, that guy isn't a person, he is a business. He doesn't have to follow the same social norms we do.
- tptacek 15y ago
  Feel free to correct me on this, as I'm likely to be wrong. Loosely, the way Monsanto's GMO crop system works is, their crops are designed to resist a specific herbicide, which Monsanto also sells. Farmers pay a per-acre licensing fee to use the system, meaning they plant the GMO crops and then bomb their fields with the herbicide to kill everything but the crop, which improves yield. The fact pattern in these Monsanto lawsuits seems to be that farmers are doing three things: (1) planting Monsanto's GMO crops (intentionally or not), (2) using Monsanto's herbicide to take advantage of the improved yield made possible with the crop, and (3) not paying Monsanto. It is obviously possible for Monsanto GMO crops to end up in an unsuspecting farmer's field. But it's not possible for a farmer to accidentally use Roundup as an herbicide in that field. If they do that without paying Monsanto, they are trying to get something for nothing. That, to my understanding, is what's motivating the lawsuits. Where am I wrong on this?
  - dionidium 15y ago
    It is obviously possible for Monsanto GMO crops to end up in an unsuspecting farmer's field. But it's not possible for a farmer to accidentally use Roundup as an herbicide in that field. If they do that without paying Monsanto, they are trying to get something for nothing. That, to my understanding, is what's motivating the lawsuits. It's not necessary that the farmer derive any benefit from mis-use of Monsanto's IP for them to be in violation of their contract with the company. They buy the seeds on the condition that they will not reuse them. Full stop. However, it's the case that Monsanto modifies crops in other ways, too (to be resistant to drought, for example [0]), so Roundup use is definitely not the only motivating factor. [0] http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/09/us-monsanto-corn-idUSTRE77850C20110809 http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/09/us-monsanto-corn-i...
    - tptacek 15y ago
      In the most famous (only?) case taken to trial, the party accused of breaching Monsanto's IP was in fact using Roundup.
      - davidandgoliath 15y ago
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
shawndrost 15y ago
For another side of Monsanto's story, see Norman Bourlag's speech commemorating Monsanto's committment to rice and wheat breeding[1]. Norman Bourlag's life work was to develop and distribute high-yield crops. He's a Nobel peace prize winner and is often credited with saving over a billion lives. Monsanto is carrying on his work at a scale he always strived for. People in this field is deeply passionate and morally involved in their work. Read the responses from this Monsanto employee at IAMA[2] -- his earnest attempts to explain his morals and his rationale speak for themselves. These people aren't even naked capitalists (not that I have any problem with that) -- they're empirical environmentalists and humanists. I'm kind of disappointed to hear Monsanto shrilly decried here. Modern ag is a deeply interesting and controversial topic, but that Vanity Fair piece is just rhetoric and linkbait. [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1w4zM4SouM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1w4zM4SouM [2] http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/d83i9/i_work_for_the_monsanto_company_amaa/ http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/d83i9/i_work_for_the_m...
- seven_stones 15y ago
  > Norman Bourlag's life work was to develop and distribute high-yield crops. Borlaug's work was via selective breeding. He helped countries produce unpatented food at massive scale in order to feed a billion people. These crops also were productive because they were planted in areas that had not yet been subject to intensive farming methods. The major obstacle with modern farming is NOT the crops, but the soil quality, and depletion of topsoil is a major problem which is only exacerbated by more productive crops. There's no free lunch -- in order to have a more productive crop, i.e. more output, it has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is the agricultural inputs. Monsanto's attempts to control and patent food, were an IP regime put in place to actually enforce that, would simply instigate a food crisis. You can't have Big Pharma profits without severe controls on availability. "Feeding the poor" is a complete smokescreen that is fundamentally incompatible with their business model.
- sitkack 15y ago
  IRobot is also helping America conduct safer wars. Where is the humanism is that? An employee emoting isn't the company or its actions.
cickpass_broken 15y ago
Also, here is a very recent article outlining the issues of seed patents and the case between Monsanto and India, http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/1087730/how_india_squared_up_to_monsantos_biopiracy.html http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/1087730/how_i...

mcknz 15y ago

Food, Inc. is also valuable: http://www.foodincmovie.com/ http://www.foodincmovie.com/

thepointyhat 15y ago
+1 for this. I know people who have dealt with those asshats even at a corporate level and they are intent on becoming OCP from Robocop - I shit you not. When you control the food, you control the people.

dionidium 15y ago

I don't think this article is as damning as many of the commenters seem to think. - The section addressing the lawsuits includes a lot of "farmers say this" type statements. It's not very long on facts. It even admits that some farmers simply aren't aware of their obligations in many cases. The only case that was actually litigated that I'm aware of is Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser -- a case in which the farmer almost certainly was saving seeds in violation of his contract with Monsanto. - The section on past environmental violations can be mostly ignored in the context of this deal. It might be an interesting historical conversation, but Monsanto is no longer a chemical company. Cloudant has not struck a deal with the company described in that section. - I'm sympathetic to the opposition on the labeling debate, but it's a labeling debate! It should take more than a labeling debate to generate comparisons to Nazi Germany (as more than one commenter has done below).

davidandgoliath 15y ago
"The only case that was actually litigated..." Certainly -- because most give in vs. the threat of a lawsuit that'll put them in financial ruins. There's no EFF or ACLU for farmers, though I'm now thinking there should be.
- tptacek 15y ago
  I think we need to be careful with the notion that the most sympathetic party is most likely to be right.
  - davidandgoliath 15y ago
    Wholeheartedly agree. Monsanto's tactics in this situation are the greater evil, imho. The approach is the issue. I'm not under the assumption that every farmer is innocent, but Monsanto's actions against him/her lead my heart to plead on behalf of the farmer nonetheless. The tactics of Monsanto show me where their heart is, $2mm a day or not in research expenditures.
    - tptacek 15y ago
      I don't understand your argument at all. Monsanto is a business, not a research laboratory or a charity.
      - sitkack 15y ago
        Nor do they have morals or ethics. Only profit.
        tptacek 15y ago
        I just read a bunch of your old comments so I could understand who I'm talking to. You're clearly a pretty smart person. And you've been here for a little while now, so you're presumably somewhat invested in the community on HN. With that in mind, help me understand what you hoped to communicate with this comment. Did you feel like you were maybe pointing out something I hadn't considered? Did you expect a comment like this might change anyone's mind? Or cause someone to say, "you know what, I hadn't thought of Monsanto this way before"?
        sitkack 15y ago
        I was railing against the idea that business is one thing, and that as long as behavior is not illegal that it is ok. I feel like we are infected with a more virulent form of 1905. Ethics exist everywhere for all time, they don't belong in a free speech zone. The idea that, business is business. Of course it is, that is a tautology. We both did the snarky comment dance. I am going to outline an analogous skit, imagine you are at a cocktail party with a bunch of friends and this dude is there and he is funny and charming, but his barbs dig too deep he drinks too much wine and he tries to sow the seeds of discontent between you and your girl friend. You exclaim to your friends that his guy is total narcissistic ass and you want him out. Ahhh they tell you, tptacek, that guy isn't a person, he is a business. He doesn't have to follow the same social norms we do.
tptacek 15y ago
Feel free to correct me on this, as I'm likely to be wrong. Loosely, the way Monsanto's GMO crop system works is, their crops are designed to resist a specific herbicide, which Monsanto also sells. Farmers pay a per-acre licensing fee to use the system, meaning they plant the GMO crops and then bomb their fields with the herbicide to kill everything but the crop, which improves yield. The fact pattern in these Monsanto lawsuits seems to be that farmers are doing three things: (1) planting Monsanto's GMO crops (intentionally or not), (2) using Monsanto's herbicide to take advantage of the improved yield made possible with the crop, and (3) not paying Monsanto. It is obviously possible for Monsanto GMO crops to end up in an unsuspecting farmer's field. But it's not possible for a farmer to accidentally use Roundup as an herbicide in that field. If they do that without paying Monsanto, they are trying to get something for nothing. That, to my understanding, is what's motivating the lawsuits. Where am I wrong on this?
- dionidium 15y ago
  It is obviously possible for Monsanto GMO crops to end up in an unsuspecting farmer's field. But it's not possible for a farmer to accidentally use Roundup as an herbicide in that field. If they do that without paying Monsanto, they are trying to get something for nothing. That, to my understanding, is what's motivating the lawsuits. It's not necessary that the farmer derive any benefit from mis-use of Monsanto's IP for them to be in violation of their contract with the company. They buy the seeds on the condition that they will not reuse them. Full stop. However, it's the case that Monsanto modifies crops in other ways, too (to be resistant to drought, for example [0]), so Roundup use is definitely not the only motivating factor. [0] http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/09/us-monsanto-corn-idUSTRE77850C20110809 http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/09/us-monsanto-corn-i...
  - tptacek 15y ago
    In the most famous (only?) case taken to trial, the party accused of breaching Monsanto's IP was in fact using Roundup.
    - davidandgoliath 15y ago
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

shawndrost 15y ago

For another side of Monsanto's story, see Norman Bourlag's speech commemorating Monsanto's committment to rice and wheat breeding[1]. Norman Bourlag's life work was to develop and distribute high-yield crops. He's a Nobel peace prize winner and is often credited with saving over a billion lives. Monsanto is carrying on his work at a scale he always strived for. People in this field is deeply passionate and morally involved in their work. Read the responses from this Monsanto employee at IAMA[2] -- his earnest attempts to explain his morals and his rationale speak for themselves. These people aren't even naked capitalists (not that I have any problem with that) -- they're empirical environmentalists and humanists. I'm kind of disappointed to hear Monsanto shrilly decried here. Modern ag is a deeply interesting and controversial topic, but that Vanity Fair piece is just rhetoric and linkbait. [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1w4zM4SouM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1w4zM4SouM [2] http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/d83i9/i_work_for_the_monsanto_company_amaa/ http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/d83i9/i_work_for_the_m...

seven_stones 15y ago
> Norman Bourlag's life work was to develop and distribute high-yield crops. Borlaug's work was via selective breeding. He helped countries produce unpatented food at massive scale in order to feed a billion people. These crops also were productive because they were planted in areas that had not yet been subject to intensive farming methods. The major obstacle with modern farming is NOT the crops, but the soil quality, and depletion of topsoil is a major problem which is only exacerbated by more productive crops. There's no free lunch -- in order to have a more productive crop, i.e. more output, it has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is the agricultural inputs. Monsanto's attempts to control and patent food, were an IP regime put in place to actually enforce that, would simply instigate a food crisis. You can't have Big Pharma profits without severe controls on availability. "Feeding the poor" is a complete smokescreen that is fundamentally incompatible with their business model.
sitkack 15y ago
IRobot is also helping America conduct safer wars. Where is the humanism is that? An employee emoting isn't the company or its actions.

cickpass_broken 15y ago

Also, here is a very recent article outlining the issues of seed patents and the case between Monsanto and India, http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/1087730/how_india_squared_up_to_monsantos_biopiracy.html http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/1087730/how_i...