3 ms·
Monsanto didn't win because they had the most positive outlook, they won because they had a dominate business position, the most lobbying, etc. Jonathan Gressel
by dfxm12 2y ago
Monsanto didn't win because they had the most positive outlook, they won because they had a dominate business position, the most lobbying, etc. Jonathan Gressel & Stanley Culpepper, who the article mentions as folks who disagreed with Monsanto on this, have no such power to dictate things to farmers or congress.
- cyberax 2y agoMonsanto won because they have a superior product, that makes it easier for farmers to grow crops. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.
- Suppafly 2y ago>Monsanto won because they have a superior product, that makes it easier for farmers to grow crops. Cheaper too and leads to better no-till practices. Despite all the anti-GMO FUD around it, it's just a superior way to farm by basically any metric you look at.
- marcosdumay 2y ago> by basically any metric you look at No, not by any metric. Area productivity is smaller, the plants take slightly longer growing, it creates dependency on a greed corporation that showed they will trow you under the bus if they wish... But it's cheaper.
- cyberax 2y agoArea productivity _given_ _the_ _same_ _amount_ _of_ _labor_? I don't think so.
- Suppafly 2y ago>No, not by any metric. Area productivity is smaller, the plants take slightly longer growing, it creates dependency on a greed corporation that showed they will trow you under the bus if they wish... Yeah none of that is true. Nice try though.