10 ms·

Monsanto Owns Us: The Monopoly of Seeds and Intellectual Property Rights

126 points by mgunes 13y ago

forrestthewoods 13y ago
I think the hate for Monsanto is way, way, way overrated. Honestly I still haven't read a super compelling reason to hate them. All the talk about evil lawsuits against poor farmers who got accidentally contaminated seems to be FUD. The big recent case was a guy deliberately trying to skirt the rules. If farmers would like to use non-Monsanto seeds then they are free to do so. If they'd like to use (arguably) superior seeds that have to be re-purchased every year then they are also free to do so. If people think it's bullshit that Monsanto can prevent their seeds from being re-used then that's not insane, but I'd politely disagree. It's not terribly different from copyright protection on software. The way I see it is we could revoke that protection and then the seeds wouldn't be developed because it wouldn't be profitable and we'd be stuck with the old stuff. Or we could give protection to enable the development of new seeds and then farmers have the choice to use the old stuff or new stuff. And if the new stuff is so much better than the old stuff that using the old stuff isn't financially feasible then I'd be inclined to call that a success. Maybe someone can convince me to grab my pitchfork and join the mob but so far I'm just not seeing it.
- skriticos2 13y ago
  I think the main issue is that Monsanto is cornering the market [1]. Farmers basically have a hard time to buy normal seeds at reasonable price on the market because mostly GMO seeds are offered. It's a bit like Microsoft or ATT/Verizon. Just switch providers.. good luck with that. [1]: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091214/0856327337.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091214/0856327337.shtml
  - jjoonathan 13y ago
    Microsoft uses compatibility and bundling as leverage to maintain their monopoly ATT/Verizon use municipal contracts and large barriers-to-entry to maintain their oligopoly All Monsanto has are patents on their specific crop strains. What prevents a seed producer from going into business other than the benefits of using Monsanto strains? EDIT: ok, after googling around (the techdirt link was broken), it looks like they were bundling http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/monopoly.cfm http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/monopoly.cfm http://www.patentdocs.org/2008/05/monsanto-and-sy.html http://www.patentdocs.org/2008/05/monsanto-and-sy.html
  - dr8899 13y ago
    False. There are several competitors like Dupint, Dow Chemical, and Bayer.
  - Blahah 13y ago
    This is just nonsense, it is extremely easy for farmers to buy non-GMO seed. Not only are there several other huge seed producers (Bayer, BASF, Dupont, Syngenta, Pioneer, etc.) that sell high-quality non-GMO seed, but there is a huge ecosystem of regional cooperative seed producers that make decent seed. Farmers choose GMOs because they really do get more return on their investment. They aren't idiots and they aren't being forced.
  - randomdata 13y ago
    As a grain farmer myself, I don't know this to be true. In fact, the only GMO crop we do grow is field corn because there is no advantage of non-GMO varieties in that crop. Perhaps you could elaborate some more?
- rmason 13y ago
  One thing that I have observed is there's a certain percent of the population that are worriers. Sometimes they're early in worrying about something that becomes very important to the majority but often times they worry about things that never come to pass. They serve an important purpose as sentinels but on this one the evidence is a mile wide and an inch deep.
- danielweber 13y ago
  They link to an old opinion piece on schmeiser-v-monsanto but not the up-to-date Wikipedia article.[1] You can tell they are pushing an angle when they pretend that the "contamination" was accidental, and that Schmeiser was hitting his crops with Roundup. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeis...
- atrus 13y ago
  It IS bullshit that people are just upset at Monsanto for selling seeds that don't reproduce correctly. Most hybrids fail to reproduce into another hybrid, and people have been selling hybrid seeds for years before Monsanto even existed. I don't think it's right that you can make plants your IP however.
  - Blahah 13y ago
    It's especially bullshit because Monsanto don't produce seeds that don't reproduce. Terminator technology was developed by the United States government and shut down by Monsanto because they thought protesters would go apeshit. Turns out they were right, to the extent that shutting down the tech didn't stop people going apeshit. It's one of the most pervasive myths about GM crops.
  - aestra 13y ago
    Monsanto's seeds reproduce just fine, however if one saves the seeds from their harvest and replants than it is an IP violation. It would be like copying a CD for a friend, very possible but not legal
- D9u 13y ago
  I see the patenting of life forms as being insidiously evil. In the past we had heirloom seeds which, although proprietary, were not patent protected, so people who shared their superior seed stock didn't run afoul of courts and lawyers. Call me a pitchfork bearing loon but I find patenting life forms to be egregiously reprehensible.
  - Blahah 13y ago
    We still have heirloom seeds - anyone who wants to can develop their own varieties and share them as freely as they like. Many thousands of people do this. However, those varieties are just extremely unlikely to be as consistently high-yielding as the latest commercial varieties. Patents serve the same purpose in farming as they do elsewhere: it makes it worthwhile for companies to invest the hundreds of millions of dollars it costs to drive crop yields ever higher. I share your moral outrage at the idea of patenting life, and all my own research as well as all the genetic technology produced by our consortium on the C4 rice project will be made free (as in beer and speech). However, agriculture relies on agricultural companies, and they need some way to make money. If people can just take their technology and grow it again themselves, there is no way for them to recoup their investment and we simply won't have better crops.
    - rjzzleep 13y ago
      > We still have heirloom seeds - anyone who wants to can develop their own varieties and share them as freely as they like. Many thousands of people do this. However, those varieties are just extremely unlikely to be as consistently high-yielding as the latest commercial varieties. just to chime in here. for a majority of indian farmers - partly which triggered the mass suicide by pesticide - they turned out to be not at all as high yielding as was claimed. now you could say, ahhh, but wait a second. they didn't use as much water and pesticide as they were supposed to, and you might be right. but then it depends on your definition of yield. their own crops had a higher yield given the conditions of the soil, and water.
      - hibikir 13y ago
- kenster07 13y ago
  Well, there are separate issues at play: 1) In a market economy, monopolies should generally be distrusted and prevented whenever possible. 2) There are people who are unsatisfied with the claimed (lack of) health effects of GMO on human consumers. 3) There are people who are unsatisfied with the claimed (lack of) effects that GMO seeds could have on the broader ecosystem.
  - zanny 13y ago
    > monopolies should generally be distrusted and prevented whenever possible. You shouldn't just disband monopolies too, you should analyze the environment that let them form in the first place. In a functioning market the only time a monopoly becomes an issue is if they can exploit their position to keep prices above optimal competitive levels, and that means that there are barriers to market entry that need to be considered in policy that prevent price competition against the major player. And usually they are legal in nature, be it patent / copyright, or biased tax law, or blatant exclusive contracts like ISPs.
- dominotw 13y ago
  >Or we could give protection to enable the development of new seeds and then farmers have the choice to use the old stuff or new stuff. Not after terminator seeds are used. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#Terminator_seeds http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#Terminator_seeds http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-seeds-of-suicide-how-monsanto-destroys-farming/5329947 http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-seeds-of-suicide-how-monsan...
  - Blahah 13y ago
    Terminator seeds have never been used except in research. It says that in your own link. Monsanto have also made commitments, including to the courts in the USA and Canada, not to ever use the technology.
  - hibikir 13y ago
    Even without terminator seeds, replanting seed that you harvested is not necessarily a good idea. For instance, most commercial corn seeds are hybrids, made by crossing two highly inbred plants. This means that the seeds in the bag have pretty much the same DNA as each other. Those plants produce far better than their inbred parents, and they are quite predictable in most agronomic ways. Now, what happens when you get the next generation? When Hybrids cross with hybrids, the actual genetic makeup of the offspring will produce quite a bit more variation. With that increased variation, come less average yields. So even if a farmer didn't sign anything that would stop him from planting the seeds, chances are that a farmer would have higher profits by just buying a bag of seed anyway. Not so much for Soybeans though, but that really is a place where Monsanto has pretty much a monopoly: Roundup protection increases yields so much that non-GMO soybeans are barely planted, because they are far less profitable for the farmer.
    - randomdata 13y ago
      > because they are far less profitable for the farmer. That really depends on the market you are selling into. It is definitely not a hard truth. For instance, we only grow non-GMO soybeans on my farm because they are quite a bit more profitable and seem to get even more profitable each year. We won't even consider looking at GMO soys until that dynamic starts to change. Farmers in other markets might not be selling to the same customers, and therefore might not be able to see the same margins on non-GMOs. At the end of the day, it all comes down to what the consumers are buying. With the tight margins in farming, you'll be out of business in no time if you aren't growing exactly what the customers want.
- lotsofmangos 13y ago
  If people think it's bullshit that Monsanto can prevent their seeds from being re-used then that's not insane, but I'd politely disagree. They are seeds. They aren't being reused, they are being used, as seeds. Genetic information in the wild cannot be subject to strict intellectual property regulation, when there are things like horizontal gene transfer.
- camus2 13y ago
  > I think the hate for Monsanto is way, way, way overrated. monsanto == agent orange
  - pdkl95 13y ago
    The Monsanto that made Agent Orange hasn't really existed for several decades now, and blaming the current company for the problems associated with Agent Orange about as useful as blaming today's IBM for selling tabulation machines to the Nazis. The current problem with Monsanto isn't their products; it seems they learned some pathological business practices back in the 70s from a newly formed consulting service[1] known as Bane. They changed a lot of their business strategy under their oversight, guided by the consultant's representative: Mitt Romney. [1] http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/09/romney-monsanto-bain http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/09/romney-monsa...
- nomailing 13y ago
  Do you think it is that easy for a simple farmer to check if their seed is contaminated? I think the article makes a good point, that it is the responsibility of Monsanto to make sure that their seeds do not spread. But I am no expert. But compare it to a corporation that has a patent on some computer code which would distribute itself as a worm and every victim with an infected PC has to pay to the corporation. Only because you have it on your PC does not make you a copyright pirate. There must be clear evidence that you downloaded patented software willingly. So it is Monsanto who has to make sure that the farmers have the tools to prevent Monsanto seeds from growing. If these tools are not freely available I would say farmers should not be liable this.
  - hibikir 13y ago
    This is the reason why, if we are to keep allowing patents on genes, we have to be extremely careful on what we allow, and what we don't. For instance, let's take Soybeans. There have been lawsuits out there claiming that someone's Soybean field had been 100% contaminated by Monsanto seeds, so that the fact that all the plants survived Roundup plantings was completely accidental. Given how difficult it is to even cross soybeans on purpose, having an entire field of plants with perfect flowers that get contaminated through pollination is just silly. On something like corn, however, you just can't avoid cross contamination. So if a field has corn that has genes that came straight from a GMO, it's not as if one can prove wrongdoing: It's impossible to prevent that kind of contamination. Ultimately though, we just have to figure out if we believe that patenting GMOs is something that is good for society or not. If I make a computer program and sell it, it's not really all that difficult for me to make money out of it, if people actually want it. If I tried to sell carefully engineered soybean seeds, I would not make much money, because from a few soybeans you can make millions. In two seasons, anyone that bought the seed could just compete with me without any for the R&D cost. So if a world without some kind of protection, major seed research just have to be left to public projects that don't expect any profit. You can't even protect your seed by being the only user, because very often, the seed itself is the output. Good luck selling soybeans without giving away the DNA to make more. And it's not like we could instead change the protections to be all about the insertion of new DNA into a plant: The entire corn catalogue of Roundup ready seeds is probably comes from less than two dozen actual insertions of foreign DNA into regular plants. The tough work is to figure out which ones are actually effective, and to cross them with high yielding regular plants. So I could just take the gene that Monsanto put on a seed and add it to my own strain by using conventional breeding techniques in about 5 years, tops. So yeah, our options are to just stop all research, move it all to non-profits, or allow some kind of patents on seeds. You could make a case for either of the three, but we have to understand that they all have their shortcomings.
- seldon 13y ago
  Monstanto's own take on Schmeiser: http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/percy-schmeiser.aspx http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/percy-schmeiser.aspx From the 2001 Court Decision[0]: "[146] I find on a balance of probabilities that the growing by the defendants in 1998 of canola on nine fields, from seed saved in 1997 which was known or ought to have been known by them to be Roundup tolerant, and the harvesting and sale of that canola crop, infringed upon the plaintiffs' exclusive rights under Canadian patent number 1, 313, 830 in particular claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 22, 23, 27, 28 and 45 of the patent" [0] http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/38991/index.do http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/38991/...
- netcan 13y ago
  I'm somewhere in between. I think there are problems with patents and I'm not sure they can be with us for another 100 years. I also don't think the assessment that there the current scenario which allows big rewards for R&D is a net win is crazy. But overall there is a wider direction of change whether directed or emergent. Our agricultural system producing our food is becoming problematic in many ways. Food is flora and fauna. These things exist in an ecosystem. These controlled super strains can become very dominant and genetically poor. Many major crops are losing genetic diversity. GMO cereals are just a part of it. It's been going on for a long time. Genetic modification is something we started doing hundreds of years before we named it. Modern genetic tech distills it. I'm not sure the long term ramifications of all this can be captured in supply and demand. There is a bigger picture that is probably not going to be clear until it is in retrospect.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- acd 13y ago
  I think the criticism of Monsanto is fair. "Agent Orange was manufactured for the U.S. Department of Defense primarily by Monsanto Corporation and Dow Chemical." "According to Vietnamese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 4.8 million Vietnamese people were exposed to Agent Orange, resulting in 400,000 people being killed or maimed, and 500,000 children born with birth defects" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange Possible connection between Monsanto Roundup and Bee Colony Colapse disorder http://www.motherearthnews.com/homesteading-and-livestock/roundup-bees-zm0z10zarc.aspx#axzz2wA9X9KVp http://www.motherearthnews.com/homesteading-and-livestock/ro...
  - rmason 13y ago
    The U.S. defense department took a chemical (aka Agent Orange) that had been used safely for clearing brush from ditches for decades and started spraying it from helicopters without any research being done on its safety. Sure Dow and Monsanto took the money. But they learned their lesson and when the DEA started spraying Paraquat onto cocaine plants in South America Dow sued them to stop. I believe they even threatened to take Paraquat off the market if they lost their lawsuit.
- lakax 13y ago
  http://www.chemicalindustryarchives.org/dirtysecrets/annistonindepth/toxicity.asp http://www.chemicalindustryarchives.org/dirtysecrets/annisto...
Blahah 13y ago
Just to be clear: if you don't like this situation, patent law is the target. Monsanto, like many other companies, are operating within the legal framework the USA provides them. Reduce patent terms and you'll diversify control of the food supply. Second, just to pre-empt, please don't confuse Monsanto with GM crops. Monsanto are a real pain in my ass as a plant scientist because they're nucleating an all-out war on rationality. The original Monsanto, a chemical manufacturer, were hated because of their US government contracts for Agent Orange, and their massive environmental abuses in the 1950s. In the 90s they developed some nice genetic technology. In 2000 that company was bought out by Pharmacia. Then, in possibly the biggest PR fuckup ever, a newly formed company taking only the agricultural IP from the old Monsanto decided to keep the name. The name carries so many associations with the evil things they did in the 50s-70s that it has utterly polluted the public discourse on GM crops. It's also very tiresome to have Percy Schmeiser trotted out over and over again. What's not mentioned here is that it came out in the trial that Schmeiser had very deliberately infringed the patent by using Roundup to select the Roundup-Ready plants, saving their seed and planting them separately. Schmeiser made a very good job of rousing the media in his support, but he definitively broke the law.
- gress 13y ago
  They aren't 'just operating within the law'. They are actively lobbying to strengthen it, and to create legal precedents.
  - Blahah 13y ago
    Yup, and that's completely part of the legal framework of the USA. They take advantage just like every other IP-owning company, including basically every tech company in Silicon Valley.
    - biehl 13y ago
      But it is morally completely different. If you only "work with the hand you are dealt", you can claim some innocence if that means you do something slightly bad. If you actively work to expand a harmful framework you deserve rough treatment the other way. Sort of like copyright holders that have actively lobbied to lengthen (retroactively) terms. They have no moral standing against being stripped (retroactively) of their copyrights.
shasts 13y ago
I think the name 'Monsanto' doesn't matter too much. It can be any evil corporation using all their muscles to lobby, and make legal frameworks in favor of them. For those who are not sure why Monsanto is evil, read this article. http://newsjunkiepost.com/2009/08/05/monsanto-dow-making-headlines-for-their-atrocities/ http://newsjunkiepost.com/2009/08/05/monsanto-dow-making-hea...
- dr8899 13y ago
  Tell me why we should read articles from non-scientists instead of articles from actual biotechnology scientists again?
  - pessimizer 13y ago
    Because morals aren't dictated by science?
  - svenkatesh 13y ago
    For the same reason we should listen to Jenny McCarthy about how to prevent autism .. oh wait.
rjzzleep 13y ago
a very important thing that we're overlooking here, where monsanto is kind of a side effect. is that we're losing our seeds. we're losing for example seeds that are have had hundreds of years of adapting to a certain environment. a friend of mine was actually collecting seeds in afghanistan a couple of years back precisely, because of that. besides the yield implications there are also health implications, as we're increasingly growing seeds with a certain taste. this is completely disregarding the possible health implications of gmo crops. imho there's huge potential for startups, but probably als huge attack surfaces on those startups. why? don't forget that uncle bens for example tried to patent basmati rice, and it took the indian government to shut them down. there have also been countless other such cases. and for those saying the whole monsanto thing is overrated? i remember the guy mentioning a couple of years back that he wants to own 100% of the crop market by 20xx(xx being a number that i forgot). that number has been growing rapidly. and again disregarding the health implications of generic seeds distributed throughout the world, we kinda recognize that monopolies in everything are dangerous. what on earth makes us think that this is any different?
- jjoonathan 13y ago
  > we're losing for example seeds that are have had hundreds of years of adapting to a certain environment. If they're really better adapted, why are people choosing to buy Monsanto seeds instead? Also, if this were the case, wouldn't Monsanto be interested in reverse-engineering these adaptations and applying them across species / regions? > there are also health implications Citation needed. And no, Seralini's work doesn't count -- if you would like me to explain why it was BS I can do so at great length. > this is completely disregarding the possible health implications 1. We have never held "natural" crops to standards beyond the basic FDA regs. I put "natural" in quotes because usually "natural" = "inbred over generations because even primitive genetic engineering techniques with known, proven side effects are better than nothing." This is all despite the fact that natural crops are often much further, genetically speaking, from "known goods" than Monsanto's crops, which actually do receive additional testing. > don't forget that uncle bens for example tried to patent basmati rice, and it took the indian government to shut them down Were they trying to patent their modifications to the rice, or regular, unmodified rice? The Indian government (like the Chinese government) has a long history of ignoring patent law when it suits their purposes. It's a self-interest move, not a morality move. > remember the guy mentioning a couple of years back that he wants to own 100% of the crop market by 20xx(xx being a number that i forgot). that number has been growing rapidly. I'll assume by "the guy" you mean "a higher-up at Monsanto" and by "that number" you mean "Monsanto's present market share." In that case, your assertion is patently incorrect: http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/workshops/ag2010/015/AGW-14383-b_f4.jpg http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/workshops/ag2010/015/AGW-1... > and again disregarding the health implications of generic seeds distributed throughout the world By "generic," I'll assume you mean "genetically engineered." Citation still needed. > what on earth makes us think that this is any different? The fact that Monsanto has made a significant improvement to one of the fundamental goods society is built around. They deserve a share of the value they created.
PythonicAlpha 13y ago
One reason is because our democratic freedom is at the verge of being overthrown by a new aristocratic system that springs out of the "free market" system we have today. Such companies already have a tremendous influence on politics and the whole live we have. The financial system is roaming the lands for new "investments". There is not to few money around, it is way to much -- and it is in the hands of the few. The result is, that companies, the finance sector and the big shareholders own us all! We are at the verge of a state, where it will not be possible to live without paying "life-taxes" to specific companies. So the difference of the Having (and I don't mean a million bucks or even a billion bucks -- far more!) and the Not-Having will grow. There might be some kind of new middle-class formed by the millionaires of today -- but the old middle-class will go down. At last, there will be the new aristocrats (as in the middle ages -- max. 0.01% of the people), their handymen (~ 1%) and the rest of the pack, that will be living in rags. I don't know, if this will come to pass, but we are at the verge of it and the neo-capitalism is going exactly that direction! Already some aristocrats are building homes for the millionaires -- secure and apart of the pack! When you say: This is just bullshit: Look into your countries government -- who makes the laws? In the US, in the EU, in .... (where you live). Open your eyes! (if you are able to)
- brucefancher 13y ago
  Thank you for this, because there aren't enough content-free left-wing rants on the Internet already.
msh 13y ago
This reminds me of the windup girl by Paolo Bacigalupi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Windup_Girl http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Windup_Girl).
nashashmi 13y ago
Anybody who modifies crops at the genetic level just so it can withstand the effects of their own plant and pest killer is evil. The correct thing would be to do is create a chemical that kills all unwanted stuff and leaves the wanted stuff unharmed, not modify nature because it does not fit your world order. Plus, GM foods for any purpose are evil. Correct procedure for getting enhanced plants is to use normal breeding processes.
- dictum 13y ago
  > The correct thing would be to do is create a chemical that kills all unwanted stuff and leaves the wanted stuff unharmed I think you stumbled into the biotech equivalent of CSI picture enhancement[0] or unlimited data storage. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vxq9yj2pVWk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vxq9yj2pVWk
- wdewind 13y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
  - nirnira 13y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_can't_fix_stupid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_can't_fix_stupid
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
Eleutheria 13y ago
They own nothing and nobody, once the world stops believing in patents. Only thru force and coercion they have a temporary advantage.
ingenieros 13y ago
In Colombia they have been lobbying hard for the past 20 years or so and they are starting to see the genetically modified fruit of their labor. (pun intended) It all started in the mid 90's with a huge contract to supply: glifosato aka Roundup® to spray large coca fields throughout the country. The outcome of this experiment has been a new super strain of Roundup resistant coca crop known as "Boliviana negra." A toxicologist, Camilo Uribe, who studied the coca, said: "The quality and percentage of hydrochloride from each leaf is much better, between 97 and 98 per cent. A normal plant does not get more than 25 per cent, meaning that more drugs and of a higher purity can be extracted." In addition to this Colombia recently signed a free trade agreement with the U.S that introduced a law known as:"Ley 9.70" This law basically forces farmers to only grow food crops from semilla certificada (patented seeds) and guess which companies are supplying these patented seeds? Monsanto, Dupont and Syngenta. This is causing great financial hardship among campesinos as they can't afford to buy seeds every growing season and this has already resulted in peasant protests late last year which resulted in over 40 civilian casualties. As if farmers didn't have it bad enough being stuck in the middle of an armed conflict they now need to comply with this new law or disappear. If you were genuinely interested in this subject you could do a little independent research of your own and you would see that Colombia is not an isolated incident by any means. Monsanto has been taking advantage of corrupt elected officials all over the developing world to maximize their profits.
scotty79 13y ago
We should have GPLed all DNA before we allowed comapnies to own IP on DNA.
wdr1 13y ago
Why is it becoming so fashionable in the US for both political parties to reject science? The Right rejects evolution & climate change, etc. and the Left rejects GMOs, nuclear power, vaccinations, etc. It's infuriating. I wish the nutballs on both sides would just leave the rest of us alone.
- epmatsw 13y ago
  Gotta have something to scare people with.
- nirnira 13y ago
  It's always been fashionable. The cause is a chronic deficit of genuine moral leadership across all strata of society.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
jrkelly 13y ago
I'm definitely getting here too late, but this is the series to read to get informed on GMOs. "Panic Free GMOs" by Grist Magazine, very balanced take: http://grist.org/series/panic-free-gmos/ http://grist.org/series/panic-free-gmos/
marcoagner 13y ago
The problem here is the power they are given by patent law and other government powers that they can 'lobby' for. This is it. That's not capitalism or free market... That's bullshit.
joesmo 13y ago
It's disgusting that the courts--especially the Supreme Court --in this country constantly choose to side against the interests of the people it claims to serve, against all reason. Over and over again in the last sixty years, from civil rights to patent law to copyright law, decisions have been inexplicably targeted at making life worse in exchange for corporate and political profit. I don't blame corporations like Monsanto as much, since they are expected to act towards their monetary and financial interests. Yet the interpretation of law consistently fails even the most rudimentary test of logic. If I didn't know any better (and I don't), I'd say the court's justices are gaining either financially or otherwise from the parties the rule for.
spikels 13y ago
Funny how when certain words come up seemingly rational people go batshit crazy. Monsanto is one of those words.

126 points by mgunes 13y ago

I think the hate for Monsanto is way, way, way overrated. Honestly I still haven't read a super compelling reason to hate them. All the talk about evil lawsuits against poor farmers who got accidentally contaminated seems to be FUD. The big recent case was a guy deliberately trying to skirt the rules. If farmers would like to use non-Monsanto seeds then they are free to do so. If they'd like to use (arguably) superior seeds that have to be re-purchased every year then they are also free to do so. If people think it's bullshit that Monsanto can prevent their seeds from being re-used then that's not insane, but I'd politely disagree. It's not terribly different from copyright protection on software. The way I see it is we could revoke that protection and then the seeds wouldn't be developed because it wouldn't be profitable and we'd be stuck with the old stuff. Or we could give protection to enable the development of new seeds and then farmers have the choice to use the old stuff or new stuff. And if the new stuff is so much better than the old stuff that using the old stuff isn't financially feasible then I'd be inclined to call that a success. Maybe someone can convince me to grab my pitchfork and join the mob but so far I'm just not seeing it.

skriticos2 13y ago
I think the main issue is that Monsanto is cornering the market [1]. Farmers basically have a hard time to buy normal seeds at reasonable price on the market because mostly GMO seeds are offered. It's a bit like Microsoft or ATT/Verizon. Just switch providers.. good luck with that. [1]: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091214/0856327337.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091214/0856327337.shtml
- jjoonathan 13y ago
  Microsoft uses compatibility and bundling as leverage to maintain their monopoly ATT/Verizon use municipal contracts and large barriers-to-entry to maintain their oligopoly All Monsanto has are patents on their specific crop strains. What prevents a seed producer from going into business other than the benefits of using Monsanto strains? EDIT: ok, after googling around (the techdirt link was broken), it looks like they were bundling http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/monopoly.cfm http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/monopoly.cfm http://www.patentdocs.org/2008/05/monsanto-and-sy.html http://www.patentdocs.org/2008/05/monsanto-and-sy.html
- dr8899 13y ago
  False. There are several competitors like Dupint, Dow Chemical, and Bayer.
- Blahah 13y ago
  This is just nonsense, it is extremely easy for farmers to buy non-GMO seed. Not only are there several other huge seed producers (Bayer, BASF, Dupont, Syngenta, Pioneer, etc.) that sell high-quality non-GMO seed, but there is a huge ecosystem of regional cooperative seed producers that make decent seed. Farmers choose GMOs because they really do get more return on their investment. They aren't idiots and they aren't being forced.
- randomdata 13y ago
  As a grain farmer myself, I don't know this to be true. In fact, the only GMO crop we do grow is field corn because there is no advantage of non-GMO varieties in that crop. Perhaps you could elaborate some more?
rmason 13y ago
One thing that I have observed is there's a certain percent of the population that are worriers. Sometimes they're early in worrying about something that becomes very important to the majority but often times they worry about things that never come to pass. They serve an important purpose as sentinels but on this one the evidence is a mile wide and an inch deep.
danielweber 13y ago
They link to an old opinion piece on schmeiser-v-monsanto but not the up-to-date Wikipedia article.[1] You can tell they are pushing an angle when they pretend that the "contamination" was accidental, and that Schmeiser was hitting his crops with Roundup. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeis...
atrus 13y ago
It IS bullshit that people are just upset at Monsanto for selling seeds that don't reproduce correctly. Most hybrids fail to reproduce into another hybrid, and people have been selling hybrid seeds for years before Monsanto even existed. I don't think it's right that you can make plants your IP however.
- Blahah 13y ago
  It's especially bullshit because Monsanto don't produce seeds that don't reproduce. Terminator technology was developed by the United States government and shut down by Monsanto because they thought protesters would go apeshit. Turns out they were right, to the extent that shutting down the tech didn't stop people going apeshit. It's one of the most pervasive myths about GM crops.
- aestra 13y ago
  Monsanto's seeds reproduce just fine, however if one saves the seeds from their harvest and replants than it is an IP violation. It would be like copying a CD for a friend, very possible but not legal
D9u 13y ago
I see the patenting of life forms as being insidiously evil. In the past we had heirloom seeds which, although proprietary, were not patent protected, so people who shared their superior seed stock didn't run afoul of courts and lawyers. Call me a pitchfork bearing loon but I find patenting life forms to be egregiously reprehensible.
- Blahah 13y ago
  We still have heirloom seeds - anyone who wants to can develop their own varieties and share them as freely as they like. Many thousands of people do this. However, those varieties are just extremely unlikely to be as consistently high-yielding as the latest commercial varieties. Patents serve the same purpose in farming as they do elsewhere: it makes it worthwhile for companies to invest the hundreds of millions of dollars it costs to drive crop yields ever higher. I share your moral outrage at the idea of patenting life, and all my own research as well as all the genetic technology produced by our consortium on the C4 rice project will be made free (as in beer and speech). However, agriculture relies on agricultural companies, and they need some way to make money. If people can just take their technology and grow it again themselves, there is no way for them to recoup their investment and we simply won't have better crops.
  - rjzzleep 13y ago
    > We still have heirloom seeds - anyone who wants to can develop their own varieties and share them as freely as they like. Many thousands of people do this. However, those varieties are just extremely unlikely to be as consistently high-yielding as the latest commercial varieties. just to chime in here. for a majority of indian farmers - partly which triggered the mass suicide by pesticide - they turned out to be not at all as high yielding as was claimed. now you could say, ahhh, but wait a second. they didn't use as much water and pesticide as they were supposed to, and you might be right. but then it depends on your definition of yield. their own crops had a higher yield given the conditions of the soil, and water.
    - hibikir 13y ago
kenster07 13y ago
Well, there are separate issues at play: 1) In a market economy, monopolies should generally be distrusted and prevented whenever possible. 2) There are people who are unsatisfied with the claimed (lack of) health effects of GMO on human consumers. 3) There are people who are unsatisfied with the claimed (lack of) effects that GMO seeds could have on the broader ecosystem.
- zanny 13y ago
  > monopolies should generally be distrusted and prevented whenever possible. You shouldn't just disband monopolies too, you should analyze the environment that let them form in the first place. In a functioning market the only time a monopoly becomes an issue is if they can exploit their position to keep prices above optimal competitive levels, and that means that there are barriers to market entry that need to be considered in policy that prevent price competition against the major player. And usually they are legal in nature, be it patent / copyright, or biased tax law, or blatant exclusive contracts like ISPs.
dominotw 13y ago
>Or we could give protection to enable the development of new seeds and then farmers have the choice to use the old stuff or new stuff. Not after terminator seeds are used. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#Terminator_seeds http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#Terminator_seeds http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-seeds-of-suicide-how-monsanto-destroys-farming/5329947 http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-seeds-of-suicide-how-monsan...
- Blahah 13y ago
  Terminator seeds have never been used except in research. It says that in your own link. Monsanto have also made commitments, including to the courts in the USA and Canada, not to ever use the technology.
- hibikir 13y ago
  Even without terminator seeds, replanting seed that you harvested is not necessarily a good idea. For instance, most commercial corn seeds are hybrids, made by crossing two highly inbred plants. This means that the seeds in the bag have pretty much the same DNA as each other. Those plants produce far better than their inbred parents, and they are quite predictable in most agronomic ways. Now, what happens when you get the next generation? When Hybrids cross with hybrids, the actual genetic makeup of the offspring will produce quite a bit more variation. With that increased variation, come less average yields. So even if a farmer didn't sign anything that would stop him from planting the seeds, chances are that a farmer would have higher profits by just buying a bag of seed anyway. Not so much for Soybeans though, but that really is a place where Monsanto has pretty much a monopoly: Roundup protection increases yields so much that non-GMO soybeans are barely planted, because they are far less profitable for the farmer.
  - randomdata 13y ago
    > because they are far less profitable for the farmer. That really depends on the market you are selling into. It is definitely not a hard truth. For instance, we only grow non-GMO soybeans on my farm because they are quite a bit more profitable and seem to get even more profitable each year. We won't even consider looking at GMO soys until that dynamic starts to change. Farmers in other markets might not be selling to the same customers, and therefore might not be able to see the same margins on non-GMOs. At the end of the day, it all comes down to what the consumers are buying. With the tight margins in farming, you'll be out of business in no time if you aren't growing exactly what the customers want.
lotsofmangos 13y ago
If people think it's bullshit that Monsanto can prevent their seeds from being re-used then that's not insane, but I'd politely disagree. They are seeds. They aren't being reused, they are being used, as seeds. Genetic information in the wild cannot be subject to strict intellectual property regulation, when there are things like horizontal gene transfer.
camus2 13y ago
> I think the hate for Monsanto is way, way, way overrated. monsanto == agent orange
- pdkl95 13y ago
  The Monsanto that made Agent Orange hasn't really existed for several decades now, and blaming the current company for the problems associated with Agent Orange about as useful as blaming today's IBM for selling tabulation machines to the Nazis. The current problem with Monsanto isn't their products; it seems they learned some pathological business practices back in the 70s from a newly formed consulting service[1] known as Bane. They changed a lot of their business strategy under their oversight, guided by the consultant's representative: Mitt Romney. [1] http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/09/romney-monsanto-bain http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/09/romney-monsa...
nomailing 13y ago
Do you think it is that easy for a simple farmer to check if their seed is contaminated? I think the article makes a good point, that it is the responsibility of Monsanto to make sure that their seeds do not spread. But I am no expert. But compare it to a corporation that has a patent on some computer code which would distribute itself as a worm and every victim with an infected PC has to pay to the corporation. Only because you have it on your PC does not make you a copyright pirate. There must be clear evidence that you downloaded patented software willingly. So it is Monsanto who has to make sure that the farmers have the tools to prevent Monsanto seeds from growing. If these tools are not freely available I would say farmers should not be liable this.
- hibikir 13y ago
  This is the reason why, if we are to keep allowing patents on genes, we have to be extremely careful on what we allow, and what we don't. For instance, let's take Soybeans. There have been lawsuits out there claiming that someone's Soybean field had been 100% contaminated by Monsanto seeds, so that the fact that all the plants survived Roundup plantings was completely accidental. Given how difficult it is to even cross soybeans on purpose, having an entire field of plants with perfect flowers that get contaminated through pollination is just silly. On something like corn, however, you just can't avoid cross contamination. So if a field has corn that has genes that came straight from a GMO, it's not as if one can prove wrongdoing: It's impossible to prevent that kind of contamination. Ultimately though, we just have to figure out if we believe that patenting GMOs is something that is good for society or not. If I make a computer program and sell it, it's not really all that difficult for me to make money out of it, if people actually want it. If I tried to sell carefully engineered soybean seeds, I would not make much money, because from a few soybeans you can make millions. In two seasons, anyone that bought the seed could just compete with me without any for the R&D cost. So if a world without some kind of protection, major seed research just have to be left to public projects that don't expect any profit. You can't even protect your seed by being the only user, because very often, the seed itself is the output. Good luck selling soybeans without giving away the DNA to make more. And it's not like we could instead change the protections to be all about the insertion of new DNA into a plant: The entire corn catalogue of Roundup ready seeds is probably comes from less than two dozen actual insertions of foreign DNA into regular plants. The tough work is to figure out which ones are actually effective, and to cross them with high yielding regular plants. So I could just take the gene that Monsanto put on a seed and add it to my own strain by using conventional breeding techniques in about 5 years, tops. So yeah, our options are to just stop all research, move it all to non-profits, or allow some kind of patents on seeds. You could make a case for either of the three, but we have to understand that they all have their shortcomings.
seldon 13y ago
Monstanto's own take on Schmeiser: http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/percy-schmeiser.aspx http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/percy-schmeiser.aspx From the 2001 Court Decision[0]: "[146] I find on a balance of probabilities that the growing by the defendants in 1998 of canola on nine fields, from seed saved in 1997 which was known or ought to have been known by them to be Roundup tolerant, and the harvesting and sale of that canola crop, infringed upon the plaintiffs' exclusive rights under Canadian patent number 1, 313, 830 in particular claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 22, 23, 27, 28 and 45 of the patent" [0] http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/38991/index.do http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/38991/...
netcan 13y ago
I'm somewhere in between. I think there are problems with patents and I'm not sure they can be with us for another 100 years. I also don't think the assessment that there the current scenario which allows big rewards for R&D is a net win is crazy. But overall there is a wider direction of change whether directed or emergent. Our agricultural system producing our food is becoming problematic in many ways. Food is flora and fauna. These things exist in an ecosystem. These controlled super strains can become very dominant and genetically poor. Many major crops are losing genetic diversity. GMO cereals are just a part of it. It's been going on for a long time. Genetic modification is something we started doing hundreds of years before we named it. Modern genetic tech distills it. I'm not sure the long term ramifications of all this can be captured in supply and demand. There is a bigger picture that is probably not going to be clear until it is in retrospect.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
acd 13y ago
I think the criticism of Monsanto is fair. "Agent Orange was manufactured for the U.S. Department of Defense primarily by Monsanto Corporation and Dow Chemical." "According to Vietnamese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 4.8 million Vietnamese people were exposed to Agent Orange, resulting in 400,000 people being killed or maimed, and 500,000 children born with birth defects" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange Possible connection between Monsanto Roundup and Bee Colony Colapse disorder http://www.motherearthnews.com/homesteading-and-livestock/roundup-bees-zm0z10zarc.aspx#axzz2wA9X9KVp http://www.motherearthnews.com/homesteading-and-livestock/ro...
- rmason 13y ago
  The U.S. defense department took a chemical (aka Agent Orange) that had been used safely for clearing brush from ditches for decades and started spraying it from helicopters without any research being done on its safety. Sure Dow and Monsanto took the money. But they learned their lesson and when the DEA started spraying Paraquat onto cocaine plants in South America Dow sued them to stop. I believe they even threatened to take Paraquat off the market if they lost their lawsuit.
lakax 13y ago
http://www.chemicalindustryarchives.org/dirtysecrets/annistonindepth/toxicity.asp http://www.chemicalindustryarchives.org/dirtysecrets/annisto...

Blahah 13y ago

Just to be clear: if you don't like this situation, patent law is the target. Monsanto, like many other companies, are operating within the legal framework the USA provides them. Reduce patent terms and you'll diversify control of the food supply. Second, just to pre-empt, please don't confuse Monsanto with GM crops. Monsanto are a real pain in my ass as a plant scientist because they're nucleating an all-out war on rationality. The original Monsanto, a chemical manufacturer, were hated because of their US government contracts for Agent Orange, and their massive environmental abuses in the 1950s. In the 90s they developed some nice genetic technology. In 2000 that company was bought out by Pharmacia. Then, in possibly the biggest PR fuckup ever, a newly formed company taking only the agricultural IP from the old Monsanto decided to keep the name. The name carries so many associations with the evil things they did in the 50s-70s that it has utterly polluted the public discourse on GM crops. It's also very tiresome to have Percy Schmeiser trotted out over and over again. What's not mentioned here is that it came out in the trial that Schmeiser had very deliberately infringed the patent by using Roundup to select the Roundup-Ready plants, saving their seed and planting them separately. Schmeiser made a very good job of rousing the media in his support, but he definitively broke the law.

gress 13y ago
They aren't 'just operating within the law'. They are actively lobbying to strengthen it, and to create legal precedents.
- Blahah 13y ago
  Yup, and that's completely part of the legal framework of the USA. They take advantage just like every other IP-owning company, including basically every tech company in Silicon Valley.
  - biehl 13y ago
    But it is morally completely different. If you only "work with the hand you are dealt", you can claim some innocence if that means you do something slightly bad. If you actively work to expand a harmful framework you deserve rough treatment the other way. Sort of like copyright holders that have actively lobbied to lengthen (retroactively) terms. They have no moral standing against being stripped (retroactively) of their copyrights.

shasts 13y ago

I think the name 'Monsanto' doesn't matter too much. It can be any evil corporation using all their muscles to lobby, and make legal frameworks in favor of them. For those who are not sure why Monsanto is evil, read this article. http://newsjunkiepost.com/2009/08/05/monsanto-dow-making-headlines-for-their-atrocities/ http://newsjunkiepost.com/2009/08/05/monsanto-dow-making-hea...

dr8899 13y ago
Tell me why we should read articles from non-scientists instead of articles from actual biotechnology scientists again?
- pessimizer 13y ago
  Because morals aren't dictated by science?
- svenkatesh 13y ago
  For the same reason we should listen to Jenny McCarthy about how to prevent autism .. oh wait.

rjzzleep 13y ago

a very important thing that we're overlooking here, where monsanto is kind of a side effect. is that we're losing our seeds. we're losing for example seeds that are have had hundreds of years of adapting to a certain environment. a friend of mine was actually collecting seeds in afghanistan a couple of years back precisely, because of that. besides the yield implications there are also health implications, as we're increasingly growing seeds with a certain taste. this is completely disregarding the possible health implications of gmo crops. imho there's huge potential for startups, but probably als huge attack surfaces on those startups. why? don't forget that uncle bens for example tried to patent basmati rice, and it took the indian government to shut them down. there have also been countless other such cases. and for those saying the whole monsanto thing is overrated? i remember the guy mentioning a couple of years back that he wants to own 100% of the crop market by 20xx(xx being a number that i forgot). that number has been growing rapidly. and again disregarding the health implications of generic seeds distributed throughout the world, we kinda recognize that monopolies in everything are dangerous. what on earth makes us think that this is any different?

jjoonathan 13y ago
> we're losing for example seeds that are have had hundreds of years of adapting to a certain environment. If they're really better adapted, why are people choosing to buy Monsanto seeds instead? Also, if this were the case, wouldn't Monsanto be interested in reverse-engineering these adaptations and applying them across species / regions? > there are also health implications Citation needed. And no, Seralini's work doesn't count -- if you would like me to explain why it was BS I can do so at great length. > this is completely disregarding the possible health implications 1. We have never held "natural" crops to standards beyond the basic FDA regs. I put "natural" in quotes because usually "natural" = "inbred over generations because even primitive genetic engineering techniques with known, proven side effects are better than nothing." This is all despite the fact that natural crops are often much further, genetically speaking, from "known goods" than Monsanto's crops, which actually do receive additional testing. > don't forget that uncle bens for example tried to patent basmati rice, and it took the indian government to shut them down Were they trying to patent their modifications to the rice, or regular, unmodified rice? The Indian government (like the Chinese government) has a long history of ignoring patent law when it suits their purposes. It's a self-interest move, not a morality move. > remember the guy mentioning a couple of years back that he wants to own 100% of the crop market by 20xx(xx being a number that i forgot). that number has been growing rapidly. I'll assume by "the guy" you mean "a higher-up at Monsanto" and by "that number" you mean "Monsanto's present market share." In that case, your assertion is patently incorrect: http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/workshops/ag2010/015/AGW-14383-b_f4.jpg http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/workshops/ag2010/015/AGW-1... > and again disregarding the health implications of generic seeds distributed throughout the world By "generic," I'll assume you mean "genetically engineered." Citation still needed. > what on earth makes us think that this is any different? The fact that Monsanto has made a significant improvement to one of the fundamental goods society is built around. They deserve a share of the value they created.

PythonicAlpha 13y ago

One reason is because our democratic freedom is at the verge of being overthrown by a new aristocratic system that springs out of the "free market" system we have today. Such companies already have a tremendous influence on politics and the whole live we have. The financial system is roaming the lands for new "investments". There is not to few money around, it is way to much -- and it is in the hands of the few. The result is, that companies, the finance sector and the big shareholders own us all! We are at the verge of a state, where it will not be possible to live without paying "life-taxes" to specific companies. So the difference of the Having (and I don't mean a million bucks or even a billion bucks -- far more!) and the Not-Having will grow. There might be some kind of new middle-class formed by the millionaires of today -- but the old middle-class will go down. At last, there will be the new aristocrats (as in the middle ages -- max. 0.01% of the people), their handymen (~ 1%) and the rest of the pack, that will be living in rags. I don't know, if this will come to pass, but we are at the verge of it and the neo-capitalism is going exactly that direction! Already some aristocrats are building homes for the millionaires -- secure and apart of the pack! When you say: This is just bullshit: Look into your countries government -- who makes the laws? In the US, in the EU, in .... (where you live). Open your eyes! (if you are able to)

brucefancher 13y ago
Thank you for this, because there aren't enough content-free left-wing rants on the Internet already.

msh 13y ago

This reminds me of the windup girl by Paolo Bacigalupi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Windup_Girl http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Windup_Girl).

nashashmi 13y ago

Anybody who modifies crops at the genetic level just so it can withstand the effects of their own plant and pest killer is evil. The correct thing would be to do is create a chemical that kills all unwanted stuff and leaves the wanted stuff unharmed, not modify nature because it does not fit your world order. Plus, GM foods for any purpose are evil. Correct procedure for getting enhanced plants is to use normal breeding processes.

dictum 13y ago
> The correct thing would be to do is create a chemical that kills all unwanted stuff and leaves the wanted stuff unharmed I think you stumbled into the biotech equivalent of CSI picture enhancement[0] or unlimited data storage. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vxq9yj2pVWk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vxq9yj2pVWk
wdewind 13y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
- nirnira 13y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_can't_fix_stupid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_can't_fix_stupid
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

Eleutheria 13y ago

They own nothing and nobody, once the world stops believing in patents. Only thru force and coercion they have a temporary advantage.

ingenieros 13y ago

In Colombia they have been lobbying hard for the past 20 years or so and they are starting to see the genetically modified fruit of their labor. (pun intended) It all started in the mid 90's with a huge contract to supply: glifosato aka Roundup® to spray large coca fields throughout the country. The outcome of this experiment has been a new super strain of Roundup resistant coca crop known as "Boliviana negra." A toxicologist, Camilo Uribe, who studied the coca, said: "The quality and percentage of hydrochloride from each leaf is much better, between 97 and 98 per cent. A normal plant does not get more than 25 per cent, meaning that more drugs and of a higher purity can be extracted." In addition to this Colombia recently signed a free trade agreement with the U.S that introduced a law known as:"Ley 9.70" This law basically forces farmers to only grow food crops from semilla certificada (patented seeds) and guess which companies are supplying these patented seeds? Monsanto, Dupont and Syngenta. This is causing great financial hardship among campesinos as they can't afford to buy seeds every growing season and this has already resulted in peasant protests late last year which resulted in over 40 civilian casualties. As if farmers didn't have it bad enough being stuck in the middle of an armed conflict they now need to comply with this new law or disappear. If you were genuinely interested in this subject you could do a little independent research of your own and you would see that Colombia is not an isolated incident by any means. Monsanto has been taking advantage of corrupt elected officials all over the developing world to maximize their profits.

scotty79 13y ago

We should have GPLed all DNA before we allowed comapnies to own IP on DNA.

wdr1 13y ago

Why is it becoming so fashionable in the US for both political parties to reject science? The Right rejects evolution & climate change, etc. and the Left rejects GMOs, nuclear power, vaccinations, etc. It's infuriating. I wish the nutballs on both sides would just leave the rest of us alone.

epmatsw 13y ago
Gotta have something to scare people with.
nirnira 13y ago
It's always been fashionable. The cause is a chronic deficit of genuine moral leadership across all strata of society.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

jrkelly 13y ago

I'm definitely getting here too late, but this is the series to read to get informed on GMOs. "Panic Free GMOs" by Grist Magazine, very balanced take: http://grist.org/series/panic-free-gmos/ http://grist.org/series/panic-free-gmos/

marcoagner 13y ago

The problem here is the power they are given by patent law and other government powers that they can 'lobby' for. This is it. That's not capitalism or free market... That's bullshit.

joesmo 13y ago

It's disgusting that the courts--especially the Supreme Court --in this country constantly choose to side against the interests of the people it claims to serve, against all reason. Over and over again in the last sixty years, from civil rights to patent law to copyright law, decisions have been inexplicably targeted at making life worse in exchange for corporate and political profit. I don't blame corporations like Monsanto as much, since they are expected to act towards their monetary and financial interests. Yet the interpretation of law consistently fails even the most rudimentary test of logic. If I didn't know any better (and I don't), I'd say the court's justices are gaining either financially or otherwise from the parties the rule for.

spikels 13y ago

Funny how when certain words come up seemingly rational people go batshit crazy. Monsanto is one of those words.