4 ms·

I don't think the issue with Monsanto is how they're paid, I think it's what modifications they make. If a company makes golden rice, insect resistant crops, or

• sampo 11y ago
  > Without grasses or other groundcover, erosion is certain. Spraying herbicides is actually the less disruptive method for fighting weeds. The other option is tilling the soil, which leads to much higher erosion.
  • lbenes 11y ago
    The USDA's scientist Robert Kremer's research does not back Monsato's claims about reducing erosion.[1] What is clear from the research is that roundup: * causes damage to beneficial microbes in the soil increasing the likelihood of infection of a crop by soil pathogens * interference with nutrient uptake by the plant * reduced efficiency of symbiotic nitrogen fixation * overall lower-than-expected plant productivity [2] Not to mention that superweeds have already caused thousands of acres of US farmland to be abandoned. [3] Instead of using GMO for good like golden rice, Monsanto uses it to turn farmers in toxic chemical addicts at the both the expense of our heath and that of our nation's farmland. [1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/04/13/us-usa-gmos-regulators-idUSTRE63C2AJ20100413 http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/04/13/us-usa-gmos-regula... [2] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/11610301?oldURL=y http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/11610301?oldURL... [3] http://grist.org/article/the-chemical-treadmill-breaks-down-and-the-superweeds-did-it/ http://grist.org/article/the-chemical-treadmill-breaks-down-...
    • tptacek 11y ago
      Contrary to popular opinion, farmers in 2015 are not particularly dumb; over the last 30-40 years, agriculture has been transformed into an analytical and technology-centered enterprise. If glyphosate isn't as productive for farmers as Monsanto claims, why is it so overwhelmingly widely used in modern agriculture?
• jqm 11y ago
  RE #2. _Possibly_ loss of milkweed is killing the Monarch, not necessarily Roundup. (Better weed control means less weeds). Weed sprays have been in use for decades. Roundup happens to be one of the safer ones. Claiming that Roundup is killing the Monarch is just.... silly. Farmers need to control weeds. That's the bottom line. If people are (rightly) concerned about the Monarch they should do the obvious... cultivate some dedicated patches of milkweed rather than expecting farmers to have weeds in their fields. Put your money where your mouth is. Get a campaign together and pay farmers to grow a few acres of milkweed.
  • lbenes 11y ago
    Sure you can claim there's no "smoking gun" between Roundup use and the loss of the Monarch just like the FDA refused to acknowledge the link between antibiotics in livestock and superbugs in humans in the 1970s. [1] Or you can look at it as a clear sign from nature that we're causing serious harm to our ecosystem. As a kid, I grew up with Monarch as part of my summer experience. So much so, that we only mow the back meadow in the fall to allow the milkweed to grow. Yet, last year I didn't see a single Monarch. And may be the last generation in my family to see them. Humans are amazing at adapting to short term changes and terrible at planning for the long term survival of our ourselves and those we share the planet with. [1] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/health-science-technology/trouble-with-antibiotics/transcript-69/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/health-science-techn...
• tptacek 11y ago
  Glyphosate (Roundup) is not known to be carcinogenic to humans. IARC has controversially classified it as a 2A "probable" carcinogen, but the best epidemiological studies of humans with extreme exposure to glyphosate have shown no link. Glyphosate has very low toxicity in mammals. It targets a metabolic pathway (shikimic acid) that does not exist in animals. It is among the most widely used herbicides in the world, and its deployment does not correlate well with cancer occurrence.