4 ms·

While this is a hot button topic, I've seen some pretty horrible things Monsanto has done to farmers. Accepting GMO crops would mean accepting Monsanto who has

While this is a hot button topic, I've seen some pretty horrible things Monsanto has done to farmers. Accepting GMO crops would mean accepting Monsanto who has a monopoly on the industry and are well know for using sketchy tactics when dealing with farmers resistant to using their seeds.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> Accepting GMO crops would mean accepting Monsanto No, actually, accepting GMO crops could quite well go along with targeting specific unliked business practices engaged in by Monsanto. > who has a monopoly on the industry No, they don't. They are the biggest player, but there a numerous others, several not much smaller. (There's some concerns that the relations within the industry are cartel-like, and I wouldn't be surprised to see the industry get some anti-trust scrutiny, but "Monsanto has a monopoly" -- on the GMO crop industry, rather than the market for particular poorly-substitutable kinds of crops -- is not at all the case.)
- at-fates-hands 11y ago
  >>No, actually, accepting GMO crops could quite well go along with targeting specific unliked business practices engaged in by Monsanto. Can you explain this? It would seem as the biggest player, they have a huge advantage over other smaller companies. So much so, I couldn't name two other companies who currently compete with them.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    >> No, actually, accepting GMO crops could quite well go along with targeting specific unliked business practices engaged in by Monsanto. > Can you explain this? The less noise there is about GMOs qua GMOs, the more possible it is to focus attention on Monsanto's (or other GM crop firms') -- or, for that matter, non-GM crop firms -- particular business practices of concern, rather than the kind of technology that goes into creating their product. > It would seem as the biggest player, they have a huge advantage over other smaller companies. So much so, I couldn't name two other companies who currently compete with them. Monsanto, I think, gets disproportionate attention for two reasons: (1) it absolute dominates a GM crops in two key markets in the US (virtually all the US GM corn and soy is Monsanto), and its also, of the big GM seed companies, the one that is best known as a big GM seed company, and not as a chemical (etc.) company (though, of course, Monsanto is also a chemical company, so this is completely about perception) -- most people may not think of "GM crops" when they think about DuPont, Dow, BASF, or Bayer, but they're all significant players in the GM industry.
sampo 11y ago
"I've seen some pretty horrible things Monsanto has done to farmers." [citation needed]
- at-fates-hands 11y ago
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUd9rRSLY4A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUd9rRSLY4A

dragonwriter 11y ago

> Accepting GMO crops would mean accepting Monsanto No, actually, accepting GMO crops could quite well go along with targeting specific unliked business practices engaged in by Monsanto. > who has a monopoly on the industry No, they don't. They are the biggest player, but there a numerous others, several not much smaller. (There's some concerns that the relations within the industry are cartel-like, and I wouldn't be surprised to see the industry get some anti-trust scrutiny, but "Monsanto has a monopoly" -- on the GMO crop industry, rather than the market for particular poorly-substitutable kinds of crops -- is not at all the case.)

at-fates-hands 11y ago
>>No, actually, accepting GMO crops could quite well go along with targeting specific unliked business practices engaged in by Monsanto. Can you explain this? It would seem as the biggest player, they have a huge advantage over other smaller companies. So much so, I couldn't name two other companies who currently compete with them.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  >> No, actually, accepting GMO crops could quite well go along with targeting specific unliked business practices engaged in by Monsanto. > Can you explain this? The less noise there is about GMOs qua GMOs, the more possible it is to focus attention on Monsanto's (or other GM crop firms') -- or, for that matter, non-GM crop firms -- particular business practices of concern, rather than the kind of technology that goes into creating their product. > It would seem as the biggest player, they have a huge advantage over other smaller companies. So much so, I couldn't name two other companies who currently compete with them. Monsanto, I think, gets disproportionate attention for two reasons: (1) it absolute dominates a GM crops in two key markets in the US (virtually all the US GM corn and soy is Monsanto), and its also, of the big GM seed companies, the one that is best known as a big GM seed company, and not as a chemical (etc.) company (though, of course, Monsanto is also a chemical company, so this is completely about perception) -- most people may not think of "GM crops" when they think about DuPont, Dow, BASF, or Bayer, but they're all significant players in the GM industry.

sampo 11y ago

"I've seen some pretty horrible things Monsanto has done to farmers." [citation needed]

at-fates-hands 11y ago
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUd9rRSLY4A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUd9rRSLY4A