Bayer to retire Monsanto name(reuters.com)
reuters.com
Bayer to retire Monsanto name
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-monsanto-m-a-bayer-closing/bayer-to-close-monsanto-takeover-to-retire-targets-name-idUSKCN1J00IZ?il=0
223 comments
Bayer is not exactly a paragon of ethics either. They are a primary manufacturer of Neonicotinoid insecticides and lobbied the EU strongly against a ban, even in the face of scientific consensus that they were causing serious harm to bee populations.
[deleted]
Maybe it's interesting that there's a town in Portugal named "Monsanto." Its name comes from the Latin "Mons Sanctus," which means "Holy Mountain."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_(Idanha-a-Nova)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_(Idanha-a-Nova)
We've also got the Monsanto Forest Park in Lisbon. It was the result of a big foresting effort in 1929 that replaced the agricultural land that was in its place.
It's a very interesting place but the english Wikipedia page doesn't have much on it. Maybe I'll work on that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Forest_Park
It's a very interesting place but the english Wikipedia page doesn't have much on it. Maybe I'll work on that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Forest_Park
"Oh Monsanto, oh Monsanto. Wherefore art thou Monsanto?"
Yeah, Bayer's gonna see their reputation fade a bit, especially after their past classic hits, including but not limited to Heroin; Slave Labor, Human Experimentation, and Investments in Human Poison During the Holocaust and The World War: Pt II; as well as Intentionally Spreading HIV in Asia: Nobody's Gonna Give a Shit.
When it comes to existing companies that've had intentionally tremendously horrible effects on humanity, it's hard to think of any worse than Bayer.
When it comes to existing companies that've had intentionally tremendously horrible effects on humanity, it's hard to think of any worse than Bayer.
> Intentionally Spreading HIV in Asia: Nobody's Gonna Give a Shit
Whoa, what? First I've heard of this. A sort of Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment writ large in Asia?
Whoa, what? First I've heard of this. A sort of Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment writ large in Asia?
I believe this is this:
"(Bayer's) Cutter (Laboratories) misrepresented the results of its own research and sold the contaminated AHF to overseas markets in Asia and Latin America without the precaution of heat treating the product recommended for eliminating the risk. As a consequence, hemophiliacs who infused the HIV-contaminated Factor VIII and IX tested positive for HIV and developed AIDS."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24785997
"(Bayer's) Cutter (Laboratories) misrepresented the results of its own research and sold the contaminated AHF to overseas markets in Asia and Latin America without the precaution of heat treating the product recommended for eliminating the risk. As a consequence, hemophiliacs who infused the HIV-contaminated Factor VIII and IX tested positive for HIV and developed AIDS."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24785997
Being asked to pay 36 euros to see the actual article is somewhat disturbing and worrisome.
Sci-hub to the rescue: https://sci-hub.tw/10.1080/08989621.2014.882780
After it was revealed that their products were infected and had to be recalled, they realized they could make some cash by just selling it in countries without easy access to western media reports at the time. And Bayer being Bayer, they did it. [1]
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/may/23/aids.suzannego...
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/may/23/aids.suzannego...
To be clear, doing something while disregarding a high chance of a side-effect is not the same as intentionally doing something. The reality is bad enough, no need to misrepresent it.
If you deliberately loaded a single round into a revolver, spun the cylinder and then put the gun against your neighbors head and pulled the trigger, would that not be murder in the 1-in-6 chance that your neighbors brains were blown out? Wouldn't you be a murderer for even playing that 'game', despite the stochastic nature of it?
> Wouldn't you be a murderer for even playing that 'game', despite the stochastic nature of it?
Maybe, depending on the definition of murder we go by. At a minimum, it's manslaughter. The point is, that describes a factual state, not intent (again, depending on whether you are using murderer to describe intent).
Whether someone kills someone, or someone purposefully kills someone are differentiated by intent. The original assertion was "Intentionally Spreading HIV in Asia". Their intent was to make money, that was a horrible, and avoidable byproduct of that intent. There's no need to make this sound worse than it is, because it's already horrible. I'm not defending Bayar, I'm calling out an inaccurate statement.
Maybe, depending on the definition of murder we go by. At a minimum, it's manslaughter. The point is, that describes a factual state, not intent (again, depending on whether you are using murderer to describe intent).
Whether someone kills someone, or someone purposefully kills someone are differentiated by intent. The original assertion was "Intentionally Spreading HIV in Asia". Their intent was to make money, that was a horrible, and avoidable byproduct of that intent. There's no need to make this sound worse than it is, because it's already horrible. I'm not defending Bayar, I'm calling out an inaccurate statement.
Selling the blood was pulling the trigger, both done with intent. Whether that action would result in a death was unknown to them in the strict sense, but they knew there was significant risk. Frankly my example is probably being generous to Bayer since I'd wager the combined probability in the case of Bayer was greater than 1/6.
Whether you want to split hairs over manslaughter or murder doesn't interest me. Anybody who 'plays' Russian roulette with their neighbor is a depraved psychopath who belongs behind bars at the very least. If you played Russian roulette with your neighbor because I offered you $20 to do it, having a monetary motivation wouldn't make you any less a murderer.
Whether you want to split hairs over manslaughter or murder doesn't interest me. Anybody who 'plays' Russian roulette with their neighbor is a depraved psychopath who belongs behind bars at the very least. If you played Russian roulette with your neighbor because I offered you $20 to do it, having a monetary motivation wouldn't make you any less a murderer.
> but they knew there was significant risk. Frankly my example is probably being generous to Bayer since I'd wager the combined probability in the case of Bayer was greater than 1/6.
So, what exactly is the percentage of risk that makes it intentional?
Listen, Bayer did a horrible thing, and while it clearly hasn't been proved here that it's intentional, as that word has an actual definition which is not met here, it's definitely criminally negligent to an unbelievable degree.
All I'm saying is there's no need to start using labels that don't apply or trying to change the meaning of words just to make it sound worse. Language is only as useful as it is clear.
There is a real negative effect in using hyperbole to describe the misdeeds of others. The inaccuracy allows them wiggle room to supply carefully worded denials that are true, in reality if not in spirit.
For example, if a defender of Bayer were here, they could say "Bayer did not intentionally spread HIV in Asia" and they would not be lying, even if they are skirting the issue and relying on a technicality. This allows for third parties to be confused, and the issue to be muddied.
The overreaching of the original statement allows for this type of denial, whereas a more specific statement about the facts would not. For example, the statement "Bayer repurposed goods that were not correctly sterilized from HIV that it knew would be too risky to use in first world markets to Asian markets, resulting in thousands of hemophiliacs that used the drugs to become HIV positive. When problems started occurring, Bayer assured health officials that the product was safe."
As a side-effect, in trying to make sure the statement is actually correct and accurate, it may lead the people making it to look closer at the issue, and realize it's not necessarily as cut-and-dry as that (as I just did), while still being plenty bad.
One final note: I, and I'm sure many others, use imprecise and accusatory language such as used in the original comment as a red flag to identify people pushing an agenda (even if that agenda is outrage to drive views). When I just searched this issue, I came across a result that said "Bayer deliberately infected asians and latinos with HIV." That's the kind of wording that's meant to spark outrage (as indeed there should be), but outrage without information (because there can't be much or it would discredit the title), which is never useful. When people use language such as that accidentally, they should be gently corrected (as I attempted to do). When they do it on purpose, they should be ignored or scorned, as they are trying to manipulate you.
So, what exactly is the percentage of risk that makes it intentional?
Listen, Bayer did a horrible thing, and while it clearly hasn't been proved here that it's intentional, as that word has an actual definition which is not met here, it's definitely criminally negligent to an unbelievable degree.
All I'm saying is there's no need to start using labels that don't apply or trying to change the meaning of words just to make it sound worse. Language is only as useful as it is clear.
There is a real negative effect in using hyperbole to describe the misdeeds of others. The inaccuracy allows them wiggle room to supply carefully worded denials that are true, in reality if not in spirit.
For example, if a defender of Bayer were here, they could say "Bayer did not intentionally spread HIV in Asia" and they would not be lying, even if they are skirting the issue and relying on a technicality. This allows for third parties to be confused, and the issue to be muddied.
The overreaching of the original statement allows for this type of denial, whereas a more specific statement about the facts would not. For example, the statement "Bayer repurposed goods that were not correctly sterilized from HIV that it knew would be too risky to use in first world markets to Asian markets, resulting in thousands of hemophiliacs that used the drugs to become HIV positive. When problems started occurring, Bayer assured health officials that the product was safe."
As a side-effect, in trying to make sure the statement is actually correct and accurate, it may lead the people making it to look closer at the issue, and realize it's not necessarily as cut-and-dry as that (as I just did), while still being plenty bad.
One final note: I, and I'm sure many others, use imprecise and accusatory language such as used in the original comment as a red flag to identify people pushing an agenda (even if that agenda is outrage to drive views). When I just searched this issue, I came across a result that said "Bayer deliberately infected asians and latinos with HIV." That's the kind of wording that's meant to spark outrage (as indeed there should be), but outrage without information (because there can't be much or it would discredit the title), which is never useful. When people use language such as that accidentally, they should be gently corrected (as I attempted to do). When they do it on purpose, they should be ignored or scorned, as they are trying to manipulate you.
What? Yes it is, if you know that X -> Y and you do X, you are responsible for Y. It doesn't matter weather Y was the raison du jour or not. A contract killer isn't suddenly off the hook for first degree murder just because their motivator was to make money.
Responsible, yes. That doesn't mean intent. I'm not claiming Bayer isn't responsible, just that there is a difference between being horrible in the pursuit of money, and being horrible because you actually want harm to come to those people. One makes you responsible for death and destruction, the other puts you in the same category as the Nazis, who intentionally tried to eradicate the Jews.
That's misleading to the point of dishonesty.
It wasn't just some bad batch. Factor VIII concentrate required large amounts of human blood plasma to produce, had no real substitute, and was inherently going to be infected once the HIV virus became widespread. It wasn't even certain at the time that the new sterilization procedure was effective against AIDS.
There's some serious questions about how decisions were made under crisis conditions, and particularly about the culture of hiding information from patients in the medical community (even in the west) in order to "prevent panic", "for their own good", etc. but it's hard to fight a culture of lying with more lies.
It wasn't just some bad batch. Factor VIII concentrate required large amounts of human blood plasma to produce, had no real substitute, and was inherently going to be infected once the HIV virus became widespread. It wasn't even certain at the time that the new sterilization procedure was effective against AIDS.
There's some serious questions about how decisions were made under crisis conditions, and particularly about the culture of hiding information from patients in the medical community (even in the west) in order to "prevent panic", "for their own good", etc. but it's hard to fight a culture of lying with more lies.
They knew it was infected. That's the reason they recalled it in financially significant territories.
They continued to sell it for a full year after that point. Accidents happen, but intentionally taking your product out of one market that declares it dangerous and dumping it on another--for a period extending one year--isn't an accident. It's a very intentional, shortsighted move to minimize losses.
They continued to sell it for a full year after that point. Accidents happen, but intentionally taking your product out of one market that declares it dangerous and dumping it on another--for a period extending one year--isn't an accident. It's a very intentional, shortsighted move to minimize losses.
That's actually more common then you think.
http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/banned-europe-...
>shortsighted
Was it, though? I can't find any reference of consequences from these territories.
Was it, though? I can't find any reference of consequences from these territories.
Are you trying to imply that Monsanto is an "enemy"?
No, the quote is saying that the name is irrelevant.
The OP is saying that Bayer will acquire the reputation of Monsanto because the activities of Bayer will be the same as Monsanto.
The OP is saying that Bayer will acquire the reputation of Monsanto because the activities of Bayer will be the same as Monsanto.
Bayer knowingly sold HIV tainted blood products to 3rd world countries. [0]
I'm surprised they have a good reputation with anyone at all.
https://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/22/business/2-paths-of-bayer...
I'm surprised they have a good reputation with anyone at all.
https://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/22/business/2-paths-of-bayer...
My impression is that in the U.S., a lot of people's knowledge about Bayer stops with Bayer Aspirin. For which they used to run sets of very comforting advertisements. I recall particularly some of the older TV advertisements. You're sick? OMG, your child's sick? Bayer, or Bayer "Baby" Aspirin, is going to make it better.
I'm a bit older, and maybe things have changed, since. But the Bayer public image in the U.S. used to be pretty benign.
I'm not sure they can fool anyone, though, trying to "hide" Monsanto under it.
I'm a bit older, and maybe things have changed, since. But the Bayer public image in the U.S. used to be pretty benign.
I'm not sure they can fool anyone, though, trying to "hide" Monsanto under it.
Oh the irony. The company that literally brought heroin to market, gets a bad name from buying a company known for heavy-handed corporate litigation practices.
To be clear I'm not trying to blame Bayer for the opioid epidemic. I just think there's a joke in there
To be clear I'm not trying to blame Bayer for the opioid epidemic. I just think there's a joke in there
A lot of people consider it a villian of sorts.
Whether those perceptions have merit is a matter for another discussion...
Whether those perceptions have merit is a matter for another discussion...
Bullying farmers into buying your custom (patented) seeds, suing others when seeds blow into their farmland for patent infringement, ensuring farmers in South America and remote regions need to rely on your seeds and your pesticides for yields... The list is endless. I don't really see how one could modestly even intimate that those perceptions have no merit, if you have been paying attention to how they conduct business and how they've been patenting natural processes it's a very cut-and-dry matter. Shady is shady no matter what you rebrand yourself.
I worked in the fertilizer business as an agronomist when Roundup Ready seeds were introduced. Farmers weren't bullied, they purchased because doing so made them more money.
I watched many ag companies introduce products with large marketing pushes that provided too little benefit to farmers and they all failed. Farmers tried these products on a small scale, saw there was too little benefit to them and stopped purchasing.
I followed the legal case of Percy Schmeiser and others. They all lost in a battle that went all the way to the US Supreme Court. There is no way that seed blowing over a fence line would lead to a crop that was 95-98% pure Roundup resistant seed, it's physically impossible. The farmers in question were simply cheating and got caught.
I watched many ag companies introduce products with large marketing pushes that provided too little benefit to farmers and they all failed. Farmers tried these products on a small scale, saw there was too little benefit to them and stopped purchasing.
I followed the legal case of Percy Schmeiser and others. They all lost in a battle that went all the way to the US Supreme Court. There is no way that seed blowing over a fence line would lead to a crop that was 95-98% pure Roundup resistant seed, it's physically impossible. The farmers in question were simply cheating and got caught.
> suing others when seeds blow into their farmland for patent infringement
This never happened. Source: https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/to...
This never happened. Source: https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/to...
Half of the shit you just said is a complete myth. Please consider getting your information from places other than "Natural News" and inflammatory documentaries.
Ever heard of East St. Louis?
What's that have to do with Monsanto?
Not OP, was just curious, apparently Monsanto is partly to blame fora Superfund site in Sauget Illinois, which falls under the area described as east St. Louis.
Source http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/four-companies-announ...
Source http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/four-companies-announ...
Humm https://www.alternet.org/environment/monsanto-and-bayers-che...
Zyklon B + Agent orange + Chlorine gas = what can go wrong?
Zyklon B + Agent orange + Chlorine gas = what can go wrong?
I'm not going to defend Monsanto's bad business practices, but I don't think I've ever met someone who accurately articulated real problems with Monsanto as opposed to hysteria and conspiracy theory, so this is probably the best move over all.
Check the Monsanto Wikipedia page for more details, but the short version is that Monsanto patented its genetically engineered seeds and then sued farmers for patent infringement if they were found to be growing crops from that seed without a license.
The problem with this is that seeds tended to blow between fields, so if your neighbor licensed Monsanto seed and then the next year a bunch of that seed manages to take hold in your field, you're liable for a patent infringement.
Additionally, they argued, successfully before the Supreme Court in 2013, that additional generations of seed from the initially licensed seed required new licenses from the patent holder.
As might be expected, this rubs A LOT of people the wrong way.
The problem with this is that seeds tended to blow between fields, so if your neighbor licensed Monsanto seed and then the next year a bunch of that seed manages to take hold in your field, you're liable for a patent infringement.
Additionally, they argued, successfully before the Supreme Court in 2013, that additional generations of seed from the initially licensed seed required new licenses from the patent holder.
As might be expected, this rubs A LOT of people the wrong way.
> The problem with this is that seeds tended to blow between fields, so if your neighbor licensed Monsanto seed and then the next year a bunch of that seed manages to take hold in your field, you're liable for a patent infringement.
Do you know of a court case where this actually happened?
I've seen this defense thrown around in the few cases I've seen, but investigators have usually had evidence that it wasn't accidental contamination, but rather just being used as an opportunistic defense.
> Additionally, they argued, successfully before the Supreme Court in 2013, that additional generations of seed from the initially licensed seed required new licenses from the patent holder.
I found this court case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowman_v._Monsanto_Co.
"sold the seed from which these soybeans were grown to farmers under a limited use license that prohibited the farmer-buyer from using the seeds for more than a single season or from saving any seed produced from the crop for replanting"
I'm not totally sure what's objectionable about this ruling. The original buyers explicitly agreed to the license.
I think there is an argument to be made against intellectual property in general, but this doesn't seem any more egregious than, e.g. music or software copyright, and most people are quite happy with those.
Do you know of a court case where this actually happened?
I've seen this defense thrown around in the few cases I've seen, but investigators have usually had evidence that it wasn't accidental contamination, but rather just being used as an opportunistic defense.
> Additionally, they argued, successfully before the Supreme Court in 2013, that additional generations of seed from the initially licensed seed required new licenses from the patent holder.
I found this court case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowman_v._Monsanto_Co.
"sold the seed from which these soybeans were grown to farmers under a limited use license that prohibited the farmer-buyer from using the seeds for more than a single season or from saving any seed produced from the crop for replanting"
I'm not totally sure what's objectionable about this ruling. The original buyers explicitly agreed to the license.
I think there is an argument to be made against intellectual property in general, but this doesn't seem any more egregious than, e.g. music or software copyright, and most people are quite happy with those.
There is one case that is frequently cited of a Canadian canola farmer but it seems he intentionally harvested and replanted the seed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Schmeiser
>In 1997, Percy Schmeiser found Monsanto's genetically modified “Roundup Ready Canola” plants growing near his farm. He testified that he sprayed his nearby field and found that much of the crop survived, meaning it was also Roundup Ready.[2] He testified that he then harvested that crop, saved it separately from his other harvest, and intentionally planted it in 1998.[2] Monsanto approached him to pay a license fee for using Monsanto's patented technology without a license. Schmeiser refused, claiming that the actual seed was his because it was grown on his land, and so Monsanto sued Schmeiser for patent infringement on August 6, 1998.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeise...
>The courts at all three levels noted that the case of accidental contamination beyond the farmer's control was not under consideration but rather that Mr. Schmeiser's action of having identified, isolated and saved the Roundup-resistant seed placed the case in a different category.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Schmeiser
>In 1997, Percy Schmeiser found Monsanto's genetically modified “Roundup Ready Canola” plants growing near his farm. He testified that he sprayed his nearby field and found that much of the crop survived, meaning it was also Roundup Ready.[2] He testified that he then harvested that crop, saved it separately from his other harvest, and intentionally planted it in 1998.[2] Monsanto approached him to pay a license fee for using Monsanto's patented technology without a license. Schmeiser refused, claiming that the actual seed was his because it was grown on his land, and so Monsanto sued Schmeiser for patent infringement on August 6, 1998.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeise...
>The courts at all three levels noted that the case of accidental contamination beyond the farmer's control was not under consideration but rather that Mr. Schmeiser's action of having identified, isolated and saved the Roundup-resistant seed placed the case in a different category.
I'm not sure that anybody is against the ruling itself, but more that a company would decide to institute that policy in the first place. It was well within Mylan's right[0] to raise the price of EpiPens an egregious amount for no real reason other than to increase profit, just as it's well within Monsanto's right to have you sign an agreement prohibiting you from using new seeds for re-planting, but that doesn't mean people aren't pissed off about those business practices.
Fundamentally yes, some are also angered by the fact that current IP law / court rulings allow those types of agreements to be legal, and there's potentially an argument / opportunity to change the law to prohibit that type of agreement, but primarily it's just a BS move by a company that makes people mad. To your music point, many also consider it a BS move to prohibit saving the music you "buy" on iTunes to more than N devices. It's completely legal, and you definitely agreed to those terms when you bought it, but that doesn't make it any less infuriating.
[0] However they may have gotten in hot water for that being considered anti-competitive via deals they signed with public schools. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/sep/06/epipen-pric...
Fundamentally yes, some are also angered by the fact that current IP law / court rulings allow those types of agreements to be legal, and there's potentially an argument / opportunity to change the law to prohibit that type of agreement, but primarily it's just a BS move by a company that makes people mad. To your music point, many also consider it a BS move to prohibit saving the music you "buy" on iTunes to more than N devices. It's completely legal, and you definitely agreed to those terms when you bought it, but that doesn't make it any less infuriating.
[0] However they may have gotten in hot water for that being considered anti-competitive via deals they signed with public schools. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/sep/06/epipen-pric...
this doesn't seem any more egregious than, e.g. music or software copyright, and most people are quite happy with those.
Many pro-copyright arguments are accompanied by "You don't need it, so if you don't like the [price, terms, DRM] just don't consume it."
This is dealing with actual food, which we most definitely do need, so people will understandably be a bit more motivated.
Many pro-copyright arguments are accompanied by "You don't need it, so if you don't like the [price, terms, DRM] just don't consume it."
This is dealing with actual food, which we most definitely do need, so people will understandably be a bit more motivated.
I take it as sign of failing moderation that the parent comment was moderated down and rendered harder to read by default. It's quite right--music copyright licensing is not foreseeably an issue of life and death. Any music copyright holder depending on that income can try and get another paying job, even a non-musical job to earn money. I'm not a fan of that approach (for reasons outside the scope of this discussion) but it is more practical than waiting for a license check and starving. Planting seeds, harvesting plants for food, and replanting the seeds that naturally grow was a process big agriculture had to spend effort to stymie because the natural way got in the way of profits. That's harmful to us all.
Also, the grandparent article is conflating copyright and patent laws in the language of "intellectual property" and ought not be allowed to go without comment. These laws work very differently, cost different amounts of money to acquire and defend, and conflating them is a sign of ignorance or a sham. These laws have far more separating them than they share (one sentence in the US Constitution). https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Intellect... explains more in-depth.
Also, the grandparent article is conflating copyright and patent laws in the language of "intellectual property" and ought not be allowed to go without comment. These laws work very differently, cost different amounts of money to acquire and defend, and conflating them is a sign of ignorance or a sham. These laws have far more separating them than they share (one sentence in the US Constitution). https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Intellect... explains more in-depth.
> I'm not totally sure what's objectionable about this ruling. The original buyers explicitly agreed to the license.
The mere idea that you can license seeds is highly objectionable and seems very likely to be against the public interest. Even if intellectual property laws apply, the concepts of exhaustion and first sale doctrine should apply.
The mere idea that you can license seeds is highly objectionable and seems very likely to be against the public interest. Even if intellectual property laws apply, the concepts of exhaustion and first sale doctrine should apply.
> Even if intellectual property laws apply, the concepts of exhaustion and first sale doctrine should apply.
I agree that exhaustion and first sale doctrines should apply for Monsanto seeds, but I don't think that either of those doctrines are applicable to the Bowman v. Monsanto case.
Exhaustion or first sale would apply only to the first copy; i.e., if Bowman had purchased a seed from Monsanto and then resold that same seed to someone else.
But neither would apply to the next generation of seeds, just like exhaustion and first sale don't give you the right to sell N>1 copies of a single purchased mp3.
I agree that exhaustion and first sale doctrines should apply for Monsanto seeds, but I don't think that either of those doctrines are applicable to the Bowman v. Monsanto case.
Exhaustion or first sale would apply only to the first copy; i.e., if Bowman had purchased a seed from Monsanto and then resold that same seed to someone else.
But neither would apply to the next generation of seeds, just like exhaustion and first sale don't give you the right to sell N>1 copies of a single purchased mp3.
https://monsanto.com/company/media/statements/gmo-contaminat...
Myth: Monsanto sues farmers when GM seed is accidentally in their fields.
Fact: Monsanto has never sued a farmer when trace amounts of our patented seeds or traits were present in the farmer’s field as an accident or as a result of inadvertent means.
Myth: Monsanto sues farmers when GM seed is accidentally in their fields.
Fact: Monsanto has never sued a farmer when trace amounts of our patented seeds or traits were present in the farmer’s field as an accident or as a result of inadvertent means.
While I appreciate that you've provided a source, I am disinclined to trust Monsanto on matters concerning themselves.
You don't have to trust Monsanto. If people were sued as was alleged, there are public records of these lawsuits. To date, no one has provided a record of one.
Exactly. "But this came from Monsanto" discredits nothing.
Monsanto has provided a list of factual statements. If you don't trust them, you can fact-check them. You either are going to have proof that they are lying, or proof that they are telling the truth.
Refusing to accept what Monsanto says by virtue of them being Monsanto is, again, just another part of the anti-GMO hysteria...
Monsanto has provided a list of factual statements. If you don't trust them, you can fact-check them. You either are going to have proof that they are lying, or proof that they are telling the truth.
Refusing to accept what Monsanto says by virtue of them being Monsanto is, again, just another part of the anti-GMO hysteria...
Do you have another source?
https://www.biofortified.org/2015/12/lawsuits-for-inadverten...
"To conclude this series, I have found no evidence that farmers are sued by Monsanto for inadvertent contamination. The lawsuits that I examined were for cases where farmers knowingly and admittedly used Monsanto seeds without licensing contracts."
"To conclude this series, I have found no evidence that farmers are sued by Monsanto for inadvertent contamination. The lawsuits that I examined were for cases where farmers knowingly and admittedly used Monsanto seeds without licensing contracts."
The claim is that it never happened. Anybody can be a source for that :)
If it’s happened, then there should be some credible source detailing the case in which it happened. No such source exists.
If it’s happened, then there should be some credible source detailing the case in which it happened. No such source exists.
Monsanto has presented you with a list of factual statements. If you believe them to be inaccurate, you have an ocean of public records at your disposal that would make doing so very easy.
Of course, nobody has ever debunked this page, because there's nothing to debunk.
Of course, nobody has ever debunked this page, because there's nothing to debunk.
I think the bigger issue is the "Round-Up Ready" crops and the fact that they produce sterile seeds.
Using Round-Up ready seeds allows the use of Round-Up for weed control on your fields, but this can have negative affects on neighboring farms. For example on Field A, populated with Round-Up ready seeds, Round Up is used to control the weeds. However this same spray can affect neighboring field B, which is not populated by Round-Up Ready seeds, causing weeds and crop die or reduced yields... So basically if your neighbor is using Round-Up, you need to also, and your neighbor...etc. So now everyone is locked into Round-Up ready seeds they have to buy every year.
Using Round-Up ready seeds allows the use of Round-Up for weed control on your fields, but this can have negative affects on neighboring farms. For example on Field A, populated with Round-Up ready seeds, Round Up is used to control the weeds. However this same spray can affect neighboring field B, which is not populated by Round-Up Ready seeds, causing weeds and crop die or reduced yields... So basically if your neighbor is using Round-Up, you need to also, and your neighbor...etc. So now everyone is locked into Round-Up ready seeds they have to buy every year.
> the fact that they produce sterile seeds
An interesting fact, to be sure, since Terminator^TM technology hasn't been used in fields .. ever.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_techno...
Also interesting, Terminator was developed (primarily by the USDA) to address environmental concerns about potentially contaminating wild populations with transgenes. But of course, it's Monsanto (not actually, though) so it's evil!
You may be confused about hybrid seed, which is germplasm developed from particular parental lines to produce a unusually vigorous progeny. This 'hybrid vigor' only lasts one generation, though. Hybrid seed has been the rule since about the 1950s, well before transgenes, but don't let that pollute the narrative about GMO killing seed saving!
It's also interesting to mention overspray with regard to RoundUp; one of the major selling points for Glyphosate is that you don't need to apply much, and it doesn't persist long in the soil, both highly beneficial traits for eliminating overspray issues. That's not to say there aren't any concerns with Glyphosate, but as far as herbicides go, it's pretty tame. As a bonus, Glyphosate has enabled a huge rise in no-till agriculture, which is terrific for preserving fragile soils, reducing fossil fuel use, etc.
An interesting fact, to be sure, since Terminator^TM technology hasn't been used in fields .. ever.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_techno...
Also interesting, Terminator was developed (primarily by the USDA) to address environmental concerns about potentially contaminating wild populations with transgenes. But of course, it's Monsanto (not actually, though) so it's evil!
You may be confused about hybrid seed, which is germplasm developed from particular parental lines to produce a unusually vigorous progeny. This 'hybrid vigor' only lasts one generation, though. Hybrid seed has been the rule since about the 1950s, well before transgenes, but don't let that pollute the narrative about GMO killing seed saving!
It's also interesting to mention overspray with regard to RoundUp; one of the major selling points for Glyphosate is that you don't need to apply much, and it doesn't persist long in the soil, both highly beneficial traits for eliminating overspray issues. That's not to say there aren't any concerns with Glyphosate, but as far as herbicides go, it's pretty tame. As a bonus, Glyphosate has enabled a huge rise in no-till agriculture, which is terrific for preserving fragile soils, reducing fossil fuel use, etc.
Round-up Ready crops are not sterile.
Farmers spraying their neighbours' fields could be a problem I guess. But its a problem that would pre-date GMOs. Farmers have been spraying their crops for hundreds of years? (well at least decades)
Farmers spraying their neighbours' fields could be a problem I guess. But its a problem that would pre-date GMOs. Farmers have been spraying their crops for hundreds of years? (well at least decades)
This has actually been a frequent cause of conflict between farmers for several generations now.
Well looks like you're right, I found a shit source (and believed it based on something I'd heard before...
https://monsanto.com/company/media/statements/terminator-see...
http://web.mit.edu/demoscience/Monsanto/about.html
It seems the drifting argument is a interpretation on Dicamba issues.. Which could go either way: https://www.agweb.com/article/dicamba-lawsuits-mounting--naa...
It seems the drifting argument is a interpretation on Dicamba issues.. Which could go either way: https://www.agweb.com/article/dicamba-lawsuits-mounting--naa...
The problem with this is that seeds tended to blow between fields
And the problem with this is that it's nothing more than a spurious hypothetical that never actually happened. Monsanto sued and won in cases where farmers were deliberately storing and replanting seeds in knowing violation of their agreement with Monsanto.
And the problem with this is that it's nothing more than a spurious hypothetical that never actually happened. Monsanto sued and won in cases where farmers were deliberately storing and replanting seeds in knowing violation of their agreement with Monsanto.
"Check the Monsanto Wikipedia page for more details, but the short version is that Monsanto patented its genetically engineered seeds and then sued farmers for patent infringement if they were found to be growing crops from that seed without a license."
This is precisely the hysteria and conspiracy theory I am referring to.
Short answer: it's fake.
Longer answer: The farmers you reference intentionally stole seed, they never purchased it, and they indended to use and grow it. A farmer does not have a little seed blow in and magically entire field after field after field is perfectly planted. They stole, it is what it is.
This is precisely why they should change their name. Even here in a supposedly intellectual forum, vapid nonsense is passed off as fact.
P.S. had you visited Monsanto's wikipedia page, as you instruct others to, you would have been cured of your conspiracy. Here's your link, btw https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases#As_plaint...
" That said, Monsanto has stated it will not "exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of our patented seed or traits are present in farmer's fields as a result of inadvertent means."[15] The Federal Circuit found that this assurance is binding on Monsanto, so that farmers who do not harvest more than a trace amount of Monsanto's patented crops "lack an essential element of standing" to challenge Monsanto's patents"
"The usual claim involves patent infringement due to intentionally replanting patented seed. Such activity was unanimously found by the United States Supreme Court to constitute patent infringement in Bowman v. Monsanto Co. (2013)"
AKA it's only an issue when a farmer intentionally replants entire fields of seeds and has nothing to do with "blowing seeds" or trace amounts or any accidents or acts of nature.
Oops!
In Canada, a similar incident occurred where a farmer had an incidental amount of Monsanto seed blow in, and then he isolated it from other varieties and reproduced his own copies of Monsanto seeds to fill all of his fields with his copies of their seeds, and again, he stole from them. He intentionally filled his fields with seeds he knew he wasn't supposed to have (or argued wrongly that he could have).
This is precisely the hysteria and conspiracy theory I am referring to.
Short answer: it's fake.
Longer answer: The farmers you reference intentionally stole seed, they never purchased it, and they indended to use and grow it. A farmer does not have a little seed blow in and magically entire field after field after field is perfectly planted. They stole, it is what it is.
This is precisely why they should change their name. Even here in a supposedly intellectual forum, vapid nonsense is passed off as fact.
P.S. had you visited Monsanto's wikipedia page, as you instruct others to, you would have been cured of your conspiracy. Here's your link, btw https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases#As_plaint...
" That said, Monsanto has stated it will not "exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of our patented seed or traits are present in farmer's fields as a result of inadvertent means."[15] The Federal Circuit found that this assurance is binding on Monsanto, so that farmers who do not harvest more than a trace amount of Monsanto's patented crops "lack an essential element of standing" to challenge Monsanto's patents"
"The usual claim involves patent infringement due to intentionally replanting patented seed. Such activity was unanimously found by the United States Supreme Court to constitute patent infringement in Bowman v. Monsanto Co. (2013)"
AKA it's only an issue when a farmer intentionally replants entire fields of seeds and has nothing to do with "blowing seeds" or trace amounts or any accidents or acts of nature.
Oops!
In Canada, a similar incident occurred where a farmer had an incidental amount of Monsanto seed blow in, and then he isolated it from other varieties and reproduced his own copies of Monsanto seeds to fill all of his fields with his copies of their seeds, and again, he stole from them. He intentionally filled his fields with seeds he knew he wasn't supposed to have (or argued wrongly that he could have).
But this is more a problem with the patent system than with the company. Why are they even allowed to patent genes?
Agreed, I like the idea of GMOs because more people get food, less pesticides are used, etc...
What I dont like is that they often get involved with politics trying to patent food/seeds.
If they want to do what apple companies do and brand their seeds, cool. Making food illegal to produce without approval is dangerous.
What I dont like is that they often get involved with politics trying to patent food/seeds.
If they want to do what apple companies do and brand their seeds, cool. Making food illegal to produce without approval is dangerous.
Actually, one of the biggest GMs from Monsanto is their 'Roundup ready' genetics, which makes the plant resistant to a potent herbicide called roundup (which they sell), which is a systemic herbicide containing glyphosate. They spray the whole field with that, and everything but the roundup-ready crops dies, including blow-over on the edges of fields. There are health controversies around this chemical, and it is now very prevalent in our food supply. In 2014, ~82% of soy cultivation is this particular GMO. You can imagine how little genetic diversity that gives us on an important staple crop, too. Soybeans aren't the only roundup ready crop, corn is another big one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_soybean
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_soybean
Overall, this leads to less herbicides being used because Roundup is so effective. Normally a farmer is forced to use many applications of a variety of herbicides (some with proven problems for humans.) In comparison a couple blanketings of Roundup is preferable.
The problem of Roundup resistance and decreasing genetic diversity is a serious concern though.
The problem of Roundup resistance and decreasing genetic diversity is a serious concern though.
Initially, maybe, but i've read glyphosate resistant strains of pigweed quickly took over have been causing big problems. For many farmers, pigweed was the catalyst for them moving to roundup ready crops. Apparently Monsanto is trying to push Dicamba resistant crops now (see above).
Herbicides aren't the only solution for that problem. Some practices such a tilling, for example, churns up a bunch of weed seeds which exacerbates the problem (and others).
Herbicides aren't the only solution for that problem. Some practices such a tilling, for example, churns up a bunch of weed seeds which exacerbates the problem (and others).
Oh yeah. I totally agree that we should be concerned about the long term consequences of herbicide resistance and that Roundup ready crops will contribute to that problem. We should probably have some national standards for sustainable agriculture that are backed by science and enforced by the government. Just like we should have a national strategy for handling antibiotics in order to minimize or slow resistance.
But this is not a problem unique to Monsanto, Roundup nor GMOs. If Monsanto was gone tomorrow, someone would just jump up in their place, different gene, different herbicide, same problem. Most people who work at Monsanto probably think they're doing something good for people. They're selling the most modern solution to an ancient problem and keeping the green revolution rolling. Are they aware about the concerns regarding their product? Probably, but just like most people they're a bit willfully ignorant of the consequences of how they earn their living.
In the end, I don't think the solution is to throw the baby out with the bathwater and get on the fast train to fruit loop town with the no GMO, Monsanto is evil, "organic" only, all natural kool-aid drinkers. Having a standards body in place that makes sure this technology is applied responsibly is the best solution in my mind. Of course ensuring regulatory bodies aren't overtaken by zealots or shills is always a problem but I'm not sure what else to do.
But this is not a problem unique to Monsanto, Roundup nor GMOs. If Monsanto was gone tomorrow, someone would just jump up in their place, different gene, different herbicide, same problem. Most people who work at Monsanto probably think they're doing something good for people. They're selling the most modern solution to an ancient problem and keeping the green revolution rolling. Are they aware about the concerns regarding their product? Probably, but just like most people they're a bit willfully ignorant of the consequences of how they earn their living.
In the end, I don't think the solution is to throw the baby out with the bathwater and get on the fast train to fruit loop town with the no GMO, Monsanto is evil, "organic" only, all natural kool-aid drinkers. Having a standards body in place that makes sure this technology is applied responsibly is the best solution in my mind. Of course ensuring regulatory bodies aren't overtaken by zealots or shills is always a problem but I'm not sure what else to do.
And your imagination regarding genetic diversity would be wrong: Roundup ready genetics have multiple generations, each with a smaller footprint in the genes of the host plant. Also, it's not as if this is being added to a single strain of soybeans or corn: There's quite a bit of genetic variation between different seeds with roundup ready genetics. It has to be, as the corn that has the highest yields in northern Montana is different than in Missouri: you have over a month in differences in relative maturity. Something similar happens in soybeans. If you want little genetic diversity, go look at plenty of non-gmo, completely Monsanto unrelated fruits (They just have a small veggie department).
Now, one has to be quite incompetent at spraying glyphosate to have significant blow over across the edges of fields: it's a very well behaved chemical in that regard. If you wanted to both make Monsanto look bad in this topic, you should forget about glyposate and think Dicamba. I won't bore HN with all the details, but even in Monsanto's new formulation, which supposedly makes the risk of hitting neighboring fields far lower, just picking a day where the weather isn't exactly right for the spray, or poor technique application, will lead to major damage in neighboring fields: The results might have been good in the lab, but they are not great in practice. It's arguably Monsanto's biggest piece of existential risk.
Now, one has to be quite incompetent at spraying glyphosate to have significant blow over across the edges of fields: it's a very well behaved chemical in that regard. If you wanted to both make Monsanto look bad in this topic, you should forget about glyposate and think Dicamba. I won't bore HN with all the details, but even in Monsanto's new formulation, which supposedly makes the risk of hitting neighboring fields far lower, just picking a day where the weather isn't exactly right for the spray, or poor technique application, will lead to major damage in neighboring fields: The results might have been good in the lab, but they are not great in practice. It's arguably Monsanto's biggest piece of existential risk.
One or a few strains per region isn't exactly what I'd call a healthy amount of biodiversity.
I don't know much about the Dicamba topic, but it looks like a nasty herbicide and Monsanto is producing GM seeds that are resistant to that, probably to overcome the natural resistance to glyphosate that pigweed developed. It seems like there is a lot of controversy around it. Care to comment more on that topic? I think there are some interested readers that you won't bore.
I don't know much about the Dicamba topic, but it looks like a nasty herbicide and Monsanto is producing GM seeds that are resistant to that, probably to overcome the natural resistance to glyphosate that pigweed developed. It seems like there is a lot of controversy around it. Care to comment more on that topic? I think there are some interested readers that you won't bore.
[deleted]
Plants have been uniquely patentable since well before transgenic technology. Oddly enough, people weren't complaining about those greedy, evil plant breeders back in the 1930s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Patent_Act_of_1930 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Variety_Protection_Act_o...
Perhaps there's some merit to the idea that spending 10, 15, or 20 years developing a new breed should come with a temporary monopoly on said breed? Maybe it's absurd to think you have a sacred right to use newly developed varieties?
Oh, but our food! Well, anything that's more than 20 or 25 years old is perfectly legal for anyone to grow. That's how patents work. Picturesque notions of old-timey agriculture are unaffected.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Patent_Act_of_1930 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Variety_Protection_Act_o...
Perhaps there's some merit to the idea that spending 10, 15, or 20 years developing a new breed should come with a temporary monopoly on said breed? Maybe it's absurd to think you have a sacred right to use newly developed varieties?
Oh, but our food! Well, anything that's more than 20 or 25 years old is perfectly legal for anyone to grow. That's how patents work. Picturesque notions of old-timey agriculture are unaffected.
No, monopolys are awful.
Either everyone should have a monopoly or no one should.
Seeing how awful monopolies are for the world, no one should.
First to market + branding is a real thing. If a company is smart enough to develop something but cant figure out how to sell it for a profit, they arent that smart.
Either everyone should have a monopoly or no one should.
Seeing how awful monopolies are for the world, no one should.
First to market + branding is a real thing. If a company is smart enough to develop something but cant figure out how to sell it for a profit, they arent that smart.
I'd note that the original patents on Roundup Ready crops have expired, and people have now produced patent- and license-free varieties.
I know the software world has a strongly negative view of patents, because of their abuse within it, and I don't personally have the expertise to know whether GMO-patents make sense, but from the outside this kind of seems like a textbook case of how patents are supposed to work?
Someone makes something new (glyphosate-resistant crops) and is granted a limited monopoly in exchange for making their methods public, and after a short period, their methods go into the public domain. This limited monopoly yields a profit that encourages further research and development.
This doesn't seem like copyrights, which are effectively permanent monopolies, or software patents, which are granted for relatively un-novel "inventions" or behaviors, and then used against people who independently re-invent a similar method or behavior.
I know the software world has a strongly negative view of patents, because of their abuse within it, and I don't personally have the expertise to know whether GMO-patents make sense, but from the outside this kind of seems like a textbook case of how patents are supposed to work?
Someone makes something new (glyphosate-resistant crops) and is granted a limited monopoly in exchange for making their methods public, and after a short period, their methods go into the public domain. This limited monopoly yields a profit that encourages further research and development.
This doesn't seem like copyrights, which are effectively permanent monopolies, or software patents, which are granted for relatively un-novel "inventions" or behaviors, and then used against people who independently re-invent a similar method or behavior.
>I'm not going to defend Monsanto's bad business practices
>I don't think I've ever met someone who accurately articulated real problems with Monsanto as opposed to hysteria and conspiracy theory
I guess "bad business practices" are not real problems.
In fact they illustrate the fundamental ethical issues with technology: how is it going to be used?
>I don't think I've ever met someone who accurately articulated real problems with Monsanto as opposed to hysteria and conspiracy theory
I guess "bad business practices" are not real problems.
In fact they illustrate the fundamental ethical issues with technology: how is it going to be used?
Burying inconvenient studies about neocotinoids?
Why not do your own research and decide?
Why not do your own research and decide?
>but I don't think I've ever met someone who accurately articulated real problems with Monsanto as opposed to hysteria and conspiracy theory, so this is probably the best move over all.
True, I guess part of the reason is people here don't have the domain knowledge. Us programmers are only experts in our narrow fields. I take most comments here on agriculture/politics/patents/etc with a bit of humor. :^)
True, I guess part of the reason is people here don't have the domain knowledge. Us programmers are only experts in our narrow fields. I take most comments here on agriculture/politics/patents/etc with a bit of humor. :^)
Good marketing move, Monsanto has a very bad doppelganger.
If they continue with Monsanto ethic it will not take too long to have that doppelganger attached to Bayer.
If they continue with Monsanto ethic it will not take too long to have that doppelganger attached to Bayer.
Bayer doesn't exactly have a good reputation either [1].
I don't think it is a good PR move at all.
There is some litigation going on against Monsanto and probably a lot more to come. In the news you will read Bayer now instead of Monsanto which is going to hurt the Bayer brand.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer
I don't think it is a good PR move at all.
There is some litigation going on against Monsanto and probably a lot more to come. In the news you will read Bayer now instead of Monsanto which is going to hurt the Bayer brand.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer
Buying slave labour from the Nazis, massive stake in the company that made Zyklon B, invented heroin, knowingly gave people AIDS with an anti-haemophiliac drug when it was banned in US markets. Quite the rap sheet.
The danger as a society we have to day is the people who grew up during those events are all passing away. We soon no longer will have people of any influence who experienced the horrors of a true world war. Names then have little connection to the past and companies "reinventing" themselves are only further opening this knowledge gap.
The danger as a society we have to day is the people who grew up during those events are all passing away.
This seems to say exactly the opposite of what you think it says. By your own admission, you're describing the actions of dead people. What does any of that have to do with the people running the company today?
This seems to say exactly the opposite of what you think it says. By your own admission, you're describing the actions of dead people. What does any of that have to do with the people running the company today?
I think at some point you might absolve the present-day organizations of the sins of their predecessors - organizations, corporations, families, countries are made of people, and the moral responsibility ultimately lies with the individuals who choose to act, to not act, or to allow others to do so.
But it's also the case that an organizations future is based in its past; even if the individual people who chose to act have long since died and there are none alive who know their face or name, if a group of people (an organization, a country, a corporation) has enriched itself through immoral acts in the past, even if it acts morally today, is it right to leave them with the fruits of its crimes? If a people has been impoverished by crimes committed against them in the past, even if no one today is still wronging them, is it right to leave them impoverished today?
But it's also the case that an organizations future is based in its past; even if the individual people who chose to act have long since died and there are none alive who know their face or name, if a group of people (an organization, a country, a corporation) has enriched itself through immoral acts in the past, even if it acts morally today, is it right to leave them with the fruits of its crimes? If a people has been impoverished by crimes committed against them in the past, even if no one today is still wronging them, is it right to leave them impoverished today?
> We soon no longer will have people of any influence who experienced the horrors of a true world war.
Be careful what you wish for.
Be careful what you wish for.
This is true. But, unlike Monsanto, that's not what you think first when you hear Bayer.
That's a fundamental difference.
That's a fundamental difference.
So how is it a good marketing move if Monsanto's brand reputation cancer gets spread to the parent and it's other children?
Read the second part of the message and you will understand that the first part is ironic.
In English, doppelganger generally means "duplicate", or "clone" or "identical twin", with a connotation of being unexpected, unnatural or evil.
Perhaps you mean "reputation"?
Perhaps you mean "reputation"?
> Agriculture is too important to allow ideological differences to bring progress to a standstill,” Bayer Chief Executive Werner Baumann said in the statement.
On the one hand, they want "dialogue with the society", and at the same time they clearly show what their priorities are, and that they're not likely to listen. What they call "ideology" is - depending on the context - deep care for our Earth, for the future of what we eat, how the seeds are controlled and distributed and similar issues. Baumann contrasts progress with ideology, which is a neat PR trick, but distorts complex reality.
On the one hand, they want "dialogue with the society", and at the same time they clearly show what their priorities are, and that they're not likely to listen. What they call "ideology" is - depending on the context - deep care for our Earth, for the future of what we eat, how the seeds are controlled and distributed and similar issues. Baumann contrasts progress with ideology, which is a neat PR trick, but distorts complex reality.
If there's one pattern I've noticed, it's that absolutely nobody who ever calls for "dialogue" actually wants dialogue. Invariably, they imagine telling a bunch of people what to think and an army of heads bobbing.
Monsanto is not an outlier here.
Monsanto is not an outlier here.
Reminds me of the time when Andersen Consulting changed it's name to Accenture:
https://newsroom.accenture.com/subjects/accenture-corporate/...
https://newsroom.accenture.com/subjects/accenture-corporate/...
Or when Blackwater, a private military company, rebranded to "Xe Services" after murdering a dozen-plus Iraqi civillians.
> Or when Blackwater, a private military company, rebranded to "Xe Services" after murdering a dozen-plus Iraqi [civilians].
They've rebranded twice more since then. They were "Academi" and now they're apparently "Constellis Holdings."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academi
They've rebranded twice more since then. They were "Academi" and now they're apparently "Constellis Holdings."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academi
... after being held (somewhat) accountable for murdering a bunch of Iraqi civilians. It's not like they came forward and confessed to wrong doing immediately after. Who knows what they were involved in before that incident.
It took me a minute to understand your implication here. Yes, it took them a while to make that PR move of a name change. I'm sure it was all carefully orchestrated, and was not in itself an admission of guilt or an apology. In fact there was a prior rebranding which kept the Blackwater name but changed the logo to look more like the scope of a gun, which is not exactly the move a company would make to distance themselves from the negative light of being mercenary thugs.
It reminds me of Cambridge Analytica (now Emerdata)... they were much quicker to get rid of their name after becoming well known. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/05/02/cambridge_analytica...
Is Bayer thinking about selling Monsanto?
Is Bayer thinking about selling Monsanto?
Just like Cambridge Analytica "declaring bankruptcy" and reforming under a new name...
Actually, it seems like they changed their name Due to a dispute between Arthur Andersen and Andersen Consulting, and it was an international Court-mandated name change. This all took place before the Enron scandal.
"its name"
I wonder how effective it is since the name change is not kept secret, still, it sounds like a fresh start.
I wonder how effective it is since the name change is not kept secret, still, it sounds like a fresh start.
Not everyone hears about the name change because it doesn't make the same headlines as the original controversy. So people still associate the controversy with the old name, and have maybe never even _heard_ the new name yet.
It's easy to see why: anecdotally, most people I know see Monsanto in a negative light. Bayer would love to be rid of that stigma.
Bayer isnt all that better https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer#World_War_II
It's disingenuous to hold WWII crimes against current German companies.
No one in charge at the time is alive now and pretty much any large German company that was around at the time supported/had to support the Nazi regime and used slave labor from concentration camps.
No one in charge at the time is alive now and pretty much any large German company that was around at the time supported/had to support the Nazi regime and used slave labor from concentration camps.
If you look at that Wikipedia page, there's a long list of pure evil done after the WWII. Like e.g. knowingly selling the untreated HIV contaminated products in 3rd world markets. And many other controversies...
No people in charge is alive, but the company still is. It means at least some of its current assets are of dubious origin.
Company culture is passed down.
You're talking in a forum based in the US, a nation founded on invasion, genocide and slavery.
If you look back far enough, I imagine almost every country has such a legacy.
The capacity for that behavior lies in all peoples.
The capacity for that behavior lies in all peoples.
Yeah but our US government made a bunch of treaties with the people living here before us that we immediately started breaking and have continued to break ever since.
This isn't something that's just an "in the past" thing, it's a current wrong our people are committing against the people we displaced.
This isn't something that's just an "in the past" thing, it's a current wrong our people are committing against the people we displaced.
That’s the point of GP
You don't have to look back too far though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust
IBM seems to be mentioned more than all the US companies that did business with Stalin's Russia.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease
Wow, the list of Bayer controversies is never ending.
It's not as bad as the stigma of IG Farben, but yeah, the brand definitely has some negative connotations.
I am German and "IG Farben" means nothing to me. Monsanto on the other hand is popular to hate and omnipresent on and off the web.
That’s really interesting... I guess they’ve managed to repair their brand domestically? But for me, I’m Australian, and the first thing I think of is (of course) “gas chambers” when I see the name... I would assume many in the US, UK etc. would do the same.
I think it's a pretty odd thing to know. It's a fun fact or a difficult quiz question rather than something that everyone knows.
Monsanto is in the news now. IG Faber has split into many independent companies and doesn't exist anymore.
Monsanto is in the news now. IG Faber has split into many independent companies and doesn't exist anymore.
I'm in my 50s in the UK and never heard of them. I realise this may not reflect well upon me.
Maybe it just depends on what documentaries you’ve watched... Thinking back, I don’t think I ever learned about it in school but later just watching WWII documentaries about it. I guess it’s probably not actually common knowledge.
(IG Farben manufactured the Zyklon B that was used in the gas chambers).
(IG Farben manufactured the Zyklon B that was used in the gas chambers).
I'm German and had the same immediate reaction as you, but as the other comments show, it's hard to tell how widespread that is.
Which brand? Bayer or IG Farben?
I'd guess the association of "IG Farben" with the gas chambers is very strong, but that brand ceased to exist in the 1950s. The name "Bayer" (from my perspective) never has been associated with it that strongly.
I'd guess the association of "IG Farben" with the gas chambers is very strong, but that brand ceased to exist in the 1950s. The name "Bayer" (from my perspective) never has been associated with it that strongly.
IG Farben. Yeah, I don’t have the same reaction to Bayer.
I'm from the UK and don't recognise the name at all. If I was to associate an existing corporation to the Nazis, the first name in my head would be Hugo Boss.
I cannot help but think of IBM punch cards. Especially when untechy people say they have nothing to hide from the surveillance economy.
Also Volkswagen and Fanta.
And I suppose IBM warrants a mention for doing business with Nazis.
And I suppose IBM warrants a mention for doing business with Nazis.
I didn't know about the history of Fanta until just now looking it up on wikipedia. Very weird that such a drink would still be marketed (even with a "75th Anniversary Edition" special formulation). There really is no shame in profiting from just about anything.
Why wouldn't or shouldn't they market it? Coca-Cola Germany improvised a new soft drink during the war and called it Fanta, and later it was adopted by the parent company. It's not like they helped build the gas chambers or anything.
Well a soft drink developed to work around trade restrictions is pretty much unrelated to crimes against humanity. They even discontinued the line it once reunified corporately (now that the restrictions were gone) but demand remained so it was returned to production.
LOL, wow.
The Fanta drink originated as a cola substitute in Germany under a World War II trade embargo for Coca-Cola ingredients in 1940. . . . In February 2015, a 75th-anniversary version of Fanta was released in Germany. Packaged in glass bottles evoking the original design and with an authentic original wartime flavor . . . An associated television ad referenced the history of the drink and said the Coca-Cola company wanted to bring back "the feeling of the Good Old Times".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanta
The Fanta drink originated as a cola substitute in Germany under a World War II trade embargo for Coca-Cola ingredients in 1940. . . . In February 2015, a 75th-anniversary version of Fanta was released in Germany. Packaged in glass bottles evoking the original design and with an authentic original wartime flavor . . . An associated television ad referenced the history of the drink and said the Coca-Cola company wanted to bring back "the feeling of the Good Old Times".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanta
OK so try this exercise - associate IG Farben (and to some extent Bayer) with new name - Zyklon B (gas used in gas chambers).
I understand that in complex business sometimes controversies arise, but by they went straight evil during WWII (ie using Auschwitz prisoners killing many)
I understand that in complex business sometimes controversies arise, but by they went straight evil during WWII (ie using Auschwitz prisoners killing many)
The main building of Goethe University in Frankfurt?
Indeed they repurposed the building at some point and the university began moving parts of its campus there. I was at that time student at Goethe Uni and was kinda stunned when I first saw it. It is a very impressive building.
Interested can see some pictures here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IG_Farben_Building
Interested can see some pictures here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IG_Farben_Building
I hope you did not vote for this Afd Nazi and his bird poop madness. I am frankly shocked that a German politician - elected into the Bundestag, not some crackpot from the NSU - could state something like this: https://apnews.com/35a927e3ae954fa386a9e2406ae4439a
It typically gets covered in school when talking about the Holocaust [0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IG_Farben_Trial
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IG_Farben_Trial
I'm not sure if that's typically covered in school, at least I have never heard of it or anyone in german school mentioning it.
"Typically" when people are referring to their own education and maybe to the of people living close to them ...
> I am German and "IG Farben" means nothing to me.
How did you manage to get through German school without picking up a reference or two to IG Farben?
I'm not German and there were multiple accounts of their contribution to the Holocaust. Google 'Zyklon-B' for more info.
How did you manage to get through German school without picking up a reference or two to IG Farben?
I'm not German and there were multiple accounts of their contribution to the Holocaust. Google 'Zyklon-B' for more info.
> I'm not German and there were multiple accounts of their contribution to the Holocaust. Google 'Zyklon-B' for more info.
Then by that line you may as well put Dow Chemicals and Monsanto in the same bin as they have been producing Agent Orange to bombard Vietnamese civilians with well known effects during the Vietnam war.
Or instead, you could point the fingers to governments who are basically at the origin of such illegitimate actions. Oh, and in War, pretty much everything becomes legal anyway, until you lose and are judged for it. The US will never be judged for the crimes they have committed, just like the Soviets will never be either, because they have never happened to be directly involved on the losing side.
So moral authority is very relative in this world.
Then by that line you may as well put Dow Chemicals and Monsanto in the same bin as they have been producing Agent Orange to bombard Vietnamese civilians with well known effects during the Vietnam war.
Or instead, you could point the fingers to governments who are basically at the origin of such illegitimate actions. Oh, and in War, pretty much everything becomes legal anyway, until you lose and are judged for it. The US will never be judged for the crimes they have committed, just like the Soviets will never be either, because they have never happened to be directly involved on the losing side.
So moral authority is very relative in this world.
> Dow Chemicals and Monsanto in the same bin as they have been producing Agent Orange to bombard Vietnamese civilians with well known effects during the Vietnam war.
I do.
I do.
Please, you can't put wartime use of a defoliant in the same category as Zyklon-B and what it was used for.
OK, so a chemical that causes an horrendous list of conditions, many of them being fatal, and used on purpose on civilians during a conflict, is a bad comparison with Zyklon-B? Where do you draw the line then? How much toxicity is enough to draw the parallel?
https://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/agentorange/condit...
https://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/agentorange/condit...
>used on purpose on civilians during a conflict
It wasn't used on purpose. 2,4-D, the defoliant used, wasn't the carcinogen and wasn't sprayed on people intentionally. The carcinogen in this case was a dioxin contaminate inadvertently created in the manufacturing process. The US military thought they were spraying a chemical they thought was (mostly) safe.
Was the effect of 2,4-D a horrific disaster? Yes. Was it a mistake to use this tactic? Yes. Has the US provided all the necessary restitution? No. Is it equal to IG Farben knowingly producing Zylkon-B for genocide. No even close to the same.
It wasn't used on purpose. 2,4-D, the defoliant used, wasn't the carcinogen and wasn't sprayed on people intentionally. The carcinogen in this case was a dioxin contaminate inadvertently created in the manufacturing process. The US military thought they were spraying a chemical they thought was (mostly) safe.
Was the effect of 2,4-D a horrific disaster? Yes. Was it a mistake to use this tactic? Yes. Has the US provided all the necessary restitution? No. Is it equal to IG Farben knowingly producing Zylkon-B for genocide. No even close to the same.
I'm from germany too and never heard of IG Farben. Of course we know about Auschwitz but the term "IG Farben" has never been mentioned.
How long did you go to school and when? German here and ofcourse I heard of IG Farben. They are the prime example when it comes to companies complicit with the Nazi regime.
Went through that era about 7 or 8 years ago and there wasn't any big mention of it. It might have been in the foot notes but the classes usually focused on a broader overview of the war rather than individual happenings (we did watch Schindler's List though). Of course the crimes at the various KZ' and such are also thoroughly covered.
Why does any of this have to come from school? I would have expected that a general exposure to culture would have covered all of this? Maybe I'm misled by the fact that in USA there are cable channels that seem to be 50% devoted to Nazi misdeeds...
This is generally covered in school because Nazi history is a rather depressing topic for Germans. Doesn't really stop the documentary channels but those don't have high exposure (Football and News have high exposure. European Football that is.)
It sounds to me a lot like the topic of slavery in the USA. It's a historical fact, and everyone learns about it in school, but it's not a popular topic in the culture. I'd wager few people in the USA are familiar with the names of the companies that were complicit in it, though undoubtedly some still exist.
I dont think talking about the nazi regime is a depressing topic anymore in Germany and it hasnt been for a long time. It paved the way for people to define themselves as not just as the descendants of the German empire but people unwilling to be quite about their forefathers misdeeds. It empowered a lot of people to disregard the excuse for horrible deeds as people "just doing their job". It empowered the point of view, that the government can be wrong and should be opposed if so.
Between the Gestapo and the Stasi, the German executive has to lobby hard for support outside of their state employed peers to be viewed as a force tasked with their job by democratic mandate. As little as that is the case in reality, it still is a great development historically. Just the part alone, that soldiers are meant to be citizens in uniforms has done a lot to root out any possibility of the military having a say in politics.
Just to point it out, I dont think that shift happened with the end of the war or shortly after, quite the contrary. It is sadly clear, that warcriminals were protected by large parts of society. The change happend two decades later, when people were willing to speak up about their parents beeing mass murderer who got away.
Between the Gestapo and the Stasi, the German executive has to lobby hard for support outside of their state employed peers to be viewed as a force tasked with their job by democratic mandate. As little as that is the case in reality, it still is a great development historically. Just the part alone, that soldiers are meant to be citizens in uniforms has done a lot to root out any possibility of the military having a say in politics.
Just to point it out, I dont think that shift happened with the end of the war or shortly after, quite the contrary. It is sadly clear, that warcriminals were protected by large parts of society. The change happend two decades later, when people were willing to speak up about their parents beeing mass murderer who got away.
kojon55(3)
I managed to get through school just fine, thank you. Zyklon-B is well known to me.
How does one company name from 70 years ago matter in the big picture anyways? Please don't assume that the rest of the world uses the same history syllabus like your US school might have. Did they at least also teach you who fabricated Agent Orange if they focused on manufacturers so much?
How does one company name from 70 years ago matter in the big picture anyways? Please don't assume that the rest of the world uses the same history syllabus like your US school might have. Did they at least also teach you who fabricated Agent Orange if they focused on manufacturers so much?
> Did they at least also teach you who fabricated Agent Orange if they focused on manufacturers so much?
In fact, yes they did: Philips Duphar and I learned this in school.
Check out the "volgermeerpolder" if it interests you.
And it was just a question, no need to perceive any insults, I was just wondering if the German school system is still highlighting WWII the way they used to, perhaps not, perhaps it never was done to the extent that it was presented to me in the first place.
As for why it matters: For anybody involved in industry IG Farben and IBM are important because of the ethical implications.
Finally, I never went to a US school (talking about assumptions...).
In fact, yes they did: Philips Duphar and I learned this in school.
Check out the "volgermeerpolder" if it interests you.
And it was just a question, no need to perceive any insults, I was just wondering if the German school system is still highlighting WWII the way they used to, perhaps not, perhaps it never was done to the extent that it was presented to me in the first place.
As for why it matters: For anybody involved in industry IG Farben and IBM are important because of the ethical implications.
Finally, I never went to a US school (talking about assumptions...).
When I was at school (in Germany) the Nazi topic was ubiquitous at the loss of other historic topics. After hearing the same things again and again year after year I became very uninterested with history lessons. Maybe it was the fault of my school or my teachers but I gathered that this is a common thing in German schools. In hindsight I have to say that I really didn't learn much about German history besides the 1st and especially 2nd world war time.
While I absolutely agree that this topic has to be part of the curriculum it should not be so dominant. Who produced Zyklon-B is in my opinion a detail. There are other things in history that I am more interested in and that are more important. I understand you didn't want to attack anyone and I'm just telling you my opinion, no offense.
p.s. I knew about IG Farben but I don't know where I gained that knowledge.. maybe it was school, maybe my parents or maybe because I studied at Goethe Uni for some time.
While I absolutely agree that this topic has to be part of the curriculum it should not be so dominant. Who produced Zyklon-B is in my opinion a detail. There are other things in history that I am more interested in and that are more important. I understand you didn't want to attack anyone and I'm just telling you my opinion, no offense.
p.s. I knew about IG Farben but I don't know where I gained that knowledge.. maybe it was school, maybe my parents or maybe because I studied at Goethe Uni for some time.
Would sound like a cool new Instagram product (Farben = Coulors) but yeah, that's a name nobody is looking forward to revive.
[deleted]
Yes, Bayer is much shorter now, easier to remember!
[deleted]
I didn't know before today that Monsanto was owned by Bayer. But now that I know, I am not surprised.
Recently acquired I believe.
First sentence... “Germany’s Bayer (BAYGn.DE) will wrap up the $63 billion takeover of Monsanto (MON.N) on Thursday”
Oops, I should have read the article first...
I'm surprised the Monsanto name has lasted this long. It seems to nearly universally be synonymous with "evil corporation".
Bayer itself is associated with so much bad. From Neonics to thalidomide, to the HIV infections (new to me).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony_collapse_disorder
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/nov/14/-sp-thalidom...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony_collapse_disorder
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/nov/14/-sp-thalidom...
Monsanto has always been unfairly hurt by their name. You can't have an argument about GMOs on the internet without somebody mentioning Agent Orange or some other completely irrelevant nonsense.
[deleted]
Huh... Bayer I didn't know Bayer own Monsanto. Bayer the one that gave HIV infected medicine to Japan and other markets after US blocked it.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24785997
Geez... it make sense now.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24785997
Geez... it make sense now.
This reminds me of Macrovision, famous for its numerous data copy protection schemes, especially for VHS, being renamed to Rovi Corporation, then absorbed into TiVo.
They should bring back the IG Farben name.
I was looking into Monsanto's history with PCBs recently (now Bayer's history), and was half-joking that they'd pull the old "Phillip-Morris into Altria" trick. :-\
> Bayer was expected to rid itself of the target’s name. Monsanto, the largest - though not the only - maker of genetically modified seeds, has been a lightning rod for environmentalists’ opposition to the technology.
> The U.S. seed maker has also drawn criticism for pursuing its intellectual property rights with farmers, many of which depend on its seeds, more aggressively than its peers.
These are the only criticisms of Monsanto mentioned in the article. But there are a lot more.[1]
I guess they want us to forget that Monsanto knowingly[2][4] sold & dumped toxic PBCs for literally decades? Especially since many of those municipal lawsuits are just coming around[3], the documents proving they covered it up leaked last year[4]?
Or that they manufactured Agent Orange, poisoning thousands of American soldiers and millions of Vietnamese? And that the Vietnamese got nothing because it wasn't "intended" to kill people[5], despite Monsanto knowing about the toxic effects of dioxins in Agent Orange?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases
[2] https://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0101-02.htm
> In 1966, Monsanto managers discovered that fish submerged in that creek turned belly-up within 10 seconds, spurting blood and shedding skin as if dunked into boiling water. They told no one. In 1969, they found fish in another creek with 7,500 times the legal PCB levels. They decided "there is little object in going to expensive extremes in limiting discharges." In 1975, a company study found that PCBs caused tumors in rats. They ordered its conclusion changed from "slightly tumorigenic" to "does not appear to be carcinogenic."
[3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/legalnewsline/2017/01/11/west-c...
[4] https://www.ecowatch.com/monsanto-pcbs-2470957270.html
[5] https://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/11/nyregion/civil-lawsuit-on...
Previous settlements: https://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/21/business/700-million-sett..., http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/st-louis-jury-order...
> Bayer was expected to rid itself of the target’s name. Monsanto, the largest - though not the only - maker of genetically modified seeds, has been a lightning rod for environmentalists’ opposition to the technology.
> The U.S. seed maker has also drawn criticism for pursuing its intellectual property rights with farmers, many of which depend on its seeds, more aggressively than its peers.
These are the only criticisms of Monsanto mentioned in the article. But there are a lot more.[1]
I guess they want us to forget that Monsanto knowingly[2][4] sold & dumped toxic PBCs for literally decades? Especially since many of those municipal lawsuits are just coming around[3], the documents proving they covered it up leaked last year[4]?
Or that they manufactured Agent Orange, poisoning thousands of American soldiers and millions of Vietnamese? And that the Vietnamese got nothing because it wasn't "intended" to kill people[5], despite Monsanto knowing about the toxic effects of dioxins in Agent Orange?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases
[2] https://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0101-02.htm
> In 1966, Monsanto managers discovered that fish submerged in that creek turned belly-up within 10 seconds, spurting blood and shedding skin as if dunked into boiling water. They told no one. In 1969, they found fish in another creek with 7,500 times the legal PCB levels. They decided "there is little object in going to expensive extremes in limiting discharges." In 1975, a company study found that PCBs caused tumors in rats. They ordered its conclusion changed from "slightly tumorigenic" to "does not appear to be carcinogenic."
[3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/legalnewsline/2017/01/11/west-c...
[4] https://www.ecowatch.com/monsanto-pcbs-2470957270.html
[5] https://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/11/nyregion/civil-lawsuit-on...
Previous settlements: https://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/21/business/700-million-sett..., http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/st-louis-jury-order...
Monsanto has been bought/split up a few times since then. It really isn't even close to the same company any more.
The name has been tainted so bad I'm really surprised they aren't going to spin off something with the name, just so they can be fully rid of the name.
The name has been tainted so bad I'm really surprised they aren't going to spin off something with the name, just so they can be fully rid of the name.
I see someone's already been fooled. That's why this trick persists of course. Ala-kazam, no more accountability!
> Monsanto has been bought/split up a few times since then. It really isn't even close to the same company any more.
And they'll reorganize in the future too, so should the public stop caring about corporate crimes altogether? After all, companies will just re-arrange themselves back into Dr. Jekyll and all will be well... /eyeroll
Welcome to the biggest loophole in liability-based or reputation-based enforcement of so-called "corporate ethics."
"Don't fret Virginia! The cancer's incurable, but the company that caused it has a foolproof plan to fix things..."
> Monsanto has been bought/split up a few times since then. It really isn't even close to the same company any more.
And they'll reorganize in the future too, so should the public stop caring about corporate crimes altogether? After all, companies will just re-arrange themselves back into Dr. Jekyll and all will be well... /eyeroll
Welcome to the biggest loophole in liability-based or reputation-based enforcement of so-called "corporate ethics."
"Don't fret Virginia! The cancer's incurable, but the company that caused it has a foolproof plan to fix things..."
I hope this is not just an attempt to side step the bad name.
[deleted]
[deleted]
jessaustin(3)
Monsanto hate is one of the objectively stupid memes of the web, so good for them.
Why is hating Monsanto stupid? Or are you just saying people bandwagon on hating them?
I’ve seen a few too many documentaries on the terrible things they do in the farm industry that put consumers’ and farmers’ wellbeing at risk.
Monsanto milk isn’t even allowed in Canada because of the hormones they (are/were?) putting in cows. They’ve basically cornered the soybean market through litigation.
Let the hate live on, IMO.
One example: The main thing they're hated for is patenting GMO seed varieties in support of their roundup pesticide product line.
Roundup works by making seed varieties that work just like normal plants but are immune to the roundup pesticides. So a farmer can place pesticide on a field, and it will only kill weeds, not their crops.
The "hate evil Monsanto for destroying nature" bandwagon ignores that:
1) 99% of anti-gmo stuff is anti-science fear mongering. There are very few good general anti-GMO arguments.
2) Farmers love roundup because it increases crop productivity per acre sustainably.
3) Using roundup greatly decreases the amount of pesticide needed per acre of crops, since it can be targeted so much more precisely. So it makes the world's water supplies and crops cleaner overall.
4) Because round-up seeds are so great, farmers sometimes try to grow it without paying licensing fees (because why would you if you can get away with it?).
5) Monsanto is very legally aggressive defending its seed patents, since why would anyone pay to license their seeds if you can just steal it? Monsanto spent a lot of money developing the science for roundup seeds.
6) Monsanto has never sued someone for accidentally having round-up seeds (cross contamination). They have an amazing win rates on their lawsuits specifically because they only target cut and dry cases.
7) But the bandwagon is against the evil Monsanto, so people are overly credulous on the farmer side.
The vast majority of things Monsanto is criticized for play out just like the above.
As a separate example, check out this Quora answer for, "Is Monsanto evil?": https://www.quora.com/Is-Monsanto-evil. And let me know which side seems more reasonable to you.
Documentaries are an awful way to disseminate accurate knowledge. It's 90% emotion driven, and almost always has a narrative to tell that they're not going to want pesky facts to get in the way of.
Roundup works by making seed varieties that work just like normal plants but are immune to the roundup pesticides. So a farmer can place pesticide on a field, and it will only kill weeds, not their crops.
The "hate evil Monsanto for destroying nature" bandwagon ignores that:
1) 99% of anti-gmo stuff is anti-science fear mongering. There are very few good general anti-GMO arguments.
2) Farmers love roundup because it increases crop productivity per acre sustainably.
3) Using roundup greatly decreases the amount of pesticide needed per acre of crops, since it can be targeted so much more precisely. So it makes the world's water supplies and crops cleaner overall.
4) Because round-up seeds are so great, farmers sometimes try to grow it without paying licensing fees (because why would you if you can get away with it?).
5) Monsanto is very legally aggressive defending its seed patents, since why would anyone pay to license their seeds if you can just steal it? Monsanto spent a lot of money developing the science for roundup seeds.
6) Monsanto has never sued someone for accidentally having round-up seeds (cross contamination). They have an amazing win rates on their lawsuits specifically because they only target cut and dry cases.
7) But the bandwagon is against the evil Monsanto, so people are overly credulous on the farmer side.
The vast majority of things Monsanto is criticized for play out just like the above.
As a separate example, check out this Quora answer for, "Is Monsanto evil?": https://www.quora.com/Is-Monsanto-evil. And let me know which side seems more reasonable to you.
Documentaries are an awful way to disseminate accurate knowledge. It's 90% emotion driven, and almost always has a narrative to tell that they're not going to want pesky facts to get in the way of.
I have been strongly anti-Monsanto for a while. Thank you for the Quora link (https://www.quora.com/Is-Monsanto-evil). After reading it and its sources, I'm finding it hard to maintain the same criticisms I have long held, in the face of this data. I think I blindly jumped on the bandwagon without realizing it. That's not to say that Monsanto is necessarily guilt-free. I'm also curious if the Monsanto chemical company and seed company at any point in any sense were connected, or not. That bit is still a bit confusing to me, because certainly there are issues with the chemical Monsanto from the 60s.
It's also unclear exactly how farmers feel about Monsanto and the whole seed reuse / patent issue. I've heard arguments that they want new seed all the time anyway, and then I've heard arguments that it hurts them financially to not be able to collect seed for replanting. Neither of these arguments appear to be coming from farmers, which complicates the matter.
That said, I do still feel like I have a philosophical issue with the idea of IP, in particular the patenting of seeds, but that's not a Monsanto-specific issue even though they are involved it it (it's a widespread practice) and I think that issue gets conflated because of the "stolen seed" / "cant recover/save seeds from the new plant" problem that patents introduce - this kind if IP control often tends to bring emotionally-driven rebuke, though I can understand why.
It's also unclear exactly how farmers feel about Monsanto and the whole seed reuse / patent issue. I've heard arguments that they want new seed all the time anyway, and then I've heard arguments that it hurts them financially to not be able to collect seed for replanting. Neither of these arguments appear to be coming from farmers, which complicates the matter.
That said, I do still feel like I have a philosophical issue with the idea of IP, in particular the patenting of seeds, but that's not a Monsanto-specific issue even though they are involved it it (it's a widespread practice) and I think that issue gets conflated because of the "stolen seed" / "cant recover/save seeds from the new plant" problem that patents introduce - this kind if IP control often tends to bring emotionally-driven rebuke, though I can understand why.
I appreciate your open mind. Here's a balanced and well researched article from a farmer if you want to read more: https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2017/02/14/without-glypho....
Thanks! Checking it out. The more I look into this the more I am feeling like there is less and less to hold against Monsanto, save my general feelings about patents. I almost feel bad that it took until now, until your HN comment pointing it out for me to question my stance. I feel like everything you're sending me I could have found myself from searching.
As someone who considers myself a proponent of facts, analysis, data, science... I'm wondering how I got scooped up in this and didn't challenge myself. Certainly a lesson learned.
Even in the comments on that article, nearly everyone making anti-Monsanto claims avoids providing any sources, yet the responses to them provide plenty of evidence to the contrary.
I'd like to read some valid, solid, data-proven criticisms of Monsanto. I am absolutely willing to entertain any if people can provide them or point me in the right direction. I'll be doing some research on my own now, inspired by this discussion.
Part of the issue is that the internet, documentaries, news articles, etc are all a minefield of misinformation anymore, and we've got to be incredibly careful in our consumption of it.
As someone who considers myself a proponent of facts, analysis, data, science... I'm wondering how I got scooped up in this and didn't challenge myself. Certainly a lesson learned.
Even in the comments on that article, nearly everyone making anti-Monsanto claims avoids providing any sources, yet the responses to them provide plenty of evidence to the contrary.
I'd like to read some valid, solid, data-proven criticisms of Monsanto. I am absolutely willing to entertain any if people can provide them or point me in the right direction. I'll be doing some research on my own now, inspired by this discussion.
Part of the issue is that the internet, documentaries, news articles, etc are all a minefield of misinformation anymore, and we've got to be incredibly careful in our consumption of it.
> 5) Monsanto is very legally aggressive defending its seed patents, since why would anyone pay to license their seeds if you can just steal it? Monsanto spent a lot of money developing the science for roundup seeds.
Or, alternatively: Farmer Joe plants heirloom seeds that are quite rightfully his. Farmer Bob plants patented GMO seeds, which then cross-pollinate with Farmer Joe's heirloom crop. Next year, Monsanto sues Farmer Joe into oblivion (or otherwise forces him into pay-pay-paying them forevermore) for "stealing their technology."
Or, alternatively: Farmer Joe plants heirloom seeds that are quite rightfully his. Farmer Bob plants patented GMO seeds, which then cross-pollinate with Farmer Joe's heirloom crop. Next year, Monsanto sues Farmer Joe into oblivion (or otherwise forces him into pay-pay-paying them forevermore) for "stealing their technology."
"6) Monsanto has never sued someone for accidentally having round-up seeds (cross contamination). They have an amazing win rates on their lawsuits specifically because they only target cut and dry cases."
Monsanto isn't doing that. If you actually look at the cases that Monsanto sues, it's not "Joe noticed some of his non-GMO crop was getting cross-pollinated from GMO crop, so he told his workers to spray glyphosate like mad on the non-GMO crop and collect the stuff that remained."
I don't really have a horse in this race., but if you're going to make this point, you really should be responding to parent's 6th point, not parent's 5th point. Parent already answered this criticism.
Yes. It's nearly impossible for farmers corn to NOT cross-pollinate.
Thanks for sharing this info. Too bad the milk story isn’t covered because that one bothers me most and obviously Health Canada among other countries agreed it was wrong to be putting these steroids in the cows. I’m not sure this convinced me that one side is more reasonable than the other but it sheds some light on what’s true vs unfair.
I also agree documentaries need to always be taken with a heavy dose of salt, and I do read beyond them after the fact to confirm information though it’s easiest to remember off hand the emotional appeal they tend to drive home.
The milk story is not covered because it is not a milk story, it is an animal welfare story. "Although it was determined that it did not pose a health risk to humans, there were animal health concerns, and therefore it was never approved for sale in Canada."[1] The milk is considered to be safe by Health Canada. Growth hormones, with a few notable exceptions, are banned for all animals in Canada.
[1] https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health...
[1] https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health...
YellowCode(4)
[deleted]
Or as Shakespeare put it in Romeo and Juliet:
"’Tis but thy name that is my enemy: Thou art thyself, though not a Montague, What’s Montague? It is not hand nor foot, Nor arm nor face. O be some other name, belonging to a man! What’s in a name? That which we call a rose, By any other word would smell as sweet."