Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Cory Snyder
Jan 27, 2004

People have compared me to Cal Ripken...
Is there a good source to debunk some of the less paranoid facts? My understanding is that if a neighboring farm uses patented seeds, your farm could show traces of that seed, and that's who Monsanto was coming after. I think it was in one of the documentaries like Food Inc. Is there something that specifically debunks that? It would be nice if you provided some information instead of attacking people in the thread with "Not really, but thanks anyway." Otherwise what's the point of this thread?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Play
Apr 25, 2006

Strong stroll for a mangy stray

Illegibly Eligible posted:

The worst part about the GMO debate is that dumb people are scared by (misunderstanding) the science aspect, not the business component which is the TRUE boogeyman.

Actually, genetic modification is a step above and beyond the standard practices involved in selective breeding, and there are legitimate reasons to be concerned about genetic modification and its possible impact on biospheres. Its like selective breeding except you skip thousands of generations at a time, which makes it possible more dangerous. Some company is developing GM salmon and there are like, five levels of safety to make sure that these salmon do not escape and pose a threat to natural salmon or other creatures by filling their niche more effectively. Basically, for me I look at our history with trying to play god with nature (like bringing in successive foreign animals in order to fix the infestation of the last foreign animal) and with our use of other scientific technologies and I certainly worry about what could result with our fiddling in genetics, especially when the process becomes easier and more widely available and many genetic modification firms are competing against each other.

Basically, its not just ignorance to be wary of genetic modification on a scientific level, in my opinion.

Slanderer posted:

You could at least try to read up on the poo poo you decide to publicize your opinions about, in a thread where I am complaining about this exact loving poo poo. Sue farmers to oblivion? No, this never happened to any "poor, innocent farmers". A few people have knowingly and deliberately infringed upon Monsanto's patents, however. And GM Food is unethical? Jesus christ, do you know who sells most of the non-GM seeds to farmers? The same guys who sell the GM seeds.

But, really, thanks for your contributions.

Whoa buddy, calm down there. This attitude makes you seem emotionally invested and you sound like a contrarian Monsanto shill. It's not surprising you don't have luck convincing people if this is how you talk to them.

Play fucked around with this message at 17:32 on Jun 27, 2013

Deteriorata
Feb 6, 2005

Cory Snyder posted:

Is there a good source to debunk some of the less paranoid facts? My understanding is that if a neighboring farm uses patented seeds, your farm could show traces of that seed, and that's who Monsanto was coming after. I think it was in one of the documentaries like Food Inc. Is there something that specifically debunks that? It would be nice if you provided some information instead of attacking people in the thread with "Not really, but thanks anyway." Otherwise what's the point of this thread?

To the best of my knowledge, that has never happened. There was a case where a neighbor farmer was deliberately collecting and saving seed that had happened to land on his property. There was a whole section of his farm that was a patented Monsanto variant, and very clearly deliberately planted. His claim in court was that it had just blown there all on its own and he had no idea, but the facts in the case showed that to be laughably impossible and he lost.


ETA: Food, Inc. is very bad about taking farmers' claims at face value and ignoring the facts of the case. Some farmers really are crooks trying to steal Monsanto's valuable seeds for their own profit. Not all, of course, but every case needs to be evaluated on its merits, not just "Farmer good, Monsanto bad."

Deteriorata fucked around with this message at 17:35 on Jun 27, 2013

Quidam Viator
Jan 24, 2001

ask me about how voting Donald Trump was worth 400k and counting dead.

d3c0y2 posted:

It's pretty much impossible to argue with them while using holistic principles, either. I'd argue I'm probably closer to a Holistic person than a deductive person under your definitions, but I still find it impossible to discuss with these people. The issue isn't simply that they "see" connections everywhere, because even if you point them in the direction of theories and methodology such as Orthodox Marxism, World-System Analysis and Structuralism that go much further in adequately explaining the inter-connectivity of the world the nuances of it will still seem to go completely past them. But even holistic theories in History and Politics rely partially on either empiricism or some-other method of analysis. Marxism doesn't just attest blankly that "This is how it is" it uses pretty rigorous methodology to achieve it's results; even if you disagree with Marxism's conclusions a lot of political theorists and historians have respect for the Historical Materialism as a methodology.

Viewing them as holistic people isn't enough to adequately understand their mindset, in my opinion. You also have to understand their paranoid mindset and just-world outlooks. It's why they see "big business" as some sort of unified, homogenous entity. The few who have leftist, socialist leanings tend to lean towards the vulgar interpretation and completely ignore or fail to even read authors such as Poulantzas who are arguing that there is no unified singular "big business" cabal. There has to be some "bad guy" behind the inter-connected webs, the web can't just be a structure created from the constant interaction of human entitie to them and the idea of a world with no one at the helm is scary and intimidating to the vast majority of them. You can overthrow a big evil Zionist, Illuminati lizardman, you can't "defeat" a flawed, or conflicted structure.

That's why I started my post the way I did: Are we really trying to "argue" or "debate" with these people? The FEELING I get from all of these posts is that we're all just so grossed out that they're so... irrational. I mean, they haven't even read Poulantzas, the idiots! When we try to reason with them and just talk to them about something simple like "Orthodox Marxism, World-System Analysis and Structuralism", they just keep going on about Lizardmen and the Illuminati.

I'm not straight-up telling you and the OP (or Dr Creflo for his accurate, but still eye-rollingly spergy correction) that you're dismissive, talking over these people's heads, or deep-down that you think they're sheeple, but I am implying it. Look, I love reasoned debate, and certainly didn't offer my broad generalization about holism and reductionism to be a complete answer to the OP's question. I just think that if you DO have such contempt for these people who fear GMOs, who aren't properly educated, and who believe in comic book corporate villains, you should stop talking to them. You certainly aren't actually trying to understand their perspective.

You are too inflexible to "stoop" to the level you'd have to to actually change their mind, or, if it feels better to you, you can just say that they are too indoctrinated and stupid to change their minds. If this thread is evidence of how you try to talk to people with "irrational" ideas, then yes OP, your time and mental effort is totally wasted in trying to convince these people. You will never succeed.

Fake Edit: I don't understand your motivation in wanting to talk to these people who think so differently than you do. What happened to writing people off? If someone posts on Freep, you write them off. If you're a Christian, and someone is an atheist, is it really the right thing to try to debunk their ideas, debate them, or argue with them? I don't understand why you have any faith in your current methodology to actually change someone's belief system. Just write them off.

Quidam Viator fucked around with this message at 17:48 on Jun 27, 2013

Slanderer
May 6, 2007

Play posted:

Whoa buddy, calm down there. This attitude makes you seem emotionally invested and you sound like a contrarian Monsanto shill. It's not surprising you don't have luck convincing people if this is how you talk to them.

If I seem hostile it's just because I predicated the entire OP on "hey, I have a problem with people throwing out these very specific unsubstantiated claims due to some underlying unease about Monsanto" and have gotten multiple replies along the lines of "that's all well and good, but <very specific unsubstantiated claims due to some underlying unease about Monsanto>". I'm hoping to better understand the mindset that engenders this, but I'm actually having surprising difficulty (whether or not it's due to a conflict between holistic and reductionist viewpoints).

I don't really view these people as crazy, or irredeemably irrational, but that I don't understand them, so any classification isn't relevant.

LP97S
Apr 25, 2008

Dr Creflo A Dollar posted:

Nobody's forcing farmers to buy Monsanto seed, and farmers almost always buy their seed at the beginning of the season anyway.

They've cornered the market and licensing the tech to the handful of companies they don't own. It's just more of the systematic commoditization of something that is needed for people to live.

Inaction Jackson
Feb 28, 2009

Dr Creflo A Dollar posted:

Nobody's forcing farmers to buy Monsanto seed, and farmers almost always buy their seed at the beginning of the season anyway.
Yeah, I think that a rational debate over potential problems with Monsanto's business practices needs to focus on information asymmetry. If farmers want to collect and re-plant seeds, then they can buy non-patented seeds. If farmers understand the benefits of a GMO seed and want to pay for the better product, it's pretty silly for us to act as if they are being forced to do anything.

Maybe an issue exists with farmers buying a GMO seed and either not understanding or never being told potential susceptibilities of the GMO plant. Or maybe being told untrue benefits. I have no idea if either has happened on a large scale, but that would be a good place to start if people want to demonstrate unethical behavior from Monsanto and/or push for regulations on how Monsanto sells their seeds.

Deteriorata
Feb 6, 2005

Inaction Jackson posted:

Yeah, I think that a rational debate over potential problems with Monsanto's business practices needs to focus on information asymmetry. If farmers want to collect and re-plant seeds, then they can buy non-patented seeds. If farmers understand the benefits of a GMO seed and want to pay for the better product, it's pretty silly for us to act as if they are being forced to do anything.

Maybe an issue exists with farmers buying a GMO seed and either not understanding or never being told potential susceptibilities of the GMO plant. Or maybe being told untrue benefits. I have no idea if either has happened on a large scale, but that would be a good place to start if people want to demonstrate unethical behavior from Monsanto and/or push for regulations on how Monsanto sells their seeds.

Yeah, I'm disturbed by the level of paternalism shown toward 3rd world farmers in general. It seems to be assumed that they're ignorant and incompetent, completely unable to make business decisions for themselves. There's a certain level of "caveat emptor" that has to apply to this.

The farmers are responsible for their own actions and purchasing decisions. There is certainly an element of city slickers selling snake oil to the country bumpkins, but that has always been a part of the spread of new technology and general public education.

Salesmen will sometimes oversell their products, buyers will sometimes make poor choices. It's part of how the system works. Monsanto seems to be a stand-in for capitalism in general, often.

karthun
Nov 16, 2006

I forgot to post my food for USPOL Thanksgiving but that's okay too!

Inaction Jackson posted:

Yeah, I think that a rational debate over potential problems with Monsanto's business practices needs to focus on information asymmetry. If farmers want to collect and re-plant seeds, then they can buy non-patented seeds. If farmers understand the benefits of a GMO seed and want to pay for the better product, it's pretty silly for us to act as if they are being forced to do anything.

Maybe an issue exists with farmers buying a GMO seed and either not understanding or never being told potential susceptibilities of the GMO plant. Or maybe being told untrue benefits. I have no idea if either has happened on a large scale, but that would be a good place to start if people want to demonstrate unethical behavior from Monsanto and/or push for regulations on how Monsanto sells their seeds.

Even information asymmetry doesn't make sense. We have land grant colleges that publish thousands of crop trials free to the public every year. We have county extension offices that hold conference's every winter to show farmer's new best practices. I am not buying that somehow monsanto is able to falsify peer-reviewed research at our land geant colleges.

Adventure Pigeon
Nov 8, 2005

I am a master storyteller.

Slanderer posted:

If I seem hostile it's just because I predicated the entire OP on "hey, I have a problem with people throwing out these very specific unsubstantiated claims due to some underlying unease about Monsanto" and have gotten multiple replies along the lines of "that's all well and good, but <very specific unsubstantiated claims due to some underlying unease about Monsanto>". I'm hoping to better understand the mindset that engenders this, but I'm actually having surprising difficulty (whether or not it's due to a conflict between holistic and reductionist viewpoints).

I don't really view these people as crazy, or irredeemably irrational, but that I don't understand them, so any classification isn't relevant.

Mark Lynas has wrote some interesting stuff. He used to be an anti-GMO activist but has switched over to being pro-GMO after becoming more fully aware of the science behind it, so he says a lot of interesting things about both perspectives.

I've only been a plant geneticist for a short time; I did my graduate work as a human geneticist. I work with some very good plant geneticists, though, and have managed to absorb some of their thoughts. I'm only going to comment on the science side of things, as the business and social spheres are outside my area.


GMOs have had a strong net positive effect on the environment. Roundup ready crops, for example, don't require secondary tilling, which greatly reduces soil erosion. More importantly, massive amounts of additional land would be required for crops to feed the world if we only had organic farming. From Lynas' article at:

http://www.marklynas.org/2013/04/time-to-call-out-the-anti-gmo-conspiracy-theory/

"Of course conventional agriculture has well-documented and major environmental failings, not least of which is the massive use of agricultural fertilisers which is destroying river and ocean biology around the world. But the flip side of this is that intensive agriculture’s extremely efficient use of land is conversely of great ecological benefit.

For example, if we had tried to produce all of today’s yield using the technologies of 1960 – largely organically in other words – we would have had to cultivate an additional 3 billion hectares, the area of two South Americas."

I said that I wouldn't go into the social sphere, but on a personal note I've always thought the idea that everyone should only eat organic was very privileged, as there simply isn't enough food-growing capacity to feed everyone that way. Sure, everyone can be fed by a nice, organic farmer's market, you just have to pick a few billion people that need to die first.

The other major complaint I hear a lot of is the idea of GMOs escaping into the wild. I've always thought this was pretty silly as well. GMOs, lacking genetic variation, tend to be highly suitable for a particular environment but don't do well under others. Let them out into the wild and odds are you'll see them die rather than flourish as water, soil quality, and other variables change. Even if they do manage to breed with native plants - then what? They may introduce some genetic variation that wouldn't be introduced otherwise into plant strains, but not one person has articulated to me as to why this would be a bad thing. Genetic variation is good, it allows species to adapt to a wider range of conditions. I think it comes down to some sort of social obsession with "purity" and "unnaturalness". These're human ideas; the plants and environment could care less. Hell, gene transfer has been occuring between organisms via viral vectors for hundreds of millions of years. The only difference now is that we do it ourselves with greater precision towards desirable traits. More importantly, I can't think of a single example as to where GMOs have destroyed a native species or permanently reduced diversity. Agriculture has, but that was more due to land utilization than the introduction of a sudden competing strain or population. Even if you did believe that GMOs crossing or outcompeting native plants is a serious problem that needs to be addressed, you should be able to see the hypocrisy that the same people who advocate this view are the ones who blocked terminator seeds, a direct solution to this issue, from being introduced.

While I also said I wouldn't go into the business side of things, I think the future of GMOs will ultimately address this. With the advent of the Gates Foundation and other private foundations dedicated towards philanthropy, GMOs are being taken in a direction that will address many of the complaints about corporate influence. Efforts are being made to drive down the cost of GMO development as well as to make "open-source" GMO seeds freely available to smallholder farmers in developing countries that will directly address their needs. Rather than spend millions of dollars and years on a breeding program, we will someday be able to create plants that are pre-optimized for their soil and climate. Ones that will be freely available without licensing or restriction.

Illegibly Eligible
Jul 21, 2009
I realize that seeds can't be copyrighted, only patented. I think the person making that clarification got the point though. Additionally, it may not have been obvious when I mentioned spider-chickens, bullet-proof bananas, and carnivorous grapes... but my post contained a touch of hyperbole. Yes there are potential pitfalls when it comes to the science side of GMOs and I personally don't believe long-term impact on the biosphere is investigated thoroughly enough for virtually any product. However, at this point in history GMOs are all but vital when it comes to feeding humanity - we don't have a couple extra South Americas worth of farmland tucked away in some unknown corner of the globe.

The more pressing concern, IMO, is human food supply being controlled by a corporation with questionable ethical standing.

karthun posted:

I would love to see a contract thats states this. Please provide that for me.

I don't have a contract in hand that explicitly states this, just some extended family in the agriculture industry whom I chat with during the holidays. I'm sure that with a bit of googling a sharp cookie like yourself can find whatever evidence is needed to support virtually anything, so if you're that interested in looking into Monsanto's business practices I encourage you to do a bit of independent investigation.

Inaction Jackson
Feb 28, 2009

karthun posted:

Even information asymmetry doesn't make sense. We have land grant colleges that publish thousands of crop trials free to the public every year. We have county extension offices that hold conference's every winter to show farmer's new best practices. I am not buying that somehow monsanto is able to falsify peer-reviewed research at our land geant colleges.
Yeah that's not really what I was saying could potentially happen. Even if the information is being published here, it's still possible for a farmer to be unaware of it or to be oversold on what it means. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that Monsanto has both more access to information and a better technical understanding of that information than your average farmer globally.

But I'm also not saying that Monsanto is definitely exploiting that information asymmetry. I'm just saying that the anti-GMO crowd needs to demonstrate that this is a problem or else their arguments that act as if farmers don't have the option to buy non-patented seeds are nonsense. That could even be a really good area for talking about consumer protection in developing economies. Even then, Monsanto's actions would not be nearly as insidious as some make them out to be.

Judakel
Jul 29, 2004
Probation
Can't post for 9 years!

mugrim posted:

The poo poo Monsanto does to the third world is bad enough you really don't have to give a poo poo why other people are upset by them. Don't debate them on GMO's, tell them about the actual evils they do because that will upset people much more and they'll focus on it. Hell, that's what happened to me.

This is the answer. If people want to hate, make sure they hate for the right reasons. You are bound to be far more effective through this method, since people aren't willing to give up the whole of their stance but may be more willing to change the reasons why they hold such a stance.

Cesar Cedeno
May 9, 2011
Probation
Can't post for 663 days!

Judakel posted:

This is the answer. If people want to hate, make sure they hate for the right reasons. You are bound to be far more effective through this method, since people aren't willing to give up the whole of their stance but may be more willing to change the reasons why they hold such a stance.

Actually an older woman I know, sharp as a tack and very perceptive on most things, is crazy into the natural foods, organic, anti-gmo crowd. It's sad in some respects because she just does not understand the science behind it.

When she started trying to make me anti-Monsanto she went on this whole thing about how the food they are making is poison and yada yada. I started talking about how I dislike them for the way they treat poorer, less savvy farmers, and tried to ignore the GMO aspect she was going on about.

However she seemed really disinterested in what Monsanto was doing business practice wise, basically dismissing my reasons for disliking the company and moving back onto her perceived threats to our food supply.

She's also a raw milk supporter, kale lover, and takes a million "natural supplements" many that are painfully obvious as bullshit.

It's a shame because otherwise she is intelligent, but she really thinks she has this figured out, and she voraciously reads those bullshit conspiracy food and natural living sites, so she really thinks she is super informed on the subject compared to others....:ughh:

Harold Fjord
Jan 3, 2004
I've been seeing a lot of poo poo about how you feed a mouse roundup and it gets tumors. Of loving course it does. But do roundup ready plants somehow magically generate roundup in your body? Is there not a process by which this stuff is rinsed off when harvested?

For that matter, what happens to roundup when trace amounts of it are cooked? Not that I assume any is left, but curiousity.

boner confessor
Apr 25, 2013

by R. Guyovich

Pobama posted:

She's also a raw milk supporter, kale lover, and takes a million "natural supplements" many that are painfully obvious as bullshit.

Kale is great! I dont understand why you would use this as an indicator of conspiracy nuttery. Do people say it cures cancer or something? I just eat it with onions.

Nevvy Z posted:

I've been seeing a lot of poo poo about how you feed a mouse roundup and it gets tumors. Of loving course it does. But do roundup ready plants somehow magically generate roundup in your body? Is there not a process by which this stuff is rinsed off when harvested?

For that matter, what happens to roundup when trace amounts of it are cooked? Not that I assume any is left, but curiousity.

They do not magically generate roundup in your body, but I have seen/heard people claim it does. Most roundup is going to be washed away by rain or otherwise removed in processing, but this is true of any other contamminant herbicide or pesticide.

Amarkov
Jun 21, 2010

Nevvy Z posted:

I've been seeing a lot of poo poo about how you feed a mouse roundup and it gets tumors. Of loving course it does. But do roundup ready plants somehow magically generate roundup in your body? Is there not a process by which this stuff is rinsed off when harvested?

For that matter, what happens to roundup when trace amounts of it are cooked? Not that I assume any is left, but curiousity.

Glyphosate (Roundup) is one of the safest herbicides available. It's relatively nontoxic, breaks down quickly, and does not bioaccumulate. Studies have consistently shown that its use poses no health risks to consumers, minimal environmental risks, and even seems to be less dangerous for farmers to apply.

Most criticisms are just ill-informed. This one makes me particularly angry, because it is literally the opposite of reality, in a way that causes very real harm to both the environment and farm workers.


e: I always really want to say "glyphosphate" :saddowns:

Cesar Cedeno
May 9, 2011
Probation
Can't post for 663 days!

Dr Creflo A Dollar posted:

Kale is great! I dont understand why you would use this as an indicator of conspiracy nuttery. Do people say it cures cancer or something? I just eat it with onions.

Lol no, kale is fine, I like it myself, just trying to paint a picture there.

Vhak lord of hate
Jun 6, 2008

I AM DRINK THE BLOOD OF JESUS

Nevvy Z posted:

I've been seeing a lot of poo poo about how you feed a mouse roundup and it gets tumors. Of loving course it does. But do roundup ready plants somehow magically generate roundup in your body? Is there not a process by which this stuff is rinsed off when harvested?

For that matter, what happens to roundup when trace amounts of it are cooked? Not that I assume any is left, but curiousity.

The study where they get that from is one of the most flimsy pieces of anti-GM propaganda out there. It wouldn't hold up to any serious peer review which is OK since then they can say "Of course not, the scientists are being paid off by GMO money".

Yiggy
Sep 12, 2004

"Imagination is not enough. You have to have knowledge too, and an experience of the oddity of life."

Adventure Pigeon posted:


The other major complaint I hear a lot of is the idea of GMOs escaping into the wild. I've always thought this was pretty silly as well. GMOs, lacking genetic variation, tend to be highly suitable for a particular environment but don't do well under others. Let them out into the wild and odds are you'll see them die rather than flourish

Someone on this forum who I can't remember once put it very aptly, that worrying about a GMO variety of a domesticated plant escaping into the wild and out competing is like worrying about a chihuahua doing the same. Wild weeds will choke it out and a taller hardier shrub or tree will beat it out for sunlight.

Judakel
Jul 29, 2004
Probation
Can't post for 9 years!

Pobama posted:

Actually an older woman I know, sharp as a tack and very perceptive on most things, is crazy into the natural foods, organic, anti-gmo crowd. It's sad in some respects because she just does not understand the science behind it.

When she started trying to make me anti-Monsanto she went on this whole thing about how the food they are making is poison and yada yada. I started talking about how I dislike them for the way they treat poorer, less savvy farmers, and tried to ignore the GMO aspect she was going on about.

However she seemed really disinterested in what Monsanto was doing business practice wise, basically dismissing my reasons for disliking the company and moving back onto her perceived threats to our food supply.

She's also a raw milk supporter, kale lover, and takes a million "natural supplements" many that are painfully obvious as bullshit.

It's a shame because otherwise she is intelligent, but she really thinks she has this figured out, and she voraciously reads those bullshit conspiracy food and natural living sites, so she really thinks she is super informed on the subject compared to others....:ughh:

That is the danger with idiots who think they're smarter than they really are. This strategy will not work on them. However, anyone who values your opinion could be susceptible. We already know they won't bother to do proper research themselves.

Judakel fucked around with this message at 20:39 on Jun 27, 2013

Flowers For Algeria
Dec 3, 2005

I humbly offer my services as forum inquisitor. There is absolutely no way I would abuse this power in any way.


Amarkov posted:

Glyphosate (Roundup) is one of the safest herbicides available. It's relatively nontoxic, breaks down quickly, and does not bioaccumulate. Studies have consistently shown that its use poses no health risks to consumers, minimal environmental risks, and even seems to be less dangerous for farmers to apply.

Except Roundup is not 100% glyphosate, but rather a mix of 40% glyphosate and other agents, including surfactants which are highly toxic.

EDIT : what I'm saying is just let's not start painting herbicides as "safe" for the environment or animals. Pretty much all herbicides are toxic, and Roundup is no exception.

Flowers For Algeria fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Jun 27, 2013

Amarkov
Jun 21, 2010

Flowers For Algeria posted:

Except Roundup is not 100% glyphosate, but rather a mix of 40% glyphosate and other agents, including surfactants which are highly toxic.

Accurate, but misleading. Some surfactants used have significant problems with acute toxicity; it's very dangerous to spray the stuff on yourself, and very harmful to dump it in a river or something. But it also degrades so quickly that it can't really cause significant environmental effects.

This is not actually a more reasonable criticism than "irradiated food uses radioactivity!" Toxicity is not a contagion.

Flowers For Algeria
Dec 3, 2005

I humbly offer my services as forum inquisitor. There is absolutely no way I would abuse this power in any way.


I was mostly taking issue with the "less dangerous for farmers to apply" bit.

Great Enoch
Mar 23, 2011

mugrim posted:

The poo poo Monsanto does to the third world is bad enough you really don't have to give a poo poo why other people are upset by them.

Pobama posted:

Actually an older woman I know, sharp as a tack and very perceptive on most things, is crazy into the natural foods, organic, anti-gmo crowd. It's sad in some respects because she just does not understand the science behind it.

When she started trying to make me anti-Monsanto she went on this whole thing about how the food they are making is poison and yada yada. I started talking about how I dislike them for the way they treat poorer, less savvy farmers, and tried to ignore the GMO aspect she was going on about.

However she seemed really disinterested in what Monsanto was doing business practice wise, basically dismissing my reasons for disliking the company and moving back onto her perceived threats to our food supply.

She's also a raw milk supporter, kale lover, and takes a million "natural supplements" many that are painfully obvious as bullshit.


There is a unacknowledged racial aspect to these politics that few people outside academia seem willing to talk about. Agriculture, after all, is the main foundation for notions of territory, nationhood, race.

OXBALLS DOT COM
Sep 11, 2005

by FactsAreUseless
Young Orc

Amarkov posted:

Glyphosate (Roundup) is one of the safest herbicides available. It's relatively nontoxic, breaks down quickly, and does not bioaccumulate. Studies have consistently shown that its use poses no health risks to consumers, minimal environmental risks, and even seems to be less dangerous for farmers to apply.

Most criticisms are just ill-informed. This one makes me particularly angry, because it is literally the opposite of reality, in a way that causes very real harm to both the environment and farm workers.


e: I always really want to say "glyphosphate" :saddowns:

My big beef with organic farming has been that it still allows for the use of various pesticides and other chemicals, and often ones that are less effective and worse for the environment. Kind of makes the whole thing meaningless in every way. So you use more of organic-approved pesticides like rotenone or pyrethrum that are still plenty toxic and can cause environmental problems if used poorly versus evil synthetic pesticides that are often less harmful and more effective.

And it's a shame because organic has gotten conflated with lots of other things like heirloom plant varietals that often really do offer superior or different flavor, or home gardening, which is rewarding and often will give you fresher and better produce.

karthun
Nov 16, 2006

I forgot to post my food for USPOL Thanksgiving but that's okay too!

Flowers For Algeria posted:

Except Roundup is not 100% glyphosate, but rather a mix of 40% glyphosate and other agents, including surfactants which are highly toxic.

EDIT : what I'm saying is just let's not start painting herbicides as "safe" for the environment or animals. Pretty much all herbicides are toxic, and Roundup is no exception.

Good news is that farmers buy glyphosate and other raw chemicals in bulk and mix it for their needs.

Laphroaig
Feb 6, 2004

Drinking Smoke
Dinosaur Gum
Edit to preface: this post is about Monsanto in the developed world. I don't know about their practices in developing or undeveloped countries, and if you can provide sources about their unethical behavior it would help the OP in his arguments as well.

I don't know much about Monsanto. So I was curious - what do their contracts look like? The huffington post breathlessly informed me that some of their contracts - spanning up to a, gasp, 30 total pages - contained all sorts of nefarious things.

Illegibly Eligible posted:

I don't have a contract in hand that explicitly states this, just some extended family in the agriculture industry whom I chat with during the holidays. I'm sure that with a bit of googling a sharp cookie like yourself can find whatever evidence is needed to support virtually anything, so if you're that interested in looking into Monsanto's business practices I encourage you to do a bit of independent investigation.

I decided to do a bit of googling. I am not a sharp cookie, so it might be lacking, but lets see what I find.

Well, a google of "Monsanto contract" brings up Monsanto's own web page, and they say, "Growers wishing to purchase or plant seed with Monsanto technologies are required to have a current Monsanto Technology/Stewardship Agreement (MTSA) -- version 2010 or later. Monsanto's proprietary traits are offered in more than 200 different brands via an authorized distribution network, enabling farmers to maximize yield potential on their farm."

So I google for Monsanto Technology/Stewardship Agreement (MTSA).

http://thefarmerslife.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/scan_doc0004.pdf

This seems to be from 2011, so its a valid contract. Since the documents references this:

http://www.monsanto.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Technology-Use-Guide.pdf

I read it as well. That all of the legally binding contracts. The first is 3 pages, the second is longer but includes pictures and graphics. So lets investigate your claims about them!

quote:

Say you want to grow Monsanto corn but not Monsanto tomatoes. Not gonna happen. Their licensing is so restrictive that it's virtually impossible to NOT grow their crops once you start. Oh, it turns out there's a drought in your area, so you want to switch from Monsanto's (water intensive) crops back to something else that needs a bit less liquid? Too bad, you're under contract for X years. Oh snap! Your Monsanto corn was cross-pollinated with non-Monsanto corn from the next farm thanks to honeybees. You now owe Monsanto ridiculous amounts of money for violating their copyright.

I don't see where there is a requirement that you have to buy Monsanto corn if you buy Monsanto tomatoes, or where you have a requirement to only buy Monsanto brand Seed once you buy any Monsanto product.

This contract has no yearly clause. Once you buy the seeds you are not required to use them. Again, you are not under contract to only use Monsanto products. More importantly, you can terminate the contract at any time. Its right there in print - terminating the contract doesn't let you do whatever you want with Monsanto seed, in fact all it means is you can no longer buy Monsanto seed, grow crops with Monsanto seed, or sell crops you have grown with Monsanto seed. But if you wanted to switch from one crop to another? Nothing prevents you from doing so.

In regards to cross-pollinated corn, this one has a lot on it.

"Grower may not plant and may not transfer to others for planting any Seed that the Grower has produced containing patented Monsanto Technologies for crop breeding, research, or generation of herbicide registration data. Grower may not conduct research on Grower's crop produced from Seed other than to make agronomic comparisons and conduct yield testing for Grower's own use."

However, in the Technology use Guide, page 8, it clearly spells out the scenario and expectations of Coexistence and Identify Preserved Production. Essentially, farmers are not idiots and if you don't want your sweet corn and your waxy corn interbreeding, you should use:

"field management practices such as adequate isolation distances, buffers between crops, border rows, planned differences in maturity between adjacent fields that might cross-pollinate and harvest and handling practices designed to prevent mixing nad to maintain product integrity and quality."

So yes, it is on you to make sure your corn is not breeding with Monsanto seed corn. However, its not like this is something unheard of or super hard to do - its not an undue burden on the farmer. Its common, industry wide, adopted practices.

But you know what? Cross pollination happens anyway. So there is, clearly spelled out on page 9, guidelines and suggestions for how you (you, the owner of the farm using the Monsanto seeds) can avoid pollinating your neighbor's fields.

What it is requiring you to do is avoid pollinating your non-Monsanto using neighbors with your Monsanto crops. In fact, if I were a farmer with a field of corn, and a Monsanto using neighbor caused my seed corn to become hybridized with Monsanto product, I could probably sue the farmer using Monsanto products for damages. Monsanto, however, would not be liable because they include in the contract certain waivers of liability in such situations and expect you to follow the stewardship guidelines on page 8 and 9 of their technology use guide.

Here are some related cases:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/business/monsanto-victorious-in-genetic-seed-case.html?_r=0

Farmer buys a mix of Monsanto seed and other seed designated for use as feed, tries to replant it (to avoid paying Monsanto for more seed).

Justice Kagan, no fan of big corporations posted:

Mr. Bowman’s main argument was that a doctrine called patent exhaustion allowed him to do what he liked with products he had obtained legally. But Justice Kagan said it did not apply to the way he had used the seeds.

“Under the patent exhaustion doctrine, Bowman could resell the patented soybeans he purchased from the grain elevator; so too he could consume the beans himself or feed them to his animals,” she wrote.

“But the exhaustion doctrine does not enable Bowman to make additional patented soybeans without Monsanto’s permission,” she added, and went on to say that “that is precisely what Bowman did.”

Justice Kagan said that allowing Mr. Bowman’s tactic would destroy the value of Monsanto’s patent. “The exhaustion doctrine is limited to the ‘particular item’ sold,” she wrote, “to avoid just such a mismatch between invention and reward.”

Mr. Bowman acknowledged the general principle that he had no right to make a new product with Monsanto’s seeds. But he said he had used the seeds precisely as they were intended to be used — planting them “in the normal way farmers do,” Justice Kagan wrote.

Accepting that theory, she wrote, would create an “unprecedented exception” to the exhaustion doctrine. “If simple copying were a protected use,” she wrote, “a patent would plummet in value after the first sale of the item containing the invention.”

Mr. Bowman also argued in briefs that soybeans naturally “self-replicate or ‘sprout’ unless stored in a controlled manner,” meaning that “it was the planted soybean, not Bowman,” that created the new seeds.

Justice Kagan rejected what she called “that blame-the-bean defense.”

“Bowman was not a passive observer of his soybeans’ multiplication,” she wrote, adding: “Put another way, the seeds he purchased (miraculous though they might be in other respects) did not spontaneously create eight successive soybean crops.”

“It was Bowman, and not the bean,” she wrote, “who controlled the reproduction (unto the eighth generation) of Monsanto’s patented invention.”

It looks like its easy to say, Monsanto is a big company, all big companies are evil. But whenever anyone is asked for specifics, I see a lot of hyperbole and little hard proof. Its easy to prove how, say, HSBC committed major wrongdoing in their money laundering. But if you ask 10 people, which company is worse, Monsanto the GMO seed provider or HSBC, you'll probably find 9 out of 10 saying its Monsanto.

Basically does anyone have links to actual criminal complaints against Monsanto? Can anyone tell me exactly HOW they are behaving unethically by selling their products? Can anyone do that, and not ignore the fact that farmers are buying Monsanto products because they are herbicide (roundup) resistant, and thus result in higher crop yields that justify the yearly cost for seed to Monsanto?

Just think logically. There is no lock in. You buy the seed each year. If the seed wasn't turning a profit, to justify its higher cost and associated fee, why would you buy it?

Sure you could have been sold a bill of goods by a canny salesman, but its not like farmers are stupid hicks who fell off the wagon. They're businessmen who sell a product on the market.

Edit2:

Lastly, I don't know if this is true or not (its from their website directly), but:

http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/why-does-monsanto-sue-farmers-who-save-seeds.aspx

quote:

Where we do find violations, we are able to settle most of these cases without ever going to trial. In many cases, these farmers remain our customers. Sometimes however, we are forced to resort to lawsuits. This is a relatively rare circumstance, with 145 lawsuits filed since 1997 in the United States. This averages about 11 per year for the past 13 years. To date, only 9 cases have gone through full trial. In every one of these instances, the jury or court decided in our favor.

145 lawsuits over 13 years is not particularly litigious by any standard.

Laphroaig fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Jun 27, 2013

Judakel
Jul 29, 2004
Probation
Can't post for 9 years!

Slanderer posted:

Not really, but thanks anyway.

Then again... You might just be incredibly bad at making salient points.

Slanderer
May 6, 2007

Judakel posted:

Then again... You might just be incredibly bad at making salient points.

I wasn't trying to convince someone who couldn't even be bothered to read the whole drat OP (which was miniscule, by D&D standards).

Slanderer posted:

If I seem hostile it's just because I predicated the entire OP on "hey, I have a problem with people throwing out these very specific unsubstantiated claims due to some underlying unease about Monsanto" and have gotten multiple replies along the lines of "that's all well and good, but <very specific unsubstantiated claims due to some underlying unease about Monsanto>". I'm hoping to better understand the mindset that engenders this, but I'm actually having surprising difficulty (whether or not it's due to a conflict between holistic and reductionist viewpoints).

I don't really view these people as crazy, or irredeemably irrational, but that I don't understand them, so any classification isn't relevant.

Judakel
Jul 29, 2004
Probation
Can't post for 9 years!

Slanderer posted:

I wasn't trying to convince someone who couldn't even be bothered to read the whole drat OP (which was miniscule, by D&D standards).

That's what you're dealing with when you deal with the people described in the OP. Low-information.

Illegibly Eligible
Jul 21, 2009

Laphroaig posted:

Edit to preface: this post is about Monsanto in the developed world. I don't know about their practices in developing or undeveloped countries, and if you can provide sources about their unethical behavior it would help the OP in his arguments as well.

I don't know much about Monsanto. So I was curious - what do their contracts look like? The huffington post breathlessly informed me that some of their contracts - spanning up to a, gasp, 30 total pages - contained all sorts of nefarious things.


I decided to do a bit of googling. I am not a sharp cookie, so it might be lacking, but lets see what I find.

Well, a google of "Monsanto contract" brings up Monsanto's own web page, and they say, "Growers wishing to purchase or plant seed with Monsanto technologies are required to have a current Monsanto Technology/Stewardship Agreement (MTSA) -- version 2010 or later. Monsanto's proprietary traits are offered in more than 200 different brands via an authorized distribution network, enabling farmers to maximize yield potential on their farm."

So I google for Monsanto Technology/Stewardship Agreement (MTSA).

http://thefarmerslife.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/scan_doc0004.pdf

This seems to be from 2011, so its a valid contract. Since the documents references this:

http://www.monsanto.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Technology-Use-Guide.pdf

I read it as well. That all of the legally binding contracts. The first is 3 pages, the second is longer but includes pictures and graphics. So lets investigate your claims about them!


I don't see where there is a requirement that you have to buy Monsanto corn if you buy Monsanto tomatoes, or where you have a requirement to only buy Monsanto brand Seed once you buy any Monsanto product.

This contract has no yearly clause. Once you buy the seeds you are not required to use them. Again, you are not under contract to only use Monsanto products. More importantly, you can terminate the contract at any time. Its right there in print - terminating the contract doesn't let you do whatever you want with Monsanto seed, in fact all it means is you can no longer buy Monsanto seed, grow crops with Monsanto seed, or sell crops you have grown with Monsanto seed. But if you wanted to switch from one crop to another? Nothing prevents you from doing so.

In regards to cross-pollinated corn, this one has a lot on it.

"Grower may not plant and may not transfer to others for planting any Seed that the Grower has produced containing patented Monsanto Technologies for crop breeding, research, or generation of herbicide registration data. Grower may not conduct research on Grower's crop produced from Seed other than to make agronomic comparisons and conduct yield testing for Grower's own use."

However, in the Technology use Guide, page 8, it clearly spells out the scenario and expectations of Coexistence and Identify Preserved Production. Essentially, farmers are not idiots and if you don't want your sweet corn and your waxy corn interbreeding, you should use:

"field management practices such as adequate isolation distances, buffers between crops, border rows, planned differences in maturity between adjacent fields that might cross-pollinate and harvest and handling practices designed to prevent mixing nad to maintain product integrity and quality."

So yes, it is on you to make sure your corn is not breeding with Monsanto seed corn. However, its not like this is something unheard of or super hard to do - its not an undue burden on the farmer. Its common, industry wide, adopted practices.

But you know what? Cross pollination happens anyway. So there is, clearly spelled out on page 9, guidelines and suggestions for how you (you, the owner of the farm using the Monsanto seeds) can avoid pollinating your neighbor's fields.

What it is requiring you to do is avoid pollinating your non-Monsanto using neighbors with your Monsanto crops. In fact, if I were a farmer with a field of corn, and a Monsanto using neighbor caused my seed corn to become hybridized with Monsanto product, I could probably sue the farmer using Monsanto products for damages. Monsanto, however, would not be liable because they include in the contract certain waivers of liability in such situations and expect you to follow the stewardship guidelines on page 8 and 9 of their technology use guide.

Here are some related cases:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/business/monsanto-victorious-in-genetic-seed-case.html?_r=0

Farmer buys a mix of Monsanto seed and other seed designated for use as feed, tries to replant it (to avoid paying Monsanto for more seed).


It looks like its easy to say, Monsanto is a big company, all big companies are evil. But whenever anyone is asked for specifics, I see a lot of hyperbole and little hard proof. Its easy to prove how, say, HSBC committed major wrongdoing in their money laundering. But if you ask 10 people, which company is worse, Monsanto the GMO seed provider or HSBC, you'll probably find 9 out of 10 saying its Monsanto.

Basically does anyone have links to actual criminal complaints against Monsanto? Can anyone tell me exactly HOW they are behaving unethically by selling their products? Can anyone do that, and not ignore the fact that farmers are buying Monsanto products because they are herbicide (roundup) resistant, and thus result in higher crop yields that justify the yearly cost for seed to Monsanto?

Just think logically. There is no lock in. You buy the seed each year. If the seed wasn't turning a profit, to justify its higher cost and associated fee, why would you buy it?

Sure you could have been sold a bill of goods by a canny salesman, but its not like farmers are stupid hicks who fell off the wagon. They're businessmen who sell a product on the market.

Edit2:

Lastly, I don't know if this is true or not (its from their website directly), but:

http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/why-does-monsanto-sue-farmers-who-save-seeds.aspx


145 lawsuits over 13 years is not particularly litigious by any standard.

Seriously, good bit of research you did there. While I lack hard information to refute any of what you've found, anecdotal evidence suggests Monsanto to be somewhat less benign than they imply. I don't feel it unfair to draw a rough comparison to the RIAA in terms of "douchebagginess" if even 90% of the stuff I've heard is entirely bullshit.

Also, when you're a billion-dollar multinational corporation very few people are going to fight you in court and risk losing a source of livelihood that's been passed down through generations. Like you said, farmers aren't stupid hicks. I'm actually surprised to see THAT many lawsuits... surely, Monsanto has the resources to win a war of attrition and tie their opponents up in the legal system until they're penniless.

Cesar Cedeno
May 9, 2011
Probation
Can't post for 663 days!

Laphroaig posted:

Edit to preface: this post is about Monsanto in the developed world. I don't know about their practices in developing or undeveloped countries, and if you can provide sources about their unethical behavior it would help the OP in his arguments as well.

This was a very informative post, thank you.

I think I'll send this info to a few people as it is a fairly sufficient rebuttal of some of their more outlandish claims about the company's supposed evils.

Mc Do Well
Aug 2, 2008

by FactsAreUseless
As Carl Sagan pointed out, we have a civilization that is increasingly dependent on science and technology, and a majority of people know jackshit about central STEM concepts.

Then you get capitalism involved and there is the effect of decades of propaganda defending certain approaches:

Here's a great movie about DDT from 1992, where you see many memes that have returned in the GMO debate. Sadly our current issues are more intractable and the causal relationships aren't quite as easy to communicate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERLtyaugzw4

Until something goes horribly wrong with GMOs the political/industrial complex that controls agriculture will keep moving in whatever direction it is going now. Even if something goes wrong I'm sure lots and lots of media chaff will be deployed to undermine serious reform.

norton I
May 1, 2008

His Imperial Majesty Emperor Norton I

Emperor of these United States

Protector of Mexico

Flowers For Algeria posted:

Except Roundup is not 100% glyphosate, but rather a mix of 40% glyphosate and other agents, including surfactants which are highly toxic.

EDIT : what I'm saying is just let's not start painting herbicides as "safe" for the environment or animals. Pretty much all herbicides are toxic, and Roundup is no exception.



The MSDS for most surfactant/antifoam compounds look scary, but are written for legal reasons and aren't useful for actual risk assessment. Surfactant in ag chemicals is basically a few drops of oily stuff in each barrel to keep other stuff from clumping. You need very little of it, which is good because that poo poo gets expensive when you buy it by the kg.


It's like when people went batshit about cleanup crews spraying Corexit (primary ingredients including propylene glycol and other surfactants) on oil spills in the open ocean. The MSDS looks scary, but the actual risk of the detergent likely isn't any greater than the dish soap applied directly to baby birds.


quote:

Here's a great movie about DDT from 1992, where you see many memes that have returned in the GMO debate. Sadly our current issues are more intractable and the causal relationships aren't quite as easy to communicate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERLtyaugzw4

DDT is awesome at killing insects and is pretty harmless to animals that are not birds. Persistence makes it horrible for ag spraying, but there is nothing better for keeping mosquitoes out of houses.

norton I fucked around with this message at 03:10 on Jun 28, 2013

Preem Palver
Jul 5, 2007

norton I posted:

The MSDS for most surfactant/antifoam compounds look scary, but are written for legal reasons and aren't useful for actual risk assessment. Surfactant in ag chemicals is basically a few drops of oily stuff in each barrel to keep other stuff from clumping. You need very little of it, which is good because that poo poo gets expensive when you buy it by the kg.


It's like when people went batshit about cleanup crews spraying Corexit (primary ingredients including propylene glycol and other surfactants) on oil spills in the open ocean. The MSDS looks scary, but the actual risk of the detergent likely isn't any greater than the dish soap applied directly to baby birds.


DDT is awesome at killing insects and is pretty harmless to animals that are not birds. Persistence makes it horrible for ag spraying, but there is nothing better for keeping mosquitoes out of houses.

People were freaking out about the corexit because all it did was disperse the oil enough to remain under the surface of the ocean, causing dead zones where plumes of dispersed oil settled underwater. It made good PR photos for BP due to the lack of oil on top of the ocean but worsened the environmental impact of the spill overall. People weren't worried about the corexit alone, it was what it would do in conjunction with the oil.

Here is a recent (newspaper) article summarizing the ecological impact three years later.

quote:

One intriguing question is why some oil settled into the sediment on the bottom of the gulf a mile deep and stayed there. Hollander says that may be the work of two factors. One is the dispersant called Corexit that BP used to try to spread the oil out so it wouldn't wash ashore. The other is the Mississippi River.

BP sprayed Corexit directly at the wellhead spewing oil from the bottom of the gulf, even though no one had ever tried spraying it below the water's surface before. BP also used more of the dispersant than had been used in any previous oil spill, 1.8 million gallons, to try to break up the oil.

Meanwhile, the spill coincided with the typical spring flood of the mighty Mississippi, which sent millions of gallons of freshwater cascading in to push the oil away from the coast.

The Corexit broke the oil droplets down into smaller drops, creating the plume, Hollander said. Then the smaller oil droplets bonded with clay and other materials carried into the gulf by the Mississippi, sinking into the sediment where they killed the foraminifera.

Deteriorata
Feb 6, 2005

Preem Palver posted:

People were freaking out about the corexit because all it did was disperse the oil enough to remain under the surface of the ocean, causing dead zones where plumes of dispersed oil settled underwater. It made good PR photos for BP due to the lack of oil on top of the ocean but worsened the environmental impact of the spill overall. People weren't worried about the corexit alone, it was what it would do in conjunction with the oil.

Here is a recent (newspaper) article summarizing the ecological impact three years later.

You seem to think the oil would have just disappeared and been harmless if it hadn't been for the dispersant. The oil was going to cause lots of environmental damage somewhere no matter what. The only choice was in which ecosystem you designated to take the hit. The bayous and mangrove swamps of the Louisiana coast are very fragile and would have been almost impossible to clean up and restore. Leaving the oil on the surface would have been disastrous.

Hence, the dispersant was used to get it off the surface and protect the wetlands. The deep Gulf was less sensitive and more resilient, so it would have less impact there. There was no "no damage" option.

Preem Palver
Jul 5, 2007

Deteriorata posted:

You seem to think the oil would have just disappeared and been harmless if it hadn't been for the dispersant. The oil was going to cause lots of environmental damage somewhere no matter what. The only choice was in which ecosystem you designated to take the hit. The bayous and mangrove swamps of the Louisiana coast are very fragile and would have been almost impossible to clean up and restore. Leaving the oil on the surface would have been disastrous.

Hence, the dispersant was used to get it off the surface and protect the wetlands. The deep Gulf was less sensitive and more resilient, so it would have less impact there. There was no "no damage" option.

I did not state or imply that there would have been no environmental impact otherwise, and in fact said the exact opposite. Note "worsened environmental impact of the spill overall" and "in conjunction with the oil."
And considering that microbial life in the marshes is dying off because of the spill, it seems as if spraying the corexit didn't really help things, and likely made it worse.

Deteriorata
Feb 6, 2005

Preem Palver posted:

I did not state or imply that there would have been no environmental impact otherwise, and in fact said the exact opposite. Note "worsened environmental impact of the spill overall" and "in conjunction with the oil."
And considering that microbial life in the marshes is dying off because of the spill, it seems as if spraying the corexit didn't really help things, and likely made it worse.

Again you imply that leaving the oil on the surface would have led to less overall impact. That is complete bullshit.

Sinking it into the Gulf was certainly going to cause huge problems, but the problems overall would have been far greater if they'd let it get into the Louisiana wetlands. Your notion that they did it just for PR purposes is completely absurd.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

FRINGE
May 23, 2003
title stolen for lf posting
I just lost a very long post to (yet another) Firefox crash, but in any case this person speaks wisdom:

Quidam Viator posted:

I'm not straight-up telling you and the OP (or Dr Creflo for his accurate, but still eye-rollingly spergy correction) that you're dismissive, talking over these people's heads, or deep-down that you think they're sheeple, but I am implying it.





mugrim posted:

The poo poo Monsanto does to the third world is bad enough you really don't have to give a poo poo why other people are upset by them.
Yes. People need to quit acting like they are loving Korzybski and acting like the Neo-Semantic Sperg King when there is an actual issue to contend with.

Stuff like this is already an issue:

Tias posted:

Is there a point to your rants? It reads more or less like a Monsanto shill project at this point.

Play posted:

Whoa buddy, calm down there. This attitude makes you seem emotionally invested and you sound like a contrarian Monsanto shill.





Illegibly Eligible posted:

spider-chickens, bullet-proof bananas, and carnivorous grapes
The problem with the scifi stuff is that it is just scifi. Regardless of the PR, longterm consequences of many of these things are not that well understood. (Which is why after thousands of attempts to patent loving anything all Monsanto can do is push Bt crops and lawyers.) The research should absolutely continue - and anyone that is a fan of it should be screaming that it should be conducted in public labs and not patentable.





Laphroaig posted:

It looks like its easy to say, Monsanto is a big company, all big companies are evil. But whenever anyone is asked for specifics, I see a lot of hyperbole and little hard proof. Its easy to prove how, say, HSBC committed major wrongdoing in their money laundering. But if you ask 10 people, which company is worse, Monsanto the GMO seed provider or HSBC, you'll probably find 9 out of 10 saying its Monsanto.

Basically does anyone have links to actual criminal complaints against Monsanto?
Waging a case against Monsanto is as likely to be successful as waging a case against Bank of America or Chase.

They are loving connected.

quote:

In a 2007 cable, the US ambassador to France, Craig Roberts Stapleton, recommended "retaliation" against European "targets" in order to defend Monsanto sales of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in Europe, where controversy over GMOs is strong. In the cable, the French decision to suspend Monsanto's MON 810 patented seed product line was described as "damaging" and not "science-based". The French government's "apparent recommitment" to the precautionary principle written in the French Constitution was also referred to as "damaging".

No need for conspiracy theorizing. The leak showed that Monsanto was using the US Sate Dept as their bitch. (To go along with their old bitch the FDA.) The recent "Monsanto Rider" and its interpretive dance regarding the Sec of Ag and the PPA is telling.





Deteriorata posted:

The emotional bond to the nuttiness is incredibly strong. ... It would be fascinating and hilarious if it wasn't so damned annoying to deal with.
Please do tel us about emotional bonds to nuttiness and how they are annoying to deal with! :allears:

Deteriorata posted:

Yeah, I'm disturbed by the level of paternalism shown toward 3rd world farmers in general. It seems to be assumed that they're ignorant and incompetent, completely unable to make business decisions for themselves. There's a certain level of "caveat emptor" that has to apply to this.
Of course youre disturbed. Nothing that has happened since 2008 could possibly be bad! There is literally no history of US business interests econo-raping the poor across the globe and such a thing could not happen - and if it did happen they deserved it for that dress they were wearing.

Holy poo poo you managed to slip in some Obama/BP apologism while I was working on this. :psyduck:

  • Locked thread