- Illegibly Eligible
- Jul 21, 2009
-
|
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.
Basically, we as humans have been genetically modifying living things for thousands of years. Ever hear of farming? Yeah, one of the primary components of that is selecting the most favorable aspects of living things and encouraging their propagation via selective breeding. Thus, the genetics are altered. Look up wild corn - it's basically inedible for humans. Corn on the cob didn't exist 10,000 years ago... we built that poo poo. The primary difference is that now we have the technology to do the same kind of things without having to wait for organisms to grow and mature and gently caress thousands of times.
Where Monsanto is evil is their business practices. It really DOES harm food supply and fucks farmers over HARD. 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'm all for spider-chickens with 8 drummies, banana peels that'll stop bullets, and semi-sentient grapes that'll kill and devour bugs, but gently caress Monsanto and their attempt to corner the world's food market.
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2013 09:46
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2024 11:34
|
|
- 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.
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.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2013 19:17
|
|
- Illegibly Eligible
- Jul 21, 2009
-
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2013 00:34
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2013 09:46
