The Devil Monsanto, or Combating Scientific Ignorance: CRISPR Responsibly!

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Devil Monsanto, or Combating Scientific Ignorance: CRISPR Responsibly!

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

# ¿ Jun 27, 2013 22:12

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 27, 2024 07:57

Laphroaig: Feb 6, 2004; Drinking Smoke; Dinosaur Gum

Forever_Peace posted:

Then you aren't listening.

They have been convicted of bribing authorities to evade environmental oversight, committing fraud to hide the evidence.

Nearly a thousand leaked diplomatic cables clearly showed the State Department pressuring foreign officials, businessmen, and scientists to accept Monsanto crops and seeds, many of which specifically advocated for Monsanto by name. The State department also produced taxpayer-funded marketing materials for these products. This is a level of government influence that is clearly an anti-competitive market pressures and a tremendous threat to proper oversight.

They also knowingly (though I can't say willfully) flood the market with crops that punish every farmer who DOESN'T switch (and over the long term, even those who do) by drastically altering selection pressures that can breed pesticide-resistant weeds, pests, or secondary pests. Monocultures are dangerous, but it's important to note that this isn't an inherent problem with GMO's - a marketplace of competitive, diverse GMO companies wouldn't have this problem. It's clearly a problem of Monsanto's monopolistic business practice.

In addition to limiting oversight through close governmental ties and outright bribes, Monsanto uses its patents to prevent University research on it's products. While conventional seeds and pesticides can be bought on the open market and used for research, the consumers who buy Monsanto products don't actually "own" that product - Monsanto effectively has veto power on all independent research conducted with it's products. If you support sound science, this is a problem, but again, not a problem with GMOs - it's a problem with the business practice.

Naturally, Monsanto also fights any recommendations to governments and farmers where its own products aren't hyped, backing out of the UN-sponsored IAASTD report recommendations because it contained data that showed some limited instances where Monsanto products were less efficient than other practices, particularly in the developing world (because Monsanto practices largely require big machinery and large quantities of water and petroleum). Monsanto business practices run directly contrary to good policy on global health, environmental practice, and malnourishment.

I am completely on board with the science of GMOs. I was against the food labeling in California, and largely support both "industrial agriculture" AND GMOs for largely environmental reasons. But saying that you have to be an idiot to disagree with the business practices of Monsanto is completely disingenuous. There are plenty of scientists that have articulated clear, researched arguments against Monsanto and other agritech companies - you would do well to listen to them.

This is a great post. Thank you for taking the time to find specific evidence of wrongdoing like the bribery fine.

In the Eight Ways article, you do have to dig a bit but eventually you can find stuff like this:

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/food_and_agriculture/failure-to-yield.pdf

which goes into more detail and lists sources. I think if you want to defeat crazy conspiracy thinking, you want to be well armed with the truth.

# ¿ Jun 28, 2013 17:22

Laphroaig: Feb 6, 2004; Drinking Smoke; Dinosaur Gum

Obdicut posted:

During that period the government encouraged and paid for people to move from cities to small farms. It's not a good example. I'm not being in the least bit cavalier, it's just a matter of actual available acreage.

Here is an excellent study done by very pro-urban farming guys I respect:

http://www.urbandesignlab.columbia.edu/sitefiles/file/urban_agriculture_nyc.pdf

Their conclusion is that using all available vacant lots and absolutely best urban farming practices, in NYC you could feed about 174,000 people from urban farming: seriously a drop in the bucket. However, by focusing on crops which are specifically not land-intensive, crops that don't survive transport well, etc., you can increase the impact of urban farming. However, as I said, without extensive technological advancement (sustainable energy and sustainable water filtration), large-scale urban farming is not even possible.

I'd like to advance the point that by the middle of the century (2050), the general census is that something like 70-80% of the Earth's population is going to be living in dense urban centers.

This is a problem that, one way or the other, will have to be addressed. I thought this was an interesting idea.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/05/21/185758529/vertical-pinkhouses-the-future-of-urban-farming

# ¿ Jan 14, 2014 19:28

Laphroaig: Feb 6, 2004; Drinking Smoke; Dinosaur Gum

Alright, Sept. 21 Bill Maher did his rant about how Monsanto was evil like ISIS.

quote:

Would we be this terrified if ISIS didn�t make videos or wear black and have a scary name. ISIS. It sounds like they should be fighting the X-Men. ISIS. Simultaneously cool sounding and stands for pure evil. Like Monsanto. �

Monsanto who we recently learned puts an ingredient in RoundUp, their ubiquitous crop spray, called Polyethoxylated tallow amine that is far more toxic than anyone realized. Folks, ISIS isn't going to kill you. Things like Polyethoxylated tallow amine, that's what's going to kill you. But try selling that idea to the United States of Pantshitters.

Ignoring the inherent hypocrisy of calling out pantshitting and then saying "You want to poo poo your pants? poo poo YOUR PANTS OVER THIS poo poo!"

So Bill Maher links to this:
http://www.organicauthority.com/blog/organic/scientists-find-dangerous-hidden-ingredient-in-monsantos-roundup-herbicide/

Which links to this:
http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/52-2013/14655-roundup-more-toxic-than-glyphosate-new-study-

which says:

quote:

Increased mortality is predicted of Inachis io larvae caused by Bt-maize pollen in European farmland
Niels Holst, Andreas Lang, Gabor L�vei, Mathias Otto
Ecological Modelling 250 (2013) 126�133
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380012005315

Abstract
A potential environmental risk of the field cultivation of insect-resistant (Bt-toxin expressing) transgenic maize (Zea mays) is the consumption of Bt-containing pollen by herbivorous larvae of butterflies (Lepidoptera). Maize is wind-pollinated, and at flowering time large amounts of pollen can be deposited on various plants growing in the landscape, leading to inadvertent ingestion of toxic pollen with plant biomass consumed by these butterfly larvae. To examine the possible effect of this coincidence, we focused our study on the protected butterfly Inachis io and two regions of Europe. Using climatic records, maize and butterfly phenology data, we built a simulation model of the butterfly�s annual life cycle, over- laid with the phenology of maize pollen deposition on the leaves of the food plant Urtica dioica, and linked these with the dose�response curve of I. io larvae to Bt-maize pollen (event MON810). The simulations indicated that in Northern Europe, where I. io is univoltine, Bt-maize pollen would not be present on the food plant at the same time as the I. io larvae. However, in Central and Southern Europe, where I. io is bivoltine, Bt-maize pollen and the second generation I. io larvae would coincide, and an increased mortality of the larvae was predicted. This prediction differs from earlier studies which predicted negligible effect of field-grown Bt-maize on I. io larvae. Our model is an improvement over previous efforts since it is based on more detailed, empirical data, includes more biological detail, and provides explicit estimation of all model parameters. The model is open-source software and is available for re-use and for modelling the effects on other species or regions.

Which has, of course, nothing to loving do with anything, because the actual LAST study on this issue was in 2004 and all of the various anti-GMO websites are recycling this as if it was a new study finds dangerous toxin in roundup.

# ¿ Sep 29, 2014 15:18

Laphroaig: Feb 6, 2004; Drinking Smoke; Dinosaur Gum

Solkanar512 posted:

This is the same guy who believed that cell towers were killing off bee populations and was schooled on his own show by Sen. Bill Frist about vaccines. Then he has the audacity to complain about republicans who don't believe in climate change.

Yeah I just found out that Bill Maher doesn't believe in, of all things, loving Germ Theory.

Bill Maher has been on an anti-GMO kick for the past year+ it seems. I just saw this crap appearing on Facebook, recently, including links to the now-retracted 2012 Gilles-Eric S�ralini et al. study on "Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize".

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637

Laphroaig fucked around with this message at 16:27 on Sep 29, 2014

# ¿ Sep 29, 2014 15:58

Laphroaig: Feb 6, 2004; Drinking Smoke; Dinosaur Gum

Trabisnikof posted:

Bill likes to babble about random poo poo he doesn't know anything about but he did back away from the germ poo poo.

Yeah the actual video where he does it though - he backs down via "JUST ASKING QUESTIONS HERE" style accusation of the dangers of vaccines.

Its great because he says "Its not settled science, like global warming. There has to be a debate."

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bill-mahers-medical-meltdown-turns-off-guests-confuses-audience/

Link is in the article, as well as general synopsis of comments.

There does seem to be heavy crossover between anti-vaxx and anti-GMO. Whenever I hear the phrase "Western Medicine" it immediately sets off gigantic alarm bells. Because "Western Medicine" as opposed to what?

You hear the same thing in criticism of the science of GMOs. There "has to be a debate" and the "science isn't settled." Granted I have yet to find the celebrity with the trifecta of Climate Change Denial, Anti-Vaccine, and Anti-GMO, but I'm sure they're out there, waiting to start a massive campaign to ruin the world just a little bit further.

# ¿ Sep 29, 2014 19:40

Laphroaig: Feb 6, 2004; Drinking Smoke; Dinosaur Gum

http://www.biofortified.org/2014/06/are-neonicotinoids-the-sole-factor-responsible-for-colony-collapse-disorder/

quote:

The story of CCD is a serious one, and it should be discussed in the public sphere. What disturbs me about this discussion is that the Lu paper discussed above has managed to go viral among the media outlets not because it�s quality science but because it fits an anti-pesticide narrative that the media has become increasingly comfortable with. The standard neonicotinoid narrative is convenient because it makes the situation simpler�a single problem, and a single solution which involves banning a single substance. However the real pesticide story involves dozens of compounds with wildly different uses, which interact with biological and environmental factors which are still poorly understood at best. The neonicotinoid story is just as complex because they likely don�t cause problems in all crops, but issues with proper use and application rates still need to be sorted out. There�s also a human component in some systems which is never discussed, where neonicotinoids frequently replace pesticides more toxic to people like organophosphates. Unfortunately, Lu�s research does nothing to highlight legitimate issues with these pesticides in particular. The thing that perhaps makes people the most uncomfortable, is that unlike climate change or evolution, the issues discussed here are not a case of settled science and continue to evolve as we better understand these factors.

# ¿ Oct 20, 2014 21:58

Laphroaig: Feb 6, 2004; Drinking Smoke; Dinosaur Gum

Tight Booty Shorts posted:

Where are your sources for these claims? There seems to be scientists who are still conducting experiments to prove all this et you guys seems to have everything figured out. The science seems far from settled to me.

I agree, the science of CCD is not settled.

However, it is probable that CCD is not caused by the use of the pesticides that were banned for use in various European countries, as their use was continued in other countries (like Canada) that have not suffered from CCD, and CCD has continued in the various European countries that have banned the use of the pesticides in question. The sources for these statements have been posted in the thread.

The EFSA's standpoint for or against the use of certain pesticides has nothing to do with the above point, which stands on its own.

That being said, what claims are you talking about? No claims are being made.

Laphroaig fucked around with this message at 15:34 on Oct 22, 2014

# ¿ Oct 21, 2014 16:12

Laphroaig: Feb 6, 2004; Drinking Smoke; Dinosaur Gum

What proof of value could there possibly be for the continued improvement of agriculture? We should just ban all further evolution of agriculture and slowly slide into the Malthusian hell that Europe finds so endearing, interspersed with generation-destroying global wars.

# ¿ Nov 13, 2014 20:11

Laphroaig: Feb 6, 2004; Drinking Smoke; Dinosaur Gum

Trabisnikof posted:

It would be bad science and bad policy making to weight the currently available evidence as completely valid or in a vacuum. It is still perfectly valid to not approve an activity because the evidence of benefits is marginal and some risks are still unknown. Especially since its not permanent and I'm pretty sure GMOs will keep being made even if they can't be used in Europe.

It may not be the decision you like, but its not "anti-science" just because it doesn't come to the conclusion you like.

Your same arguments would have you happily voting to ban CERN and the Large Hadron Collider. Or the use of vaccines. Or the fluoridation of tap water. Or the study of clouds with iron seedings, or any of the other activity that your kind, and I mean "your kind" with all the venom you can imagine because it truly is your crackpot kind that dresses up in a false cloak of rationality to attempt to excuse your monstrosity. "Well some Africans might die."

Its perfectly valid, after all, to not approve an an activity because the evidence of benefits is marginal and some risks are still unknown.

Do you want to say the preponderance of evidence says that GMO risks are still unknown, more so than the risks involved in the LHC? If you would say that, you'd be wrong. Science is about evidence. There is no evidence that GMOs present a risk.

In short your argument is both morally bankrupt and anti-science.

# ¿ Nov 13, 2014 21:04

Laphroaig: Feb 6, 2004; Drinking Smoke; Dinosaur Gum

Trabisnikof posted:

Once again, please show me how using GMOs in Europe would save lives on the scale that vaccines do? If you care about making evidence based arguments that is.

How does a joint report by UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), the World Food Programme (WFP) and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) suit you, estimating that nearly 870 million people, or one in eight, were suffering from chronic undernourishment in 2010-2012?

This is easily on a scale comparable to the benefit of vaccines.

http://www.fao.org/publications/sofi/en/

Here are the commonly accepted problems with world hunger :

1. Worldwide, food is not produced where it is mostly consumed or needed

2. Energy, chemical and genetic inputs used in conventional agriculture are not affordable for all farmers

3. Current trends in diets and food habits are not compatible with the sustainable use of global resources

4. Markets chains are ineffective in ensuring access to food for everyone and lead to substantial food wastes

1 and 3 are largely unaffected. Growing more food in Europe does nothing to help the problems of 1 and 3. GMOs are a kind of food, and while they are much more sustainable in regards to the use of global resources - requiring less water, pesticides, etc than organic farming techniques - again that is a long term view that impacts everyone, not just Europeans and Africans famines.

4 also has relevance to GMOs, as they have advantages in the improvement of longevity with regards to market chains and last mile distribution issues. But Europe has infrastructure in place that makes any lessons learned there not really relevant to the problems of spoilage in Africa.

However, 2 is directly impacted by GMO technology. Europe banning GMOs has a chilling effect on their research and development costs, directly influencing 2 in a substantial way given the size of Europe's economy. Less development of GMOs means their price is higher for less effect. Further, the non-use of GMOs means Europeans must consume more energy and chemical resources to grow their crops, which directly impacts the global price and has direct pressure on African countries agriculture.

# ¿ Nov 13, 2014 21:35

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 27, 2024 07:57

Laphroaig: Feb 6, 2004; Drinking Smoke; Dinosaur Gum

A big flaming stink posted:

dunno about lack of value, but i certainly think it's valid to let gmos get banned to focus on lobbying for more important things. they're not that important, and there's gotta be a better way to spend your time and political influence smashing your forehead against all the folks that freak out about gmos.

like, say, smashing your forehead against the folks that freak out about nuclear.

Top 20 things politicians need to know about science
British and Australian scientists compile a list of tips to help policy makers better understand the 'imperfect nature of science'

Top 20 things scientists need to know about policy-making
There are some common misunderstanding among scientists about how governments make their policy decisions

12 things policy-makers and scientists should know about the public
We've had 20 things politicians need to know about science and 20 things scientists need to know about policy. Where's the rest of society fit into this?

Laphroaig fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Nov 13, 2014

# ¿ Nov 13, 2014 23:11

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Devil Monsanto, or Combating Scientific Ignorance: CRISPR Responsibly!