[Likely controversial?] Why does people consider Monsanto the face of GMO?

[vger]

This is basically like a programmer copying bits of code, or even entire classes, from someone's project, and pasting them into his/her project, then claiming that they engineered that piece of software.

Unfortunately I doubt we're going to see an all-powerful deity come down and lay claim to it.

Yes, they're basically taking credit for nature's work, but even if she protested now, she didn't bother to file a patent. She's more the type to just send her gratitude in the form of a super-plague.

[RainDreamer]

So I guess it is general bad business practices and PR rather than having anything to do with GMO then.

[vger]

So I guess it is general bad business practices and PR rather than having anything to do with GMO then.

Well, there IS another concern. Whether or not it's overblown is anyone's guess. The problem is we don't know enough about genes to be splicing things and then eating them.

You can test for resistance to something and then inject those genes into something, while having no clue whether or not those genes influence anything BESIDES the thing you're trying to achieve.

We could very easily "throw out the baby with the bathwater" without knowing it.

[xcorps]

So I guess it is general bad business practices and PR rather than having anything to do with GMO then.

More than just bad business practice. Business practice that is actually harmful to society. The BP oil spill was a result of bad business practice but it wasn't intentional. BP didn't actually WANT oil in the Gulf of Mexico. Monsanto intentionally poisoned rivers and aquifers.

[RainDreamer]

More than just bad business practice. Business practice that is actually harmful to society. The BP oil spill was a result of bad business practice but it wasn't intentional. BP didn't actually WANT oil in the Gulf of Mexico. Monsanto intentionally poisoned rivers and aquifers.

Lemme rephrase that. Unethical business practices. Although you got source on Monsanto intentionally poisoning things? Not doubting you, but I want to get to bottom of things to separate myth and fact.

[Robotengineer]

I just read an Op-Ed column in NYT referencing research done by the IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) today saying that the primary chemical(glysophate) used in RoundUp is likely carcinogenic to humans.

Edited March 25, 2015 by Robotengineer

[LordFerret]

The primary issue I have with Monsanto are the patents it holds on living organisms. They did not actually engineer genetic material AFAIK, they only selected genetic material from other organisms that had a natural resistance to RoundUp, then 'pasted' that genetic material into the crop. This is basically like a programmer copying bits of code, or even entire classes, from someone's project, and pasting them into his/her project, then claiming that they engineered that piece of software.

This is a thing that disturbs me. I'm not sure which holds which but, between the CDC and NIH (US government), and apparently Bill Gates as rumor has it, patients are held on various strains of Ebola and their vaccines. About two years ago it had been announced that they (the CDC and WHO) planned to test a vaccine for Ebola in Africa. Apparently, Africans were leery of this. So, next thing you know (last year) there's an Ebola outbreak here in the US ... and the vaccine gets tested here first. Can't help but think was that engineered, and I wouldn't put it past them. Now, recently, with the vaccine trials declared 'successful', they're to begin the vaccinations in Africa.

I spent 15 years of my life (as a consultant) working with pharmaceutical companies (and other 'scientific' industries), they were my main bread and butter. The two main products/projects I was involved in were Piperacillin and Cephalosporin (the reintroduction of it). Beta tests and clinical trials (and post clinical studies) take YEARS to accomplish. It used to take 12 years to get FDA approval, but that got changed in the late 80's/early 90's and fast-tracked to 7 years - as is done in France among other places. There is a reason for this, these trials; These Ebola vaccines have not undergone proper trials. That's all I'm going to say.

Unfortunately I doubt we're going to see an all-powerful deity come down and lay claim to it.

Yes, they're basically taking credit for nature's work, but even if she protested now, she didn't bother to file a patent. She's more the type to just send her gratitude in the form of a super-plague.

lol ... what if an all-powerful deity already has the patient on it, only we're not yet capable of making it to the patient office to check it out.

[Drunken Hobo]

It's largely intellectual laziness. Monsanto are cited partly due to being the biggest funders against Proposition 37, but people turn a blind eye to the biggest funder in support of the proposition - Mercola Health Resources. An AIDS-denying, anti-vaccine "health supplement" company that peddles homeopathy, magnetic healing and claims that microwaves dangerously alter the chemistry of your food.

A fine example of why guilt by association is a terrible argument.

[LordFerret]

I just read an Op-Ed column in NYT referencing research done by the IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) today saying that the primary chemical(glysophate) used in RoundUp is likely carcinogenic to humans.

This is still under study, and the final word is not in yet.

According to the EPA,

"Cancer: There is inadequate evidence to state whether or not glyphosate has the potential to cause cancer from a lifetime exposure in drinking water."

- http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw/pdfs/factsheets/soc/tech/glyphosa.pdf

According to a UK paper, abstract published via NCBI,

"... The mechanisms of toxicity of glyphosate formulations are complicated. Not only is glyphosate used as five different salts but commercial formulations of it contain surfactants, which vary in nature and concentration. As a result, human poisoning with this herbicide is not with the active ingredient alone but with complex and variable mixtures. Therefore, It is difficult to separate the toxicity of glyphosate from that of the formulation as a whole or to determine the contribution of surfactants to overall toxicity. Experimental studies suggest that the toxicity of the surfactant, polyoxyethyleneamine (POEA), is greater than the toxicity of glyphosate alone and commercial formulations alone. There is insufficient evidence to conclude that glyphosate preparations containing POEA are more toxic than those containing alternative surfactants. Although surfactants probably contribute to the acute toxicity of glyphosate formulations, the weight of evidence is against surfactants potentiating the toxicity of glyphosate. ..."

- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15862083

Bear in mind, I'm no fan of Roundup.

- - - Updated - - -

It's largely intellectual laziness. Monsanto are cited partly due to being the biggest funders against Proposition 37, but people turn a blind eye to the biggest funder in support of the proposition - Mercola Health Resources. An AIDS-denying, anti-vaccine "health supplement" company that peddles homeopathy, magnetic healing and claims that microwaves dangerously alter the chemistry of your food.

A fine example of why guilt by association is a terrible argument.

True, but Dr. Mercola's point on what kills (most forms of) cancer turned out to be on the money... starve it with proteins and fats.

[RainDreamer]

I just read an Op-Ed column in NYT referencing research done by the IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) today saying that the primary chemical(glysophate) used in RoundUp is likely carcinogenic to humans.

Yeah, it might be carcinogenic, though there haven't been evidences for it. Doesn't mean it is definitively not cancer-causing, it just mean that there has been no conclusive case proving that. Here is a (badly scanned, ugh, government) document from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on their animal test with glyphosate. Their conclusion: "Glyphosate is neither tumourigenic or carcinogenic [when fed]* at dietary levels up to 300 ppm to mice over 18 months". *too blurry, have to guess.

However, whether it is, or is not carcinogenic, the thing is, everyone already use it. Monsanto,Cenex/Land O’Lakes, DowAgroSciences, Du Pont,Helena, and Platte all have a pesticide with it, with trade names as RoundUp®,RoundUp-Pro®, Rodeo®,GlyPro®, Accord®,Glyphomax®, Touchdown®.

If we don't want that stuff, there are more than just RoundUp and Mosanto that we have to deal with.

Also, on the topic of Mosanto patents on living organism, Mosanto patents on Round Up Ready Soybean is about to expire (or already expire, I think it is in 2015 but not sure when). This mean that farmers now can grow those specific Monsanto's seed without having to pay royalty, and they can also save seeds if they want to (only if there aren't any other trait or parts of the seed that are still protected by patent). There are more to it though, namely economic impacts and such.

Edited March 25, 2015 by RainDreamer

[EdFred]

To answer the original question, same reason people think Henry Ford invented the automobile. He didn't, but he thrust his company to the forefront, just like Monsanto, and Xerox, and Kleenex, and all the other brand names that people use for generic items.

[RainDreamer]

To answer the original question, same reason people think Henry Ford invented the automobile. He didn't, but he thrust his company to the forefront, just like Monsanto, and Xerox, and Kleenex, and all the other brand names that people use for generic items.

Lol...as a PR student, I am not sure how to feel with that conclusion. On one side, that means they got top-of-mind awareness of very high levels, to the point that the brand name is equated to the product category. It is like a dream comes true when you barely have to lift a finger and people use your brand name on their own to talk about it. On the other hand, the brand name is also being used as a strawman to be burned at the stake for anything related to the product category. Bad press and reputation, what a nightmare.

Edited March 25, 2015 by RainDreamer

[Vanamonde]

LordFerret, the suggestion that the CDC allowed or caused ebola to break out in the US just so they could test a vaccine against ebola doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me. It's also a pretty serious allegation. Is there any evidence to support such an assertion?

[xcorps]

Lemme rephrase that. Unethical business practices. Although you got source on Monsanto intentionally poisoning things? Not doubting you, but I want to get to bottom of things to separate myth and fact.

Sure, check the Wikipedia page for Monsanto. The Superfund sites are briefly discussed and there is a link to court cases where Monsanto lost verdicts in civil matters relating to harm caused to citizens and employees due to the unlawful disposal of PCBS and Mercury. I would post themhere but I am not on my PC at the moment and it would be a PITA on this phone.

[xcorps]

Lemme rephrase that. Unethical business practices. Although you got source on Monsanto intentionally poisoning things? Not doubting you, but I want to get to bottom of things to separate myth and fact.

Sure, check the Wikipedia page for Monsanto. The Superfund sites are briefly discussed and there is a link to court cases where Monsanto lost verdicts in civil matters relating to harm caused to citizens and employees due to the unlawful disposal of PCBS and Mercury. I would post themhere but I am not on my PC at the moment and it would be a PITA on this phone.

Vanamonde,

there is a significant precedence that the United States government would do exactly that.

Tuskegee

OPERATION BIG ITCH

Statesville Penitentiary

US Navy operations over San Francisco to test serratia

Willowbrook state school

PROJECT SHAD

I am not saying that is the case with Ebola. I am saying that I would not be surprised. Not at all.

[vger]

To answer the original question, same reason people think Henry Ford invented the automobile. He didn't, but he thrust his company to the forefront, just like Monsanto, and Xerox, and Kleenex, and all the other brand names that people use for generic items.

What Henry Ford did, was invent the AFFORDABLE automobile. One that wasn't accessible only to the super-rich.

- - - Updated - - -

lol ... what if an all-powerful deity already has the patient on it, only we're not yet capable of making it to the patient office to check it out.

The super-plague I mentioned before would probably help with that.

[KandoKris]

Monsanto the face of GMO? Yes it is, why... Because of their legal and lobby wing.

Why are they hated by most... teams of private eyes trying to collect evidence farmers are "keeping" seeds that belong to mansota

Seeds that before mansota would have been used for the next season’s crop costing farmer s bucket loads of money, suing store owners completely un-related to seeds ( google it ) basic BAD company behaviour getting backed up by the courts as farmers can’t afford to indefinitely defend themselves ( when a "supporter" of GM loses mansota will appeal, appeal, appeal or at least fund the appeal), Perth courthouse has a great example that’s still going.

Well yeah... you can't really do much to stop cross pollination, unless every farmer builds a freaking dome over their property. So what happens if Monsanto crops end up in your field even if you didn't put it there? You're automatically a thief waiting to be sued for every cent you own.

And worst of all is that it's replayed over and over through the courts of the world

When asked what is the most EVIL Company Monsanto is TOP of my list

From chemical factory to GM Research. Everything they do is done with profit at the front and the well-being of others is not even a 2nd thought.

Edited March 27, 2015 by KandoKris

[Vanamonde]

xcorps, I didn't say that it couldn't happen. Just that one needs to be careful when accusing people of doing illegal and deadly things. Without evidence, that could seriously harm innocent people.

[vger]

xcorps, I didn't say that it couldn't happen. Just that one needs to be careful when accusing people of doing illegal and deadly things. Without evidence, that could seriously harm innocent people.

I've heard it said that one should never assume evil in the place of stupidity.

Spreading the Ebola patients around at different hospitals (especially in the wake of what happened in Dallas) certainly seems EXTREMELY STUPID.

These patients should be someplace with a huge barb-wire electric fence that spans miles, and insane security measures to make sure nobody walks out of the building with anything they shouldn't have. All that has to happen is for one fool to check their cellphone at the wrong time in a secure area, and this whole thing will go down like dominoes.

[GreenWolf]

I've heard it said that one should never assume evil in the place of stupidity.

Spreading the Ebola patients around at different hospitals (especially in the wake of what happened in Dallas) certainly seems EXTREMELY STUPID.

These patients should be someplace with a huge barb-wire electric fence that spans miles, and insane security measures to make sure nobody walks out of the building with anything they shouldn't have. All that has to happen is for one fool to check their cellphone at the wrong time in a secure area, and this whole thing will go down like dominoes.

Emphasis mine

Uh, why? Ebola is not the most contagious disease we have ever encountered. Heck, compared to something like smallpox (which could be successfully quarantined in Victorian London), ebola is small fries. Is ebola a nasty, deadly, awful disease? Yes. Should we be panicking and expecting complete and total societal collapse because of it? No.

[WinkAllKerb'']

omg.. (5char&afewDNA)

[vger]

Yes. Should we be panicking and expecting complete and total societal collapse because of it? No.

Agreed, it is not. But all it takes is for one person to do something incredibly stupid. What makes it so dangerous is if something gets contaminated, we could end up not finding out for weeks... AFTER who knows how many have touched it.

[LordFerret]

LordFerret, the suggestion that the CDC allowed or caused ebola to break out in the US just so they could test a vaccine against ebola doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me. It's also a pretty serious allegation. Is there any evidence to support such an assertion?

The burning question never answered (still) and side-stepped the entire time was: Who authorized the bringing of Ebola infected patients to the US? Those that made it here, allegedly on their own, it was known at the source they were (potentially) infected, yet allowed to travel anyway. All the facilities needed for containment and testing and treatment were in place, there, in Africa... as so stated and confirmed by the CDC, NIH, and WHO. They've been actively monitoring and cataloging and working with the various strains running around since the mid 70's. Like the weaponization of anthrax, Ebola also is looked upon for such potential.

It may not make a lot of sense to you, but it is exactly what happened. The only evidence there is for my assertion are the actions themselves which did take place, and should speak loudly to anyone paying attention. I've done a lot searching, made numerous inquires with those I know in the industry, as to where the authorization came from - but there is no answer to be permitted. Good luck finding it. For what it's worth, there's some very big money tied up in this.

And you're correct; Indeed, innocent people were harmed.

Vanamonde,

there is a significant precedence that the United States government would do exactly that.

Tuskegee

OPERATION BIG ITCH

Statesville Penitentiary

US Navy operations over San Francisco to test serratia

Willowbrook state school

PROJECT SHAD

I am not saying that is the case with Ebola. I am saying that I would not be surprised. Not at all.

A good sampling to cite.

[Vanamonde]

I do not find it difficult to believe that an infected person would make it into the country. What I find difficult to believe is the suggestion that it was arranged deliberately, by the most prominent anti-disease organization in the world. Do you really believe CDC doctors are so evil or heartless that they'd risk killing people just for the sake of (I believe your suggestion was) testing a vaccine? Governments have done that, and worse. But the CDC?

There's a saying which I can't remember who said it but I think it's very wise. "Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity." Somebody screwing up and allowing ebola into the country? Sure. The CDC doing it on purpose? That I think one would need to back up with more evidence than your inability to find source.

[WinkAllKerb'']

It's a small world ... in this small entity world closest theater latest famous film is x-virus, i do believe it's kinda like the x-men here ... yeah you know mutation never happen it's just a myth since origin ... oh my dog i need a cat to kall a holala tralalilalala. ...