The new direction of Monsanto?

[Toe]

This seems like the most appropriate thread for this Slate piece on GMOs. A good read (though lengthy).

the deeper you dig, the more fraud you find in the case against GMOs. It’s full of errors, fallacies, misconceptions, misrepresentations, and lies. The people who tell you that Monsanto is hiding the truth are themselves hiding evidence that their own allegations about GMOs are false. They’re counting on you to feel overwhelmed by the science and to accept, as a gut presumption, their message of distrust.

I'm not a scientician, so I largely go by my layman's interpretation of what I read. I still haven't read anything that convinces me that the supposed dangers of GMOs are anything more than a bogeyman. In fact (and this might rile up a few people), I tend to think that the case against GMOs is quite similar to the case against vaccinations. Not a lot of science to back it up, but plenty of scare tactics.

I remember a few years back reading something about Monsanto lobbying really hard and getting a government body (can't remember if it was state-level or smaller) to pass a law that in effect makes Monsanto not liable for any damage their food causes, even if it turns out to be harmful. It may have been just anti-Monsanto propaganda but that always struck me as extremely shady. Why would they spend all the money to protect themselves unless they knew something was there?

[LordMortis]

I'm not a scientician, so I largely go by my layman's interpretation of what I read. I still haven't read anything that convinces me that the supposed dangers of GMOs are anything more than a bogeyman. In fact (and this might rile up a few people), I tend to think that the case against GMOs is quite similar to the case against vaccinations. Not a lot of science to back it up, but plenty of scare tactics.

I'm sort of in the complimentary boat. I don't care about the bogy men that naturalists are selling. Too many of them are snake oil salesmen. However, I don't think the GMO designers have done anything to alleviate the fears that they understand further reaching effects of the changes they are making. I tend to thing the case for GMOs is similar to the case of frozen dinners.

As I said up top, I actually like the idea of crossbreeding based on super duper algorithms but genetically splicing my food with the stuff that kills fungus and bacteria and insects while telling me "perfectly safe for humans" raises an eyebrow when it seems the art of science is about making predictions, gathering data on a phenomena, and then saying "I was wrong. Now I have a better understanding. Let's move forward and see where else we can get a better understanding" while business is about making money for your stockholder right now. I also fear for biodiversity. GMed Homogeneity is just asking for problems.

For whatever reason, I have more faith in crossing a gazillion oranges to get me a better orange than I do a guy with a chemical knife an orange and a petunia.

[ImLawBoy]

This seems like the most appropriate thread for this Slate piece on GMOs. A good read (though lengthy).

the deeper you dig, the more fraud you find in the case against GMOs. It’s full of errors, fallacies, misconceptions, misrepresentations, and lies. The people who tell you that Monsanto is hiding the truth are themselves hiding evidence that their own allegations about GMOs are false. They’re counting on you to feel overwhelmed by the science and to accept, as a gut presumption, their message of distrust.

I'm not a scientician, so I largely go by my layman's interpretation of what I read. I still haven't read anything that convinces me that the supposed dangers of GMOs are anything more than a bogeyman. In fact (and this might rile up a few people), I tend to think that the case against GMOs is quite similar to the case against vaccinations. Not a lot of science to back it up, but plenty of scare tactics.

I remember a few years back reading something about Monsanto lobbying really hard and getting a government body (can't remember if it was state-level or smaller) to pass a law that in effect makes Monsanto not liable for any damage their food causes, even if it turns out to be harmful. It may have been just anti-Monsanto propaganda but that always struck me as extremely shady. Why would they spend all the money to protect themselves unless they knew something was there?

I don't know anything about that law or the lobbying efforts, so I'm just spitballing here, but it could be protection against frivolous lawsuits like the ones the vaccine makers have to spend money defending against.

[LordMortis]

I remember a few years back reading something about Monsanto lobbying really hard and getting a government body (can't remember if it was state-level or smaller) to pass a law that in effect makes Monsanto not liable for any damage their food causes, even if it turns out to be harmful. It may have been just anti-Monsanto propaganda but that always struck me as extremely shady. Why would they spend all the money to protect themselves unless they knew something was there?

What I read was a federal law that Monsanto the arbiters for their own regulation. I thought it was posted here.

I remember reading the law and having a hard time parsing it and that the anti GMO facebook legion kept posting stories about the law without posting the law and it drove me crazy.

To the internet!!!

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... ion-act-gm

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr933/text

My brain is mush this time of day. I couldn't make heads nor tails of it if I had to.

[stessier]

For whatever reason, I have more faith in crossing a gazillion oranges to get me a better orange than I do a guy with a chemical knife an orange and a petunia.

And that is a problem when science shows the chemical knife is more accurate and produces the similar results.

[LordMortis]

For whatever reason, I have more faith in crossing a gazillion oranges to get me a better orange than I do a guy with a chemical knife an orange and a petunia.

And that is a problem when science shows the chemical knife is more accurate and produces the similar results.

That's what hasn't been demonstrated to me. The people doing science haven't shown me that they understand the knife well enough yet. Perhaps they do but they haven't shown me and the science industry has shown me that they don't care. How long did it take science of one industry fighting science of another industry to remove lead from gasoline? To remove Asbestos from insulation? To go "hey while salt is a great preservative, we might want to cut back on that shit." Look at how much testing we put drugs through and we theoretically understand their mechanisms and we're still wrong all of the time. Rewriting genetic roadmapping, is way more complex.

That said. I'm cheap and I have no particular attachment to this life. I buy GMOs all of the time and almost never buy organic. And I won't cry havoc when I fall apart as I am already doing. That doesn't mean I actually trust them.

[stessier]

For whatever reason, I have more faith in crossing a gazillion oranges to get me a better orange than I do a guy with a chemical knife an orange and a petunia.

And that is a problem when science shows the chemical knife is more accurate and produces the similar results.

That's what hasn't been demonstrated to me. The people doing science haven't shown me that they understand the knife well enough yet. Perhaps they do but they haven't shown me and the science industry has shown me that they don't care. How long did it take science of one industry fighting science of another industry to remove lead from gasoline? To remove Asbestos from insulation? To go "hey while salt is a great preservative, we might want to cut back on that shit." Look at how much testing we put drugs through and we theoretically understand their mechanisms and we're still wrong all of the time. Rewriting genetic roadmapping, is way more complex.

That said. I'm cheap and I have no particular attachment to this life. I buy GMOs all of the time and almost never buy organic. And I won't cry havoc when I fall apart as I am already doing. That doesn't mean I actually trust them.

Did you read the article linked? They provide three case studies that show they very much know what they are doing.

[RunningMn9]

The problem is that Corporate America has such a thorough history of not giving a fuck in the slightest that trusting them and the science they fund isn't easy. We see it every day with climate science. We've seen it through the years as they dumped toxic waste in our water supply. We see it with the science that says that fracking is the bestest, meanwhile people's water can now be lit on fire.

Corporate America doesn't have a great track record in not harming us to improve their own bottom line.

[RunningMn9]

I should point out that I'm not against GMOs per se, outside of the fact that they allow people to bathe my food in RoundUp and then sell it to me.

[LordMortis]

^^^^^^^^^
That's what I was no good at articulating.

With the addition that growing market share seems to have a corollary of reducing the diversity of nature's provisions for our food and that scares me as well.

[GreenGoo]

Monsanto's use of a broken patent system to screw people means that I will always view them with suspicion, and avoid their products whenever possible.

[Smoove_B]

I should point out that I'm not against GMOs per se, outside of the fact that they allow people to bathe my food in RoundUp and then sell it to me.

One of the most interesting unintended consequences of being able to bathe our food in RoundUp is what it's doing to the soil. While the RoundUp does a terrific job at killing off things we don't eat to allow the things we do eat to grow, it's also likely harming the organisms essential to plant grow that are living in the soil, including my buddies the earthworm.

Like the human microbiome, the plants’ roots systems rely on a complex system of bacteria, fungi and minerals in the soil. The combination, in the right balance, helps protect the crops from diseases and improves photosynthesis.

It's entirely possible that RoundUp is completely harmless to human health. However, if the absurd amounts of it that we're using to grow the food we need end up destroying the soil? Trouble.

[LordMortis]

Monsanto's use of a broken patent system to screw people means that I will always view them with suspicion, and avoid their products whenever possible.

It's the same as drug cos but then I don't trust the Big Pharm either... even if I still take their meds. What does John Green call it when you are unable to reasonably negotiate for the things you need that you can't provide on your own?

[RunningMn9]

The problem that I have is that the efforts of companies like Monsanto are directed to the singular purpose of making more money. They do that by coming up with ways to increase yield, and with coming up with ways to sell more of their products (like RoundUp).

So if Monsanto can genetically engineer seeds to grow RoundUp-resistant corn, seeds which they can charge more for because they are resistant to RoundUp - as well as selling a lot more RoundUp which can be sprayed onto that corn with impunity - Monsanto is more than happy to do that.

Long term health of the soil from RoundUp saturation? That's a problem for a future quarter (and possibly a future CEO and future shareholders) to deal with. Right now, you have to solve the problem of boosting this quarter's numbers, else you will be out of a job. And if it turns out that RoundUp leads to some sort of health issue? For a long time, the cost of that health impact will be born by the customers of their customers (who don't know that RoundUp is the causative agent).

For those that aren't aware, the "Monsanto Protection Act" doesn't insulate companies like Monsanto from frivolous litigation the way the vaccine courts do for vaccine manufacturers do. The intent was that if a court ruled that something should be regulated, that the USDA had already ruled should not be regulated, the thing would remain deregulated while legal challenges to that ruling continued.

And from what I can tell, that part of the law was only in effect until Sep 30, 2013.

My point is simply that I don't know why anyone would simply trust a company to not hide the harm that their products might be doing. They've shown time and again that they are perfectly willing to do that.

[Isgrimnur]

I trust the government very little. I trust the corporations even less. I'm happy when they are unhappy with each other.

[stessier]

My point is simply that I don't know why anyone would simply trust a company to not hide the harm that their products might be doing. They've shown time and again that they are perfectly willing to do that.

It's a fair point. But where is anyone arguing that you should trust the company?

[stessier]

I should point out that I'm not against GMOs per se, outside of the fact that they allow people to bathe my food in RoundUp and then sell it to me.

One of the most interesting unintended consequences of being able to bathe our food in RoundUp is what it's doing to the soil. While the RoundUp does a terrific job at killing off things we don't eat to allow the things we do eat to grow, it's also likely harming the organisms essential to plant grow that are living in the soil, including my buddies the earthworm.

Like the human microbiome, the plants’ roots systems rely on a complex system of bacteria, fungi and minerals in the soil. The combination, in the right balance, helps protect the crops from diseases and improves photosynthesis.

It's entirely possible that RoundUp is completely harmless to human health. However, if the absurd amounts of it that we're using to grow the food we need end up destroying the soil? Trouble.

The article mentions that there is no clear winner here - there are things to be concerned about in both GMO products and natural products. It's important to have the discussions and understand the trade offs before making a decision rather than just doing the body snatcher point and moving on.

[RunningMn9]

It's a fair point. But where is anyone arguing that you should trust the company?

Who is funding the studies telling us how safe their products are?

[stessier]

It's a fair point. But where is anyone arguing that you should trust the company?

Who is funding the studies telling us how safe their products are?

Do you have a specific product in mind? The ones brought up in the article were tested by a series of government agencies as well as companies.

A better question - what would it take to convince you a product is "safe" - scare quotes as everybody probably has a different definition. For me, the testing to show it has no allergenic properties and is already present in nature at higher concentrations seems to be a good indicator we're okay.

[El Guapo]

It's a fair point. But where is anyone arguing that you should trust the company?

Who is funding the studies telling us how safe their products are?

From the Slate article:

The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the National Academy of Sciences, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have all declared that there’s no good evidence GMOs are unsafe. Hundreds of studies back up that conclusion.

While I am sure that Monsanto is funding some studies on GMOs, I think it's safe to say that they're not behind all of the above.

[stessier]

Meanwhile, is this part of the Overlords plans to maintain control or something else?

[Scuzz]

I should point out that I'm not against GMOs per se, outside of the fact that they allow people to bathe my food in RoundUp and then sell it to me.

Yea, I think that's where I question any possible long term effects. I once had a Round Up salesman tell me that if sprayed round up in back yard in the morning my dog could eat the plants in the afternoon and he would be safe. But what else was he going to say?

[RunningMn9]

From the Slate article

Hold up, you misunderstood me. I'm not very concerned that adding aardvark genes to corn is going to be a health threat to me. In other words, I'm not referring to any studies about GMOs themselves.

Well, unless those studies deal with second order effects like the impacts of overuse of pesticides and insecticides on both the people consuming them and to the local ecology as those things find their way into the soil and local water supply.

Sort of like how it is obviously perfectly safe to use nitrogen fertilizer on corn. The corn is totally safe to eat. But all of that nitrogen has poisoned local water supplies in some areas and has washed into the Mighty Mississippi, leading to the giant dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico.

Who pays to deal with that shit? Not the manufacturer of cheap nitrogen fertilizer. Not the farmers that are putting it in water.

[El Guapo]

So to sum up, then, you are not concerned about GMOs?

[RunningMn9]

Again, not specifically, no. I'm concerned that overall, they are being pushed by short-sighted corporations for their own bottom line without much (if any) regard to the long term consequences of their potential second- and third-order effects.

The only other concern I would have is that I don't like that they pushed to deregulate themselves and won, as I think that encourages a rush forward which opens the door for additional long-term consequences that are ignored for profit.

Do we agree that it is possible to create GMOs that aren't safe or no? Are you of the opinion that all GMOs we might ever make are inherently safe?

[Kraken]

Do we agree that it is possible to create GMOs that aren't safe or no? Are you of the opinion that all GMOs we might ever make are inherently safe?

One might intentionally engineer a plant that delivers toxins. One might also do so unintentionally. I hope that there are sufficient regulatory safeguards to prevent such a plant from entering the food supply.

I'm more concerned about promiscuous genes. Organisms are always swapping genetic material. The odds that a Frankenfood gene might leap into weeds or pests or even pollinators are not zero. IDK what kind of safeguards might prevent that.

I don't have any qualms about consuming GMO foods based on current evidence, though. "No GMOs" is not a marketing plus to me.

[A nonny mouse]

The problem isn't so much with the GMO per se, but the Monsanto evil greed-heads trying to fill their second swimming pool with $100 bills.

They don't give a shit about what their products are doing to people, the environment or anything in between. Even if it was completely safe, I don't like Monsanto based on their Fascist business practices.

Monsanto: "Oh, the corn from our farmer's field pollinated your corn? Your corn is now ours!"
Farmer: "But corn is wind pollinated!"
Monsanto: " Fuck you, it's ours"
Farmer: "How can you prove your was the pollinator?"
Monsanto: "genetic tests. we have it tagged. Give us our corn"
Farmer: "I'll get a lawyer."
Monsanto: "Be our guest. here is the legal document that states that anything with our tag is ours."

It is one of the true cases where a super big business does not disappoint in the scumbag department.

[AWS260]

Monsanto: "Oh, the corn from our farmer's field pollinated your corn? Your corn is now ours!"
Farmer: "But corn is wind pollinated!"
Monsanto: " Fuck you, it's ours"
Farmer: "How can you prove your was the pollinator?"
Monsanto: "genetic tests. we have it tagged. Give us our corn"
Farmer: "I'll get a lawyer."
Monsanto: "Be our guest. here is the legal document that states that anything with our tag is ours."

It is one of the true cases where a super big business does not disappoint in the scumbag department.

There's a description of that case here, if you're interested.

[The farmer] had an explanation. As an experiment, he'd actually sprayed Roundup on about three acres of the field that was closest to a neighbor's Roundup Ready canola. Many plants survived the spraying, showing that they contained Monsanto's resistance gene — and when Schmeiser's hired hand harvested the field, months later, he kept seed from that part of the field and used it for planting the next year.

This convinced the judge that Schmeiser intentionally planted Roundup Ready canola. Schmeiser appealed. The Canadian Supreme Court ruled that Schmeiser had violated Monsanto's patent, but had obtained no benefit by doing so, so he didn't owe Monsanto any money.

[LawBeefaroni]

Bayer's offer to buy Monsanto at $122/share. That's around $62 billion.

[Paingod]

Do we agree that it is possible to create GMOs that aren't safe or no? Are you of the opinion that all GMOs we might ever make are inherently safe?

One might intentionally engineer a plant that delivers toxins. One might also do so unintentionally.

Evolution without human intervention has created numerous plants that are toxic that people could introduce into foods deliberately. The entire point of a GMO is to produce a more robust, stable, and productive farm plant. I believe that just about every plant in the market today has been altered in some way by the hand of science to make it taste better, survive shipping better, and/or produce more/easier.

If we didn't have GMO crops, we'd probably have easily surpassed the sustainable population on the planet and be faced with mass starvation.

I'm more concerned about promiscuous genes. Organisms are always swapping genetic material. The odds that a Frankenfood gene might leap into weeds or pests or even pollinators are not zero. IDK what kind of safeguards might prevent that.

I think that if we suddenly started seeing killer wild tomatoes or kudzu with attributes from weed-killer resistant crops, there'd be a startlingly rapid response by the GMO manufacturer to prevent their patented (owned) genetics from causing damage they'd be liable for.

[Holman]

I'm more concerned about promiscuous genes. Organisms are always swapping genetic material. The odds that a Frankenfood gene might leap into weeds or pests or even pollinators are not zero. IDK what kind of safeguards might prevent that.

I think that if we suddenly started seeing killer wild tomatoes or kudzu with attributes from weed-killer resistant crops, there'd be a startlingly rapid response by the GMO manufacturer to prevent their patented (owned) genetics from causing damage they'd be liable for.

Or, more likely, a startlingly rapid response by their legal departments to prevent liability for what happened "naturally."

[Holman]

I'm more concerned about promiscuous genes. Organisms are always swapping genetic material. The odds that a Frankenfood gene might leap into weeds or pests or even pollinators are not zero. IDK what kind of safeguards might prevent that.

I think that if we suddenly started seeing killer wild tomatoes or kudzu with attributes from weed-killer resistant crops, there'd be a startlingly rapid response by the GMO manufacturer to prevent their patented (owned) genetics from causing damage they'd be liable for.

Or, more likely, a startlingly rapid response by their legal departments to avoid liability for what happened "naturally."

[Jeff V]

If we didn't have GMO crops, we'd probably have easily surpassed the sustainable population on the planet and be faced with mass starvation.

This is exactly why I equate the weasel-word "Non-GMO" with "irresponsibly unsustainable" and when given a choice, I will buy something without that on the package. And if I don't have a choice, I'll think hard about whether I need it at all.

[RunningMn9]

"irresponsibly unsustainable"

Not to get all Quinn on you, but GMO crops are irresponsibly unsustainable too. Just in a different way.

[Jeff V]

"irresponsibly unsustainable"

Not to get all Quinn on you, but GMO crops are irresponsibly unsustainable too. Just in a different way.

Yeah, I'm more concerned with the benefits of yield. It's a plus when they are also more delicious. Agriculturally sterile plants have been around longer than GMOs, however.

[Isgrimnur]

Guardian

Monsanto lobbyists have been banned from entering the European parliament after the multinational refused to attend a parliamentary hearing into allegations of regulatory interference.

It is the first time MEPs have used new rules to withdraw parliamentary access for firms that ignore a summons to attend parliamentary inquiries or hearings.

Monsanto officials will now be unable to meet MEPs, attend committee meetings or use digital resources on parliament premises in Brussels or Strasbourg.

While a formal process still needs to be worked through, a spokesman for the parliament’s president Antonio Tajani said that the leaders of all major parliamentary blocks had backed the ban in a vote this morning.
...
MEPs had been incensed at a Monsanto decision to shun a hearing organised by the environment and agriculture committees, with academics, regulators and campaigners, on 11 October.

The meeting is expected to hear allegations that Monsanto unduly influenced regulatory studies into the safety of glyphosate, a key ingredient in its best-selling RoundUp weedkiller.

“Those who ignore the rules of democracy also lose their rights as a lobbyist in the European parliament,” said the Green party president Philippe Lamberts. “US corporations must also accept the democratic control function of the parliament. Monsanto cannot escape this.”

The lobby ban will be a bitter blow to Monsanto’s advocacy campaign ahead of a decision later this year about the relicensing of glyphosate, which has been linked to cancer by one expert WHO panel.

[Isgrimnur]

Bayer's offer to buy Monsanto at $122/share. That's around $62 billion.

DoJ Approved

On Monday, the US Department of Justice approved the German pharmaceutical and chemical group's bid to buy the US seed giant for more than $60 billion, The Wall Street Journal reported. Bayer agreed to sell off additional assets to alleviate anti-trust concerns.
...
According to the US Department of Agriculture, farm production in the US has consistently shifted away from smaller farms, to larger ones. Whereas just 15% of all cropland was held by farms with at least 2,000 acres in 1987, that percentage had jumped to 36% by 2012.

With the increasing consolidation of the agriculture supply industry (Monsanto-Bayer is the biggest of three major mergers — preceded by Dow-DuPont and Syngenta-ChemChina), [Clay Govier, a farmer in central Nebraska] doesn't expect things to get easier anytime soon.
...
The size of the Bayer-Monsanto deal — it was the biggest merger announced in 2016 after AT&T and Time Warner — means the companies have to seek approval from regulators in 30 countries.

Last month, the deal won antitrust approval in the European Union. US approval was expected as well, given that the CEOs of Bayer and Monsanto, Werner Baumann and Hugh Grant, visited President Donald Trump before he took office and said in a statement that the three had a "very productive meeting" at Trump Tower.

[Isgrimnur]

No US Bt soybeans:

The company cited low grower demand, but U.S. insect resistance to the proteins in its Bt soybean product is more likely the culprit, entomologists told DTN.

Monsanto first launched Intacta RR2 PRO soybeans, which contain the single Bt protein Cry1Ac, in South America in 2013. The company has produced a second-generation product called Intacta 2 Xtend, which adds the Bt proteins Cry1A.105 and Cry2Ab2, as well as dicamba tolerance. Both products target certain Lepidoptera pests of soybean, such as soybean looper and velvetbean caterpillar.

Monsanto hopes to launch Intacta 2 Xtend in South America around 2021, Mark Kidnie, Monsanto's South American lead for corn and soybean technology, told DTN.

Intacta 2 Xtend was initially slated for commercialization in the Southern U.S. around the same time, according to a DTN interview in April with Renata Bolognesi, Monsanto's North American lead for corn and soybean technology. Monsanto has spent more than a decade working with Southern universities to test the efficacy of Bt soybeans in the U.S., as well as determine what refuge system would be required for them here.

But in early May, Monsanto told DTN that the project has been halted indefinitely.
...
Mississippi State University Extension entomologist Angus Catchot said the Southern U.S. would benefit from a Bt soybean product.

Southern soybean growers are facing high populations of soybean loopers and soybean podworm (also known as the cotton bollworm and corn earworm), along with growing insecticide resistance.
...
However, the Bt proteins in Intacta 2 -- Cry1Ac, Cry1A.105 and Cry2Ab2 -- have already been compromised by insect resistance in the U.S., where they are used extensively in Bt cotton and Bt corn.

Texas A&M entomologist David Kerns and his colleagues have identified bollworm populations across the South with resistance to Cry1Ac and Cry2Ab.

Resistance to Cry1A.105 and Cry2Ab2 has also been found in corn earworm populations in Maryland.

[Isgrimnur]

Nonsanto

Originally, it was just a name — Olga Monsanto's name, to be precise.

Around the turn of the 20th century, she married a man named John Francis Queeny. He named his artificial sweetener company after her. And over decades, that company expanded from the sweetness business into agri-chemicals, where it began to dominate the industry.
...
Now, as the merger approaches, Bayer has confirmed what many suspected: In the merger, the politically charged name "Monsanto" will be disappearing.

The combined company will be known simply as Bayer, while product names will remain the same.

[em2nought]

Nonsanto

In regards to names, is

The Umbrella Corporation

available?