
Monsanto Attacks Scientists After Studies Show Trouble for Its New Weedkiller - zymhan
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/10/26/559733837/monsanto-and-the-weed-scientists-not-a-love-story
======
zymhan
NPR has been reporting on the issues farmers have had with Dicamba for months
now

[http://www.npr.org/search/index.php?searchinput=dicamba](http://www.npr.org/search/index.php?searchinput=dicamba)

[http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/10/13/557607443/wit...](http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/10/13/557607443/with-
ok-from-epa-use-of-controversial-weedkiller-is-expected-to-double)

[http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/10/07/555872494/a-w...](http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/10/07/555872494/a-wayward-
weed-killer-divides-farm-communities-harms-wildlife)

[http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/07/06/535669282/dam...](http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/07/06/535669282/damage-
from-wayward-weedkiller-keeps-growing)

[http://www.npr.org/2017/06/14/532879755/a-pesticide-a-
pigwee...](http://www.npr.org/2017/06/14/532879755/a-pesticide-a-pigweed-and-
a-farmers-murder)

It's not surprising that Monsanto would try use their widespread influence to
stop research on their product.

Monsanto has claimed that the issue with Dicamba drifting and killing crops in
fields that it wasn't applied to was the fault of the farmers mis-application
of Dicamba. Evidence now shows that Dicamba will evaporate from the soil
_after_ being applied to crops safely, meaning that it cannot be prevented
from drifting into other fields and killing innocent farmer's crops.

~~~
PrgsvThgt
Where is the evidence to suggest that evaporated dicamba is able to condense
in sufficient quantity to effect plants at a distance?

I've lived among large production farm, much of my life. The application of
spray products (keyword: sprayers that produce mists of liquid products) are
easily caught and carried by the lightest winds.

Dicamba does not "evaporate" in any appreciable amount. It is highly soluble
in water and has a melting point 237-241 degrees F.... The water would
evaporate, leaving the chemical behind.

~~~
LeifCarrotson
That's an insufficient model of evaporation.

The evidence is the study in which they applied Dicamba as directed to
waterproof trays of dirt in one field. They then trucked the trays of dirt to
another field, and laid them between rows of non-resistant crops. The crops
died, showing that the Dicamba in the trays must have affected the crops.

Water has a melting point of 212F. Nonetheless, it evaporates, and does not
all stay behind.

~~~
PrgsvThgt
Water boils at 212F, melts at 32F. It is a sufficient model of evcaporation.
For dicamaba to have a sufficient concentration to harm (even targeted plants)
it must be rather concentrated, compared to what one might find in
concentrations produced by condensation (one field over). Having a degree in
organic chemistry and thousands of hours of bench chemistry, I can speak with
some authority on the matter.

~~~
logfromblammo
Liquid water has a vapor pressure, dependent mostly on temperature. When this
vapor pressure exceeds the partial pressure of the water in the gas phase,
water crosses the phase barrier. This is how you can have trace measurements
of water vapor in (1 bar) air that is cooler than 100 degC.

Some volatile chemicals--such as the acetone in nail polish remover--are
detectable as odors even when their temperature is well below their boiling
point. This is the liquid phase establishing an equilibrium with the gas phase
at that temperature. The most energetic molecules in the liquid escape into
the gas (cooling the liquid in the process).

Imagine a lake in a desert. The maximum daytime temperature in that desert is
40 degC, well below the boiling point of 100 degC. The lake has no outflows.
Over the course of a month, the lake disappears. Where did the water go? It
evaporated, and the water in the gas phase blew away and was replaced by dry
air, thus allowing more of the liquid water to evaporate. If you put an
airtight dome over it, the lake would stay put, and the air in the dome would
get very humid. You would probably also be able to see condensation on its
walls, as the vapor movement continuously transfers heat from the lake to the
dome.

The dicamba is likely evaporating from the soil into air with no gaseous
dicamba in it, blowing to adjacent fields, and the plants are uptaking it as a
gas via their normal respiration. No condensation is required, for the same
reason that plants don't eat dry ice to get their CO2. Once inside the plant,
the vapor dicamba is free to dissolve into the plant's own water. It is not
necessary for it to dissolve in water outside the plant to be taken up by the
roots. Those plant cells might not have a lot of water in them, or they might
be filled to bursting with it. Plants have to deal with deluge and drought
differently than we animals do.

The questions everyone have to ask are what concentration of dicamba is
damaging to the plant, and what is the exact relationship between wind,
distance, ambient moisture, and concentration? By calculating from the vapor
pressure vs temperature of the chemical, and solubility, you should be able to
draw a plume-shaped area on a map that shows where dicamba-vulnerable plants
will die after an application. If plants outside that area die, something in
your model is wrong. And people are claiming that plants outside the area are
dying. What part of the model is wrong? Based on the article, it seems like
the volatility is off.

------
gumby
Just to tie this back to the more common HN topics (don't get me wrong, this
is an extremely important story both for scientific and cultural (attack on
science) reasons):

The reason we use pesticides and weed killers is mainly to reduce the labor
input. Once we have cheap, non-fossil-fueled agricultural robots, then a large
percentage of our food plant production can be cheap and, by today's
standards, "organic" (perhaps better since organic farms can use different
pesticides).

I spent some time kicking around an ag robot startup idea. Farmers have low
margins and tend to be conservative, but the successful ones† are all
spreadsheet jockeys who are much more comfortable than those in other sectors
to swap op ex for cap ex. And in the usual B2B the killer ROI is within a
year. In Ag it's within _10_ years. Not an easy market technically but on the
business side pretty straighforward.

It's not a panacea; not all pests are amenable to mechanical (hand or machine)
removal (e.g. phylloxera) and the Haber-Bosch process will still be important,
but a _HUGE_ reduction in chemical application is very likely. And with
robots, no-till and other soil-saving processes can become economically
valuable in the short term (NT has always been valuable in the long term, but
people don't live/think on that time scale).

† which is all of them today in the US, and to a great degree in Europe; the
unsuccessful ones were long since bought out

~~~
exelius
I really wish it worked that way; but agriculture still has a number of scarce
resources (namely land and water) that will require the adoption of
productivity-increasing tools to boost the productivity of a given plot of
land or to increase efficiency of water use.

~~~
gumby
> I really wish it worked that way; but agriculture still has a number of
> scarce resources (namely land and water) that will require the adoption of
> productivity-increasing tools to boost the productivity of a given plot of
> land or to increase efficiency of water use.

What you say is not incompatible with my assertion. Labor is a productivity-
increasing tool. If you weed and prune your yield goes up. If you water (but
not too much) yield goes up. If you remove pests, yield goes up. Etc. Those
are all labor-intensive, so if it's cheaper to use a machine or chemical to do
it, you do. And in fact robots are likely to be able to individually water
plants more efficiently than either a human or a standard irrigation system.
Which people will do if it is cheaper than current irrigation (flood, or drip
primarily today, depending on crop and conditions).

Sure, I believe fertilizers will still be needed and some other chemicals as
well. But many of these pesticides and herbicides have "unfortunate" side
effects (e.g. destruction of the rhizome) which also reduce productivity so
avoiding them has a double benefit.

And note that there is some evidence that artificial fertilization and
overwatering may be reducing the nutritional value of grasses (think of it as
"the same number of nutrients divided by a larger amount of plant matter". The
mechanism, if real, is more complex, but that's an analogy).

‡ I don't mean productivity in the macroeconomic definition of "economic
output per labor hour" but in the sense you used it: "economic output per unit
area"

------
saalweachter
There's a hilarious parallel here between Monsanto and your average tech
company that had an innovative hit.

Glyphosate was an awesome herbicide and Roundup Ready crops a big hit, but
between the expiration of patents and the introduction of generic glyphosate-
resistant crops and the increase in glyphosate-resistant weeds, it's losing
its value, both to the company and to the consumers. So they need another hit.

And like a million tech companies before them, they took an uninspired rehash
of their first hit, ignored feedback from early adopters and internal dogfood
about glaring problems with the new product and are trying to push it as the
second coming. And now they're lashing out at anyone who says it isn't, and
insist their new product is as revolutionary as their first.

Only, you know, it's not bloggers and tech journalists they're mad at, it is
farmers and scientists.

It's almost funny when it happens to someone else.

~~~
Pica_soO
Growing a better world!

------
pwinnski
Monsanto claims they've solved the problem independent weed scientists are
talking about, but won't show their work. So do we believe that Monsanto is
right about their multi-billion dollar strategy and won't show their work for
mysterious reasons, or do we believe that they're lying to protect their
multi-billion dollar strategy and won't show their work for the obvious reason
that it doesn't exist?

I'll be interested to see how HN responds to this.

On the one hand, by and large we're probably pretty friendly to the sort of
hacking Monsanto wants to do. Not that we're all on board with GMO crops, but
I'd say we collectively lean that way.

On the other probably stronger hand, independent scientists should win out
over corporations with this crowd. I mean, there's an awful lot of corporate
love here, but science trumps all, right?

Then there are the paid shills, and those who show up to remind us all that
there are the paid shills.

~~~
moomin
My take: there’s no GM story here. No-one’s saying the GM crops don’t work,
no-one’s even saying they have negative externalities.

Instead, we’ve got a lousy product being sold by a large multinational that’s
trying to suppress the evidence of the awfulness of its product.

So yeah, they deserve to be sued into the ground, but it doesn’t move the
needle one jot on what I think about GM in general.

~~~
sambull
I believe it is a GM story. Monsanto's GM is to allow chemicals like dicambra,
and glyphosate to be sprayed on these crops, their modifications make them
resistant.

So, the GM application is mainly pesticide resistance, and the subsequent
shitty pesticides they use which kill everything that hasn't been modified.
The use of these pesticides is because they are growing GM crops.

~~~
antispew
First, you are talking about herbicides, not pesticides.

Secondly, GM opposition is a very odd thing. Every carton of milk I buy has a
little sticker that it comes from non-GM cows, Every one of those stickers is
a lie. We have selectively bred cattle for hundreds of years to build the
modern dairy cow with specific genetics. It's been very scientifically done
for a long time.

Third, the real issue here is not GM. It is IP. (I know Stallman would bristle
at generically lumping it all under IP). But this new idea that one party can
own a seed and just license it to others for planting is crazy. The idea that
they can contaminate other crops and then claim ownership of those crops, too?
Crazy.

~~~
libertyEQ
>We have selectively bred cattle for hundreds of years to build the modern
dairy cow with specific genetics.

I don't think it is a good idea to conflate selective breeding programs with
gene splicing as they are very different.

~~~
dragonwriter
> I don't think it is a good idea to conflate selective breeding programs with
> gene splicing as they are very different.

Yeah, we have a lot more specific control and selectivity with gene splicing
than selective breeding.

~~~
zwerdlds
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleiotropy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleiotropy)

~~~
cholantesh
What point are you trying to make?

------
Animats
There's a new approach that competes with Monsanto's herbicide-resistant
crops. Robotic weeding is finally here.[1] John Deere just bought Blue River
Robotics for $305 million. They make a unit that's towed behind a tractor.
Cameras look down at the plants, and when they see something that looks like a
weed, it gets zapped. No need for herbicide-resistant crops.

This is for vegetables and row crops, rather than field crops. It's been used
on cotton and lettuce so far. For lettuce, it's weeding as a service. They
bring in the machines and do the job at a flat fee per acre. They're doing
35,000 acres in California and Arizona now. This isn't experimental. It's out
there working in fields.

Bosch has a similar product. Blue River kills with a spray. Bosch either
pounds the weed into the ground or zaps it with a laser.

[1] [http://www.bluerivertechnology.com/](http://www.bluerivertechnology.com/)

~~~
blacksmythe

      >> Blue River kills with a spray.
    

An extremely clever idea that I saw previously was to zap weeds with
concentrated fertilizer. Rather than being toxic to nearby plants, it is
actual beneficial.

------
samfriedman
More broadly, Monsanto's aggressively anti-farmer and anti-scientist positions
(and poor optics/PR) have done immense damage to the public perception of GMO
crops and foods. GM food is a technology that offers the possibility to
greatly expand yield, nutrition and hardiness of crops: it is essential to the
continued improvement of our world food supply.

But with Monsanto at the helm (or at least most frequently associated), their
unethical business practices shine a bad light on GMOs as an entire field.
It's a shame that the forerunner in this extremely important area could not
act as more of a positive envoy on behalf of GM technology.

~~~
7sigma
Whats also sad is that all GM technology is seen through the anti Monsanto
filter. I was appalled when Greenpeace and other called Golden Rice a trojan
horse conspiracy, despite the fact that its free, can help with Vitamin A
deficiency and has proven to be safe.

The amount of FUD and science denying rhetoric that Greenpeace directed at
Golden Rice or any public backed GM effort is basically reminded me of the
press releases from climate change denying groups. Whats also hypocritical of
Greenpeace is that they are fine with mutation based on radioactivity (that
has been practiced since the early 20th century and where we get a lot of our
varieties from today)

~~~
Chathamization
After two decades they're still struggling to create a viable Golden Rice
product.[1] At the same time, some areas have seen a large drop in vitamin A
deficiencies. One has to wonder if Golden Rice is actually a good way to solve
this problem.

[1] [https://source.wustl.edu/2016/06/genetically-modified-
golden...](https://source.wustl.edu/2016/06/genetically-modified-golden-rice-
falls-short-lifesaving-promises/)

~~~
7sigma
Its true that its taken a long time but its due to the fact that their first
attempt didn't produce enough beta carotene. The second attempt worked and is
still being tested in field trials in China, Bangladesh and the Philippines.

Its true that we can also combat VAD with supplements, but shouldn't we have
multiple strategies to combat it?

Regarding the article, who is to decide when we should abandon an approach?
You could apply the same argument to Organic Food. After 30 years, it still
only accounts for more or less 1% of global food production, and there is
evidence that its not necessarily more environmentally friendly than
conventional agriculture. By that logic we should also abandon it.

[http://www.thedailystar.net/frontpage/vitamin-rice-now-
reali...](http://www.thedailystar.net/frontpage/vitamin-rice-now-
reality-1305439) [https://ourworldindata.org/is-organic-agriculture-better-
for...](https://ourworldindata.org/is-organic-agriculture-better-for-the-
environment)

------
alexandercrohde
On a different note I recommend you also google "Let Nothing Go." [Monsanto is
being accused in court of hiring 3rd parties to shill public forums including
facebook, and it's alleged the internal name of that program is "Let Nothing
Go"]

~~~
smhost
I couldn't find anything besides Russian propaganda outlets. Do you have links
to any reputable sources?

~~~
alexandercrohde
Actual court briefing: [https://usrtk.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/04/MDLLetNothingGo...](https://usrtk.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/04/MDLLetNothingGomotion.pdf)

~~~
dvfjsdhgfv
That's simply appalling. What an absurd situation. It seems like everyone
knows what a monster Monsanto has become but nobody can actually do anything
about it.

~~~
sova
Not until there is advocacy for the health of the soil and surrounding
environs. If there were a Ministry of Soil and Earth that they had to answer
to, they wouldn't be able to pull half the stuff they do. Unfortunately Evil
pays well in the short term.

------
socrates1998
Yep, they have been attacking people who criticize them for years. Nassim
Taleb has done a good job of calling them out.

The sad part is all the "scientists" who take money from them to do "research"
and, shockingly, find only positive things about Monsanto's products.

~~~
philipkglass
The scientists don't even have to be shills if Monsanto controls publication
of results. Pay for 15 studies from above-the-board researchers. Only publish
the 6 that _didn 't_ find harm. Later meta-studies from totally disinterested
parties will also find a preponderance of evidence for "no harm," just due to
selective publication practices that aren't directly visible.

At least that's how drug companies have systematically biased studies in favor
of their products without needing to find amoral shill scientists. The way to
prevent it is trial pre-registration, so that _all_ trials are known about,
not just the ones that turn out favorable after completion.

~~~
icelancer
>>The way to prevent it is trial pre-registration, so that all trials are
known about, not just the ones that turn out favorable after completion.

Is this not required? I am required to pre-register my clinical trials well in
advance, and they are publicly searchable worldwide.

------
wonderwonder
If you haven't read it, Paolo Bacigalupi's SF novel The Windup Girl is a very
good take on the future of companies like this run amok.

------
reacweb
How many documentaries do we need to stop using these poisons (and to put
these people in jail) ? We are breathing volatile pesticides. IMHO, the short
term plan of Mosanto is to make money with weeds by killing concurrent weeds
and the long term plan is to make money with drugs to cure all the illness
caused by these poisons.

~~~
roblabla
Don't worry, monsanto already has vertically integrated your life as if it was
a mere product: They're planning to merge with Bayer, a pharmaceutical
group[0]. So while Monsanto is actively trying to kill you, Bayer is actively
trying to heal you. Isn't that great ?

[0]: [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-monsanto-m-a-bayer-
eu/eu-...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-monsanto-m-a-bayer-eu/eu-starts-
in-depth-probe-of-bayer-monsanto-deal-idUSKCN1B21GJ)

~~~
mi100hael
FWIW Bayer is acquiring them outright, not merging.

------
lsmarigo
This reminds me of the Tyrone Hayes story
[https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/02/10/a-valuable-
rep...](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/02/10/a-valuable-reputation)

------
peterwwillis
To me the question isn't if weedkiller is bad for ecological systems or
plants: it obviously is. The question is, why the hell do we use it when we've
had agrarian societies for 10,000 years? I see basically two areas where
weedkillers are typically used: agriculture, and aesthetic.

For agriculture, weeds can be a fierce problem. On small gardens it's possible
to use various tactics to control weeds without chemicals. But on large farms,
usually a variety of tactics need to be used to control weeds, and chemicals
end up being the simplest and quickest. But they are certainly not required.
Here is one list of non-chemical weeding options:
[https://thefanningmill.com/2015/05/27/infographic-weed-
contr...](https://thefanningmill.com/2015/05/27/infographic-weed-control-
strategies/)

Really I think we should be having a conversation about whether the risks of
chemical weeding are worth the benefit, which is primarily just an economic
one from agricultural exports. We can easily provide for our nation's agro
needs without dangerous weeding techniques, and at about half to a quarter of
the current amount we produce.

On top of this, our diets in general are hampered by the crazy way we consume
specific foods. We let "consumer demand" drive what crops are grown and
brought to market, even though it's been shown that consumers often demand
things that are bad for them, or are overly picky. We consume too much food in
general, but consuming less would hurt the economy, even if it would make us
healthier and reduce healthcare costs. And we give up the option of purchasing
from small local farms in order to get more food for less money. Not to
mention the fact that processed foods are still in high demand, as well as
meats which place burdens on both agriculture and environment.

Weedkiller seems like a good place to start this conversation. Do we need
weedkiller? Do we need such gigantic amounts of just a few crops? Do we need
giant farms owned by a few companies? Do we really need to eat oranges year
round? And should we really be letting vendors [whose primary objective is
profit, not health or choice] control what foods we are given the option to
eat?

~~~
Boothroid
Isn't the problem that food prices would have to increase hugely if we were to
switch to less industrialised forms of agriculture, and thus the poor would
suffer worst of all?

Overall though I agree with you - it's said that the British were never as
healthy as under rationing. We don't need anywhere near as much as we produce,
and would all look and feel better eating less. And less cash going to
Monsanto - who IMHO seem to be a truly sinister outfit - would be a welcome
side benefit.

~~~
jstewartmobile
Between tractors and artificial fertilizer, feeding everyone has been a solved
problem for a very long time now.

Dousing fields with glyphosate and dicamba has more to do with maintaining the
dense crop monocultures we use in industrial agriculture than feeding the
poor.

------
wannabag
>Monsanto — and farmers who want to use dicamba — have been fighting back. In
Arkansas, where state regulators proposed a ban on dicamba during the growing
season next year, Monsanto recently sued the regulators, arguing that the ban
was based on "unsubstantiated theories regarding product volatility that are
contradicted by science."

Meanwhile in Europe, countries are considering signing free trade agreements
with Canada and US (CETA and TTIP). How would anyone in their right mind want
to open up the door to allowing companies to sue governments? (if you wonder,
this is part of these trade deals and the kind of attitude Monsanto is putting
here is exactly what they could reproduce once their products are "threatened
by regulations")

Yet, only the far left are fighting this in bigger European countries. I'm not
sure people grasp the implications! I'm not politically aligned with the far
left but this is clearly a loss of sovereignty against the power or money.
Kind of gets me wondering what the point of voting would become...

Ok, maybe I'm a little left leaning (in European terms that is)

~~~
Jesus_Jones
This has been coming up in the media, especially in the context of NAFTA being
renegotiated. I can't believe that big business supporter Trump and the US
Govt would remove this, but that's one aspect of NAFTA I'd like to see
changed.

------
seltzered_
Slightly OT, but this made me wonder about David Friedberg, who founded
Climate Corp, acquired by Monsanto. In 2013 he wrote a letter about the
acquisition and clarified his stance on Monsanto (
[https://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/why-the-climate-
corp...](https://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/why-the-climate-corporation-
sold-itself-to-monsanto) ). In 2016 he stepped down for an advisory role (
[https://www.wsj.com/articles/monsanto-executive-david-
friedb...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/monsanto-executive-david-friedberg-
shifting-to-advisory-role-1458763510) ) .

------
JepZ
Ever since we saw 'We Feed the World' we knew what kinda company Monsanto is.
For those who havn't seen the movie, I strongly advise to watch it. It is said
to be the most successful austrian documentary.

German:
[https://archive.org/details/WE_FEED_THE_WORLD_DEUTSCH](https://archive.org/details/WE_FEED_THE_WORLD_DEUTSCH)

Sadly I could not find a link to the english stream, but here is a link to the
english version of the website: [http://www.we-feed-the-
world.at/en/index.htm](http://www.we-feed-the-world.at/en/index.htm)

------
nebelwerfer2k
The sad part is that amaranth is actually a healthy crop. the palmer amaranth
specifically is edible, nutritious and very climate and drought resistant.

it's just not as profitable in the US compared to corn or soybeans and
therefore it is destroyed and considered a pest.

that's really sad if you ask me, because they undergoe such troubles to kill a
field crop. why not just embrace it and farm it??

~~~
dbcurtis
What are the November amaranth futures trading at right now?

Nobody will plant something they can't sell.

------
nebelwerfer2k
I don't understand why they not just farm amaranth (pig weed).

it's a healthy nutritious crop, regarded as food in other countries and the
palmer amaranth especially is very drought resistant and resilient.

but because soy and corn is more profitable in the US they undergoe so much
trouble to kill what would otherwise considered to be a perfect choice of
crop.

------
arca_vorago
I'm just copying an old comment:

I've been telling HN about this, and mostly derided for it. I was working as a
sysadmin for a bigag company in 2010 or so, who touted themselves as good ol
local farm people who take care of their own. Come to find out, the millions
the owner got to fund his extravagant lifestyle (besides from daddy), was from
selling some of the genetic modifications to Monsanto. I was in the middle of
my Decartes reset after getting back from Iraq, and dug into Monsanto.

Monsanto is one of the worst companies in America. As a constitutionalist, my
primary issue is with their blatant undermining and corruption of the legal
process, for example a SCOTUS who formerly worked for them refusing to recuse
himself from relevant cases, infiltration and takeover of the top positions at
the FDA and other regulatory capture issues, and the stifling of free speech
through their massive propaganda machine, which includes online.

As a military person, I came to find out they were the ones who had been
responsible for agent orange in Vietnam. Something many of my friends and
family have directly had to deal with. (to be fair, it was a different
business than the current Monsanto, the same in name only)

I learned they were one of the main sources of lobbying to allow patenting of
organtic material (so they could patent genes in their gmos), that they
created the BT killer strain of seeds designed to prevent farmers from saving
their seeds, (incidentally Monsanto gmo seed business has been tied to large
numbers of farmer suicides in India), and have brought legal action against
farmers who saved their seeds. They have participated in farm mergers in
aquisitions to the point that almost no farm is truly a family farm anymore,
and they have been involved in illegal waste dumping more than once.

Once I learned all these things, I quit the job on principle. As luck would
have it, the good ol rich guy who "would always take care of his people"
subsequently, a year later, sold the company and fired half the staff... and
now the local "community", despite protests from many of the farmers, decided
to give Monsanto a 5.8 million dollar tax break to built a state of the art
facility because it will "bring jobs".

To top it all off, our anti-trust, anti-monopoly laws seem to be completely
dead and ignored, because the Bayer Monsanto $66bn merger seems to be full
steam ahead at the moment.

They have created a sitution that requires more chemicals, causes more
nitrogen runoff, have drastically reduced seed diversity (therefore setting up
a massive crop failure potential across many crops), and continue to ignore
GMO warnings.

Having sysadmined in a bigag company with a genetics department, and at a
genetics company, my primary issues with GMO's is that there is a lack of
rigourous scientific testing, especially over longer time frames. It wasn't
uncommon to see a new GMO go from testing to prod within a year! That's not
enough time to truly understand the implications of those kinds of products.
Not to mention, as the article suggests, that they have artifically affected
the actual science to be in their favor regardless of the real results.

If there ever is ecocide, Monsanto will be the primary hand to have caused it.
I am willing to bet roundup will be the new agent orange. And finally, for
your viewing pleasure:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM)

Relevant past comments:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9009446](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9009446)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12893325](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12893325)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12559024](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12559024)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12398969](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12398969)

------
distrill
> These are proprietary products. Until they release those formulations for
> testing, we're not allowed to [test them].

This can't be true, or I must be missing something. Why can't they buy these
chemicals as "farmers" and test them?

~~~
embedded
"In this case, Monsanto denied requests by university researchers to study its
XtendiMax with VaporGrip for volatility - a measure of its tendency to
vaporize and drift across fields.

The researchers interviewed by Reuters - Jason Norsworthy at the University of
Arkansas, Kevin Bradley at the University of Missouri and Aaron Hager at the
University of Illinois - said Monsanto provided samples of XtendiMax before it
was approved by the EPA. However, the samples came with contracts that
explicitly forbade volatility testing."

[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-pesticides-dicamba-
in...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-pesticides-dicamba-
insight/scant-oversight-corporate-secrecy-preceded-u-s-weed-killer-crisis-
idUSKBN1AP0DN)

------
sitkack
Monsanto is fucking genius. This is the kinda can do attitude I associate with
American Capitalism. Get other people to break the law for you and create a
network effect that no-one can run away from.

Buying stock in Monsanto.

------
victor106
Attack the science not the scientists if you defer with their opinion.

------
harrisreynolds
Does Monsanto add any value to the world? Everything I read about them for
several years now makes me wish the company would just die.

------
cwkoss
Can farmers sue if their crops are damaged by dicamba being used upwind of
them?

~~~
searine
Yes, lawsuits from pesticide drift are common.

If you negligently spray your fields and ruin your neighbors field, you're at
fault.

This kind of thing isn't new, and has little to do with GMOs. Pesticide drift
has been a issue for 100 years, and GMOs actually helped relieve it by
shifting farmers to less volatile chemicals.

------
TotallyHuman
Monsanto is without doubt the most non-ethical, profiteering, corrupted, evil
company on earth.

------
deftturtle
When are we just going to shut Monsanto down???

------
techer
Same old shit.

This was doing the rounds:

[https://twitter.com/GeorgeMonbiot/status/920935967082639360](https://twitter.com/GeorgeMonbiot/status/920935967082639360)

and this

[http://swns-digital.com/2KU4-15FL6-095I05M7FE/cr.aspx](http://swns-
digital.com/2KU4-15FL6-095I05M7FE/cr.aspx)

Hi Monty

We have a story that we thought might be of interest to you, looking at plans
to ban key chemicals in weed-killers.

Quick Pitch: Green-fingered Brits could soon be forced to weed their entire
gardens by HAND if Brussels bureaucrats ban a chemical found in the biggest
selling weed-killers, it has emerged.

More: For more than 40 years glyphosate has been the key component of weed-
killers such as Round-Up, enabling keen gardeners to eradicate menaces such as
knotweed, hogweed, bindweed and black grass.

But environmental activists Greenpeace and a string of anti-pesticide
socialist MEPs want it banned despite it being certified as safe by numerous
chemical and food safety agencies.

Experts fear a vote in favour of removing the chemical will leave gardeners to
rely on less effective weed-killers, or even further down the line products
which contain a fast-tracked replacement chemical.

News Copy can be downloaded from our online newswire.

~~~
zymhan
This isn't about Glyphosate (Round Up), this is about Dicamba

~~~
ceejayoz
You're missing the point of the comment. The same company produces both
products, and has a long history of manipulating media coverage in this
manner.

~~~
tptacek
By "manipulating media coverage", you mean "having a PR team that pitches
stories"? Because virtually every company listed on the NASDAQ does that ---
as does every company that has ever issued a press release.

~~~
grasshopperpurp
So, that makes it cool to spread terrible lies? If not, why post this? What's
your point?

~~~
tptacek
I mean, hats off for a deft deployment of the assumptive close in your
argument --- I don't really even understand what the arguments they're
promoting are, let alone whether they're "terrible lies", but my point was
pretty straightforward: the comment to which I replied singled out Monsanto as
having a reputation for media manipulation, and if pitching stories is that,
basically all major media companies are guilty as well. That's what PR groups
do.

~~~
grasshopperpurp
So, here's my issue with your comment and the mindset it betrays: rather than
acknowledging that this is a serious issue that we should not take lightly,
you do the opposite. You say, 'That' what PR firms do. They lie to help the
company. Everyone does it.' We can get to everyone as we go, but it's time to
start holding people accountable, rather than accepting it as the way it
goes/is.

~~~
tptacek
You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say "they lie to help the company",
or that they lie at all.

~~~
grasshopperpurp
>Yesterday's groundbreaking news of a new lawsuit regarding Monsanto's
collusion, cover ups, and corruption inside the EPA is a part of a long string
of unraveling safety claims.

Decades of faulty chemical review procedures are beginning to be overturned.
Last week, after years of asking, I received an email from the EPA confirming
that the National Toxicology Program is currently reviewing glyphosate and
glyphosate formulations.

[http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-
environment/324...](http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-
environment/324386-monsanto-and-the-epa-have-been-lying-to-us-for-years)

[https://www.huffingtonpost.com/michele-simon/top-10-lies-
tol...](https://www.huffingtonpost.com/michele-simon/top-10-lies-told-by-
monsa_b_1819731.html)

~~~
tptacek
That is a string that does not occur in the story we're commenting on, but
rather an op-ed that you've brought in.

~~~
grasshopperpurp
>You're missing the point of the comment. The same company produces both
products, and has a long history of manipulating media coverage in this
manner.

^That's the original comment you replied to. We're talking about Monsanto's
history of lying and manipulation through the media.

------
diogenescynic
They also pay shills to spread propaganda in the comments sections anywhere
Monsanto is discussed. It’s particularly obvious since it’s the same users,
with the same talking points, commenting within minutes. The same 5-10 pro-
Monsanto accounts on Reddit show up in most discussions. I suspect this is
going on for many other aspects of our life and it’s downright paranoia
inducing.

~~~
searine
Or maybe, juuuust maybe, people have different opinions about things.

Imagine that.

~~~
7sigma
I've been accused of being a Monsanto shill so many times online, its not even
funny. I researched a lot of the claims against Monsanto or GM crops and I
found many of them untrue, largely exaggerated, although I do agree most of
the Dicamba debacle is mostly Monsanto's fault.

Ironically, there is a lot of propaganda pushed by the likes of USRTK and the
OCA, calling anyone including university scientists that contradict them as
Monsanto shills. These groups are also anti vaccine, against water
fluoridation [1] etc...

I've largely stopped arguing online, because conversations become really super
polarised and sometimes nasty. Its hard to have an intelligent discussion. A
good place to find info on these issues is the Food and Farm Discussion Lab

[https://facebook.com/groups/FAFDL/](https://facebook.com/groups/FAFDL/)

[0] [https://www.organicconsumers.org/essays/how-mainstream-
media...](https://www.organicconsumers.org/essays/how-mainstream-media-
insults-public%E2%80%99s-intelligence-vaccines) [1]
[https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/water-fluoridation-
che...](https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/water-fluoridation-chemicals-
now-officially-linked-brain-harm-cognitive-deficits)

~~~
specialist
What slays me about the GMO debate is the misportrayal of my anti-GMO
position, lumping me in with the anti-vaxxors, creationists, and defenders of
Freedom Markets™.

~~~
sampo
> What slays me about the GMO debate is the misportrayal of my anti-GMO
> position, lumping me in with the anti-vaxxors

The scientific consensus on GMOs being safe is stronger than consensus on
climate change. If you go against the scientific consensus, you are rightly
labeled as being anti-science.

[https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-
entine/post_8915_b_657213...](https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-
entine/post_8915_b_6572130.html)

[https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/mark-
lynas/gmo-s...](https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/mark-lynas/gmo-
safety-debate-over)

[http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/once-again-us-
expert-...](http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/once-again-us-expert-panel-
says-genetically-engineered-crops-are-safe-eat)

~~~
specialist
Who said I have a problem with the science?

I'm meh about the genetics of GMO, its just accelerated selection.
Transgenetic could be worrisome, so we should be hippocratic there.

But crops that allow us to expand into more arid, saline, or whatever areas
are probably good to have. And developing perennial grains (eg kernza) sounds
great.

But that's not why I oppose GMO.

\--

I'm utterly opposed to "ReadyUp Ready" genetic engineering. Any effort to
increase, permit the use of more pesticides (herbicides, insecticides) must be
opposed. We need to reduce the use of pesticides, maybe even eventually ban
all pesticides.

I'm utterly opposed to Monsanto's (and Big Ag's) business practices,
especially patenting life, and secondarily turning all farmers (people who
work the land) into serfs. Their GMO efforts, independent of the actual plants
and biology, or just the wedge for those strategies.

I reject the pro-GMO arguments about increasing yield. We already toss 1/3 to
1/2 of the food produced. Trying to increase yields is passing over dollars to
pick up pennies.

Lastly if Monsanto (and Big Ag) is for it, I'm against it. They've done so
much harm, for so long, with zero contrition, I presume they're guilty. If
there was some kind of truth and reconciliation tribunal, maybe, just maybe,
I'd give them a second chance. And massive reparations followed by acts of
goodwill.

But the burden of proof is on them, not me.

~~~
searine
>We need to reduce the use of pesticides, maybe even eventually ban all
pesticides.

You are fighting your own best interests.

Roundup ready has reduced harmful pesticide application by millions of tons.

Yes, zero pesticide is best, but you can't reach the moon in one step. It
takes incremental change. Glyphosate replaces much more harmful pesticides
like atrazine, and we are all the better for it.

>especially patenting life,

You can't patent natural genetic sequences.

>and secondarily turning all farmers (people who work the land) into serfs

Contracts are willingly signed, and those that don't sign are successful in
other areas of agriculture (see organic farming).

>I reject the pro-GMO arguments about increasing yield.

No GMO plant has ever directly tried to increase yield. Rather they mitigate
risk from weather or pests.

>Lastly if Monsanto (and Big Ag) is for it, I'm against it.

I'm glad you're willing to approach this topic reasonably, and with an open
mind.

~~~
specialist
_”You are fighting your own best interests. ... It takes incremental change.
Glyphosate replaces much more harmful pesticides like atrazine, and we are all
the better for it.”_

Wise words. Big fan of incrementalism. Even though I’m currently freaked out
about decline of pollinators, I’ll keep your viewpoint in mind.

If Big Ag owns this issue, and helps address it, I’ll ease up.

 _”...approach this topic reasonbly, and with an open mind.”_

No such luck. I’m fresh out of goodwill. When Monsanto et al stop lying (being
merchants of doubt), I’ll resume listening.

As my libertarian bestie teases me: the problem with you liberals is you can’t
tolerate hypocracy. Guilty as charged. To my tribe, any good Monsanto does is
completely negated by their (documented, proven) malfeasance.

~~~
searine
More power to you. Hate the company all you want, but the technology and
science is sound, and helpful to your (our) cause.

------
grabcocque
Wait, the US allows widespread use of potentially catastrophic chemical
substances without conducting independent research of its safety or efficacy?

America circa 2018 everyone.

~~~
vixen99
Where's the sarcasm?

~~~
grabcocque
Yes, I wasn't being sarcastic. More suffused with resigned horror.

------
rwoodley
This is not the only Roundup related issue.

I wish there was more discussion about the impact of these herbicides on
insect populations. For instance the Monarch butterfly population has dropped
90% due to herbicides such as Roundup. No public discussion.

[https://www.ecowatch.com/david-suzuki-how-to-save-the-
monarc...](https://www.ecowatch.com/david-suzuki-how-to-save-the-monarch-
butterfly-1882035035.html)
[http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201...](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/01/monarch_butterfly_decline_monsanto_s_roundup_is_killing_milkweed.html)

Michigan State study:
[http://makewayformonarchs.org/i/archives/2682](http://makewayformonarchs.org/i/archives/2682)

~~~
tptacek
Part of the reason there might not have been much public discussion is that
the underlying story is not that Roundup directly affects butterflies, but,
according to the study, it is simply very effective at eliminating weeds that
the butterflies were relying on --- making this less a story about Monsanto
and more about the impact of industrial-scale farming on local fauna.

~~~
jstewartmobile
Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

