
Why Does Everyone Hate Monsanto? (2014) - woodfordb
http://modernfarmer.com/2014/03/monsantos-good-bad-pr-problem/
======
shanacarp
Because of the problems of genetic diversity and the lack of public seed, even
if chunks of Monsanto research is funded by the public in public research/land
grant universities through public grants.

EG:While large chunks of cornell's Ag program does end up with some sorts of
patents (I think) - much of the fees associated with the introduction of a new
plant are paid directly by the consumer (eg: this grape
[https://doubleavineyards.com/arandell](https://doubleavineyards.com/arandell)
\- new yorkers pay lower royalty fees to grow it). Furthermore, this grape (as
an example) is considered public seed. I can, my neighbor can, whoever can,
breed it with other grapes, sequence it, eat it, take cutting for creating new
vines, whatever.

If Cornell^ decided to partner with Monsanto for Flint Corn, the flint corn
may not be released to me to do that (hence the lawsuits, and why Monsanto
buys/has huge internal labs on top of partnering with state universities)

The other issue of lack of public seed is the lack of genetic diversity,
especially over the long term. One of big reasons why we have GM bananas is we
only grow one kind of banana (cavendish). Imagine that applied to wheat, and
then a grass disease mutates while Monsanto patents hold. If Monsanto wheat is
80% of wheat in the US, that disease is going to have a field day. Public seed
is insurance that tinkers can tinker with genetics, thereby increasing genetic
diversity of wheat in the field, tomatoes, what have you.

Right now we bank seed and have started z"heirloom seed" orgs like Seed Savers
exchange. GM food theoretically has a place in there, but not if it is seen as
a way of creating monoculture instead of tinkerers (which is what has
happened)

We'll see if the fields turn

^Cornell does partner with outside organizations for plant breeding purposes.

------
danbruc
More advertising seems wasted money to me - pro Monsanto people don't matter,
anti Monsanto people will only see it as propaganda.

Just label GMOs really obviously and let the people decide. Without any
labeling or non-obvious labeling it is hard or impossible to avoid GMOs if you
want to - for rational reasons or not - and being wholly against GMOs becomes
your only real option. There are of course still a lot of other issues like
cross contamination and what not but I think it would make a really got start.

~~~
unchocked
The problem with labeling GMO's is that you're taking what ought to be a
regulatory issue (is this GMO objectively safe?) and kicking it down I to the
team of popular culture (do I the consumer think buying this GMO is safe for
me?). Consumers are ill-equipped to make this decision, and if continually
confronted by warning labels many will choose to avoid GMO containing foods
"just to be safe". When a critical mass of consumers feel this way it will
just be a cultural fact that GMO's are "unsafe" and food producers will avoid
using them to avoid being seen as purveyors of "unsafe food".

Something similar happened to nuclear power, and we got coal power instead.
GMO's enable the intensive agriculture needed to support 7+ billion people
with a lower environmental impact than would otherwise be possible, and the
technology is still primitive. I don't want it to be stopped in it's tracks by
mob psychology.

~~~
danbruc
80 % of the world population has - more or less freely - decided to believe in
invisible gods guiding the fate of mankind, sometimes with dire consequences,
and we protect their right to do so. Should we force them to abandon this
irrational nonsense for some greater good? I may not like the consequences of
people acting irrationally but I like the idea of forcing people to believe
The Right Thing™ even less. They feel about being forced to live with GMOs
exactly the same way you feel about being forced to live with coal power, it's
just a matter of on which side of the debate you are, both sides strongly
believe to be on the right one.

~~~
yummyfajitas
I don't believe anything prevents a seller from honestly producing,marketing
and selling GMO free foods. However, demanding that the rest of the world
participate in their marketing scheme is silly.

Similarly you can put "contains no functional programming" on your software if
you like. But it's unreasonable to insist that I put "warning: free monads" on
mine, particularly if it's logistically difficult and expensive (as it would
be with both FP and GMO) to actually determine the truth.

Also, I suppose corn, tomato, potato, peppers and most other selectively bred
crops are can never have the "non-GMO" label?

~~~
danbruc
I am from Europe and here it is mandatory to label products produced with GMOs
with some exceptions like meat from animals fed with GMOs. It is not the case
that a handful people demanded that, it is a nonnegligible fraction of the
population.

And you software example. There are scenarios where certain certifications are
required, some with respect to functionality, some with respect to the process
the software was build with. For example US companies had to adhere to the
Safe Harbor rules if they wanted to offer services in the European Union and
they probably had to declare that in the terms of service.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Suppose a non-negligible fraction of the population demands Islamic, Hindu or
Christian food. Should that also be labelled according to some law (rather
than the current voluntary label system)?

Certifications for software are a very different thing because they are based
on actual safety and functionality, not a faith-based preference.

~~~
danbruc
Why not? Consumers have a right to know what they eat. If half the population
really wants to know whether products adhere to some religious practices, then
so be it, print it on the box. In some cases businesses will voluntary do such
things because they see it as beneficial, in some cases they won't and then
you have to make into a law. I guess in your example with the religions they
would do so voluntarily because what are the downsides? In case of GMOs they
won't because they - probably rightly - fear reduced sales and so we need a
law. And faith and objectivity, that may be a thin line. What about
vegetarians and vegans? And even in case of GMOs there is still a small but
non-zero risk of adverse (long-term) effects.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Just like halal and kosher food makers, non-GMO food makers can include it on
the box.

As a vegetarian myself, I assume food which doesn't disclose itself as being
veg is not - particularly when outside of India. I don't feel it is the
responsibility of the rest of the world to accommodate my personal tastes.

~~~
danbruc
If everyone would label their non-GMO products that would maybe do, but what
stops companies from putting non-GMO labels on GMO products if it is not
enforced by some law? It also seems a bit backwards, why would one label all
non-GMO products if one want's to know which products contain GMOs? That's a
bit like labeling everything without honey as honey-free and not labeling
honey and products containing honey. And we were already there - it is not you
but a nonnegligible fraction of the population.

~~~
yummyfajitas
No one is opposed to requiring non-GMO labels to be accurate, just like all
other advertising.

What's being discussed here is simply requiring Joe's Corn & Pork to put "non-
Halal, non-Kosher, yay GMO" on their label. I.e., forcing Joe to participate
in someone else's marketing scheme.

~~~
danbruc
It is not a marketing scheme, it is customer information just like the usual
ingredients labels. As I said in another comment, declaring what is in a
product should really be the norm, GMO labeling opponents should justify why
it is okay or better to hide this information from customers.

~~~
yummyfajitas
It's very simple. Food ingredients are on the label for safety reasons. There
are no measurable safety effects of GMO, Halal, etc.

What criteria do you use to determine if a property should be on a label?
Should foods with homosexuals or muslims involved in production also get a
warning label? If not, why not? Or do you believe every random bias of
consumers is something that every possible producer must account for?

~~~
danbruc
_What criteria do you use to determine if a property should be on a label?_

Simple, if a substantial fraction of the consumers cares about it.

 _Should foods with homosexuals or muslims involved in production also get a
warning label? If not, why not? Or do you believe every random bias of
consumers is something that every possible producer must account for?_

People already avoid products from specific companies, countries and whatnot
because they disapprove their ethics, labor conditions and so on. If people
cared about the race or religion of the people producing the products they
buy, then it should be on the label. I would actually almost bet there were
products advertising that they were produced by white Americans only or
something similar. That it was never a mandatory labeling probably just means
that people never cared enough about it, not that it is something totally
unimaginable.

If this is really the only argument against GMO labeling, that it would be
kind of a random addition amongst many other possible addition to the labels,
that seems a pretty weak argument.

------
BinaryIdiot
The comments on this article are painful. Monsanto certainly has a huge
problem and that problem is PR. People call them an evil monopoly, but they're
not a monopoly. They're the second biggest, sure, but they have lots of
competitors behind them, too. Almost _every single thing_ I read that's
negative about Monsanto is either a fabrication or spun so heavily that the
truth is too distorted.

Honestly, so much negative press really distracts from where you can find
negative issues with the company.

~~~
Karunamon
I think it's a combination of things:

1- the name. Monsanto sounds like a Saturday morning cartoon villain.

2- the whole concept of patenting a life form rubs many the wrong way

3- previous bad behavior, I.e. Agent orange.

4- self-reinforcing bad information

That's no excuse for making things up whole cloth,but it at least explains
some of it.

~~~
belorn
To expand on the patent issue, it not only about Monsanto patenting life but
also how they go around and enforce it. Rather than selling a product that the
farmer can use as they wish, monsanto demands payment for each harvest. Its if
like a car manufacturer were to patent some new effective engine but then went
to demand a cut each time the customer went and filled up the tank. Its not a
deal that feels fair, and it makes people feel like someone got tricked.

~~~
roel_v
You realize you're saying this to an audience of which at least half either
works on saas or would like to, right?

------
nerdponx
This article is part of the problem. People care about seed patents and farmer
suicides too, but I don't see any mention of those in the first half of the
article.

It's a shame, because all this hate should be directed at the food industry
more broadly, including Cargill, ADM, and their armies of lobbyists

------
aftbit
I don't understand the anti-labeling group, except perhaps as an obvious
lobbying effort by those selling GMO seeds. Giving people accurate information
about what they eat seems to be net positive. Most people will buy the
cheapest thing, some will buy the non-GMO things. How's that different from
today's "organic" labeling?

~~~
OMFGscience
The issue is that there's no scientific reason to be opposed to GMOs. They're
perfectly safe to eat and not worse for the environment. The organic lobby has
successfully demonized GMOs to the general population, and now they want to
have them labeled to scare people away from eating them. Do you really think
we should be legally requiring the labeling of something that doesn't actually
matter, in response to a successful marketing campaign by the competition?

~~~
cowmix
Safe or not, I do not want to buy or support GMO food because I know there's
probably a patent behind the seeds that can screw over farmers (and by proxy
everyone else).

~~~
maxerickson
The farmers know well enough what they are buying when they buy single season
crops.

It's been the norm ever since the green revolution (modern hybrids often don't
breed true [http://www.foodrenegade.com/hybrid-seeds-vs-
gmos/](http://www.foodrenegade.com/hybrid-seeds-vs-gmos/) ).

They are making an economic decision when they buy and plant any crop, and
they are good at making it (it's a low margin business).

------
deepnet
Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser[1] is one datum.

The Schmeisers lost their heirloom corn they had been growing for generations
when a neighbour grew Monsanto corn, which pollinated some of the Schmeiser's
plants.

Because Monsanto had patented Roundup-ready corn, the Schmeisers lost the
right to grow their unpatented family corn as some contained patented DNA. The
court ruled 5% contamination was enough to assert IP rights and the Schmeisers
could no longer grow their corn.

Seized ownership by genetic contamination is clearly a huge risk.

[1]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmei...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeiser)

~~~
adanto6840
If you read the linked Wikipedia entry, the first paragraph makes it pretty
clear that your re-telling of the story is, at the least, not fully accurate:

"The case drew worldwide attention and is widely misunderstood to concern what
happens when farmers' fields are accidentally contaminated with patented seed.
However by the time the case went to trial, _all claims had been dropped_ that
related to patented seed in the field that was contaminated in 1997; the court
only considered the GM canola in Schmeiser's 1998 fields, which _Schmeiser had
intentionally concentrated_ and planted from his 1997 harvest. Regarding his
1998 crop, _Schmeiser did not put forward any defence of accidental
contamination_."

Emphasis added. They did not put forward the defense of accidental
contamination because it was indeed not accidental; instead, they were trying
to add traits of the GM crop into their own. Where you stand on that practice
may vary, but they certainly were [intentionally] taking advantage of the
superior traits of the GM crop.

Whether or not it should be allowed to be intellectual property is a
completely different thing, but given that it can be considered IP right now,
the corporation would be foolish to not protect their IP and therefore their
financial interests for their shareholders.

~~~
deepnet
I have heard this idea the Schmeisers benefited from Monsanto's Roundup-ready
and I disagree.

The Schmeisers didn't use Roundup, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled they
experienced no benefit from the Monsanto Genes.

For the wider picture this is moot: intentionality was about liability - the
contamination lost them their heirloom regardless.

This is of grave concern to Nations as it could well mean in a few generations
none of that species can be grown without Monsanto permission and license
fees.

------
ourmandave
Speaking of PR mis-steps...

I do remember seeing a TV ad a long time ago. Their new short-lived tagline
was, "Without chemicals, life itself would be impossible."

[https://www.flickr.com/photos/jbcurio/8740859605](https://www.flickr.com/photos/jbcurio/8740859605)

But to me it came across as, "Without Monsanto, life itself would be
impossible."

------
crdoconnor
PR fluff pieces probably don't answer this question as cogently as wikipedia:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#Legal_actions_and_con...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#Legal_actions_and_controversies)

------
cm2187
The problem is that many people are vehemently against GMO without having a
clue. I remember of a famous french actress protesting on TV that people were
forced to eat GMO. And saying in disgust "It's disgusting, I don't even want
to eat DNA!"

On GMO and Monsanto I recommand a recent .net rocks:

[http://dotnetrocks.com/?show=1298](http://dotnetrocks.com/?show=1298)

~~~
undersuit
They don't have a clue? Great maybe you could give me a clue on which french
actress you're talking about.

Vague and nebulous anecdotes drive me crazy.

~~~
cm2187
I think it was either Emmanuelle Beart or Beatrice Dalle. Why, does that make
a difference?

------
api
I've wondered for a while if there's evil black hat PR agencies out there that
charge protection money.

"There's going to be an anti-GMO backlash and everyone is going to pick a
villain. Pay us and we can make sure it isn't you."

There are many agricultural biotechnology companies. Maybe Monsanto didn't
pay.

~~~
dragonwriter
Monsanto has, IIRC, something like 80% of the seed market. There aren't really
any comparable firms in the market.

------
nickpsecurity
Let's try this one although I hold it against Fox and corporate media more
than Monsanto:

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

------
crispytx
Agent Orange.

~~~
fiatmoney
No one seems to still have a grudge against Dow.

------
djzkf
If you were a farmer interested in GMOs what would you google? Monsanto. They
don't have a PR problem, they're the greatest PR geniuses of all times.

------
amelius
> Why Does Everyone Hate Monsanto?

Because they forgot to set their corporate motto to "Don't be evil".

------
swehner
Is from the year 2014.

~~~
dang
Thanks; added.

------
yummyfajitas
In other news, 80% of Americans want food containing gaining DNA to be
labelled - comparable to the number that are concerned about dihydrogen
monoxide.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-
conspiracy/wp/201...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-
conspiracy/wp/2015/01/17/over-80-percent-of-americans-support-mandatory-
labels-on-foods-containing-dna/)

~~~
crdoconnor
Ctrl-F "roundup". Ctrl-F "glyphosphate".... Hmm, nothing found - especially
curious for a CATO author who berates the American public's scientific
understanding.

In other, other apparently _unreported_ news, Monsanto's GM foods were
designed to be extra resistant to the pesticides they sell.

This pesticide, specifically:
[http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx800218n](http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx800218n)

"Glyphosate Formulations Induce Apoptosis and Necrosis in Human Umbilical,
Embryonic, and Placental Cells"

It's important to focus on the fact that the GMO plants _themelves_ without
the extra pesticides they were designed to sustain _are_ totally, 100% safe,
though.

Signed, CATO (Koch funded think tank, closely allied with Monsanto)

