
Monsanto Owns Us: The Monopoly of Seeds and Intellectual Property Rights - mgunes
http://darkecologies.com/2014/03/16/monsanto-owns-us-the-monopoly-of-seeds-and-intellectual-property-rights/
======
Blahah
Just to be clear: if you don't like this situation, patent law is the target.
Monsanto, like many other companies, are operating within the legal framework
the USA provides them. Reduce patent terms and you'll diversify control of the
food supply.

Second, just to pre-empt, please don't confuse Monsanto with GM crops.
Monsanto are a real pain in my ass as a plant scientist because they're
nucleating an all-out war on rationality. The original Monsanto, a chemical
manufacturer, were hated because of their US government contracts for Agent
Orange, and their massive environmental abuses in the 1950s. In the 90s they
developed some nice genetic technology. In 2000 that company was bought out by
Pharmacia. Then, in possibly the biggest PR fuckup ever, a newly formed
company taking only the agricultural IP from the old Monsanto decided to _keep
the name_. The name carries so many associations with the evil things they did
in the 50s-70s that it has utterly polluted the public discourse on GM crops.

It's also very tiresome to have Percy Schmeiser trotted out over and over
again. What's not mentioned here is that it came out in the trial that
Schmeiser had very deliberately infringed the patent by using Roundup to
select the Roundup-Ready plants, saving their seed and planting them
separately. Schmeiser made a very good job of rousing the media in his
support, but he definitively broke the law.

~~~
gergles
> It's also very tiresome to have Percy Schmeiser trotted out over and over
> again. What's not mentioned here is that it came out in the trial that
> Schmeiser had very deliberately infringed the patent by using Roundup to
> select the Roundup-Ready plants, saving their seed and planting them
> separately. Schmeiser made a very good job of rousing the media in his
> support, but he definitively broke the law.

I'm sorry you find his story inconvenient to your Monsanto cheerleading, but I
(and I feel many others) don't think this should have violated any law.
Someone contaminated his property with Roundup-Ready canola. He chose to take
advantage of that, isolate it, and replant it. _He_ never agreed with anybody
to not do this, or signed contracts to control what he does with what ends up
on _his_ property.

The idea that a patent can exist on a lifeform is utter nonsense to me; I
think a lot of the outrage comes in discovering that Monsanto's patent is on
the actual lifeforms themselves, not on the process for turning a regular seed
into a roundup-ready seed.

~~~
jjoonathan
> I'm sorry you find his story inconvenient to your Monsanto cheerleading

It's hardly "inconvenient." Not only was he guilty of A) acknowledging
Monsanto's value-addition by isolating the seeds and B) using but not paying
for that value-addition, but he then went on a media tour to cash in on the
Monsanto hate by lying repeatedly about the case to cast himself in a positive
light. And then he used the media attention as a springboard for his political
career. He's a scumbag, which is hardly "inconvenient" for people who don't
hate Monsanto.

> I (and I feel many others) don't think this should have violated any law.

How do you propose to allow those who engineered the value-addition to capture
a share of the societal benefit they created?

> The idea that a patent can exist on a lifeform is utter nonsense

They didn't patent the lifeform, they patented value-adding modifications to
the life-form. If you spent the time and effort to remove Monsanto's
additions, the life-form would no longer be patent-encumbered. The idea that
they were patenting a lifeform is utter nonsense.

~~~
manicdee
We certainly need a better system than patents on genes to allow people to
pursue genetic engineering for the sake of money.

This is not about "societal benefit". Nobody but Monsanto benefits from
Roundup Ready products: in fact they are a net detriment to society since the
continual use of glyphosate will select for Roundup resistant weeds. Then
there's the issue of residual glyphosate in our food supply.

You can put away your pom-poms and the "all Monstanto haters are liars" cheer
line, and come join the rational debate.

If GMOs cause my non-GM crops to be contaminated with GM genes, who owns my
crops? More importantly, who pays for the cleanup when the value I offer to my
customers is crops free of GMOs?

If a GM wind- or bee-pollinated crop is planted within a few kilometres of my
crop without my permission, who owns the genes that get transferred to my
crops due to cross-pollination?

Don't trot out the canard of "societal benefit" when the only people who
actually benefit from GMOs are the companies who own the patents and
manufacture the herbicides, pesticides and fertilisers that the GMO crops
depend on.

~~~
Blahah
_> This is not about "societal benefit". Nobody but Monsanto benefits from
Roundup Ready products_

That's just not true. Society benefits because we can avoid applying much more
toxic and environmentally damaging herbicides and pesticides by using
engineered resistance to pests or to harmless herbicides.

 _> They are a net detriment to society since the continual use of glyphosate
will select for Roundup resistant weeds_

This is a fallacy. All herbicide use selects for herbicide resistance.
Herbicide resistance is a problem completely independent of GMOs, and is in no
way exacerbated by using GMOs. Farmers have to use a huge quantity of
herbicide regardless of whether they are growing GMOs cotton or organic
quinoa.

 _> Then there's the issue of residual glyphosate in our food supply._

The whole point of using glyphosate is that it's one of the least harmful
herbicides ever discovered. There is very little evidence of harm to humans
even at much high doses than you would get in a lifetime of eating glyphosate-
soaked food. Contrast that to every other broad action herbicide, which have
various levels of toxicity but invariably higher than none.

~~~
unclebucknasty
> _This is a fallacy. All herbicide use selects for herbicide resistance.
> Herbicide resistance is a problem completely independent of GMOs, and is in
> no way exacerbated by using GMOs_

Actually, it's your comment there that contains the fallacy. Roundup-Ready GM
crops are designed to survive Roundup dosing (obviously). This leads to an
overall increase in Roundup use and a corresponding increase in Roundup
resistance.

You may say that herbicide resistance can be found to exist with non-GMOs, but
you cannot say that "resistance is in no way exacerbated by using GMOs". The
latter is positively and obviously false.

~~~
Blahah
_> Roundup-Ready GM crops are designed to survive Roundup dosing (obviously).
This leads to an overall increase in Roundup use and a corresponding increase
in Roundup resistance._

Right, but without roundup farmers have to use at least as much of a different
set of herbicides, at different times in the crop cycle. Using roundup leads
to an increase in the overall resistance to roundup and a decrease in the
resistance to 2,4-D, paraquat, etc. The problem exists independently of GMOs.

 _> you cannot say that "resistance is in no way exacerbated by using GMOs"_

Yes, I can. Resistance to Roundup is exacerbated by using Roundup-Ready GMOs,
while resistance to other herbicides is decreased.

~~~
unclebucknasty
> _Yes, I can. Resistance to Roundup is exacerbated by using Roundup-Ready
> GMOs, while resistance to other herbicides is decreased._

No, you can't. Well, you can...in the same way that you can say up is down and
down is up. That's literally what you're doing.

You previously stated that resistance is no way exacerbated by using GMOs. Now
you're saying that it is for one GMO, but trying to qualify it with a "but".
Too late. You've already conceded the point. Now you're trying to lawyer it.

With your initial claim refuted, we can move on to your qualifier. That is,
whether there is some secondary effect whereby resistance to other herbicides
is decreased in _direct proportion_ would be another question. But, you fail
on that point as well. Resistance is dose dependent. GMOs allow higher dosing.
It's the entire point.

The more herbicide-resistant GMOs we use, the more herbicides we'll use and
the more resistance we'll see. It's really as simple as that.

~~~
Blahah
It's no use trying to be clever with words when you aren't being clever with
facts. You are simply wrong, empirically and logically.

 _> You previously stated that resistance is no way exacerbated by using GMOs.
Now you're saying that it is for one GMO, but trying to qualify it with a
"but". Too late. You've already conceded the point. Now you're trying to
lawyer it._

Total rates of herbicide resistance have not increased since the introduction
of herbicide resistant GMOs. The rate of glyphosate resistance has increased,
while the rate of resistance to many other herbicides (e.g. ureas,
dinitroanilines, atrazine) has slowed by a greater total rate.

 _> Resistance is dose dependent. GMOs allow higher dosing. It's the entire
point._

1\. Dose dependence of resistance doesn't mean what you think it means. When
we say resistance is dose dependent, that means the plant is resistant only up
to a threshold dose, beyond which it will suffer the normal symptoms of
toxicity. It does not mean "the more herbicide we apply the more resistance
there will be".

2\. Glyphosate resistance does _not_ allow higher dosing, it allows lower
dosing after the crop has been planted (non-resistant crops in general have
the land treated with extreme doses several weeks before sowing).

3\. Herbicides select for resistance with different strengths, related to how
easily mutations can lead to resistance. Glyphosate is a relatively low
selector for resistance. Atrazine is an example of a very strongly resistance-
selecting herbicide. By reducing the use of strongly-selecting herbicides like
atrazine, Roundup-ready decreases the aggregate strength of selection for
resistance.

 _> The more herbicide-resistant GMOs we use, the more herbicides we'll use
and the more resistance we'll see._

No. The introduction of herbicide resistant GMOs has led to a reduction in the
rate of herbicides applied for most crops, or approximately similar rates of
_less harmful herbicides_ applied in other crops.

~~~
unclebucknasty
> _It 's no use trying to be clever with words when you aren't being clever
> with facts._

Funny that you're bringing up cleverness with words. You're engaging in
wordplay to avoid the obvious inferences ascribable to the very facts you're
acknowledging.

That is, you're using "facts" to mislead in very much the same way that
Monsanto does. What's your affiliation with them or related companies?

Forget about the term "dose dependence". I misused it in an effort to be
concise. I should have used "volume-dependence". The point is that it is
patently true that the more of a pesticide we use in aggregate, the higher the
rate of resistance to that pesticide and the more we have to use. You seem to
have acknowledged that, but now you are attempting to obfuscate it.

Obviously, this does not mean that if we use X volume of any given pesticide,
then we will get Y resistance to that pesticide. Nowhere did I state that.
Actual resistance rates are obviously dependent on the properties of the
specific herbicide. But, for each pesticide, the more we use, the higher the
risk of resistance. Again, you seem to be acknowledging this at least tacitly
via your acknowledgment where Roundup is concerned.

But, you are flailing about between arguments and contradicting each. On the
one hand, you're saying that GMOs such as Roundup Ready do lead to higher
resistance. OTOH, this is OK because we are decreasing use of other herbicides
and thus decreasing resistance there. So you are arguing both sides. To see
this, answer the following: what happens when we have herbicide-resistant GMOs
for every herbicide in significant use?

And, BTW, beyond resistance, we are using more roundup because GMOs allow the
crops to tolerate more.

> _The introduction of herbicide resistant GMOs has led to a reduction in the
> rate of herbicides applied for most crops, or approximately similar rates of
> less harmful herbicides applied in other crops._

Again, this is misleading because you are vascillating between discrete
herbicides/GMOs and aggregate. Bottom line is that humans are consuming more
glyphosate than in pre-Roundup Ready times because more of it is being used.
You keep calling it safe but, as is often the case with chemicals meant to
kill, the independent research is calling these safety claims into serious
question. When the dose we receive from any given herbicide keeps going up, we
eventually cross a threshold wherein even the industry-sponsored research is
little more than a wild guess. The result is that we just don't know when
we've reached a tipping point until it's too late.

It boggles my mind when scientists, of all people, show little regard for the
complexity of the human organism and make such cavalier statements about the
safety of consuming chemicals that are intended to kill. If their presumably
increased understanding of the delicate balance and complex chemical processes
within the human body isn't enough to warrant a bit more respect, it seems
that history should be.

~~~
Blahah
This is going nowhere - you're being deliberately obtuse, clearly don't know
what you're talking about, and I think the comments so far stand for
themselves. Last post, because there are some points I have to answer.

 _> That is, you're using "facts" to mislead in very much the same way that
Monsanto does. What's your affiliation with them or related companies?_

I have no affiliation with Monsanto or any related company. I've never, to my
knowledge, met or corresponded with anyone who works for them. I've very
deliberately avoided doing so because I want to remain impartial in my role as
a plant scientist. My research is funded by the Millennium Seed Bank, a
conservation organisation.

 _>...you are flailing about between arguments...you are arguing both
sides..._

I'm just presenting the facts, there are no sides, there is just the simple
fact that the total rate of herbicide resistance has decreased. If you're
incapable of seeing that it is possible for all the things I've said to be
true then I don't know what to suggest.

 _> what happens when we have herbicide-resistant GMOs for every herbicide in
significant use?_

Then we need to use less herbicide to achieve the same effect, because we can
apply it directly to the crop after planting, killing the emerged weeds. With
other herbicides, they have to be applied pre-emergence, sterilising the soil,
which requires larger doses. Secondarily, there's no way we will have GMOs
resistant to every herbicide that are _currently_ in significant use because
many of the older, more harmful ones will soon be illegal.

 _> You keep calling it safe but, as is often the case with chemicals meant to
kill, the independent research is calling these safety claims into serious
question._

I'm calling it safe _relative to other herbicides_. To feed everyone,
herbicides have to be used. These chemicals are meant to kill _plants_ ,
although some of the older ones has non-specific modes of action that might
also harm animals. Glyphosate in particular targets a protein, ESPS synthase,
that only exists in plants and microorganisms. It's been extensively tested
and, you are wrong, there is not research calling the safety claims into
question - the safety rating of glyphosate accurately reflects the state of
knowledge. If you're seriously interested, just read the literature.
Everything you're saying just demonstrates that you're not taking your
information from the literature. A good start is the GENERA database of
independently-funded studies on GMOs[0].

 _> The result is that we just don't know when we've reached a tipping point
until it's too late._

This is true for absolutely anything. Wearing clothes, watching TV,
fluorescent lighting, using a toilet, eating organic food, eating GMOs, and so
on. We have to use short-term studies to infer safety.

 _> It boggles my mind when scientists, of all people, show little regard for
the complexity of the human organism and make such cavalier statements about
the safety of consuming chemicals that are intended to kill._

Nothing is more important to me than human wellbeing. It's what I've dedicated
my life to, for very low pay, and I work incredibly hard to a) develop the
technology to allow us to alleviate hunger and b) maintain a thorough
understanding of the working of the agricultural system and its implications.
The reason your mind seems to be boggled is because you're leaping to
conclusions without understanding the system you're talking about.

I'm out.

0\.
[http://www.biofortified.org/genera/guide/](http://www.biofortified.org/genera/guide/)

~~~
unclebucknasty
Well, we agree that this has been exhausting.

And I suppose that, like you, I have trouble letting your last bit stand. So,
I will just summarize and be done with it.

You started by making a blanket statement that was categorically false and
misleading. Then, rather than acknowlege that you misspoke, you dug in and
defended it to the end. You never even acknowledged that you were now
qualifying your initial statement. But, it's me who is being deliberately
obtuse? OK.

And, here, you are making still more claims that are simply untrue or
misleading, as well as making trite arguments. Comparing wearing clothes,
using a toilet, etc. to consuming herbicides? Come on, man.

You are also deliberately taking examples meant to illustrate points to
extremes to set up strawmen. Attempting an earnest discussion is frustrating.
Perhaps consider that you may be so passionate that you are dismissive of any
ideas (and possibly some facts) that contradict your beliefs.

And, if you are truly interested in educating people, then perhaps, at a
minimum, you might also consider how you present facts and draw conclusions.
For instance, as just one example, you might reconsider how making unqualified
statements, such as your initial one here declaring that GMOs are completely
independent of the resistance problem might be misleading, especially to
laymen. Then, you might consider how making such glaring and apparently
apologetic misstatements in a charged environment might lead to questions
about your motives (of which you seem to get many) or, at the least, diminish
the effectiveness of your efforts to educate.

In short, maybe it's not everyone else. Maybe it's you.

Take care. I'm out.

------
forrestthewoods
I think the hate for Monsanto is way, way, way overrated. Honestly I still
haven't read a super compelling reason to hate them.

All the talk about evil lawsuits against poor farmers who got accidentally
contaminated seems to be FUD. The big recent case was a guy deliberately
trying to skirt the rules.

If farmers would like to use non-Monsanto seeds then they are free to do so.
If they'd like to use (arguably) superior seeds that have to be re-purchased
every year then they are also free to do so.

If people think it's bullshit that Monsanto can prevent their seeds from being
re-used then that's not insane, but I'd politely disagree. It's not terribly
different from copyright protection on software. The way I see it is we could
revoke that protection and then the seeds wouldn't be developed because it
wouldn't be profitable and we'd be stuck with the old stuff. Or we could give
protection to enable the development of new seeds and then farmers have the
choice to use the old stuff or new stuff. And if the new stuff is so much
better than the old stuff that using the old stuff isn't financially feasible
then I'd be inclined to call that a success.

Maybe someone can convince me to grab my pitchfork and join the mob but so far
I'm just not seeing it.

~~~
D9u
I see the patenting of life forms as being insidiously evil.

In the past we had _heirloom seeds_ which, although proprietary, were not
patent protected, so people who shared their superior seed stock didn't run
afoul of courts and lawyers.

Call me a pitchfork bearing loon but I find patenting life forms to be
egregiously reprehensible.

~~~
Blahah
We still have heirloom seeds - anyone who wants to can develop their own
varieties and share them as freely as they like. Many thousands of people do
this. However, those varieties are just extremely unlikely to be as
consistently high-yielding as the latest commercial varieties.

Patents serve the same purpose in farming as they do elsewhere: it makes it
worthwhile for companies to invest the hundreds of millions of dollars it
costs to drive crop yields ever higher.

I share your moral outrage at the _idea_ of patenting life, and all my own
research as well as all the genetic technology produced by our consortium on
the C4 rice project will be made free (as in beer and speech).

However, agriculture relies on agricultural companies, and they need some way
to make money. If people can just take their technology and grow it again
themselves, there is no way for them to recoup their investment and we simply
won't have better crops.

~~~
rjzzleep
> We still have heirloom seeds - anyone who wants to can develop their own
> varieties and share them as freely as they like. Many thousands of people do
> this. However, those varieties are just extremely unlikely to be as
> consistently high-yielding as the latest commercial varieties.

just to chime in here. for a majority of indian farmers - partly which
triggered the mass suicide by pesticide - they turned out to be not at all as
high yielding as was claimed.

now you could say, ahhh, but wait a second. they didn't use as much water and
pesticide as they were supposed to, and you might be right. but then it
depends on your definition of yield.

their own crops had a higher yield given the conditions of the soil, and
water.

~~~
hibikir
Great, if the GMO yields less, the farmer doesn't buy it again, and then the
market deals with the problem.

Definition of yield? Bushels per acre, or kg per hectare. There's not much of
an issue there. The same plant might yield very differently in different
fields, just like it yields differently each year. If you are conducting
trials, you have to plant a bunch of stuff together vs well known controls.
Something that yields 140 bushels per acre on average might give you just 58
in the wrong year. Just look at what happened to most of the US fall crop in
2012.

Now, if you plant a variety of plant that does well in X conditions, and you
actually plant it in Y conditions, then yeah, pick between changing the
condition or using a different variety.

~~~
rjzzleep
> Great, if the GMO yields less, the farmer doesn't buy it again, and then the
> market deals with the problem.

sounds great. you're assuming that most people are critical of these crops.
have any means to research what was mentioned(ie. internet). and have the
means to recover from these loans, but if they did why would they need the
loans to buy these crops to begin with?

------
ingenieros
In Colombia they have been lobbying hard for the past 20 years or so and they
are starting to see the genetically modified fruit of their labor. (pun
intended) It all started in the mid 90's with a huge contract to supply:
glifosato aka Roundup® to spray large coca fields throughout the country. The
outcome of this experiment has been a new super strain of Roundup resistant
coca crop known as "Boliviana negra." A toxicologist, Camilo Uribe, who
studied the coca, said: "The quality and percentage of hydrochloride from each
leaf is much better, between 97 and 98 per cent. A normal plant does not get
more than 25 per cent, meaning that more drugs and of a higher purity can be
extracted."

In addition to this Colombia recently signed a free trade agreement with the
U.S that introduced a law known as:"Ley 9.70" This law basically forces
farmers to only grow food crops from semilla certificada (patented seeds) and
guess which companies are supplying these patented seeds? Monsanto, Dupont and
Syngenta. This is causing great financial hardship among campesinos as they
can't afford to buy seeds every growing season and this has already resulted
in peasant protests late last year which resulted in over 40 civilian
casualties. As if farmers didn't have it bad enough being stuck in the middle
of an armed conflict they now need to comply with this new law or disappear.

If you were genuinely interested in this subject you could do a little
independent research of your own and you would see that Colombia is not an
isolated incident by any means. Monsanto has been taking advantage of corrupt
elected officials all over the developing world to maximize their profits.

------
wdr1
Why is it becoming so fashionable in the US for both political parties to
reject science? The Right rejects evolution & climate change, etc. and the
Left rejects GMOs, nuclear power, vaccinations, etc.

It's __infuriating __.

I wish the nutballs on both sides would just leave the rest of us alone.

~~~
epmatsw
Gotta have something to scare people with.

------
jrkelly
I'm definitely getting here too late, but this is the series to read to get
informed on GMOs. "Panic Free GMOs" by Grist Magazine, very balanced take:
[http://grist.org/series/panic-free-gmos/](http://grist.org/series/panic-free-
gmos/)

------
rjzzleep
a very important thing that we're overlooking here, where monsanto is kind of
a side effect. is that we're losing our seeds. we're losing for example seeds
that are have had hundreds of years of adapting to a certain environment.

a friend of mine was actually collecting seeds in afghanistan a couple of
years back precisely, because of that.

besides the yield implications there are also health implications, as we're
increasingly growing seeds with a certain taste.

this is completely disregarding the possible health implications of gmo crops.

imho there's huge potential for startups, but probably als huge attack
surfaces on those startups.

why? don't forget that uncle bens for example tried to patent basmati rice,
and it took the indian government to shut them down. there have also been
countless other such cases.

and for those saying the whole monsanto thing is overrated? i remember the guy
mentioning a couple of years back that he wants to own 100% of the crop market
by 20xx(xx being a number that i forgot). that number has been growing
rapidly. and again disregarding the health implications of generic seeds
distributed throughout the world, we kinda recognize that monopolies in
everything are dangerous.

what on earth makes us think that this is any different?

~~~
jjoonathan
> we're losing for example seeds that are have had hundreds of years of
> adapting to a certain environment.

If they're really better adapted, why are people choosing to buy Monsanto
seeds instead? Also, if this were the case, wouldn't Monsanto be interested in
reverse-engineering these adaptations and applying them across species /
regions?

> there are also health implications

Citation needed. And no, Seralini's work doesn't count -- if you would like me
to explain why it was BS I can do so at great length.

> this is completely disregarding the possible health implications

1\. We have never held "natural" crops to standards beyond the basic FDA regs.
I put "natural" in quotes because usually "natural" = "inbred over generations
because even primitive genetic engineering techniques with known, proven side
effects are better than nothing." This is all despite the fact that natural
crops are often much further, genetically speaking, from "known goods" than
Monsanto's crops, which actually do receive additional testing.

> don't forget that uncle bens for example tried to patent basmati rice, and
> it took the indian government to shut them down

Were they trying to patent _their modifications_ to the rice, or regular,
unmodified rice? The Indian government (like the Chinese government) has a
long history of ignoring patent law when it suits their purposes. It's a self-
interest move, not a morality move.

> remember the guy mentioning a couple of years back that he wants to own 100%
> of the crop market by 20xx(xx being a number that i forgot). that number has
> been growing rapidly.

I'll assume by "the guy" you mean "a higher-up at Monsanto" and by "that
number" you mean "Monsanto's present market share." In that case, your
assertion is patently incorrect:

[http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/workshops/ag2010/015/AGW-1...](http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/workshops/ag2010/015/AGW-14383-b_f4.jpg)

> and again disregarding the health implications of generic seeds distributed
> throughout the world

By "generic," I'll assume you mean "genetically engineered." Citation still
needed.

> what on earth makes us think that this is any different?

The fact that Monsanto has made a significant improvement to one of the
fundamental goods society is built around. They deserve a share of the value
they created.

~~~
PythonicAlpha
>The fact that Monsanto has made a significant improvement to one of the
fundamental goods society is built around. They deserve a share of the value
they created.

No, because I deny that they made any improvement. Only because it is shown in
TV, it is not true!

Today's companies are great in creating "pseudo values". Of course, short
term, there might be an improvement. But who checks for the long term effects?
I also heard about countries where farmers wanted to go back to their old
crop, since after paying the price for the crops (and the pesticides, that are
sometimes additionally needed), the value was negative! But say what? They
could not, because the old crops where swept from market!

~~~
zanny
> But who checks for the long term effects?

I'm becoming more and more convinced that in aggregate as a species nobody
ever checks for the long term, and nobody ever _actually_ cares about the long
term. Even today, any environmentally friendly actions come off to me as being
more social than logical - it is great we got green to be somewhat "cool", but
the fact that is the driving force in adoption (people usually buy Teslas and
hybrids because they are "cool", not because it vastly reduces their carbon
footprint) leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

And it always happens throughout history. Depressions, wars, and famines are
caused by perpetual short term thinking coming back to bite you the long term
that eventually catches up to you.

------
shasts
I think the name 'Monsanto' doesn't matter too much. It can be any evil
corporation using all their muscles to lobby, and make legal frameworks in
favor of them. For those who are not sure why Monsanto is evil, read this
article.

[http://newsjunkiepost.com/2009/08/05/monsanto-dow-making-
hea...](http://newsjunkiepost.com/2009/08/05/monsanto-dow-making-headlines-
for-their-atrocities/)

~~~
dr8899
Tell me why we should read articles from non-scientists instead of articles
from actual biotechnology scientists again?

~~~
svenkatesh
For the same reason we should listen to Jenny McCarthy about how to prevent
autism .. oh wait.

------
spikels
Funny how when certain words come up seemingly rational people go batshit
crazy. Monsanto is one of those words.

------
PythonicAlpha
One reason is because our democratic freedom is at the verge of being
overthrown by a new aristocratic system that springs out of the "free market"
system we have today.

Such companies already have a tremendous influence on politics and the whole
live we have. The financial system is roaming the lands for new "investments".
There is not to few money around, it is way to much -- and it is in the hands
of the few.

The result is, that companies, the finance sector and the big shareholders own
us all! We are at the verge of a state, where it will not be possible to live
without paying "life-taxes" to specific companies. So the difference of the
Having (and I don't mean a million bucks or even a billion bucks -- far more!)
and the Not-Having will grow. There might be some kind of new middle-class
formed by the millionaires of today -- but the old middle-class will go down.

At last, there will be the new aristocrats (as in the middle ages -- max.
0.01% of the people), their handymen (~ 1%) and the rest of the pack, that
will be living in rags.

I don't know, if this will come to pass, but we are at the verge of it and the
neo-capitalism is going exactly that direction! Already some aristocrats are
building homes for the millionaires -- secure and apart of the pack!

When you say: This is just bullshit: Look into your countries government --
who makes the laws? In the US, in the EU, in .... (where you live). Open your
eyes! (if you are able to)

------
marcoagner
The problem here is the power they are given by patent law and other
government powers that they can 'lobby' for. This is it. That's not capitalism
or free market... That's bullshit.

------
msh
This reminds me of the windup girl by Paolo Bacigalupi
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Windup_Girl](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Windup_Girl)).

------
scotty79
We should have GPLed all DNA before we allowed comapnies to own IP on DNA.

------
Eleutheria
They own nothing and nobody, once the world stops believing in patents.

Only thru force and coercion they have a temporary advantage.

------
joesmo
It's disgusting that the courts--especially the Supreme Court --in this
country constantly choose to side against the interests of the people it
claims to serve, against all reason. Over and over again in the last sixty
years, from civil rights to patent law to copyright law, decisions have been
inexplicably targeted at making life worse in exchange for corporate and
political profit. I don't blame corporations like Monsanto as much, since they
are expected to act towards their monetary and financial interests. Yet the
interpretation of law consistently fails even the most rudimentary test of
logic. If I didn't know any better (and I don't), I'd say the court's justices
are gaining either financially or otherwise from the parties the rule for.

------
nashashmi
Anybody who modifies crops at the genetic level just so it can withstand the
effects of their own plant and pest killer is evil.

The correct thing would be to do is create a chemical that kills all unwanted
stuff and leaves the wanted stuff unharmed, not modify nature because it does
not fit your world order.

Plus, GM foods for any purpose are evil. Correct procedure for getting
enhanced plants is to use normal breeding processes.

~~~
wdewind
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature)

~~~
nirnira
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_can't_fix_stupid](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_can't_fix_stupid)

