
Monsanto Effort to Defund Cancer Researchers - mgamache
https://theintercept.com/2019/08/23/monsanto-republicans-cancer-research/
======
NPMaxwell
Roundup, asbestos, leaded gas, and lots of other engineering products say to
me that the industry/culture of engineering has a problem. I think that
problem is not engineering itself, but emerges when engineering is mixed with
current MBA culture of stockholder value rather than stakeholder value.
Obvious, and obviously worthless, strategies are to add BS "ethics" courses to
engineering programs. It's possible to turn this ship. I don't yet have ideas
for how it's actually done.

~~~
throwawaywindev
It’s an economic problem that boils down to not putting a high enough price on
negative externalities.

~~~
PeterStuer
The idea that a regulator can pre-run the economic actors to price in all
known and unknown negative externalities before transactions occur is
disingenuous. Competitively breeding an evolving species of ever more creative
amoral actors seeking to concentrate benefits and externalize negatives and
then somehow hoping you can contain them is madness. In an environment were
the 'guards' can and frequently do swap places with the inmates it is beyond
madness.

Furthermore, even if that were true there is nothing to stop a malevolent
actor, either deliberate, by ignorance, or by lack of better alternatives, to
just eat the cost.

~~~
tim_hutton
Yes perfect regulation is impossible and yes it's an arms race but it's one we
have to keep fighting. The alternative (less regulation) is far worse. We've
tried that.

~~~
PeterStuer
Just to be clear: I was not at all advocating less regulation.

------
The_rationalist
This press article is _mostly_ void of substance.

Yes, Monsanto do everything, even semi illegal things to defend it's
economical interests. I actually learned they hired fake journalists.

But nothing about the real issue: is glyphosate carcinogenic and if so, how
much compared to very common carcinogenics. By _far_ most independent studies
(listed on Wikipedia) conclude that glyphosate is not or is unlikely to be
carcinogenic. This is solid evidence of glyphosate being of little worry,
especially when we have far more worrying carcinogens in our everyday life.

 _The FTI-written letter declared that glyphosate “does not cause cancer,”
accused the IARC of peddling “bunk science,” and threatened a reassessment of
the NIH budget to ensure that the agency is “committed to only funding
organizations that produce information and conclusions based on sound science,
robust processes, and credible methodology.”_ How solid scientifically are the
IARC reviews? Nobody adress this real question.

Btw everybody talk about potential lives that Monsanto indirectly maybe
killed. Monsanto is often considered as evil. But thanks to their scientific
innovations, they _feed_ the world. It's difficult to realize how many lives
they have saved or improved, but they are probably on the top 10 list of most
impactful entities for increasing well being and diminishing suffering.

~~~
wickedwiesel
> But thanks to their scientific innovations, they feed the world. It's
> difficult to realize how many lives they have saved or improved, but they
> are probably on the top 10 list of most impactful entities for increasing
> well being and diminishing suffering.

How can you be so sure about this? Monsanto's GMOs depend on the use of their
tailored pesticides. It's their whole USP. The negative impact of the current
use of pesticides, of which roundup is a bestseller, is _immense_. The vicious
cycle of pesticide use, GMOs and debt is horrible for farmers in low- medium-
income countries and often leads to suicide. Just pesticide poisoning accounts
for a yearly death toll of 200,000 to 250,000 people according to the UN [0]
and the WHO [1].

This does not even go into the topic of loss of biodiversity where pesticides
play a vital role. According to the OHCHR, if we were to eliminate bees by
using neonicotinoid pesticides as usual, we will likely see a collapse of "the
very basis of agriculture as 71% of crop species are bee-pollinated."[2]
Monsanto and its practice have been directly linked to the demise of bee
populations [3].

Monsanto and the like are again, cashing in all our chips for short-term gain.
This is not innovation. This is a growth hacking at its worst.

[0] - 2017, [https://documents-dds-
ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G17/017/85/PDF...](https://documents-dds-
ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G17/017/85/PDF/G1701785.pdf?OpenElement) "pesticides
are responsible for an estimated 200,000 acute poisoning deaths each year" [1]
- 2006,
[https://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide/en/Pest...](https://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide/en/PesticidesHealth2.pdf)
Worldwide, an estimated three million cases of pesticide poisoning occur every
year, resulting in an excess of 250,000 deaths. [2] -
[https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N...](https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=21306)
[3] - [https://www.globalresearch.ca/death-and-extinction-of-the-
be...](https://www.globalresearch.ca/death-and-extinction-of-the-bees/5375684)

~~~
jcranberry
You haven't mentioned any evidence which would inculpate Monsanto. Pesticides
are used for both GMO and non-GMO crops. What is so vicious about the cycle of
'pesticide, GMOs, and debt' which is less vicious for 'pesticide, non-GMOs and
debt'?

~~~
wickedwiesel
This is a two-part answer.

First, the big difference about GMOs is that "farmers must purchase fresh
seeds as retailers sell them only as hybrid cultivars, which prevents growers
from replanting them the following year." [3] You can imagine that this makes
a huge difference in how farmers need to operate. Farmers do not store seed
anymore like they used to but need to buy new seed ever year. If world market
prices of their commodities drop they will not even be able to afford new seed
& pesticides for the next crop, especially since prices for GMO seeds and
brand-specific pesticides are a multiple of non-GMO seeds. With non-GMOs,
farmers retain the possibility and the legal right to the re-seed next year.
That is why this cycle is more vicious, especially for low-income countries
where credits and loan are hard to come by.

> You haven't mentioned any evidence which would inculpate Monsanto.

Secondly, I explicitly linked an article titled "Death and Extinction of the
Bees. The Role of Monsanto?" which is one of many others like the Guardian,
citing University of Texas research [0], the German Office for Environmental
Protection [1] highlighting the negative effect of RoundUp/Glpyhosat. All of
these detail the negative impact of Monsanto's product on biodiversity in
general and bees more specifically. So the evidence is not only about the
negative impact of Monsanto's main product RoundUp on bee population but also
Monsanto's documented efforts to prevent effective regulation and scientific
discussion.

For instance, the so-called 'Monsanto papers' "reveal Monsanto-sponsored
ghostwriting of articles published in toxicology journals and the lay media,
interference in the peer review process, behind-the-scenes influence on
retraction and the creation of a so-called academic website as a front for the
defense of Monsanto products."[5]

Monsanto doesn't really help here and became the first company that has been
"banned from entering the European parliament after the multinational refused
to attend a parliamentary hearing into allegations of regulatory interference"
[4].

[0] -
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/24/monsanto...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/24/monsanto-
weedkiller-harms-bees-research-finds) [1] -
[https://www.bfn.de/fileadmin/BfN/landwirtschaft/Dokumente/20...](https://www.bfn.de/fileadmin/BfN/landwirtschaft/Dokumente/20180131_BfN-
Papier_Glyphosat.pdf) [3] - [https://www.theguardian.com/global-
development/gallery/2014/...](https://www.theguardian.com/global-
development/gallery/2014/may/05/india-cotton-suicides-farmer-deaths-gm-seeds)
[4] -
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/28/monsanto...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/28/monsanto-
banned-from-european-parliament) [5] - [https://www.sci-
hub.tw/10.3233/JRS-180028](https://www.sci-hub.tw/10.3233/JRS-180028)

------
ocschwar
History repeats itself.

When Clair PAtterson started researching the environmental persistence of
ethyl-lead (leaded gas), Du Pont offered to sponsor any research he wanted to
do so long as it wasn't ethyl lead.

Not only can you not trust a company to research possible bad effects of its
products, you can expect companies to interfere with research into their
products done by outside parties.

~~~
fencepost
Clair "Pat" Patterson was a graduate of Grinnell College and their summer 2019
college magazine has a nice comic style summary:
[http://magazine.grinnell.edu/news/get-lead-
out](http://magazine.grinnell.edu/news/get-lead-out)

------
vertis
The first time I read about Monsanto being evil it was in the fiction novel
Freedom(TM) by Daniel Suarez (sequel to Daemon).

Daniel Suarez had neatly integrated Monsanto suing farmers[1] into the
storyline.

It's a great (neo)cyberpunk read, as are his other novels.

One of the things I love about novels of this style are that they prompt me to
go off and learn more about a subject.

[1]:
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto-
sues-farmers-seed-patents)

~~~
stringyham
Thanks for the author recommendation, had never heard of him.

------
jimbob45
>Great, so now on top of all the other $#!% farmers have to deal with they
also need to be concerned their going to get blood cancer. So what is the
suggested alternative? Farmers can't just not use weed killer. They need an
effective weed killer and it has to be cheap.

I really don't think this should have been downvoted to hell. We spend every
Monsanto thread talking about how bad the company is and I think we can all
agree at this point that the company would be best off dead. However, there
are still very real farmers out there who need real solutions to avoid going
bankrupt. Why can't we talk about all the _good_ weedkiller companies that we
_should_ be buying from?

~~~
wnevets
How was farming possible prior to the cancer causing weed killer being
created?

~~~
cwp
80% of the population spent their lives in extreme poverty, toiling in the
fields from sunup to sundown.

~~~
ocschwar
You can thank the McCormick Reaper for putting that to an end. No need for
Roundup.

------
AngeloAnolin
These type of behavior has always been prevalent with any _for-profit_
corporation. Generally, companies would try to find loopholes and way around
regulations just to ensure that their cash cow is able to fulfill their own
bottom line.

Come to think of it - it is always a big news when companies' wrongdoings are
exposed. But for companies who've turned around and is trying to make their
operations better and abide by regulations and focused on ensuring safety and
well-being of everyone directly and indirectly, they never make the news.

~~~
refurb
_These type of behavior has always been prevalent with any for-profit
corporation._

This type of behavior has always been prevalent with any corporation staffed
by humans.

You don’t need a profit motive to get these sorts of things. Look at what the
gov’t has done in the name of national security, war against crime, etc.

------
jcranberry
According to their Preamble, what IARC does is collect studies on a particular
substance and categorize them according to how likely it is they carcinogenic
to any degree. So they essentially publish reviews of existing literature.
They evaluate whether there's a hazard, but not how much risk there actually
is. The article title should probably be "Monsanto Effort to Defund Cancer
Research Reviewers".

Glyphosate sits in the same category ('probably carcinogenic') as:

>Emissions from frying stuff

>Being a barber

>Being a night shift worker

>Red meat

>Malaria

>Glass manufactoruing

>Burning wood biofuel

And some other stuff and a bunch of chemicals whose usage I don't know.

In the 'definitely carcinogenic' category are lots of things that you would
expect, such as coal production and ionizing radiation, but there's also:

>Being a painter

>Mineral oils

>Processed meat

>"Salted fish, Chinese-style"

Because I wasn't sure, this is the IARC's definition of processed meat:

>Processed meat refers to meat that has been transformed through salting,
curing, fermentation, smoking, or other processes to enhance flavour or
improve reservation. Most processed meats contain pork or beef, but processed
meats may also contain other red meats, poultry, offal, or meat by-products
such as blood.

There's also the third group of 'possibly carcinogenic', which includes
beverages above 65C (149F), aloe vera, carpentry, asian pickled vegetables,
and radio waves.

Source:

[https://monographs.iarc.fr/list-of-
classifications](https://monographs.iarc.fr/list-of-classifications)

------
ptah
Event like this convinces me that government is primarily a servant of big
business

~~~
ghobs91
and it will continue to be, so long as political donations of any size are
legal.

~~~
save_ferris
It’s not just the size of the donation, the PAC system permits tremendous
amounts of dark money whose donors aren’t disclosed.

Donating directly to politicians is fairly straightforward and transparent due
to campaign finance law, but PACs operating “independently” and in the
background undermine the system in a huge way

~~~
ghobs91
My point is that as long as donations of any kind are legal, politicians will
continue to optimize for fundraising, rather than optimizing for policies that
benefit the largest number of people. Who is most equipped to donate large
sums to politicians? The wealthy.

~~~
snowwrestler
If donations are no longer legal, only the wealthy will have enough money to
run for office. It would not have the democratizing effect you seem to think
it would.

~~~
save_ferris
This just isn’t true, and this problem largely already exists in the US.

Many countries use publicly funded elections where all candidates get a set
sum from the government to use towards a campaign. This would stop the
billions flowing into races and ensure that all candidates have the same
campaign budget.

Look at Texas, for example. The annual salary for a state legislator is
pitiful (like $10k), which basically prevents anyone who isn’t independently
wealthy from running from state office.

------
inflatableDodo
> _During his deposition, Rands said that he believed it appropriate for
> Monsanto to draft a letter on behalf of a lawmaker to NIH, calling such
> ghostwriting a “common practice in Washington.”_

I feel an iceberg metaphor looming.

------
mrhappyunhappy
Is this a surprise? Monsanto doing what Monsanto does to keep screwing people
for profit. Take money out of politics, pay our public servants well out of
taxpayer money, implement short term limits, problems solved. It’s not rocket
science, but powers that be will not give up easily.

~~~
reacweb
and sell before facing trials. Should we have empathy for Bayer that has made
a very bad purchase ?

~~~
mikro2nd
I'll bet Swiss Money that Bayer knew exactly what they were getting into
before buying and (upper management) decided to go ahead anyway. Presumably
they've done the math and think it's worth it, having priced the risk in.
Scary thought imho.

~~~
linuxhansl
German speaking here... I suspect they came to this with an understanding of
German interpretation and application of law. In Germany a jury cannot just
declare a substance as carcinogenic, there are no class action suits, no
punitive damages, etc.

That's why the defence has focused so far on facts and studies.

(Note: I'm not saying one is better than the other. Just that the risk was
probably assessed with assumptions that turned out to be incorrect.)

------
Circuits
Great, so now on top of all the other $#!% farmers have to deal with they also
need to be concerned their going to get blood cancer. So what is the suggested
alternative? Farmers can't just not use weed killer. They need an effective
weed killer and it has to be cheap.

