Why Does Everyone Hate Monsanto? (2014)
modernfarmer.com
modernfarmer.com
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 - 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.
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.
http://boingboing.net/2013/03/25/the-case-of-the-poison-pota...
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.
No. Nor should we support their delusions.
> both sides strongly believe to be on the right one
What they believe is irrelevant. Having "strong beliefs" doesn't make those beliefs rational or worthy of respect. Labeling should be based on facts.
If this is supposed to be informational, what useful information is it providing? Can you name a single utility that will, in practice, be gained from a "GMO" label that isn't based on ignorance, delusion, fear of the unknown, or fundamental attribution error?
If there is some legitimate use, them I would fully support "GMO" labels. Until strong evidence is presented, presenting the "GMO" label as "informative" is an attempt to mislead. It confuses consumers and encourages delusional behavior.
I and probably many people in first world nations would certainly feel different if we desperately needed GMOs to feed our people, but we don't. What do have to gain that justifies taking any additional risk however small? Less usage of biocides? More beautiful and homogeneous products? Less work for farmers?
We have produced harmful things - drugs, foods, building materials - before even though we did more or less our best to avoid it. Why not let people stick with things that we know are not harmful because they are time tested?
That's the part that's delusional.
> Cows living in captivity for milk production
That - and most of your other concerns - has nothing to do with genetic modification. Why do you believe a label about genetic origins will change farming practices? Monoculture farming, abuse of antibiotics, and other farming problems happen regardless of genetic origin.
Milk deserves a label because growth hormones and antibiotics have actual effects on humans. A similar label on Roundup Ready vegetables only encourages the delusional belief that they have "any additionnal risk, however small".
> needed GMOs to feed our people
We crossed that line a long time ago.
> Less usage of biocides?
YES. Roundup isn't perfect, but it is the least worse option compared to previous herbicides.
> they are time tested
Testing is always important, of course, but "old" does not mean "better" (or worse). This is the "appeal to nature" fallacy.
Also, about those crops you are calling "time tested". Does that include all the crops from before the field of genetics existed? Before we had the technology to make small, specific changes to the genome, we used to simply force mutations[1] with e.g. cobalt-60[2], x-rays, ethyl methanesulfonae[3]. Even though the results are random an often include multiple significant genetic changes that are completely unknown, many successful varieties created from mutation breeding are not only in the common food supply, they can also be labeled organic and often "non-GMO".
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_breeding
I don't doubt that most research suggests that GMOs are safe for health and environments but I don't know how one would conclude that there are no residual risks. History has enough examples even if not many. Just asserting that it is safe is a unscientific as seeing it as declaring it the beginning of the apocalypse.
> Cows living in captivity for milk production
That - and most of your other concerns - has nothing to do with genetic modification.
That was only meant as an example why people want to know what they eat, they have diverse concerns.
Why do you believe a label about genetic origins will change farming practices? Monoculture farming, abuse of antibiotics, and other farming problems happen regardless of genetic origin.
I never said something like this, I only argued for labeling GMOs so that people can decide for themselves whether to buy the or not.
> needed GMOs to feed our people
We crossed that line a long time ago.
You left out the first world part. The EU, for example, does produce (almost) no GMOs but imports some. I didn't look up the exact numbers but given that we also throw away about a third of our food I am pretty sure we don't need GMOs.
> they are time tested
Testing is always important, of course, but "old" does not mean "better" (or worse). This is the "appeal to nature" fallacy.
My point was just that we have plants of which we know that they are good to consume so it seems not unreasonable to want to continue to do so instead of taking up risk - however small - with new ones.
Also, about those crops you are calling "time tested". Does that include all the crops from before the field of genetics existed? Before we had the technology to make small, specific changes to the genome, we used to simply force mutations[1] with e.g. cobalt-60[2], x-rays, ethyl methanesulfonae[3]. Even though the results are random an often include multiple significant genetic changes that are completely unknown, many successful varieties created from mutation breeding are not only in the common food supply, they can also be labeled organic and often "non-GMO".
We will probably have to back up a bit, the discussion became quite fragmented and we are losing sight of the original issue. I am not against GMOs, at best I am for being careful. My original point was that there is a nonnegligible number of people not wanting GMOs - for good reasons or not - and we should just label GMOs so that everyone can decide for themself.
In the EU we already do this - although it is in the small print - but in the end I have no stakes in what the US or some other country does. For me it just seems a reasonable thing to do in order to pour oil on troubled waters. It doesn't really harm and everyone can eat what he likes. It won't help for people afraid of environmental issues but I guess more people are concerned about their personal health than about possible environmental impact.
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?
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.
Certifications for software are a very different thing because they are based on actual safety and functionality, not a faith-based preference.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Honestly, so much negative press really distracts from where you can find negative issues with the company.
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.
"Demands"? Many GMO products don't create their own seeds so famers have to re-buy them. They do this before the harvest, not for each harvest. I've talked to farmers before and for some types of crops it's a freaking godsend for them.
I don't think "demands" is the right word. It's closer to a subscription service more than a "demand". Are you saying Google "demands" payment when you sign up to Google Apps? etc...
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
Then you want labeling about patents, not "genetic modification".
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/ ).
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).
Absolutely not. It _completely_ depends on the organism in question. An organism is a complex chemical reaction, nothing like human engineered artifacts. You simply cannot declare _all_ GM organisms to be safe, in all contexts, ever. One has to take them on a case-by-case basis. Some GM organisms are perfectly safe (in certain contexts), others can be harmful.
Organic labeling is somewhat useful, since it does provide a list of prohibited fertilizers and pesticides, but I would prefer to simply have a list.
After labeling: "If GMOs are so safe, then why are they labeled?"
There is literally zero distinction between a GMO and non-GMO ingredient that is not completely fabricated or imagined.
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...
"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.
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.
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
But to me it came across as, "Without Monsanto, life itself would be impossible."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#Legal_actions_and_con...
On GMO and Monsanto I recommand a recent .net rocks:
Vague and nebulous anecdotes drive me crazy.
"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.
If you want be angry at Monsanto, blame them for the things they are currently doing. Their ideas about patents are dangerous, and they learned predatory business practices from Romney (Bain Capital).
Because they forgot to set their corporate motto to "Don't be evil".
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
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
"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)