Hacker News Reader

Comment by nradov | Hacker News Reader

Are you trying to imply that Monsanto is an "enemy"?

No, the quote is saying that the name is irrelevant.

The OP is saying that Bayer will acquire the reputation of Monsanto because the activities of Bayer will be the same as Monsanto.

Oh the irony. The company that literally brought heroin to market, gets a bad name from buying a company known for heavy-handed corporate litigation practices.

To be clear I'm not trying to blame Bayer for the opioid epidemic. I just think there's a joke in there

Outside of the US heroin is still very much on the medical market. It's used in hospitals mostly.

> a company known for heavy-handed corporate litigation practices

You think that is what Monsanto is known for? Not for being the spearhead of Kissinger's depopulation program?

Bayer knowingly sold HIV tainted blood products to 3rd world countries. [0]

I'm surprised they have a good reputation with anyone at all.

https://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/22/business/2-paths-of-bayer...

My impression is that in the U.S., a lot of people's knowledge about Bayer stops with Bayer Aspirin. For which they used to run sets of very comforting advertisements. I recall particularly some of the older TV advertisements. You're sick? OMG, your child's sick? Bayer, or Bayer "Baby" Aspirin, is going to make it better.

I'm a bit older, and maybe things have changed, since. But the Bayer public image in the U.S. used to be pretty benign.

I'm not sure they can fool anyone, though, trying to "hide" Monsanto under it.

A lot of people consider it a villian of sorts.

Whether those perceptions have merit is a matter for another discussion...

Bullying farmers into buying your custom (patented) seeds, suing others when seeds blow into their farmland for patent infringement, ensuring farmers in South America and remote regions need to rely on your seeds and your pesticides for yields... The list is endless. I don't really see how one could modestly even intimate that those perceptions have no merit, if you have been paying attention to how they conduct business and how they've been patenting natural processes it's a very cut-and-dry matter. Shady is shady no matter what you rebrand yourself.

The last time I read up on that.. Most of the farmers were lying. They had in fact been using the seed illegally.

"Using the seed illegally" -- have we all gone mad?

Half of the shit you just said is a complete myth. Please consider getting your information from places other than "Natural News" and inflammatory documentaries.

I worked in the fertilizer business as an agronomist when Roundup Ready seeds were introduced. Farmers weren't bullied, they purchased because doing so made them more money.

I watched many ag companies introduce products with large marketing pushes that provided too little benefit to farmers and they all failed. Farmers tried these products on a small scale, saw there was too little benefit to them and stopped purchasing.

I followed the legal case of Percy Schmeiser and others. They all lost in a battle that went all the way to the US Supreme Court. There is no way that seed blowing over a fence line would lead to a crop that was 95-98% pure Roundup resistant seed, it's physically impossible. The farmers in question were simply cheating and got caught.

> suing others when seeds blow into their farmland for patent infringement

This never happened. Source: https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/to...

Ever heard of East St. Louis?

What's that have to do with Monsanto?

Not OP, was just curious, apparently Monsanto is partly to blame fora Superfund site in Sauget Illinois, which falls under the area described as east St. Louis.

Source http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/four-companies-announ...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com