Bayer to retire Monsanto name
reuters.com
reuters.com
Or as Shakespeare put it in Romeo and Juliet:
"’Tis but thy name that is my enemy: Thou art thyself, though not a Montague, What’s Montague? It is not hand nor foot, Nor arm nor face. O be some other name, belonging to a man! What’s in a name? That which we call a rose, By any other word would smell as sweet."
When it comes to existing companies that've had intentionally tremendously horrible effects on humanity, it's hard to think of any worse than Bayer.
Whoa, what? First I've heard of this. A sort of Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment writ large in Asia?
"(Bayer's) Cutter (Laboratories) misrepresented the results of its own research and sold the contaminated AHF to overseas markets in Asia and Latin America without the precaution of heat treating the product recommended for eliminating the risk. As a consequence, hemophiliacs who infused the HIV-contaminated Factor VIII and IX tested positive for HIV and developed AIDS."
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/may/23/aids.suzannego...
It wasn't just some bad batch. Factor VIII concentrate required large amounts of human blood plasma to produce, had no real substitute, and was inherently going to be infected once the HIV virus became widespread. It wasn't even certain at the time that the new sterilization procedure was effective against AIDS.
There's some serious questions about how decisions were made under crisis conditions, and particularly about the culture of hiding information from patients in the medical community (even in the west) in order to "prevent panic", "for their own good", etc. but it's hard to fight a culture of lying with more lies.
They continued to sell it for a full year after that point. Accidents happen, but intentionally taking your product out of one market that declares it dangerous and dumping it on another--for a period extending one year--isn't an accident. It's a very intentional, shortsighted move to minimize losses.
Was it, though? I can't find any reference of consequences from these territories.
Maybe, depending on the definition of murder we go by. At a minimum, it's manslaughter. The point is, that describes a factual state, not intent (again, depending on whether you are using murderer to describe intent).
Whether someone kills someone, or someone purposefully kills someone are differentiated by intent. The original assertion was "Intentionally Spreading HIV in Asia". Their intent was to make money, that was a horrible, and avoidable byproduct of that intent. There's no need to make this sound worse than it is, because it's already horrible. I'm not defending Bayar, I'm calling out an inaccurate statement.
Whether you want to split hairs over manslaughter or murder doesn't interest me. Anybody who 'plays' Russian roulette with their neighbor is a depraved psychopath who belongs behind bars at the very least. If you played Russian roulette with your neighbor because I offered you $20 to do it, having a monetary motivation wouldn't make you any less a murderer.
So, what exactly is the percentage of risk that makes it intentional?
Listen, Bayer did a horrible thing, and while it clearly hasn't been proved here that it's intentional, as that word has an actual definition which is not met here, it's definitely criminally negligent to an unbelievable degree.
All I'm saying is there's no need to start using labels that don't apply or trying to change the meaning of words just to make it sound worse. Language is only as useful as it is clear.
There is a real negative effect in using hyperbole to describe the misdeeds of others. The inaccuracy allows them wiggle room to supply carefully worded denials that are true, in reality if not in spirit.
For example, if a defender of Bayer were here, they could say "Bayer did not intentionally spread HIV in Asia" and they would not be lying, even if they are skirting the issue and relying on a technicality. This allows for third parties to be confused, and the issue to be muddied.
The overreaching of the original statement allows for this type of denial, whereas a more specific statement about the facts would not. For example, the statement "Bayer repurposed goods that were not correctly sterilized from HIV that it knew would be too risky to use in first world markets to Asian markets, resulting in thousands of hemophiliacs that used the drugs to become HIV positive. When problems started occurring, Bayer assured health officials that the product was safe."
As a side-effect, in trying to make sure the statement is actually correct and accurate, it may lead the people making it to look closer at the issue, and realize it's not necessarily as cut-and-dry as that (as I just did), while still being plenty bad.
One final note: I, and I'm sure many others, use imprecise and accusatory language such as used in the original comment as a red flag to identify people pushing an agenda (even if that agenda is outrage to drive views). When I just searched this issue, I came across a result that said "Bayer deliberately infected asians and latinos with HIV." That's the kind of wording that's meant to spark outrage (as indeed there should be), but outrage without information (because there can't be much or it would discredit the title), which is never useful. When people use language such as that accidentally, they should be gently corrected (as I attempted to do). When they do it on purpose, they should be ignored or scorned, as they are trying to manipulate you.
Whether those perceptions have merit is a matter for another discussion...
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.
This never happened. Source: https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/to...
The OP is saying that Bayer will acquire the reputation of Monsanto because the activities of Bayer will be the same as Monsanto.
To be clear I'm not trying to blame Bayer for the opioid epidemic. I just think there's a joke in there
You think that is what Monsanto is known for? Not for being the spearhead of Kissinger's depopulation program?
I'm surprised they have a good reputation with anyone at all.
https://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/22/business/2-paths-of-bayer...
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.
Source http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/four-companies-announ...
Zyklon B + Agent orange + Chlorine gas = what can go wrong?
It's a very interesting place but the english Wikipedia page doesn't have much on it. Maybe I'll work on that.
Why not do your own research and decide?
The problem with this is that seeds tended to blow between fields, so if your neighbor licensed Monsanto seed and then the next year a bunch of that seed manages to take hold in your field, you're liable for a patent infringement.
Additionally, they argued, successfully before the Supreme Court in 2013, that additional generations of seed from the initially licensed seed required new licenses from the patent holder.
As might be expected, this rubs A LOT of people the wrong way.
Myth: Monsanto sues farmers when GM seed is accidentally in their fields.
Fact: Monsanto has never sued a farmer when trace amounts of our patented seeds or traits were present in the farmer’s field as an accident or as a result of inadvertent means.
Monsanto has provided a list of factual statements. If you don't trust them, you can fact-check them. You either are going to have proof that they are lying, or proof that they are telling the truth.
Refusing to accept what Monsanto says by virtue of them being Monsanto is, again, just another part of the anti-GMO hysteria...
"To conclude this series, I have found no evidence that farmers are sued by Monsanto for inadvertent contamination. The lawsuits that I examined were for cases where farmers knowingly and admittedly used Monsanto seeds without licensing contracts."
Of course, nobody has ever debunked this page, because there's nothing to debunk.
If it’s happened, then there should be some credible source detailing the case in which it happened. No such source exists.
Do you know of a court case where this actually happened?
I've seen this defense thrown around in the few cases I've seen, but investigators have usually had evidence that it wasn't accidental contamination, but rather just being used as an opportunistic defense.
> Additionally, they argued, successfully before the Supreme Court in 2013, that additional generations of seed from the initially licensed seed required new licenses from the patent holder.
I found this court case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowman_v._Monsanto_Co.
"sold the seed from which these soybeans were grown to farmers under a limited use license that prohibited the farmer-buyer from using the seeds for more than a single season or from saving any seed produced from the crop for replanting"
I'm not totally sure what's objectionable about this ruling. The original buyers explicitly agreed to the license.
I think there is an argument to be made against intellectual property in general, but this doesn't seem any more egregious than, e.g. music or software copyright, and most people are quite happy with those.
Many pro-copyright arguments are accompanied by "You don't need it, so if you don't like the [price, terms, DRM] just don't consume it."
This is dealing with actual food, which we most definitely do need, so people will understandably be a bit more motivated.
Also, the grandparent article is conflating copyright and patent laws in the language of "intellectual property" and ought not be allowed to go without comment. These laws work very differently, cost different amounts of money to acquire and defend, and conflating them is a sign of ignorance or a sham. These laws have far more separating them than they share (one sentence in the US Constitution). https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Intellect... explains more in-depth.
The mere idea that you can license seeds is highly objectionable and seems very likely to be against the public interest. Even if intellectual property laws apply, the concepts of exhaustion and first sale doctrine should apply.
I agree that exhaustion and first sale doctrines should apply for Monsanto seeds, but I don't think that either of those doctrines are applicable to the Bowman v. Monsanto case.
Exhaustion or first sale would apply only to the first copy; i.e., if Bowman had purchased a seed from Monsanto and then resold that same seed to someone else.
But neither would apply to the next generation of seeds, just like exhaustion and first sale don't give you the right to sell N>1 copies of a single purchased mp3.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Schmeiser
>In 1997, Percy Schmeiser found Monsanto's genetically modified “Roundup Ready Canola” plants growing near his farm. He testified that he sprayed his nearby field and found that much of the crop survived, meaning it was also Roundup Ready.[2] He testified that he then harvested that crop, saved it separately from his other harvest, and intentionally planted it in 1998.[2] Monsanto approached him to pay a license fee for using Monsanto's patented technology without a license. Schmeiser refused, claiming that the actual seed was his because it was grown on his land, and so Monsanto sued Schmeiser for patent infringement on August 6, 1998.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeise...
>The courts at all three levels noted that the case of accidental contamination beyond the farmer's control was not under consideration but rather that Mr. Schmeiser's action of having identified, isolated and saved the Roundup-resistant seed placed the case in a different category.
Fundamentally yes, some are also angered by the fact that current IP law / court rulings allow those types of agreements to be legal, and there's potentially an argument / opportunity to change the law to prohibit that type of agreement, but primarily it's just a BS move by a company that makes people mad. To your music point, many also consider it a BS move to prohibit saving the music you "buy" on iTunes to more than N devices. It's completely legal, and you definitely agreed to those terms when you bought it, but that doesn't make it any less infuriating.
[0] However they may have gotten in hot water for that being considered anti-competitive via deals they signed with public schools. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/sep/06/epipen-pric...
Using Round-Up ready seeds allows the use of Round-Up for weed control on your fields, but this can have negative affects on neighboring farms. For example on Field A, populated with Round-Up ready seeds, Round Up is used to control the weeds. However this same spray can affect neighboring field B, which is not populated by Round-Up Ready seeds, causing weeds and crop die or reduced yields... So basically if your neighbor is using Round-Up, you need to also, and your neighbor...etc. So now everyone is locked into Round-Up ready seeds they have to buy every year.
Farmers spraying their neighbours' fields could be a problem I guess. But its a problem that would pre-date GMOs. Farmers have been spraying their crops for hundreds of years? (well at least decades)
It seems the drifting argument is a interpretation on Dicamba issues.. Which could go either way: https://www.agweb.com/article/dicamba-lawsuits-mounting--naa...
An interesting fact, to be sure, since Terminator^TM technology hasn't been used in fields .. ever.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_techno...
Also interesting, Terminator was developed (primarily by the USDA) to address environmental concerns about potentially contaminating wild populations with transgenes. But of course, it's Monsanto (not actually, though) so it's evil!
You may be confused about hybrid seed, which is germplasm developed from particular parental lines to produce a unusually vigorous progeny. This 'hybrid vigor' only lasts one generation, though. Hybrid seed has been the rule since about the 1950s, well before transgenes, but don't let that pollute the narrative about GMO killing seed saving!
It's also interesting to mention overspray with regard to RoundUp; one of the major selling points for Glyphosate is that you don't need to apply much, and it doesn't persist long in the soil, both highly beneficial traits for eliminating overspray issues. That's not to say there aren't any concerns with Glyphosate, but as far as herbicides go, it's pretty tame. As a bonus, Glyphosate has enabled a huge rise in no-till agriculture, which is terrific for preserving fragile soils, reducing fossil fuel use, etc.
And the problem with this is that it's nothing more than a spurious hypothetical that never actually happened. Monsanto sued and won in cases where farmers were deliberately storing and replanting seeds in knowing violation of their agreement with Monsanto.
This is precisely the hysteria and conspiracy theory I am referring to.
Short answer: it's fake.
Longer answer: The farmers you reference intentionally stole seed, they never purchased it, and they indended to use and grow it. A farmer does not have a little seed blow in and magically entire field after field after field is perfectly planted. They stole, it is what it is.
This is precisely why they should change their name. Even here in a supposedly intellectual forum, vapid nonsense is passed off as fact.
P.S. had you visited Monsanto's wikipedia page, as you instruct others to, you would have been cured of your conspiracy. Here's your link, btw https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases#As_plaint...
" That said, Monsanto has stated it will not "exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of our patented seed or traits are present in farmer's fields as a result of inadvertent means."[15] The Federal Circuit found that this assurance is binding on Monsanto, so that farmers who do not harvest more than a trace amount of Monsanto's patented crops "lack an essential element of standing" to challenge Monsanto's patents"
"The usual claim involves patent infringement due to intentionally replanting patented seed. Such activity was unanimously found by the United States Supreme Court to constitute patent infringement in Bowman v. Monsanto Co. (2013)"
AKA it's only an issue when a farmer intentionally replants entire fields of seeds and has nothing to do with "blowing seeds" or trace amounts or any accidents or acts of nature.
Oops!
In Canada, a similar incident occurred where a farmer had an incidental amount of Monsanto seed blow in, and then he isolated it from other varieties and reproduced his own copies of Monsanto seeds to fill all of his fields with his copies of their seeds, and again, he stole from them. He intentionally filled his fields with seeds he knew he wasn't supposed to have (or argued wrongly that he could have).
What I dont like is that they often get involved with politics trying to patent food/seeds.
If they want to do what apple companies do and brand their seeds, cool. Making food illegal to produce without approval is dangerous.
The problem of Roundup resistance and decreasing genetic diversity is a serious concern though.
Herbicides aren't the only solution for that problem. Some practices such a tilling, for example, churns up a bunch of weed seeds which exacerbates the problem (and others).
But this is not a problem unique to Monsanto, Roundup nor GMOs. If Monsanto was gone tomorrow, someone would just jump up in their place, different gene, different herbicide, same problem. Most people who work at Monsanto probably think they're doing something good for people. They're selling the most modern solution to an ancient problem and keeping the green revolution rolling. Are they aware about the concerns regarding their product? Probably, but just like most people they're a bit willfully ignorant of the consequences of how they earn their living.
In the end, I don't think the solution is to throw the baby out with the bathwater and get on the fast train to fruit loop town with the no GMO, Monsanto is evil, "organic" only, all natural kool-aid drinkers. Having a standards body in place that makes sure this technology is applied responsibly is the best solution in my mind. Of course ensuring regulatory bodies aren't overtaken by zealots or shills is always a problem but I'm not sure what else to do.
Now, one has to be quite incompetent at spraying glyphosate to have significant blow over across the edges of fields: it's a very well behaved chemical in that regard. If you wanted to both make Monsanto look bad in this topic, you should forget about glyposate and think Dicamba. I won't bore HN with all the details, but even in Monsanto's new formulation, which supposedly makes the risk of hitting neighboring fields far lower, just picking a day where the weather isn't exactly right for the spray, or poor technique application, will lead to major damage in neighboring fields: The results might have been good in the lab, but they are not great in practice. It's arguably Monsanto's biggest piece of existential risk.
I don't know much about the Dicamba topic, but it looks like a nasty herbicide and Monsanto is producing GM seeds that are resistant to that, probably to overcome the natural resistance to glyphosate that pigweed developed. It seems like there is a lot of controversy around it. Care to comment more on that topic? I think there are some interested readers that you won't bore.
I know the software world has a strongly negative view of patents, because of their abuse within it, and I don't personally have the expertise to know whether GMO-patents make sense, but from the outside this kind of seems like a textbook case of how patents are supposed to work?
Someone makes something new (glyphosate-resistant crops) and is granted a limited monopoly in exchange for making their methods public, and after a short period, their methods go into the public domain. This limited monopoly yields a profit that encourages further research and development.
This doesn't seem like copyrights, which are effectively permanent monopolies, or software patents, which are granted for relatively un-novel "inventions" or behaviors, and then used against people who independently re-invent a similar method or behavior.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Patent_Act_of_1930 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Variety_Protection_Act_o...
Perhaps there's some merit to the idea that spending 10, 15, or 20 years developing a new breed should come with a temporary monopoly on said breed? Maybe it's absurd to think you have a sacred right to use newly developed varieties?
Oh, but our food! Well, anything that's more than 20 or 25 years old is perfectly legal for anyone to grow. That's how patents work. Picturesque notions of old-timey agriculture are unaffected.
Either everyone should have a monopoly or no one should.
Seeing how awful monopolies are for the world, no one should.
First to market + branding is a real thing. If a company is smart enough to develop something but cant figure out how to sell it for a profit, they arent that smart.
>I don't think I've ever met someone who accurately articulated real problems with Monsanto as opposed to hysteria and conspiracy theory
I guess "bad business practices" are not real problems.
In fact they illustrate the fundamental ethical issues with technology: how is it going to be used?
True, I guess part of the reason is people here don't have the domain knowledge. Us programmers are only experts in our narrow fields. I take most comments here on agriculture/politics/patents/etc with a bit of humor. :^)
If they continue with Monsanto ethic it will not take too long to have that doppelganger attached to Bayer.
I don't think it is a good PR move at all.
There is some litigation going on against Monsanto and probably a lot more to come. In the news you will read Bayer now instead of Monsanto which is going to hurt the Bayer brand.
Be careful what you wish for.
This seems to say exactly the opposite of what you think it says. By your own admission, you're describing the actions of dead people. What does any of that have to do with the people running the company today?
But it's also the case that an organizations future is based in its past; even if the individual people who chose to act have long since died and there are none alive who know their face or name, if a group of people (an organization, a country, a corporation) has enriched itself through immoral acts in the past, even if it acts morally today, is it right to leave them with the fruits of its crimes? If a people has been impoverished by crimes committed against them in the past, even if no one today is still wronging them, is it right to leave them impoverished today?
That's a fundamental difference.
Perhaps you mean "reputation"?
On the one hand, they want "dialogue with the society", and at the same time they clearly show what their priorities are, and that they're not likely to listen. What they call "ideology" is - depending on the context - deep care for our Earth, for the future of what we eat, how the seeds are controlled and distributed and similar issues. Baumann contrasts progress with ideology, which is a neat PR trick, but distorts complex reality.
Monsanto is not an outlier here.
https://newsroom.accenture.com/subjects/accenture-corporate/...
They've rebranded twice more since then. They were "Academi" and now they're apparently "Constellis Holdings."
I wonder how effective it is since the name change is not kept secret, still, it sounds like a fresh start.
Is Bayer thinking about selling Monsanto?
How did you manage to get through German school without picking up a reference or two to IG Farben?
I'm not German and there were multiple accounts of their contribution to the Holocaust. Google 'Zyklon-B' for more info.
Between the Gestapo and the Stasi, the German executive has to lobby hard for support outside of their state employed peers to be viewed as a force tasked with their job by democratic mandate. As little as that is the case in reality, it still is a great development historically. Just the part alone, that soldiers are meant to be citizens in uniforms has done a lot to root out any possibility of the military having a say in politics.
Just to point it out, I dont think that shift happened with the end of the war or shortly after, quite the contrary. It is sadly clear, that warcriminals were protected by large parts of society. The change happend two decades later, when people were willing to speak up about their parents beeing mass murderer who got away.
How does one company name from 70 years ago matter in the big picture anyways? Please don't assume that the rest of the world uses the same history syllabus like your US school might have. Did they at least also teach you who fabricated Agent Orange if they focused on manufacturers so much?
In fact, yes they did: Philips Duphar and I learned this in school.
Check out the "volgermeerpolder" if it interests you.
And it was just a question, no need to perceive any insults, I was just wondering if the German school system is still highlighting WWII the way they used to, perhaps not, perhaps it never was done to the extent that it was presented to me in the first place.
As for why it matters: For anybody involved in industry IG Farben and IBM are important because of the ethical implications.
Finally, I never went to a US school (talking about assumptions...).
While I absolutely agree that this topic has to be part of the curriculum it should not be so dominant. Who produced Zyklon-B is in my opinion a detail. There are other things in history that I am more interested in and that are more important. I understand you didn't want to attack anyone and I'm just telling you my opinion, no offense.
p.s. I knew about IG Farben but I don't know where I gained that knowledge.. maybe it was school, maybe my parents or maybe because I studied at Goethe Uni for some time.
Then by that line you may as well put Dow Chemicals and Monsanto in the same bin as they have been producing Agent Orange to bombard Vietnamese civilians with well known effects during the Vietnam war.
Or instead, you could point the fingers to governments who are basically at the origin of such illegitimate actions. Oh, and in War, pretty much everything becomes legal anyway, until you lose and are judged for it. The US will never be judged for the crimes they have committed, just like the Soviets will never be either, because they have never happened to be directly involved on the losing side.
So moral authority is very relative in this world.
I do.
https://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/agentorange/condit...
It wasn't used on purpose. 2,4-D, the defoliant used, wasn't the carcinogen and wasn't sprayed on people intentionally. The carcinogen in this case was a dioxin contaminate inadvertently created in the manufacturing process. The US military thought they were spraying a chemical they thought was (mostly) safe.
Was the effect of 2,4-D a horrific disaster? Yes. Was it a mistake to use this tactic? Yes. Has the US provided all the necessary restitution? No. Is it equal to IG Farben knowingly producing Zylkon-B for genocide. No even close to the same.
And I suppose IBM warrants a mention for doing business with Nazis.
The Fanta drink originated as a cola substitute in Germany under a World War II trade embargo for Coca-Cola ingredients in 1940. . . . In February 2015, a 75th-anniversary version of Fanta was released in Germany. Packaged in glass bottles evoking the original design and with an authentic original wartime flavor . . . An associated television ad referenced the history of the drink and said the Coca-Cola company wanted to bring back "the feeling of the Good Old Times".
I understand that in complex business sometimes controversies arise, but by they went straight evil during WWII (ie using Auschwitz prisoners killing many)
Monsanto is in the news now. IG Faber has split into many independent companies and doesn't exist anymore.
(IG Farben manufactured the Zyklon B that was used in the gas chambers).
I'd guess the association of "IG Farben" with the gas chambers is very strong, but that brand ceased to exist in the 1950s. The name "Bayer" (from my perspective) never has been associated with it that strongly.
Interested can see some pictures here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IG_Farben_Building
No one in charge at the time is alive now and pretty much any large German company that was around at the time supported/had to support the Nazi regime and used slave labor from concentration camps.
The capacity for that behavior lies in all peoples.
This isn't something that's just an "in the past" thing, it's a current wrong our people are committing against the people we displaced.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony_collapse_disorder
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/nov/14/-sp-thalidom...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24785997
Geez... it make sense now.
> Bayer was expected to rid itself of the target’s name. Monsanto, the largest - though not the only - maker of genetically modified seeds, has been a lightning rod for environmentalists’ opposition to the technology.
> The U.S. seed maker has also drawn criticism for pursuing its intellectual property rights with farmers, many of which depend on its seeds, more aggressively than its peers.
These are the only criticisms of Monsanto mentioned in the article. But there are a lot more.[1]
I guess they want us to forget that Monsanto knowingly[2][4] sold & dumped toxic PBCs for literally decades? Especially since many of those municipal lawsuits are just coming around[3], the documents proving they covered it up leaked last year[4]?
Or that they manufactured Agent Orange, poisoning thousands of American soldiers and millions of Vietnamese? And that the Vietnamese got nothing because it wasn't "intended" to kill people[5], despite Monsanto knowing about the toxic effects of dioxins in Agent Orange?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases
[2] https://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0101-02.htm
> In 1966, Monsanto managers discovered that fish submerged in that creek turned belly-up within 10 seconds, spurting blood and shedding skin as if dunked into boiling water. They told no one. In 1969, they found fish in another creek with 7,500 times the legal PCB levels. They decided "there is little object in going to expensive extremes in limiting discharges." In 1975, a company study found that PCBs caused tumors in rats. They ordered its conclusion changed from "slightly tumorigenic" to "does not appear to be carcinogenic."
[3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/legalnewsline/2017/01/11/west-c...
[4] https://www.ecowatch.com/monsanto-pcbs-2470957270.html
[5] https://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/11/nyregion/civil-lawsuit-on...
Previous settlements: https://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/21/business/700-million-sett..., http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/st-louis-jury-order...
The name has been tainted so bad I'm really surprised they aren't going to spin off something with the name, just so they can be fully rid of the name.
> Monsanto has been bought/split up a few times since then. It really isn't even close to the same company any more.
And they'll reorganize in the future too, so should the public stop caring about corporate crimes altogether? After all, companies will just re-arrange themselves back into Dr. Jekyll and all will be well... /eyeroll
Welcome to the biggest loophole in liability-based or reputation-based enforcement of so-called "corporate ethics."
"Don't fret Virginia! The cancer's incurable, but the company that caused it has a foolproof plan to fix things..."
Roundup works by making seed varieties that work just like normal plants but are immune to the roundup pesticides. So a farmer can place pesticide on a field, and it will only kill weeds, not their crops.
The "hate evil Monsanto for destroying nature" bandwagon ignores that:
1) 99% of anti-gmo stuff is anti-science fear mongering. There are very few good general anti-GMO arguments.
2) Farmers love roundup because it increases crop productivity per acre sustainably.
3) Using roundup greatly decreases the amount of pesticide needed per acre of crops, since it can be targeted so much more precisely. So it makes the world's water supplies and crops cleaner overall.
4) Because round-up seeds are so great, farmers sometimes try to grow it without paying licensing fees (because why would you if you can get away with it?).
5) Monsanto is very legally aggressive defending its seed patents, since why would anyone pay to license their seeds if you can just steal it? Monsanto spent a lot of money developing the science for roundup seeds.
6) Monsanto has never sued someone for accidentally having round-up seeds (cross contamination). They have an amazing win rates on their lawsuits specifically because they only target cut and dry cases.
7) But the bandwagon is against the evil Monsanto, so people are overly credulous on the farmer side.
The vast majority of things Monsanto is criticized for play out just like the above.
As a separate example, check out this Quora answer for, "Is Monsanto evil?": https://www.quora.com/Is-Monsanto-evil. And let me know which side seems more reasonable to you.
Documentaries are an awful way to disseminate accurate knowledge. It's 90% emotion driven, and almost always has a narrative to tell that they're not going to want pesky facts to get in the way of.
[1] https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health...
Or, alternatively: Farmer Joe plants heirloom seeds that are quite rightfully his. Farmer Bob plants patented GMO seeds, which then cross-pollinate with Farmer Joe's heirloom crop. Next year, Monsanto sues Farmer Joe into oblivion (or otherwise forces him into pay-pay-paying them forevermore) for "stealing their technology."
It's also unclear exactly how farmers feel about Monsanto and the whole seed reuse / patent issue. I've heard arguments that they want new seed all the time anyway, and then I've heard arguments that it hurts them financially to not be able to collect seed for replanting. Neither of these arguments appear to be coming from farmers, which complicates the matter.
That said, I do still feel like I have a philosophical issue with the idea of IP, in particular the patenting of seeds, but that's not a Monsanto-specific issue even though they are involved it it (it's a widespread practice) and I think that issue gets conflated because of the "stolen seed" / "cant recover/save seeds from the new plant" problem that patents introduce - this kind if IP control often tends to bring emotionally-driven rebuke, though I can understand why.
As someone who considers myself a proponent of facts, analysis, data, science... I'm wondering how I got scooped up in this and didn't challenge myself. Certainly a lesson learned.
Even in the comments on that article, nearly everyone making anti-Monsanto claims avoids providing any sources, yet the responses to them provide plenty of evidence to the contrary.
I'd like to read some valid, solid, data-proven criticisms of Monsanto. I am absolutely willing to entertain any if people can provide them or point me in the right direction. I'll be doing some research on my own now, inspired by this discussion.
Part of the issue is that the internet, documentaries, news articles, etc are all a minefield of misinformation anymore, and we've got to be incredibly careful in our consumption of it.