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.