> and then using Roundup on the field. There was an element of getting-something-for-nothing
Using RoundUp means more herbicide sales for Monsanto.
Using RoundUp means more herbicide sales for Monsanto.
Headpalm.
You DO realize that the point of the gene is to SELL ROUNDUP, right? Not using RoundUp on "RoundUp Ready!" crops kind of defeats the entire purpose.
"Sales for Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides peaked at about $4 billion in 2008 when the product line generated record gross profit of nearly $2 billion.
Roundup-branded glyphosate, commercialized by Monsanto in 1976, is one of the few blockbuster molecules developed by industry since the early 1970s. Methyl-tert butyl ether (MTBE), invented by Arco Chemical in the 1960s and commercialized in 1979, is the only other molecule developed by industry since the 1970s to generate sales of more than $1 billion/year."
http://www.chemweek.com/chem_ideas/Rob-Westervelt/Blog-Monsa...
I think even a cursory read of the thread would have indicated to a good-faith commenter that I know the basics of the difference between Roundup and the Roundup-ready GMO product.
And who do you think makes money when you do that?
Hint: It rhymes with "Monsanto".
> that I know the basics of the difference between Roundup and the Roundup-ready GMO product.
Not in dispute. Dispute is over your claim of them getting something for "nothing" because they used RoundUp.
Monsanto gets paid if they use RoundUp. RoundUp, unlike seeds, doesn't grow itself.
However, RoundUp seed patents begin expiring with soybeans first in 2014, and it looks like canola will follow a year or three later.
RoundUp (the herbicide) apparently accounts for 10% of Monsanto's revenue, but the corresponding seed will soon account for zero.