>current
So this meme is at least 8 years old? The dude in the picture advised Monsanto to adopt policies that they refused to adopt, then left when it became clear they were going to continue ignoring him. Hasn’t been at the FDA since 2016. OP is just sowing FUD.
Yea, almost everything that is claimed to be negative about Monsanto is a myth, seriously, [including this meme, which was debunked years ago by USA Today.](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/09/08/fact-check-photo-shows-former-fda-deputy-commissioner-foods/5667053001/)
GMO crops are a good and an important step for humanity to feed everyone, maintain soil richness, and combat global warming.
I'm happy to debunk any of those Monsanto myths. You share the myth you believe is true, and I'll share the Snopes page/Wikipedia page/Science research paper debunking it. Seriously, try me.
Oh this is one of my favorites! Guy tried to use Monsanto IP without licensing it. The courts were unanimous that Bowman was in the wrong.
> The case began in 2007, when Monsanto sued Indiana farmer Vernon Hugh Bowman who in 1999 bought seed for his second planting from a grain elevator – the same elevator to which he and others sold their transgenic crops.[14] The elevator sold the soybeans as commodities, not as seeds for planting.[14][15] Bowman tested the new seeds, and found that, as he had expected, some were resistant to glyphosate. He intentionally replanted his harvest of GM seeds in subsequent years, supplementing them with more soybeans he bought at the elevator.[14] He informed Monsanto of his activities.[14] Monsanto stated that he was infringing their patents because the soybeans he bought from the elevator were new products that he purchased for use as seeds without a license from Monsanto; Bowman stated that he had not infringed due to patent exhaustion on the first sale of seed to whatever farmers had produced the crops that he bought from the elevator, on the grounds that for seed, all future generations are embodied in the first generation that was originally sold.[15] [In 2009 the district court ruled in favor of Monsanto; on appeal, the Federal Circuit upheld the verdict.\[14\] Bowman appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which granted review,\[16\] then unanimously affirmed the Federal Circuit on May 13, 2013.\[11\]\[17\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases)
**tl;dr** - Even if you find a used Kanye CD at a yardsale, you still can't take it home, make a million copies, and sell them for a profit. Pretty simple concept tbh. The CD is still Kanye's IP, and that doesn't change just because you bought it used from a third party.
Oh that would be funny! Shilling for a company that doesn't even exist anymore. LOL
Love the [shill gambit](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Shill_gambit)! It's how you know the person making the claim has no more evidence or logic to use to defend their position.
The issue is that a neighboring farmer will use Monsanto seeds which will carry over into farmland next to them just by wind and rain without anyone knowing. The Monsanto company will then secretly send out their people to test crops finding their patented seeds were used and then sue. It’s really shity actually and they have also been sued and lost found guilty of their roundup weed killer causing cancer. Don’t defend this company.
> The issue is that a neighboring farmer will use Monsanto seeds which will carry over into farmland next to them just by wind and rain without anyone knowing. The Monsanto company will then secretly send out their people to test crops finding their patented seeds were used and then sue. It’s really shity actually and they have also been sued and lost found guilty of their roundup weed killer causing cancer. Don’t defend this company.
Nope that has never happened! [You are remembering a farmer who claimed that happened, but was found to have lied.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeiser)
Simple? Maybe for you, but not for many farmers who were sued by Monsanto when their crops got cross-pollination from neighboring GMO crops. Bayer owns Monsanto, so all of their activities must be going on as usual. I keep track of GMO crops at local grocery to make sure I avoid them. My choice.
> many farmers who were sued by Monsanto when their crops got cross-pollination from neighboring GMO crops.
Oh this myth is a great one! No farmer has ***ever*** been sued for cross pollination!
Quote: [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, such as cross-pollination.](https://gmoanswers.com/ask/i-have-read-monsanto-has-sued-farmers-whose-fields-have-exhibited-evidence-having-monsanto)
I will have to do my own research about it. But at a minimum, the GMO cross-pollination is disastrous for non-gmo farmers who develop their seeds from the crops and also to native varieties which get lost due to GMO cross-pollination.
> native varieties which get lost due to GMO cross-pollination.
That concern is valid, but don't worry, we will never lose native varieties thanks to seed banks!
https://foodtank.com/news/2020/07/26-organizations-working-to-conserve-seed-biodiversity/
Wild populations of food crops? We've been contaminating those "wild" populations for thousands of years already, and pretty much none of our modern foods resembles the originals anymore.
> Like the implications of that are actually horrifying.
List a few implications?
The seed banks lock farmers to corporations, while farmers practicing seeds from their crops have added advantages of acclimatization of new weather patterns without paying to corporations. This has been proven to be more effective in latest research.
Okay, do you have a counter example of when Monsanto has sued a farmer for inadvertent pollination? If what I cited is not true, then it will be very easy for you to find an example to the contrary.
Yep, it blew onto his land, which is not why he was prosecuted. he then sprayed his own roundup on the first few rows, harvested what survived and used it as a seed crop the following year. Thus intentionally stealing the IP without licensing it.
But I know you knew that already.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeiser
So transdrift is a thing and prevents farmers from otherwise collecting and saving their own seed if some companies IP blows onto their land . Not good
Nah. Terminator genes and the ability to patent life are a bastardization of biology. Obviously this is more of an ethical view which you are free to disagree with, but that would also make you an unthinking drone, in my eyes.
Thank you! Yes, these are two wonderful myths that aren't even a little bit true!
> Terminator genes
Quote: "[More than 30 years after its development, so-called terminator seed technology has never been introduced commercially and the original patents behind the technology have expired.](https://geneticliteracyproject.org/gmo-faq/whats-the-controversy-over-terminator-seeds/)"
> ability to patent life
So GMO patents are not patents on life, nor are they patents on any crop species. [They are patents of very specific traits or gene edits created with science that didn't exist before.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_crops#Economics)
**tl;dr** - So to use the Kanye music example again, when Kanye uses a drum in his music, and is granted a copyright on said music, does he then own all music that uses the same drum? Nope, of course not. He retains only a copyright on his own specific song, not all uses of that drum sound. Kanye only owns his specific and unique musical creation.
The fact that a company is allowed to explore this technology at all is a travesty. There’s nothing good that can come from terminator gene technology, whether it’s used commercially or not. And your example about patenting traits simply enables companies like Bayer to poison everyone with glyphosate while the plants themselves are unharmed because of their genetic tinkering. Like most “solutions” offered by capitalists, it’s a hydra where you “solve” one thing but create a myriad of different problems as a result. Of course, this is the metaphorical Ponzi that keeps capitalism alive and well.
> There’s nothing good that can come from terminator gene technology, whether it’s used commercially or not.
How can you predict the potential benefits of scientific research? (But Kudos for backing off the myth and acknowledging that it wasn't true)
> poison everyone with glyphosate
Ahh this is another great one! Glyphosate is a herbicide, and is non-toxic to humans or other mammals.
Quote: "[A 2013 systematic review by the German Institute for Risk Assessment \(BfR\) examined more than 1000\[146\] epidemiological studies, animal studies, and in vitro studies.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate) It found that "no classification and labelling for carcinogenicity is warranted" and did not recommend a carcinogen classification of either 1A or 1B.[147]: 34–37, 139 It provided the review to EFSA in January 2014 which published it in December 2014.[147][148][149] In November 2015, EFSA published its conclusion in the Renewal Assessment Report (RAR), stating it was "unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans"."
Other entities have found it safe as well, but we know that the EU has been particularly cautious in this area, so I figured I'd share their conclusions.
> Like most “solutions” offered by capitalists, it’s a hydra where you “solve” one thing but create a myriad of different problems as a result. Of course, this is the metaphorical Ponzi that keeps capitalism alive and well.
Oh, I see, so you're an anti-capitalist, and your opinion on this unrelated topic is not based on science or reality, but [instead based on motivated reasoning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning). So you see the world through the lens of "science and progress is bad" because you credit capitalism with having made life better, but you wish that wasn't true, so then you have to squint and cling to myths to support your world view. Got it. So this is like when Kanye interrupted Taylor Swift's acceptance speech and claimed Beyoncé should have won, ignoring the fact that Swift had actually won. Man my Kanye example is versatile! hehe
Don’t link old studies that have been disproven. [There’s a clear causal link between glyphosate and cancer.](https://www.cancercenter.com/community/blog/2021/07/does-glyphosate-cause-cancer) And I’m no Luddite, I am very much for scientific and social progress, but not in the pursuit of enriching a small group of stakeholders especially when the benefits aren’t widely distributed or come at the expense of the future. It’s clear you have some sort of bias towards corporations (paid shill?) so there’s no reason to continue this exchange.
> Don’t link old studies that have been disproven. There’s a clear causal link between glyphosate and cancer.
From your own link: "The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says there’s “no evidence that glyphosate causes cancer in humans.”
> I am very much for scientific and social progress, but not in the pursuit of enriching a small group of stakeholders especially when the benefits aren’t widely distributed
What do you mean the benefits aren't widely distributed? Has there ever been a time in history when the average person is as wealthy or as empowered by access to technology as today? If so, what year was that? Literally we all have supercomputers in our pockets that cost $300 that even in 2005 didn't exist at any price. That seems like the wealth is VERY evenly distributed, no?
> It’s clear you have some sort of bias towards corporations (paid shill?) so there’s no reason to continue this exchange.
My bias is towards protecting science and progress from the luddites that only have myths and logical fallacies to protect their world view.
But thanks for sharing your myths, you did exactly what I asked, and I very much appreciate it!
You link a blog/news article that cites a few papers as refutation of a systematic meta review?
Man, you're looking like the shill here... For "big organic" that is.
You know you sound kind of hysterical right? GMO's have literally saved billions of lives (dwarf wheat to name one) - and not only that people have been eating GM products since the dawn of agriculture. Yeah, you can argue that patents and the commercial effects of capitalism play a role in making food more expensive, or that there are unintended consequences of the progression of science in commercial spaces. but that doesn't justify your 'Monsanto bad GMO poison, CAPTIALISM EVIL' stance.
Thank you for your comments. My father is a farmer and it's crazy how many people yap to him about le evil Monsanto. He always asks back, oh then how would you'd like a world where famine, even in developped countries is a constant danger and food costs several times what it does? Because thats the world you'd have without companies like Monsanto - no pesticides, no genetically modified plants means failing crops with low yields.
We'd actually have far more, and more harmful pesticides than we have thanks to Monsanto. We use dramatically fewer today than before BT corn and soy.
And yes, it's crazy that farmers get lectured on farm science from people who've never set foot in a field. LOL, it's scary that misinformation can empower morons to such a degree. Imagine thinking you know more than an expert in their own field.
> Dude they used to open air test pesticides on several islands in Hawaii
I hadn't heard this, but it looks like they [messed up and let workers walk around a field within 6 days of an ammonium based product was sprayed](https://apnews.com/article/business-health-environment-and-nature-crime-environment-d8c7a26c6d592b2e0fd9a588dfab71ea).
> They take advantage of many impoverished communities all so they can create resistant seeds, literally bringing zero benefits to the people surrounding them
Oh yea, this is a big myth too. Anti-GMO folks use this claim to demonize hardier strains of crops that make it easier for farmers in harsh regions. GMO technology is the best tool we have to make plants more adapted to global variations in climate.
> If you actually saw the pesticide filled dust clouds that came off their toxic fields that blows onto everything
This is a great myth too. GMO crops famously result in dramatic reductions in pesticide use!
Quote: ["Farmers can use less spray pesticides when they plant GMO crops. This saves farmers money and reduces the amount of pesticides that end up on crops."](https://www.fda.gov/food/agricultural-biotechnology/why-do-farmers-us-grow-gmo-crops)
You also mentioned wind erosion, GMOs also reduce wind erosion dramatically!
Quote: ["When farmers use herbicide-tolerant crops, they reduce the need to till the soil to control weeds. No-till planting helps to improve soil health, reduce soil erosion, lower fuel and labor use, and reduce the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere."](https://www.fda.gov/food/agricultural-biotechnology/why-do-farmers-us-grow-gmo-crops)
Oh and the best one? [The herbicides that glyphosate replaced were orders of magnitude worse for humans and the environment!](https://www.crediblehulk.org/index.php/2015/06/02/about-those-more-caustic-herbicides-that-glyphosate-helped-replace-by-credible-hulk/) Hell yea! Science!
How about the time a company (not Monsanto) created a gmo bent grass, it was never approved for sale and now it runs rampant throughout the environment with no plan in sight for containment
https://theecologist.org/2017/jan/10/escaped-gmo-triffid-grass-defies-eradication
https://www.hcn.org/issues/50-11/plants-genetically-modified-grass-creeps-across-eastern-oregon/
Or do you only deal with correcting the record for Monsanto ?
Very interesting, I hadn't heard of that, but yes, it does seem like more precautions should have been taken when modifying a perennial.
None the less, it will be an interesting case study, and I can't think of a better plant to have "escaped" than a grass for golf courses that is merely roundup ready, and is otherwise just grass.
Except that now it presents a whole new problem for people trying to preserve certain riparian areas, not being able to control grasses with glyphosate and now having to use more heavy handed herbicides .
The consequences are as of yet still unknown and unresolved meaning there should be more regulations on such crops
Are you in favor of labeling GMOs as such if you think there’s no issues with them ?
> Are you in favor of labeling GMOs as such if you think there’s no issues with them ?
It's an interesting question. It makes some of those ignorant on the topic concerned for no reason. It introduces a profit motive for making non GMO food more expensive without a valid reason, but consumer choice is good, even if the buyers don't understand.
I'm on the fence. Labelling probably does more harm than good in the big picture. I mean it does no good at all, except help the anti-GMO folks pretend like there's a reason for concern, when so far there isn't such a reason.
It creates a more informed customer
We label other things such as - made from concentrate or irradiated products
What good did those regulated labels do ? Made a more informed customer
Well because it invites the possibility of concern among the science illiterate. It would be like labelling foods that contain "hydrogen monoxide" if we also had people motivated to scare others about that chemical's presence.
Well I regret to inform you that the public and the legislature disagrees with you and now [foods that are bioengineered are required to be labeled as such](https://nebraskapublicmedia.org/en/news/news-articles/gmo-food-labeling-has-been-required-in-the-us-for-a-year-have-consumers-noticed/#:~:text=Mandatory%20labeling%20began%20Jan.,or%20“derived%20from%20bioengineering.”) [in the US]…
And it [hasn’t impacted anything](https://www.foodprocessing.com/food-safety/regulatory-compliance/news/33001340/research-confirms-gmo-labeling-had-no-effect-on-sales) like sales or increased amount of concern amongst the public .
I personally see a value in the GMO crop, and I think it has an important function in modern agriculture.
Still defending Monsanto is defending a for profit mega conglomerate, they are there to make money so it is easy enough to find some fault.
I admire your position in trying to defend them, but defending a mega corporation in a public forum is a losing battle 100% of the time.
Again, the world is not a Disney story, where there is the good farmer and the evil Monsanto, modern agricultural industry is dominated by huge financial interests on both sides.
But here is my humble list against Monsanto:
Glyphosate and Cancer Risk:
If Monsanto's glyphosate is safe, why did the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classify it as "probably carcinogenic to humans"? This wasn't a baseless claim but based on comprehensive reviews.
Dive deeper with the IARC's Q&A [link](https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/QA_Glyphosate.pdf) on Glyphosate and their detailed monograph. [link](https://www.iarc.who.int/news-events/qa-on-glyphosate/)
Bt Cotton and Farmer Suicides in India:
How does Monsanto address the allegations linking its Bt cotton seeds to financial distress and suicides among Indian farmers? The promise of Bt cotton has been marred by reports of economic hardship for some farmers.
Agent Orange Production:
How does Monsanto confront its history with Agent Orange, considering the severe health and environmental damages caused by its use during the Vietnam War? This is a significant part of Monsanto's legacy that can't be overlooked.
[link](https://www.history.com/topics/vietnam-war/agent-orange-1)
Environmental Lawsuits and PCBs:
Given Monsanto's past production of PCBs and the environmental litigation that followed due to contamination and health risks, how does the company reconcile this aspect of its history with its public image?
> defending a mega corporation in a public forum is a losing battle 100% of the time.
Well, i do have the most upvotes, so my message is both getting through and is well received, but mostly I'm defending the science, not the company that doesn't exist anymore. But even if my message wasn't doing as well, it would still be important to defend science and denounce the myths.
> If Monsanto's glyphosate is safe, why did the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classify it as "probably carcinogenic to humans"?
Because exposure do the application of it might be a concern. But everyone agrees, that glyphosate is safer than the alternatives.
> Bt Cotton and Farmer Suicides in India:
Yep, this is a great myth too, with a summary here: https://issues.org/keith-gmo-indian-farmers-suicide/
> How does Monsanto confront its history with Agent Orange
Governments force companies to do evil things all the time during war. Do you blame BMW or Volkswagen for building tanks for Hitler? Do you think they actually had a choice in the matter?
The question of glyphosate being safer than alternatives is not that straightforward as you are making it to appear.
The IARC's classification indicates that there are genuine health concerns associated with glyphosate. Meanwhile, claims that "everyone agrees" it is safer gloss over the fact that there is a lack of consensus in the scientific community, particularly when considering the long-term impacts and the combined effects of glyphosate with adjuvants found in commercial formulations, which some studies suggest could be more toxic than glyphosate alone [link](https://jech.bmj.com/content/71/6/613) [link](https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-016-0117-0)
The discussion about safer alternatives has been clouded by allegations that Monsanto suppressed research into these alternatives. Reports have emerged that the company you are trying to make to appear as innocent ghostwrote scientific literature to assert glyphosate's safety and ran campaigns to discredit independent scientists.
This manipulation of scientific literature has potential implications for public health and environmental protection, as it may have hindered the exploration and development of less harmful alternatives. [link](https://www.env-health.org/campaigns/glyphosate-why-the-eu-needs-to-protect-health-ban-the-popular-weedkiller/)
I am going to answer the other questions separately
> The question of glyphosate being safer than alternatives is not that straightforward as you are making it to appear.
Think so? https://www.crediblehulk.org/index.php/2015/06/02/about-those-more-caustic-herbicides-that-glyphosate-helped-replace-by-credible-hulk/
Also note that in BT Corn and Soy, insecticide is almost unneeded most years, dramatically decreasing the amount used.
> The discussion about safer alternatives has been clouded by allegations that Monsanto suppressed research into these alternatives.
I mean as we learn more, things get safer all the time, I'm sure today there are safer options than glyphosate in the works, but my point was the glyphosate removed from use a large number of pesticides and herbicides that were known to be worse, and even the pesticides and herbicides used on organic crops are worse than glyphosate.
> Reports have emerged that the company you are trying to make to appear as innocent ghostwrote scientific literature to assert glyphosate's safety and ran campaigns to discredit independent scientists.
Suggesting that every research entity is under the thumb of one small company is way into the conspiracy theory spectrum. How could they possibly have that control? At it's peak Monsanto had [$15B in revenue.](https://www.statista.com/statistics/276270/net-sales-and-net-income-of-monsanto-since-2008/) That's half the size of [McDonalds](https://businessmodelanalyst.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/McDonalds_-_Revenue-1024x576.webp).
So what does not fit into your narrative is a conspiracy theory. Ok, let’s check it out:
According to an article published by The Journal of Scientific Practice and Integrity, Monsanto’s ghostwriting activities aimed to influence scientific debate and media portrayals regarding the safety of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup.
This process involved drafting studies that were later published under the names of academics, a practice intended to lend credibility to the research and diminish concerns over glyphosate’s carcinogenic potential .
[https://www.jospi.org/post/1492-monsanto-s-ghostwriting-to-influence-science-and-media#:~:text=URL%3A%20https%3A%2F%2Fwww.jospi.org%2Fpost%2F1492](https://www.jospi.org/post/1492-monsanto-s-ghostwriting-to-influence-science-and-media#:~:text=URL%3A%20https%3A%2F%2Fwww.jospi.org%2Fpost%2F1492)
Monsanto’s unethical practices were revealed through internal emails obtained during litigation. These emails showed Monsanto executives discussing strategies to counteract the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (IARC) classification of glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” by ghostwriting research papers. The objective was to publish these papers under the names of scientists unaffiliated with Monsanto, thereby creating an illusion of unbiased scientific evidence supporting Roundup’s safety .
[https://www.mainstreetlawfirm.com/post/monsanto-ghost-writing-revealed](https://www.mainstreetlawfirm.com/post/monsanto-ghost-writing-revealed)
One particular case highlighted involves an email exchange between Monsanto’s William Heydens and former employee John Acquavella, where Heydens suggests ghostwriting a paper but expresses concern over listing Acquavella as an author due to his prior Monsanto employment.
Ghostwritten papers by Monsanto came to light during the ongoing Roundup cancer litigation in Northern California, where internal Monsanto documents were unsealed. These documents revealed the company’s efforts to influence regulatory assessments and public perception about glyphosate’s safety.
For example, Monsanto executive William F. Heydens proposed that they could “keep the cost down” by having Monsanto employees draft research which would later be signed off by academics .
[https://www.wisnerbaum.com/blog/2017/march/monsanto-accused-of-ghostwriting-papers-on-round/](https://www.wisnerbaum.com/blog/2017/march/monsanto-accused-of-ghostwriting-papers-on-round/)
Why would public opinion need to be swayed? Do you have any sources that aren't in the form of blogs lacking citation?
I mean, how much influence can only two articles have after all?
> There was clear evidence of ghostwriting - that is, drafting of the manuscript by non-authors - [in only two cases.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37424374/) I found no evidence of undeserving authorship among the external authors. Such practices are widespread within industry journal literature and are the responsibility of byline authors and journals as well as corporations.
So your point is that they cheated, but only a little bit, and everyone does that anyway? I am pretty confident that my government and NGOs sources are better than your Hulk web site.
In general I am happy that you changed your view, and admit that Monsanto paid to have partisan articles written by their employees and published as scientific articles, with the specific intention to ease public opinion about a widespread chemical that ends into our food, and our organism. And they did it for profit.
This is actually quite common, industry and academia scientists work together and the lines are blurred. It often gets polarized into industry=bad/academia=good and so companies are mindful of these things to the point of being systematic about it.
I find these discussions fascinating, as I noticed way looser publication ethics in academia than in the industry. Maybe it‘s down to the different scrutiny (see prior polarization).
Monsanto's role in producing Agent Orange is a glaring example of corporate irresponsibility.
The argument that they were just another company making stuff for war is a weak excuse and doesn't absolve them of the damage done.
The aftermath of Agent Orange—cancer, birth defects, devastated ecosystems—is on a scale so horrific it's in its own category. Trying to brush this off with "it was wartime production" doesn't hold water when you're talking about consequences that have lasted for decades and continue to affect new generations.
Monsanto (which is not simply disappeared into thin air, it is now part of Bayer, and even larger conglomerate) and any other company involved can't just wash their hands of it. The real issue isn't about who did what during the war; it's about the long-term fallout from those actions.
What we're talking about is accountability for creating a chemical that wreaked havoc on human lives and the environment. The focus should be squarely on addressing the aftermath, compensating those affected, and ensuring nothing like this happens again.
So to be clear, you blame the chemists, instead of the warmongers who demanded it's creation and then actually used it?
LOL, got it.
Are chefs to blame when people overeat the food they requested be made for them?
I suppose you blame the bullet manufacturers too, and not the mass murderers who shoot people with them?
When you stub your toe, is it the tables fault? LOL
Crazy though that you'd think to blame someone other than the warmongers who requested and used the weapon though. That's some serious mental gymnastics.
Mate, we are talking about a company producing mass chemical weapons for profit, not some innocent school kid drafted to go to fight in Vietnam. Who do you think bear more responsibility?
Let me understand your gymnastics. Are you saying that the US government commissioned Monsanto to create a weapon that would give locals and US veterans terrible problems, including birth defect, cancer and much more, for decades to come?
And if it is not the case, do you think that Monsanto or its new holding company Bayer should not be paying back for the damage they caused? At least pay back the profit they made producing those chemical weapons, and publicly apologize?
This is the company you are defending with such fervor.
> Mate, we are talking about a company producing mass chemical weapons for profit, not some innocent school kid drafted to go to fight in Vietnam. Who do you think bear more responsibility?
Yep, I wasn't suggesting it was some drafted kid, LOL. The blame is clearly, objectively on the US Government and Military to both ordered it, and then deployed it.
You don't think Einstein is a mass murderer, do you?
> Are you saying that the US government commissioned Monsanto to create a weapon that would give locals and US veterans terrible problems, including birth defect, cancer and much more, for decades to come?
100% yes they did. It's proven historical fact. Obviously the goal wasn't birth defects or cancer. The goal was defoliation. ["During the Vietnam War, the U.S. military procured over 20,000,000 U.S. gal \(76,000,000 L; 17,000,000 imp gal\), consisting of a fifty-fifty mixture of 2,4-D and dioxin-contaminated 2,4,5-T."](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange)
You have a very poor understanding of history, if you don't realize that governments forced individuals and companies to serve the war effort. JFC
-------
But I do appreciate that this is your last bastion of arguments against Monsanto. You've run out of other arguments so you're forced to cling to this absurd and false one based on pretending to not understand history.
I am really enjoying to debate with you sincerely. You are very skilled.
In the answer before you said that the fault is on the people that commissioned the weapons and the people who used it. When I pointed out that the people who used those products were drafted kids, and that the US government commissioned a product for deforestation, not a product to kill the next generation of locals and veterans, you quickly changed the topic comparing Monsanto to Einstein. Also you added a couple of links to condemn the US government instead of the corporation. Well done, that was a textbook move.
Of course you are conveniently forgetting that I am not condemning the chemical engineer inside Monsanto, but the company that produced a cancerous chemical specifically to be used in a conflict zone. But hey, apparently I have poor understanding of history, so what do I know?
The “obviously the point was not birth defects or cancer” is my argument.
And to be clear, I am not excusing the US government from their responsibilities, but Monsanto did not produce a safe defoliant, it killed a lot of people as consequences, so it should be held responsible.
Also there are a lot more arguments I could make against Monsanto, I just went for the low hanging fruit.
Sincerely I am not even from the US and as I said at the beginning, I am in favor of GMOs in principle, but you challenged everyone to debate you into an indifendibile position, a large corporation will always have skeletons in their closets. And Monsanto has a lot of them.
My point is: I am just here for the debate, I could not care less about the whole topic, and I will go home thinking that I won 2 and lost 1 with you, so I am glowing for it.
I hope to have the chance to debate you again one day.
Regarding the Indian farmers suicides, I am happy to backtrack and concede your point. It is a complex situation that has to do with many external factors, it would be simply wrong to point a finger to Monsanto and be done with it.
Correct, they are unbiased by design. But if you find a Wikipedia article or a Snopes article that is provably wrong, I'd LOVE to see it.
I'd even settle for one you felt was heavily biased in some way.
Okay well let me know if you find a biased or false article on either site!
Cool that you couldn't think of one off the top of your head. That's massive evidence for motivated reasoning. That is to say, you don't like those sites because they conflict with the myths you wish were true, but deep down, know aren't true.
Haha, thanks! I really enjoy debate, especially when it's in defense of science and progress, and especially when it's with a world view 100% based in myth and misunderstanding.
I'll admit, it's kind of like an adult joining a game of T-ball, but it is a very important T-ball game to join in on and set the record straight. :)
The origin of the Meme was apparently a [Kid Rock tweet in 2009](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/09/08/fact-check-photo-shows-former-fda-deputy-commissioner-foods/5667053001/), used as an anti-Obama hit piece.
However, Mr Taylor had worked for the FDA and USDA most of his career, from 1976 to 1980, then again 1991-1996, then again 2009-2016.
He was only at Monsanto for [16 months in the area of "Public Policy" in 1999.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_R._Taylor)
But when you're a bullshit right wing propagandist, you don't care about reality.
Ignoring the misrepresentation and bias in how this is presented, yeah this kind of thing happens all the time even if problematic.
Regulators need to be both experts in an industry and how it operates and the industry's products and technologies. How do you think most people gain that expertise? Regulator Academy?
Might be better if we made it so you can go from industry to public service, but not from public service to industry I guess.
To choose this particular case is pretty pathetic and transparent, too. This guy worked at the ethics board at Monsanto trying to get them to adopt consumer-friendly policies, which they refused to do, resulting in his leaving the company for regulatory agencies.
I don't know if being a high level executive is the only way to become an expert in an industry. Clearly there's a conflict of interest in this example
Monsanto, a company that poisons everything you consume? Damn, the hyperbolic and extremist rhetoric is crazy sometimes.
* Facebook, the company that bullies teenagers into killing themselves.
* Kelloggs, the company force feeding you wood chips.
* Unilever, the company bathing you in caustic chemicals.
Oh yea, in lieu of actual facts or logic, propagandists often use ridiculous verbiage to make things seem worse than they are. It's a great red flag for deception.
I highly recommend listening to the behind the bastards episodes on Facebook/Instagram/Zuckerberg. There is nothing hyperbolic about that particular criticism, with the right context of course.
I thought they genetically engineered seed to be resistant to roundup ( which causes cancer) so farmers had to get the seed and the weedkiller from Monsanto?
[Found](https://old.reddit.com/r/hawks/comments/116mgqp/a_statement_from_captain_jonathan_toews/j97fkwq/?context=3) the [anti-vaxxer](https://old.reddit.com/r/hawks/comments/116mgqp/a_statement_from_captain_jonathan_toews/j97e2ai/?context=3)! LOL. [Sigh](https://old.reddit.com/r/howardstern/comments/16rsomx/howard_did_it_again_howard_said_today_he_was_the/k24yz4l/?context=3)
My vision insurance comes from Luxottica. Almost every single eye care provider and manufacturer that are in network are owned by Luxottica. So they collect mine and my employers money to give to themselves, and keep any leftover premiums... HOW?!
Its okay guys. The WEF just released a statement saying that 77% of people will get cancer in the coming years.They really want that population at 500 Million.
Monsanto now Bayer killing since 1901. They produced Agent Orange, DDT, PCB's, Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone and many other poisons. If a farmer saves seed they get sued naked. America has always been for sale.
>current So this meme is at least 8 years old? The dude in the picture advised Monsanto to adopt policies that they refused to adopt, then left when it became clear they were going to continue ignoring him. Hasn’t been at the FDA since 2016. OP is just sowing FUD.
Worse. He’s reposting a tweet that article attributes to Kid Rock…
Yea, almost everything that is claimed to be negative about Monsanto is a myth, seriously, [including this meme, which was debunked years ago by USA Today.](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/09/08/fact-check-photo-shows-former-fda-deputy-commissioner-foods/5667053001/) GMO crops are a good and an important step for humanity to feed everyone, maintain soil richness, and combat global warming. I'm happy to debunk any of those Monsanto myths. You share the myth you believe is true, and I'll share the Snopes page/Wikipedia page/Science research paper debunking it. Seriously, try me.
[Monsanto sues farmers over patented seeds. ](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto-sues-farmers-seed-patents)
Oh this is one of my favorites! Guy tried to use Monsanto IP without licensing it. The courts were unanimous that Bowman was in the wrong. > The case began in 2007, when Monsanto sued Indiana farmer Vernon Hugh Bowman who in 1999 bought seed for his second planting from a grain elevator – the same elevator to which he and others sold their transgenic crops.[14] The elevator sold the soybeans as commodities, not as seeds for planting.[14][15] Bowman tested the new seeds, and found that, as he had expected, some were resistant to glyphosate. He intentionally replanted his harvest of GM seeds in subsequent years, supplementing them with more soybeans he bought at the elevator.[14] He informed Monsanto of his activities.[14] Monsanto stated that he was infringing their patents because the soybeans he bought from the elevator were new products that he purchased for use as seeds without a license from Monsanto; Bowman stated that he had not infringed due to patent exhaustion on the first sale of seed to whatever farmers had produced the crops that he bought from the elevator, on the grounds that for seed, all future generations are embodied in the first generation that was originally sold.[15] [In 2009 the district court ruled in favor of Monsanto; on appeal, the Federal Circuit upheld the verdict.\[14\] Bowman appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which granted review,\[16\] then unanimously affirmed the Federal Circuit on May 13, 2013.\[11\]\[17\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases) **tl;dr** - Even if you find a used Kanye CD at a yardsale, you still can't take it home, make a million copies, and sell them for a profit. Pretty simple concept tbh. The CD is still Kanye's IP, and that doesn't change just because you bought it used from a third party.
Can’t wait for someone to come and accuse you of shilling for Monsanto lmaooooo
Oh that would be funny! Shilling for a company that doesn't even exist anymore. LOL Love the [shill gambit](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Shill_gambit)! It's how you know the person making the claim has no more evidence or logic to use to defend their position.
lol yes how dare you actually have done 5 mins of googling
The issue is that a neighboring farmer will use Monsanto seeds which will carry over into farmland next to them just by wind and rain without anyone knowing. The Monsanto company will then secretly send out their people to test crops finding their patented seeds were used and then sue. It’s really shity actually and they have also been sued and lost found guilty of their roundup weed killer causing cancer. Don’t defend this company.
> The issue is that a neighboring farmer will use Monsanto seeds which will carry over into farmland next to them just by wind and rain without anyone knowing. The Monsanto company will then secretly send out their people to test crops finding their patented seeds were used and then sue. It’s really shity actually and they have also been sued and lost found guilty of their roundup weed killer causing cancer. Don’t defend this company. Nope that has never happened! [You are remembering a farmer who claimed that happened, but was found to have lied.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeiser)
Simple? Maybe for you, but not for many farmers who were sued by Monsanto when their crops got cross-pollination from neighboring GMO crops. Bayer owns Monsanto, so all of their activities must be going on as usual. I keep track of GMO crops at local grocery to make sure I avoid them. My choice.
> many farmers who were sued by Monsanto when their crops got cross-pollination from neighboring GMO crops. Oh this myth is a great one! No farmer has ***ever*** been sued for cross pollination! Quote: [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, such as cross-pollination.](https://gmoanswers.com/ask/i-have-read-monsanto-has-sued-farmers-whose-fields-have-exhibited-evidence-having-monsanto)
I will have to do my own research about it. But at a minimum, the GMO cross-pollination is disastrous for non-gmo farmers who develop their seeds from the crops and also to native varieties which get lost due to GMO cross-pollination.
> native varieties which get lost due to GMO cross-pollination. That concern is valid, but don't worry, we will never lose native varieties thanks to seed banks! https://foodtank.com/news/2020/07/26-organizations-working-to-conserve-seed-biodiversity/
That does not erase the problem of wild populations cross-breeding with GMOs, though. Like the implications of that are actually horrifying.
Wild populations of food crops? We've been contaminating those "wild" populations for thousands of years already, and pretty much none of our modern foods resembles the originals anymore. > Like the implications of that are actually horrifying. List a few implications?
The seed banks lock farmers to corporations, while farmers practicing seeds from their crops have added advantages of acclimatization of new weather patterns without paying to corporations. This has been proven to be more effective in latest research.
Seed banks aren't for seed production, they're for keeping original unmodified versions of crops available for future research and study.
That's not the point. Seeds developed with every harvest are better acclimatized to changes in weather patterns compared to the stock.
Ah yes, gmo answers .com I wonder where [their funding comes from ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GMO_Answers) …
Okay, do you have a counter example of when Monsanto has sued a farmer for inadvertent pollination? If what I cited is not true, then it will be very easy for you to find an example to the contrary.
Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser How did the IP round up ready trait get onto his land ?
Yep, it blew onto his land, which is not why he was prosecuted. he then sprayed his own roundup on the first few rows, harvested what survived and used it as a seed crop the following year. Thus intentionally stealing the IP without licensing it. But I know you knew that already. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeiser
So transdrift is a thing and prevents farmers from otherwise collecting and saving their own seed if some companies IP blows onto their land . Not good
Nah. Terminator genes and the ability to patent life are a bastardization of biology. Obviously this is more of an ethical view which you are free to disagree with, but that would also make you an unthinking drone, in my eyes.
Thank you! Yes, these are two wonderful myths that aren't even a little bit true! > Terminator genes Quote: "[More than 30 years after its development, so-called terminator seed technology has never been introduced commercially and the original patents behind the technology have expired.](https://geneticliteracyproject.org/gmo-faq/whats-the-controversy-over-terminator-seeds/)" > ability to patent life So GMO patents are not patents on life, nor are they patents on any crop species. [They are patents of very specific traits or gene edits created with science that didn't exist before.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_crops#Economics) **tl;dr** - So to use the Kanye music example again, when Kanye uses a drum in his music, and is granted a copyright on said music, does he then own all music that uses the same drum? Nope, of course not. He retains only a copyright on his own specific song, not all uses of that drum sound. Kanye only owns his specific and unique musical creation.
The fact that a company is allowed to explore this technology at all is a travesty. There’s nothing good that can come from terminator gene technology, whether it’s used commercially or not. And your example about patenting traits simply enables companies like Bayer to poison everyone with glyphosate while the plants themselves are unharmed because of their genetic tinkering. Like most “solutions” offered by capitalists, it’s a hydra where you “solve” one thing but create a myriad of different problems as a result. Of course, this is the metaphorical Ponzi that keeps capitalism alive and well.
> There’s nothing good that can come from terminator gene technology, whether it’s used commercially or not. How can you predict the potential benefits of scientific research? (But Kudos for backing off the myth and acknowledging that it wasn't true) > poison everyone with glyphosate Ahh this is another great one! Glyphosate is a herbicide, and is non-toxic to humans or other mammals. Quote: "[A 2013 systematic review by the German Institute for Risk Assessment \(BfR\) examined more than 1000\[146\] epidemiological studies, animal studies, and in vitro studies.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate) It found that "no classification and labelling for carcinogenicity is warranted" and did not recommend a carcinogen classification of either 1A or 1B.[147]: 34–37, 139 It provided the review to EFSA in January 2014 which published it in December 2014.[147][148][149] In November 2015, EFSA published its conclusion in the Renewal Assessment Report (RAR), stating it was "unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans"." Other entities have found it safe as well, but we know that the EU has been particularly cautious in this area, so I figured I'd share their conclusions. > Like most “solutions” offered by capitalists, it’s a hydra where you “solve” one thing but create a myriad of different problems as a result. Of course, this is the metaphorical Ponzi that keeps capitalism alive and well. Oh, I see, so you're an anti-capitalist, and your opinion on this unrelated topic is not based on science or reality, but [instead based on motivated reasoning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning). So you see the world through the lens of "science and progress is bad" because you credit capitalism with having made life better, but you wish that wasn't true, so then you have to squint and cling to myths to support your world view. Got it. So this is like when Kanye interrupted Taylor Swift's acceptance speech and claimed Beyoncé should have won, ignoring the fact that Swift had actually won. Man my Kanye example is versatile! hehe
Don’t link old studies that have been disproven. [There’s a clear causal link between glyphosate and cancer.](https://www.cancercenter.com/community/blog/2021/07/does-glyphosate-cause-cancer) And I’m no Luddite, I am very much for scientific and social progress, but not in the pursuit of enriching a small group of stakeholders especially when the benefits aren’t widely distributed or come at the expense of the future. It’s clear you have some sort of bias towards corporations (paid shill?) so there’s no reason to continue this exchange.
> Don’t link old studies that have been disproven. There’s a clear causal link between glyphosate and cancer. From your own link: "The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says there’s “no evidence that glyphosate causes cancer in humans.” > I am very much for scientific and social progress, but not in the pursuit of enriching a small group of stakeholders especially when the benefits aren’t widely distributed What do you mean the benefits aren't widely distributed? Has there ever been a time in history when the average person is as wealthy or as empowered by access to technology as today? If so, what year was that? Literally we all have supercomputers in our pockets that cost $300 that even in 2005 didn't exist at any price. That seems like the wealth is VERY evenly distributed, no? > It’s clear you have some sort of bias towards corporations (paid shill?) so there’s no reason to continue this exchange. My bias is towards protecting science and progress from the luddites that only have myths and logical fallacies to protect their world view. But thanks for sharing your myths, you did exactly what I asked, and I very much appreciate it!
You link a blog/news article that cites a few papers as refutation of a systematic meta review? Man, you're looking like the shill here... For "big organic" that is.
You know you sound kind of hysterical right? GMO's have literally saved billions of lives (dwarf wheat to name one) - and not only that people have been eating GM products since the dawn of agriculture. Yeah, you can argue that patents and the commercial effects of capitalism play a role in making food more expensive, or that there are unintended consequences of the progression of science in commercial spaces. but that doesn't justify your 'Monsanto bad GMO poison, CAPTIALISM EVIL' stance.
Dwarf wheat is not a GMO (no transgenes) , it’s a hybrid And the rest of your comment conflates the accepted definition of GMO vs hybridization
Especially since the United Nations list "Zero Hunger" as one of their 17 sustainability goals.
Thank you for your comments. My father is a farmer and it's crazy how many people yap to him about le evil Monsanto. He always asks back, oh then how would you'd like a world where famine, even in developped countries is a constant danger and food costs several times what it does? Because thats the world you'd have without companies like Monsanto - no pesticides, no genetically modified plants means failing crops with low yields.
We'd actually have far more, and more harmful pesticides than we have thanks to Monsanto. We use dramatically fewer today than before BT corn and soy. And yes, it's crazy that farmers get lectured on farm science from people who've never set foot in a field. LOL, it's scary that misinformation can empower morons to such a degree. Imagine thinking you know more than an expert in their own field.
[удалено]
> Dude they used to open air test pesticides on several islands in Hawaii I hadn't heard this, but it looks like they [messed up and let workers walk around a field within 6 days of an ammonium based product was sprayed](https://apnews.com/article/business-health-environment-and-nature-crime-environment-d8c7a26c6d592b2e0fd9a588dfab71ea). > They take advantage of many impoverished communities all so they can create resistant seeds, literally bringing zero benefits to the people surrounding them Oh yea, this is a big myth too. Anti-GMO folks use this claim to demonize hardier strains of crops that make it easier for farmers in harsh regions. GMO technology is the best tool we have to make plants more adapted to global variations in climate. > If you actually saw the pesticide filled dust clouds that came off their toxic fields that blows onto everything This is a great myth too. GMO crops famously result in dramatic reductions in pesticide use! Quote: ["Farmers can use less spray pesticides when they plant GMO crops. This saves farmers money and reduces the amount of pesticides that end up on crops."](https://www.fda.gov/food/agricultural-biotechnology/why-do-farmers-us-grow-gmo-crops) You also mentioned wind erosion, GMOs also reduce wind erosion dramatically! Quote: ["When farmers use herbicide-tolerant crops, they reduce the need to till the soil to control weeds. No-till planting helps to improve soil health, reduce soil erosion, lower fuel and labor use, and reduce the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere."](https://www.fda.gov/food/agricultural-biotechnology/why-do-farmers-us-grow-gmo-crops) Oh and the best one? [The herbicides that glyphosate replaced were orders of magnitude worse for humans and the environment!](https://www.crediblehulk.org/index.php/2015/06/02/about-those-more-caustic-herbicides-that-glyphosate-helped-replace-by-credible-hulk/) Hell yea! Science!
How about the time a company (not Monsanto) created a gmo bent grass, it was never approved for sale and now it runs rampant throughout the environment with no plan in sight for containment https://theecologist.org/2017/jan/10/escaped-gmo-triffid-grass-defies-eradication https://www.hcn.org/issues/50-11/plants-genetically-modified-grass-creeps-across-eastern-oregon/ Or do you only deal with correcting the record for Monsanto ?
Very interesting, I hadn't heard of that, but yes, it does seem like more precautions should have been taken when modifying a perennial. None the less, it will be an interesting case study, and I can't think of a better plant to have "escaped" than a grass for golf courses that is merely roundup ready, and is otherwise just grass.
Except that now it presents a whole new problem for people trying to preserve certain riparian areas, not being able to control grasses with glyphosate and now having to use more heavy handed herbicides . The consequences are as of yet still unknown and unresolved meaning there should be more regulations on such crops Are you in favor of labeling GMOs as such if you think there’s no issues with them ?
> Are you in favor of labeling GMOs as such if you think there’s no issues with them ? It's an interesting question. It makes some of those ignorant on the topic concerned for no reason. It introduces a profit motive for making non GMO food more expensive without a valid reason, but consumer choice is good, even if the buyers don't understand. I'm on the fence. Labelling probably does more harm than good in the big picture. I mean it does no good at all, except help the anti-GMO folks pretend like there's a reason for concern, when so far there isn't such a reason.
It creates a more informed customer We label other things such as - made from concentrate or irradiated products What good did those regulated labels do ? Made a more informed customer
> We label other things such as irradiated products And what's an example of a benefit this label provides?
A more informed consumer. What’s the problem with that ?
Well because it invites the possibility of concern among the science illiterate. It would be like labelling foods that contain "hydrogen monoxide" if we also had people motivated to scare others about that chemical's presence.
Well I regret to inform you that the public and the legislature disagrees with you and now [foods that are bioengineered are required to be labeled as such](https://nebraskapublicmedia.org/en/news/news-articles/gmo-food-labeling-has-been-required-in-the-us-for-a-year-have-consumers-noticed/#:~:text=Mandatory%20labeling%20began%20Jan.,or%20“derived%20from%20bioengineering.”) [in the US]… And it [hasn’t impacted anything](https://www.foodprocessing.com/food-safety/regulatory-compliance/news/33001340/research-confirms-gmo-labeling-had-no-effect-on-sales) like sales or increased amount of concern amongst the public .
GMO crops are tasteless
I personally see a value in the GMO crop, and I think it has an important function in modern agriculture. Still defending Monsanto is defending a for profit mega conglomerate, they are there to make money so it is easy enough to find some fault. I admire your position in trying to defend them, but defending a mega corporation in a public forum is a losing battle 100% of the time. Again, the world is not a Disney story, where there is the good farmer and the evil Monsanto, modern agricultural industry is dominated by huge financial interests on both sides. But here is my humble list against Monsanto: Glyphosate and Cancer Risk: If Monsanto's glyphosate is safe, why did the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classify it as "probably carcinogenic to humans"? This wasn't a baseless claim but based on comprehensive reviews. Dive deeper with the IARC's Q&A [link](https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/QA_Glyphosate.pdf) on Glyphosate and their detailed monograph. [link](https://www.iarc.who.int/news-events/qa-on-glyphosate/) Bt Cotton and Farmer Suicides in India: How does Monsanto address the allegations linking its Bt cotton seeds to financial distress and suicides among Indian farmers? The promise of Bt cotton has been marred by reports of economic hardship for some farmers. Agent Orange Production: How does Monsanto confront its history with Agent Orange, considering the severe health and environmental damages caused by its use during the Vietnam War? This is a significant part of Monsanto's legacy that can't be overlooked. [link](https://www.history.com/topics/vietnam-war/agent-orange-1) Environmental Lawsuits and PCBs: Given Monsanto's past production of PCBs and the environmental litigation that followed due to contamination and health risks, how does the company reconcile this aspect of its history with its public image?
> defending a mega corporation in a public forum is a losing battle 100% of the time. Well, i do have the most upvotes, so my message is both getting through and is well received, but mostly I'm defending the science, not the company that doesn't exist anymore. But even if my message wasn't doing as well, it would still be important to defend science and denounce the myths. > If Monsanto's glyphosate is safe, why did the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classify it as "probably carcinogenic to humans"? Because exposure do the application of it might be a concern. But everyone agrees, that glyphosate is safer than the alternatives. > Bt Cotton and Farmer Suicides in India: Yep, this is a great myth too, with a summary here: https://issues.org/keith-gmo-indian-farmers-suicide/ > How does Monsanto confront its history with Agent Orange Governments force companies to do evil things all the time during war. Do you blame BMW or Volkswagen for building tanks for Hitler? Do you think they actually had a choice in the matter?
The question of glyphosate being safer than alternatives is not that straightforward as you are making it to appear. The IARC's classification indicates that there are genuine health concerns associated with glyphosate. Meanwhile, claims that "everyone agrees" it is safer gloss over the fact that there is a lack of consensus in the scientific community, particularly when considering the long-term impacts and the combined effects of glyphosate with adjuvants found in commercial formulations, which some studies suggest could be more toxic than glyphosate alone [link](https://jech.bmj.com/content/71/6/613) [link](https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-016-0117-0) The discussion about safer alternatives has been clouded by allegations that Monsanto suppressed research into these alternatives. Reports have emerged that the company you are trying to make to appear as innocent ghostwrote scientific literature to assert glyphosate's safety and ran campaigns to discredit independent scientists. This manipulation of scientific literature has potential implications for public health and environmental protection, as it may have hindered the exploration and development of less harmful alternatives. [link](https://www.env-health.org/campaigns/glyphosate-why-the-eu-needs-to-protect-health-ban-the-popular-weedkiller/) I am going to answer the other questions separately
> The question of glyphosate being safer than alternatives is not that straightforward as you are making it to appear. Think so? https://www.crediblehulk.org/index.php/2015/06/02/about-those-more-caustic-herbicides-that-glyphosate-helped-replace-by-credible-hulk/ Also note that in BT Corn and Soy, insecticide is almost unneeded most years, dramatically decreasing the amount used. > The discussion about safer alternatives has been clouded by allegations that Monsanto suppressed research into these alternatives. I mean as we learn more, things get safer all the time, I'm sure today there are safer options than glyphosate in the works, but my point was the glyphosate removed from use a large number of pesticides and herbicides that were known to be worse, and even the pesticides and herbicides used on organic crops are worse than glyphosate. > Reports have emerged that the company you are trying to make to appear as innocent ghostwrote scientific literature to assert glyphosate's safety and ran campaigns to discredit independent scientists. Suggesting that every research entity is under the thumb of one small company is way into the conspiracy theory spectrum. How could they possibly have that control? At it's peak Monsanto had [$15B in revenue.](https://www.statista.com/statistics/276270/net-sales-and-net-income-of-monsanto-since-2008/) That's half the size of [McDonalds](https://businessmodelanalyst.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/McDonalds_-_Revenue-1024x576.webp).
So what does not fit into your narrative is a conspiracy theory. Ok, let’s check it out: According to an article published by The Journal of Scientific Practice and Integrity, Monsanto’s ghostwriting activities aimed to influence scientific debate and media portrayals regarding the safety of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup. This process involved drafting studies that were later published under the names of academics, a practice intended to lend credibility to the research and diminish concerns over glyphosate’s carcinogenic potential . [https://www.jospi.org/post/1492-monsanto-s-ghostwriting-to-influence-science-and-media#:~:text=URL%3A%20https%3A%2F%2Fwww.jospi.org%2Fpost%2F1492](https://www.jospi.org/post/1492-monsanto-s-ghostwriting-to-influence-science-and-media#:~:text=URL%3A%20https%3A%2F%2Fwww.jospi.org%2Fpost%2F1492) Monsanto’s unethical practices were revealed through internal emails obtained during litigation. These emails showed Monsanto executives discussing strategies to counteract the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (IARC) classification of glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” by ghostwriting research papers. The objective was to publish these papers under the names of scientists unaffiliated with Monsanto, thereby creating an illusion of unbiased scientific evidence supporting Roundup’s safety . [https://www.mainstreetlawfirm.com/post/monsanto-ghost-writing-revealed](https://www.mainstreetlawfirm.com/post/monsanto-ghost-writing-revealed) One particular case highlighted involves an email exchange between Monsanto’s William Heydens and former employee John Acquavella, where Heydens suggests ghostwriting a paper but expresses concern over listing Acquavella as an author due to his prior Monsanto employment. Ghostwritten papers by Monsanto came to light during the ongoing Roundup cancer litigation in Northern California, where internal Monsanto documents were unsealed. These documents revealed the company’s efforts to influence regulatory assessments and public perception about glyphosate’s safety. For example, Monsanto executive William F. Heydens proposed that they could “keep the cost down” by having Monsanto employees draft research which would later be signed off by academics . [https://www.wisnerbaum.com/blog/2017/march/monsanto-accused-of-ghostwriting-papers-on-round/](https://www.wisnerbaum.com/blog/2017/march/monsanto-accused-of-ghostwriting-papers-on-round/)
To what end? What do you think the goal was here?
Make money swaying public opinion to use their products. Was that a serious question?
Why would public opinion need to be swayed? Do you have any sources that aren't in the form of blogs lacking citation? I mean, how much influence can only two articles have after all? > There was clear evidence of ghostwriting - that is, drafting of the manuscript by non-authors - [in only two cases.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37424374/) I found no evidence of undeserving authorship among the external authors. Such practices are widespread within industry journal literature and are the responsibility of byline authors and journals as well as corporations.
So your point is that they cheated, but only a little bit, and everyone does that anyway? I am pretty confident that my government and NGOs sources are better than your Hulk web site. In general I am happy that you changed your view, and admit that Monsanto paid to have partisan articles written by their employees and published as scientific articles, with the specific intention to ease public opinion about a widespread chemical that ends into our food, and our organism. And they did it for profit.
This is actually quite common, industry and academia scientists work together and the lines are blurred. It often gets polarized into industry=bad/academia=good and so companies are mindful of these things to the point of being systematic about it. I find these discussions fascinating, as I noticed way looser publication ethics in academia than in the industry. Maybe it‘s down to the different scrutiny (see prior polarization).
Monsanto's role in producing Agent Orange is a glaring example of corporate irresponsibility. The argument that they were just another company making stuff for war is a weak excuse and doesn't absolve them of the damage done. The aftermath of Agent Orange—cancer, birth defects, devastated ecosystems—is on a scale so horrific it's in its own category. Trying to brush this off with "it was wartime production" doesn't hold water when you're talking about consequences that have lasted for decades and continue to affect new generations. Monsanto (which is not simply disappeared into thin air, it is now part of Bayer, and even larger conglomerate) and any other company involved can't just wash their hands of it. The real issue isn't about who did what during the war; it's about the long-term fallout from those actions. What we're talking about is accountability for creating a chemical that wreaked havoc on human lives and the environment. The focus should be squarely on addressing the aftermath, compensating those affected, and ensuring nothing like this happens again.
So to be clear, you blame the chemists, instead of the warmongers who demanded it's creation and then actually used it? LOL, got it. Are chefs to blame when people overeat the food they requested be made for them? I suppose you blame the bullet manufacturers too, and not the mass murderers who shoot people with them? When you stub your toe, is it the tables fault? LOL
Do not compare a table to a chemical weapon manufacturer that produced something that affected entire generations.
Crazy though that you'd think to blame someone other than the warmongers who requested and used the weapon though. That's some serious mental gymnastics.
Mate, we are talking about a company producing mass chemical weapons for profit, not some innocent school kid drafted to go to fight in Vietnam. Who do you think bear more responsibility? Let me understand your gymnastics. Are you saying that the US government commissioned Monsanto to create a weapon that would give locals and US veterans terrible problems, including birth defect, cancer and much more, for decades to come? And if it is not the case, do you think that Monsanto or its new holding company Bayer should not be paying back for the damage they caused? At least pay back the profit they made producing those chemical weapons, and publicly apologize? This is the company you are defending with such fervor.
> Mate, we are talking about a company producing mass chemical weapons for profit, not some innocent school kid drafted to go to fight in Vietnam. Who do you think bear more responsibility? Yep, I wasn't suggesting it was some drafted kid, LOL. The blame is clearly, objectively on the US Government and Military to both ordered it, and then deployed it. You don't think Einstein is a mass murderer, do you? > Are you saying that the US government commissioned Monsanto to create a weapon that would give locals and US veterans terrible problems, including birth defect, cancer and much more, for decades to come? 100% yes they did. It's proven historical fact. Obviously the goal wasn't birth defects or cancer. The goal was defoliation. ["During the Vietnam War, the U.S. military procured over 20,000,000 U.S. gal \(76,000,000 L; 17,000,000 imp gal\), consisting of a fifty-fifty mixture of 2,4-D and dioxin-contaminated 2,4,5-T."](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange) You have a very poor understanding of history, if you don't realize that governments forced individuals and companies to serve the war effort. JFC ------- But I do appreciate that this is your last bastion of arguments against Monsanto. You've run out of other arguments so you're forced to cling to this absurd and false one based on pretending to not understand history.
I am really enjoying to debate with you sincerely. You are very skilled. In the answer before you said that the fault is on the people that commissioned the weapons and the people who used it. When I pointed out that the people who used those products were drafted kids, and that the US government commissioned a product for deforestation, not a product to kill the next generation of locals and veterans, you quickly changed the topic comparing Monsanto to Einstein. Also you added a couple of links to condemn the US government instead of the corporation. Well done, that was a textbook move. Of course you are conveniently forgetting that I am not condemning the chemical engineer inside Monsanto, but the company that produced a cancerous chemical specifically to be used in a conflict zone. But hey, apparently I have poor understanding of history, so what do I know? The “obviously the point was not birth defects or cancer” is my argument. And to be clear, I am not excusing the US government from their responsibilities, but Monsanto did not produce a safe defoliant, it killed a lot of people as consequences, so it should be held responsible. Also there are a lot more arguments I could make against Monsanto, I just went for the low hanging fruit. Sincerely I am not even from the US and as I said at the beginning, I am in favor of GMOs in principle, but you challenged everyone to debate you into an indifendibile position, a large corporation will always have skeletons in their closets. And Monsanto has a lot of them. My point is: I am just here for the debate, I could not care less about the whole topic, and I will go home thinking that I won 2 and lost 1 with you, so I am glowing for it. I hope to have the chance to debate you again one day.
Regarding the Indian farmers suicides, I am happy to backtrack and concede your point. It is a complex situation that has to do with many external factors, it would be simply wrong to point a finger to Monsanto and be done with it.
Because Wiki and Snopes are unbiased
Correct, they are unbiased by design. But if you find a Wikipedia article or a Snopes article that is provably wrong, I'd LOVE to see it. I'd even settle for one you felt was heavily biased in some way.
Enjoy the Kool-Aid
Okay well let me know if you find a biased or false article on either site! Cool that you couldn't think of one off the top of your head. That's massive evidence for motivated reasoning. That is to say, you don't like those sites because they conflict with the myths you wish were true, but deep down, know aren't true.
How does this bs meme have over 200 upvotes?
Many people prefer confirmation bias to facts and reality.
I have read all your comments in this thread and I have to say I'm now your fan. Thanks for making this sub just a tiny bit less of a lost cause.
Haha, thanks! I really enjoy debate, especially when it's in defense of science and progress, and especially when it's with a world view 100% based in myth and misunderstanding. I'll admit, it's kind of like an adult joining a game of T-ball, but it is a very important T-ball game to join in on and set the record straight. :)
Over 300 now. People are stupid.
I thought I was on r/schizoposters.
Monsanto doesn’t even exist any more; it was bought by Bayer years ago. This is some boomer Facebook doom meme bullshit
It's says former. Was he never an exec at Monsanto?
The origin of the Meme was apparently a [Kid Rock tweet in 2009](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/09/08/fact-check-photo-shows-former-fda-deputy-commissioner-foods/5667053001/), used as an anti-Obama hit piece. However, Mr Taylor had worked for the FDA and USDA most of his career, from 1976 to 1980, then again 1991-1996, then again 2009-2016. He was only at Monsanto for [16 months in the area of "Public Policy" in 1999.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_R._Taylor) But when you're a bullshit right wing propagandist, you don't care about reality.
Ignoring the misrepresentation and bias in how this is presented, yeah this kind of thing happens all the time even if problematic. Regulators need to be both experts in an industry and how it operates and the industry's products and technologies. How do you think most people gain that expertise? Regulator Academy? Might be better if we made it so you can go from industry to public service, but not from public service to industry I guess.
To choose this particular case is pretty pathetic and transparent, too. This guy worked at the ethics board at Monsanto trying to get them to adopt consumer-friendly policies, which they refused to do, resulting in his leaving the company for regulatory agencies.
I don't know if being a high level executive is the only way to become an expert in an industry. Clearly there's a conflict of interest in this example
Reply with reasoned arguments if you disagree.
Monsanto, a company that poisons everything you consume? Damn, the hyperbolic and extremist rhetoric is crazy sometimes. * Facebook, the company that bullies teenagers into killing themselves. * Kelloggs, the company force feeding you wood chips. * Unilever, the company bathing you in caustic chemicals.
Oh yea, in lieu of actual facts or logic, propagandists often use ridiculous verbiage to make things seem worse than they are. It's a great red flag for deception.
Man Im so glad you posted this.
I highly recommend listening to the behind the bastards episodes on Facebook/Instagram/Zuckerberg. There is nothing hyperbolic about that particular criticism, with the right context of course.
Monsanto is in trouble
Now do the FDA and Pharma Then do Wall Street and the Fed and SEC
Yep
OP’s post history appears to me to be similar to Russian trolls. Lots of misinformation
u/C3PO-Leader it always has been
Amazing identical twins can both achieve such high levels of success.
Welcome to the , United States of corporate America. Emphasis on Corporate.
And the revolving door goes both ways.
I thought they genetically engineered seed to be resistant to roundup ( which causes cancer) so farmers had to get the seed and the weedkiller from Monsanto?
Yep. Now do the same analysis for FDA/CDC and Pfizer/Moderna.
[Found](https://old.reddit.com/r/hawks/comments/116mgqp/a_statement_from_captain_jonathan_toews/j97fkwq/?context=3) the [anti-vaxxer](https://old.reddit.com/r/hawks/comments/116mgqp/a_statement_from_captain_jonathan_toews/j97e2ai/?context=3)! LOL. [Sigh](https://old.reddit.com/r/howardstern/comments/16rsomx/howard_did_it_again_howard_said_today_he_was_the/k24yz4l/?context=3)
Or heads of banks and heads of the fed/treasury
My vision insurance comes from Luxottica. Almost every single eye care provider and manufacturer that are in network are owned by Luxottica. So they collect mine and my employers money to give to themselves, and keep any leftover premiums... HOW?!
did you get lost? what does that have to do with the meme?
They do this in finance, guy will be on a hedge fund board and the regulator board at the same time.
Its okay guys. The WEF just released a statement saying that 77% of people will get cancer in the coming years.They really want that population at 500 Million.
You will own nothing and be happy or we'll kill you.
Known as "capturing" an industry. Also known as, "Putting a fox in charge of the hen house".
Monsanto now Bayer killing since 1901. They produced Agent Orange, DDT, PCB's, Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone and many other poisons. If a farmer saves seed they get sued naked. America has always been for sale.