Monsanto
(→Appeal to Monsanto) |
(→Appeal to Monsanto) |
||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
It's worth noting that although Monsanto is typically portrayed as the super-wealthy bad guy bossing around helpless organic farmers, in dollar terms the organic food industry is much bigger than the GM seed industry by a factor of five. Monsanto's total revenue in 2011 was slightly less than $12 billion,<ref>[http://www.stock-analysis-on.net/NYSE/Company/Monsanto-Co/Analysis/Revenues Monsanto Co. (MON) - Analysis of Revenues]</ref> of which $8.6 billion was from the Seeds and Genomics division<ref>[http://www.monsanto.com/investors/Documents/Annual%20Report/Monsanto_2011_10-K.pdf Monsanto's K-10 report] for 2011</ref> and worldwide GM seed sales in the same year were $13.3 billion,<ref name="share"/> while worldwide organic food sales in 2010 were slightly less than $60 billion<ref>Bloomberg: [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-15/organic-product-sales-rise-9-2-to-59-1-billion-group-says.html Organic-Product Sales Rise 9.2% to $59.1 Billion, Group Says]</ref> On the other hand, the GM seed industry is more centralized, with only a few large companies participating in the market, while the organic food industry includes many small producers. | It's worth noting that although Monsanto is typically portrayed as the super-wealthy bad guy bossing around helpless organic farmers, in dollar terms the organic food industry is much bigger than the GM seed industry by a factor of five. Monsanto's total revenue in 2011 was slightly less than $12 billion,<ref>[http://www.stock-analysis-on.net/NYSE/Company/Monsanto-Co/Analysis/Revenues Monsanto Co. (MON) - Analysis of Revenues]</ref> of which $8.6 billion was from the Seeds and Genomics division<ref>[http://www.monsanto.com/investors/Documents/Annual%20Report/Monsanto_2011_10-K.pdf Monsanto's K-10 report] for 2011</ref> and worldwide GM seed sales in the same year were $13.3 billion,<ref name="share"/> while worldwide organic food sales in 2010 were slightly less than $60 billion<ref>Bloomberg: [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-15/organic-product-sales-rise-9-2-to-59-1-billion-group-says.html Organic-Product Sales Rise 9.2% to $59.1 Billion, Group Says]</ref> On the other hand, the GM seed industry is more centralized, with only a few large companies participating in the market, while the organic food industry includes many small producers. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Appeal to Reason== | ||
| + | It is worth noting that any appeal to reason to a supporter of Monsanto will be met with outrage, this is similar to the appeal to reason with religious people, because the religious people know in their gut that what they believe is right, it must be right. This holds for supporters of Monsanto as well. As such, there can be no appeal to fact, there can only be appeal to belief. Such as fluoride in the water, if someone believes there is fluoride in the water that is harmful, then he will only not believe it if someone else believes there is isn't, facts will do no good here. | ||
==Footnotes== | ==Footnotes== | ||
Revision as of 06:09, 6 July 2013
The Monsanto Company is a multinational biotechnology corporation. It is the inventor and primary producer of the herbicide glyphosate, marketed as RoundUp, and the world's leading producer of genetically engineered seeds (65% of the market).[1]
Contents |
Controversial actions
Terminator technology
Monsanto has patented Genetic Use Restriction Technology, branded "terminator technology" by environmental groups. This exists in two flavors: the first one, which received a lion's share of publicity, is called "variety GURT" or V-GURT; it is a process which makes the second generation seed of GM crops sterile. This means that GM traits cannot spread in the environment and has a few other potential benefits, such as preventing sprouting in warm and wet conditions, but also that seed from the harvest cannot be saved for the next year.[2] It would also represent a method of enforcing the legal agreement signed by all customers of Monsanto's GM seeds, which states that farmers are not allowed to save seed. The second flavor is called "trait GURT" or T-GURT. It involves inhibiting the genetically engineered traits in a plant unless an activator compound is applied. This would mean that farmers can save seed, but to benefit from GM traits, they must spray their fields each year with the activator bought from the seed company.[3] Effectively, GURT is a form of "plant DRM".
If introduced, the issues posed by these GM seeds would not be new. Plants grown from traditional hybrid seed, used since the 1920s, do not produce true copies in the second generation and have to be bought from seed growers each year; otherwise there is a sharp reduction in yield.[4]
In the end, due to public backlash, neither variant of the terminator technology was commercialized.[5]
Aggressive enforcement of patents
Monsanto is eager to assert the patents on its crops. Farmers who collect and save seeds to use for the following year's crop have been sued.[6] Monsanto usually wins those cases, because before being supplied with seed, the farmer has to sign a contract that explicitly forbids saving seed.[7][8]
Another example is the suing of farmers who grew non-GM canola near GM fields, then selected for the GM traits, thereby acquiring GM seed without paying for a patent license. The best known instance of this is the case of Percy Schmeiser.[9] Anti-GMO activists often claim that Monsanto sues even in cases of accidental cross-pollination, but a lawsuit regarding this issue was dismissed when the activists were unable to provide evidence of this ever happening.[10]
Waste dumping
The company has also been involved in environmental damage in Anniston, Alabama. A Monsanto factory dumped mercury and polychlorinated biphenyl waste into local creeks for over forty years, including areas used in the local water supply. The company has also buried waste in the surrounding area. In 2003, Monsanto paid $700 million to settle claims by Anniston residents of contamination.
In a similar case, Monsanto was found to be have been illegally dumping toxic waste in UK landfill sites between 1965 and 1972, causing widespread pollution of the groundwater and atmosphere.
Agent Orange
During the Vietnam War, Monsanto was the manufacturer of Agent Orange, a chemical formulation sprayed over a large area of Vietnam to destroy crops and defoliate forests. This was intended to deprive the guerrilla fighters of food and cover. Agent Orange consisted of a mixture of two compounds: 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T. The first of these, 2,4-D, is a reasonably safe, nontoxic and non-persistent herbicide which is still in use worldwide. 2,4,5-T has properties similar to 2,4-D, but its manufacturing process unavoidably contaminates the product with trace amounts of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD), an extremely potent and persistent carcinogen. This resulted in widespread illness, cancers, birth defects and stillbirths in the affected areas of Vietnam.
Anti-GMO activists like to draw attention to Agent Orange as a proof that Monsanto is evil and should never be trusted.[11] However, during the Vietnam War 2,4,5-T was in fact approved for use in the U.S., since the dioxin contamination issue was not yet known. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was created in December 1970, over half a year after the use of Agent Orange ended, and halted the domestic use of 2,4,5-T in 1979, four years after the end of the Vietnam War.[12] The case of Agent Orange demonstrates the need for thorough toxicological assessments of agricultural chemicals before approving them for use, something which was not done back when 2,4,5-T was introduced.
Appeal to Monsanto
For many anti-GMO activists, Monsanto assumes the role of Satan in Christianity; a faceless evil corporation that is responsible for all harms supposedly caused by GM crops. The belief in the malevolent meddling of the company in all areas of science and politics is so strong that it is used as an escape hatch — a variation on the shill gambit called an "appeal to Monsanto," or "argumentum ad Monsantium".[13] Any information that challenges the views held by anti-GMO activists can be disregarded by claiming that the source was bribed by the corporation.[14] For example, when Mark Lynas changed his stance on GMOs, the Organic Consumers Association immediately accused him of taking kickbacks from biotech companies -- listing Monsanto first.
There is a mountain of evidence that GM seeds, Monsanto's primary product, aren't any more harmful to animal health than traditional seeds.[15] When faced with this fact, many anti-GMO campaigners will claim that they are not protesting against the GM food itself, but against the "business practices" of Monsanto.
Ironically, it seems that Monsanto gained a near monopoly position in the GM seed market because of onerous regulation of GM crops, which effectively prevents any publicly funded research project or a small startup from successfully navigating a product through the bureaucracy.[16] These regulations were mainly brought about in response to public concern manufactured by anti-GMO groups. Monsanto is therefore a nemesis of their own making.
It's worth noting that although Monsanto is typically portrayed as the super-wealthy bad guy bossing around helpless organic farmers, in dollar terms the organic food industry is much bigger than the GM seed industry by a factor of five. Monsanto's total revenue in 2011 was slightly less than $12 billion,[17] of which $8.6 billion was from the Seeds and Genomics division[18] and worldwide GM seed sales in the same year were $13.3 billion,[1] while worldwide organic food sales in 2010 were slightly less than $60 billion[19] On the other hand, the GM seed industry is more centralized, with only a few large companies participating in the market, while the organic food industry includes many small producers.
Appeal to Reason
It is worth noting that any appeal to reason to a supporter of Monsanto will be met with outrage, this is similar to the appeal to reason with religious people, because the religious people know in their gut that what they believe is right, it must be right. This holds for supporters of Monsanto as well. As such, there can be no appeal to fact, there can only be appeal to belief. Such as fluoride in the water, if someone believes there is fluoride in the water that is harmful, then he will only not believe it if someone else believes there is isn't, facts will do no good here.
Footnotes
- ↑ http://www.fbae.org/2009/FBAE/website/our-position-gene-use-restriction-technologies.html
- ↑ Nature World Conference on Science: Compromise sought on 'Terminator' seed technology
- ↑ Hybrid varieties and saving seed
- ↑ The Guardian: World braced for terminator 2
- ↑ http://www.memphisdailynews.com/editorial/Article.aspx?id=30496
- ↑ CAFC opinion - Monsanto Company v. Kem L. Ralph
- ↑ GMO Journal: Monsanto's Ironclad Contract - In Fear of The Dotted Line
- ↑ Federal Court (Canada) decision - Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser
- ↑ OSGATA v. Monsanto
- ↑ globalresearch.ca: From Agent Orange to Pesticides and Genetically Engineered Crops. Why Not to Trust Monsanto
- ↑ http://www.sciencemag.org/content/203/4385/1090.extract
- ↑ Brian Dunning: Argumentum ad Monsantium
- ↑ Ilumination: Thoughts from a "Shill for Monsanto"
- ↑ A. E. Ricroch et al.: Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: A literature review. Food and Chemical Toxicology 2012, 50(3-4), 1134-1148
- ↑ Ingo Potrykus: Lessons from the "Humanitarian Golden Rice" project
- ↑ Monsanto Co. (MON) - Analysis of Revenues
- ↑ Monsanto's K-10 report for 2011
- ↑ Bloomberg: Organic-Product Sales Rise 9.2% to $59.1 Billion, Group Says