Talk:Monsanto

Bias2
So the article mentions some important criticism about Monsanto without attacking GMOs. That's good. But this here: "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." is a really biased view of the real word. In fact, while the general argument might be right, it is unmentioned that Monsanto is actually proven to be heavily involved in politics, be it direct lobbying, public campaigns or revolving door stuff. even more, the US department of foreign affairs is involved in lobbying for Monsanto in other countries (e.g. Spain). there are lot's of sources about all of this out there, even from prestigous newspapers like the new york times, so if you are serious about this article you might want to include this.

Work needed on "Aggressive enforcement of patents" section
It reads kind of like something one would find on an anti-GE site in the first half. It envokes the "farmers save seeds" trope (which is generally untrue because of things like Heterosis making constant seed buying preferable) and cites an editorial in a rather obscure newspaper and obscures that Monsanto prefers to settle things out of court with as little drama as possible (PDF).

In regards to the cited editorial, looking up Kem Ralph, the farmer, in other places does not turn up much in the way of reliable sources. Second result for "tennessee farmer "kem ralph"" is at rense.com, followed by a host of anti-GE websites that latched onto it, so I am highly suspicious of its inclusion here. This website lists the findings of their Court of Appeals case. It's also interesting that the fact that they signed a contract with Monsanto is glossed over, here.

Finally, this claim:


 * Monsanto is eager to assert the patents on its crops, and is a major force lobbying for stronger enforcement of plant breeders' rights.

Has no sourcing to verify its claims. Sure, it kinda makes sense, but an objective view into how they do this would be fantastic.

--Mackinz (talk) 04:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Many thanks to The Ultimate Warrior for his fantastic elaboration. Building on that, I have removed a reference link to a somewhat obscure anti-GMO website that cites fringe group ENSSER's claim that there is no scientific consensus on GMOs in another article. In that same article, it also refers to EarthOpenSource, another fringe group, seemingly best known for its anti-GE gish gallop that cites, among others, Séralini and Ermakova. Link to article.


 * If you disagree with my removal of this source, please reply here. -Mackinz (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Monsanto vs organic farmers revenue comparison
This comparison is relevant. It is intended to disprove the conspiracy theory that Monsanto bribes almost every biochemist in the world to hide the harm of GMOs by showing that they in fact have less money to do this than the "helpless" organic industry. --Tweenk (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. The $60 figure is worldwide sales of organic products (including meat, vegetables, fruit, dairy, etc.) to consumers.  Comparing this figure to Monsanto's sales of seeds to farmers really doesn't tell us anything meaningful at all, since it's comparing sales at one end of the supply chain with consumer sales at the other, but you're presenting it as if shows that the organic food industry is bigger than GM food industry.  This is just the kind of obfuscation & deception you're attributing to other side of the debate & supposed to be refuting.  If you've got figures for consumer products that contain GMO, you could compare this to the sales of organic products.  Or if you have figures for sales of GM seeds versus organic seeds, you could compare the two.  But don't compare seed market sales of one to consumer market sales as if they're the sale thing.  & I've no idea where you're getting the bribery thing from or why any of these numbers would prove or disprove it.  21:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Waste dumping
Could we get some sources for the waste dumping section? 69.254.215.168 (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Biotechnology?
Aren't they a chemical corp? Wikipedia says so. --Theoneandonlyduncan (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Their two main products are seeds (both GM and conventional) and argicultural chemicals, and some of the chemicals are tied to their GM seed offerings, so in fact the best characterization would be that they are an agricultural company. --Tweenk (talk) 07:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The old Monsanto Chemical Co. and its chemical divisions (the one associated with Agent Orange and such) were spun off as Solutia, Inc. The Monsanto of today is almost entirely biotechnology, its few chemical products include things like Glyphosate. Companies like Bayer are the major chemical providers for modern agriculture. C6541 (T↔C)  20:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Now do you consider Monsanto all in all good or bad?
The article mentions pros and cons, and comes along as pretty mishmash. Which has more weight, the pro or the con?--Max Sinister (talk) 09:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)