Trying to avoid Monsanto?

[seedcorn]

Both of these FOREIGN companies (Monsanto is American), also have Protected GMO's in corn/soybeans. Syngenta has Gt3000 plus the use Monsanto's RR gene w/out paying for it, Dupont is working on GAT and use herculex on corn.

True, I don't like either of them. Used to live near a DuPont polymers plant, and they are not a nice company, for sure--they polluted like you wouldn't believe, in residential neighborhoods full of families. They kept the Cleveland Clinic busy with respiratory diseases. But "everybody else is using similar tech" doesn't address the issue of having 90% of the seed market dominated by only one company actually that would be Dupont as Monsanto has about 25% whereas Dupont WAS over 50%, which is really the point of the antitrust suit. Yes, breaking up Monsanto will simply mean a variety of GMO companies what it would mean is Monsanto would be broke into 3 divisions of seed, traits, and chem, as would Syngenta, Dow, Dupont, not stopping anything just the stock holders would have 3 stocks instead of 1, truly just semantics, no real change instead of just one big one, but one might hope that some competition will act as a check on their abuse of farmers trying to avoid their products: with a smaller market share and a plethora of products, they cannot argue that any cross-pollination of crops is solely due to thievery of their product.

Don't know how you are concluding that this would affect farmers' markets, though? Can you explain more? I mean, breaking up Ma Bell didn't hurt the small phone companies one bit, and breaking up IG Farben into Bayer/BASF/Hoescht/Agfa didn't affect Boehringer or Schering, and the Standard Oil breakup sure didn't hurt Petrobras or Gazprom. You could argue that increased competition in this sense will not really assist the consumer as is typically promised in the form of cheaper products (my phone bill is certainly way more than it was in the old Ma Bell days, how bout yours?), but the idea is more to create a stable facet of the economy that does not depend so heavily on a "too big to fail" company. Dunno about you, but the last people I want to hear whining to Congresscritters about how their laundry list of crummy decisions somehow entitles them to my tax money or else they will hold the unemployment rate AND the food supply hostage, would be the Monsanto executives.

There is just a disagreement on what is safe.

This I take issue with. Whether the food is safe to eat is an oversimplification of the safety issue. I know perfectly well that it is as safe to eat Bt-transgenic food as it would be to eat any food grown in similar conditions. What is NOT safe is letting a wind- or insect-pollinated transgenic crop contaminate the neighboring crops. So for those that chose to grow GMO crops can they expect the same example that those growing non-GMO corn will not contaminate their fields? Not going to happen. What is not safe is dumping massive amounts of Roundup Again w/other chemicals they use gallons of herbicides that have 3-6 month half life, w/glysophate they use 1QT/acre, Monsanto's version you use a pint rest is water...it's actually the opposite of what you believe. Glysophates get tied up by the soil microbes so it has no effective half life into the groundwater, as is done for Roundup-ready crops. What is not safe is using massive quantities of any type of -cide (pesticide, fungicide, herbicide, etc.), to the point that 'cide resistance becomes endemic for EVERY farmer, not just the ones that choose to use those things. Yet Monsanto et al. frame the notion of "safety" as "safe to eat" rather than safe to farm, safe for the community, safe for ecology, safe for the food supply security.

It does not cost me half my salary to raise my own food. If anything, I am saving quite a bit of money: my grocery bills haven't increased, while those of friends who rely on Stop & Shop have. Yes, it costs time, but less time than most folks spend watching teevee.

Also, be careful not to conflate energy issues with food security issues. It is one and the same issue, except we chose to ignore some issues because we desire certain things. Think you are lumping many things together which are not really the point: oil dependence (you mean monopolies/ethics? as oil companies raise prices, kill economy whenever they want to?) is very much a separate issue from market monopolies and corporate ethics.

Believe me, working for Big Pharma, I know there are great, brilliant people (me! ) who work in companies that do bad, bad things, who want to do something good and realistically cannot do similar work for a more ethical organization. REALLY? That doesn't make the crummy lack of ethics go away, though. Better to acknowledge that sometimes, the Marketing and Finance departments really screw up, and do the best you can for your own division.

You break up due to monopoly laws, that would stop all farm markets as they are a monopoly from farm to market. Ag is the ONLY industry where you can own the raw material, manufacturing section and the SALES part....that would be outlawed as well. Unless they put a size disclaimer due to $$$. Altho I'm sure the companies being broke up will sue based on unfair practices.

While the concept of Ma and Pa Kettle on the farm struggling (simple life is what Therau called it) is appealing to those NOT in Ag, we'll go back when other industries do the SAME.

The consumer controls it, want your food raised a certain way....no problem, why I garden plus enjoy it. When we do raise it the way you want it, expect to pay a lot for your food as efficiences will go way down. There will be shortages as insects, weeds, lesser genetics, diseases will sometimes decimate the crop.

I don't work for a large chem company but you need to understand what Ag is dealing with so people can talk intelligently and not spout some city person's view point that has never spent a single year in Ag. Never had to make a living, pay bills, be responsible for family. Apologize for rant........

 

[Lavender2]

Seedcorn... I consider none of this rant...
Personally, I think everyone's input, whether it be opinion, eye- opening facts, or insight to make one think.

I do find it easier to follow a discussion when quotes are clear ... not too crazy about inserting comments so as to not show the author of the comments. Not that it matters so much who says what, just harder to follow a very complex topic... maybe it's just me ...
... and some may not be crazy to have a co-author ...

 

[seedcorn]

Seedcorn... I consider none of this rant...
Personally, I think everyone's input, whether it be opinion, eye- opening facts, or insight to make one think.

I do find it easier to follow a discussion when quotes are clear ... not too crazy about inserting comments so as to not show the author of the comments. Not that it matters so much who says what, just harder to follow a very complex topic... maybe it's just me ...
... and some may not be crazy to have a co-author ...

thanks, I'll try to clean it up so it's easier to follow. I do appreciate the clear expression of ideas even if we don't agree yet.......

 

[seedcorn]

1) If you break up the companies instead of 1 company w/genetics, traits, chem......the owners (stock holders) will be broke up into 3 companies (trait, genetics, chem) with the same owners, employees, etc.....it's just semantics, no real change.

2) The beauty of glysophates and RW, Bt techonology is that they DON'T use massive amounts of chemicals with 4+ month half life. glysophates are used at 1qt/acre whereas Monsanto's version uses 1.25 PINT/acre.

3) While Monsanto gets the heat, Dow, Syngenta, Dupont are equally guilty. In fact all 3 are larger than Monsanto. Why does everyone single out Monsanto? Syngenta/Dupont have spent a huge amount of $$ to negative ad against Monsanto as they broke up the "good ol' boy" ag.

4) too many people take info from people outside of the industry as gospel w/out checking out the facts. Ag is EXTREMELY regulated to keep America's food safe so it isn't trial and error. Ag hates the regs but have to deal w/it. Want to know the "real story" work for Ag a few years instead of listening to someone who went out to create a story.

5) NONE of the chem companies have gotten or will get ANY gov. $$$$ or subsidy that's the other industries. In fact Ag pays for schools/extra school programs even tho the average farmer has NO kids in those schools. We have NO say so on how our $$ is spent as well. Talk about taxation w/out representation.......where is the tea so we can revolt??????

 

[Rosalind]

that would stop all farm markets as they are a monopoly from farm to market.

Um, I'm not sure how to answer this except to suggest you do some research on antitrust laws in the US. I think the word "monopoly" does not mean what you think it means. Farmers' markets are made up of multiple suppliers, not single suppliers, similar to a shopping mall that has storefronts for multiple clothing stores; since those clothing stores are not all owned by the same parent company, and since the mall does not own the store but merely leases the space, they are effectively competing with each other and therefore not a monopoly in the eyes of the law.

Non-GMO corn can be sold to markets all over the world. The market for GMO corn is fairly limited, and often saturated, receiving lower prices per yield. As in the example of many farmers sued by Monsanto, crops which could have feasibly been sold for premium prices anywhere in the world were contaminated and the market price for them was accordingly reduced. Contaminating a premium product with an inferior product is called "adulteration," and it's not legal or ethical when we do it to any other food product, regardless of any scientific equivalency--you can't label hotdogs "kosher" if they are made of non-kosher beef, even though there is no nutritional difference between kosher and non-kosher. Explain why it would be perfectly OK in this instance?

Ag is the ONLY industry where you can own the raw material, manufacturing section and the SALES part.

See also: Biotech pharma & energy, various lumber and paper companies, bottled water production, aluminum mining and manufacturing, rock quarries, oil producers mentioned in previous post. There are probably more, but those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head. Vertical integration is not the issue here, the issue is market share.

we'll go back when other industries do the SAME

If all your friends jumped off a cliff... So what would be the threshold for Big Ag to join the rest of us? How big would the other industries have to be, and how many of them would have to do that? Because as it stands there are an awful lot of industries which do not, for example, sue their customer base, bribe government officials, or create Superfund sites willy-nilly. Yet their mere (profitable) existence seems to do little to improve Monsanto's governance. I wonder why?

 

[seedcorn]

The market for GMO corn is fairly limited, and often saturated, receiving lower prices per yield.

Actually no as it's not limited at all once approval is given which all traits being used are. If you are stating that non-GMO brings more per bushel, it might IF you have a "market" that pays for it. If not, it costs you in lower yields w/no price increase. Prime example in NE IN there was a premium paid for non-GMO soybeans, lower yields, premium dried up, farmers lost $$$$.

Contaminating a premium product with an inferior product is called "adulteration,"

OK? Ag does that? There is NO test done in the scientific community to show GMO corn analysis any different than non-GMO corn..same w/soybeans.

So what would be the threshold for Big Ag to join the rest of us?

thanks for admitting that Ag has to live by different standards that the rest of America is not forced to live by. It's OK to pollute in (pick an industry) but in Ag where we LIVE on the ground that those in cities accuse us of polluting, it's not...think we'd live where we polluted? Ag is the MOST environmentally friendly industry in the USA.

lot of industries which do not, for example, sue their customer base, bribe government officials, or create Superfund sites willy-nilly.

name ONE. So I can have your chemicals analysed, pay someone to make the same thing and sell it for about 1/100 what pharm companies do and not have them sue me......now that's funny!!!!!!!!!!!!! Your industry doesn't bribe gov. officials......car companies don't??? pharm companies don't release chemical w/out extensive testing or now knowing EVERY side effect? Now I'm all for pharm companies as I wouldn't be alive but for their research but use the same standards for both industries.

the issue is market share

You have no idea how my skin crawls to defend Monsanto but Monsanto shares their research w/anyone who will pay for it. Dupont won't but yet w/40% of the market share, not a single person has said a negative word about them. Posters are screaming about the rhino's running in living room but say nothing about the elephant defacating in their house........

 

[Rosalind]

There is NO test done in the scientific community to show GMO corn analysis any different than non-GMO corn..same w/soybeans.

I'll repeat:

regardless of any scientific equivalency--you can't label hotdogs "kosher" if they are made of non-kosher beef, even though there is no nutritional difference between kosher and non-kosher. Explain why it would be perfectly OK in this instance?

It's OK to pollute in (pick an industry) but in Ag where we LIVE on the ground that those in cities accuse us of polluting, it's not...think we'd live where we polluted?

It's not OK to pollute in ANY industry. And yes, people do live where they pollute. I've heard this argument many, many times. It does not take a PhD from Google U. to find about a million examples of people living in their own garbage and seeing nothing wrong with it--I do believe there's even a cable TV program about such folks, nowadays.

name ONE.

You asked. Do you really want an answer? Very few companies in this world have actually been tried and convicted of bribery, but Monsanto is one of those few. All the seed companies mentioned earlier do not have enough money to employ lobbyists at all, much less to give out international bribes.

So I can have your chemicals analysed, pay someone to make the same thing and sell it for about 1/100 what pharm companies do and not have them sue me.

Depending on the market share, the size of the company, the PR effects, no, they might not. They have declined to pursue IP infringement in the past when it was deemed to be too small a market to matter, and when the cost of litigation vs. the likelihood of success was considered infeasible. This is why, as I mentioned previously, they simply don't do business in countries where their IP is going to be difficult to defend. A recent strategy has been to put patented material into generic production early, or licensing in partnership with established developing-country generic manufacturers where IP protection is at risk, to pre-empt infringement from other generics manufacturers in the same region.

Your industry doesn't bribe gov. officials......car companies don't??? pharm companies don't release chemical w/out extensive testing or now knowing EVERY side effect? Now I'm all for pharm companies as I wouldn't be alive but for their research but use the same standards for both industries.

Oh, I agree fully that many of my co-workers are unethical jerk-faces who should be hung from the most convenient tree for their crimes. However, I am neither their boss nor on the jury, so realistically, what do you expect me to do about it? I do my best to ensure that we do not use contract research organizations, which have been a big problem in the past in both our industries, if that makes you feel any better. But I am not going to make excuses for corporate malfeasance and pretend that it's mandatory for the industry to function, 'cause it ain't.

Dupont won't but yet w/40% of the market share, not a single person has said a negative word about them.

Oh, hey, you want to hear bad things about DuPont? I used to live one town over from one of their polymer plants. Quite apart from the fact that they had to pay all the neighboring residential areas for new paint annually because their solvent emissions wrecked everyone's siding, they kept the Cleveland Clinic's Respiratory diseases section hopping with asthmatic kids who breathed their emissions. My grandparents and uncle lost all but ten acres of a 600+ acre hemp farm because DuPont decided that hemp would interfere with their Nylon marketing scheme. I have no great love for DuPont.

 

[seedcorn]

I'll repeat:

Kosher is a designation that the Jewish community wants. That's why they put that term on their hot dogs. Not all hot dogs are the same in terms of ingredients, quality, priest blessings, etc. So you want industry to label food as to who blesses it and who doesn't--done. Again, non-GMO foods are labeled as such (& command a much higher price).....so don't understand your complaint. Don't want GMO, buy products that say they don't use them, pay the bill. Just like we do for drugs, better cars, etc..

Depending on the market share, the size of the company, the PR effects, no, they might not.

sounds like Monsanto and every other industry/company that relies upon research. You know as well as everyone, they would sue in a heart beat if anyone even thought of using their research w/out paying. Let's not get silly. For every person sued using Monsanto tech, there are about 10,000 not getting sued that are bin running small amounts... it goes on all the time. Most if not all, aren't sued if they don't do it again.

All the seed companies mentioned earlier do not have enough money to employ lobbyists at all, much less to give out international bribes.

Dow, Syngenta, Dupont are all larger w/more $$ than Monsanto. They will all sue you in a heart beat if you steal their technology. count on it. Do you know Monsanto was all but broke but gambled on traits and won. Now the others are envious and are paying for a huge negative ad campaign through well intentioned places like this.

you want to hear bad things about DuPont?

no, because I know first hand. Find it interesting all the furor over one company when they are less of a problem than companies everyone is giving a pass to. Again, sweating the ants when elephants are running loose.

 

[warmfuzzies]

Wow, this is very interesting. All I have to say, is the majority of people in this argument, (generally speaking, not just this argument on here. ) have never and will never perticipate in the ag work they are so critical of. Just like the big deal about how horribly animals are treated in factory farms. (I am not saying they aren't, I am just saying I have never seen one anything like the movies. ANYTHING)

Those who have never been there feel like they have the biggest room to talk. And reading about something or watching a movie does NOT mean you know about it. At all.

Maybe instead of arguing with the people who have 'been there, done that' we should LEARN from them. Since, after all, you really are only going on third hand information unless you have been farming yourself.

 

[warmfuzzies]

As a side note, I am guessing, from "seedcorn"s name and location, that they are one of the few who are actually speaking from first hand experience, not from a movie.