Disclosures like this should go at the top of the article, right under the byline. Couldn't reason.com have found a correspondent who didn't own Monsanto stock or benefit from Bayer's purchase of...
Disclosure: The 100 shares of Monsanto that I bought with my own money have now been sold to Bayer.
Disclosures like this should go at the top of the article, right under the byline.
Couldn't reason.com have found a correspondent who didn't own Monsanto stock or benefit from Bayer's purchase of the corporation to write this?
The article is essentially seeking a retrial in the forum of public opinion. What struck me as odd is the swift assertion of what governmental agencies have or not found. I recall reading that...
The article is essentially seeking a retrial in the forum of public opinion. What struck me as odd is the swift assertion of what governmental agencies have or not found. I recall reading that Monsanto's own documents was what hung them.
Having witnessed how government will specifically exclude evidence it has in its possession to shed light on a controversial issue, I no longer take much stock in assertions that the government has not found on this or that. Look how long it took for cigarettes to become regulated by the government: 50 years? And this just recently reported by Bloomberg:
DuPont Co. and its spinoff Chemours Co. were sued by Ohio for dumping a chemical used in Teflon, an action the state said went on for 60 years even though the company knew it was toxic to humans.
What a corporation knows and what the government knows can be decades apart. What a jury knows after a trial is something I'm inclined to respect.
I also think it is highly likely that spin-doctors have been hired to try to sway public opinion in favor of Monsanto. So jury vs. "read it on the Internet"? I'll go with a jury's finding.
A good place to start research on how an environmental lawyer became DuPont's worst nightmare (paraphrasing a New York Times headline), see...
A good place to start research on how an environmental lawyer became DuPont's worst nightmare (paraphrasing a New York Times headline), see https://www.rightlivelihoodaward.org/laureates/robert-bilott/ It is a compelling story that still is unfolding today.
This is what frustrates me about some folks supporting organic/sustainable/"natural" food systems. Instead of assuming anything synthetic is bad and anything organic is good, we have to do careful...
This is what frustrates me about some folks supporting organic/sustainable/"natural" food systems. Instead of assuming anything synthetic is bad and anything organic is good, we have to do careful research and weigh the the benefits of scientific advancements and "un-natural" growing methods against their harms, just as we have to carefully consider the benefits and legitimitacy of various organic, natural, or sustainable labels. I don't think that most of our current conventional food system is sustainable, but it certainly has effective elements.
289 million dollars doesn't seem like enough. Monsanto is perhaps one of the shadiest companies out there. What they've been doing to the farming community is morally reprehensible.
289 million dollars doesn't seem like enough. Monsanto is perhaps one of the shadiest companies out there. What they've been doing to the farming community is morally reprehensible.
The biggest issue I have with them is that they essentially have copyright over their seed. So if a neighboring farm plants something, and the seeds end up getting carried over by wind, animal,...
The biggest issue I have with them is that they essentially have copyright over their seed. So if a neighboring farm plants something, and the seeds end up getting carried over by wind, animal, etc. to your farm, they can (and have successfully done so many times) sue you for using their product without purchasing it from them.
That's a pretty long article, but unfortunately seems to stick to the same false arguments I've heard before. They even lead with Percy Schmeiser who is the textbook case of misrepresenting...
That's a pretty long article, but unfortunately seems to stick to the same false arguments I've heard before. They even lead with Percy Schmeiser who is the textbook case of misrepresenting Monsanto. The article acts like he's some innocent farmer when in actuality he intentionally selected for, stored, and then planted roundup ready crops he didn't have a license for. So while Monsanto did sue him it was because he intentionally stole their seed. Nearly every case dealing with this myth that Monsanto sues people for accidental contamination turns out the same way. Which is disappointing, because again Monsanto is potentially doing some seriously bad stuff somewhere.
Honestly I just googled it. I was aware that at least one of these cases (probably the Schmeiser case) was misrepresented in the media, but was unaware that all of them were. Perhaps I need to do...
Honestly I just googled it. I was aware that at least one of these cases (probably the Schmeiser case) was misrepresented in the media, but was unaware that all of them were. Perhaps I need to do some more research.
It does seem pretty odd. Although it's not as bad as it appears. Most farmers can grow their own seeds but choose to buy and grow a specific lisenced variety every year. Because it's more...
It does seem pretty odd. Although it's not as bad as it appears. Most farmers can grow their own seeds but choose to buy and grow a specific lisenced variety every year. Because it's more convinent and those varieties have properties that the company or group spent time to cultivate or engineer. A common example is apples, a lot of apples like honey crisp are lisenced varieties which seems reasonable considering it can take a decade to get a nice new apple.
If I understand correctly, he doesn't own Monsanto stocks anymore, so I don't see the point.
Perhaps they were converted to Bayer Stock or cashed in for profit once the buyout became public.
Monsanto was in the S&P 500 before it was bought, it might actually be difficult to find a writer who never owned a piece of it.
The article is essentially seeking a retrial in the forum of public opinion. What struck me as odd is the swift assertion of what governmental agencies have or not found. I recall reading that Monsanto's own documents was what hung them.
Having witnessed how government will specifically exclude evidence it has in its possession to shed light on a controversial issue, I no longer take much stock in assertions that the government has not found on this or that. Look how long it took for cigarettes to become regulated by the government: 50 years? And this just recently reported by Bloomberg:
What a corporation knows and what the government knows can be decades apart. What a jury knows after a trial is something I'm inclined to respect.
I also think it is highly likely that spin-doctors have been hired to try to sway public opinion in favor of Monsanto. So jury vs. "read it on the Internet"? I'll go with a jury's finding.
A good place to start research on how an environmental lawyer became DuPont's worst nightmare (paraphrasing a New York Times headline), see https://www.rightlivelihoodaward.org/laureates/robert-bilott/ It is a compelling story that still is unfolding today.
This is what frustrates me about some folks supporting organic/sustainable/"natural" food systems. Instead of assuming anything synthetic is bad and anything organic is good, we have to do careful research and weigh the the benefits of scientific advancements and "un-natural" growing methods against their harms, just as we have to carefully consider the benefits and legitimitacy of various organic, natural, or sustainable labels. I don't think that most of our current conventional food system is sustainable, but it certainly has effective elements.
I can't tell if this is a Monsanto shill, or someone who doesn't like the California legal requirements for civil settlements...
289 million dollars doesn't seem like enough. Monsanto is perhaps one of the shadiest companies out there. What they've been doing to the farming community is morally reprehensible.
You're right, but I can certainly turn a blind eye when we're not getting justice elsewhere
What have they done that's actually bad? I don't doubt they've done shady stuff. But everything I have heard about them turned out to be false.
The biggest issue I have with them is that they essentially have copyright over their seed. So if a neighboring farm plants something, and the seeds end up getting carried over by wind, animal, etc. to your farm, they can (and have successfully done so many times) sue you for using their product without purchasing it from them.
Here's an example of this happening.
That's a pretty long article, but unfortunately seems to stick to the same false arguments I've heard before. They even lead with Percy Schmeiser who is the textbook case of misrepresenting Monsanto. The article acts like he's some innocent farmer when in actuality he intentionally selected for, stored, and then planted roundup ready crops he didn't have a license for. So while Monsanto did sue him it was because he intentionally stole their seed. Nearly every case dealing with this myth that Monsanto sues people for accidental contamination turns out the same way. Which is disappointing, because again Monsanto is potentially doing some seriously bad stuff somewhere.
Honestly I just googled it. I was aware that at least one of these cases (probably the Schmeiser case) was misrepresented in the media, but was unaware that all of them were. Perhaps I need to do some more research.
Simultaneously though "seed licensing" is a pretty absurd practice. I would have nullified that jury had I been on it.
It does seem pretty odd. Although it's not as bad as it appears. Most farmers can grow their own seeds but choose to buy and grow a specific lisenced variety every year. Because it's more convinent and those varieties have properties that the company or group spent time to cultivate or engineer. A common example is apples, a lot of apples like honey crisp are lisenced varieties which seems reasonable considering it can take a decade to get a nice new apple.