Monsanto and PCBs 580
blamanj writes: "While
this story isn't about the gadgetry that typically appeals to /.ers, it's worth a look. The Washington Post has acquired documents showing how a
Monsanto Corp. PCB plant polluted a small town in Alabama with full knowledge of what it was doing. Their own tests showed that when fish were placed into a local stream, "Their skin would literally slough off." They showed no concern for the residents, only about potential expensive regulations or bad publicity. Why is this relevant? Well, Monsanto is currently one of biggest proponents of GM (genetically modified) foods." Very thorough investigative article about how a corporation reacts when a profitable business line is threatened, or a cautionary tale about wonder technologies, take your pick.
Large biotech firms (Score:4, Informative)
I love the smell of greed in the morning. It reminds me what a miserable bunch of animals humanity really is...
Re:Large biotech firms (Score:5, Informative)
What he did was illegal, but I don't blame him. Farming is hard business these days, especially when only certain crops get subsidies and the seed and fertiziler companies are out to suck the farmer's wallet dry.
Re:Relevant? (Score:5, Informative)
I've seen this argument posted a couple times to the thread. I'm going to play pedant boy for a minute here.
Yes, there is a Monsanto. Under U.S. law, Monsanto is a legal entity. It even has legal status as a person. Now, while the actions of Monsanto may be directed and carried out by thousands of individuals, ultimately, those actions are carried out under the 'Monsanto' corporate personhood.
Now, either the corporation takes a huge legal hit due to the corporation's past actions - halt of operations, massive compensation, et al - or the individuals directly responsible for the decisions must stand to account for the actions of Monsanto. A person - which a corporation legally is in American - may do great work in the community, may support a family, but if that person commits voluntary manslaughter, that person is going to have rights revoked and operations halted for a while, and the people who relied on the convict will have to find other ways to get along. Harsh as hell, but if corporations get to be people, they get to be subject to the same punishments as people.
Either way, someone has to take responsibility for this mess, be that someone a person, or the corporation.
Monsanto also dumped 40-50 tons of mercury (Score:2, Informative)
Not only does Monsanto have no respect for the environment, they are also dishonest:
And it's not like activists haven't been fighting Monsanto. Early as 1967, Dr. Denzel Fergusen reported Monsanto's mercury discharges where killing nearby fish. The same article links to a 404 at Annistonstar (a newspaper for one of the highly affected areas), but a quick search reveals several relevent articles:
At least Monsanto is doing something about their situation. Paul and Joyce Guldin [annistonstar.com], residents whose backyard includes Choccolocco Creek, received a $999.33 settlement check from Monsanto. Hopefully, many more checks are to come.
Re:Large biotech firms (Score:2, Informative)
Wow.... (Score:4, Informative)
1. 'The (Mosanto) committee even drew up graphs charting profits vs. liability over time.'
2."It is our desire to comply with the necessary regulations, but to comply with the minimum,"
3. "Please let me know if there is anything I can do . . . so that we may make sure our Aroclor business is not affected by this evil publicity," (hazard warnings)
4. "It only seems a matter of time before the regulatory agencies will be looking down our throats,"
5. '...the memo did not go so far as to propose a cleanup -- "only action preparatory to actual cleanup."'
To raise a little dissent, I have to say that I really despise the way this story is put out, apparently without any copy of the 'confidential' documents. It seems like a routine thing with most stories of this nature. God forbid they put up a
Re:Ahh! Monsanto! Makers of Aspertame/Nutrisweet (Score:3, Informative)
Do yourself a favor and spend twenty minutes with Google over this.
Or you can ignore all the ravings of web lunatics, and read this page [snopes.com] which gives some useful information and links about this crapola.
Re:Large biotech firms (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Large biotech firms (Score:5, Informative)
2) It wasn't soy, it was canola
3) The "patented" Monsanto canola was *not* sterile, and in fact propagated quite readily, which means that:
seeds spilling from Monsanto harvest would *grow* quite well wherever they sprouted, regardless if they'd been paid for or not. The trucks would bounce down the road with a bed full of canola and canola would go everywhere. Wind can pick up canola and spread it (and then spread itself). Birds, animals, etc could also carry it around. The facts are, the man had been a canola farmer for decades. DECADES. He'd also developed his own seed stock. His field, by his hand or by accident, became contaminated with Monsanto's version of canola (but not the whole field!) There was no judgement regarding whether or not it was intentional or not, but the courts forced said farmer to destroy his ENTIRE crop, his entire SEEDBANK, and his LIVLIHOOD because Monsanto has the legal backup to have it done. They did not have to prove he intentionally planted Monsanto seeds, which were VIABLE and are like every other fucking plant and spread. He even proved that after he burned his fields that Monsanto plants came back up! They reproduced and spread! How can this be legal? Should they salt his fields, too? No, Monsanto wants him to pay like everyone else and because the onus of proof is upon him to prove otherwise, he's a thief.
God bless the Corporation!
Re:Monsanto akin to evil corporations from the mov (Score:4, Informative)
In general, all hybrid seeds are "infertile", in that the seeds of the plants grown from them do not have the desirable properties of the hybrid. This is a fact about hybridisation. Of course, if you produce new kinds of seed through genetic modification rather than hybridisation, then the resulting seed will not be a hybrid and will "breed true". By putting the terminator gene into their roundup ready seeds Monstanto were actually restoring the status quo ante rather than unleashing some new horror on the world.
Second, farmers
Finally, your assertion that "sterile seeds could spread and render entire regions infertile" is interesting. I was not previously aware that sterility was a hereditary property. In any case, if "sterile" seeds spread, all you would have to do would be to plough the "sterile" seeds into the ground and plant a different kind of seed. It's done all the time with weeds.
My main problem with this is that there are huge, massive problems with Monsanto - a total disregard for safety testing, obsession with secrecy and a tendency to corrupt governments, encouragement of the overuse of pesticides, etc - and this obsession with "Terminator [wooooh!] Genes" obscures it. It implies that if only Monsanto would stop making terminator genes, there would be nothing wrong with the rest of the GM industry.
Re:Guilt By Association, don't buy it (Score:4, Informative)
What about the recent unexpected contamination of natural Mexican corn by genetically modified corn? If you're not familiar with this, here's the scoop: the Mexican equivalent of the US Department of Agriculture tested some corn-seed in Oaxaca and found that it had between a 3-60% rate of transgenetic contamination from species of corn that had not been imported into Mexico.
from:
UC Berkeley [eurekalert.org]
Reuters [northernlight.com]
Nature, Vol. 413, September 27, 2001 [biotech-info.net]
My real factual argument against GM foods follows.
One: until a GM food product has existed for a number of years it is impossible to be 100% certain what effects it might have. (Think about drugs the FDA approved as good...thalidomide for one).
Two: apparently, based on the links mentioned above, it is impossible to control the dissemination of GM foods -- even the Monsanto Terminator gene isn't going to stop corn pollen.
Thus: we can't be what effects a GM food might have on the environment.
Ergo: this is a good argument for the strict control of GM foods.
And I might add, you probably don't trust Microsoft with Passport. Why would you trust Monsanto with GM foods?
PBS Has Expose' on Chemical Industry Coverups (Score:2, Informative)
To those who wonder what GM crops have to do with PCB/chemical dumping, they're missing the point. The point is that if a company has a history of putting profits over public safety and have blatant disregard for human life, then how can you trust them when they say GM crops are safe? They may be safe, they may not be, but I for one do not find their opinions credible.
Show Summary:
Surveys of public opinion show that the majority of Americans believe that the government is making sure that they are protected against harmful chemicals. Is their understanding justified? Journalist Bill Moyers and producer Sherry Jones report on how the chemical revolution of the past 50 years has produced thousands of man-made chemicals that have not been tested for their effect on the public's health and safety. The report is based on documents never before published and interviews with historians, scientists, and physicians who are exploring how chemicals affect the human body.
Here are some quotes from industry documents from transcript of Trade Secrets [pbs.org]. I'll let you interpret them yourself:
September 28, 1981. Government Relations Committee. Pebble Beach.
"The Committee believes that the new climate in Washington is more reasoned and responsive. ...The election of the Reagan Administration appears to have produced changes which bode well for our industry."
"President Reagan directed EPA to delay proposing or finalizing regulations until it could be determined that they were cost-effective and necessary."
January 11, 1982. CMA Board of Directors. Grand Ballroom, Arizona Biltmore. "Just ten days ago, TSCA celebrated its fifth birthday. The first five years of TSCA have seen numerous rules proposed by the Agency. To date, we have seen none of these types of rules finalized."
[TSCA: the Toxic Substances Control Act, one law intended to give the Environmental Protection Agency broad authority to regulate toxic chemicals]
[Fact:To this day - almost 25 years after the Toxic Substances Control Act was enacted - only five types of chemicals, out of thousands, have been banned under the law.]
One avenue to take if you don't like what they did (Score:4, Informative)
Other good choices for the email link would, of course, be your state and national representatives, particularly if you live in a state which Monsanto has operations in (Like, almost anywhere?)
Fortunately, the Post is a big paper with a good reputation. Stories like this need to see the bright light of day. It is what evildoers fear most.
Re:Guilt By Association, don't buy it (Score:3, Informative)
Nah. Just because this isn't the 'ONE GREAT ANSWER' to the GM question doesn't mean its worthless.
That Monsanto is willing to overlook undeniable environmental damage in pursuit of profits does not prove GM to be a bad thing. What it indicates is that we have to take everything Monsanto says about GM with a grain of salt - because they have been proven to lie and deceive in one line of business they cannot be trusted in others.
If Bill can lie about Monica, he'll lie about anything!
Personally, I'm unsure about GM. Its promising, but its also a bit scary. Should we stop research? Never. Should we allow widespread use of untested GMOs? No. Should we listen to Monsanto when considering these issues? certainly not.
There used to be a Monsanto plant in Everett, MA.. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Monsanto akin to evil corporations from the mov (Score:4, Informative)
1. all hybrid seeds are "infertile"
This happens to a false and incorrect statement. With canola [uoguelph.ca] it is difficult to create hybrids that are fertile and increase crop yield. Please note that this does not mean infertile; it just means difficult to reproduce. Cross-fertilized plants are rarely fertile. But that's nowhere close to never fertile.
2. farmers
(By the way, how does your first point of "all hybrid seeds are infertile" tie in with your second point of "new seed comes from new healthy hybrids grown for seed"? If the hybrids are all infertile, why would I grow hybrids for seed)?
While, yes, as a farmer I supplement my existing gene-lineages (both plant and animal) with external lines for hybrid vigor and outside traits every year; I also breed my existing plants and animals for specific traits. If I started off with one line of genes, and attempted to maintain that line forever, yes, I might have problems. But I don't. I select outside strains to enhance certain qualities that I believe my strains are deficient in. However, assuming I made a good starting selection of lineages, I don't need to acquire outside stock. You're talking about a minimal initial genetic selection that doesn't allow for cross-breeding over a number of generations. Sorry, but I'm aware that this could be a problem and either: start off with a reasonable selection of different genetic strains, or supplement my breeding stock every year. But if I start off with a good selection, I don't need to buy new seeds every year.
3. our assertion that "sterile seeds could spread and render entire regions infertile" is interesting
Seeds aren't the issue here. Pollen is. For example, corn cross-pollinates. If I've got some sterile corn that swoops across the pasture and cross-pollinates with my good "breeding" corn, I've got a problem. And we haven't had a chance to get to the seed part yet.
And, also, sterility is the final "hereditary property". If I've got a ewe that hasn't bred by the time she's two, I'm going to cull her. And, guess what, all of the genes that I've worked on breeding into her are gone.
By the way, if I plough the "sterile" seeds into the ground and plant a different kind of seed, I've lost time, money and productivity. The things that I grow aren't comparable to "weeds".
Re:Monsanto akin to evil corporations from the mov (Score:3, Informative)
In todays grain market there is no way that a single family farmer could buy grain every year, he would be out of money in very short time.
Hooker (Score:1, Informative)
I'm an environmentalist, but I'm coming to the aid of a corporation on this one. Far too much blame is placed on Hooker Chemical for the Love Canal disaster.
First off, Hooker wasn't the entity that started dumping in Love Canal; the US government used Love Canal as a dump before hooker bought the land. The US even dumped remnants from the Manhattan project in the canal. One can hardly blame the government because they didn't know how dangerous most of the things they were putting in the land were. Similarly, Hooker wasn't always aware of the danger some of the chemicals they disposed of were. All the dumping by both Hooker and the US government was legal by the standards of the time.
Secondly, Hooker was reluctant to sell the land back to the government. It was only after authorities threatened to invoke eminent domain that Hooker sold the land at a ridiculously low price. One of the conditions of the sale was that the land would be capped. Essentially, Hooker wanted the government to use it as a parking lot because they knew the chemicals in the soil were a liability. They even included a clause in the contract saying they were not liable for any damage done for inappropriate use. Use as a parking lot or another similarly capped area would have greatly reduced the potential harm to people who occupied the land. The government went against Hookers recommendation and ignored the warnings and built a school on the land anyway.
When all was said and done, the people in the government who approved the land purchase and use got off with little or no repercussions. Hooker had to pay for damages including relocation of families affected despite the liability clause in the contract.
I already new Monsanto was evil (Score:2, Informative)
Re:There's only one solution. (Score:2, Informative)
Of course I do agree with the original post, if I understand the intent correctly - if an individual caused the same degree of harm then prosecution would be a certainty. So why then, in a civilised country, should criminal corporations be allowed to do business?
Re:Monsanto akin to evil corporations from the mov (Score:3, Informative)
However, the original idea with terminator seeds was that they would (I'm not sure how well it works - I gather it doesn't but Monsanto policy seems to be that objective truth is foreign to their religion) produce non-fertilising pollen. So, the seeds that monsanto sells are a hybrid of line A (fertile) and line B (fertile) which produces line C, which they sell, and which doesn't produce fertile pollen OR fertile seeds. In addition to meaning that you can't grow up line C yourself, or make your own lines that include whatever favorable genes where transgenically introduced into line C, this means that line C's pollen can't contaminate non engineered crops nearby, which is a huge problem with other GM foods (pause, looks askance at my Dorito.)
Now, terminator seeds are basically a dead issue because folks like jayed_99 simply refused to buy them.
This means that people are growing up (or being forced to grow up, by cross polination) the GM crops that Monsanto sells without paying for new seeds each time.
So, the next part of Monsanto's evil plan is to make their money selling chemicals (which they also make) instead of the GM crops themselves. Enter roundup ready [monsanto.com] Corn. You want evil, there's your classic Monsanto evil. The idea is that they can go ahead and give away the GM crops (although they'll continue to charge while they can), because the only thing the GM crops are good for is buying mroe roundup.... from Monsanto.
So, the trend in agro genetic engineering is to do stuff like that. Genetically engineering crops that resist perishability better, or which inherently resist pests, or are more nutritious, may be a losing proposition because the product is a living thing that is not easily controlled. However, genetically engineering pesticide resistance lets you sell more of your pesticide, which is where the big money is, anyway.
Of course, as a medical geneticist, I may have an unfair bias against evil (which seems to be Monsanto's position vis a vis the union of concerned scientists [ucsusa.org])
PCBs have nothing to do with GM foods (Score:3, Informative)
The times [nytime.com] has a short abstract [nytimes.com] about the GE cleanup.
Great Book on the Subject (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Monsanto akin to evil corporations from the mov (Score:3, Informative)
It's irresponsible to make that kind of broad accusation without background. Here's some:
Round up ready corn contaminating other crops. [www.tao.ca]
The 60 minutes story about how they covered up the fact that working with PVC monomer melts people's bones. [metrojustice.org] This isn't the best possible link, unfortunately.
Ooh! Here's a whole page dedicated to how wicked monsanto is [seizetheday.org]. You can learn about how Monsanto tried to cover up that fact that DDT was wiping out all the birds in California (yes, the evil corporation is the classic Silent Spring is none other than Monsanto.) They also made agent Orange, which had health effects that they tried to cover up.
Those really interested in the subject of chlorinated organics should read Pandora's Poison. [gristmagazine.com] The up-shot is that they are a technolgy which simply isn't safe, and that we should abandon them entirely, especially chlorine based pesticides. The book is highly informative, and also a good introduction for someone who's background is more in, say, computers.
So, the long and the short of it is that this is nothing new. Monsanto has been doing lots of stuff like ever since its inception.
NOT in humans (Score:3, Informative)
PCBs have been confirmed to cause cancer in rodents, but rodents appear to generally be more susceptible to some carcinogens than humans. There are known cases of rodent carcinogens which are *not* regarded as "probable human carcinogens".
The science in these areas is *far* from done. Recent genetic differences found between rodents and primates raise the very real possibility that humans are virtually non-susceptible to some rodent carcinogens. It is my understanding that, for this very reason, gene-splicing is being investigated to produce rodents whose cancer susceptibilities are more like humans.
A more stinging indictment... (Score:2, Informative)
...can be found in Toxic Sludge is Good For You [amazon.com], a fine investigation into the Public Relations industry and the evils it protects. Monsanto is covered in great detail.
Re:PBS Has Expose' on Chemical Industry Coverups (Score:3, Informative)
What you leave out is more recent information suggesting (not yet proving, admittedly) health risks to humans. The Department of Health and Human Services has determined that DDT may reasonably be anticipated to be a human carcinogen. Its breakdown product DDE is labeled by the EPA as a probable human carcinogen. [cdc.gov] In mammals DDT is an endocrine disruptor, and has effects on the reproductive and nervous systems [worldwildlife.org].
If you want more definte results before taking any action, remember that it took hundreds of years for us to understand that cigarette smoking was a cause of cancer. We're just beginning to understand the long-term ecological effects of decades of leaded gasoline use.
These chemicals have only been around for decades. When dealing with chemicals that may linger in the enviroment for many years, the only rational course is to stop putting them in the ecosystem at the first sign of trouble.
Your apologism for industrial polluters negelects the fact that your garbageman and your plumber have more to do with increasing longevity - really, more of a reduction in youth mortality - than any chemical engineering. You also negelct to condsider that more productive manufacturing isn't a net health benefit when what's produced is useless to health, while the side effects are detrimental.
The most basic requirement for health and longevity is an environment that's not full of crap. Producing stuff that might lengthen the lives of some people (those who can afford it) while pouring crap into the ecosystem we all share (though you'll notice that the crap usually isn't dumped right next to the people who can afford the end product, but instead next to the poor) isn't just stupid, it's criminal.
A little ditty about Sauget, IL (Score:2, Informative)
I knew that Monsanto was responsible for the demise of Sauget, but I had never heard the full story until today. Very interesting.