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.
Corporate... (Score:3, Insightful)
Monsanto akin to evil corporations from the movies (Score:4, Insightful)
Selling third world farmers infertile seeds so they have to keep buying your seeds with the full knowledge that these sterile seeds could spread and render entire regions infertile is so nefarious, mere words cannot convey the feelings of disgust I feel.
Guilt By Association, don't buy it (Score:5, Insightful)
It should be obvious, but it probably needs to be said:
To claim that GM foods are bad because a corporation that have done evil things is a proponent of it, is no more valid an argument than claiming that since Hitler claimed that 2+2=4, the real value must be something else.
If there are any real factual arguments against GM foods, by all means present them. But if this is the best argument, it's a big endorsement of GM foods.
It's called Ad Hominem (Score:2, Insightful)
Philip Morris is currently one of the biggest proponents of Macaroni and Cheese; it even markets this product to children! (Kraft is a subsidiary of Philip Morris, a company widely considered to have manipulated nicotine content in cigarettes and marketed addictive cigarettes to children).
Study the safety of genetic modifications, sure, just don't assume that because a corporation has been evil, everything it touches magically turns cold and dark. In other words, just because they concealed what they knew about PCB's, there's no reason to trust Monsato more or less than any other genetically modified crop producer.
Re:Guilt By Association, don't buy it (Score:2, Insightful)
There's only one solution. (Score:5, Insightful)
Corporations have made huge strides in gaining "personhood" rights, with none of the responsibilities.
They have evolved to become wholly irresponsible citizens of the nations. This must stop. Either send the corporate structure back two hundred years, withdrawing all the privileges they've gained in that time; or make them take on the responsibilities that all other citizens must accept.
Write your representative. Make a difference.
Ahh! Monsanto! Makers of Aspertame/Nutrisweet (Score:2, Insightful)
I was doing a little light reading a week back and discovered that an absolutely RAGING but hopelessly ignored debate regarding the toxicity of Nutrisweet and the apparently spectactular corruption throughout the food manufacturing/safety industry.
Get this: Aspertame is apparently highly unstable, especially in fluid form, (the reason they put best before dates on Diet Pepsi).
Did you know that when Aspertame breaks down, about 10% of the by-product is Methyl Alcohol!, --which in turn breaks down into Formadyhide, which in turn causes a mess of neurological damage including the dissolving of the optic nerve.
--One of the ways the Monsanto P.R. people deal with this is to quickly point out that there's more Methyl Alcohol in a glass of Tomato juice. --But further research explains that Tomato juice also naturally contains more than enough Ethyl alcohol to neutralize the effects of the wood alcohol, which Nutrisweet does not.
Anyway, there's a TON of information on this and it makes for fascinating reading. Do yourself a favor and spend twenty minutes with Google over this.
-Fantastic Lad
Re:Guilt By Association, don't buy it (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Shouldn't be a surprise (Score:1, Insightful)
Microsoft bashing is one thing, but c'mon. So they swallowed a few companies, crushed some others, and flouted some economic laws. On the scale of 'evil corporations' that barely registers. They don't pay governments to kill their own citizens, or dump toxins into local water supplies. Heck, they don't even strip mine beautiful wilderness.
I don't like Microsoft much either, but let's have some sense of proportion, eh?
Guilt by association (Score:2, Insightful)
GM foods can be a good thing (see golden rice), and pollution is a bad thing (see earth), please be carefull not to base any futher flames on the fact that one company is guilty of both.
Re:Guilt By Association, don't buy it (Score:5, Insightful)
Not exactly. The main line of pro-GM arguments is that we can trust the science and the corporations. First, we are supposed to trust GM producers to do safety tests for the product and publish immediately any health issue that comes up. Second, we are supposed to trust the GM industry as a whole with essentially taking over the management of agricultural bio-diversity and become the unofficial management of the planet's supply of food.
Most critics of GM focus on the first problem (health) because it is more concrete and easy to explain ( and to scare with). But the second problem is by far the most dramatic. The possibility of a disaster that will make the Irish famine look like small potatoes should scare the bejesus out of everyone.
The science is an unknown, as research and commercial deployment go in lockstep. It isn't 2+2=4. Furthermore, the most important aspect of GM is management of food supplies (practical ad hoc decisions), not theoretical scientific questions. So it all boils down to an issue of trust. Can we entrust the future of the food supply of the planet to entities whose time is measured by wall-street ticks?
The new information simply reinforces the feeling that the only sane answer is NO.
Re:Large biotech firms (Score:1, Insightful)
It's Monsanto's intellectual property. They've already went out on a limb in a gamble to develop this technology. They've already put up the cost. Should they be allowed to reap any benefits? Think of it like the U.S. drug companies. They actually develop the drug in a hope that they'll be able to make some returns on it some day.
Being from a farming background, I find that there is so much utterly fallacious material and information that gets expounded as fact when dealing with agriculture. They start you off young in grade schools with how bad pesticides are. But the same people ostracising farmers as destroyers of the environment will have nice green front yards from fertilizer and excessive watering and pesticides. And they will also demand the best quality, unblemished produce from the market. And they scream bloody murder when the prices for these products seem unreasonable to them.
But at least they all understand "how hard it is to be a farmer"...
Re:Monsanto = Microsoft? (Score:2, Insightful)
considerations (Score:2, Insightful)
They knew about PCBs since '37 it seems. Just 40 years from now what will we find out they hid about GM foods? Maybe its best to avoid them for that reason. I've supported GM foods. I think that a lot of the mentioned benefits are real. But this makes me see things a little differently.
The free market line is that corporations won't deliberately hurt their consumers because that's how they make their money. This needs rethinking. Maybe it works out economically in some weird way for corporations. The effects are too distant, and so long as no one finds out for 40 years or so the exceptional profits over that time outway any possible criminal charges.
There is also the failure of the EPA to consider in this whole situation. The EPA isn't the oldest institution around, remember it was Nixon who signed off on it. Wouldn't a survey of all water ways have been on the agenda of an organization that is supposed to protect the environment? Why are they just figuring out the PCB levels in this town now?
There are two things to learn from this whole debacle:
I heard some other posters mention a corporate death penalty. Sounds good to me. But just a quick web search didn't turn up much actual investigation into the subject other than people saying "Sounds good to me." Anyone reading this who knows of actual legislation that has been proposed would do well to paste a link.
separate issues here (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll probably burn the little karma I built up, but what the heck.
I think writers of these headlines should try to maintain a certain level of objectivity and integrity when posting it. Let's separate the issues.
1st: Monsanto is a big corporation that does bad things.
2nd: Monsanto is a Biotech company.
The author most likely isn't very fond of the idea of GM food, I quote:
However, this has nothing to do with the fact that Monsanto produces GM seeds. If it were some chemical plant, it would be just as relevant .
Maybe I'm overreacting, it's just that a lot of people bash genetic modification as a "bad thing" perse, which is something I don't agree with.
Meneer de Koekepeer
Evolution and the corporate lifeform (Score:5, Insightful)
Employees in cash stressed companies knows that in questions of "cash" vs "morals", cash usually overrules.
Corporations have totally warped the political process in the US since the mid 1970s when they were granted "equal" free-speech right in the political forum. Deep pockets and harassment lawsuits have allowed them to drown out public discourse and common sense.
Our problem is corporate survival has nothing to do with human survival.
It's all about the Benjamins (Score:4, Insightful)
PREMISE A - Corporations only care about profit and nothing else. After all, without profit they're not going to be around for very long. And they seem capable of doing anything to protect the profitable product lines (see Pinkertons beat up union organizers, PCB cover-up, Microsoft strong-arm tactics, Just Following Orders, etc.)
PREMISE B - We're capable of manufacturing products of incredible potency: carcinogenic chemicals, genetically modified organisms, and someday self-replicating nanotech bots that can reduce North America to chum.
PREMISE C - Corporations tend to be the ones manufacturing these products.
PREMISE D - Some of these products have a negative impact on our quality and length of life, the number of limbs our children are born with, and the aesthetics of the world around us.
CONCLUSION - Perhaps we should be a little worried about the impact free market rules have on the world around us and our own livelihoods. When corporations have the ability to let loose technological advancements purely in the name of profit, the results may be less than desirable.
Genetically modified food has existed for ages (Score:4, Insightful)
The plants produced by this genetic manipulation weren't called "genetically modified," they were called "hybrids." Still, the end result is the same: the genetic structure of a plant was purposefully changed by humans to produce a new plant that had desired traits.
Ever eaten corn? It's a genetically modified plant. The corn you eat is not "natural." It was made, through trial and error.
How about potatoes? The potato itself is a natural plant (well, tuber.) However, farmers have modified potatoes for 1000s of years to produce different strains that have resistances, or have a higher nutritional value, or keep longer, or have a different taste.
Ever seen a white orchid? Not natural. Genetic modification. Orchids are not white by nature. (Granted, you're not supposed to eat orchids, but I think you get my point.)
So, what's the big to-do about genetically modified foods? It's not a new science, merely a new approach to an ancient art.
However, I will agree that Monsanto is a perfect example of a sleezy coorporation. But I also think that Micheal needs to lay off the scare-tactic propoganda. That, or he should go work for Microsoft as Chief FUD Officer.
Prison Sentences are a reasonable response (Score:2, Insightful)
I think if these criminals get prison terms for the rest of their natural lives I think we might get a few whistle blowers among our friends working on GM foods...
Cynic inside me {
Of course that's about as likely as getting the president that won the election (No I didn't vote for him, but I can tell an election from an appointment.) }
Re:Guilt By Association, don't buy it (Score:3, Insightful)
So, uh, why should be trust anything this company says, given its track record? Please keep this in perspective. We're talking about a lot of peoples lives.
Re:There's only one solution. (Score:2, Insightful)
Wouldn't you disagree with me if I proposed the following: if a (hypothetical) corporation repeatedly and deliberately destroys human life, whether through neglect or malice, that the harshest punishment that corporation should receive is a monetary fine?
Under current law, that _is_ the harshest punishment that corporation would receive, short of breaking it up (and then EVERYONE gets off scot free).
No, Monsanto may not have killed anyone yet. Let them continue to push the envelope however, with no consequences except for their "public image" (which they can easily buy back from the vast majority of fools out there), and eventually my hypothetical scenario will become reality.
What then?
Monsanto is in a position where it can eventually control the outcome of billions of lives, either through producing products that kill us and covering up the findings, allowing us to keep buying them and dying, or through its negligence in cleaning up its mistakes, which also kill us.
What position could possibly be more insidious and vile for a corporation to occupy, especially one that has repeatedly shown complete disregard for anything but the bottom line?
There has to be harsher throwback to doing black business than something that can simply be assessed into the business strategy as a "risk factor". Otherwise our lives will eventually have no more meaning than pawns on a corporate gameboard.
Wouldn't it bother you if, say, Sears started paying Monsanto to clean up a certain area; not because Sears cares about the people whose lives Monsanto is destroying, but because a Sears study showed that their recent decline in profits was because Monsanto's pollution was killing off people who were regular shoppers at the local Sears?
Ugh, I can't go on.
The marklet requires checks (Score:5, Insightful)
The most telling quote is, I believe,
The critics understand unchecked capitalism all too well. If monetary profit is all that matters, then the evidence clearly demonstrates that people suffer. This is yet another datum.
There is absoloutely no guarantee that an unregulated market will lead to an optimal outcome for actual people. On the contrary, some people will suffer greatly.
Frankly, we can't trust an invisible hand.
Re:Guilt By Association, don't buy it (Score:5, Insightful)
That is only the line of argument to people who are unwilling to spend the time and effort necessary to examine the science--and I am not aware of too many people who argue that we can trust the corporations! Rather, it is people who understand the science who should keep an eye on what the corporations are doing.
For instance, GM crops that
* Allow massive pesticide use
* Do not produce fertile seed
* Massively overexpress the natural BT toxin
are all really stupid ideas in the long term, since they, respectively,
* Increase toxic residues in food, runoff, etc.
* Lead to a catestrophic situation (no crop) instead of a bad one (crop from poor stock) if for any reason the seed cannot be obtained next year
* Rapidly generate resistance to a substance that could otherwise be safely used for decades
On the other hand, GM crops that
* Increase the nutritional value of the crop
* Increase yield (all other things being equal)
* Increase natural resistance to disease (but not by having the plant make tons of one particular toxin)
are all really useful, for hopefully obvious reasons.
The sane answer is: pay attention to what corporations are doing, and (try to) call them when they do something stupid. If you don't have the background to decipher their claims yourself, find someone who can. But the bottom line is that GM crops are not inherently bad; just that a few of the simplest, greediest, short-sighted implementations by corporations are.
Re:Genetically modified food has existed for ages (Score:2, Insightful)
There are two actual problems with GM food. The first is allergies. GM food contain new genes that we haven't encountered before, and it turned out in practice that quite a few of these are seriously allergenic for many people. The other, more serious problem is that GM plants are so often produced to make them more resistent to pesticides. Thing is, some of these pesticides persist, and well, humans are
----
Re:Large biotech firms (Score:5, Insightful)
Where do guys like you come from? (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you even realize the multi-million dollar P.R. bullshit you're parroting?
Did you even read the page you linked to? It didn't hold any actual core information, but it did suggest that you read through the available papers before rendering judgement.
Now maybe there has been a mountain of new data made available since you last looked at the question. But from my searches, based on the thousands of documents collected over the last thirty years from every imaginable level of the medical/scientific/governmental community, the conclusion you reached seems to me, frankly, ill-considered to say the least.
It seems to me that you are jumping very, very quickly to pre-set conclusions, your thought processes masquerading under the guise of scientific rationale. Sorry Charlie. You may have read a few clever books, but Real scientists aren't made into fools by the P.R. jockeys.
Honestly. People think that just because the X-Files were stupid that bad things don't actually happen in the world. "I don't believe in Conspiracies." Well genius, do you believe in "Corruption"?
Go look at the fish in Anniston.
Better hurry, because in another year, there'll be some new & dangerous fool just like you, sir, declaring that it never happened because he's been programmed since birth to reject everything but the 'official' story.
Do you even understand the basic principals behind advertising and mass persuasion?
Sheesh.
-Fantastic Lad
Just turns my stomachto read this!!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Of Coures you judge a company by the past. It's the same as saying sure he killed 100 people in the 1960's and then spent years hiding it. But hey he's a nice guy now so let's forget about it.....
It's just another case of Big Bussiness sticking it to the little guy and not caring what the out come is.
Re:Equal Time (Score:3, Insightful)
In gaming parlance, anarcho-capitalism and the current regime in the US is akin to the difference between chaotic evil and lawful evil (Monsato cultivated the complicity of the powers that be)
A simple visit to the party platform [lp.org] explains this:
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Large biotech firms (Score:3, Insightful)
As would be the case if they were an organisation.
When a corporation like Monsanto does the same thing, we call it business, and most likely we will simply fine the corporation for a minuscule percentage of their wealth, and let them continue these practices.
But someone forming a corporation primarily for terrorism, e.g. Al Queda Inc, would probably not get protection. Even if they also enguaged in legitimate business, even if they did it long enough that that was their major activity.
It's also most a case of something which started off as a law abiding entity is always viewed that way, regardles of how it might actually be behaving now.
Re:here's the news - you're an ass (Score:1, Insightful)
The scariest quote from the story (Score:3, Insightful)
"I'm really pretty proud of what we did," Kaley said. "Was it perfect? No. Could we be second-guessed? Sure. But I think we mostly did what any company would do, even today." [emphasis added]
It's Solutia, not Monsanto, who's at fault (Score:3, Insightful)
Fast forward a few years to 2000, and Monsanto was merged into Pharmacia [pharmacia.com] and ceased to exist as a seperate company. The new company decided that it wanted to be just a pharmaceutical company, so it spun off a big piece of itself and named the new company Monsanto [monsanto.com], because of the "proud heritage" of the original name.
This is obviously not such a good idea in retrospect, as the new company, which has nothing to do with PCBs, is now getting a big black eye in the media. However, if you check the markets, it's Solutia whose stock price has plummeted, which indicates that the big investors, at least, know which is which.
Re:One libertarian's perspective (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a small problem with that. The communities become businesses, competing with one another for business. "Sure, you can polute here so long as you create jobs".
Globalization has caused the same problem. When big American companies were pushing Free Trade, they talked about how it would create more jobs, mean more money, etc. And as soon is it got passed, they shut down plants in North America and moved them to Mexico where labour and environmental laws were lax.
In addition, PCBs in Alabama means PCBs in the Gulf of Mexico, which means PCBs in the seafood bought in New York or Seattle.
This is a global problem, not a local problem. Certain regulations should be world-wide. Competition should not be based on lax environmental laws and poor labour laws.
Yah, I agree, a bunch of regulations hasn't solved the problem either. Perhaps the law should change so that the punishment suits the crime. Make every Monsanto executive and their family move there and live in that poisoned environment, and then see how fast it gets cleaned up.