Monsanto's Harvest of Fear 517
Cognitive Dissident writes "Intellectual property thuggery is not restricted to the IT and entertainment industries. The May 2008 edition of Vanity Fair carries a major feature article on the mafiaa-like tactics of Monsanto in its pursuit of total domination of various facets of agribusiness. First in GM seeds with its 'Roundup Ready' crops designed to sell more of its Roundup herbicide, and more recently in milk production with rBGH designed to squeeze more milk out of individual cows, Monsanto has been resorting to increasingly over-the-top tactics to prevent what it sees as infringement or misrepresentation of its biotechnology. As with other forms of IP tyranny, the point is not really to help the public but to consolidate corporate power. Quotes: 'Some compare Monsanto's hard-line approach to Microsoft's zealous efforts to protect its software from pirates. At least with Microsoft the buyer of a program can use it over and over again. But farmers who buy Monsanto's seeds can't even do that.' and '"I don't know of a company that chooses to sue its own customer base," says Joseph Mendelson, of the Center for Food Safety. "It's a very bizarre business strategy." But it's one that Monsanto manages to get away with, because increasingly it's the dominant vendor in town.' Sound familiar?"
Sigh (Score:1, Insightful)
Why deny rBST usage? (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that a company can force a manufacturer to put a disclaimer on their product for NOT using the drug is really scary.
Re:This ain't a charity (Score:1, Insightful)
> modified seeds, they can keep planting the old
> garden variety ones. Research is not cheap, and
> any commercial company is in the business of
> making money.
Making money yes, racketing his clients NO.
> Is copyrighting and DRMing (GRMing?) seeds
> ethical? Millions of dollars are needed to
> design the original transgenic, so unless
> farmers are willing to buy these once for the
> full price (say 1000 seeds for $20,000 each) it
> makes perfect business sense.
How the gentic code of living organism can be the property of someone? Btw I think that their "investement" of millions of $ is wothless (and even harmfull) for the vast majority of the humanity. To make a parallel whith the IT world: this is "trecherous research" like "treacherous computing" of the IT world. I think that potential users of this "technology" all around the world should be educated to avoid the traps of these criminal organisations like Monsanto, and they should be sued out of existence whenever possible (unfair trade practices and monopolistic posture to begin with)
Re:This ain't a charity (Score:5, Insightful)
Monsanto, knowing that Jim is using GM seeds but Bob isn't, sues Bob for infringing their rights. They check his field and find a few GM plants growing. He's then forced to pay Monsanto for the "right" to have those plants growing in his field. (Whether he wanted them or not is irrelevant to Monsanto.) And since the GM plants might pop back up in subsequent years or might blow over from Farmer Jim's field again, Farmer Bob's field is now contaminated and he must pay yearly fees to Monsanto or face legal action enough to make him lose his farm.
The lesson here is: Buy genetically modified seeds from Monsanto or you'll lose your farm.
Or put another way: Dat's a nice farm you've got dere. If you buy these seeds from us, we can ensure that you'll be "protected." Otherwise.... Well, it'd be a shame if something *happened* to dat farm of yours.
Re:Pure Evil (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of the things Monsanto does are vile, like sueing farmers who have never touched their products for having GMO grain when mother nature took the liberty of cross pollinating from another field.
I am open to disccussion on this.
I was in almost complete agreeance with the parent post until the last line. What the Nazis did was on a different level; a very different level, and to the best of my knowledge, was not motivated by greed.
Re:This ain't a charity (Score:5, Insightful)
If we allow corporations to own species or subspecies, then the incentive is in the direction of biological warfare between corporations. Artificial species are then corporately designed to spread more aggressively, treat other species with more hostility and be more resilient. This is a disaster waiting to happen.
The reason we have ethics that say it's not reasonable for anyone to own a whole species is because of the problems we encounter down the road, on the long term. If millions of dollars are needed to create a GM crop and there is no way to recoup investment other than owning a species, then that business model should FAIL. There are lots of business models that should fail, because society is not willing to pay the price of sustaining such business models. From the business' perspective, this might make sense, since they are not the ones that are directly bearing the cost of their business model, but from society's standpoint: no deal.
Re:Sigh (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This ain't a charity (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, you have a field of crop X. Other farmers around you have a field of GM crop X from company Y.
You find that next year your crop has gained some of the properties/genes of the GM version through airborne cross pollination. You think this is a good thing and keep growing it.
Why should there be any consequences? Their modified genetic material has invaded your crop. You haven't stolen anything. Why should you be sued?
hell, the guy should be able to sell it on as his own roundup resistant strain in any sane world.
Re:This ain't a charity (Score:5, Insightful)
Regardless of whether or not Monsanto sue, there's still a problem as Farmer Bob can no longer legitimately sell his crop as non-GM. The choice of us, as the purchasers, is taken away from us. Reduction of options is bad.
the dilemma in a nutshell: (Score:5, Insightful)
2. poor people get a hold of the crop, and grow it to feed themselves, but don't repay the company
do you force them to pay, and they starve? or do let your investment fizzle? how do you pour money into a venture which has a moral hazard attached to it?
the answer is simple, and taken straight form medical research: you only invest in research which guarantees a return. what do i mean? you spent trillions on heart attack medication, because most people having heart attacks (and are willing to treat them) are overfed overpaid rich people. meanwhile, you completely ignore malaria, which kills millions every year, because the only people who die from that are poor
so monsanto will invest billions in wheat, because wheat is primarily grown in rich northern climes, and will completely ignore tropical foods, as those crops are grown in poor countries
sorry africa, so gm yams for you
compare the prevalence of various diseases according to socioeconomic status, and you will find a direct correlation to the amount of money that goes into medical research into those diseases
now compare the prevalance of various food crops according to the GDP of the countries they are grown in. you will also find a direct correlation to the amount of $ into the biotech research in those food crops
this is the world we live in. morals and money don't mix. for those of you involved in medical or biotech research, please notice where your progress actually falls in the grand scheme of things. you serve filthy lucre, not the progress of mankind. the poor, the ones who can benefit the most from medical and food crop research, are served last, and can only hope for trickle down progress after many generations
in such a way, we are allowed to look very poorly on ip lawyers. yes, progress is served by the ip they protect, but progress only for the rich who can afford to pay for those expensive fruits (literally) of progress. but frankly, shaming people will not reverse this truth about the world we live in. a sense of high and mighty moral superiority does not pay the bills
however, it does make you immortal in terms the fame one achieves if one could find a way to serve the poor instead of serving the rich. we remember martin luther king, and mahatma gandhi. we don't remember the peers of those great men in the 20th century who served filthy lucre instead. i didn't say the way was easy, or cheap. but whoever can find a way to make it work, and give us wheat that grows in the desert, or rice with vitamin a in it, for free, for the poor, without any ip strings attached, will earn the accolades of the ages, if not a fancy BMW in the driveway
in 100 years, your nice house in the suburbs and your fancy bmw will be rust and rotting floorboards, and you will be a bunch of ash or bones. all that will live on is your name. what will you do with your time, who will you serve?
Re:This ain't a charity (Score:5, Insightful)
Bit of a bugger if you don't think it's a good thing though. For example if you're entire market is based on selling Organic Produce.
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
I saw it simply as noting that:
1) Monsanto uses highly questionable tactics that end up hurting its own innocent customers, and
2) Those who object to being treated in this way have little recourse, given their dependence on the Monsanto product.
In any case, I don't think the behemoth that is Monsanto is in any danger of being "owned" by farmers anytime soon. Quite clearly, the relationship is the other way around. Even farmers who try to avoid Monsanto products can end up with their fields being contaminated with seed from other farmers' nearby plots, and then Monsanto sends their lawyers after them. Hell, Monsanto even sends the lawyers after companies that advertise the fact that they DON'T use Monsanto products (e.g. the dairy in the article advertising its avoidance of hormone treated cows).
Dang, this really does remind me of "IP" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Life of a seed isn't important. (Score:5, Insightful)
The point missed is what happens when the farmer uses clean seed from his heritage and his crop is cross polinated from the GM field next door? Now his seed crop is a half breed of GM stock. As the years go by, the cross contamination from the field next door continues until his crop isn't much diffrent than the field next door. This is done without stealing a single seed.
He still gets hit with the same lawsuit for theft of IP when the genetic crop is found in his field.
Re:Pure Evil (Score:2, Insightful)
The parent is a troll because he's allowed his passionate hatred for modern food science to get in the way of the facts.
What the Nazis did was on a different level; a very different level
Gosh, you mean, the level where they were killing people because of differences in belief?
You know, like the parent post proposed doing?
Re: rBGH and more... (Score:3, Insightful)
The idea of rBGH-treated cows, somehow causing cancer in people is preposterous from a biological point of view... which is why if you're going to claim it, I'd like to see primary peer-reviewed literature telling me so. But for Slashdot, I'd be fine if you could just provide me with a theory of what happens biochemically to have such an effect... you know... in reality... not in a hippie wet dream.
The harsh truth (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This ain't a charity (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: rBGH and more... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you'll find links to the actual peer reviewed paper hard to come by. However, there are a variety of sites (readily discoverable thanks to google) which adequately describe the biological processes (which in my opinion are not preposterous but I am not a biologist, I am a chemist) and the risks possed. However from your use of "hippie's wet dream" I conclude youâ(TM)ve already made up your mind... so Iâ(TM)ll leave it you find the links for yourself and decide whether or not to believe them.
Re:Sigh (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sigh (Score:2, Insightful)
It's true that people have replanted for thousands of years, but is this "the same"? The amount of labor that went into the research for the new plant varieties, when you consider gains in productivity just since 1850, is (by rough approximation) is equal to about ten unbroken years of labor from everyone on the planet in 2000 B.C. Let's accept that leeching off of moderate amounts of others intellectual works is okay. Let's accept that modern use of IP legal rights is ridiculous.
Nevertheless, thousands of years ago, it was simply not possible to pirate that much intellectual labor! The kind of replanting that happens today, just can't be compared to what happened back then.
Re:This ain't a charity (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the analogy is getting stretched a bit though.
Re:Sigh (Score:4, Insightful)
Seed blows in the wind. So does pollen. Birds pick up seed and deposit it with handy fertilizer.
The beginnings of agriculture were like so: we ate the best plants, and their seeds were propagated as we dropped or pooped them. (Well, that's dropping, too. And again, with fertilizer.) Today, Monsanto can sue you if you follow this completely natural process.
The very idea of being able to patent a life form is ridiculous, for just this reason! Life exists to self-perpetuate. And there HAVE been cases in which Monsanto crops self-seeded on a small part of someone's land and they ended up losing the entire farm.
First thing, let's shoot all the lawyers.
Re:Many misrepresentations in article (Score:4, Insightful)
Roundup Ready crops are definitely a GM product. Specifically, a soil bacterium gene that is resistant to glyphosphate-induced inhibition was inserted into the seed. For corn (strain 603, to be specific), here's the quote from Monsanto in their request to the Canadian government:
The 603 line of corn (Zea maysL.) was developed through a specific genetic modification to be tolerant to glyphosate containing herbicides. This novel variety was developed from an inbred dent corn line by insertion of a bacterial 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS) encoding gene which provides enhanced tolerance to glyphosate compared to the native corn EPSPS. (a href="http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/gmf-agm/appro/roundup_ready_corn_603-mais_603_roundup_ready_e.html"ref: Health Canada.)
Similar for soybeans and canola.
Secondly, the key to RR crops is consumer (i.e. farmer) product lock-in. Spraying Roundup on early post-emergent seedlings means that you can ONLY grow RR crops. Even with careful application, the drift will cause significant damage to adjacent crops.
Finally, No modern farmer "reuses" seeds, GM or no.
Wrong. Just flat out wrong. It's not as common as it was, but MANY farmers harvest seed crops as well as food crops, get them washed and treated, and grow them again. Besides, whether or not it happens is irrelevant--taking away that option, either by splicing in terminator genes or by suing farmers, is just criminal.
"Forgetting for a moment the fact that organic crops are less safe..."
Um...what? I'd love to know what you mean by this.
Re:Pure Evil (Score:2, Insightful)
What, you mean removing nature's ability to remove weak members of the human species from the gene pool, thereby making the human race genetically weaker as a whole, is an incredible purpose? I see that as a direct affront to the strengthening of the human race, and ultimately a contributor to ending it altogether.
Re:Pure Evil (Score:3, Insightful)
There is far more than enough food in the world to feed people already.
If Monsanto wanted to feed the world, they could do that more effectively by producing crops that didn't have built-in problems.
What Monsanto wants is to sell roundup and steal people's land. That's pretty much the major goals (apparently.) Monsanto is actually not the only company making the stuff but they are the largest. They produce roundup-ready crops and then sell the pesticide to go with it. Once you're using chemical fertilizer and pesticide you can't stop because your "ecosystem" (such as it is) becomes dependent on it. You can see this tendency even in houseplants; they become chemically dependent and when you switch them from miracle-gro (or whatever they use at kmart or your local nursery) and switch them to nice healthy poop (like, say, llama manure, which does not burn plants) they freak out for a while before they blow up bigger than ever.
Also I think you are way off-base if you think Monsanto developed the terminator gene as a safety protocol or that their continuing work in this area is intended to be beneficial to mankind. It's only intended to be beneficial to Monsanto. The point isn't to make sure that the genes don't get out, but to make sure that you have to purchase seed from them every year. If you really think it's about anything else, you are sadly deluded.
I don't believe that Monsanto is the root of all evil or anything; I do however think that if every Monsanto employee died tomorrow, the world would be a better place.
Indian Farmers (Score:5, Insightful)
The Indian government, during the "green revolution", convinced huge numbers of ordinary joes to take up farming. The government subsidized their crops, and held a monopoly over them. They then instituted rationing programs across the country. Huge, rousing success. Famines were nearly eliminated. Problem was, it created a huge number of new farmers who used to be auto mechanics, dhobi-wallahs, shopkeepers...etc These guys had never farmed in their lives, and had no experience. Their efficiency rates didn't matter back in the days of the Green Revolution, they just needed to produce anything. Fast forward to now, however, and the problem this created is apparent. The Indian government has opened the market up to international trade, and these farmers can't be competitive. They're competing with Thai and Indonesian farmers who are two to three decades ahead of them in terms of technology, and whose families have been farming for ten generations. So, big problems. What does the Indian government propose? GM seeds! They dole them out by the tonne without explaining that they can't be reseeded (it's not illegal, it's just impossible: the crops can't be replanted). The farmers plant them, get huge yields, go apeshit, take out huge loans, and then go bankrupt when they realize that the have to buy seeds for the next year.
"But ringmaster_j," you say, "isn't that proving that Monsanto is responsible?!?!" No. The crops themselves are not to blame. They have the potential to bring prosperity to the farmers of the Green Revolution, and make India competitive. No, what needs to be seen is the horrible way in which the farmers have been treated by their government. This is a very typical Indian government move: dump tonnes of grain from on high, get elected, move on to the next town. No planning, no advice on how to use the grain, no caveats; just "Apne GM grain he! Vote BJP/Congress/AIADMK/DMK/CPI(M)! Namaskar!" It's horrible. Then, when farmers start killing themselves, they blame it on "evil grain", and burn effigies.
Yours,
-A Canadian Living in India
Re:Sigh (Score:4, Insightful)
The point of my previous post was: If you use "open source" products, you can do whatever the hell you want and live free from corporate dictatorship. However if you use "copyrighted" or trademarked products, then you have to be complying with your chosen corporations' rules and restrictions. ----- It's a choice, and each has pros & cons. Welcome to the "real world".
Re:Sigh (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sigh (Score:4, Insightful)
At the same time, if we're going to feed a growing global population, we're not going to do it by "organic" means. Unfortunately GM foods have been the object of one of the most effective FUD campaigns in recent history. Some of the bizarre scenarios touted by anti-GM types are right out of science fiction, and seem to have little or nothing to do with reality.
Unfortunately people are not ruled by reason or sound logic, but rather by emotional appeals. Some folks seem quite happy to pay far more for "organic" grains and produce, without any evidence that these foods are any safer or any better. The heavy-handed tactics of Monsanto play into this, allowing the pseudo-scientific conspiracy theorists an avenue to claim evil corporations are trying to force us to eat frankenfoods.
Re:Sigh (Score:3, Insightful)
*I use this in the technical sense, not claiming GM to be good or bad. We've been hybridizing for centuries. IMO the jury is out on GM.
Re:Sigh (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Pure Evil (Score:4, Insightful)
We don't need that - and we don't need Monsanto. We don't need any pesticides. I farm also - successfully and without pesticides. The supposed need for these chemicals relates to POOR farming technique. Planting an entire two acre field with one crop is poor farming. If any pest or disease has a harsh effect on that crop the farmer is wiped out (see Irish potato famine). The correct method is planting twenty types of plant in that one field. Then even if pests and disease wipe out five of your corn varieties - you still successfully harvest the other fifteen.
It's really quite simple. The best and most successful farming methods do not scale well into large corporate uni-crop farms.