This conversation is closed.

Monsanto is an organisation that is poisoning the world.

We must spread the word that Monsanto is a criminal corporation and we must reject the use of GMO crops.

  • Oct 20 2013: This is complete nonsense I work at Monsanto. Used to work for one of their competitors and virtually nothing I read on the internet about them is true. It is stunning but inaccurate and corrupted the stories are. I don't know anyone who works at Monsanto who would work there if they thought any of it was true. The GM crops seed products have been used for 16 years and over billions of acres and not a single report of harm to people. I could go on and on but I suspect many wouldn't believe me but the facts speak for themselves. So many errors of facts on the internet spread by extremists who have an emotional almost religious belief in their cause. Organic Industrialist millionaires sponsor the anti Gm campaign because they can't justify their higher prices.

    Monsanto doesn't control the food supply. They don't sell food. They have about 35% share of the corn and soy seed business in the US about the same as Dupont. They don't sell to 95% of the market. They license out their technology even to their main competitor - they don't keep it to themselves. They label all their GM products as GM. They are in favor of voluntary labeling.

    They don't control the US government - if they did they would need to spend $60 million on getting a product approved. They don't sue farmers for accidental use of GM seed. They have sued about 100 farmers over 16 years out of a million customers a year. I can't even calculate that low percentage.

    Indian farmers are not dying before of GM seeds. The Indian government says it is not true.

    There is no terminator gene being used by anyone.

    Monsanto doesn't ban GM food in its cafe in England. It doesn't have a cafe in England.

    RoundUp beans don't produce tumors in rats. Many independent scientists and agencies have said a French study is incorrect in fact the data even says it cures cancer.

    GM food is not full of allergens - it is tested to make sure it is not more than any food. I can go on for ever
  • Oct 20 2013: The company called Monsanto today is not the same company - legally that was in business before 2000. So if you comment on that company its now called Pfizer.
  • thumb
    Oct 3 2013: So, I guess nobody likes Monsanto. OK, I have a talent for evoking the obvious.
    So, I'll play devil's advocate..
    It's been around awhile, it has made many crucial investments in a number of companies and has adjusted it's business model to meet investment needs. It has vigorously protected it's patents, it's big on R & D. It has carved out a niche market,
    agricultural seeds. It hires a battery of lawyers to protect it's self interests. It has been described as unethical, I am not so sure, ethics is a human trait. Can a non person have ethics? It has been said to have exerted undue influence on governmental agencies, no surprise there.
    But, after all s said and done, it is a large company with a great number of investors and it has made them money.
    Well, you say, that is no reason for them to have done all the that has been described here. OK.
    No one here has to use Monsanto's products, You can announce to the world your opinion about Monsanto.
    But after all is said and done, today it is trading over $100 a share and has a market cap of over $20 Billion.
    What am I saying... Nobody cares... most of the world are using Monsanto seeds and the investors are making money.
    It is what it is.
  • thumb
    Oct 2 2013: GMOs have been proven to rapidly increase tumor growth.

    I won't blame Monsanto because they seem untouchable due to their "political contributions".
    So now I say we should attack the people who allow corporations like this to operate. The fact is we know GMOs cause cancer in organic life. We know GMOs help big business save money (like they don't have enough already). We know that simply asking will not work. I know that labeling poison is not the solution. Only people who are sick in the mind think this is ok. It just so happens that these people are the ones that "represent" the majority of us. They make choices based on profit margins that never have and never will benefit the thousand upon thousands of people they employ. Their most valuable resource is US. If they don't have us, they have nothing. We can blame people to try and achieve change, we can change our lifestyles to create change or we can cut off the leeches that do ungodly things to fellow beings. It is our choice and however we choose to go about changing the future will be our legacy. Set a great and powerful example for your children. Teach them something they will teach their children and one day they will live in the perfect world that we all dreamed about. All they will know is living, laughing, and loving. :D Have a good day everyone.

    My logic mixed with some passion and anger
  • Sep 28 2013: I am someone who merely wishes to know what I eat. After all, you are what you eat, are you not?
    Distrust? No, merely being responsible for myself. I had to make a snap judgment but it was temporary.

    I merely sent an enquiry during my last decision to Monsanto themselves and they replied to say it does not affect at a cellular level. I will soon know more so I can make my decisions. I find your manner of overassuming my view on things intriguing.
    • thumb
      Oct 1 2013: My apologies if I caused you to think I was over assuming your specific view. My intention was to speak more broadly... an editorial you.
      Distrust or merely being responsible? In any case, you weren't sure about what you were eating and you wanted to know.
  • Sep 27 2013: No, it isn't about labelling or Monsanto alone although proper labelling helps and Monsanto seems to be the only corporation identified by the media - making me curious. It really is about having safe food.

    I am not talking about food that serves us for just a day but food which can bear its influence on us, our children and grandchildren... whether in terms of virility, fitness or some other manner in a decade or so from now. Just like those who look at chicken injected with hormones... I now look at modified crops and wonder how assured we can be.
    • thumb
      Sep 27 2013: OK, you want safe food. Understand. You distrust the global system that provides food. Again, noteworthy. But...
      You are not responsible for the world, only you and yours. So, what to do?
      You have sounded an alarm of a perceived problem. That is all that can be asked.
      Then there is you and your family.
      Since the 60s, there has been a magazine called Mother Earth News which published a scenario where a family can be supported on... a couple of hectares ... and went into great deal on how that could be done. That principal still exists. You can sustain yourself and family without reliance on commercial food sources.
      Good News and Bad News:

      Good News: You will have control of your food sources and have little or no concern of quality, insuring a long and healthy life.

      Bad News: Food production will become your life, consuming most of your waking hours, as shown in the history of sustainment farming.

      And therein lies the problem.

      Most people are willing to assume the risk of maybe some future hypothetical problem with GMO crops and go on with the lives they want to live which doesn't include farming.

      A choice they made like the choice you make.
  • thumb
    Sep 26 2013: There's just one thing, population explosion in areas that cannot sustain any thing without tapping other areas resources?
  • thumb
    Sep 26 2013: I think Monsanto gave GMO's a bad name... and should be rejected because of that.
  • Sep 26 2013: Understand you see the power of production as a benefit. I also agree regulation matters. It is an issue when regulation is not clear enough to be enforced. There is not as yet proof of negativity but usually proof takes time and by a decade or two later, we usually end up paying a price. Sometimes, abeit a heavy one.
    • thumb
      Sep 26 2013: Point taken.
      In the past, mankind's concerns with problematic solutions oft times fell to the "law of unintended consequences"
      Remember DDT? A very effective insecticide that promised to eradicate Malaria and other insect born diseases, well, there were problems. And the anti DDT proponents won the day and the product was banned.
      Malaria is back as deadly as ever, West Nile virus and a number of other insect borne disease have spread from their origins and now are spreading across across the world. Could DDT have been altered to control the side effects and remained effective against the spread of these diseases? We will never know and our efforts to find an effective replacement is not going well..
      GMO crops have shown that they are more productive then the old crops and with our expanding population, that is a good thing. We have the capability to feed the growing population and preventing global food shortages. But what about side effects? There are claims that have yet to be substantiated. Anti-GMO people have claimed suppression by bribery, political influence and other illegal activities. . And that has yet to be confirmed. So, Does the world eliminate GMO as it did DDT as an example? We can treat malaria and other diseases with drugs with fewer losses.... is there an effective drug to cure hunger?
      On a personal level, I don't use artificial sweeteners because I think they are bad for me. Others think I am being foolish and use these sweeteners. I accepted that. For those who are troubled with GMO crops, do what I do about sweeteners... don't use them.
      • Sep 26 2013: Speaking of DDT, I believe you'll find Mosanto's name in the bag. They were into weed killers? Well the anti DDT proponents did prevail in those days.

        Oh, I definitely agree we should not use them but its really hard to know whether you are using GMO crops... when its not always labelled so
        • thumb
          Sep 27 2013: So, it's not about food, it's about labeling...
      • Oct 1 2013: The ban on DDT was partly Monsanto's fault actually. When they were notified of the problems with DDT they had an extended time frame during which they could have and were advised to, change the formula, make modifications and or voluntarily pull the product which would have allowed them to keep it. They refused these options and governments were left with no choice but a ban. These are political decisions government is not noted for its structure for nuance. In the case of GMOs, again Monsanto gave themselves this black eye (along with any other GMOs) by being aggressively dogmatic in their refusal to address the problems associated with some GMOs, then their Machiavellian political actions designed to force entire regions/countries into long term dependent relationships with them. There are corns grown in isolated regions of the Mexican peninsula which now bear the genetic markers of Monsanto GMO even though these people have never traded with Monsanto. Monsanto's response was to sue them for infringing on their patent. Monsanto has a very sick corporate mentality, and sadly we will all suffer, GMOs are being introduced (have been introduced) without proper understanding of their impact across generations or food supply chains. And they have chosen to be arrogant and often mean about the problems. The result may be bans which will be bad for us all. If I were them I would reorganize into smaller chunks and change my name among other things, but they need to be brought to heel or some one will end up bringing them down.
  • thumb
    Sep 26 2013: Two points....
    Ok, I am not sure about the criminality thing. It is not illegal to manufacture cigarettes, whiskey, beer and wine and a lot of things that (one could make the argument) are dangerous. Spreading the word could open one to civil liability.
    I can see that one could reject the use of GMO crops. Others accept and even embrace the concept that these crops can have beneficial effects in the solution of world hunger problems. There have been statements that GMO crops can have serious consequences if ingested. These comments have not been verified by regulatory agencies. It has been said that these agencies have been suppressed in their findings by GMO manufacturers through bribery and political corruption. Again, these accusations have not substantiated by competent authority. So, In any case, the use of GMO crops is a personal choice. If you eat these foods and you fall victim to some malady, then those who feel strongly about the rejection of GMO crops can say "told you so". If not, you can say "told you so".
    • thumb
      Oct 2 2013: Monsanto is dangerous for the global health in a social and economical manner. It is not so much about their modified crops but about their policies with patents and their ways of monopolizing the food market on a worldwide scale.
  • thumb
    Sep 26 2013: Monsanto Corporation is immune from lawsuits by virtue of a special act of Congress. That law is about to expire. Let's watch!
  • thumb
    Sep 24 2013: If we were to use Obama's logic regarding bombing Syria, perhaps we should also bomb Monsanto and Dow Chemical too.
    • Sep 24 2013: Except that Monsanto & Dow own members of the Senate. Both Donald Rumsfeld & Hillary Clinton sit on the board of Monsanto. The entire US Senate is owned by corporations. Corporations in league with politicians equals fascism. They burned books in Hitler's Germany and now we have TED owned and censored by Monsanto.
      • Oct 2 2013: Dan can you explain what you mean more precisely? I did not think to wonder who "owns" TED. The congress is bought and sold but who does own TED?
  • Sep 24 2013: Here are a couple of things you all should read:
    Don't take my word for it, find out for yourself!
  • thumb
    Sep 24 2013: I'm not sure if the genetically engineered food Monsanto produces is all that bad. It's not like the DNA from the altered plant matter can survive digestion, and incorporate itself into our own DNA to replicate and cause mutation. We're not even within the plant kingdom, so harm caused by genetic engineering is virtually impossible. The real concern should be directed toward pesticides and chemical fertilizer. These products are important in maintaining productivity among crops, but tighter regulation of pesticides couldn't hurt.
    • Oct 2 2013: The genetic material they use to modify the plant is often animal or bacterium such as E coli. They use fish genes to make better tomatoes. I am not saying all GMOs are bad, just be cautious of assuming they are only using plant material. It is the tweaking of the bacterium into things designed to modify the genetic material of something else that is alarming.
  • thumb
    Sep 24 2013: Agreed!
  • Sep 22 2013: I don't know Monasto very well as a corporation, but I do know genetically modified foods.
    They're more profitable for everyone involved, are more resistant to pestilence and crop failure, and have the potential to raise the world's food production ceiling to a point we won't be forced into regulating the population via controlling births just to avoid a global famine.
    Genetically modified food is usually also scrutinized more heavily than the natural stuff, which actually makes it safer.

    Rejecting genetically modified food is akin to deciding all the cars and airplanes were a mistake and going back to horses. Its as "natural" as it is stupid.
    • Sep 25 2013: what if it affects you at a cellular level if you eat of it?
      • Sep 25 2013: Define affects me on a cellular level.
        If I eat a chicken, than some of the chicken's biomass is absorbed into my own cells. It doesn't change my DNA or anything, I'm just absorbing the raw materials. If I eat a genetically engineered chicken, than the same thing happens except the new chicken has a few extra proteins in it.
        Now, unless this new chicken was engineered to manufacture bio-weapon grade viruses, the effect on my own cell's DNA should be non existent.

        The only way a genetically modified food will ever be dangerous is if its improperly tested, or if its maliciously designed (say, addictive). Proper regulation can solve both problems, while still retaining the myriad advantages of genetically modified organisms.
    • Sep 25 2013: That's interesting. Have you watched "Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs (2012)?" I have. I have no clue what to think of it. The Pusztai affair was discussed in it and it made me uncomfortable.
      • Sep 25 2013: The problems are all with the regulation, not fundamental to the technology.
        Of course, with big business owning many a politician in a great deal of countries, the regulation may not happen.

        Still, focusing on the GMOs as opposed to the regulation is like treating the runny nose of a man with the flu, as opposed to trying to cure the disease itself. Its a symptom of a bigger problem, not the problem in of itself.

        And by the way, I haven't watched it. It doesn't help that the title is already making it sound like propaganda. I deal in researches and data, not hearsay.

        What I do know for certain, is that current biotech will eventually reach a point it can't support the earth's ever increasing population. GMO research may well change that, and save us a global famine in the process.
  • thumb
    Sep 22 2013: Please show us your data linking GMOs to health risks. Otherwise, you're engaging in what TEDx recently described as pseudoscience "red flag" behavior in this open letter,

    TEDx specifically included GMO alarmism in its description of pseudoscience "red flag" behavior when it described it as follows:

    Has failed to convince many mainstream scientists of its truth
    Is not based on experiments that can be reproduced by others
    Contains experimental flaws or is based on data that does not convincingly corroborate the experimenter’s theoretical claims
    Comes from overconfident fringe experts
    Uses over-simplified interpretations of legitimate studies and may combine with imprecise, spiritual or new age vocabulary, to form new, completely untested theories.
    Speaks dismissively of mainstream science
    Includes some of the red flags listed in the two sections below

    IF you wish this conversation to be taken seriously, you'll back up your claim with verifiable data and cogent argument.
    • thumb

      Lejan .

      • +1
      Sep 24 2013: What about the idea that no private company should be allowed to take away my personal choice not to eat GMO's and to know for sure whats in my food?

      The given policies in labeling and the given fact of uncontrolled cross-pollination is reason enough to me not to allow those technologies to be released into nature.

      By the way, given your listed 'red flags' no contrary information would be considered 'valid' by you anyway, and treated conveniently as part of an overall 'conspiracy theory' on GMO's.

      If you decide to put GMO's in your body, thats fine with me, but do allow others to make their choices as well. So far, this freedom of choice has been taken away and is impossible to guarantee by the 'nature' of this technology! That alone is reason enough not to allow private companies to change the natural gene-pool of this planet by their artificial changes.
  • thumb
    Sep 22 2013: I thought they lowered their european interests when their products were rejected?