Monsanto Executive Wins World Food Prize 271
sfcrazy writes "A top Monsanto executive has won the prestigious World Food Prize. Secretary of State John Kerry announced the award where Robert T. Fraley, the executive vice president and CTO of Monsanto, won the prize along with two other scientists from Belgium and the US. The award was given for devising a method to insert genes from another organism into plant cells, which could produce new genetic lines with highly favorable traits."
Mmm (Score:3, Funny)
Ruin the US wheat crop, get a prize! (Score:5, Informative)
Last week, Monsanto's leak of genetically modified wheat polluted countless acres of US wheat leading to countries around the world banning the import of all US wheat. Today, Monsanto wins the World Food Prize!
Good job Monsanto. Thank goodness no media outlets carried that story. Oh. Except Reuters. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/31/us-wheat-korea-idUSBRE94U0KW20130531
Re: (Score:2)
Countless acres: One site in Oregon
Around the world: 2 countries in Asia
What is it about GMO that drives people to this sort of hysteria?
Re:Ruin the US wheat crop, get a prize! (Score:5, Insightful)
What is it about GMO that drives people to this sort of hysteria?
That the consequences are irreversible. You can't put the genie back in the bottle again.
It also ups the ante in the arms race of evolution, which isn't universally seen as a good thing.
Calling objection "hysteria" doesn't make it so. Some protesters are quite enlightened and think long term.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You can't put the *gene* back in the bottle again.
Re:Ruin the US wheat crop, get a prize! (Score:5, Insightful)
It also ups the ante in the arms race of evolution, which isn't universally seen as a good thing.
It certainty is a bad thing, which is why millions of people protested conventional breeding when late blight overcame the conventionally bred resistances in tomato and when hessian flies overcame conventionally bred resistance in wheat. Oh wait, that never happened because it would be absolutely idiotic, yet somehow, when genetic engineering is involved, the same basic facts of population genetics are suddenly terrible and proof that the technique itself is bad. Perhaps it is because the vast vast majority of the opposition to genetic engineering is coming from those with no background in agricultural or plant science and thus due to their complete lack of context it seems reasonable to them.
Calling objection "hysteria" doesn't make it so. Some protesters are quite enlightened and think long term.
And most of the protesters are the agricultural equivalents to the anti-vaccine movement. And when you are doing little in the way of scientifically justifying your concerns, instead preferring to use bunk science [wikipedia.org], fearmongering [organicconsumers.org], and outright vandalism [biofortified.org] on non-corporate [redgreenandblue.org] projects [freshplaza.com] and farmer's fields [staradvertiser.com], you shouldn't be surprised when you get characterized poorly. Hell, there is no small opposition to even things like Golden Rice (biofortified with -carotene) and the Arctic apple (which does not oxidize when cut). I'm sure there is a perfectly good reason as to why that is, if not unscientific hysteria, because this stuff [facebook.com] isn't looking good.
Just about everything carries risk (again for context, even conventional breeding conventional breeding [nap.edu] carries risk), just about everything has some negatives that come with the positives, there are actual issues, and not every genetically engineered organisms will necessarily turn out to be a good thing. But to paint the anti-GMO movement as a whole as anything even remotely reasonable would be like saying young earth creationists simply have a dispute with the minor details of a few phylogenies.
Re:Ruin the US wheat crop, get a prize! (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps it is because the vast vast majority of the opposition to genetic engineering is coming from those with no background in agricultural or plant science and thus due to their complete lack of context it seems reasonable to them.
The real problem is "close source food chain" vs. "open source food chain". That is why GM food - Monsanto style - is bad. Really bad. Unfortunately the anti-GM movement has taken a different path of protesting against the science, rather than this very basic fact.
A closed source food chain is a major problem for everyone, except those who hold the patents.
Peace,
Andy.
Re: (Score:2)
A closed source food chain is a major problem for everyone, except those who hold the patents.
Opposition to the patent aspect is certainty a lot more reasonable than trying to dismiss science, but it isn't such a simple issue when you consider the benefits to other groups, like farmers and consumers, from the creation of new varieties that are funded by patent royalties. Take the Honeycrisp apple for example. Do you like it? Most people do. It was, until the recent expiration, a patented variety (it is not GMO by the way; non-GE plants can also be patented). Despite this, growers liked it becau
Re: (Score:2)
Patents last about 20 years. Monsanto's patents on the first generation of GM food are expiring next year. That means that everybody will be able to use those seeds freely, and if they are any good, benefit from them (each farmer can decide that f
Re:Ruin the US wheat crop, get a prize! (Score:5, Interesting)
I would be interesting if Monsanto was also working on insects/plants that can defeat their products as they come off of patent protection...
Of course nature is doing this already (for patent protected products), Roundup resistant weeds are spreading very quickly it appears (25% expansion in 2011, 51% in 2012, per the link):
http://farmindustrynews.com/herbicides/glyphosate-resistant-weed-problem-extends-more-species-more-farms [farmindustrynews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
agreed; its not that I care so much about 'modifying' the genes and creating frankenfood (lol); but that its closed and locked-out and THAT is what is harmful.
lawsuits, stopping farmers from having a choice, forcing their hands to keep re-buying seeds from monsanto (or get sued) - THAT is the evil that most of us really care about.
you can be a profiteering bastard all you want but NOT when it comes to food and basic sustenance for the world. at some point, greed and unbound capitalism MUST be limited!
Re: (Score:2)
... yet somehow, when genetic engineering is involved, the same basic facts of population genetics are suddenly terrible and proof that the technique itself is bad
A noticeable difference is that by cross-breeding the changes are slow (minor per generation), whereas by GM they can be huge (glowing mice). When some scientist has a bad morning, and releases his latest frankenstein into the wild, we could be majorly **-ed. So natural selection acts as a fail-safe against one mistake.
Re: (Score:3)
That the consequences are irreversible. You can't put the genie back in the bottle again.
You know people said the same thing about Norman Borlaug [wikipedia.org] when he started messing with double rotations, plant genetics, and started the green revolution. Go back and read the magazine articles, news paper stories and watch the TV spots on it. And note how well that worked out, anyone else want to disagree he's one of the greatest humans of the 20th century? Didn't think so.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, wheat and corn are so genetically fucked up by humans that you should stop eating them if you are afraid of a couple of new genes in GM products. And these genetic changes are not harmless. For example, wheat lost a lot of its protein content and fat compared to the wild precursor. It also gained a couple of allergens (probably from cross-pollination by another close species).
Re: (Score:2)
It also ups the ante in the arms race of evolution, which isn't universally seen as a good thing.
Newsflash: Farmers and breeders have been "upping the ante of evolution" for thousands of years. Human interference in evolution has given us a LOT of beneficial improvements to plants and animals alike over the centuries (not to mention making my cute poodle possible).
Re: (Score:2)
I'm more concerned about companies ending up with monopolies on the world's wheat/corn/etc. supplies. The Windup Girl by Paolo Bacigalupi is set in a near-future world where "competition" between companies like Monsanto (in the form of genetically engineered diseases targeting your competitor's crops) has completely pooched the environment.
Re:Ruin the US wheat crop, get a prize! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not calling objection hysteria. I'm calling statements like "untold acres" when one plot was found hysteria.
They're not telling us how many acres of this stuff is out there. Sounds like "untold acres" to me.
Re:Ruin the US wheat crop, get a prize! (Score:4, Informative)
Um no, they found one plot and told us about it.
http://news.yahoo.com/usda-modified-wheat-appears-isolated-205944372.html [yahoo.com]
No other cases have been found.
Re: (Score:3)
Not much of a literalist, eh?
If they haven't told us about it, then it remains "untold". That might mean zero, it might mean a few other fields, it might mean 90% of fields. But no matter which, we have UN-TOLD acres.
Re: (Score:2)
Countless acres: One site in Oregon
Out of the 200 million acres of wheat planted in North America, it was so conveniently only found exactly where the anti-GMO activists looked for it, but subsequently no where else. If I was a conspiracy theorist, I would say that the anti-GMO activists found it so easily, because they planted it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who woulda thunk? (Score:3, Insightful)
Winning an award for poisoning people and contaminating innocent neighbor farmers' fields.
Fits With Obama Peace Prize (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey, if Obama can win the Nobel Peace Prize for expanding our wars and the war powers assumed by his office, why shouldn't a company that that profiteers on regulatory agriculture monopolies get the World Food Prize? I understand The Pope is being considered for an equally prestigious anthropology prize.
Just like the Nobel (Score:5, Informative)
There appears coincidentally to be a connection between the Nobel and this so-called World Food Prize. The Nobel awards were started by the man who invented dynamite. The Food Prize, according to the NY Times, "was started in 1987 by Norman E. Borlaug, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 for bringing about the Green Revolution, which vastly increased grain output, and who thought there should be a Nobel Prize for agriculture". One may well argue that dynamite contributed to world peace in the same way the Green Revolution, with its focus on massive crop monocultures, contributed to global food production.
A Monsanto executive winning this award shouldn't be surprising, even without the allegations of financial "compensation". The Green Revolution was all about increasing the supply of food, never mind the quality, or the ecological or social side effects. At who knows what cost, there's no question Monsanto technology helps increase food output.
Re: (Score:2)
There appears coincidentally to be a connection between the Nobel and this so-called World Food Prize. The Nobel awards were started by the man who invented dynamite. The Food Prize, according to the NY Times, "was started in 1987 by Norman E. Borlaug, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 for bringing about the Green Revolution, which vastly increased grain output, and who thought there should be a Nobel Prize for agriculture". One may well argue that dynamite contributed to world peace in the same way the Green Revolution, with its focus on massive crop monocultures, contributed to global food production.
A Monsanto executive winning this award shouldn't be surprising, even without the allegations of financial "compensation". The Green Revolution was all about increasing the supply of food, never mind the quality, or the ecological or social side effects. At who knows what cost, there's no question Monsanto technology helps increase food output.
Did you save more than a billion people from starvation? Did you prevent untold suffering and and social problems by ensuring sufficient food for a growing population? No. No you didn't. You know who did? Norman Borlaug.
Re: (Score:3)
> One may well argue that dynamite contributed to world peace in the same way the Green Revolution, with its focus on massive crop monocultures, contributed to global food production.
You can argue that if you want. But then you have to explain away the fact that Borlaug saved more lives (now estimated in the billions) than any man to walk the earth.
Good luck with that.
Re:Just like the Nobel (Score:5, Informative)
http://artsandsciences.colorado.edu/magazine/2010/06/green-revolutions-dark-side-effect-disease/ [colorado.edu]
http://newsdesk.org/2008/08/dark_side_of_th/ [newsdesk.org]
http://www.hrw.org/news/2005/09/04/dark-side-ethiopia-s-green-revolution [hrw.org]
etc etc
At "best" the "Green Revolution" postponed the inevitable and meanwhile increased the number of people who would eventually inevitably die from starvation as the land becomes unable to support farming due to depletion and destruction of soil diversity inherent to these methods.
HTH, HAND
Re:Just like the Nobel (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Just because something is predicted by repeatedly-incorrect Malthusian doomsday scaremongers doesn't mean it's inevitable.
Ask the Indian farmers killing themselves because their land will no longer produce crops due to so-called "green revolution" farming practices what "inevitable" means.
Re: (Score:2)
[citation needed]
If you can't find a citation with google, then you're an asshole. Right now the deaths are being blamed on Monsanto but the fact is that this has been going on in significant numbers for almost a decade.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Green Revolution saved billions from famine and disease. As scientific understanding of the process and technology improve leading to improved sustainability. Current systems are very wasteful; some 30-40% of all food ends up not being consumed. RIGHT NOW we produce enough for estimated stable long term population levels of the planet.
http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/dsd_sd21st/21_pdf/agriculture_and_food_the_future_of_sustainability_web.pdf [un.org]
In the meantime birth rates in human populations are declining due to
Re: (Score:3)
If food could be stockpiled for years, then some countries would no longer be hard hit during droughts and other causes of crop failure.
If people have a lot of food then they eat a lot, and they make a lot of babies. And the poorer they are, the more babies they make. Look at how many people have been added to the planet in the last decade and where they were added. People cry "hypermalthusian" when you suggest that this might be leading us to a problem. If India's cropland is failing, what of China? I'll guarantee you that the same is happening to them, only we're not hearing about it as much. Transportation of food is only becoming more e
Re: (Score:2)
... and by that logic, the real problem is not the Green Revolution, but agriculture itself.
All you need do is look to Africa to see that improper use of agriculture is hazardous to biostasis. Or, you could take a swift peek at the Amazon, probably already past the point of collapse. You could examine the American West, which has only a tiny fraction of the carbon-fixing biomass that it had two hundred years ago, and which is rapidly becoming desertified.
What is missing in our modern societies is cyclical resource utilization. We keep trying to throw things "away", but there is no "away". The onl
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Fits With Obama Peace Prize (Score:5, Funny)
Hey, if Obama can win the Nobel Peace Prize for expanding our wars and the war powers assumed by his office, why shouldn't a company that that profiteers on regulatory agriculture monopolies get the World Food Prize?
To be fair, Obama didn't win the Nobel prize for ending wars. He won the prize for not being Bush.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, Obama has proven himself to be the Über Büsh.
Re: (Score:3)
Seriously, after those disastrous eight years, all Obama had to do was say the word "peace" in a couple speeches. That's a damn low standard for the Peace Prize. In my opinion it is an embarrassment to the Nobel Committee for picking such a bad nominee, and I think Obama should have refused it. He could have given a speech listing a bunch of deserving candidates, pointed out that Presidents wage wars and cause death (which he did in fact point out in his Prize acceptance speech), and in the end he would hav
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, Obama didn't win the Nobel prize for ending wars. He won the prize for not being Bush.
To be fair, the genetic engineering techniques pioneered by Monsanto have enabled us to correct that. [blogspot.com]
Re: (Score:2)
"...expanding our wars and the war powers assumed by his office..."
Now that's not exactly fair; Obama won his Nobel actually for doing nothing.
In fact, given the schedule of the deliberations, it was decided before he was even formally president (Jan 21).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
expanding the wars? Are you retarded? He closed one out and has the other closing out., I Dont like the guy or his politics but at least be truthful
Then you shuld be truthful as well. Obama didn't close out the war in Iraq. He followed the agreed upon withdrawal timetable already set in place by Bush and the Iraqi government.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Better joke: The Pope is being considered for a prize for protecting children from sexual predators.
Ah, ha ha, it's so funny how the Catholic Church is directly responsible for the rapes of untold and countless children for over a thousand years! Ha, ha, ha, oh me oh my those wacky Catholics!
Monsanto won what? (Score:2, Insightful)
That's like saying Hitler won the fucking nobel peace prize.
The biggest danger to the human race right now is not terrorists or asteroids. It's Monsanto. These money hungry whores are destroying our food resources and replacing them with engineered replacements without realizing the full long-term impacts on both our health and the planet's.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Monsanto won what? (Score:5, Informative)
Using roundup ready GMO means roundup is used on the plant, and you get roundup in you food. Using BT-producing GMO means there is botulism toxin on your food. Are you sure about the consequences?
Uhh... Bt-producing GMO plants have a gene from Bacillus thuringiensis in their DNA. Bt has been used for years as an alternative to more-harmful pesticides, and can even be used on certified organic crops. It has nothing whatever to do with botulism (from Clostridium botulinum).
You really should make sure you know what you're talking about before you make outrageous and trivially refutable statements. Just sayin'
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, of course it is not botulism toxin, I should not post too early in the morning.
Anyway, my point holds. Are you sure eating toxins from bacillus thuringiensis is fine? And you did not comment on roundup?
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway, my point holds. Are you sure eating toxins from bacillus thuringiensis is fine? And you did not comment on roundup?
And you didn't comment on his point that using bacillus thuringiensis reduces the use of more harmful pesticides.
Good scientists spend a good portion of their time attacking their own ideas (because, as Richard Feynman says, you are the easiest one to fool). Do that, Manu0601, and you will be wiser.
Re: (Score:2)
And you didn't comment on his point that using bacillus thuringiensis reduces the use of more harmful pesticides.
Because I am not convinced pesticides are the only way to go
what?! (Score:3)
Great (Score:2)
Hmmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Its like giving Obama the Peace-Prize. Oh wait... They did. Never mind. The also awarded the EU with that prize and as a citizen of the EU I am still waiting for my share of the prize money or the equivalent of two high quality jelly babies/gummy bears.
Re: (Score:2)
They told me if I voted for Romney (Score:2)
They told me if I voted for Romney, we'd see a regime increasingly in bed with multi-national companies unethically exploiting the world's food supply... and they were right!
Re: (Score:2)
Romney would have done exactly the same. However, he would act faster, as he has less a conscience mocking him. So the difference is more in the time when you get there and not in where you go. I am looking forward to the EU-US trade union, so I can see how European food standards, established over decades, will be obliterated by that treaty in minutes.
BTW: That would not have happened with Romney, as he might not have found the EU on the map. (Just kidding of course).
Surprise! Monsanto has been paying the WFP (Score:5, Informative)
If you look at the website [worldfoodprize.org] of the World Food Prize org, you will find :-
The World Food Prize sincerely thanks the following sponsors for supporting its annual programs: ...
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation DuPont Pioneer John Deere Foundation
The Mathile Institute for the Advancement of Human Nutrition Monsanto DuPont Pioneer
Ruan Transportation Management Systems Claudia and Paul Schickler....
So, Monsanto is one of the sponsors of WFP. A pretty important one too, as shown by this link which used to exist on the Monsanto website [googleusercontent.com].
The World Food Prize Foundation on Friday accepted a $5 million contribution from Monsanto Company to ensure the continuation of the annual World Food Prize International Symposium -- now known as the "Borlaug Dialogue." The funds support a renewed fundraising campaign to transform the historic Des Moines Public Library building into a public museum to honor Dr. Norman Borlaug and the work of the World Food Prize Laureates.
When you look up the WFP website [worldfoodprize.org] , you will find that "The World Food Prize is sponsored by businessman and philanthropist John Ruan and is located in Des Moines, Iowa."
Not in itself damning, until you realise that :-
Monsanto has more facilities in Iowa than in any other state in the country [monsanto.com]
Monsanto has made substantial investments in Iowa [wqad.com]
Monsanto actively lobbies to change laws in Iowa [grist.org]
I think its fair to say that Monsanto has a lot of influence in Iowa.
I question the integrity of this "prize".
Monsanto corrupting academic journals similarly (Score:3, Informative)
It's no surprise at all, because it's been revealed that Monsanto has been using this same tactic for years to corrupt academic journals to ensure that no contrary research gets published.
Take a look at The Goodman Affair: Monsanto Targets the Heart of Science [independen...cenews.org]. It's enough to make you weep for the biomedical and horticultural sciences.
This is very likely to be why Monsanto shills so often dismiss contrary research with "It's not published in a top peer-reviewed jou
Nice technology, bad laws (Score:3)
The technology is great stuff. The real valid reason Europe and others complain goes back to the laws around these innovations - it really is innovation not round corners on a dumbed down interface.
Lets say the innovation results in a 20% increase in production. A farmer producing crops by traditional technology becomes a cash loss as prices decline. A farmer producing with the new technology does not own the seed and perhaps the product as they sign contracts to work for monsanto. The IP owner dictates what the cash crop worker does, how much they are paid and if they get to be viable next year.
That's markets, right? more efficient things come and less efficient things go. The measure of success of the market is the price we pay for food.
So we move to a contract mentality and family farms go away. You get short term goals with no concern about the productivity of the land from one generation to the next. Land does not work that way. You can do a decades worth of damage very quickly.
But what stake does Monsanto have in this game? So total productivity drops 30% due to short term corporate farming practices. It applies to farms moving back to traditional technology as well and Monsanto has a 20% advantage. Small farmers go away. Monsanto wins. We lose.
I have no fear of eating GMO agricultural products other than the damage it does to our future.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
What injecting more plant scales?
Re: (Score:2)
My wife goes to those, she brings home a lot of tomato plants and flowers and plants them in the yard. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Here's one that's a little less slanted:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/business/monsanto-executive-is-among-world-food-prize-winners.html [nytimes.com]
Also, Robert Fraley holds a National Medal of Technology, awarded by Clinton in 1999.
Re:Proofreading? (Score:5, Funny)
It is Monsanto. "Sell" isn't exactly wrong.
Re:Proofreading? (Score:5, Interesting)
It is Monsanto. "Sell" isn't exactly wrong.
True dat.
The award was given for devising a method to insert genes from another organism into plant sell, which could produce new genetic lines with highly favorable traits.
What's missing is the next bit, which should be something like this: "And then ream everyone in court who tries to keep some seed and use it to replant. Also, investigate, harass, litigate and otherwise bully Monsanto even suspects of using some of their "Genetic Property". Also, lobby for legislation which requires food aid from the US to be GMO crops and any seed giving to developing nations through US aid to be their property, so they can come knockin' later when that country's farmers prosper a bit and the native seed banks are all but extinct."
Well done them.
Re:Proofreading? (Score:5, Informative)
And then ream everyone in court who tries to keep some seed and use it to replant.
There's always the option of not buying them and going with open pollinated seed. If you get sued for violating a contract you signed, then that is on you. And before you bring up the inevitable claim of suing for cross pollination, wrong. [npr.org]
lobby for legislation which requires food aid from the US to be GMO crops
That's new on me. Point me to that specific legislation, because that sounds an awful lot like a load of made up bullshit that someone pulled out of the usual place. Yeah, for some crops like corn and soy, most of the aid is genetically engineered, because most of the crop is genetically engineered. This isn't a conspiracy; it's just how supply chains work.
Re: (Score:3)
There's always the option of not buying them and going with open pollinated seed.
Tell that to the farmers living in Iraq [wikimedia.org].
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The lobbying isn't much of a problem. Kids ask their parents for ponies by the millions every Christmas. The real problem is that our corrupt legislators grant these wishes, mostly because it's not their own money that they are givi
Re:Proofreading? (Score:4, Insightful)
Monsanto doesn't "sell" any more then Microsoft does. They lease out their "IP". They are working on "embracing and extending" the world food supply. Currently the natural plants and the bees feel a bit like Word Perfect. Farmers downwind are getting introduced to SCO like tactics, only the courts and congress are backing Monsanto.
bad analogy (Score:3)
Monsanto's products aren't copyrighted, they are patented. Those patents expire after 20 years. Roundup-Ready is becoming generic next year, at which point you can use it freely (since Roundup has also become generic). And Monsanto has to innovate in order to compete with its own generic product.
What has made Microsoft so dangerous and threatened to monopolize the industry was the unreasonably long duration of copyrights. And as you may notice, Microsoft Windows is fading from significance as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Linux I abandoned when I ran out of time to futz with settings about 10 years ago.
I set those settings 15 years ago and haven't looked back. Actually I wish I could say that were true, but along came KDE4 and Gnome3 and screwed everything all up. Keeping my fingers crossed that XFCE will leave the environment that is perfect for me alone.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Monsanto's litigation tactics remind me of the RIAA and its ilk. Both try desperately to stop easily duplication of their "IP", but in Monsanto's case they're fighting against the four and a half billion year old tactics of nature.
They can sue as many farmers as they like, their precious seeds will propagate out of their control eventually.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
so let me get this straight, a guy was given a food prize for making food less food-like?
Re: (Score:3)
it's more like Dr. Frankenstein winning the Nobel prize in medicine.
Re:Proofreading? (Score:5, Insightful)
The day someone returns life to a dead organism, they have damn well earned a Nobel prize.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The day that happens you better have your guns ready.
Re: (Score:2)
Because we could explore space.
Re:Proofreading? (Score:4, Informative)
I think it would be more like giving a health prize to a pharmaceutical company for vaccine manufacturing. Sure, despite the public controversy concerning whether or not they cause autism, it would be true that the company has produced good things that have combated disease, although giving it to a corporate suit is still kind of bullshit. That's how I feel about it. Even if their seeds are helping people (for example, this [forbesindia.com] just popped up in the news), giving the prize to executives doesn't seem right. Perhaps individual scientists or teams, but corporate executives? I don't like it.
As a side not, the Frankenstein thing is pretty silly. No one calls it Frankenstein when someone picks out a somatic mutant of a fruit tree and grafts it to another tree, no one calls it Frankenstein when you chemically double the chromosomes of a plant either to cross it with a non-doubled one to get a triploid or to produce a plant with homozygous alleles from a pollen cell, no one calls it Frankenstein when you cross two plants that can't produce viable offspring and then remove the embryo before it dies to culture it into a hybrid that could never exist in nature, no one calls it Frankenstein when you blast a culture of cells with radiation or apply mutagenic chemicals to create all sorts of random mutations, and no one calls it Frankenstein when you select random mutation after random mutation in the form of artificial selection, a process that has caused such great genetic shifts as to create corn from teosinte [wikipedia.org] and broccoli, kale, kohlrabi, cabbage,and cauliflower (all the same species by the way) from wild mustard. Yet now this is Frankenstein? I mean, I suppose you could go the appeal to nature route and argue that everything else is just manipulating natural forces in a beneficial way, but of course, one could point to horizontal gene transfer and say the same of genetic engineering, not that the argument means much anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd have to agree. There were only three sentences in the summary. The error wasn't exactly hard to spot, given that the sentence in question was both grammatically and factually incorrect.
Re: (Score:3)
There is no such thing as bacon corn but there is such a thing as a lard nut [wikipedia.org] that supposedly has a pork like taste. Maybe when human society finally gets its shit together with respect to agricultural biodiversity and starts developing and widely cultivating more of the usable species out there you might get a chance to try one.
Re: (Score:2)
If maybe you don't trust Greenpeace,
And who could blame you, when they start the article with a sort-of lie and an outright lie
In the crop department, Monsanto is well on their way to dictating what consumers will eat, what farmers will grow, and how much Monsanto will get paid for seeds. In some cases those seeds are designed not to reproduce sowable offspring. In others, a flock of lawyers stand ready to swoop down on farmers who illegally, or even unknowingly, end up with Monsanto's private property growing in their fields.
No, Monsanto is not developing terminator genes, they bought a company that had developed it for its other IP, and no, the Schmeiser case was about as long as you can get from "a farmer unknowingly [ending] up" with anything.
Really, if there are that many other sources, than why link to the one that does maximal damage to your credibility?
Re: (Score:3)
The wonders of spell check. Anyone care to debate "Pubic Policy"?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Such policy only really applies to the time around Valentine's Day:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/20000-tons-of-pubic-hair-trimmed-in-preparation-fo,2909/ [theonion.com]
That's right, 20,000 tons...
Re: (Score:2)
No, that is a DRM measure [slashdot.org] and correcting it would constitute a DMCA violation ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Writing Mon$anto would have been to obvious, with NSA spying and all. The editors now have to find subtler ways of saying big corporate corporations are greedy.
Re: (Score:3)
Nonsense. The idea that Monsanto has a monopoly is flat out wrong.
There are several major crops where Monsanto has a lot of competition, and others where Monsanto doesn't even offer products. Corn, which is Monsanto's biggest product has a 40% market share.
In only soybeans could you say they have a monopoly. And the first generation patent that gives Monsanto the edge in this market expires in 2014.
http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/roundup-ready-patent-expiration.aspx [monsanto.com]
Re:gmo (Score:5, Informative)
Those "highly favorable traits" are resistance to the herbicides that Monsanto also sells. For every USA acre sown with their GMO corn they can be sure of selling an appropriate amount of Round Up to treat that acreage at least a couple of times.
The foreign markets will be more lucrative, though. Many countries in South America, Africa, and elsewhere do not have the regulatory mechanisms to assure that no more than a certain amount of Round Up is applied, and that it is only applied when the weather is good for keeping it on the cultivated fields. That means that Monsanto will be able to sell much more Round Up per acre to these foreign users, who can splash it around like holy water. If the morning's dose gets washed into the streams by the afternoon's rains, what the heck, it doesn't cost that much to just spray the fields again the next day.
Of course the ecosystem does not have the genes to protect itself from Round Up. But since the effects of poisoning it will not show up until after the fatter end of year bonuses to the Monsanto's executives, there is no reason for this company not to push their GMO products AND their wonderful herbicides.
There is a whiff of corruption about the USA State Department now. I am really surprised and disappointed that John Kerry is involved in this. I thought he had more sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Glyphosate (Roundup) has long become generic, and many companies sell it.
Farmers have used herbicides since long before herbicide resistant crops. Roundup-Ready crops mean that farmers
Re:gmo (Score:5, Informative)
Monsanto is developing drought resistant rice through selective breeding, which will compete with 4 or 5 other drought resistant strains of rice already developed in other countries. There are no stories about Monsanto doing any drought resistant GM rice. If it was happening, Monsanto would be blowing its horn about it. So parent post is factually wrong on this one.
Monsanto has gained approval to market a drought resistant GMO corn. The only thing is, it is not any better than strains of drought resistant corn already on the market, developed at agricultural colleges to meet the specific conditions of various areas. The Monsanto GMO corn is not as good a solution as the strains that have been bred for each region. Monsanto's long term goal is to probably combine "Round Up Ready" GMO corn with GMO drought resistant corn and drive all other strains out of the market. That will ensure an increase in the flow of Round Up, which is one of Monsanto's biggest revenue streams. (What Round Up can do to a trout streams is something else again.)
There has been a noticeable increase in Bt resistant pests in areas where Monsanto GM Bt crops have been grown. Perhaps it should not be a surprise that not much research on this "aberration" is being funded.
Aren't you the little Monsanto fanboi. But your post does provide a convenient place to air some of the other problems that are associated with Monsanto's exploitive business practices.
Re: (Score:2)
So why would farmers buy it if it's not "as good a solution"? This isn't like the drug business where doctors are tricked into spending more of other people'
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the principle ingredient in Roundup went off-patent more than 10 years ago. Monsanto holds patents on the mechanisms, processes, and specific formulations used to produce the various Roundup poisons. I understand that Monsanto says about half of its revenues come from Roundup and associated products (I think that includes the Roundup Ready seeds, too.)
The literature Monsanto provides on using Roundup on Roundup Ready fields is specific to Monsanto products. That is, you plant with Roundup Ready corn,
Re: (Score:2)
You realize glyphosate is off-patent now, right?
You realize that Monsanto themselves still produces more than half of all glyphosphate anyway, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Gardeners have know for years that Round Up (glyphosphate) becomes innert almost as soon as it hits the ground. You only need to keep pets away for a couple of hours - it says that on the bottle too.
Re: (Score:2)
It's all about selling more Round Up. Since the GMO plants are resistant to it. That it involves plant sales is only a logistical device; the strategy is to get everyone everywhere to put Round Up on all their acreage.
Later on, Monsanto will buy the rights to the Miracle Grow trade name. And develop a line of chemicals that can be sprayed on all the ecosystems to help them recover from the mysterious global ecosystem diseases.
Monsanto Round Up, and Monsanto Miracle Grow. The stuff our surviving grandkids
Re: Cool a Skull And Bones Guy (Kerry) (Score:2)
Do you have a non-biased not-crazy-person source?