Monsanto: Public Enemy Number 1
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/23837
"The War of the Empire has many faces. Monsanto is just about the most callous, the most harmful, the most insidious of the whole gang of predators who are out to get on top of the world - and who are ruining it savagely in the process..Monsanto plays the part as the leader of the gang of predators in the destruction of age-old agriculture.."
Don't kow how I missed this:
Monsanto 7-State Probe Threatens Profit From 93% Soybean Share
excerpt:
March 10 (Bloomberg) -- At least seven U.S. state attorneys general are investigating whether Monsanto Co., the world's largest seed producer, has abused its market power to lock out competitors and raise prices.
Monsanto's "Superweeds" Gallop Through Midwest
Back in the mid-'90s, Monsanto rolled out seeds genetically engineered to withstand its Roundup herbicide. To ensure huge growth potential, the company shrewdly chose the most widely planted, highly subsidized US crops to grace with its new "Roundup Ready" technology: corn, soy, and cotton.The pitch was simple and powerful: No longer would large-scale farmers need to worry about weeds. All they would have to do was douse their fields with Roundup, which would wipe out all plant life except the desired crop. Farmers leapt at the technology. It represented a fantastic labor-saving opportunity, allowing them to manage ever-larger swaths of land without having to pay more workers....
Well, in what is surely the least surprising, most-anticipated major development in the history of US agriculture, farmers are discovering that when you spend years dousing land a single herbicide, ecosystems adapt. Roundup Ready crops, meet Roundup-defying weeds.
If this is anything like antibiotics they will be super weeds. Far more resilient than anything mother nature originally designed.
We have now had a century of chemical companies being allowed to poison our planet.
In a way it is nice to see that weeds learn to bypass these unsustainable farm practices. Farmers have know for a long time that weeds tend to develope resistance to these chemicals. This probably means that farmers will have to go back to, or develope more sustainable cultural practices.
They are not realy super weeds, just weeds that have learned to resist Roundup, they can still be controled by the more traditional farm practices.
WATCH: Bayer + Monsanto = A Match Made In Hell (and vid)
https://off-guardian.org/2018/06/24/watch-bayer-monsanto-a-match-made-in...
"James Corbett of the Corbett Report looks at the implications of the Bayer takeover of Monsanto..."
A California jury on Friday found Monsanto liable in a lawsuit filed by a man who alleged the company's glyphosate-based weedkillers, including Roundup, caused him cancer and ordered the company to pay $289 million in damages. (Photo: London Permaculture/cc/flickr)
In an historic victory for those who have long sought to see agrochemical giant Monsanto held to account for the powerful company's toxic and deadly legacy, a court in California on Friday found the corporation liable for damages suffered by a cancer patient who alleged his sickness was directly caused by exposure to the glyphosate-based herbicides, including the widely used weedkiller Roundup.
As Reuters reports:
The case of school groundskeeper Dewayne Johnson was the first lawsuit alleging glyphosate causes cancer to go to trial.
Monsanto, a unit of Bayer AG following a $62.5 billion acquisition by the German conglomerate, faces more than 5,000 similar lawsuits across the United States.
The jury at San Francisco's Superior Court of California deliberated for three days before finding that Monsanto had failed to warn Johnson and other consumers of the cancer risks posed by its weed killers. It awarded $39 million in compensatory and $250 million in punitive damages.
As Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a lawyer representing Johnson in the case, declared on Twitter, the court "awarded 200 million in punitive damages against Monsanto for 'acting with malice and oppression.'"
Thanks for the link epaulo13!
Monsanto has lots of ugly history and blood on its hand! This ruling is almost like a small drop in the huge bucket!
Here's another good link worth the read
https://maskedcanaries.wordpress.com/boycotting-monsanto/history-of-mons...
Orange crush, agent purple and a few other names for one of the hugest war crimes in the history of mankind!
To this very day there are still babies born in Vietnam with birth defects due to the hideous biological warfare invented by the US! Biological warfare is a nightmarish war crime.
-BEWARE- this link has images very hard to unsee!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2613038/40-years-Agent-Orange-he...
Real odd that people would use something like roundup thinking it's ok?!?!?!?!?!
Monsanto = Cancer
Monsanto's Cancer Trial
Cancer: Monsanto Knew Glyphosate Could Cause It
The World According To Monsanto
Monsanto Wants Total Control, Covers Up Grave GMO Dangers
Courts often rule against the science. If glyphosate causes cancer, so does your morning coffee.
Yes, that's exactly what Monsanto says too.
Are you considering the possibility that perhaps both are saying it because it's true?
After all, "Big Pharma" says that childhood vaccinations don't cause autism.
Let's test it out Magoo. I'll do my java and you can have a nice cuppa glyphosate and see what happens?
Do you need to drink a cup of it to get the cancer?
So try a couple of spoonfulls to start..
What if I just start by maybe eating a serving or two of some food that was grown using it? You seem to be enjoying a normal dose of caffeine in this experiment, so why am I on the hook to take massive amounts of glyphosate?
Otherwise, it would be like proving that water, is, in fact, lethal, by drinking four gallons of it in a sitting (at which point it probably would be). If you're really to be fair, when I drink my tablespoon of glyphosate, will you be drinking your fifty or sixty coffees?
@ Mr Magoo and NDPP
Ya there's something missing in this debate. If you eat food that was sprayed with some kind of chemicals for whatever reason, how would know what it was sprayed with? On the other hand, when I drink a cup of coffe, I willing want to drink that espresso. I can easily say I'm going to pass on some coffee today.
I have made a number of these choices strictly because I want to do what's better for my health.
Here's something else missing from the conversation. Continued biological warfare!
https://www.globalresearch.ca/death-of-the-bees-due-to-neonicotinoid-pes...
Bees are a huge part of our food sources and the ecosystem as a whole! I wouldn't even doubt it that Monsanto was intentionally killing the bees to destroy our food sources so they can further provide solutions at a huge mark up for their profits!
Monsanto is one fuckin evil evil company! They are worst than nazis, worst than imperialists, worst than sexists, worst than homophobes etc etc etc all roled up in one! Anyone who willingly kills life for nothing more than profit is real bad news that must be eradicated! Don't trust them ever!
Bees are a huge part of our food sources and the ecosystem as a whole! I wouldn't even doubt it that Monsanto was intentionally killing the bees to destroy our food sources so they can further provide solutions at a huge mark up for their profits!
Bees pollinate plants, and we need that. But they're not a "huge part of our food sources" unless you're Winnie the Pooh, and eat honey.
Also, sadly, I don't think Monsanto has "self-pollinating" food crops just waiting for when they can murder all the bees.
why "sadly" magoo?
are you wishing they they were and did?
why "sadly" magoo?
Because in the context of the k00Ky suggestion that Monsanto is out there murdering bees "to destroy our food sources so they can further provide solutions at a huge mark up for their profits!" it would be unfortunate if they didn't think far enough ahead to be able to further provide solutions, even at giant markups.
Hate to drift into logic, but glyphosate isn’t a neonicotinoid.
Monsanto Agrees
https://glyphosateinfo.monsanto.com/does-glyphosate-harm-honeybees-2/
But then they would, wouldn't they...
@TB
Well the verdict doesn't do much to Bayer. It certainly isn't an injunction against selling roundup. And the award is a drop in the bucket. But as for what is says about science, it certainly showed Monsanto having disregard and a willingness to undermine any research that questioned the safety of its product. I think them acting like a guilty party that very much wanted to hide things had a lot to do with that verdict.
This article posted earlier this week is worth reading as a comparison.
https://theconversation.com/does-monsantos-roundup-cause-cancer-trial-hi...
And while I have seen probably a dozen posts in the last day or so about how glyphosphate is less toxic than vinegar and jurors aren't scientists, there is also this:
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/08/weed...
Yes, they probably did try to suppress unfavourable studies. But independent studies have overwhelmingly shown glyphosate to be safer than alternatives. And a court ruling often has little to do with science or fact, although sometimes they line up. Basically, it’s what the laypeople arriving at the verdict accept as reasonable.
Monsanto Agrees
https://glyphosateinfo.monsanto.com/does-glyphosate-harm-honeybees-2/
But then they would, wouldn't they...
i couldn’t say, haven’t read up on it. It still isn’t a neonicotinoid, though.
Not just suppressing. They found that Monsanto acted maliciously.
Yeah, I agree a civil suit is imperfect, but when you have a situation where a large corporation is throwing its full weight against any research that questions the safety of its products, I don't see much alternative. Again, there are strong parallels to the tobacco lobby.
And again, none of this prevents them from selling Roundup, and the award is nothing to them. The real hit is that people are getting a better picture of how they do business.
These claims in the past few days that the court process is anti-science are very hypocritical, when one considers Monsanto's actions which were revealed
And there is that study which now shows other ingredients have been found to damage cells.
Personally, my beef with Roundup isn't so much the question of whether it is poisonous, it is the company's effort to dominate the seed market, based on their spurious claim that the technology is necessary to feed the world. That is simply not true. If this was homeopathy the so-called science lobby would be all over the fact there is no evidence that it makes any difference. But because it is GMO science they are willing to buy into a big lie.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/10/30/business/gmo-crops-pestic...
Bees are a huge part of our food sources and the ecosystem as a whole! I wouldn't even doubt it that Monsanto was intentionally killing the bees to destroy our food sources so they can further provide solutions at a huge mark up for their profits!Bees pollinate plants, and we need that. But they're not a "huge part of our food sources" unless you're Winnie the Pooh, and eat honey.
Also, sadly, I don't think Monsanto has "self-pollinating" food crops just waiting for when they can murder all the bees.
Here's a link to bring you up to speed.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zg4dwmn
I thought you would be more familiar with the importance of pollinators? Also from what I remember, other pollinaticg insects are or were in very serious trouble and disappearing.
Nobody here gives any respect to insects! To you posters (maybe not you specifically Mr Magoo) insects are just bugs and are a nuisance that can should be easily killed off. I have a lot of respect for them and they are very valuable members of the world we need to live in! That's not to say that I hate it when there's a fly in my house (one just buzed by and I have to kill that fucker when I get the chance). But even though I don't want that fly in my house laying its eggs on my food, I would never use any kind of chemical! I just keep my swatter around and when I get the chance I'll physically kill it. I would never participate in some fuckin twisted nightmarish war trying to kill off all the flyies in the environment.
Not just suppressing. They found that Monsanto acted maliciously.
Yeah, I agree a civil suit is imperfect, but when you have a situation where a large corporation is throwing its full weight against any research that questions the safety of its products, I don't see much alternative. Again, there are strong parallels to the tobacco lobby.
And again, none of this prevents them from selling Roundup, and the award is nothing to them. The real hit is that people are getting a better picture of how they do business.
These claims in the past few days that the court process is anti-science are very hypocritical, when one considers Monsanto's actions which were revealed
And there is that study which now shows other ingredients have been found to damage cells.
Personally, my beef with Roundup isn't so much the question of whether it is poisonous, it is the company's effort to dominate the seed market, based on their spurious claim that the technology is necessary to feed the world. That is simply not true. If this was homeopathy the so-called science lobby would be all over the fact there is no evidence that it makes any difference. But because it is GMO science they are willing to buy into a big lie.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/10/30/business/gmo-crops-pestic...
I agree that Monsanto and how they do business is odious. I just wish there were some way to penalize them without giving the impression that there's a causal link between the substance and the disease when there isn't.
The study about cell damage - is that a human study, petri dish, mice? I haven't heard about it, but if it's in vitro, those studies aren't easily applicable to humans, it's really an early-stage study. Lots of substances that are considered safe for human use kill cells in vitro. I'd be interested to read more about it.
When that link is unknown, that is. And I am not one of those who assumes there is.
But monsanto- Bayer have only themselves to blame because they are the biggest culprit here when it comes to undermining research.
Yes I agree this is not a perfect solution but they deserved this verdict. And for all those assuming it means something it does not there are just as many who are completely disregarding what was revealed in the trial because "jurors aren't scientists".
I very much doubt there are just as many. I'm not getting the sense that anybody is disregarding the fact that Monsanto's business practices stink to high heaven. But there's a difference between a ruling finding Monsanto guilty of manipulation and malfeasance in terms of having research open and accessible and a ruling that implies a causal link where there isn't one. So I think that the ruling is, while deserved by Monsanto on some level, is a little worse than just imperfect.
I am encountering many of them on social media. Saw one blog post that didn't mention The content of the trial at all.
The pro gmo lobby fancy themselves as rational and science-minded and don't like to recognize that they have blind spots, but they do. Ironically in this case it concerns a huge corporation getting in the way of science.
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/thelogicofscience.com/2018/08/11/courts-dont...
"Fallacyman". You got that Right.
As for how bad it allegedly is, when government agencies start banning it based solely on rulings like this then we can talk about how anti science it is. No one is stopping them from selling Roundup.
..Please beware of Monsanto talking points and highly suspicious of attempts to discredit or minimize the critical and important revelations about this harmful and dangerous product. DO NOT USE MONSANTO ROUNDUP!
How Monsanto Plants Stories, Suppresses Science and Silences Dissent to Sell a Cancer-Linked Chemical (and vid) *MUST WATCH*
https://www.democracynow.org/2018/8/14/how_monsanto_plants_stories_suppr...
Democracy Now on Monsanto Roundup case interviews author of 'Whitewash - The Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer and the Corruption of Science'
Also this in babblers' favourite go-to publication:
One Man's Suffering Exposed Monsanto's Secrets to the World
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/11/one-mans-suffering-expo...
"Now, in this one case, through the suffering of one man, Monsanto's secretive strategies have been laid bare for the world to see. Monsanto was undone by the words of its own scientists the damning truth illuminated through the company's emails, internal strategy reports and other communications. The jury's verdict found not only that Monsanto's ROUNDUP and related Glyphosate-based brands presented a substantial danger to people using them, but that there was 'clear and convincing evidence' that Monsanto's officials acted with 'malice or oppression' in failing to adequately warn of the risk.
Testing and evidence presented at trial showed that the warning signs seen in scientific research date back to the early 1980s and have only increased over the decades. But with each new study showing harm, Monsanto worked not to warn users or redesign its products, but to create its own science to show they were safe. The company often pushed its version of science into the public realm through ghostwritten work that was designed to appear independent and thus more credible. Evidence was also presented to jurors showing how closely the company had worked with EPA officials to promote the safety message and suppress evidence of harm."
quote:
On September 6 (2018), a Manhattan judge threw out a subpoena filed by Monsanto against an activist group, going so far as to lecture Monsanto on the importance of free speech and democracy. The 168-page subpoena, issued on behalf of Monsanto from a New York court, would have forced the global activist organization Avaaz to hand over decade’s worth of internal campaign communications, including personal information belonging to millions of activists who signed petitions against Monsanto’s genetically modified crops and Roundup weedkiller.
