Slashdot Mirror
Monsanto and PCBs
blamanj writes: "While
this story isn't about the gadgetry that typically appeals to /.ers, it's worth a look. The Washington Post has acquired documents showing how a
Monsanto Corp. PCB plant polluted a small town in Alabama with full knowledge of what it was doing. Their own tests showed that when fish were placed into a local stream, "Their skin would literally slough off." They showed no concern for the residents, only about potential expensive regulations or bad publicity. Why is this relevant? Well, Monsanto is currently one of biggest proponents of GM (genetically modified) foods." Very thorough investigative article about how a corporation reacts when a profitable business line is threatened, or a cautionary tale about wonder technologies, take your pick.
...fuckwits. They should be made to move to the town they polluted. With their families.
Reliable, Great Value Hosting: $7.95/mo 2.4G/120G
I never thought companies like Monsanto existed outside of the paranoid writings of science fiction writers or in surreal alternate reality fantasy stories until I found out about their infamous Monsanto Terminator Seeds?
Selling third world farmers infertile seeds so they have to keep buying your seeds with the full knowledge that these sterile seeds could spread and render entire regions infertile is so nefarious, mere words cannot convey the feelings of disgust I feel.
Why is this relevant? Well, Monsanto is currently one of biggest proponents of GM (genetically modified) foods.
It should be obvious, but it probably needs to be said:
To claim that GM foods are bad because a corporation that have done evil things is a proponent of it, is no more valid an argument than claiming that since Hitler claimed that 2+2=4, the real value must be something else.
If there are any real factual arguments against GM foods, by all means present them. But if this is the best argument, it's a big endorsement of GM foods.
Write your representatives and demand the institution of a Corporate Death Penalty.
Corporations have made huge strides in gaining "personhood" rights, with none of the responsibilities.
They have evolved to become wholly irresponsible citizens of the nations. This must stop. Either send the corporate structure back two hundred years, withdrawing all the privileges they've gained in that time; or make them take on the responsibilities that all other citizens must accept.
Write your representative. Make a difference.
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
I'll probably burn the little karma I built up, but what the heck.
I think writers of these headlines should try to maintain a certain level of objectivity and integrity when posting it. Let's separate the issues.
1st: Monsanto is a big corporation that does bad things.
2nd: Monsanto is a Biotech company.
The author most likely isn't very fond of the idea of GM food, I quote:
However, this has nothing to do with the fact that Monsanto produces GM seeds. If it were some chemical plant, it would be just as relevant .
Maybe I'm overreacting, it's just that a lot of people bash genetic modification as a "bad thing" perse, which is something I don't agree with.
Meneer de Koekepeer
I have begun to consider corporations a separate evolving lifeform. Corporations have committed many acts inimical to human life. Tobacco companies, Monsanto, Hooker Chemicals - all acted to maximize their selection function (profit). Every superfund site has a similar corporate story. Unfortunately for those of us who have to live on this planet, maximizing health (human, animal or environmental) is not a part of their fitness-selection function.
Employees in cash stressed companies knows that in questions of "cash" vs "morals", cash usually overrules.
Corporations have totally warped the political process in the US since the mid 1970s when they were granted "equal" free-speech right in the political forum. Deep pockets and harassment lawsuits have allowed them to drown out public discourse and common sense.
Our problem is corporate survival has nothing to do with human survival.
The reasoning here:
PREMISE A - Corporations only care about profit and nothing else. After all, without profit they're not going to be around for very long. And they seem capable of doing anything to protect the profitable product lines (see Pinkertons beat up union organizers, PCB cover-up, Microsoft strong-arm tactics, Just Following Orders, etc.)
PREMISE B - We're capable of manufacturing products of incredible potency: carcinogenic chemicals, genetically modified organisms, and someday self-replicating nanotech bots that can reduce North America to chum.
PREMISE C - Corporations tend to be the ones manufacturing these products.
PREMISE D - Some of these products have a negative impact on our quality and length of life, the number of limbs our children are born with, and the aesthetics of the world around us.
CONCLUSION - Perhaps we should be a little worried about the impact free market rules have on the world around us and our own livelihoods. When corporations have the ability to let loose technological advancements purely in the name of profit, the results may be less than desirable.
-- "Sucks to your ass-mar"
As long as agriculture has existed, plants have been genetically modified to produce harvests with particular attributes, including resistance to pests, resistance to harsh climate, or resistance to disease. The process of genetic modification was done by combining the seeds of two or more plants that had the desired traits.
The plants produced by this genetic manipulation weren't called "genetically modified," they were called "hybrids." Still, the end result is the same: the genetic structure of a plant was purposefully changed by humans to produce a new plant that had desired traits.
Ever eaten corn? It's a genetically modified plant. The corn you eat is not "natural." It was made, through trial and error.
How about potatoes? The potato itself is a natural plant (well, tuber.) However, farmers have modified potatoes for 1000s of years to produce different strains that have resistances, or have a higher nutritional value, or keep longer, or have a different taste.
Ever seen a white orchid? Not natural. Genetic modification. Orchids are not white by nature. (Granted, you're not supposed to eat orchids, but I think you get my point.)
So, what's the big to-do about genetically modified foods? It's not a new science, merely a new approach to an ancient art.
However, I will agree that Monsanto is a perfect example of a sleezy coorporation. But I also think that Micheal needs to lay off the scare-tactic propoganda. That, or he should go work for Microsoft as Chief FUD Officer.
"The dead do not shoo-bop-aloo-bah." -- Kai, 'Lexx'
The most telling quote is, I believe,
The critics understand unchecked capitalism all too well. If monetary profit is all that matters, then the evidence clearly demonstrates that people suffer. This is yet another datum.
There is absoloutely no guarantee that an unregulated market will lead to an optimal outcome for actual people. On the contrary, some people will suffer greatly.
Frankly, we can't trust an invisible hand.
If an individual had systematically poisoned a river running through a town we would call it Terrorism and imprison or execute that person. When a corporation like Monsanto does the same thing, we call it business, and most likely we will simply fine the corporation for a minuscule percentage of their wealth, and let them continue these practices.
Mod my comments down. It'll be fun.
Do you even realize the multi-million dollar P.R. bullshit you're parroting?
Did you even read the page you linked to? It didn't hold any actual core information, but it did suggest that you read through the available papers before rendering judgement.
Now maybe there has been a mountain of new data made available since you last looked at the question. But from my searches, based on the thousands of documents collected over the last thirty years from every imaginable level of the medical/scientific/governmental community, the conclusion you reached seems to me, frankly, ill-considered to say the least.
It seems to me that you are jumping very, very quickly to pre-set conclusions, your thought processes masquerading under the guise of scientific rationale. Sorry Charlie. You may have read a few clever books, but Real scientists aren't made into fools by the P.R. jockeys.
Honestly. People think that just because the X-Files were stupid that bad things don't actually happen in the world. "I don't believe in Conspiracies." Well genius, do you believe in "Corruption"?
Go look at the fish in Anniston.
Better hurry, because in another year, there'll be some new & dangerous fool just like you, sir, declaring that it never happened because he's been programmed since birth to reject everything but the 'official' story.
Do you even understand the basic principals behind advertising and mass persuasion?
Sheesh.
-Fantastic Lad
In gaming parlance, anarcho-capitalism and the current regime in the US is akin to the difference between chaotic evil and lawful evil (Monsato cultivated the complicity of the powers that be)
A simple visit to the party platform explains this:
If an individual had systematically poisoned a river running through a town we would call it Terrorism and imprison or execute that person.
As would be the case if they were an organisation.
When a corporation like Monsanto does the same thing, we call it business, and most likely we will simply fine the corporation for a minuscule percentage of their wealth, and let them continue these practices.
But someone forming a corporation primarily for terrorism, e.g. Al Queda Inc, would probably not get protection. Even if they also enguaged in legitimate business, even if they did it long enough that that was their major activity.
It's also most a case of something which started off as a law abiding entity is always viewed that way, regardles of how it might actually be behaving now.
At the very end of the article is the scariest quote, from a Monsanto 'environmental affairs director':
"I'm really pretty proud of what we did," Kaley said. "Was it perfect? No. Could we be second-guessed? Sure. But I think we mostly did what any company would do, even today." [emphasis added]
Fast forward a few years to 2000, and Monsanto was merged into Pharmacia and ceased to exist as a seperate company. The new company decided that it wanted to be just a pharmaceutical company, so it spun off a big piece of itself and named the new company Monsanto, because of the "proud heritage" of the original name.
This is obviously not such a good idea in retrospect, as the new company, which has nothing to do with PCBs, is now getting a big black eye in the media. However, if you check the markets, it's Solutia whose stock price has plummeted, which indicates that the big investors, at least, know which is which.
Nothing for 6-digit uids?
"Let the city or county government enact rules as to what corporations or individuals can do now. If a corporation wants to, they can always move to a city that lets them do what they want to do..."
There's a small problem with that. The communities become businesses, competing with one another for business. "Sure, you can polute here so long as you create jobs".
Globalization has caused the same problem. When big American companies were pushing Free Trade, they talked about how it would create more jobs, mean more money, etc. And as soon is it got passed, they shut down plants in North America and moved them to Mexico where labour and environmental laws were lax.
In addition, PCBs in Alabama means PCBs in the Gulf of Mexico, which means PCBs in the seafood bought in New York or Seattle.
This is a global problem, not a local problem. Certain regulations should be world-wide. Competition should not be based on lax environmental laws and poor labour laws.
Yah, I agree, a bunch of regulations hasn't solved the problem either. Perhaps the law should change so that the punishment suits the crime. Make every Monsanto executive and their family move there and live in that poisoned environment, and then see how fast it gets cleaned up.