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.

Comments

Guilt By Association, don't buy it

[Gorimek]

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.

Re:Guilt By Association, don't buy it

[metis]

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.

Not exactly. The main line of pro-GM arguments is that we can trust the science and the corporations. First, we are supposed to trust GM producers to do safety tests for the product and publish immediately any health issue that comes up. Second, we are supposed to trust the GM industry as a whole with essentially taking over the management of agricultural bio-diversity and become the unofficial management of the planet's supply of food.

Most critics of GM focus on the first problem (health) because it is more concrete and easy to explain ( and to scare with). But the second problem is by far the most dramatic. The possibility of a disaster that will make the Irish famine look like small potatoes should scare the bejesus out of everyone.

The science is an unknown, as research and commercial deployment go in lockstep. It isn't 2+2=4. Furthermore, the most important aspect of GM is management of food supplies (practical ad hoc decisions), not theoretical scientific questions. So it all boils down to an issue of trust. Can we entrust the future of the food supply of the planet to entities whose time is measured by wall-street ticks?

The new information simply reinforces the feeling that the only sane answer is NO.

Re:Guilt By Association, don't buy it

[Ichoran]

The main line of pro-GM arguments is that we can trust the science and the corporations.

That is only the line of argument to people who are unwilling to spend the time and effort necessary to examine the science--and I am not aware of too many people who argue that we can trust the corporations! Rather, it is people who understand the science who should keep an eye on what the corporations are doing.

For instance, GM crops that
* Allow massive pesticide use
* Do not produce fertile seed
* Massively overexpress the natural BT toxin
are all really stupid ideas in the long term, since they, respectively,
* Increase toxic residues in food, runoff, etc.
* Lead to a catestrophic situation (no crop) instead of a bad one (crop from poor stock) if for any reason the seed cannot be obtained next year
* Rapidly generate resistance to a substance that could otherwise be safely used for decades

On the other hand, GM crops that
* Increase the nutritional value of the crop
* Increase yield (all other things being equal)
* Increase natural resistance to disease (but not by having the plant make tons of one particular toxin)
are all really useful, for hopefully obvious reasons.

The sane answer is: pay attention to what corporations are doing, and (try to) call them when they do something stupid. If you don't have the background to decipher their claims yourself, find someone who can. But the bottom line is that GM crops are not inherently bad; just that a few of the simplest, greediest, short-sighted implementations by corporations are.

There's only one solution.

[FFFish]

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.

separate issues here

[koekepeer]

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:

Why is this relevant? Well, Monsanto is currently one of biggest proponents of GM (genetically modified) foods.

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

Evolution and the corporate lifeform

[AL9000]

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 marklet requires checks

[HalfFlat]

The most telling quote is, I believe,

Monsanto's critics, Kaley says, do not understand capitalism.

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.

Re:Large biotech firms

[ahoehn]

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.