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

Re:Corporate...

[darkov]

My comments were aimed at the people making the decisions. They are the ones who should take responsibility, not people who just do what they are told.

The best way to punish corporate fuckwits is not to impose financial penalties. That can be factored in as an expense and risk factor. These people should be made to live in their own filth. We should show them complete disregard for their lives, just as they have for others.

Why is it that if I kill someone by accident, I'll go to jail (most probably). But if some corporate idiot kills tens or hundreds of people in a cimmunity, he'll still get his bonus?

Re:Large biotech firms

[green pizza]

Living near the Candian boarder I've been reading about this in our local newspapers. Seems a canadian farmer obtained some freshly harvested canola seed which he planted the very next year. Well, this wasn't the cheap stuff, it was Monsanto RoundUp-Ready canola (GM to resist RoundUp... spray field with RoundUp, kill everything but the canola... better yields, only downside is possible glyphophosphate poisoning). But, the license for Monsanto RR canola specifically states that it cannot be harvested for use as seed (that is, you have to keep buying your seed from Monsanto each year). Somone reported the farmer and Monstanto investiaged and sued. Farmer made some pretty weak excuses, but at least did grab some media attention.

What he did was illegal, but I don't blame him. Farming is hard business these days, especially when only certain crops get subsidies and the seed and fertiziler companies are out to suck the farmer's wallet dry.

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

[dangermouse]

... make the Irish famine look like small potatoes ...

Um, small potatoes would have been an improvement on the Irish situation. ;)

Re:Guilt By Association, don't buy it

[TheAJofOZ]

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.

A number of people have stated that this analogy is incorrect already, but none of them seem to be getting the point through to people, so let me try an analogy to show why these actions are in fact reason to question the GM production from Monsanto.

Let's say that you have a friend who you've known for a fair while and trust. You tell this friend a secret which is really important to you that it is kept secret and they break your trust by telling a whole bunch of people your secret with no reasonable justification for these actions. Needless to say you're pretty annoyed, you yell and scream etc, etc. Then you notice that your friend gets on really well with your girlfriend.

Now, there is no evidence to suggest that your friend is doing anything with your girlfriend and before this friend betrayed your trust you never would have even thought he would steal your girlfriend - but you never would have thought he'd breach your trust either. It's pretty clear in this situation that while you shouldn't jump to conclusions you probably shouldn't put blind faith into your friend who has clearly and blatantly betrayed your trust.

Now lets suppose that you know a corporation who makes weed killer and the weed killer works really well - you've been buying it for a fair while now. Suddenly you discover that in producing this weed killer the company has been dumping all kinds of dangerous chemicals into a river - affecting a significant number of people - with no good reason.

Then you notice that this corporation is producing genetically modified foods (which you regularly eat). Clearly it's not a time to go jumping to conclusions, but it's also not all that wise to continue to put your blind faith in the corporation.

Whether or not there is evidence that the GM foods produced by Monsanto are good, bad or indifferent is irrelevant. When a company shows this much flagrant disregard for the health and saftey of people, it is probably worth taking a closer look at their other areas of operation - not doing so is akin to burying your head in the sand.

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.

Monsanto and The PCB's...

[TheSauce]

More interesting and relevant from the article is the premise that they were aware as early as the late 1930's that they were doing lasting damage--and worked very hard to keep that from surfacing--since they had a complete monopoly on PCB's period. And production continued until two years before PCB's were banned for good in 1979.
Good corporate citizenship it wasn't. Worse, at the level intimated in the article (if true,) that particular factory and its overseers were committing mass murder. One has to wonder about our corporate law structure on that note.
Are fines and clean-up measures a reasonable response?

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.

Re:Relevant?

[Platinum Dragon]

There is no 'Monsanto'.

I've seen this argument posted a couple times to the thread. I'm going to play pedant boy for a minute here.

Yes, there is a Monsanto. Under U.S. law, Monsanto is a legal entity. It even has legal status as a person. Now, while the actions of Monsanto may be directed and carried out by thousands of individuals, ultimately, those actions are carried out under the 'Monsanto' corporate personhood.

Now, either the corporation takes a huge legal hit due to the corporation's past actions - halt of operations, massive compensation, et al - or the individuals directly responsible for the decisions must stand to account for the actions of Monsanto. A person - which a corporation legally is in American - may do great work in the community, may support a family, but if that person commits voluntary manslaughter, that person is going to have rights revoked and operations halted for a while, and the people who relied on the convict will have to find other ways to get along. Harsh as hell, but if corporations get to be people, they get to be subject to the same punishments as people.

Either way, someone has to take responsibility for this mess, be that someone a person, or the corporation.

Equal Time

[NMerriam]

Before this discussion gets biased, we must present equal time for the Libertarian side of the argument:

If the people of Anniston simply stopped buying products from Monsanto, then they could use their "market forces" to stop this kind of activity.

If all we do is ask for "government regulation" then companies will just start producing thier deadly chemicals outside our borders. Then America would lose twice!

So remember, kids: Trust the market, it is perfect.

And don't eat the fish.

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.

Re:Large biotech firms

[Rinikusu]

1) "Genetic Drift" was most like an error on the poster's part

2) It wasn't soy, it was canola

3) The "patented" Monsanto canola was *not* sterile, and in fact propagated quite readily, which means that:

seeds spilling from Monsanto harvest would *grow* quite well wherever they sprouted, regardless if they'd been paid for or not. The trucks would bounce down the road with a bed full of canola and canola would go everywhere. Wind can pick up canola and spread it (and then spread itself). Birds, animals, etc could also carry it around. The facts are, the man had been a canola farmer for decades. DECADES. He'd also developed his own seed stock. His field, by his hand or by accident, became contaminated with Monsanto's version of canola (but not the whole field!) There was no judgement regarding whether or not it was intentional or not, but the courts forced said farmer to destroy his ENTIRE crop, his entire SEEDBANK, and his LIVLIHOOD because Monsanto has the legal backup to have it done. They did not have to prove he intentionally planted Monsanto seeds, which were VIABLE and are like every other fucking plant and spread. He even proved that after he burned his fields that Monsanto plants came back up! They reproduced and spread! How can this be legal? Should they salt his fields, too? No, Monsanto wants him to pay like everyone else and because the onus of proof is upon him to prove otherwise, he's a thief.

God bless the Corporation!

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.