Slashdot Mirror
Monsanto's Harvest of Fear
Cognitive Dissident writes "Intellectual property thuggery is not restricted to the IT and entertainment industries. The May 2008 edition of Vanity Fair carries a major feature article on the mafiaa-like tactics of Monsanto in its pursuit of total domination of various facets of agribusiness. First in GM seeds with its 'Roundup Ready' crops designed to sell more of its Roundup herbicide, and more recently in milk production with rBGH designed to squeeze more milk out of individual cows, Monsanto has been resorting to increasingly over-the-top tactics to prevent what it sees as infringement or misrepresentation of its biotechnology. As with other forms of IP tyranny, the point is not really to help the public but to consolidate corporate power. Quotes: 'Some compare Monsanto's hard-line approach to Microsoft's zealous efforts to protect its software from pirates. At least with Microsoft the buyer of a program can use it over and over again. But farmers who buy Monsanto's seeds can't even do that.' and '"I don't know of a company that chooses to sue its own customer base," says Joseph Mendelson, of the Center for Food Safety. "It's a very bizarre business strategy." But it's one that Monsanto manages to get away with, because increasingly it's the dominant vendor in town.' Sound familiar?"
I often wondered why it is that a milk manufacturer who doesn't use BST (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_somatotropin) in their product has to put a label that states something to the effect of "there's no scientific difference between cows treated with BST and those who aren't").
The fact that a company can force a manufacturer to put a disclaimer on their product for NOT using the drug is really scary.
The Kai's Semi-Updated Website Thingy
The parent post is not troll, just because someone feels passionately about something does not make them wrong. Those who would suppress others free speech in this manner are just a bunch of pussies. The world today is based on greed and violence. The Monsanto guys have more money and power than we can ever hope to attain through non-evil means that the only other option to stop them would appear to be the quick and easy violence method.
Most of the things Monsanto does are vile, like sueing farmers who have never touched their products for having GMO grain when mother nature took the liberty of cross pollinating from another field.
I am open to disccussion on this.
I was in almost complete agreeance with the parent post until the last line. What the Nazis did was on a different level; a very different level, and to the best of my knowledge, was not motivated by greed.
How amazed would you be to suddenly find that you just forgot what I wrote and you needed to reread my post.... again.
In a fair situation Monsanto would be allowed to research things, but would be sued into oblivion if their crops would contaminate a farmer's crop and then terminate. Farmers should be able to sue Monsanto for destruction of their property, instead of the other way around.
If we allow corporations to own species or subspecies, then the incentive is in the direction of biological warfare between corporations. Artificial species are then corporately designed to spread more aggressively, treat other species with more hostility and be more resilient. This is a disaster waiting to happen.
The reason we have ethics that say it's not reasonable for anyone to own a whole species is because of the problems we encounter down the road, on the long term. If millions of dollars are needed to create a GM crop and there is no way to recoup investment other than owning a species, then that business model should FAIL. There are lots of business models that should fail, because society is not willing to pay the price of sustaining such business models. From the business' perspective, this might make sense, since they are not the ones that are directly bearing the cost of their business model, but from society's standpoint: no deal.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
So fucking what?
Seriously, you have a field of crop X. Other farmers around you have a field of GM crop X from company Y.
You find that next year your crop has gained some of the properties/genes of the GM version through airborne cross pollination. You think this is a good thing and keep growing it.
Why should there be any consequences? Their modified genetic material has invaded your crop. You haven't stolen anything. Why should you be sued?
hell, the guy should be able to sell it on as his own roundup resistant strain in any sane world.
1. company invests billions in developing a wheat strain that grows in the desert, or orange rice with vitamin a in it, etc.
2. poor people get a hold of the crop, and grow it to feed themselves, but don't repay the company
do you force them to pay, and they starve? or do let your investment fizzle? how do you pour money into a venture which has a moral hazard attached to it?
the answer is simple, and taken straight form medical research: you only invest in research which guarantees a return. what do i mean? you spent trillions on heart attack medication, because most people having heart attacks (and are willing to treat them) are overfed overpaid rich people. meanwhile, you completely ignore malaria, which kills millions every year, because the only people who die from that are poor
so monsanto will invest billions in wheat, because wheat is primarily grown in rich northern climes, and will completely ignore tropical foods, as those crops are grown in poor countries
sorry africa, so gm yams for you
compare the prevalence of various diseases according to socioeconomic status, and you will find a direct correlation to the amount of money that goes into medical research into those diseases
now compare the prevalance of various food crops according to the GDP of the countries they are grown in. you will also find a direct correlation to the amount of $ into the biotech research in those food crops
this is the world we live in. morals and money don't mix. for those of you involved in medical or biotech research, please notice where your progress actually falls in the grand scheme of things. you serve filthy lucre, not the progress of mankind. the poor, the ones who can benefit the most from medical and food crop research, are served last, and can only hope for trickle down progress after many generations
in such a way, we are allowed to look very poorly on ip lawyers. yes, progress is served by the ip they protect, but progress only for the rich who can afford to pay for those expensive fruits (literally) of progress. but frankly, shaming people will not reverse this truth about the world we live in. a sense of high and mighty moral superiority does not pay the bills
however, it does make you immortal in terms the fame one achieves if one could find a way to serve the poor instead of serving the rich. we remember martin luther king, and mahatma gandhi. we don't remember the peers of those great men in the 20th century who served filthy lucre instead. i didn't say the way was easy, or cheap. but whoever can find a way to make it work, and give us wheat that grows in the desert, or rice with vitamin a in it, for free, for the poor, without any ip strings attached, will earn the accolades of the ages, if not a fancy BMW in the driveway
in 100 years, your nice house in the suburbs and your fancy bmw will be rust and rotting floorboards, and you will be a bunch of ash or bones. all that will live on is your name. what will you do with your time, who will you serve?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Bit of a bugger if you don't think it's a good thing though. For example if you're entire market is based on selling Organic Produce.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
I didn't see anything in the post that would imply Monsanto should only get a one-time payment, or be unable to negotiate what price they can get for their product.
I saw it simply as noting that:
1) Monsanto uses highly questionable tactics that end up hurting its own innocent customers, and
2) Those who object to being treated in this way have little recourse, given their dependence on the Monsanto product.
In any case, I don't think the behemoth that is Monsanto is in any danger of being "owned" by farmers anytime soon. Quite clearly, the relationship is the other way around. Even farmers who try to avoid Monsanto products can end up with their fields being contaminated with seed from other farmers' nearby plots, and then Monsanto sends their lawyers after them. Hell, Monsanto even sends the lawyers after companies that advertise the fact that they DON'T use Monsanto products (e.g. the dairy in the article advertising its avoidance of hormone treated cows).
Also recent trials have shown that GM seeds remain viable for up to ten years after the initial sowing... so even if you've stopped using their seed on your fields, the damned things can still germinate several years later and leave you liable, or your successor (if you've cashed up and sold on) liable to IP violation charges...
The point missed is what happens when the farmer uses clean seed from his heritage and his crop is cross polinated from the GM field next door? Now his seed crop is a half breed of GM stock. As the years go by, the cross contamination from the field next door continues until his crop isn't much diffrent than the field next door. This is done without stealing a single seed.
He still gets hit with the same lawsuit for theft of IP when the genetic crop is found in his field.
The truth shall set you free!
Yes, let's all blame Monsanto for the farmer suicides. After all, it couldn't be a huge, institutionalized problem created by years of government mismanagement? Nope: it's the big bad guy from the West! Wait, well, let's look it over, shall we?
The Indian government, during the "green revolution", convinced huge numbers of ordinary joes to take up farming. The government subsidized their crops, and held a monopoly over them. They then instituted rationing programs across the country. Huge, rousing success. Famines were nearly eliminated. Problem was, it created a huge number of new farmers who used to be auto mechanics, dhobi-wallahs, shopkeepers...etc These guys had never farmed in their lives, and had no experience. Their efficiency rates didn't matter back in the days of the Green Revolution, they just needed to produce anything. Fast forward to now, however, and the problem this created is apparent. The Indian government has opened the market up to international trade, and these farmers can't be competitive. They're competing with Thai and Indonesian farmers who are two to three decades ahead of them in terms of technology, and whose families have been farming for ten generations. So, big problems. What does the Indian government propose? GM seeds! They dole them out by the tonne without explaining that they can't be reseeded (it's not illegal, it's just impossible: the crops can't be replanted). The farmers plant them, get huge yields, go apeshit, take out huge loans, and then go bankrupt when they realize that the have to buy seeds for the next year.
"But ringmaster_j," you say, "isn't that proving that Monsanto is responsible?!?!" No. The crops themselves are not to blame. They have the potential to bring prosperity to the farmers of the Green Revolution, and make India competitive. No, what needs to be seen is the horrible way in which the farmers have been treated by their government. This is a very typical Indian government move: dump tonnes of grain from on high, get elected, move on to the next town. No planning, no advice on how to use the grain, no caveats; just "Apne GM grain he! Vote BJP/Congress/AIADMK/DMK/CPI(M)! Namaskar!" It's horrible. Then, when farmers start killing themselves, they blame it on "evil grain", and burn effigies.
Yours,
-A Canadian Living in India