GM Crop Producer Monsanto Using Data Analytics To Expand Its Footprint

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

GM Crop Producer Monsanto Using Data Analytics To Expand Its Footprint

Posted by Soulskill on Wednesday June 5, 2013 @06:30AM from the don't-get-cloud-with-their-cloud-pollinating-your-cloud dept.

Nerval's Lobster writes "Monsanto is more infamous for growing its genetically modified crops than its use of software, but a series of corporate acquisitions and a new emphasis on tech solutions has transformed it into a firm that acts more like an innovative IT vendor than an agribusiness giant. Jim McCarter (the Entrepreneur in Residence for Monsanto) recently detailed for an audience in St. Louis how the company's IT efforts are expanding. Monsanto's core projects generate huge amounts of bits, especially its genomic efforts, which are the focus of so much public attention. Other big data gobblers are the phenotypes of millions of DNA structures that describe the various biological properties of each plant, and the photographic imagery of crop fields. (All told, there are several tens of petabytes that need storage and analysis, a number that's doubling roughly every 16 months.) With all that tech muscle, the company has launched IT-based initiatives such as its FieldScripts software, which uses proprietary algorithms (fed with data from the FieldScripts Testing Network and Monsanto research) to recommend where to best plant corn hybrids. 'Just like Amazon has its recommendation engine for what book to buy, we will have our recommendations of what and how a grower should plant a particular crop,' said McCarter. 'All fields aren't uniform and shouldn't be planted uniformly either.' Despite its increasingly sophisticated use of data analytics in the name of greater crop yields, however, Monsanto faces pushback from various groups with an aversion to genetically modified food; a current ballot initiative in Washington State, for example, could result in genetically modified foods needing a label in order to go on sale here. The company has also inspired a 'March Against Monsanto,' which has been much in the news lately."

128 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Farmer types, a question for you by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-05 06:37 · Score: 5, Interesting

Why stick to a single crop and not rotate like days of old?
1. Re:Farmer types, a question for you by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-05 06:43 · Score: 0
  
  Why stick to a single crop and not rotate like days of old?
  Because we feel like it? What's it to you?
2. Re:Farmer types, a question for you by Sarten-X · 2013-06-05 06:52 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Because different crops are different. They require different care, different equipment, and have different market demands. That means different prices, different profits, and different outcomes. Instead of just growing and harvesting a crop, you're now managing a multi-year multi-stage process across several rotating plots, and a single bad year can disrupt the next several years of work as you try to rebuild that delicate year-to-year balance of nutrients.
  I know the nostalgic image of the gentle old-time farmer is romantic, but the simple fact is that modern farms are a production industry. Just like any other production industry, there's a significant expense associated with every redesign and retooling for a new project. Generalization has some benefits (labeling food "organic", for instance), but specialization has its benefits as well (lower expenses).
  Source: I grew up in farmland. When the wind blows just right, you can smell the manure from the pig farms. When it blows the opposite direction, you can smell the manure being spread on the crop fields.
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
3. Re:Farmer types, a question for you by westlake · 2013-06-05 07:01 · Score: 2
  
  Why stick to a single crop and not rotate like days of old?
  Taking land out of production has never been an easy choice to make. Each crop in the rotation has its own labor and material cost. Different skills. Different tools. It adds up.
4. Re:Farmer types, a question for you by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-05 07:09 · Score: 0
  
  A Wall Street type and a rancher driving through ranchland.
  Wall Street type: (sniffs and grimaces) "What is that SMELL?"
  Rancher: (sniffs and grins heartily) "MONEY!"
  Wall Street type: (thinks, focuses and forces a smile) "Ah, such a pleasant scent."
  Wall Street type plots to take some home with him, rancher hopes to trade him a honey wagon full....
5. Re:Farmer types, a question for you by ShanghaiBill · 2013-06-05 07:10 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Why stick to a single crop and not rotate like days of old?
  What makes you think that modern farmers don't rotate crops? I grew up on a farm. My parents and all my neighbors rotated crops regularly, and still do.
6. Re:Farmer types, a question for you by ThatsNotPudding · 2013-06-05 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  Source: I grew up in farmland. When the wind blows just right, you can smell the manure from the pig farms.
  aka: The Smell of Other People's Money
7. Re:Farmer types, a question for you by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-05 07:14 · Score: 0
  
  Crop rotation is still typical in the midwest. Corn one year and soybeans the next. Sometimes wheat, but less so than in the past due to relative price changes. There's some corn after corn, but additional years present pest risks and stresses the operation.
8. Re:Farmer types, a question for you by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2013-06-05 07:22 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Considering what happened in Oregon recently with Monsanto Wheat Experiments, I think maybe they need to improve the geolocation part of their data analysis.
  That, and offer to pay for genetic testing of the entire agricultural industry now polluted with their test genes.
  
  --
  SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
9. Re:Farmer types, a question for you by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-05 07:28 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Why stick to a single crop and not rotate like days of old?
  Because we feel like it? What's it to you?
  Different crops take different nutrients from the soil. Rotation allows the soil to recover, leaving it fallow allows further recovery and feeds livestock. This has been known for around 700 years, and was the case until a few decades ago. So, other than lining chemical companies' pockets, adding back what's been over-farmed, it's worth asking those that actually know what they're talking about.
10. Re:Farmer types, a question for you by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-05 07:41 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  "I know the nostalgic image of the gentle old-time farmer is romantic"
  It's also smarter than you think you are. When the genetic crops fail they will ALL fail and the bio-diversified crops will reign.
  What seems a "no brainer" requires one, to ask yourself questions. Like what does the continual use of roundup do to OUR genetic makeup?
  Crops have been developed for centuries for particular areas and are called heirloom varieties and passed down legally to each other for eons.
  Now Monsanto wants everyone to buy only theirs. But your propaganda is clearly obvious. Superior? Super? Suspect.
  Don't change my world Monsanto. Go steal the farms in India like you are doing...to the farmers here with lawsuits.
  Absolutely shameful on US
11. Re:Farmer types, a question for you by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-05 07:45 · Score: 0
  
  Generalization has some benefits (labeling food "organic", for instance)
  That's not how it works, you can still have rotation with GMO crops.
12. Re:Farmer types, a question for you by Jawnn · 2013-06-05 07:50 · Score: 0
  
  Because different crops are different. They require different care, different equipment, and have different market demands... blah, blah, blah
  That giant whooshing sound is GP's subtle humor flying right over your head. Ironically, you and he are saying the same thing - "profit". I think his version was ever so much more artful.
13. Re:Farmer types, a question for you by lemur3 · 2013-06-05 08:01 · Score: 0
  
  When the genetic crops fail they will ALL fail
  [citation needed]
  (plus, do ya got any good tips on the 2013 MLB World Series ?)
14. Re:Farmer types, a question for you by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-05 08:12 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Most corn acreage isn't rotated sustainably. 30% of U.S. cropland is planted in Corn, and there are counties in the U.S. where corn has been planted on 64% of the acres for 4 or 5 out of 5 years (source = satellite data analysis by USDA). 5% to 10% is the maximum acreage in the U.S. that should be planted in corn at any one time. Corn planted year after year degrades the soil, and results in much greater use of fertilizers, pesticides, irrigation water and other inputs. As corn is one of the least-efficient at utilizing fertilizer, about 2/3rds of the fertilizer runs off into waterways, creating all kinds of problems that farmers say are just not their problem.
  Crop rotation systems are scalable and work well, however the U.S. subsidizes commodity corn in various ways (crop subsidies, insurance subsidies, demand mandates such as the Ethanol mandate which as 40% of our corn production going to ethanol, etc). But there are basically no subsidies for livestock, which are essential for sustainable agriculture. See the Union of Concerned Scientists recent report at http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/solutions/advance-sustainable-agriculture/healthy-farm-vision.html .
  Scientists get it. Consumers get it. The only people who don't seem to get it are those who are captive to the system and benefit from the externalized costs such as pollution and the loss of topsoil...which won't effect this year's Profit and Loss statement, but will affect all our children. Buy local, support farmers who are using sustainable agriculture, support a level playing field for federal subsidies (either eliminate them or at least make them support sustainable agriculture) and call B.S. on those that say monocropping is the only way to feed the world. The only people it feeds are their short-term shareholders.
15. Re:Farmer types, a question for you by tomhath · 2013-06-05 08:25 · Score: 0
  
  Everything about the Oregon result looks like sabotage. It'll be interesting to see if they can find the source of the seed.
16. Re:Farmer types, a question for you by t4ng* · 2013-06-05 08:39 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  For the last 4 years I have lived right next to two crop fields that are worked, but not owned, by a local family that has been farming here for many generations. They have never rotated crops in the time I've been here. One field is always corn, and the other is always squash. Every year they plow in fertilizer, flood irrigate, and spray who-knows-what on everything. What's more, they rarely harvest any of it. At the end of harvest, they always tell us we are welcome to pick whatever we want. Did that once and never did it again; everything was completely flavorless. Then they plow it all under and do it again the next year!
  I can think of only two possible reasons for this behavior. One is that they would lose subsidies and the land owner would lose tax discounts if they don't grow anything on the land. The other is the big increase in deportations since Obama got in office and tougher state level regulations have made getting farm labor to pick stuff more difficult.
  With millions of pounds of food uneaten and wasted every day around the world, I don't think crop yield is a problem. Economics and logistics are the problems in getting food from the field to the people that need it, when they need it. The business model of companies like Monsanto, getting rid of small local farmers in favor of big industrial farms and prosecuting seed savers, makes those problems worse, not better.
17. Re:Farmer types, a question for you by magic+maverick+ · 2013-06-05 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  Bananas.
  Or maybe I misread the GP.
  
  --
  HELP MY ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HACKED BY AN ILLIBERAL ART STUDENT SET TO DESTROY THE INTERWEBZ!
18. Re:Farmer types, a question for you by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-05 12:42 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Why stick to a single crop and not rotate like days of old?
  Because we feel like it? What's it to you?
  Different crops take different nutrients from the soil. Rotation allows the soil to recover, leaving it fallow allows further recovery and feeds livestock. This has been known for around 700 years, and was the case until a few decades ago. So, other than lining chemical companies' pockets, adding back what's been over-farmed, it's worth asking those that actually know what they're talking about.
  The same reason anything else is the way it is - it's the most profitable. You choose to farm the thing you will get the most money for (based on a lot of different considerations - like for example will it even grow in your climate and soil type), and you optimize your operation for doing that. Plus, letting a field go fallow essentially means it is unproductive if you are cash-cropping, so it's basically costing you money sitting there. All letting a field go fallow does is replace nitrogen, and that is very easy and (relatively) inexpensive to do right now, so why wouldn't you? Also, modern farming tends to be fairly specialized, you need different equipment for different types of crops, different pesticides, etc, so changing over from one crop to another isn't as easy as you might think. In the old days, they let things go fallow because there was no other option - but once nitrogen fertilizer became available, you'd be crazy to keep doing it. (Note: fertilizers contain other things besides nitrogen, but that's basically all letting a field go fallow replenishes - something like clover will grow and fix nitrogen into the soil. You still need to put manure or something like that on to replace other nutrients at some point).
  Source: grew up on a farm, though mind you back in those days it wasn't anything like it is now - the end of the traditional family farm was just starting to happen, and that's now basically complete.
19. Re:Farmer types, a question for you by caseih · 2013-06-05 14:58 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  In fact I do. I farm roughly 3000 acres. We religiously stick to a 4 year rotation. Spring wheat, Canola, Winter Wheat, Legume. Any tighter of a rotation leads to massive disease problems (which, by the way, have nothing to do with GMO crops). My rotations are limited by several factors: soil type, total heat units, availability of water, labor, and most importantly, machinery investment. There are some crops I simply cannot grow because they would lead to massive soil erosion either in spring before the crop overs the ground and in the winter when only residue is left. Other crops I can't grow because they are too labor intensive for my operation. I currently don't have any row-crop equipment, so that precludes beats, potatoes,corn, etc. But my current equipment allows just a small number of people to effectively manage the crops I do grow.
  In days of old, in my area, rotation really wasn't possible at all because it was too dry to grow anything but wheat and rye. Now with high-efficiency irrigation, everything from corn, potatoes beans, peas, wheat, canola, onions, dill, mint, and many other crops are grown. On a large scale, there is now more diversity in crops in my area than there ever was. However, these crops are grown in large fields (no smaller than 130 acres), so that leads to local monoculture, and also a difficulty in controlling weeds.
  I do happily grow roundup-ready canola, and sometimes soybeans. I have relatively few qualms (except those I list below) with growing roundup-resistant broad-leafed crops. However roundup-ready wheats or grasses would be a very bad thing. The reason is that broadleaf weeds are easy to control with standard, relatively benign chemicals even if they are resistant to round-up, whereas grassy weeds not so much, especially wild oats. Likewise, I strongly oppose the current research into 24D-resistant soybeans because such plants, when volunteer weeds, would be much more difficult to control.
20. Re:Farmer types, a question for you by caseih · 2013-06-05 15:17 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps you should go work with farmers for a bit (real family farms... yes they still exist) and get a grasp of their current methodology, both the how and the why. Then you can take your position with knowledge rather than fear.
  Your arguments are fairly scattered, so it's hard to pin them down and reply logically to them. Monsanto isn't forcing farmers to buy their seed. Rather they offer a distinct advantage over the heirloom varieties and that appeals to farmers, and they actually have a small benefit to the environment in the short term by dramatically reducing soil weed seed load. Also labor is very expensive. Cutting labor costs can make the difference between being in business or not. Most importantly, the market has spoken, and it wants what the RR varieties deliver. Clean crops, high yields. Do I as a farmer love Monsanto? Not really. They are just a big company. Is Monstanto wrong for making a farmer sign a contract to grow seed from them? No that's within their right. Every seed company out there has round-up ready stuff now, so it's not just Monsanto anymore. =
  The widespread use of glyphosate is having negative impacts, but not in the areas that you fear. The chemistry of glyphosate is well understood and how plants are killed by it or metabolize it are well understood. Heavy reliance on glyphosate is causing weeds to be selected for resistance. And drift from spraying is causing damage to shelterbelts all across the midwest, which is going to be a huge regret in the near future.
  I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about with stealing Indian farms.
  In short, there are many reasons to be concerned with chemical farming, but your reasons aren't them.
21. Re:Farmer types, a question for you by Ol+Olsoc · 2013-06-05 15:26 · Score: 1
  
  While the statement might be a little histrionic re "they will all fail"
  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/business/energy-environment/04weed.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
  Instead of them all failing, the concept of engineering a crop so that poisons can be applied without killing the desired crop is a dead end path, and doomed to failure.
  By large scale application of the poisons onto many, many, fields, the main thing we are accomplishing is an evolutionary experiment that just speeds up natural selection
  It's not all that difficult to figure out that if 99 percent of "weeds" are killed, eventually the 1 percent that are left won't give a damn about the Roundup(tm) or whatever new herbicide replaces it. And we start all over.
  I'm pretty convinced that if we are going to continue our efforts to populate the bejabbers out of the earth, we are going to need grow our food hydroponically in huge greenhouse superfactories. Otherwise, we'll be breeding some pretty impressive superweeds in a losing war.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
22. Re:Farmer types, a question for you by caseih · 2013-06-05 15:29 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Excellent points. Sometimes I forget how things are down there in the corn belt. Even here in Canada, my neighbors to the east (next province over) are now starting to come to terms with the consequences of not rotating Canola like they should.
  Just to help people understand why crop rotation is often cheated on, consider that corn is a very lucrative crop. Soybeans, the second choice, is about 2/3 of the profit of corn. And wheat is possibly 1/2 of corn. A heavily-leveraged farm is going to be sorely tempted to to maximize short-term profits. Yes it will come crashing down eventually.
  On my farm, multiplying seed canola brings me more than double the income per acre of any of my other crops. We joke about rotating snow canola snow canola, but we know we can't do that and so we have to be careful and plan things out as best we can. We constantly look for alternate crops to try, that we can grow with our current equipment. Some work out, some don't. This year we're trying dry beans and faba beans.
23. Re:Farmer types, a question for you by caseih · 2013-06-05 15:36 · Score: 1
  
  Wanted to comment on the "when the genetic crops fail" comment. GMO crops don't "fail" any differently than heirloom crops do. An ecological disaster that wipes out GMO crops is going to wipe out "bio-diversified" crops too. Your argument is thus a fallacy.
  Perhaps you are referring to monoculture. However monoculture as a problem has nothing to do with GMO crop. Non-GMO crops can be just as mono-cultured as GMO. There is interesting research going on now into the idea of growing multiple crops together. This addresses the monoculture problem while still having the advantages of scale (irrigation systems are fixed size and go in a circle). One example is growing peas and canola together, say alternating rows. Between the two crops weeds should be fairly well managed (since canola is the most common weed in pea fields anyway!). The peas are nitrogen fixing, so that will benefit the canola, reducing input costs. And with standard harvesting equipment you can harvest them both together in one pass. All that's required is a way of separating the seeds, which is fairly easy because canola is small and peas are large.
24. Re:Farmer types, a question for you by formfeed · 2013-06-05 15:37 · Score: 1
  
  I tried rotating crops, but every time I till them the plants just die.
  Now I thought of switching to growing chicks. But no luck either.
  Dunno whether I planted them too close together or too deep.
25. Re:Farmer types, a question for you by bogjobber · 2013-06-05 18:06 · Score: 1
  
  Manual labor wouldn't have an effect on corn and squash. Both of those are mechanized crops. Illegals are used to pick labor intensive crops like berries.
  
  And it's not so much that they would lose subsidies. Subsidies are paid at the market, so it wouldn't make sense to waste the crop. And for the most part you wouldn't have to let a field go fallow anyway, what you would do is set up a crop rotation. But a crop rotation adds complexity and cost. Instead of just growing corn and only having to pay for the equipment to plant and harvest corn, you have to invest in all of the equipment to grow each crop efficiently. Even with government subsidies low-volume farmers aren't making a profit unless they're debt free (extremely rare), and either way efficiency is extremely important when you're selling commodity crops. It's simpler and cheaper to just add fertilizer.
  
  If you look back in time, "family farms" all grew at least a few crops and raised all sorts of livestock. It was its own little ecosystem. But the yields were way, way below what we can get now and the equipment has become much more complicated and expensive. If you're growing several types of crops and raising livestock in the modern era you're going to require huge amounts of both land and capital. Even if you're still technically a family farm it would be a very sophisticated operation dwarfing the farms of 100 years ago in terms of size and complexity. "Family farming" as we understood it in the past is a thing dead and gone.
26. Re:Farmer types, a question for you by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2013-06-06 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  Interesting defense. "Your honor, a seed that we tested 11 years ago in the area was found in the wild because somebody sabotaged us".
  If you were an impartial judge, would you buy that?
  
  --
  SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
27. Re:Farmer types, a question for you by t4ng* · 2013-06-06 13:11 · Score: 1
  
  Manual labor wouldn't have an effect on corn and squash. Both of those are mechanized crops. Illegals are used to pick labor intensive crops like berries.
  Not in this case. This family farms on several separate fields that vary in size from 1 to 5 acres, which they lease from the landowners. They use machinery to plow, fertilize, and spray. But I've never seen them use machinery to harvest. Usually it's just a few laborers pulling up in a pickup truck with a bunch of cardboard boxes and going at it.
  They never harvest one corn field near a public road. Instead, they let it dry out, and in Oct/Nov turn it into a corn maze that they charge admission to.
  So unless it's subsides or a money laundering operation, I have no idea how they've stayed in business for so many generations.
28. Re:Farmer types, a question for you by bogjobber · 2013-06-14 19:18 · Score: 1
  
  I guess at the small scale it would probably be cheaper to hire labor for $40/day than to rent a machine? That's weird, though, especially with corn. They definitely aren't making any money unless they have some weird heirloom organic thing going on.
Old news by CaligarisDesk · 2013-06-05 06:37 · Score: 1

They've been running contests in this area on TopCoder since January: http://community.topcoder.com/longcontest/stats/?module=ViewOverview&rd=15024
cool by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-05 06:37 · Score: -1

awesome
Much more progressive... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-05 06:45 · Score: -1

... Than using litigation and intimidation to expand it's footprint.
Come on guys, have some ethics by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-05 06:46 · Score: -1

I know that programmers don't really have an ethics requirement like traditional engineers, but do we really need one in order to skip working for a company that stands a good chance of (possibly unintentionally) killing off our whole species? Everything I read about Monsanto points to them being a strong contender for the Famine version of the end of civilization. This corporation is way more evil than Microsoft or the RIAA.
1. Re:Come on guys, have some ethics by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-05 06:50 · Score: 0
  
  Can you link to the peer-reviewed scholarly studies that make these claims?
2. Re:Come on guys, have some ethics by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-05 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  I know that programmers don't really have an ethics requirement like traditional engineers, but do we really need one in order to skip working for a company that stands a good chance of (possibly unintentionally) killing off our whole species? Everything I read about Monsanto points to them being a strong contender for the Famine version of the end of civilization. This corporation is way more evil than Microsoft or the RIAA.
  So Monsanto is trying to (possibly intentionally) start an extinction-grade famine, by providing products to allow farmers to grow more food with less energy, on less land? Damn, they are so evil that their evil plots are actually amazingly un-evil ones!
3. Re:Come on guys, have some ethics by Black+Parrot · 2013-06-05 07:10 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  No, the argument is that we'll end up with a global GMO monoculture, which will lack the variety to withstand some new pest or other threat, and then we'll have a global famine.
  
  --
  Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
4. Re:Come on guys, have some ethics by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2013-06-05 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  Better data storage= less likely Monsanto causes the Zombie Wheat Apocalypse, again.
  
  --
  SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
5. Re:Come on guys, have some ethics by bws111 · 2013-06-05 07:32 · Score: 2
  
  Why is a GM crop more likely to become a monoculture than a non GM crop?
6. Re:Come on guys, have some ethics by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-05 07:33 · Score: -1
  
  What do you mean "we don't really have an ethics requirement like traditional engineers"; if engineers had one, we wouldn't have weapons, leave alone atomic ones... clearly someone violated that requirement there...
  On the other side, you may not have an 'industry requirement' but you're still human and you are entitled to your own ethics requirement.
  I live in the DC area, lots of 'government contractors' around here (mostly DOD) and I have made a decision for my own that I will *NOT* work for the likes of Boeing, Raytheon and the likes that make things to blow people to smithereens... I know that limits my options for employment in this area but at least I didn't part-take in creating instruments of death...
  P.S.: actually, I am a huge hypocrite because I completely agree with you: this company is one of the most evil companies in the world with a ruthless pursuit of profit. That being said, I do own stock in this company specifically for this reason... so yes, I am a hypocrite (but I can dream, can't I?)
7. Re:Come on guys, have some ethics by TWiTfan · 2013-06-05 07:55 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Everything I read about Monsanto points to them being a strong contender for the Famine version of the end of civilization.
  See, it's just this kind of hyperbole that drove me out of the environmental movement for good. It got to be worse than a fucking religion. Every company was evil incarnate, every issue was the *end of the world*, every compromise or attempt at reason was deemed insufficient. Between the wild-eyed Chicken Littles and the misanthropes who seemed to secretly want all humans to commit suicide to save beautiful mother earth, I realized that this was one aspect of the left-wing that I didn't want to be a part of anymore.
  
  --
  The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
8. Re:Come on guys, have some ethics by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2013-06-05 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  Cross-pollination? (Or, rather, lack thereof?)
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
9. Re:Come on guys, have some ethics by bws111 · 2013-06-05 08:05 · Score: 0
  
  Why is GM more or likely to cross-pollinate?
10. Re:Come on guys, have some ethics by RKThoadan · 2013-06-05 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  If my facebook feed is any indication, conservatives seem to hate Monsato more than liberals. I see tons more posts about Organic this-and-that and "natural herbal remedies" from my conservative friends. I assume it's their distrust of liberal scientific stuff and general yearning for the good-old-days. It's possible my friends are statistical outliers though.
11. Re:Come on guys, have some ethics by Jawnn · 2013-06-05 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  Because of the unknown effects of fiddling with genetics in a wholesale fashion. You go from normal strain (Roundup kills it) to GMO strain (which laughs at roundup) in a single generation. Maybe you introduce an unanticipated new vulnerability to something else through the genetic fiddling, maybe not, but you have now cleared all the fields of every other strain, including those that might have had the ability quickly adapt to some new pest or blight.
12. Re:Come on guys, have some ethics by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-05 08:20 · Score: 0
  
  Stop trolling. You may think your questions cast doubt, when in reality they show how little you actually know.
13. Re:Come on guys, have some ethics by bws111 · 2013-06-05 08:24 · Score: 1
  
  I admit I don't know, that is why I asked the question (shocking, I know). So instead of giving a non-answer like that, perhaps you could actually answer the question.
14. Re:Come on guys, have some ethics by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2013-06-05 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  You are confusing conservative leading individuals with the conservative leaning political party which is typically the party of big business (only the scary big businesses as there is a different party for the other big businesses). Also when looking at agriculture related bills the split typically isn't along party lines but more along rural vs urban.
  
  --
  Time to offend someone
15. Re:Come on guys, have some ethics by bws111 · 2013-06-05 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  OK, I understand that. But isn't that a farming practices problem, and not a GM problem? GM may have some hidden flaw, but the creation of a monoculture is because farmers did it, and not because of some inherent property of being GM, right?
16. Re:Come on guys, have some ethics by Black+Parrot · 2013-06-05 08:53 · Score: 1
  
  I suppose that depends on how much genetic variety there is in in the GM crop.
  
  --
  Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
17. Re:Come on guys, have some ethics by perceptual.cyclotron · 2013-06-05 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  A "GM crop," taken generically, is not more likely to become a monoculture. However, the policies and intentions of the purveyors of GM crops are quite directly geared toward monocultures, both in the pursuit of the one-true-crop in contrast to a diversified genetic portfolio, and in the efforts to ensure that the seed for year N comes from the lab, rather than from breeding at N-1.
  This is yet another mistaken correspondence between the technology and the industry. The technology itself entails rather little. Starting from GM, you could just as readily construct arguments for either an increase or a decrease in the likelihood of monocultures. The industry however, has constrained the application of the technology in such a way that monocultures are not just a likely outcome, but an engineered and intended one.
18. Re:Come on guys, have some ethics by AlphaWolf_HK · 2013-06-05 10:20 · Score: 2
  
  If you actually look at what they're doing, making plants roundup ready requires very little change to their genome. On the other hand, selective selection (the process used since time immemorial to modify plants to our liking) modifies the plant's entire genome.
  I mean there's a tiny change that you're protesting, but you're just fine with big changes which have an even larger category of unknowns. I can already think of a number of weeds that are resistant to roundup, and that just occurred through natural selection. But a GM plant that does it with hardly any change at all is evil?
  
  --
  Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
19. Re:Come on guys, have some ethics by Fierlo · 2013-06-05 17:09 · Score: 1
  
  A large degree of unknowns is okay, from a crop diversity perspective. It reduces the likelihood of a single organism being able to wipe out the entire crop.
  A plant with a relatively homogeneous genome will be more susceptible to certain types, and less susceptible to others.
  However, it only takes one very efficient killer to wipe the GM crops out. It may take several different ones to whack the more diverse crops.
schitzophrenic summary. by nimbius · 2013-06-05 06:50 · Score: 3, Interesting

so the company is using data analytics to determine where it should plant crops most efficiently? thats pretty cool. Chances are great theyve been using analytics heavily in their biosciences divisions for quite some time, considering output from computational modeling software is rarely terse.

this might seem naive, but wasnt this the grand plan for the future? a supercrop that never needs to worry about weeds or bugs? that grows tens of times larger than its regular counterpart? I have a legitimately difficult time bashing monsanto but ive followed lots of slashdot discussion on the matter and it seems to be a pretty common thread.

are they really targeting farmers for intentional litigation somehow? there are plenty of other corn seeds besides roundup ready for example that farmers could decide to plant, and the only evidence ive seen to date was some guy who went to the supreme court to challenge the fact that he knowingly saved proprietary seeds. solution: vote with dollars, dont buy proprietary monsanto seeds.

is GM food dangerous? i really cant find any scientific data on the subject...maybe thats because research hasnt been/is still being conducted, but so far i havent seen a public crisis that indicates GM is a bad thing, other than a tentative link to colony collapse disorder.

does monsanto have a history of using analytics for some nefarious purpose? Other than creating superplants i cant think of any.

--
Good people go to bed earlier.
1. Re:schitzophrenic summary. by jeffmeden · 2013-06-05 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  so the company is using data analytics to determine where it should plant crops most efficiently? thats pretty cool. Chances are great theyve been using analytics heavily in their biosciences divisions for quite some time, considering output from computational modeling software is rarely terse.
  this might seem naive, but wasnt this the grand plan for the future? a supercrop that never needs to worry about weeds or bugs? that grows tens of times larger than its regular counterpart? I have a legitimately difficult time bashing monsanto but ive followed lots of slashdot discussion on the matter and it seems to be a pretty common thread.
  
  The beef you're *supposed* to have with Monsanto, is that while everyone is rallying around the incredibly remote possibility of cross-pollinated crops becoming infertile or unkillable or somewhere in-between (the somewhere in-between has been the outcome so far, cross pollinated plants act just like any other species, they are always of the same species and arbitrarily inherit a combination of traits from both progenitors) the amazingly more likely scenario of a devastating form of TB or bird flu or Ebola to ravage the globe will sneak up on us unannounced. Goddamn you, Monsanto, for distracting us!
2. Re:schitzophrenic summary. by MickyTheIdiot · 2013-06-05 07:04 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Quite frankly the beef(s) *I* have is that is with suing farmers whose crops show the "patented" gene through cross pollination (because that's how nature works) and forcing GM farmers to strict contracts that don't allow them to keep seed for next years crop.
  There are a lot of STINKY business practices going on here. It isn't just about the fact that they've bribed officials to write laws outlawing GM labeling or bribed officials to pass a law that makes sure they have no liability for *anything*.
3. Re:schitzophrenic summary. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-05 07:05 · Score: 0
  
  I'm not sure about all of that, but try capitalization in the near future.
4. Re:schitzophrenic summary. by diamondmagic · 2013-06-05 07:12 · Score: 2
  
  The beef most people want you to have with Monsanto is that they're out to monopolize crop planting and eliminate organic food, or something like that, or that GM crops are somehow unhealthy. It's not so much beef as BS.
  As far as I can tell, the beef Slashdot collectively has with Monsanto is that they think, like software patents, that they can patent just about anything and sue anyone purportedly using it, even if there's never been any commercial transaction, even if it's an organic farm.
  
  --
  Wonder what the public key field is for?
5. Re:schitzophrenic summary. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-05 07:12 · Score: 0
  
  Can you point to a specific case where a farmer was sued by Monsanto for what was legitimately a case of GM seed blowing into a non-GM farm?
  Every case I've read about this has ended with the facts being determined that the farmer was lying. Here is a rather damning one (pay attention to sections 124-126): http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2001/2001fct256/2001fct256.html
6. Re:schitzophrenic summary. by bws111 · 2013-06-05 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  Show a single case where a farmer was sued because his crops 'showed' the patented crop, where the farmer was not causing that to happen (by intentionally killing off all the non-GM crop).
7. Re:schitzophrenic summary. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-05 07:17 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  this might seem naive, but wasnt this the grand plan for the future? a supercrop that never needs to worry about weeds or bugs? that grows tens of times larger than its regular counterpart? I have a legitimately difficult time bashing monsanto but ive followed lots of slashdot discussion on the matter and it seems to be a pretty common thread.
  Yes, a bit Naive. You are confusing alleged end goals with means.
  Just because I say "I am trying to save the world" doesn't make it true. And if I create a product even with good intentions, that does not mean its effective or safe. That said, I'm not sure if anyone will argue that Monsanto actually HAS "good intentions"... neutral/selfish at best.
  
  are they really targeting farmers for intentional litigation somehow? there are plenty of other corn seeds besides roundup ready for example that farmers could decide to plant, and the only evidence ive seen to date was some guy who went to the supreme court to challenge the fact that he knowingly saved proprietary seeds. solution: vote with dollars, dont buy proprietary monsanto seeds.
  They do sue farmers who save seeds even if they didn't BUY Monsanto seeds, but simply had their plants cross pollinated with Monsanto's product. Its an easy enough google query.
  
  is GM food dangerous? i really cant find any scientific data on the subject...maybe thats because research hasnt been/is still being conducted, but so far i havent seen a public crisis that indicates GM is a bad thing, other than a tentative link to colony collapse disorder.
  The reason you don't see studies pointing out issues with Monsanto's products is because to use them you need to sign a EULA (effectively) which strictly prohibits you from publishing anything against their products (or even testing them at least in certain ways).
  
  solution: vote with dollars, dont buy proprietary monsanto seeds.
  I 100% agree that people should vote with their dollars! However, farmers being sued didn't necessarily buy anything from Monsanto, so they CANT. And if they keep GMO's from being labeled, they are keeping the consumer in the dark and therefore eliminating the end consumer's right to vote with their dollars too!
  So if this company is so good/neutral and the GMOs are so safe, why is there such a level of (can't think of a better word) paranoia on Monsanto's part? If there is nothing wrong with GMOs why oppose labeling? If its all so safe why prohibit information to be put out form independent studies?
8. Re:schitzophrenic summary. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-05 07:20 · Score: 0
  
  yes... because as everyone knows, if there is 1 thing life and DNA NEVER does is mutate and change on its own. Maybe if there were some long term study of these GMOs people wouldn't be so distracted by them.
9. Re:schitzophrenic summary. by ShanghaiBill · 2013-06-05 07:22 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Quite frankly the beef(s) *I* have is that is with suing farmers whose crops show the "patented" gene through cross pollination
  Perhaps before you have a "beef" with someone, you should spend a few minutes looking at the facts. This mythology about Monsanto suing farmers for cross pollination comes up regularly on Slashdot, and no one is ever able to cite a single case of Monsanto actually suing anyone for that sort of unintentional infringement.
10. Re:schitzophrenic summary. by quonsar · 2013-06-05 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  proprietary seeds.
  heh.
  
  --
  
  Sacred cows make the best burgers.
11. Re:schitzophrenic summary. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-05 07:39 · Score: 0
  
  Well we can certainly damn them for using US diplomats to try and strong-arm their best interests onto European countries.
  And we only know about that thanks to Wikileaks and Bradly Manning.
12. Re:schitzophrenic summary. by ShanghaiBill · 2013-06-05 07:39 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  they've bribed officials to write laws outlawing GM labeling or bribed officials to pass a law that makes sure they have no liability for *anything*.
  Could you please explain what you are talking about? What laws are these? There was recently a ballot initiative in California to require GMO labeling, and it was voted down by the voters not the politicians. Food labeling should be based on science, not superstition, and even for those that want to avoid GMO, it is unnecessary since it is already perfectly legal to label food as "Organic" or "Non-GMO", and since these foods sell for a premium, anyone selling them would be foolish not to label them as such.
13. Re:schitzophrenic summary. by dragonsomnolent · 2013-06-05 07:40 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  I read through the decision, and it seems this to be the most telling part: "Thus a farmer whose field contains seed or plants originating from seed spilled into them, or blown as seed, in swaths from a neighbour's land or even growing from germination by pollen carried into his field from elsewhere by insects, birds, or by the wind, may own the seed or plants on his land even if he did not set about to plant them. He does not, however, own the right to the use of the patented gene, or of the seed or plant containing the patented gene or cell." It then goes on to state that the thing the defendant did wrong was using the plants that were accidentally planted on his land. In other words, the court seems to have decided that he should have destroyed the crops on his field after discovering that Monsanto's stuff had inadvertently been planted there. Now, I'm not going to say that Monsanto didn't have the laws on their side, because apparently they did, but to say those laws are right is another matter. Your assertion that the defendant was lying is kinda bold, as it implies he stole the seeds or had planted roudup ready canola and kept the seeds, when even the judge says (in paragraph 125) " That clearly is not Mr. Schmeiser's case in relation to his 1998 crop. I have found that he seeded that crop from seed saved in 1997 which he knew or ought to have known was Roundup tolerant, and samples of plants from that seed were found to contain the plaintiffs' patented claims for genes and cells. His infringement arises not simply from occasional or limited contamination of his Roundup susceptible canola by plants that are Roundup resistant. He planted his crop for 1998 with seed that he knew or ought to have known was Roundup tolerant." The farmer's concern (now confirmed by the decision) is that if Monsanto's crap blows onto your field is hosed, because though Monsanto may come and collect the errand plants, it's not like they glow in the dark and are easy to spot.
  
  --
  I got nuthin
14. Re:schitzophrenic summary. by RKThoadan · 2013-06-05 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  In all fairness, labeling it Genetically Modified would be scientifically accurate. The assumption that Genetic Modification is a horribly evil thing is certainly superstition, but I consider that a separate issue.
  I'd actually like to know a whole lot more than that myself. What is the point of the Genetic Modifications? If it helps the crops to grow in more diverse soils or produce more food that's good. If it's to make it more tolerant to various (Monsato brand) poisonous insecticides then I'm a little bit more worried.
15. Re:schitzophrenic summary. by bws111 · 2013-06-05 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  The guy did not get sued (and lose) because his crop was 'accidentally' pollinated by his neighbors plants, he got sued (and lost) because he intentionally killed off all of the non GM crop, and kept the seeds from what was left. That is why the phrase 'knew or ought to have known was Roundup tolerant' was in there, and that is why he was sued and lost.
16. Re:schitzophrenic summary. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-05 08:00 · Score: 0
  
  This isn't myth r-tard, this is a BFD. also the fact that they are so against labeling is a red flag, since the capitalist system is supposed to work when the consumer has the information about what they are buying, by not labeling them they are undermining our choice, and cheating the system.
  Here are just a couple links you so lazily failed to look for... so lmgtfy
  http://www.dailytech.com/Monsanto+Defeats+Small+Farmers+in+Critical+Bioethics+Class+Action+Suit/article24118.htm
  http://nelsonfarm.net/issue.htm
  oh and lets not forget monsantos recent wheat issue.
  http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/06/05/monsanto-says-gm-wheat-isolated-incident-but-lawyers-bet-there-will-be-more/
17. Re:schitzophrenic summary. by Rytr23 · 2013-06-05 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  This is as recent point of contention with GMOs http://www.naturalnews.com/037249_GMO_study_cancer_tumors_organ_damage.html
  
  --
  So many injustices..so little time..
18. Re:schitzophrenic summary. by dragonsomnolent · 2013-06-05 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  Actually he only sprayed some of his crops, not all, and found that some of those crops were GM. His argument wasn't that he kept the seeds, it was that the seeds were his to keep, as the plants grew on his land. Again, that's a legal argument I'm not trying to get into, the moral argument I'm making is "If you are a farmer, and Monsanto's stuff gets into your stuff, why should you be on the hook?" Also, how do you know if your stuff contains the GM from Monsanto without killing your crop?
  
  --
  I got nuthin
19. Re:schitzophrenic summary. by bws111 · 2013-06-05 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  And again, he was not 'on the hook' because Monsanto's stuff got into his stuff. he was on the hook because of HIS actions. He knew exactly what he was doing - farmers don't routinely try to kill 3 or 4 acres of their crop without a good reason.
  There is a reason that this case is one of the very few that people can find where Monsanto sued a farmer - because it just does not happen like people like to claim. There are NO cases where the actions of the farmer (and not simple cross-pollination) are not the key.
20. Re:schitzophrenic summary. by Jawnn · 2013-06-05 08:27 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The beef most people want you to have with Monsanto is that they're out to monopolize crop planting and eliminate organic food, or something like that, or that GM crops are somehow unhealthy. It's not so much beef as BS.
  [citation needed]
  Profit, not to mention a regulatory environment that might generously be called ineffective, has driven a headlong rush down a path with a staggering array of potential problems; environmental, nutritional, etc. No, nobody has died from eating GM corn, yet, but the hubris required to ignore the potentially disastrous consequences is well beyond the "what the fuck were you thinking" mark, IMO.
21. Re:schitzophrenic summary. by dragonsomnolent · 2013-06-05 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  And, again, I'm not having the legal argument about what the law says he should have done. My question, which you still haven't answered, is morally, why should he have destroyed his entire crop because a few rows of it contained GM stuff from Monsanto, whether he knew it or not? Because, again, how do you know it's Roundup Ready without spraying your whole field with Roundup? Is Monsanto going to reimburse the farmer for his whole crop being unusable due to this cross pollination? Even the court recognizes that the plants came there via means other than the farmer deliberately planting them. His argument was that because he didn't sign anything with Monsanto, and the plants came there through no deliberate action on his part, they were his. I agree with him, you may not, the law may not, but just because it's legal, doesn't make it right.
  
  --
  I got nuthin
22. Re:schitzophrenic summary. by Solandri · 2013-06-05 08:36 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  1) The Schmeiser case was a civil trial. The standard of evidence used by the judges was "on the balance" ("a preponderance of the evidence" in the U.S.). Basically, which side convinced the judges slightly more. The Canadian Supreme Court's ruling on it was split 5-4, so it's questionable to claim anything from the decision is "rather damning."
  
  2) The Supreme Court put aside the award of Schmeiser's profits to Monsanto, and fined him just $1. Their reasoning was that while Schmeiser may have used Monsanto's GM seed and either deliberately or unwittingly helped it to spread to his fields, he did not benefit from it in any way for the simple reason that he did not spray Roundup on his crops. He sprayed it in the areas surrounding his fields to kill weeds, and he sprayed it in a small section of one field to determine if it had been contaminated. But he did not otherwise use it on his crop fields. In other words, Monsanto's seed did not benefit him in any way, and there was no motive for him to have acted with malicious intent as Monsanto claimed. Monsanto's hypothesized version of events (where Schmeiser attempted to create a Roundup-resistant canola strain without paying the licensing fees) is most likely baseless for this reason.
  
  3) The court decision you cite took Monsanto's word that resistance to Roundup could not develop naturally. It thus found that Schmeiser "should have known" that the canola which survived Roundup in the ditches had Monsanto's patented gene, and he should have treated it as contraband. However, it's since been shown that Monsanto was wrong, and Roundup-resistance can arise naturally in plants. Schmeiser's behavior of testing and putting aside seed from the contaminated field can thus be explained as him believing that perhaps he had a new strain of naturally Roundup-resistant canola. It doesn't have to be Monsanto's explanation that he knew he had Roundup Ready seed and was secretly and deliberately trying to incorporate it into his crop.
  
  4) The court accepted Monsanto's explanation that seed which fell off of trucks could not travel the distance from the roadway to the field. It cites testimony from a Monsanto engineer (paragraphs 117-118) that seed which fell from a truck couldn't have fallen and been blown that far. I find that extremely dubious for the simple reason that the roadway is not limited to one truck and the wind. Other cars travel on the same roads. I have seen debris blown for miles along a road as other cars pass by and stir it up over and over. The court also incorrectly pegged 1997 (when Schmeiser first noticed the canola which survived spraying with Roundup) as the year of the contamination, and thus found it difficult to believe so much of Schmeiser's property had been contaminated so quickly merely from seed blown by the wind. But Schmeiser didn't spray Roundup throughout the ditches. He sprayed it only where he saw weeds (mostly around utility poles where workers couldn't keep the vegetation cut). The contamination could have begun years earlier, and only came to his attention in 1997.
23. Re:schitzophrenic summary. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-05 08:52 · Score: 0
  
  Your first link is of farmers suing Monsanto. They lost, and they lost, actually, because... Monsanto isn't threatening anyone accidently growing GM crops.
  The second is a dispute where Monsanto clearly does believe the farmers were deliberately growing GM crops, by saving seeds, in violation of a patent agreement the farmers had agreed to.
  The third is completely irrrelevent, nobody's suing anyone else.
  Finally, your comment about labelling is stupid and you're a stupid person. The market is supposed to be about rational choices. There's no practical difference between GMO and non-GMO to an end consumer. But forcing labelling would both undermine the legitimate labelling that's going on, and be meaningless - are you going to test every grain that goes into a sack of flour? If not, how do you know there's no cross pollenization?
24. Re:schitzophrenic summary. by bws111 · 2013-06-05 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  Nobody said he had to destroy his entire crop (or any part of his crop). Nobody said he was required to know if his crop had been cross-pollinated or not. What they said was that he DID know (because of his actions). There is no indication that had he not intentionally isolated the GM crop he would have been sued. Surely there are many farmers in that situation (cross pollination), yet nobody can find a case where they were sued.
  He admitted he intentionally sprayed 3 or 4 acres to see if they were RoundUp ready. Why would he do that? Either he was opposed to GM, in which case he should have voluntarily destroyed the GM crop he found (and possible sue Monsanto and/or his neighbors), or he wanted to use the GM crop, which he knew he was not entitled to.
  There are many places where everything hinges on what you did or did not know. That is why so many laws have the phrase 'knew or should have known' in them.
25. Re:schitzophrenic summary. by dragonsomnolent · 2013-06-05 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, as another poster already said, there is an article on /. here that shows weeds naturally developed resistance. Go read through that article, lots of interesting things in there. And yes, indeed, Monsanto did say they wanted his seed stores destroyed. Again, however, you fail to address my question: The farmer knew they were resistant, he knew they blew into his field from somewhere, big f'ing deal. His argument, which I ask you to clearly and logically counter is this: "They grew on my land, they are mine". Can you rationally explain to me why that should not be the case without saying "because the laws say so".
  
  --
  I got nuthin
26. Re:schitzophrenic summary. by t4ng* · 2013-06-05 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  Here is an interview with a formerly pro-GMO scientist talking about why he is against GMO now. He claims the entire GMO field is operating on a 70 year old hypothesis of genetics that has since been proven wrong; and that being wrong about it can have some serious consequences.
27. Re:schitzophrenic summary. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-05 09:23 · Score: 0
  
  Rationality does not matter in a land governed by laws. Only laws matter. Whether it's morally correct or not is trivial. It is whether or not it is permissible according to the courts. Like it or not, that's the society we live in.
28. Re:schitzophrenic summary. by dragonsomnolent · 2013-06-05 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, Germany 1930's. 'Nuff said
  
  --
  I got nuthin
29. Re:schitzophrenic summary. by cangrejoinmortal · 2013-06-05 09:40 · Score: 1
  
  GM food is not dangerous per se (at least not right now) but the thing is that the main current use for GM tech in agriculture is to make plants resistant to what is basically the most efficient chemical for plant extermination (apparently not much of a poison for us). Roundup ends up in the sea and kills vegetal plankton, which is added complexity to the ecological disaster the oceans already face. You most probably won't grow a third arm from eating roundup ready plants, but if irresponsible pollution bothers you, then you avoid GM food because your ethical principles.
30. Re:schitzophrenic summary. by cangrejoinmortal · 2013-06-05 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  It is actually a herbicide and is not poisonous to us (or at least that is wath the govt. studies tell us) but is poisonous to all plant life and it all ends up in the sea, which is very very worrying.
31. Re:schitzophrenic summary. by ShanghaiBill · 2013-06-05 09:59 · Score: 1
  
  In all fairness, labeling it Genetically Modified would be scientifically accurate.
  In all fairness, requiring them to be labeled as GMO would not be scientific all all.
  
  The assumption that Genetic Modification is a horribly evil thing is certainly superstition, but I consider that a separate issue.
  It is not a separate issue when people are trying to subvert the government regulatory process to promote their superstitions.
  
  I'd actually like to know a whole lot more than that myself.
  Just because you would like to know doesn't mean other people should be required to tell you. Far more people are concerned about whether their food is kosher or halal. Should we have government regulations requiring food to be labeled as "non-halal"? Of course not, because there is no nutritional difference. Butchers that prepare their meat using kosher or halal methods should be free to advertise them as such, but the government should stay out of it. Same with GMO.
32. Re:schitzophrenic summary. by cangrejoinmortal · 2013-06-05 10:09 · Score: 1
  
  My personal beef with monsanto is that they sell a chemical that is terrible for vegetable life and that ends up in the sea killing algae, phytoplankton and what not. Besides they sell GM (not intrinsically bad, I agree) seeds that make economically viable to use more and more of this nasty thing. GM could be used to make faster growing plants, that would reduce the need for herbicides (not desirable weed wouldn't be able to compete with crops) and be actually not so freaking destructive. But, hey! guess who sells the herbicide?
33. Re:schitzophrenic summary. by hazah · 2013-06-05 14:22 · Score: 1
  
  This makes no sense. While "halal" and "kosher" are one category of complaints, here you have genetic tinckering. More to the point, you're dealing with chemistry, and could quite realistically kill someone. Label your shit and don't twist the issue.
34. Re:schitzophrenic summary. by diamondmagic · 2013-06-05 21:44 · Score: 1
  
  What's profit have to do with it? Profit, other things being equal, is good (ask any economist). Would you prefer losses? That's the only alternative.
  What's wrong is violating private property rights: Infecting other people's crops, selling nonfunctional seeds, or other forms of fraud and force. Manufacturers do, in fact, have a reputation to uphold, especially bigger manufacturers.
  The whole point of GM crops is they're supposed to resist famine, disease, and malnutrition. Regular crops are just as susceptible to the possibilities that you name, if not more. If you're basing your decisions on what could possibly happen, I've got some news for you...
  
  --
  Wonder what the public key field is for?
great by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-05 06:55 · Score: -1

using IT to jam GM crops up your ass whether you like it or not.
Fuck these people.
1. Re:great by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-05 06:57 · Score: 0
  
  Would you prefer the crops that use nuclear physicists to create random mutations using radiation? Because a lot of the food you eat came about through THAT process.
2. Re:great by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-05 07:00 · Score: 0
  
  That's a huge false equivalency. Non-GM foods that come through random mutation via evolution have been tested... over millions of years tested. There is plenty of time to weed out the harmful.
3. Re:great by jeffmeden · 2013-06-05 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  That's a huge false equivalency. Non-GM foods that come through random mutation via evolution have been tested... over millions of years tested. There is plenty of time to weed out the harmful.
  And you misunderstand the OP; radiation or other mutagens *have* been used to create food crops that are on dinner tables around the world, this process has been going on for some 80 years. These are not labeled as GM... Before that, single-generation mutations (highly selective breeding) has been in use for hundreds of years, resulting in untested (by your standards) food going into the mouths of just about everyone in a developed/developing country for the past 300 years. Modern GM does go a far bit beyond either of those techniques because of the ability to switch many genes at once, for a particular purpose, but don't fool yourself into thinking that this is the first time modern man has eaten "new to planet earth" food.
4. Re:great by ShanghaiBill · 2013-06-05 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  Non-GM foods that come through random mutation via evolution have been tested... over millions of years tested.
  Except that evolution doesn't select for plants that are deliciously edible and nutritious. It selects for the opposite: plants that use poisons, bitter tastes, or other strategies to avoid being eaten.
5. Re:great by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2013-06-05 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  The point is they should be.
  
  --
  SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
6. Re:great by Kazman20 · 2013-06-05 07:39 · Score: 2
  
  except it does, it often selects for attractiveness examples include; attracting birds and others to eat fruit thereby moving the seeds, bees to drink nectar to spread the pollen, or flies in the case of others , ants to live in and on a tree to defend it from other predators, and you can keep going. nature generally solves each problem in many different ways.
7. Re:great by afeeney · 2013-06-05 07:47 · Score: 2
  
  True for some plants but not others. Most plants with seeds (fruits, grains) need to be delicious and nutritious so their seeds get excreted some distance from the original plant so that they don't compete for light and nutrients. Only leafy plants (the tops of root vegetables like potatoes, spinach, etc.) tend to be bitter or poisonous.
8. Re:great by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-05 07:54 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Non-GM foods that come through random mutation via evolution have been tested... over millions of years tested.
  Except that evolution doesn't select for plants that are deliciously edible and nutritious. It selects for the opposite: plants that use poisons, bitter tastes, or other strategies to avoid being eaten.
  This is actually a misconception. The reason that many plants produce "deliciously edible and nutritious" fruit is that they use the animal eating the fruit to spread the seeds (critter eats fruit, goes somewhere, seeds leave the digestive system). This is where most of our food crops come from, and why we use them as food crops in the first place. Bitter and poisonous plants either use another method to spread their seeds, like having them blow away in the wind, or use the taste and poison to select which animal spreads it's seeds, like how the capsaicin in peppers is painful for a small mammal to eat, but does nothing to birds, meaning birds would eat the peppers, and spread their seeds farther than a small mammal could.
9. Re:great by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2013-06-05 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  And you misunderstand the OP; radiation or other mutagens *have* been used to create food crops that are on dinner tables around the world, this process has been going on for some 80 years.
  Uff, any citation on that? As far as I know, the only radiation treatment that has been put to some use in agriculture was to prolong the shelf life of the produce.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
10. Re:great by ShanghaiBill · 2013-06-05 08:36 · Score: 2
  
  And you misunderstand the OP; radiation or other mutagens *have* been used to create food crops that are on dinner tables around the world, this process has been going on for some 80 years.
  Uff, any citation on that?
  Sure. Here you go: Mutation Breeding. At the bottom of the page is a list of food crops produced using these techniques.
11. Re:great by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2013-06-05 15:30 · Score: 1
  
  Fascinating! I wasn't even aware of these efforts going on, although in retrospect, they make sense: If we're already using evolution to breed new varieties by speeding up the selection (i.e., by selecting merilessly), why not also speed up the generation of individuals to be selected? Brilliant.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
they're still big AG by jsepeta · 2013-06-05 07:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

Just because Monsanto invests in IT as a competitive advantage doesn't mean they're not acting like an Agricultural bully. It may be great for stockholders, but they're threatening the entire world's food supply by modifying plant DNA so that one year's crop cannot be used to plant next year's crop. That's not playing GOD, that's playing Shiva, the god of destruction.

--
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
1. Re:they're still big AG by bws111 · 2013-06-05 07:24 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Wait a second. If they are modifying the DNA so the plants can't reproduce, then what are all these stories of Monsanto suing thousands of farmers because their crops were 'accidentaly' pollinated by GM crops about?
  Oh wait, I know. The only thing preventing this years crop from being used to plant next years crop is a contract, and not DNA. Your 'concern', just like the stories of supposed lawsuits, is pure FUD.
2. Re:they're still big AG by the+eric+conspiracy · 2013-06-05 07:42 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  > modifying plant DNA so that one year's crop cannot be used to plant next year's crop
  Uh no, they are not doing that. What you describe is a GURT technology, which has never been commercialized, and it's highly doubtful that it ever will be.
  http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/terminator-seeds.aspx
3. Re:they're still big AG by cangrejoinmortal · 2013-06-05 11:52 · Score: 1
  
  They've stopped modifying DNA to achieve that (mostly because of ill public opinion on 'terminator' seeds), now they use lawyers to hunt down and sue anyone who keeps one of their seeds for the next season.
oh the horror! by stenvar · 2013-06-05 07:24 · Score: 1, Insightful

They make better crops, increase productivity, reduce pesticide use, and now they even use IT to aid in their nefarious plans! Oh the horror if it!
1. Re:oh the horror! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-05 07:44 · Score: 0
  
  Stenvar -- didn't you get that memo?!! Monsanto is one of the companies that we've been told to dislike... because they're bad.... and stuff... oh, and they're a corporation! we hate those, don't we! Oh, and they're a really big corporation... and you know what that means... that takes these guys worse than Hitler! And you don't want people to think you like Hitler, do you Stenvar?
2. Re:oh the horror! by crtreece · 2013-06-05 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  make better crops, increase productivity
  
  Possibly by some definitions of "better". Higher yield, longer storage life, possibly. Better tasting, more nutritious, that's arguable.
  
  reduce pesticide use
  
  That doesn't seem to be the case. Pesticide use ramping up as GMO crop technology backfires
  
  --
  file: .signature not found
3. Re:oh the horror! by stenvar · 2013-06-05 10:34 · Score: 1
  
  Possibly by some definitions of "better". Higher yield, longer storage life, possibly. Better tasting, more nutritious, that's arguable.
  You're free not to buy their stuff if you don't like it. But most people seem to like it otherwise they'd be out of business.
  
  That doesn't seem to be the case. Pesticide use ramping up as GMO crop technology backfires
  That particular news story is poorly written and politically biased. Even the title incorrectly supposes that this is unexpected. Of course, you need to keep developing new GMOs regularly in order to keep benefiting from them.
4. Re:oh the horror! by White+Flame · 2013-06-05 11:41 · Score: 1
  
  You're free not to buy their stuff if you don't like it.
  That's kind of the rankle. Allegations are that the first thing they try to do when entering a new area is to buy up all the existing seed suppliers, so you're not free to not buy their stuff even in the supply side.
5. Re:oh the horror! by cangrejoinmortal · 2013-06-05 12:17 · Score: 1
  
  Their crops aren't better, round up ready corn yields less grain per plant and the grains are of irregular shape and size which increases complexity of machinery dealing with it (not to mention the things are plain ugly and taste funny). Their tech have effect only in one brand of pesticide (their own), round up ready means that their herbicide (a herbicide so potent that kills almost every plant because it inhibits synthesis of vital aminoacids) can be used indiscriminately without affecting the crop, that usually means that farmers use more of it (which causes much joy in Monsanto's board of directors). That thing is not toxic to humans (we believe) but ultimately ends up polluting the sea where it kills macroscopic and microscopic photosynthetic life, this is very grave and idiots (yes some environmentalists are idiots, and all people that neglects the environment because it gets in the way of someone's profit are idiots) on both sides tend to ignore it.
6. Re:oh the horror! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-05 12:47 · Score: 0
  
  Cue example: GMO tomatoes (no, you can't buy any anywhere).
  http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/grocery_shopping/fruit_vegetables/15.genetically_modified_tomatoes.html
  Better tasting (unlike the crap you see on the shelves at your local grocer), but the people voted for uber-organic and conventionally farmed tomatoes that taste like water.
7. Re:oh the horror! by stenvar · 2013-06-05 18:04 · Score: 1
  
  You're saying that if you're in, say, Iowa, you can't buy non-Monsanto seed? I find that very hard to believe.
8. Re:oh the horror! by stenvar · 2013-06-05 18:14 · Score: 1
  
  Their crops aren't better, round up ready corn yields less grain per plant and the grains are of irregular shape and size which increases complexity of machinery dealing with it (not to mention the things are plain ugly and taste funny)
  So why are farmers buying the stuff?
  
  Their tech have effect only in one brand of pesticide (their own), round up ready means that their herbicide (a herbicide so potent that kills almost every plant because it inhibits synthesis of vital aminoacids) can be used indiscriminately without affecting the crop,
  The plants don't care about the brand of glyphosate you use, and it's been generic for more than a decade.
  
  that usually means that farmers use more of it (which causes much joy in Monsanto's board of directors).
  You make no sense. If farmers got lower yields and had higher herbicide use, they wouldn't buy this stuff.
  
  That thing is not toxic to humans (we believe) but ultimately ends up polluting the sea where it kills macroscopic and microscopic photosynthetic life,
  That statement is not supported by facts.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Toxicity
9. Re:oh the horror! by crtreece · 2013-06-06 10:12 · Score: 1
  
  You're free not to buy their stuff if you don't like it.
  As there is no labeling of GMO foods in the US, how would you suggest I avoid them?
  I can and do buy fruits and vegatables from local farmers. I can and do buy locally produced meat as well.
  If it's at the grocery store, I have to hope that the store is labeling their meat and produce correctly. If it isn't fresh meat or produce, I have to assume some part is GM.
  
  you need to keep developing new GMOs regularly in order to keep benefiting from them.
  On the large scale, This doesn't seem to be a realistic way to have a stable, sustainable food supply. If we have to keep upping the pesticide resistance, and then raising pesticide use in an ever escalating battle against more and more resistant bugs and weeds, where does that lead? More and more pesticide runoff in the water. More pollinators dying from the ever increasing levels of pesticide.
  
  --
  file: .signature not found
10. Re:oh the horror! by stenvar · 2013-06-06 11:02 · Score: 1
  
  As there is no labeling of GMO foods in the US, how would you suggest I avoid them?
  I wasn't thinking you were nutty enough to reject all GMOs, but simply the ones you don't think "taste good". Anyway, while there is no mandatory GMO labeling, but you can certainly find GMO-free foods.
  
  If it isn't fresh meat or produce, I have to assume some part is GM.
  Yes, you do. And no amount of labeling would change that.
  
  On the large scale, This doesn't seem to be a realistic way to have a stable, sustainable food supply.
  Sustainability is some expression of middle class angst, not a realistic goal. Life and biology is constant change and adaptation.
  
  If we have to keep upping the pesticide resistance
  We don't have to "up" anything, we just periodically have to change pesticides and herbicides.
11. Re:oh the horror! by crtreece · 2013-06-08 00:22 · Score: 1
  
  As there is no labeling of GMO foods in the US, how would you suggest I avoid them?
  I wasn't thinking you were nutty enough to reject all GMOs, but simply the ones you don't think "taste good". Anyway, while there is no mandatory GMO labeling, but you can certainly find GMO-free foods.
  How am I supposed to differentiate between GM and non-GM foods? They aren't labeled, so I can't make a decision based on how they taste. I reject them because I am concerned about the lack of tests on the short and long term affects they have on my body, the environment, and the crops around them. If you want to eat it, go ahead, I'm not here to convince you what to do, I'm just asking that I have the information available to make an informed choice.
  
  If it isn't fresh meat or produce, I have to assume some part is GM.
  Yes, you do. And no amount of labeling would change that.
  huhwhat? Mandatory labeling of GM ingredients in packaged food would do EXACTLY that.
  
  On the large scale, This doesn't seem to be a realistic way to have a stable, sustainable food supply.
  Sustainability is some expression of middle class angst, not a realistic goal. Life and biology is constant change and adaptation.
  I'm not using sustainable in the environmentalist, you-shouldnt-hurt-the-mother-earth sense. I'm talking about the ability to grow crops without requiring a high-tech herbicide and pesticide regimen being needed just to bring a crop to harvest when fighting against the resistant breeds of pests and weeds we are indirectly breeding.
  
  If we have to keep upping the pesticide resistance
  We don't have to "up" anything, we just periodically have to change pesticides and herbicides.
  How many different pesticides and herbicides do you think are out there to discover? Can you imagine the point where it becomes too time consuming and expensive to find that next new thing? Drug companies are running into a similar problem, why do you not believe there are limits in pesticides and herbicides?
  
  --
  file: .signature not found
12. Re:oh the horror! by stenvar · 2013-06-08 01:27 · Score: 1
  
  I'm just asking that I have the information available to make an informed choice.
  You do. It's just a question of defaults: right now, if it's not labeled, assume that it says "may contain GMO". If you don't want that, buy something that explicitly says "organic" or "no GMO".
  
  I'm not using sustainable in the environmentalist, you-shouldnt-hurt-the-mother-earth sense. I'm talking about the ability to grow crops without requiring a high-tech herbicide and pesticide regimen being needed just to bring a crop to harvest when fighting against the resistant breeds of pests and weeds we are indirectly breeding.
  Glyphosate was developed by Monsanto, so were glyphosate resistant crops. You are no worse off than if Monsanto hadn't developed either.
  There's a valid question whether companies ought to be able to clone something like Bt and increase resistance, a free and organic pesticide, but those cases are far and few between and don't affect most GMO crops.
  
  Can you imagine the point where it becomes too time consuming and expensive to find that next new thing?
  Not really; biotech is just in its infancy and resistance tends to go away over time. But if we ever reach that point, we can worry about it. We don't lose anything by taking advantage of what we have now.
GM by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-05 07:25 · Score: 0

when i saw the letters GM i thought what does General Motors have to do with crops? then i thought about General Mills. not everyone knows acronyms. had to read the fine article to see "genetically modified" = GM. not trolling, just saying.
"Infamous". What biased crap. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-05 07:29 · Score: -1

Has /. become the most biased source of hate speech on the Internet these days?
Just another, "I hate the man" story from a bunch of kiddies.
GE food labeling news... by Uncle_Meataxe · 2013-06-05 07:59 · Score: 3, Informative

TFA mentions that Washington state has a ballot initiative to label genetically engineered foods. Perhaps more importantly, Connecticut just passed a labeling law (http://grist.org/news/connecticut-will-label-gmos-if-you-do-too/).
The Connecticut bill includes a crucial requirement: the labeling requirement won’t actually go into effect until similar legislation is passed by at least four other states, one of which borders Connecticut.
Also note that 37 labeling proposals have been introduced in 21 states so far this year.
1. Re:GE food labeling news... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-05 10:58 · Score: 0
  
  TFA mentions that Washington state has a ballot initiative to label genetically engineered foods. Perhaps more importantly, Connecticut just passed a labeling law (http://grist.org/news/connecticut-will-label-gmos-if-you-do-too/).
  The Connecticut bill includes a crucial requirement: the labeling requirement won’t actually go into effect until similar legislation is passed by at least four other states, one of which borders Connecticut.
  Also note that 37 labeling proposals have been introduced in 21 states so far this year.
  Since Obama signed the Monsanto protection act will any of these even be legally enforceable?
Re:"Infamous". What biased crap. by HeckRuler · 2013-06-05 08:29 · Score: 2

Dude, have you even read the wiki page on them? There's a lot of fear-mongering from the people that fear anything to do with genetics, but Monsanto is your typical giant evil corporation. They're so big that regulatory capture is a problem. They've been caught red handed doing various nefarious stuff over the years. Honestly, any such corporation that large is bound to have bad eggs in them and the money is going to be too good. But hey, they really have brought some innovation and better living to the populace. There's a reason that they're profitable and it's not entirely because of who they're in bed with. Roundup ready crops are a lot easier to farm. My uncle loves the stuff.
But if there was EVER a corporation that deserved scrutiny, it's Monsanto.
"Hate speech"? It's more like spotting the trend.
Irish Potato Famine by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-05 08:45 · Score: 0

Depend on one crop as it is the best, highest yield, most nutritious, (mostly) disease hardy, works great.
Up to the point where a single pest can wipe out entire crops because that is the only species planted. Irish much?
This is why we have the doomsday seed bank.
"Building better worlds" by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-05 09:23 · Score: 0

With a bit more luck, in a few years they'll decide to adopt an upside-down M (to commemorate the day they switched the flip) as their corporate logo -- and start focusing more on useful, future-proof research (such as involving XMs rather than GMs).
diversity by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-05 12:52 · Score: 0

99% of the seed will be from clones of the 5-10 stock that actually took the genetic manipulation. This isn't very precise, very akin to shooting darts at a dartboard. Get a variation you like, clone in thousands of times. If the genes get into other stock through cross pollination that's a bonus but not a method used.
WTF ? by dgharmon · 2013-06-05 14:38 · Score: 1

"Monsanto is more infamous for growing its genetically modified crops than its use of software, but a series of corporate acquisitions and a new emphasis on tech solutions has transformed it into a firm that acts more like an innovative IT vendor than an agribusiness giant."

The only 'innovation' Monsanto is borrowing from the IT sector is extorting revenue from farmers for growing crops from the farmers own seeds. Even if the seeds were contaminated by accident, such as by cross-pollination by a neighbouring farmers field. As such Monsanto are the Microsoft of Agribusiness.

"Monsanto is claiming rights not only to generation 1 seeds but every generation after that. You can't plant those generation 2 seeds for a crop without infringing the patent, they claim, even if you bought them from somebody else". link

--
AccountKiller
About that Monsanto protest march... by jetcityorange · 2013-06-05 14:45 · Score: 1

No, Monsanto isn't real popular here in WA state and yes many of us would like GM food labeled as such. Something other than the leading "8" in the PLU (price look up) number on the sticker [ JetCityOrange.com/plu-code/ ] I for one was one of many in the Seattle Monsanto march and as you can see in this video [ http://youtu.be/USSIqQBca4c ], we aren't talking about black-clad, window breaking, pseudo-anarchist kids raising hell. No, the crowd was full of families and regular folks who realize that there's no "do over" when it comes to f*cking with genetics. You screw it up, and you can't reel it back in.
No Sympathy For Monsanto by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-05 14:46 · Score: 0

Please enjoy and spread my latest documentary on the evil Monsanto. https://vimeo.com/67303345
GTFO by techneeks · 2013-06-05 16:37 · Score: 1

... leave already Monsanto ... nothing good comes from you. To hell with your IT, use it for something other than raping farmers and the public of their rights to choose.