Slashdot Mirror
No More 'Miracles From Molecules': Monsanto's Name Is Being Retired (reuters.com)
Flexagon writes: Germany's Bayer announced today that in its link-up with Monsanto, it's retiring the "Monsanto" name, and with it the name of the company that originally sponsored Disneyland's "Adventure Thru Inner Space" attraction. The $63 billion takeover will wrap up on Thursday. "Bayer will remain the company name. Monsanto will no longer be a company name. The acquired products will retain their brand names and become part of the Bayer portfolio," it said.
The decision to retire the name is a smart business move. "These days Monsanto is shorthand for, as NPR's Dan Charles has put it, 'lots of things that some people love to hate': Genetically modified crops, which Monsanto invented," reports NPR. "Seed patents, which Monsanto has fought to defend. Herbicides such as Monsanto's Roundup, which protesters have sharply criticized for its possible health risks. Big agriculture in general, of which Monsanto was the reviled figurehead."
The decision to retire the name is a smart business move. "These days Monsanto is shorthand for, as NPR's Dan Charles has put it, 'lots of things that some people love to hate': Genetically modified crops, which Monsanto invented," reports NPR. "Seed patents, which Monsanto has fought to defend. Herbicides such as Monsanto's Roundup, which protesters have sharply criticized for its possible health risks. Big agriculture in general, of which Monsanto was the reviled figurehead."
It's a toxic brand: I'm surprised it took that long. I mean, Bayer isn't called "IG Farben" for good reason. Bayer associates with "aspirin", which is good, right!?!
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
"These days Monsanto is shorthand for, as NPR's Dan Charles has put it, 'lots of things that some people love to hate':"
MUCH better they are now called by the name of the company known for gassing Jews.
Monsanto name is gone, however their genetically modified crops that only grow with their products remains.
i.e. nothing has changed.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
No, no ethic problem here. If you get sick with 'monsanto' products, they will provide you with some aspirin :)
Bayer is now the biotechnology migraine headache of the 21st century.
Why is Snark Required?
These products are why rampant starvation is a thing of the past. Your statement is a REAL example of white privilege.
Forget it, Jake, it's Chi--er, an AC troll.
That's right: now do us a service by reminding everyone everywhere: Emerdata is the new Cambridge Analytica.
It's easy to memorize Emerdata, like the French merde. Shitty data or something.
What is hilarious is that the same people that constantly shout, "Science!" with respect to their causes that they find are supported by science, completely ignore the conspicuous lack of science to support their claims about GMO, Round Up, etc.
Is there a company, or organization or even a person that you can really point to and say this is truly a force for good?
We live in a world with trade-offs. We can't get what we want exactly how we want it. And what we need is different for every person, and changes all the time.
Having worked with many of these Evil corporations, and working with some of the organizations that people seem to call good. There isn't a super villain attitude of some guy trying to make lives difficult for people. But people who are trying to improve their own lives and their family as a priority as millions of years of evolution have conditioned us to do.
So the demand was for food, that is free of pests, and will not be less toxic. Monsanto did that.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
But farmers always had the option to not buy their products the next year.... they chose to because of the increase in profits / revenue and reduction of labor. It's lock-in for a growing season. If you didn't buy their products next year they had the right to come in and see if you were still using it (without purchasing it) but 99.99% of the people didn't and no issues occurred.
> All changing your name like that does is publicly admit that your reputation is impossible to salvage and you are trying to be sneaky.
What the heck are you talking about? Why in the world would the larger company, Bayer, change ITS name to the name of the smaller company it is acquiring? Of course Bayer is keeping their name.
What could be sneaky be if $bigcompany bought $smallcompany and then changed its name to $smallcompany. Keeping their name is what companies normally do when they make acquisitions.
For all the (justifiable) hate on the company, I still feel a little sad for Edgar M Queeny’s legacy to disappear.
How can you patent a seed????
Submit a patent application with the necessary paperwork.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Yes I agree! How peoole can make any claims that non-GMOs are safe with respect to the wider ecosystem, with virtually no test data is ridiculous and anti-science BS
Why in the world would the larger company, Bayer, change ITS name to the name of the smaller company it is acquiring?
See: AT&T
But seriously, huge companies do not usually use the parent company's name. How many products in the grocery aisle have you seen marked as Mondelez International? You see plenty of Kraft, Nabisco, Cadbury, etc.
Exactly, and people seam to miss that Monsanto is just one of many companies producing GMO seeds. Here is an interesting podcast from the League of Nerds where they (together with Monsanto) visited a BT cotton farmer and found out that he grew cotton from multiple vendors in order to see which one grew best on his land: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
CO2, Tetraethyl lead and lead in general, CFCs, Thalidomide, and perhaps cigarettes. It's a short list, and doesn't actually refute overall point, but yes, there have been a few fairly serious scientific errors in the past.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Sure. A poison is just harmless. This is the kind of nonsense that makes you "science groupies" look no better than members of the American Family
Actually yes, poison is harmless in most cases. No matter how much you may think that the food that you eat is "natural", "organic", "pure", "homeopathic", "in tune with Gaia", or whatever your fetish may or may not be, you're still going to end up with poison somewhere in the mix. I'm not setting it, it's just a fact.
The key thing that you're overlooking is that it's the dose that makes the poison, not the substance itself. Take meadow saffron for example; extremely deadly plant, eating a leaf will most likely cause an excruciatingly painful death, but eating a tiny fraction of the leaf relieves gout. And then there's always water; dinking too much of it at once will lead to an unpleasant death by hyponatremia.
Glyphosate is similar. Trace amounts on food won't do anything to you, neither long term nor short term. The main issue with glyphosate is that it is a skin irritant, but in concentrations a few hundred orders of magnitude above what your thinking. EPA bribe conspiracy theories notwithstanding, given there is so much hate towards it, I think some well funded hippie group would have found something in the 28 years that roundup has been a thing. That is, of course, if they can manage to pull it off without scientific fraud, because they're having a hard time doing it any other way for their other pet cause.
http://www.slate.com/articles/...
Unfortunately, the fraudulent "truth" is the only one they're willing to accept, it seems.