I believe that Monsanto is not at all interested in selling chemicals... Roundup (glyphosate) is no longer protected by patent and is manufactured by many different companies. Monsanto's future is in license fees for their patented glyphosate-resistant genetic information.
The problem I have with Monsanto is that they are rushing headlong into making glyphosate-resistant plant production so ubiquitous that within a short period of time, glyphosate will no longer be a viable herbicide. Mother nature is much more efficient than Monsanto... without careful use, many glyphosate resistant plant species will quickly evolve and render the chemical useless.
You really should take a look at the relative toxicity of these herbicides before screaming that the sky is falling.
Roundup (glyphosate) is much less toxic than most of the other compounds people expose themselves to... certainly less than 2,4-D which is what most people use to kill weeds in their lawn.
If you come over and clean my office, you can keep whatever you find. Sad but true. I'm sure there is easily 5000+/- scattered in every nook and cranny of this place.
I'm in serious need of a visit from the "Obsessive Complusive Eye for the Geek Guy" folks.
Would America not benefit from a profitable and stable sugar industry?
Since when is it in the vital interests of the United States to give an economic "reach around" for all our "very good friends" in Latin America...at the expense of it's own citizens?
Do you honestly think that the sugar production will magically become more profitable than cocaine and thus make even a tiny, measurable decrease in the the illegal drug trade? Supply & demand.
The only people who would benefit are the multinationals who trade and manipulate the stuff. End result? Is the world better off? I say no, not unless you have a vested interest in ADM, Cargill and the rest.
At what economic point does it make sense to export yet another american industry for the sake of "economic efficiency"? Do you sleep well knowing that your next meal may depend on the whims of a third world government whose leadership and policies change as often as the weather?
There is most certainly nothing innovative about third world ag production... unless you mean cheap land, cheap labor, unchecked pesticide use, little if any quality control and yes, sometimes government subsidies as innovative and efficient.
I'm pretty sure, if tomorrow the borders where magically opened to all the third world sugar available, you and I would not see one single benefit from that at the grocery store checkout....Unless, of course, you buy sugar by the boat load.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
I believe that Monsanto is not at all interested in selling chemicals... Roundup (glyphosate) is no longer protected by patent and is manufactured by many different companies. Monsanto's future is in license fees for their patented glyphosate-resistant genetic information.
The problem I have with Monsanto is that they are rushing headlong into making glyphosate-resistant plant production so ubiquitous that within a short period of time, glyphosate will no longer be a viable herbicide. Mother nature is much more efficient than Monsanto... without careful use, many glyphosate resistant plant species will quickly evolve and render the chemical useless.
You really should take a look at the relative toxicity of these herbicides before screaming that the sky is falling.
Roundup (glyphosate) is much less toxic than most of the other compounds people expose themselves to... certainly less than 2,4-D which is what most people use to kill weeds in their lawn.
If you come over and clean my office, you can keep whatever you find. Sad but true. I'm sure there is easily 5000+/- scattered in every nook
and cranny of this place.
I'm in serious need of a visit from the "Obsessive Complusive Eye for the Geek Guy" folks.
PS. If you find my voltmeter, let me know.
Would America not benefit from a profitable and stable sugar industry?
...at the expense of it's own citizens?
Since when is it in the vital interests of the United States to give an economic "reach around" for all our
"very good friends" in Latin America
Do you honestly think that the sugar production will magically become more profitable than cocaine and
thus make even a tiny, measurable decrease in the the illegal drug trade? Supply & demand.
The only people who would benefit are the multinationals who trade and manipulate the stuff.
End result? Is the world better off? I say no, not unless you have a vested interest in ADM, Cargill
and the rest.
I'll play devils advocate.
...Unless, of course, you buy sugar by the boat load. :-)
At what economic point does it make sense to export yet another american industry for the sake of "economic efficiency"? Do you sleep well knowing that your next meal may depend on the whims of a third world government whose leadership and policies change as often as the weather?
There is most certainly nothing innovative about third world ag production... unless you mean cheap land, cheap labor, unchecked pesticide use, little if any quality control and yes, sometimes government subsidies as innovative and efficient.
I'm pretty sure, if tomorrow the borders where magically opened to all the third world sugar available, you and I would not see one single benefit from that at the grocery store checkout.