Monsanto is a chemical company that was started in the year 1901. They created DDT and Agent Orange. Many people aren’t even aware of their existence and that needs to change ASAP. They’re absolutely huge and own a majority of agricultural production WORLDWIDE (India currently having many legal issues with them). (See link-truth-out.org
More than just health effects, (see link by New York Times about lawsuits against them) [nytimes.com
Monsanto and chemical food
Other urls found in this thread:
pub.epsilon.slu.se
link.springer.com
jstor.org
toxicsaction.org
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
davidsuzuki.org
thestar.com
twitter.com
o make things worse, Monsanto has sued farmers and have won in court! Monsanto has patented (copyrighted) GMO seeds, making them illegal to use/ sell unless paid for. Many crops, such as corn, are wind pollinated and can easily contaminate a neighbouring farmer’s organic crop (via wind).
When their crop tests positive for GMO and they don’t pay Monsanto- they sue the farmers and succeed in doing so! See how they can scare farmers?!
These crops, because of how large the sale is, must be maintained with the use of chemicals. (Chemicals synthesized by Monsanto as well). As stated before, Monsanto’s use of pesticides and fungicides contain chemicals that are very harmful to us and the environment. It’s odd how a chemical can kill all the plants (weeds) around the crop but not the actual crop itself. When it rains on these crops, its causes a toxic runoff that drains into bodies of water and pollutes them! Hence why it’s only recommended to eat fish once a week, as their mercury levels are so high (and for some reason we take that as fact and we’re all okay with it!)
The only financially reasonable way we can help is to spread the word and raise awareness of this company and what’s its doing to us and our planet. As a company that only cares about revenue, when people become aware, their sales will go down! When more people find out, Monsanto will only have two choices: either change their ways or go out of business.
I’m not debating whether GMO crop is good or bad. My focus is on the health effects of pesticides on us and the environment. And also, the hardships of famers (especially 3rd world).
Here are some scholarly articles that are a better source than the blog (Blog is written by a doctor though).
www.researchgate.net/publication/7302066_Aquatic_Toxicity_Due_to_Residential_Use_of_Pyrethroid_Insecticides (click on PDF, is 8 pages).
pub.epsilon.slu.se
link.springer.com
jstor.org
toxicsaction.org
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Thanks everyone for your time reading this and perhaps together we can discuss environmentally sustainable agriculture such as polyculture (see google lol)! I appreciate everyone’s feedback, negative or positive. A quick reminder that not everyone will agree (even some farmers), so remember to be patient and respectful of everyone’s opinion… as change does not happen overnight!
Is this some retarded copypasta or did OP really just type all of this nonsense
>My focus is on the health effects of pesticides on us and the environment.
all they did was make a genome which applied pesticide to an entire region, if anyone did that today with any chemical without the aid of a GMO they would be in jail.
at the same time, has any farmer who agrees to use these are in a binding contract in which they will never be able to do anything without monsanto all for the flimsy promise of better yield (that word is used alot with multiple meanings, yield doesnt always mean food output, could mean price per unit even though total output has dropped)
every single aspect of the GMOs coming to market, being used, and being sold and determining their effects on everything are completely shrouded in mystery, coercion and flat out bribery. one documentary following a canadian farmer, there was a scene near the end where one of the lab techs testified in court monsanto offered her $2million to say that GMO corn is safe, monsanto claimed that $2million was to aid research, no charges laid.
>FDA considers most GM crops as “substantially equivalent” to non-GM crops.
bullshit.
> implying GMOs have ever been shown to be harmful to human health
I swear, all this anti-GMO shit is the left's equivalent to "the earth is 6000 years old." It's straight up science denial.
1.) GM crops are actually better then Non-GM crops; better resistance and development
2.) Monsanto is victim to several hoaxes, including the "we take farmers land due to uncontrolled pollination"; 90% of Monsanto's crops are sterile, they're F2 variation... they keep the parent plants separate.
3.) There is no science to back up the claim that non-GMO are better than GMOs, and in fact the science is on the other side for reasons stated in number 1.
>They created DDT and Agent Orange.
Mitsubishi made the planes that bombed Pearl Harbor. Kodak made the bombsights that leveled Dresden.
Any company that's been around that long will have done something shady.
Misinformation
[X did the action of Y]
+
Poisoning the Well
[X did the action of Z]
Does not =
Therefore X is ABCDEFG
That's a non-sequitur
It makes me like even more these companies. Like Hugo Boss, VW, Jeep, ThyssenKrupp, General Eletrics, etc.
>1.) GM crops are actually better then Non-GM crops; better resistance and development
There's only one kind of GMO crop worth talking about when talking about Monsanto: Roundup-Ready.
The only thing that RR crops have better resistance to is roundup. That's literally it. As for development? They're actually a little behind the yields of other strains, but because you can use more roundup on them, you can prevent more encroachment from other species which results in a higher overall yield (or yield per area) at the cost of a lower yield per individual plant.
2. Monsanto is a shitheel company who has fucked over and ruined enough people that I don't give a damn about them being "victims of hoaxes"
3. There are no "better" GMO plants that are farmed in large quantities. There aren't any worse ones either. Yield rates and nutrition are practically identical with small edges going to non-GMO.
I don't give a damn about GMOs and only dislike Monsanto the same amount I do most every megacorporation, but dude you're just wrong. It's also kinda sad that you attempt to be the voice of "reason" here while ignoring the one very real criticism of the use of Roundup Ready crops: increasing invasive species's resistances to Roundup. We wouldn't need to keep using more and more of the shit and having to make our crops resistant to it if we weren't creating superweeds that are also resistant to it. It's a lot like over-use of antibiotics.
I love chemical food, I'm a chemistry student too. Chemicals are sugoi!
I buy organic when ever possible.
Fuck chemical shills,
>not eating pure chemicals and drugs
The argument that GMOs are/aren't safe is completely distinct from the easily shown fact that Monsanto are a gathering of greedy immoral assholes who have consistently made the world a worse place to live in.
I wish the two discussions were more divorced - I suspect sane use of GMOs could do wonders for increasing sustainability of agriculture without reducing yields.
>greedy immoral assholes who have consistently made the world a worse place to live in.
Elaborate. I love eating their chemicals. Tasty chemicals. Mmmmmmmmmmmmm....
They've manufactured shitloads of chemicals which are widely known to be dangerous or persistent pollutants, (PCBs, DDT, Celebrex), and bribed their way through multiple governments to avoid being held accountable for the products they sell.
They basically make a great example for everything that's wrong with the model of large, politically influential corporations.
Why?
>There is no sufficient evidence in medical literature to support claims that organic food is safer or healthier than conventional food.
Organic uses less efficient pesticides and herbicides which makes lower crop yields are causes more environmental impact.
>muh natural
What do you think that Monsanto does that's bad?
You haven't proven that.
You use information to state that, and then you go on to say you don't need that misinformation because it's besides the point.
You can't drop your sources and still state you're correct.
Again, you have't proven their unsafe or greedy.
they're*
>Monsanto is a chemical company
>posting anime
cringe
>Hence why it’s only recommended to eat fish once a week, as their mercury levels are so high (and for some reason we take that as fact and we’re all okay with it!)
Mercury contamination is predominately from industrial rather than agricultural pollution though.
>Many people aren’t even aware of their existence
[citation needed]
Maybe back in 2006 that was true, but nowadays it's a huge meme to hate them. I'm not saying we shouldn't or anything, I honestly haven't studied the issue. I'm just pointing out that "raising awareness" isn't an end in and of itself, it's supposed to be a means.
Nice agitprop thread
Should've posted it on /pol/ you'd get a lot more (You)s
The mercury in fish poisoning you is an American meme
The British NHS says that the only people who need to moderate their intake of large sea fish such as tuna and swordfish and shark are pregnant and nursing mothers
>You haven't proven that.
Proven what?
>Again, you have't proven their unsafe or greedy.
The unsafeness of those chemicals is already widely documented. Hell, they're illegal to use in many places.
And bribing politicians to raise safe thresholds for substances you manufacture seems rather greedy to me.
But it has fucked people up before (Minamata, Ontario and Niigata). It doesn't change the fact that they were from industrial facilities rather than agricultural runoff.
Do they even make mercury based pesticides or herbicides?
>Do they even make mercury based pesticides or herbicides?
Not that I'm aware of
Glyphosate is Monsanto's major herbicide
>There are two main approaches used to synthesis glyphosate industrially. The first is to react iminodiacetic acid with phosphorous acid and hydrochloric acid (sometimes formed in situ by addition of phosphorus trichloride) via a modified Mannich reaction. Oxidation then leads to the desired glyphosate product. Iminodiacetic acid is usually prepared on-site, such as by reaction of chloroacetic acid with ammonia and calcium hydroxide to produce the calcium iminodiacetate salt and then acidification of the product.[14]
I'm not a chemist though
>The unsafeness of those chemicals is already widely documented.
Are you really using the "dangerous substances equal unsafe" fallacy?
Nature makes millions of unsafe substances.
When humans make regulated substances, they store them, transport them, use them, and dispose of them safely.
IF YOU'RE CLAIMING OTHERWISE YOU HAVE TO PROVE IT.
>When people make wild claims yet don't understand what the burden of proof is
>and dispose of them safely
Not that user but, pollution is still a thing and doesn't look like it'll be going away soon. Ignoring it isn't really smart.
Of course pollution is a thing, BUT:
1.) You gave to prove specific accusations
2.) That's shifting the goalpost away from 1.)
>Not that user but
I'm not a party to this topic. I don't think anything I can do in my living room tonight will significantly impact Monsanto in any way. Neither pollution, for that matter. I'm just saying that safety isn't always guaranteed.
>Are you really using the "dangerous substances equal unsafe" fallacy?
Those substances weren't just unsafe if they were misused or there was an accident. Harm was being caused by the "correct" usage of them. Manufacturing and selling them to be used in that way was clearly causing harm to people and the environment.
>Nature makes millions of unsafe substances.
Nature isn't accountable. Companies should be.
>When humans make regulated substances, they store them, transport them, use them, and dispose of them safely.
These products indented use was not safe.
>I'm not a party to this topic.
THEN THERE IS NO REASON FOR ME TO READ THE REST OF YOUR STATEMENT YOU STUPID FUCK.
I HOPE YOU GET RAPED TO DEATH FOR BEING AN IDIOT.
Alright, then just minimize the post and move on. There's no reason to bitch in ALLCAPS either, but you don't see me going on about it.
Hi op
PhD candidate for Food Sci and Tech from top school here. I will address all your concerns and answer any questions in around 8hrs when im sober
Btw Monsanto is a biotech company
>food sci
>glorified chef thinks he is qualified to comment on biochemistry
o i m laffin
>Nature isn't accountable.
THANK YOU!!!
Was that so hard?
>implying GMO's are bad
you are as worse as /pol/
>My focus is on the health effects of pesticides on us and the environment.
Good luck feeding the world without pesticides. And it's not like monsanto invented pesticides and have a global monopoly on them.
>And also, the hardships of famers (especially 3rd world).
They like to grow GMO crops because GMO crops are superior to the regular ones. But at a cost. So they have an economical dilemma of growing cheap inferior crops or expensive superior crops. However GMO are regulated by patent law so after 20 years generic GMO crops will be available which are both cheap and superior. As such the net effect is positive.
Your view is influenced by extreme emotional bias and entirely one-sided.
>Companies DO THINGS guys!
I you spent half the time you do bitching about Mansanto actually trying to improve the world maybe you'd have NEET hippies bitching about you too.
monsantos Round Up herbicide is banned in canada. proven carcinogenic. continuing their tradition of releasing profitable products prior to long term testing. not caring who they sicken
davidsuzuki.org
thestar.com
lmfao yeah right hahaaha!
monsanto is and has always been a chemical company. they are self proclaimed biotech co. they know they look better in disguise ... u fckn shill
>MUH CORPORATIOOOOOONS
Look back like 10 years and you'll see Monsanto has been doing a bunch of biotech stuff in addition to their chemical stuff.
"We've been making GMOS for thousands of years!"
Why do I keep seeing this argument on leddit? It's so disingenous and even a layman could see that it's not true.
At no point did any anti GMO person ever come out and say "I'm against selective breeding"
Typical pro-monsanto subversion post.
Stop using ignorance to pretend to be anti-monsanto.
I eat chemical cereal with glyphosate for breakfast.
love this shill post. youre awesome!
how scary is it that they copyrighted and own the seeds and plants, biologically they're alive. you shouldn't be allowed to own life. how far do u think they'll take the saying "you are what you eat". own us ? lol
Dear op, on top of being a huge faggot that suck literally onmy eat cocks you are a retarded autistic braindead idiot
Matasano is murdering us!!!
>implying agent orange is actually bad for you
it was contaminants in the production that made it toxic, the active chemical itself is pretty harmless to humans
Monsanto might not be the nicest company ever but why do people constantly bitch about agent orange and DDT?
NOBODY really understood what they would do at the time. Looking back yes it does seem stupid but nobody really understood just how bad they were. It's like the atom bomb. Nobody really understood the side effects.
Also
>bitching about GMO's when there's no evidence they actually do anything
>At no point did any anti GMO person ever come out and say "I'm against selective breeding"
That's the point, retard. There is no relevant difference between GMOs and selectively bred plants. If you are against the former, you should be against the latter. The fact that anti-GMO tards are not is proof that they are ignorant of what GMOs are.
>no relevant difference.
stop this meme,