What is Monsanto doing wrong exactly?

This never happened. It's one of those things like the great wall of China being visible from space that's been repeated so many times people take it as fact instead of looking into it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowman_v._Monsanto_Co.

The farmer intentionally bought GM soybeans that were being sold for consumption not replanting. He tested to make sure of this and planted them. He wanted the GM seeds without having to pay Monsanto for them. It being an "accident" is a complete fabrication.

All crops are monocultures.

Aren't they trying to monopolize the selling/manufacturing/etc. of GMOs?

too much 35 0 0 fertilizer is not a bad thing.

How would they do that? There are hundreds of companies producing GMOs and the patents are very specific and only last a few years.

By getting in regulatory positions.

They're putting our most important resource, food, into the hands of a very small number of people. They're more interested in crop yields and shelf life than nutrition.

you mean they're more interested in profits

What's the/sci/ opinion on terminator genes? When I first read the new age critique of this stuff I laughed because like all good modern students I had dutifully absorbed the concept that terminator genes are there for a very important reason : to prevent outbreeding. But is there another legitimate side to that?

Terminator genes are illegal, and are not in use by anyone. So its a non-issue.

There's a moratorium on them (which I didn't realize) but there's still some effort to push them. Do you think they *should* be illegal? I mean to me it seems the anti-GMO people want to have their cake and eat it too -- they complain about outcrossing and roundup resistant weeds but they also act like anyone trying to prevent that is the Adolf Hitler of agriculture.

not what's pictured

...

to be specific, creating cross breeds that couldn't occur naturally

>muh jewing other people
both side are evil

>It's one of those things
Invite y'all to look up the actual story behind the McDonald hot coffee lawsuit. Gets brought up often as evidence of how litigious Americans are and then turns out it was actually a pretty reasonable lawsuit.

>Everything I dont like is shilling
go back /pol/, sweetie, big boys are talking.

Look at what Monsanto are doing. They're becoming more of a data analysis company, helping farmers minmax use of fertilizer etc. It's cost effective and good for the environment. Monsanto is pretty much the ideal agricultural company.
Facts don't matter. Organic proponents will just say that non GMO monocultures are more "natural" or some other bullshit.
>but they also act like anyone trying to prevent that is the Adolf Hitler of agriculture.
Thematically pretty accurate. The main concern with terminator seeds is corporate monopoly though.
It's uncanny how similar SJWs and /pol/-tards are. I guess mental retardation has some rather constant features throughout the socio-cultural strata.

>What is Monsanto doing wrong exactly?

Preventing farmers from gathering seeds, creating anti-life terminator seeds, patenting farmers crops if their genetically engineered pollen wafts into their fields, etc...

they are pretty much pure evil.

This. Since everything is a mono culture already, GMOs are the only thing that prevent various diseases.

Terminators genes hasn't gone further than "This is an idea some people had".

>Preventing farmers from gathering seeds
>Piracy technically isn't stealing!!
ect...
>creating anti-life terminator seeds
Literally 0 research has been done in this. They haven't created them, they aren't creating them, they aren't even researching if it is possible or what would be needed for this.
>patenting farmers crops if their genetically engineered pollen wafts into their fields
See

Except this is actually another case of the Jewish media trying to destroy a succesful white company.

>The farmer intentionally bought GM soybeans that were being sold for consumption not replanting. He tested to make sure of this and planted them. He wanted the GM seeds without having to pay Monsanto for them. It being an "accident" is a complete fabrication.
I wonder who's paying you to shitpost...

Anti-life terminator seeds sound pretty fucking metal, where do I get my hands on some of those?

>can't handle the truth
>"w-who paid you to shill on Veeky Forums!!11 Breitbart told me Monsanto was le evil jew!!11"

>rganic proponents will just say that non GMO monocultures are more "natural" or some other bullshit.

Not him but growing plantations using ecological interaction between different species of several taxons and according to the environment they live in would be quite an advancement since most of the work is passively done by the plants themselves.

Not to say, that is not being developed, it's easy or something. Just that I don't like the tone the whole debate is taking of either doing genetic modification in monocultures or doing ecological engineering to plantations when there is no way both techniques are exclusive, in fact theortically they should be quite complementary, but today it feels like if you are doing one you cannot do the other, and looks like is getting worse.

You mean like using symbiotic fungi to increase yields? Sure m8. That has nothing to do with organic farming though. Organic farming is just regular farming except shittier coz' synthetic pesticides and fertilizer are "bad".

More like using the fungi, 20 species of plants that exclude through Allelopathy 1000 species of plants that could decrease the avaliable resources and exclude common plagues through classical methods(signal compounds, 2 fases poisons, hormone antagonists... )while at the same time being all 20 are economically interesting but don't exclude each other.

It's complicated, truly complicated, but is a self-regulating system that doesn't require as many inputs like modern agriculture and should be scalable but wouldn't look like giant patches of green land but more like green drops in a map, assymetrical for they would be limited by zones that are naturally adequate for the whole ecosystem.

>Preventing farmers from gathering seeds
industrial farmers don't save seeds to begin with and haven't since the 1940s

>creating anti-life terminator seeds
none of their products on the market use terminator genes

>patenting farmers crops if their genetically engineered pollen wafts into their fields
the crops are patented before the pollen contamination occurred and the cases where Monsanto sued farmers were when the farmers intentionally sprayed their crops with roundup to select for roundup resistance and then used that seed exclusively as roundup-resistant crop. that is a legitimate patent infringement. if you have a problem with that, your beef should really be with the patent laws

>>Preventing farmers from gathering seeds
>>Piracy technically isn't stealing!!
>ect...
>I still own these seeds after I sold them to you
>why won't you let my tentacles spread all over the world?

It's called intellectual property.
Makes perfect sense to me. Feel free to develop open source seeds tho.

>that is a legitimate patent infringement. if you have a problem with that, your beef should really be with the patent laws
Imagine an entity tried to abuse eminent domain, you can have a problem with both faggotry and eminent domain.
The faggotry being understandable doesn't make it less of faggotry.

The same applies to intellectual property.

>It's called intellectual property.
Traditionally the person who violated IP laws are punished rather than the person benefiting.

Well the thing with big corporations is that they are not able to move into other more "greener" alternatives. The post about ecological inclined agriculture is a pretty good idea however as the poster stated this practice is still pretty complicated.

That said Monsanta is the spill that produces toxins that have lobbyists protecting them on the harmful effects these have on insects (which are crucial in almost all eco-systems as pollinator and food of other animals) and even the effect they have on people because eventually these pesticides/herbicides will end up in the rivers sea's and eventually drinking water supplies.

Nonetheless, it must be stated that there are a lot of rampart news about the genocide of our all beloved friend the honey-bee. However the pesticides affects them but we should not forget that there are thousands of different bee's that are not domesticated and even millions of insects more that are a source of food for birds, reptiles fish are pollinators for crops (in China they have to pollinate their crops for them selves because of over-usage of pesticides LOL, also them killing sparrows ended up in massive starvation (ecology what is it good for?)). Also insects are the most evolved creatures in our animal kingdom being chemically evolving sideways fungi and plants thus with evolution already have covered problems that our monkey brains just are scratching our heads over it.

TL;dR the post

Praytell what is the role of insects in an ecosystem that is 99% farmland by area?

Threadly reminder
youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM

The guy was being hyperbolic obviously. And he's a lobbyist, he probably doesn't have a fucking clue what he's talking about.

This guy IS a scientist however.
youtube.com/watch?v=pkxS7BHjHVk
youtube.com/watch?v=OWQON4FzQo4
He has a bunch more on GMOs.

stop getting your fucking opinions from youtube videos

this is Veeky Forums. go to toxnet, read the summaries of primary toxicological literature, come to your own conclusion

Well insects are pollinators and food for other animals such as ducklings and chicken and also wild birds. This is more for an ecological inclined farmland however.
If we talk about other invertebrates, for example worms (but maybe cricket-moles are also a good example) they burrow underground and make the soil better drain-able and transport nutrients lower into the ground. When the soil is more loose crops can also have better functioning and deeper roots gaining more nutrients from the ground and improving their growth. There are a million tiny little invertebrates that dig into the soil and convert dead organic material into nutrients helping the soil having a faster turnover of nutrients.

When all is dead by pesticides and over-fertilizing of course you will have to keep on adding fertilizer and repeat the process. Losing almost all natural functions that are present.

Also I was thinking about those dungflies that were always present when the cows were in the field... Remember that time when the COWS were still in the field being cows and part of the natural world???

Actually I know a girl who does her master about soil ecology, however I think the subject she studies is about mycorizza or fungi in the soil.

Monsanto was ordered by the government to remove the seeds and crops that were contaminated themselves, at their own cost. In addition the farmer explicitly knew that the pollen and seeds were Monsanto's.

Just doing what every corporation does well.

>it's got a name
>therefore it is good
Intelectual property is pure cancer mate, literally creating artificial scarcety.
You can fuck right off if you support that shit.

Terminator genes are unethical.

Also,

Sounds strange because insects are a pest if people use monoculture and one insect specie can really fuck up mono-culture and there have been many examples for this. however insects are also the solution for these pests because these pests also (most of the time) have natural enemies in the form of other insects.

So what regulations have been passed that allow only Monsanto to monopolize?

More complexity means more ways it can go wrong and less inputs means less control when things go wrong.

How are they unethical? And which products have them anyway?

You know anti-GMO tards have no argument when they irrationally attack things that don't even exist just to scare people.

They don't have a website where I can upload accacatagacaca textfile, and they will send me seed of my stuff.

>not a bad thing
... if you don't mind killing all the marine life downstream from your cropland runoff.

>Monsanto is pretty much the ideal agricultural company.
...only if you consider the manufacture of chemical
weapons to be "ideal" for an agricultural company.

Agent Orange seems to have fallen into the Memory Hole

it's not as simple as "agent orange is bad lol".

pure agent orange was a mixture of two synthetic analogs of auxins, a naturally occurring class of plant hormones. you eat auxins every time you eat a plant. the problem with agent orange was that one of the two analogs had an especially toxic contaminant that wasn't recognized at the time of production and use. we stopped using it when we found out the problem. the other part of the mix, 2,4-D, is still in active use in agriculture today.

I think patenting DNA is a morally bankrupt practice

I feel like the narrow scope of the ruling doesn't quite help your argument, it only provides evidence of one instance where Monsanto was found to be wronged rather than in the wrong. There's no greater legal precedent set by the ruling which means there might by all means be examples of wrongdoing from 'santo.

Spotted the shills.

Yeah, people always seem to just act like she just got a stain on her clothing, but it was so hot that it burned, quite gruesomely, a large chunk of her body

intellectual property laws are pretty fucked up in general.

The legal cases Monsanto has filed against farmers aren't secret classified information. There isn't one of them suing a farmer because pollen from a neighbouring farm blew onto their field. That's an urban myth.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases#As_plaintiff

What if parasites adapt, though? Would we get the agricultural version of super bugs?
[spoiler]>inb4 F/A-18s destroying our crops[/spoiler]

Lol'd. Let me guess, you got this idea from a sci-fi story?
>hurrr muh ecology muh bees
Shut the fuck up you mexican retard. Read a fucking book, or at least a wikipedia article. Monsanto has nothing to do with bees.
>they made some shit in the past
>the US government willingly used that shit in a war
>It's somehow the company's fault
Are you lobotomized? Do you get your information from naturalnews.com? I hope you die of cancer.
Boohoo nigger. Biotech companies need to make money. I think capitalism is shit, but if anybody deserves money it's biotech companies who make useful shit.
>That's an urban myth
Exactly, but it's funny how many people believe it. Even I believed it at one point, until I read the fucking wikipedia article. Changed my view of the company for sure.

woops, this

>they made some shit in the past
>the US government willingly used that shit in a war
>It's somehow the company's fault
Are you lobotomized? Do you get your information from naturalnews.com? I hope you die of cancer.

was meant for

If we toss some bubblers in the mouth of the Mississippi, then after a few blooms, the problem will be solved.

They're a big corporation so they must be bad. Also crops should be natural which is good, not GMO which is not natural and thus bad.

To be fair, even though the anti-GMO crowd is pretty vocal, I don't think they're actually that big. My guess is that most of the opposition to Monsanto's (and other industrial agriculture companies') actions regarding GMOs has to do with whether we should be able to patent DNA/genes.

>Boohoo nigger. Biotech companies need to make money.
Check this shill out.