"Monsanto is an agricultural company. We apply innovation and technology to help farmers around the world be successful, produce healthier foods, better animal feeds and more fiber, while also reducing agriculture's impact on our environment."
The Monsanto Company (NYSE: MON) is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation. It is the world's leading producer of the herbicide glyphosate, marketed as "Roundup". Monsanto is also by far the leading producer of genetically engineered (GE) seed, holding 70%–100% market share for various crops.
In 1947, an accidental explosion of ammonium nitrate fertilizer loaded on the French ship S.S. Grandcamp destroyed an adjacent Monsanto styrene manufacturing plant, along with much of the port at Galveston Bay. The explosion, known as the Texas City Disaster, is considered the largest industrial accident in US history, with the highest death toll.
In 1954, Monsanto partnered with German chemical giant Bayer to form Mobay and market polyurethanes in the US. In the 1960s and 1970s, Monsanto became the leading producer of Agent Orange for US Military operations in Vietnam
Throughout 2004 and 2005, Monsanto filed lawsuits against many farmers in Canada and the U.S. The lawsuits have been on the grounds of patent infringement, specifically the farmer's sale of seed containing Monsanto's patented genes–which require the farmer initial purchase of the seed and its technology–unknowingly sown by wind carrying the seeds from neighboring crops. These instances began in the mid to late 1990s, with one of the most significant cases being decided in Monsanto's favor by the Canadian Supreme Court. By a 5-4 vote in late May of 2004, that court ruled that "by cultivating a plant containing the patented gene and composed of the patented cells without license, the appellants [canola farmer Percy Schmeiser] deprived the respondents of the full enjoyment of the monopoly." With this ruling, the Canadian courts followed the U.S. Supreme Court in its decision on patent issues involving plants and genes.
As of February of 2005, Monsanto has patent claims on breeding techniques for pigs which would grant them ownership of any pigs born of such techniques and their related herds. Greenpeace claims Monsanto is trying to claim ownership on ordinary breeding techniques.[2] Monsanto claims that the patent is a defensive measure to track animals from its system. They furthermore claim their patented method uses a specialized insemination device that requires less sperm than is typical.
Since the mid-1990s, it has sued some 150 US farmers for patent infringement in connection with its GE seed. The usual claim involves violation of a technology agreement that prohibits farmers from saving seed from one season's crop to plant the next. One farmer received an eight-month prison sentence, in addition to having to pay damages, when a Monsanto case turned into a criminal prosecution.[citation needed] Monsanto reports that it pursues approximately 500 cases of suspected infringement annually.
Current members of the board of directors of Monsanto are: Frank V. AtLee III, John W. Bachmann, Hugh Grant, Arthur H. Harper, Gwendolyn S. King, Sharon R. Long, C. Steven McMillan, William U. Parfet, George H. Poste, Robert J. Stevens.
Former Monsanto employees currently hold positions in US government agencies such as the FDA and EPA and even the Supreme Court. These include Clarence Thomas, Michael Taylor, Ann Veneman and Linda Fisher.[citation needed] Linda Fisher has even been back and forth between positions at Monsanto and the EPA.[citation needed]Donald Rumsfeld reportedly earned $12 million from increased stock value when G. D. Searle & Company was sold to Monsanto in 1985.[5]
Here is their website...
Monsanto ~ Home
Wikipedia says...
Monsanto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Think about that one.
I could go on and on- I even left out many of the lawsuits...you decide for yourself.
More recently, it lost a series of court decisions resulting in US$700 million in damages being awarded to thousands of residents of the town of Anniston, Alabama that had been polluted over a period of years by Monsanto's PCB byproducts. It was settled with the following judgment. Though the PCB production was outlawed in 1979 and Monsanto ceased production in 1977, it failed to clear up the levels of PCB already in the natural population, until detection by the federal Soil Detection Service. At their own initiative, the company dredged a few hundred yards of the contaminated Snow Creek and surrounding tributaries, but far from enough. After the truth was uncovered by the wider public, prompting swift investigations by the EPA and incinerators were introduced to burn large quantities of sarin and mustard gas produced by Monsanto[2]. On February 22 2002, Monsanto was found guilty of ”negligence, wantonness, suppression of truth, nuisance, trespass, and outrage.”[citation needed]
of September 20 2006, Monsanto is on trial in Carcassonne, France, for having allegedly illegally imported, in 1999, 100 tonnes of soya seed contaminated with GM varieties. 50 tonnes were sold to 23 farmers by local agriculture suppliers. 50 tonnes were sent back to the USA.
In 1997, Fox News reportedly bowed to pressure from Monsanto to suppress an investigative report on the health risks associated with Monsanto's bovine growth hormone product, Posilac.[citation needed] Posilac, a synthetic drug used to increase milk production in cows, is banned in most first-world countries, with the exception of the United States, where it can be found in much of the milk supply. Fox pressured its reporters, Steve Wilson[disambiguation needed] and Jane Akre, to alter their report, despite evidence that Monsanto had lied about the risks of contaminated milk and infected cattle.[citation needed] The reporters refused to comply, and were eventually fired. Wilson and Akre then sued Fox News in Florida state court, claiming they could not be fired for refusing to do something that they believed to be illegal. In 2000, a Florida jury found in favor of the reporters, however this decision was overturned in 2003 by an appeals court, on a technicality in the interpretation of the whistleblower's statute under which the original case had been filed, as fabricating the news is not actually illegal. The reporters' struggle with Fox News is ongoing. The findings in their original report were never directly challenged.[citation needed]
Child Labour
A subsidiary of Monsanto has been accused of employing child labour in the manufacture of cotton-seeds in India. The work involves handling of poisonous pesticides such as Endosulfan and the children get less than Rs.20 (half dollar) per day. [12] The company has refuted these claims on the basis that the children are not directly employed by the company.
You know what....nvm. This company might not be evil but as far as being crooked. There is no doubt.
Karl Marx was right!!
wtf are you talking about? Please specify.
Just a random thought. Is Monsanto evil? I certianly say they are greedy at the very least.
I bet they would also try to patent life itself:
I am creating artificial life, declares US gene pioneer
There aren't any non-evil corporations.
On the topic, no they're not evil they're just trying to make money off products that they invested in to create.
There's no such thing as an evil corporation.
I know, I worded it wrong. It just seems to me that they are either above the law, or writing it to benefit from their ridiculous practices.
Come one RiNYC, this question makes no sense to those that do not understand the concept of intellectual property. :lol:How does any of that indicate that they're above the law? Why shouldn't companies protect their intellectual property?
TOJ said:Corporations are not evil or good or happy or sad.
TOJ said:Some people in corps are evil, some are good, some are happy, and some are sad.
TOJ said:Do you think all those who own stock in Monsanto and are employeed by Monsanto are evil?
TOJ said:Those who think all corps are evil, do you also think all those who own corporate stock or are employed by an incorporated entity are evil?
And also trying to make money off of the people that own crops/animals that cross pollinate/breed with their patent. These people have no control over this, yet Monsanto wants to take their profit. Where do you draw the line?
No, I think that corporations are inherently evil--that is, evil by definition, for a couple reasons:
1) Corporations have, as an entity, the rights of a person, though only some of the responsibilities.
2) Corporations have, generally speaking, vastly more money and power than individuals, and so can prosecute their rights much more vehemently than individuals typically can.
3) Corporations run under the assumption that the only responsibility they have is to make money. While individuals within a corporation may have a conscience and may well want to do the right thing, typically these impulses get "washed out" as actions the corporation takes requires multiple hands to effect. The only reason a corporation will do anything good is if it garners greater profit.
And I could list a number of other reasons, but I think that would do to start.
RightinNYC said:Link? Corporations do not enjoy the rights of persons. They possess legal personality, though that's often a negative thing. Also, could you list some responsibilities that persons have that corporations do not?
RightinNYC said:And by the same token, corporations are much more lucrative targets for plaintiff lawyers who work on contingency and are seeking huge settlements or jury verdicts for wrongs that the vast majority of individuals would be judgment-proof against.
RightinNYC said:What makes you think that corporations don't try to act on a more moral plane than the average individual?
RightinNYC said:The vast majority of people are rational actors in that they will always choose to enter into contracts that will maximize their value.
RightinNYC said:Individuals, by virtue of being individuals, do not face the same level of scrutiny that corporations face. Most corporations have an interest that is as strong, if not stronger, in maintaining a positive public image.
RightinNYC said:First, by virtue of existing, corporations allow people to buy and sell goods for lower costs than they would otherwise.
RightinNYC said:Second, they employ the majority of the country.
RightinNYC said:Third, they pay approximately $350,000,000,000 in corporate taxes that would otherwise be missing from the budget.
RightinNYC said:Fourth, they are responsible for the largest share of charitable giving in the world.
RightinNYC said:Hopefully your other reasons are better than the ones you started with.
Corporations enjoy all the protections of the first amendment, at least so far as they can be applied
as well as most other protections afforded citizens in the Constitution and in other law. Corporations enjoy the right to sue. Corporations enjoy the right to own property.
Conversely, shareholders are typically immune from prosecution for illegal acts of the corporation, and so, often, are the officers of the corporation.
And if that were in any way a balance to what I said, we'd expect to find corporations being, on average, about as wealthy as individuals. That simply isn't so.
1) The theoretical framework already hinted at. In a corporation, the driving motive is profit. To block a morally wrong action that would otherwise generate profit requires the agreement of many people in a corporation. Conversely, to take a morally wrong action that generates profit requires the agreement of relatively few people in the corporation (and sometimes only one person), because it is in line with the overall goals of the corporation.
Plenty of people recognize it.
I suggest a perusal of the work of David Korten as a good place to start.
2) Empirically, there are so many stories of corporate mis-or-malfeasance that appear on a regular basis that it's hard to figure out why anyone wouldn't simply accept my assertion as common knowledge.
I don't think this is so. I think people are typically quite sentimental and do not govern their affairs with sheer, cold logic.
Certainly so. Which is why they subsidize media and politics to such a great degree.
In itself, that's not a good, and in fact is very often evil. We get to purchase lots of stuff in this country for a relatively low cost because those corporations that make those goods pay their workers an unfair--indeed, demeaning--wage in other countries.
Why is that any kind of counter-argument? Are you saying that without corporations, we'd all just sit on the ground and waste away doing nothing?
Which sum will probably not turn out to be remotely enough to pay for the damage they ultimately cause or the costs they socialize. Again, see David Korten's work for clarification and reams of examples.
Again, it's not remotely enough to make up for the damage they've caused.
Actually, my hope is that maybe you might understand the reasons already presented and argue your case against the propositions as they stand, not as you think they should. But I imagine that hope is in vain.
Here is their website...
Monsanto ~ Home
Wikipedia says...
Monsanto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Think about that one.
I could go on and on- I even left out many of the lawsuits...you decide for yourself.
Since all corporations are evil, and monsanto is a corporation, monsanto is therefore an evil corporation :mrgreen:
TOJ said:Come one RiNYC, this question makes no sense to those that do not understand the concept of intellectual property.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?