Cheerios says no to MONSANTO

[SovietCommie]

General Mills (ticker: GIS ) announced late last week that it would be making Cheerios GMO-free. The move is one of the first major responses by an American company to address the growing consumer concern over GMOs. If this is the beginning of a trend, the impact on seed-technology companies like Monsanto (MON) could be substantial...

...GMOs are found in more than 80% of American food products, but for the most part go undetected by the average American consumer. While there have been no major direct and undisputed scientific studies indicating health issues related to the consumption of GMOs, a substantial subset of American consumers have taken issue with the prevalence of GMOs in food products.

Full Article:www(dot)usatoday(dot)com/story/money/markets/2014/01/08/cheerios-says-no-to-monsanto/4375617/

I was going to post this in the environmental group section, but it's very inactive :unsure:, not to mention MONSANTO is a major player on the global capitalist stage, so I figured the main forums was appropriate place to share this article. Furthermore, environmentalism has always been a major proponent of the left, so I don't see why it wouldn't be appropriate.

[SovietCommie]

No one is interested it seems. Very well, I'll just keep the enviromental stuff in the Enviromental section.

[Sabot Cat]

It seems as though a lot of respectable people in leftist circles believe Monsanto and their GMO food are somehow especially bad, and I'm really not sure why. That's not to say there isn't a reason, but my admittedly shallow research hasn't really turned up anything substantial about them.

[Sea]

Cheerios say MARKETING because "Hey, we're the good guys! We said no to Monsanto!".

[SovietCommie]

Cheerios say MARKETING because "Hey, we're the good guys! We said no to Monsanto!".

What a keen observation, those clever capitalists.
I know some corporations are philanthropic such as Microsoft and Apple. Corporations like EXXON and Monsanto on the other hand are parasitical.

[Sabot Cat]

SovietCommie: All corporations are parasitical because they exploit those that work for them, including those with unusually good reputations like Microsoft and Apple. I also reiterate my confusion about the hubbub over Monsanto.

[Sea]

What a keen observation, those clever capitalists.
I know some corporations are philanthropic such as Microsoft and Apple. Corporations like EXXON and Monsanto on the other hand are parasitical.
News flash: Surplus value is still a thing if it's MS or Apple (which was run by a dead randoid) or exxon or La Cosa Nostra.
SovietCommie: All corporations are parasitical because they exploit those that work for them, including those with unusually good reputations like Microsoft and Apple. I also reiterate my confusion about the hubbub over Monsanto.Obviously that part is bullshit but you make a good point.

[Tenka]

It seems as though a lot of respectable people in leftist circles believe Monsanto and their GMO food are somehow especially bad, and I'm really not sure why. That's not to say there isn't a reason, but my admittedly shallow research hasn't really turned up anything substantial about them.

As far as I know, it is just Monsanto's aim to patent genes and such that makes them especially loathsome among cappie firms. They also abuse poor farmers in India(?), if memory serves.

[Sabot Cat]

As far as I know, it is just Monsanto's aim to patent genes and such that makes them especially loathsome among cappie firms. They also abuse poor farmers in India(?), if memory serves.

Something about Bt cotton, if I'm reading correctly?


Obviously that part is bullshit but you make a good point.

Thanks, and I think it dovetails nicely with your point; however, Microsoft and Apple do have unusually good reputations, at least through their public faces in Bill Gates and the late Steve Jobs, as well as among consumers considering the continued popularity of their products. Obviously I realize that they cultivated these through their vast amounts of money, but artificial prestige is functionally indistinguishable from any prestige because it's a participatory phenomena in the first place.

[SovietCommie]

As far as I know, it is just Monsanto's aim to patent genes and such that makes them especially loathsome among cappie firms. They also abuse poor farmers in India(?), if memory serves.

Possibly, but Monsanto is certainly not a brigade of saints. Who knows what goes on their sick minds. Their regard for Mother Earth is about as equal as... nevermind I don't want to prove Godwin's Law.
Read:
rt(dot)com/op-edge/monsanto-technique-ruins-evolution-016/

www(dot)motherearthnews(dot)com/homesteading-and-livestock/is-monsanto-the-worlds-most-evil-corporation(dot)aspx#axzz2n7U9LpoE

Even though my primary focus has usually been centered on focused on corporate greed, war-mongering politicians, far-right extremists (who are unfortunately the by-product of poverty), environmentalism should be one the main focuses of the left.

We only have one Earth. She has harbored us for thousands of years. Mother Earth has been good to mankind, to stab her in the back would be completely immoral. Not to mention, it's practically suicide. We throw toxins and waste in to the oceans and cut down millions of trees a year. It doesn't benefit mankind one bit. It pollutes our oxygen, and destroys our water supply (only 1% of the earths water is drinkable). It's complicated and even depressing to explain. But enviromentalism should be, not just a priority of the left, but a priority for the survival of Planet Earth and all her inhabitants alike.

[Sabot Cat]

For the first source, Jefferey Smith has no professional qualifications on the subject he's talking about, and self-publishes his alleged exposés; a lack of peer review or expertise in a field one claims authority in are the tell-tale signs of a crank. Furthermore, the second link pretty much just relies upon the notion that the reader is already against Monsanto, and isn't very helpful in that regard. Finally, it seems most of this opposition stems from an irrational fear against genetic modification because it "isn't natural", ignoring the fact that everything that exists is natural because nature is all encompassing for one with a materialist metaphysics.

(To quote a publication in regards to Jefferey Smith, here's an excerpt from an article that mentions him as a part of condemning Dr. Oz's reoccurring quackery:

"On October 17th, Oz broadcast a program titled “GMO Foods: Are They Dangerous to Your Health?” Oz was not subtle. “You’re probably eating them right now and don’t even know,” he began, darkly invoking “the brave new world of food. Are they safe?” Oz then introduced Jeffrey Smith, the author of “Genetic Roulette,” who says that engineered foods may cause many serious diseases, including colitis, asthma, and cancer. Smith has also made a film version of the book; Oz, for the sake of full disclosure, noted that “my wife, Lisa, was a narrator in Jeffrey’s film.” He added that no scientists were willing to share the stage with Smith. “So today we are doing something we have never done before,” Oz said. “After Jeffrey makes his points, he has to leave the stage before we can speak with the scientists in favor of genetically modified foods.” Other than to say that Smith was controversial, Oz did not indicate why no scientists would appear with him.

[...]

On the show, Oz identified Smith as a scientist, but Smith has no experience in genetics or agriculture, and has no scientific degree from any institution. He studied business at the Maharishi International University, founded by the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. Before the show aired, Bruce Chassy, a noted molecular biologist, wrote to Oz; he is a founder of Academics Review, a group of researchers who often debunk popular scientific claims. Chassy is professor emeritus in the department of food science and human nutrition at the University of Illinois. “As a public-sector scientist, researcher, and academic administrator with more than forty years’ experience, I am appalled that any medical professional would give a platform to the likes of Mr. Jeffrey Smith to impart health information to the public,” Chassy wrote. “His only professional experience prior to taking up his crusade against biotechnology is as a ballroom-dance teacher, yogic flying instructor, and political candidate for the Maharishi cult’s natural-law party.”

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/02/04/130204fa_fact_specter?currentPage=all)

[blake 3:17]

Monsanto is evil. Terminator seeds are one of the most vile things yet created. Thanks for posting!

[Sabot Cat]

Monsanto is evil. Terminator seeds are one of the most vile things yet created. Thanks for posting!

You mean the terminator seeds that they have never used? Monsanto pledged not to use the technology in 1999, and haven't been documented in utilizing it. I know you can't trust companies, but do you have proof that they have used terminator seeds in the last fifteen years? [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/465969.stm]

[Sea]

Thanks, and I think it dovetails nicely with your point; however, Microsoft and Apple do have unusually good reputations, at least through their public faces in Bill Gates and the late Steve Jobs, as well as among consumers considering the continued popularity of their products. Obviously I realize that they cultivated these through their vast amounts of money, but artificial prestige is functionally indistinguishable from any prestige because it's a participatory phenomena in the first place.Really? I thought MSFT was known for their corrupt business dealings and antitrust cases, and Apple known for selling way overpriced things that are made for cheap with child labor. They're popular with consumers because each essentially has a strong monopoly in the relevant part of the IT market, MSFT being well known for achieving this monopoly in the usual corrupt ways, not because of prestige. Obviously corruption itself in this case is irrelevant to a communist since it implies judgment based on bourgeois law, but still.
Possibly, but Monsanto is certainly not a brigade of saints. Who knows what goes on their sick minds. Their regard for Mother Earth is about as equal as... nevermind I don't want to prove Godwin's Law.
Read:
rt(dot)com/op-edge/monsanto-technique-ruins-evolution-016/

www(dot)motherearthnews(dot)com/homesteading-and-livestock/is-monsanto-the-worlds-most-evil-corporation(dot)aspx#axzz2n7U9LpoE

Even though my primary focus has usually been centered on focused on corporate greed, war-mongering politicians, far-right extremists (who are unfortunately the by-product of poverty), environmentalism should be one the main focuses of the left.

We only have one Earth. She has harbored us for thousands of years. Mother Earth has been good to mankind, to stab her in the back would be completely immoral. Not to mention, it's practically suicide. We throw toxins and waste in to the oceans and cut down millions of trees a year. It doesn't benefit mankind one bit. It pollutes our oxygen, and destroys our water supply (only 1% of the earths water is drinkable). It's complicated and even depressing to explain. But enviromentalism should be, not just a priority of the left, but a priority for the survival of Planet Earth and all her inhabitants alike.Oh, cut the moralism please. And cut the "mother earth" crap. You don't even know what you're talking about. Pollutes our oxygen? What the fuck? Don't you mean -- "pollutes our air"? If you want to care about the environment you have to take a scientific and fact-based approach, not mystical shit.

[RedWaves]

It seems as though a lot of respectable people in leftist circles believe Monsanto and their GMO food are somehow especially bad, and I'm really not sure why. That's not to say there isn't a reason, but my admittedly shallow research hasn't really turned up anything substantial about them.


Because Monsanto and GMO foods are bad. It is common sense when you put genetically modified organisms in food, it is a bad thing. It's been proven time and time again that it's not good, and still they go with profits over science cause lord forbid if these big corporations lose even a dollar.


You can easily watch the documentary The World According to Monsanto and see it for yourself. The documentary is on Youtube and easily breaks down how Monsanto sees the world for profit.


GMO foods are bad, and have been proved numerous times to cause cancer and several other diseases. Though this has been proven so many times, not many people really care (specifically the U.S.) and Monsanto is protected and no one can really do anything about them.

Monsanto literally runs the biggest monopoly on the food industry. They have a revolving door with the FDA, and are easily the most protected corporation in western society, as America won't do nothing to stop them and even passes bills like the Monsanto Protection Act all to protect them.


Somewhere in the documentary The World According to Monsanto it shows GMO crops of Corn and how they grow so out of control and crazy looking whereas regular corn crops with no GMO's look normal.


Monsanto is the very definition of imperialism (besides the U.S.). Their GMO crops run a monopoly on the food industry and they want total control (and are close to having it) the way that stuff ruins poor countries and in the third world is down right horrible.

It all comes down to profits and being cheap to save money. That's the main reason Monsanto does what they do, and just like McDonalds who can save money by using GMO's rather than keeping food real. GMO's are a lot cheaper than the real thing, and this is ultimately what drives the price up on organic foods and plays a monopoly there when organic foods cost through the roof.
These corporations don't give a flying fuck if people die from the GMO products, they pretty much have proven that over the years. But what they do care about is money. If they were to even lose a dollar it would be a problem to them.

A good example is High Fructose Corn Syrup. High Fructose Corn Syrup is literally in everything in America (In Canada they call it Glucose Fructose). I don't know the numbers or data, but I'm willing to bet that at least 75% of all foods in a grocery department have High Fructose Corn Syrup in it. The corn industry lobbies and runs all these propaganda ads to tell people how it's good for them and not to worry, but what they won't say is how High Fructose Corn Syrup is incredibly cheap and putting it in everything saves money and makes it easier on them. Just like how McDonalds makes these goddamn commercials with farmers claiming "we use real beef!" which is a complete blatant lie, but the propaganda seems to work since these corporations have way more power than they should.

We could play a game trying to pick the worst corporation in the world and I guarantee you 10 out of 10 times, Monsanto would top the list even beating McDonalds and Walmart and Coca Cola or whatever else that most people pick as the worst
What most people don't realize is most mega corporations rely on Monsanto. They have GMO's in just about anything and everything, so it is cool to see one company at least have balls and tell Monsanto to fuck off, but it's not enough.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Because Monsanto and GMO foods are bad. It is common sense when you put genetically modified organisms in food, it is a bad thing.

Yeah, you can say that as much as you like, but you are just sprouting utter nonsense. Do you know what a genetic modification entails? There is no fundamental difference, in and of itself, between artificial selection (which has been practised by human agriculture for thousands of years) and genetic modification through direct intervention, apart from the method in which this is done. This means that we have been eating genetically modified organisms for thousands of years. "Common sense" doesn't exist, especially not when you are just talking nonsense out of your hippie arse.


You can easily watch the documentary The World According to Monsanto and see it for yourself. The documentary is on Youtube and easily breaks down how Monsanto sees the world for profit.

Do you know what this thing called capitalism is? It's a world of actors who act for their own benefit, profits. This is the very way it works. Monsanto are not an aberration, are not a special case, even if their attempts at various times have been unusually direct in terms of planning how to assure continuing profitability.


GMO foods are bad, and have been proved numerous times to cause cancer and several other diseases. Though this has been proven so many times, not many people really care (specifically the U.S.) and Monsanto is protected and no one can really do anything about them.

No, it hasn't. You assume this because you have heard it but you don't understand it, and then just judge it to be a case of some nebulous "common-sense", which of course happens to be what you judge to be the truth. Some genetic modification could potentially cause illness, but this is not inherent in the very fact of genetic modification, which is something that happens naturally as well.



Somewhere in the documentary The World According to Monsanto it shows GMO crops of Corn and how they grow so out of control and crazy looking whereas regular corn crops with no GMO's look normal.

Stop watching stupid fucking youtube documentaries by a bunch of idiot hippies who are obsessed with this false dichotomy between "natural" and "unnatural".


What most people don't realize is most mega corporations rely on Monsanto. They have GMO's in just about anything and everything, so it is cool to see one company at least have balls and tell Monsanto to fuck off, but it's not enough.

They aren't telling them to fuck off, they are just pandering to a section of their customer base in competition for a niche market of more 'natural' and 'organic' foods. Some companies pay their employés better salaries and wages, so what? Still the same fucking shit. General Mills is pandering to a specific demographic in capitalist competition, that is all. Abstract profiteering. No morality, no ethical consideration; any sincere effort at such things doom any capitalist enterprise.

[DasFapital]

The organic food industry makes far more profit (http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-15/organic-product-sales-rise-9-2-to-59-1-billion-group-says.html) than the GM industry (http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/pocketk/16/default.asp). Also many of the people involved in the "organic" food industry are creepy libertarians (remember the Whole Foods CEO and his anti union shit?) who are just as motivated by profit.

[SovietCommie]

They also abuse poor farmers in India(?), if memory serves.
Yes, it's true.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2998150.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/465969.stm


Hungary isn't so obedient.
http://www.secretsofthefed.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/hungary-monsanto.jpg

Hungary has taken a bold stand against biotech giant Monsanto and genetic modification by destroying 1000 acres of maize found to have been grown with genetically modified seeds, according to Hungary deputy state secretary of the Ministry of Rural Development Lajos Bognar.

Unlike many European Union countries, Hungary is a nation where genetically modified (GM) seeds are banned. In a similar stance against GM ingredients, Peru has also passed a 10 year ban on GM foods.

Almost 1000 acres of maize found to have been ground with genetically modified seeds have been destroyed throughout Hungary, deputy state secretary of the Ministry of Rural Development Lajos Bognar said.

The GMO maize has been ploughed under, said Lajos Bognar, but pollen has not spread from the maize, he added.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/hungary-destroys-all-monsanto-gmo-corn-fields/5342913 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/hungary-destroys-all-monsanto-gmo-corn-fields/5342913)

[Skyhilist]

It seems as though a lot of respectable people in leftist circles believe Monsanto and their GMO food are somehow especially bad, and I'm really not sure why. That's not to say there isn't a reason, but my admittedly shallow research hasn't really turned up anything substantial about them.

It's not that Monsanto's intentions are necessarily worse than any other big business', it's that the impact of their malevolence is larger with things like GMO crops that (being pesticide resistant) can have tons of crap sprayed on them that goes into the environment, lower biodiversity (because of the upper-hand they have when they compete with native plants). Also the crops frequently blow to other farmers crops and make them have GMOs even if those farmers didn't want it. And then they get sued by Monsanto. Also the company made Agent Orange and their business has led to an extreme amount of pollution. The intents of other big companies are just as bad, but Monsanto has especially powerful tools at their disposal to cause destruction, and therefore can be considered more dangerous than most companies.

[Sabot Cat]

It's not that Monsanto's intentions are necessarily worse than any other big business', it's that the impact of their malevolence is larger with things like GMO crops that (being pesticide resistant) can have tons of crap sprayed on them that goes into the environment, lower biodiversity (because of the upper-hand they have when they compete with native plants).

From my understanding, genetically engineered crops are herbicide resistant, which allows killing weeds without tillage (which contributes to soil erosion). Bt toxin crops seem like they can make it so one doesn't need to spray as many pesticides, which actually helps the environment. (http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/43/executivesummary/default.asp)

I also don't care if the plants are less biologically diverse if genetic engineering improves upon our food supply and it doesn't have an impact on agricultural sustainability, the latter being a hypothesis I can't find research in support of.


Also the crops frequently blow to other farmers crops and make them have GMOs even if those farmers didn't want it.

This is only bad if GMOs are worse than normal crops, which is a conclusion that I'm not convinced on. There seems to be a scientific consensus in favor of them: http://www.biofortified.org/genera/studies-for-genera/ and http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309092094


And then they get sued by Monsanto.

I'm convinced that their suits and patents in favor of copyrighting is detrimental to global agriculture like other intellectual property and forms of property in general, so I'm on board with dissenting against them for this (and for being a corporation, obviously). However, suits being brought against accidental cases of this happening haven't been documented on part of Monsanto. (http://www.osgata.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/OSGATA-v-Monsanto-MTD-Decision.pdf)

Also, traditional breeders of plants can patent novel traits and have been on the books in the United States far before genetic engineering breakthroughs; 1930, if I'm not mistaken.


Also the company made Agent Orange and their business has led to an extreme amount of pollution.

I know the first thing is true, although I don't think creating an herbicide with unforeseen consequences in an imperialist war can be condemned morally in of itself, nor does it relate to their current practices along with the second thing because they're no longer a chemical company.


The intents of other big companies are just as bad, but Monsanto has especially powerful tools at their disposal to cause destruction, and therefore can be considered more dangerous than most companies.

The same is true of materiel manufactures, but I don't see them getting near as much vitriol as Monsanto receives in some circles. Furthermore, as DasFapital noted, the organic food industry is much larger than the GMO industry (to the tune of 60 billion vs 13 billion*), and I believe the former is using environmentalists like pawns to protect their products.

[* http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-15/organic-product-sales-rise-9-2-to-59-1-billion-group-says.html, http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/pocketk/16/default.asp]

[The Intransigent Faction]

It seems like common sense that genetically modifying foods to make them larger or herbicide resistant or whatever-the-fuck else is done not out of concern for people but because it one way or another makes them more profitable. The health effects are an externality, so how in the hell would it be surprising if it turned out (as it already has in many cases) that food is altered in ways that have harmful health effects, including ones we may not yet fully grasp? It's rational to err on the side of not messing with genetics (granted, that itself is also done for marketing rather than health reasons, but speaking purely scientifically, it's better to be cautious than to add things and hope the consequences aren't bad).

The fact that businesses are also built around organic food is no reason to oppose it. That's just lifestylism of the sort those who might buy organic food are ironically seemingly being accused of here.

[Sabot Cat]

It seems like common sense that genetically modifying foods to make them larger or herbicide resistant or whatever-the-fuck else is done not out of concern for people but because it one way or another makes them more profitable. The health effects are an externality,

Making them larger (and herbicide resistant, I suppose) also has the consequence of being able to increase the global food supply, which is always a good thing. Furthermore, health effects are not an externality because they determine whether or not people will continue to buy this food.



so how in the hell would it be surprising if it turned out (as it already has in many cases) that food is altered in ways that have harmful health effects,

Do you have sources for these 'many cases'?


including ones we may not yet fully grasp?

It's not parsimonious to make any decision on the basis of conclusions that have not been substantiated by evidence.


It's rational to err on the side of not messing with genetics (granted, that itself is also done for marketing rather than health reasons, but speaking purely scientifically, it's better to be cautious than to add things and hope the consequences aren't bad).

The fact that businesses are also built around organic food is no reason to oppose it. That's just lifestylism of the sort those who might buy organic food are ironically seemingly being accused of here.

It's not that organic food is distributed by corporations that is the sticking point here: it's that they are a huge industry that have a profit-based motive for fear mongering about genetically engineered food.

[Tenka]

Humans have a long history of "messing with genetics" through artificial selection. Not sure how today's genetic modification is somehow worse apart from all the criminal patents involved (which is a separate issue, however relevant to Monsanto).

edit: health effects don't really determine anything though if they are not readily or immediately apparent--a boon for deregulated beef, a potential future horror for us all. But this is not strictly relevant to the discussion.