Monsanto at it again...

[drober23]

Monsanto just purchased the Climate Change Corporation. This company monitors global climate trends and sells the data. It is arguably the market leader for this information. Not that I am educated about their work, but I certainly will never take anything they publish seriously again.

I see how Monsanto is an interested observer of the Climate Change Corporation. Long-range climate trends will impact agriculture tremendously. I have a huge problem with them owning the messenger. This is almost as bad as when they bought Beegenics (the main company studying decrease in bee population). Allowing them to dictate the message on topics central to their business is asking for trouble.

[ruckman101]

Monsanto's goal is to rule the world. Sick. They're trying to force GMO rape seed into the Willamette Valley, one of the world's finest locations to grow crops for seed. Why? Because the climate has changed and their Canadian crops are doing poorly. I've sworn off canola oil. Threatened farmers are doing what they can, but the Oregon State legislature tacked on a rider that strips local communities from passing ordinances that ban GMO crops. Why do the "rights" of a corporation trump the rights of actual citizens?


neal

[zabo]

well they bought the Climate Corporation not the Climate Change Corporation.
The Climate Corporation underwrites weather insurance for farmers.

[Randy in Maine]

From ScientificBeekeeping.com

The Vilifying of Monsanto

These days one can simply mention the name “Monsanto” in many circles, and immediately hear a kneejerk chorus of hisses and boos. Sure, it had been easy for me to enjoy the camaraderie of riding the anti-Monsanto bandwagon; but I realized that that I shouldn’t allow that sort of fun to substitute for the responsibility of doing my homework and getting to the actual facts of the matter! When I did so, I found that some of Monsanto’s actions did indeed deserve opprobrium; but that much of the criticism directed at the current company is undeserved (Monsanto suffers from an ingenerate inability to practice effective PR). Concurrent with the purchase of Beeologics, Monsanto hired well-respected apiarist (and columnist) Jerry Hayes to head up a new honey bee health division, and appointed some prominent beekeepers (not me) to its advisory board. It dismays me that some beekeepers then immediately jump to the erroneous conclusion that Jerry has sold his soul to the Devil—nothing could be further from the truth!

What are they up to?

Some beekeepers imaginatively feared that Monsanto was about to create a GM bee or was up to some other nefarious plot. But in reality, Monsanto’s vision of its future direction is anything but evil—I suggest that you peruse their website for your own edification [9], [10]. Of course I was curious as to why they had purchased Beeologics, since the market for bee medicine is far too tiny to draw the interest of a giant corporation. But one needn’t be some sort of psychic in order to figure out a corporation’s plans—all you need do is to read its recent patents, which are a virtual crystal ball for seeing ten years into the future. So I searched out any patents containing the words “Monsanto” and “RNAi.”

To my great relief, I found that Monsanto was not up to some evil plot—far from it! I suggest you read two of the patents yourself [11]:

Chemical pesticidal agents are not selective and exert their effects on non-target fauna as well…Some chemical pesticidal agents have been shown to accumulate in food, and to exhibit adverse effects on workers that manufacture and apply such chemical agents. Thus there has been a long felt need for methods for controlling or eradicating… pest infestation on or in plants, i.e., methods which are selective, environmentally inert, non-persistent, biodegradable, and that fit well into pest resistance management schemes. Plant biotechnology provides a means to control pest infestations by providing plants that express one or more pest control agents. Recombinant pest control agents have generally been reported to be proteins selectively toxic to a target pest that are expressed by the cells of a recombinant plant.

What the patents tell us is that Monsanto clearly sees that the public is sick of pesticides. Genetic RNAi technology would allow plant breeders to develop crop cultivars that control insect pests in the same manner that the plants naturally control viruses. All that the breeder need do would be to identify a unique target protein in a particular pest, and then splice a gene into the plant to produce a “blocking” dsRNA molecule that would prevent the pest from building that specific protein. The beauty is that dsRNA molecules are already naturally found in plant tissues, the blocking molecule would be entirely specific for that pest alone, completely nontoxic to humans or other non target species, and be rapidly biodegradable. It would be a win all around (except for the pest)—crop protection, no toxic pesticides, and a sustainable farming technology (as well as a market for Monsanto’s products, since they would need to continually develop slightly different cultivars in order to avoid pest resistance). Who’d have guessed that Monsanto would be leading the way toward developing eco-friendly pest control? Life is full of surprises!

Practicality overrides principle

Some folk make GM crops out to be some sort of abomination of nature, and shun them with religious fervor. I’m not sure that this is the best course for environmentalists to take, and that perhaps, in the face of an expanding human population and a warming climate, we should leave all the possible plant breeding solutions on the table. The organic farming community wholeheartedly endorses the biotechnology of “marker assisted selection” [12], yet arbitrarily draws the line at the directed insertion of desirable genes. This may sound like heresy, but as an environmentalist, I suggest that GE holds great promise for developing more nutritious plants that don’t require pesticides, fertilizer, or irrigation—all of which would be wins for organic farming.

From a biological standpoint, I simply don’t see GM crops as being any more inherently dangerous than conventionally bred crops. Our domestic plants today are often far from “natural”—you wouldn’t recognize the ancestors of many. Be aware that even conventionally bred cultivars of several crops (beans, potatoes, celery, etc.) often turn out to be too toxic for humans.

This is not by any means a fluff piece for Monsanto or agribusiness. Farming is not what it used to be. In the U.S., 85% of farm sales are produced by less than 10% of farms, which hold 44% of farm acreage [13]. A mere six companies collectively con­trol around half of the proprietary seed market, and three quarters of the global agrochemical market [14]. I abhor such corporate domination; neither do I see today’s high-input agricultural practices as being either sustainable or ecologically wise.

That said, human demands upon the Earth’s finite ecosystem are growing. There are only about 4.5 acres of biologically productive land on the surface of the Earth available for each current human inhabitant. Depending upon the culture’s lifestyle, we use anywhere from 25 acres (U.S.) to as little as 1 acre (Bangladesh) to feed and clothe each person. Unfortunately for the bee (and many other species), due to human population growth there are over 200,000 additional human mouths to feed every single day—each requiring the conversion of another couple of acres of natural habitat into farmland!

It doesn’t take a mathematician to figure out that if we wish to conserve natural ecosystems that we need to get more yield out of existing cropland! And one of the best ways to do that is to breed crops that are more productive and pest-resistant. The plant scientists in the corporate labs are making huge strides in developing such cultivars, both by GM and conventional breeding. If they manage to file a patent [15], so what?—other breeders can easily “steal” the germplasm away from the patented genes, and in any case, the patents expire after 20 years!

Monsanto has seen the writing on the wall—farmers and consumers are demanding not only more food production, but also more eco-friendly agricultural practices. Monsanto research is heading in that direction with their conventional breeding programs, the development of “biological” insecticides [16], and the goal of producing pesticide-free dsRNA crops. Add to that that the company could actually bring to market dsRNA medications against bee viruses, nosema, and perhaps varroa. All would be huge wins for the honey bee and beekeepers!

Hold the hate mail

Full disclosure: so despite my innate aversion to corporate dominance and corporate agriculture, I feel that we beekeepers should work with Monsanto to develop products for the beekeeping industry, as well as bee-friendly cultivars of crop plants, and have thus personally decided to be a cooperator in their initial bee research trial. Is this some sort of Faustian bargain? I don’t know, but as a condition of my cooperation, I asked, and Monsanto agreed, to allow me to share the data collected with the beekeeping community—which could be a big win for us, since Monsanto has some of the best analytic labs in the world! I feel that it is far better to have Monsanto working on the side of beekeepers, rather than perhaps against us. At this point, I’d like to leave the GM debate behind, and address the facts of the matter as to any relationship between GM crops and CCD.

Plenty more to read there, but do your homework BEFORE you make up your mind.

[airkooledchris]

A long time very good friend of mine is the Senior Interface Engineer there, and they sold the company for 1.1 BILLION dollars.

I guess his "stock option sign on bonus" was worth a whole lot more than anyone would have ever guessed. =)

[ruckman101]

Growing GMO rape seed in the Willamette valley threatens to contaminate the brassica seed stock. That fact doesn't change. Nor does it change the fact that since WWII, the government has recognized and protected the Willamette valley from threats to the vegetable seed industry because of it's unique isolation and value of keeping those stocks uncontaminated.

But hey, Monsanto's crops are failing in Canada, so toss it out the window.


neal

[Amskeptic]

Growing GMO rape seed in the Willamette valley threatens to contaminate the brassica seed stock. That fact doesn't change. Nor does it change the fact that since WWII, the government has recognized and protected the Willamette valley from threats to the vegetable seed industry because of it's unique isolation and value of keeping those stocks uncontaminated.

But hey, Monsanto's crops are failing in Canada, so toss it out the window.


neal

I'd say that IF Montsanto should do something "decent" or "acceptable", I would acknowledge it and thank them, keeping an ever-watchful eye trained on them.
Colin

[vistacruzer]

Climate Corporation underwrites weather insurance for farmers.
Hey farmer want insurance? We have a seed that is drought resistant. You don't want our seeds? I can only guess that you don't want insurance either.

[Spezialist]

Petrol company protecting its future. Big news.

[Amskeptic]

Petrol company protecting its future. Big news.

Montsanto? Chemical company not so much protecting its future as writing it with all due disdain for the remainder of life on Earth.
Colin

[RussellK]

Growing GMO rape seed in the Willamette valley threatens to contaminate the brassica seed stock. That fact doesn't change. Nor does it change the fact that since WWII, the government has recognized and protected the Willamette valley from threats to the vegetable seed industry because of it's unique isolation and value of keeping those stocks uncontaminated.

But hey, Monsanto's crops are failing in Canada, so toss it out the window.


neal

I'd say that IF Montsanto should do something "decent" or "acceptable", I would acknowledge it and thank them, keeping an ever-watchful eye trained on them.
Colin

A huge backer of our local PBS affiliate. Does that get them into heaven?

[Randy in Maine]

Growing GMO rape seed in the Willamette valley threatens to contaminate the brassica seed stock. That fact doesn't change. Nor does it change the fact that since WWII, the government has recognized and protected the Willamette valley from threats to the vegetable seed industry because of it's unique isolation and value of keeping those stocks uncontaminated.

But hey, Monsanto's crops are failing in Canada, so toss it out the window.


neal

I'd say that IF Montsanto should do something "decent" or "acceptable", I would acknowledge it and thank them, keeping an ever-watchful eye trained on them.
Colin

Would that include trying to increase yields, generating more protein in the crops, and using less pesticides during the growing season in order to feed about 5 billion people. Does that count?

[Amskeptic]

Growing GMO rape seed in the Willamette valley threatens to contaminate the brassica seed stock. That fact doesn't change. Nor does it change the fact that since WWII, the government has recognized and protected the Willamette valley from threats to the vegetable seed industry because of it's unique isolation and value of keeping those stocks uncontaminated.

But hey, Monsanto's crops are failing in Canada, so toss it out the window.


neal

I'd say that IF Montsanto should do something "decent" or "acceptable", I would acknowledge it and thank them, keeping an ever-watchful eye trained on them.
Colin

Would that include trying to increase yields, generating more protein in the crops, and using less pesticides during the growing season in order to feed about 5 billion people. Does that count?

Yes. Corporations are like unwieldy sometimes gifted young brats. They need serious structure (regulations), they need to be held accountable to the rules, they need sparing praise (good PBS support!), and they need to look at the long term effects far past their shareholders. Montsanto keeps a motley collection of friends at the clubhouse (read: lobbyists in the halls of Congress). While you can't disparage their friends too much, you can at least make them aware that you know.

Genetically modified crops may contain internally-synthesized chemicals/proteins whose effects cannot be detected in our bodies, yet. A plant that kill an insect, can kill our intestinal linings, too. Genes that make crops toxic to one pest may kill beneficial insects, with effects on animals further up the food chain. We DON'T KNOW. We could accidentally unleash weeds that choke the natural balance.

The part that gets me, though, is the use of patent laws and intellectual property rights being blanketed upon the pretty summer fields under the sun, our food supply monopolized by a small number of big players. Montsanto has shown some pretty ruthless behavior.
Colin