Why Is Monsanto the Most Hated Company in the World?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The most hated company in the world right now isn’t a member of Big Oil. It’s not a shady Internet company or a bailed-out megabank. Populist discontent toward dirty energy, high-tech snoops, and greedy bankers has occasionally been fierce, but it’s never been laser-focused like the outrage that drew an estimated (by the organizers) 2 million protesters to anti-Monsanto rallies in more than 50 countries at the end of May.

Think about that. If those numbers are accurate, a single private company drew almost as many protesters in a single day as the worldwide Occupy movement at its peak. Monsanto didn’t even have to bankrupt any economies or leech billions of dollars off taxpayers. All it took was three little letters: GMO.

The history of commercialized GMO foods as we now know them began just two decades ago, with an “enhanced” tomato that was so unprofitable to produce that its developer wound up selling itself to Monsanto. Since then, other developments have embedded GMOs into a rather substantial part of the world’s food supply.

Total global cropland, by comparison, amounts to roughly 1.5 billion hectares, so GMOs now take up more than 11% of all cropland in the world. ISAAA — the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, a pro-GMO nonprofit supported in part by Monsanto’s funding — says that GMOs have made 100-fold gains in terms of planted cropland since 1996. The United States, Brazil, Argentina, Canada, and India comprise the lion’s share of GMO cropland, as more than 152 million of the world’s 170 million GMO hectares are found in those five countries.

All of this adds up to big business. The six largest seed-and-weed companies — which typically pair specially engineered seeds with herbicides that often eliminate any plants not attuned to their unique chemical structure — accounted for close to $50 billion in global sales across their various product lines in 2009, the last year for which complete data was available:

How do you solve a problem like Monsanto?

It’s tempting to reduce complex issues into outraged sound bites, like “GMOs are killing people!” or “GMOs are feeding the world!” The truth, as always, isn’t quite so easy.

The threat of tainted food — whether by chemicals or through genetic manipulation — is a cause that arouses outrage at a pitch few other causes will ever muster. The threat of a shadowy corporation with its fingers buried in the heart of our food supply only heightens this outrage, and Monsanto’s heavy-handed efforts at control have done nothing to soften its public image. However, the science of GMOs has been carried out in a highly ideological way on both sides, which doesn’t help when all you want is the truth.

It seems that GMOs will inevitably become a larger part of our food supply, because the corporate motivator in the United States has proved to be stronger than the citizen motivator in recent years. A few protests won’t change that. It will take concerted, long-running national efforts to change diets and attitudes before Monsanto and its peers are forced to loosen their grip on American farmlands. If you choose to be one of the people on the vanguard of that effort, make sure that you understand the science as it is, and not as you’d like it to be.

Source: Motley Fool

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

It is? I thought it had to be Microsoft, or Apple, or Enron, or GE, or Union Carbide. In this forum, it has to be News Corp or Walmart.. Liberals hate success.

Edited June 10, 2013 by The Patriot

[lostinblue 1,989]

NO .... 2 years ago it was BP then Wallmart now it is Monsanto.....Any large successful company is fair game EXCEPT for the Solyndra and any other trash companies that Steve is close to. Just say you are against capitalism and the way of life it affords us in the United States. Apple,Google and Microsoft seem to be off his radar.... Could it be they are big Kenyan money supporters?

[Póg mo 1,749]

It is? I thought it had to be Microsoft, or Apple, or Enron, or GE, or Union Carbide. In this forum, it has to be News Corp or Walmart.. Liberals hate success.

Same old story Liberals hate freedom, Liberals are anti -American, Liberals [insert Liberal bashing comment here].

P.S. Liberals such as myself aren't big fans of being forced fed GMOs because Monsanto in its wisdom felt that us silly liberals shouldn't have any choice in the matter and it would just easier to bribe congress instead.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It is? I thought it had to be Microsoft, or Apple, or Enron, or GE, or Union Carbide. In this forum, it has to be News Corp or Walmart.. Liberals hate success.

Funny that you start a thread to highlight the corporate welfare that Big Ag is getting but then you turn around and call Walmart a success story. If Walmart is a success then so is Big Ag.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Funny that you start a thread to highlight the corporate welfare that Big Ag is getting but then you turn around and call Walmart a success story. If Walmart is a success then so is Big Ag.

The mods decided the farm bill isn't welfare.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Same old story Liberals hate freedom, Liberals are anti -American, Liberals [insert Liberal bashing comment here].

P.S. Liberals such as myself aren't big fans of being forced fed GMOs because Monsanto in its wisdom felt that us silly liberals shouldn't have any choice in the matter and it would just easier to bribe congress instead.

You have a choice - don't eat anything grown with Monsanto seed. See how that works? It is called F-R-E-E E-N-T-E-R-P-R-I-S-E.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The mods decided the farm bill isn't welfare.

And you decided that indirect wage subsidies aren't welfare. I think both the mods and you are wrong on this.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

And you decided that indirect wage subsidies aren't welfare. I think both the mods and you are wrong on this.

Walmart didn't ask for those subsidies. The subsidies are not targeted specifically toward Walmart employees, Your premise is invalid, so your argument fails. Farm subsidies are targeted toward specific groups, that is the difference.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Walmart didn't ask for those subsidies. The subsidies are not targeted specifically toward Walmart employees, Your premise is invalid, so your argument fails. Farm subsidies are targeted toward specific groups, that is the difference.

Farm subsidies aren't exactly targeted towards Big Ag. Just as wage subsidies aren't targeted to Big Box retailers. The former were to help sustain small farms and the latter to help small businesses. At least officially that is the story behind them. Of course, corporations in both the agriculture as well as the retail business found these subsidies to be very useful to pad their bottom lines. It's all the same, man. Don't be fooled.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Farm subsidies aren't exactly targeted towards Big Ag.

No. Farm subsidies were directed toward specific crops and livestock, for example, sugar, corn, soybeans, and dairy farms. They include tariff protections, direct subsidies, and promotion.

Just as wage subsidies aren't targeted to Big Box retailers. The former were to help sustain small farms and the latter to help small businesses.

No, they were meant to help welfare recipients go back to work.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

No. Farm subsidies were directed toward specific crops and livestock, for example, sugar, corn, soybeans, and dairy farms. They include tariff protections, direct subsidies, and promotion.

They should have prevented corporations from benefiting. They didn't and now Big Ag uses the subsidies to pad their bottom lines. Corporate welfare at it's finest.

No, they were meant to help welfare recipients go back to work.

Then they failed their purpose and should be done away with. What happened is that they made corporate bottom lines fatter and that is all they did.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

They should have prevented corporations from benefiting. They didn't and now Big Ag uses the subsidies to pad their bottom lines. Corporate welfare at it's finest.

Then they failed their purpose and should be done away with. What happened is that they made corporate bottom lines fatter and that is all they did.

All of which shows corporations and businesses in general, will act in a manner to maximize profits. Solutions to social problems must take that into consideration, Most countries in the world invite industry to the table with open arms on a whole array of social enterprises. For some reason, the social reformers here do nothing but ostracize success because it doesn't comport with the Maoist teachings that became so popular with students during the Vietnam war who are now firmly entrenched into the American political left. Of course, that contrasts with the corporate shills on the right, who sold their souls for six digit salaries and stock options.

Not a very cooperative dichotomy, I am afraid.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

NO .... 2 years ago it was BP then Wallmart now it is Monsanto.....Any large successful company is fair game EXCEPT for the Solyndra and any other trash companies that Steve is close to. Just say you are against capitalism and the way of life it affords us in the United States. Apple,Google and Microsoft seem to be off his radar.... Could it be they are big Kenyan money supporters?

I too find it odd that Apple exploits 3rd world workers and hold all that wealth out of circulation, but is the liberal darlings . They got 137 Billion, most of it offshore. Can you imagine if all that cash was reinvested in our economy.