# Monsanto- Is it really Teh Evil? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 22, 2012, 8:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/monsanto-is-it-really-teh-evil/638500 "2012-10-22T08:37:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/monsanto-is-it-really-teh-evil/638500/101 "2012-10-24T17:08:16Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Those “seeds of common knowledge” will, by nature, change due to cross-pollination in just a generation or two, so my questions still stand. I don’t think you’ve read the Order. Have you? > [@Chap 55 (2)(B) amendment](#): > > B. If such materials are distinctive so that the variety differs clearly from any other variety whose existence is a matter of common knowledge **at the time of filing the application** … > [@](#): > > What exactly does “not clearly distiguishable” mean? > Who makes the determination-Monsanto, the farmer, or a third party? > edited to add: What does do to the rights of the farmers to improve their seed stock if they have to avoid all characteristics that Monsanto might list? I don’t think you’ve read the Order. Have you? ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/monsanto-is-it-really-teh-evil/638500/102 "2012-10-24T17:12:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > How so? The title is, “COALITION PROVISIONAL AUTHORITY ORDER NUMBER 81.” What makes you suspect it’s an addendum? Well, I actually read it. And it SAYS it’s an addendum. Section 1: it’s called “AMENDMENTS TO the (name of law.)” There’s no text of the full law, _ **because the full law is not Order 81** _. It’s the original Iraqi Patent and Industrial Designs Law of 1970, which Order 81 renames and amends. The preamble of Order 81 rather clearly states this. The purpose of Order 81 is not to state the entire law, it is to amend the law o bring it in line with international norms. So unless you guys have a copy of Iraq’s Patent and Industrial Designs Law, you do not have at your disposal the full text of the law. Or even most of it. And neither does Ionizer, who is literally railing against the unfairness of a law he’s never read, containing provisions he cannot demonstrate to exist. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/monsanto-is-it-really-teh-evil/638500/103 "2012-10-24T17:17:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t think you’ve read the Order. > > Have you? Where is it? > [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t think you’ve read the Order. > > Have you? Not yet…and apparently, neither have you. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/monsanto-is-it-really-teh-evil/638500/104 "2012-10-24T17:25:23Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Those “seeds of common knowledge” will, by nature, change due to cross-pollination in just a generation or two, > … Not really. It’s really rather difficult to get a specific gene fixed in a population by random processes unless it has a _strong_ selection advantage. [Cite.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixation_%28population_genetics%29) Our buddy Percy was knowingly _supplying_ that strong selection advantage. That’s why he was dinged. Deservedly. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/monsanto-is-it-really-teh-evil/638500/105 "2012-10-24T17:42:05Z")
> [@Cheshire\_Human](#): > > Not really. It’s really rather difficult to get a specific gene fixed in a population by random processes unless it has a _strong_ selection advantage. [Cite.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixation_%28population_genetics%29) > > Our buddy Percy was knowingly _supplying_ that strong selection advantage. That’s why he was dinged. Deservedly. True, that…but did you read the link to the other court case? Also, there is still the problem of farmers trying to deliberately improve their seed stock without running afoul of Monsanto’s still-unknown “characteristics”. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/monsanto-is-it-really-teh-evil/638500/106 "2012-10-24T17:56:23Z")
Too late to edit, so a second post: It always amazes me how many people are [del]willing[/del] eager to pontificate on this subject, at length, despite a(n obvious) lack of knowledge of population dynamics, genetics, plant propagation, selective breeding, etc. “Pollination spreads the patented gene to the wind! How can you keep _that!!!_” Ummm… maybe because the patented gene pretty much _cannot_ become fixed in the population without a _lot_ of selective breeding help? Wouldn’t that _help_ count as ‘patent infringement’? That’s what the court in question found. He even admitted doing just that. The court rejected the ‘pollen blows’ defense, in light of his _actual_ efforts to intentionally select for the patented gene in his personal seed stock. Said efforts being _vitally_ necessary for him to wind up with the infringing crop he got dinged for. Idiot was guilty. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/monsanto-is-it-really-teh-evil/638500/107 "2012-10-24T18:00:02Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > True, that…but did you read the link to the other court case? Also, there is still the problem of farmers trying to deliberately improve their seed stock without running afoul of Monsanto’s still-unknown “characteristics”. Sorry, they can’t patent “characteristics”. They have to patent an actual _gene_ they developed. Your Socratic JAQing off does not impress me. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/monsanto-is-it-really-teh-evil/638500/108 "2012-10-24T18:55:08Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > True, that…but did you read the link to the other court case? Also, there is still the problem of farmers trying to deliberately improve their seed stock without running afoul of Monsanto’s still-unknown “characteristics”. You seem determined to cling to ideas which don’t really exist in the actual world. "Characteristics " is not the key element in either US law or Iraqi Order 81. Which you have, or have not, read yet? Are you deliberately not reading it so you can continue to spout these sorts fo ideas and maintain the defense that you were just going off the third party analyses? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/monsanto-is-it-really-teh-evil/638500/109 "2012-10-24T19:04:09Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You seem determined to cling to ideas which don’t really exist in the actual world. > > "Characteristics " is not the key element in either US law or Iraqi Order 81. > > Which you have, or have not, read yet? > > Are you deliberately not reading it so you can continue to spout these sorts fo ideas and maintain the defense that you were just going off the third party analyses? Link, please? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/monsanto-is-it-really-teh-evil/638500/110 "2012-10-24T19:05:32Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Well, I actually read it. And it SAYS it’s an addendum. > > Section 1: it’s called “AMENDMENTS TO the (name of law.)” There’s no text of the full law, _ **because the full law is not Order 81** _. It’s the original Iraqi Patent and Industrial Designs Law of 1970, which Order 81 renames and amends. The preamble of Order 81 rather clearly states this. The purpose of Order 81 is not to state the entire law, it is to amend the law o bring it in line with international norms. > > So unless you guys have a copy of Iraq’s Patent and Industrial Designs Law, you do not have at your disposal the full text of the law. Or even most of it. And neither does Ionizer, who is literally railing against the unfairness of a law he’s never read, containing provisions he cannot demonstrate to exist. Ahh, I see the confusion. Correct – the full order 81 is not the same thing as the full law – that is, merely reading Order 81 does not tell you what the ultimate text of the law is. But it does tell you what the ultimate text of Order 81 is. That’s not an addendum to Order 81 – it _IS_ Order 81, which is itself an addendum to other law. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/monsanto-is-it-really-teh-evil/638500/111 "2012-10-24T21:18:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Ahh, I see the confusion. Correct – the full order 81 is not the same thing as the full law – that is, merely reading Order 81 does not tell you what the ultimate text of the law is. > > But it does tell you what the ultimate text of Order 81 is. That’s not an addendum to Order 81 – it _IS_ Order 81, which is itself an addendum to other law. That’s correct, and my phrasing was poor. The fact remains that no evidence has been presented that any Coalition order forbade Iraqis from saving their own seed, using traditional seed, or any similar thing. The “cites” presented by Ionizer are all (very obviously, to me, anyway) sensationalistic and ignorant. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2012, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/monsanto-is-it-really-teh-evil/638500/112 "2012-10-25T02:28:12Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > That’s correct, and my phrasing was poor. > > The fact remains that no evidence has been presented that any Coalition order forbade Iraqis from saving their own seed, using traditional seed, or any similar thing. The “cites” presented by Ionizer are all (very obviously, to me, anyway) sensationalistic and ignorant. Completely concur. ---
**Author:** ![PBear42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecccb3/32.png) [@PBear42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PBear42)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2012, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/monsanto-is-it-really-teh-evil/638500/113 "2012-10-25T04:20:27Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I think you’re misreading. The court specifically found the infringing action Percy took was deliberately spraying his crop with Roundup, which killed all his standard seeds and left only the modified seeds; then storing those seeds and replanting. An innocent farmer, who simply collects and replants seeds, may end up with a smattering of modified seeds amongst his standard seeds, and that’s not a problem. No doubt, Schmeisser’s deliberate actions are emphasized in the [decision](http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/en/2002/2002fca309/2002fca309.html). Importantly, though, it was his use of the seed, not its collection, which was the infringement. See, e.g., Paragraph 30. Whether the same argument could be applied to an innocent farmer is left open. See Paragraph 57: > [@](#): > > However, it seems to me arguable that the patented Monsanto gene falls into a novel category. It is a patented invention found within a living plant that may, without human intervention, produce progeny containing the same invention. It is undisputed that a plant containing the Monsanto gene may come fortuitously onto the property of a person who has no reason to be aware of the presence of the characteristic created by the patented gene. It is also reasonable to suppose that the person could become aware that the plant has that characteristic but may tolerate the continued presence of the plant without doing anything to cause or promote the propagation of the plant or its progeny (by saving and planting the seeds, for example). **In my view, it is an open question whether Monsanto could, in such circumstances, obtain a remedy for infringement on the basis that the intention of the alleged infringer is irrelevant. However, that question does not need to be resolved in this case.** [Emphasis supplied.] See also Paragraph 45 (acknowledging that broad construction of a patent can reach accidental infringement). But see Paragraph 76 (suggesting that saving seed not tested for Roundup resistance should be okay.) Bottom line, you may be right that’s how the next case will turn out. (Involving another patent, as this one has since expired.) But, if I were a farmer, or counsel advising a farmer, I’d be hesitant to take the chance. Merely defending the claim would be expensive. IMHO, the decision could and should have been more definitive. ---
**Author:** ![antonio107](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/7ea924/32.png) [@antonio107](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/antonio107)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2012, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/monsanto-is-it-really-teh-evil/638500/114 "2012-10-25T05:16:27Z")
I’ve been skimming through this thread, apologies if someone answered this already… We looked at Monsanto v Schmeiser in 1L property, and we’re still tackling the Harvard mouse case in more than one of my upper year cases. The SCC decided that a higher lifeform could not be the subject of a patent. Just to be clear, Monsanto actually doesn’t have a patent in the plant per se, just in the particular roundup resistant gene strain, right? I think the post above me is implying that, but then I’m wondering how the court has resolved this with not allowing a patent in the cancer gene in Harvard’s oncomouse. ---
**Author:** ![Agnostik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/65b543/32.png) [@Agnostik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Agnostik)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2012, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/monsanto-is-it-really-teh-evil/638500/115 "2012-10-25T11:46:31Z")
I don’t think GM technology, as with most technology, should be categorically labeled as bad. The problem seems to be that in so many cases this technology is used not to improve the human situation but instead solely to increase profits for companies like Monsanto at the expense of everyone else. Safety and concern for human well-being has never been Monsanto’s strong suit: - monsanto manufactured toxic PCBs (apparently quite sloppily!) contaminating water and people around their factories. Paid $600M to settle claims for victims in Anniston, Alabama alone. [www.reuters.com/article/2009/11/11/us-food-monsanto-idUSTRE5AA05Q20091111?irpc=932](http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/11/11/us-food-monsanto-idUSTRE5AA05Q20091111?irpc=932) - Monsanto is partially responsible for contamination in at least 21 superfund sites (EPA superfund database [http://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/srchsites.cfm](http://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/srchsites.cfm)) - Monsanto described its ubiquitous roundup weed killer in public advertisements as “safe as table salt” until it got sued by the NY attorney general. Glyphosate, the active ingredient in roundup is now implicated as a cause of birth defects on the basis of several studies: [HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2011/06/24/roundup-scientists-birth-defects_n_883578.html) - bt toxin from GM foods (which was claimed to break down quickly upon ingestion) was found in the blood of at least 69% of women in this study as well as in agricultural runoff [Archived Article Notice](http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/05/31/study-found-toxin-from-gm-crops-is-showing-up-in-human-blood.aspx) Certainly doesn’t make me inclined to trust any of Monsanto’s claims especially when it comes to food. . ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2012, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/monsanto-is-it-really-teh-evil/638500/116 "2012-10-25T15:34:04Z")
Why are we arguing about Order 81? The Provisional Authority has been dissolved, so unless the Iraqi government has adopted its directives wholesale (maybe I missed a post where someone points out that they did)… ---
**Author:** ![PBear42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecccb3/32.png) [@PBear42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PBear42)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2012, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/monsanto-is-it-really-teh-evil/638500/117 "2012-10-26T06:57:18Z")
Doing a little more reading on the Schmeiser case, I discover the cite above (which originally came from Bricker) goes to the Court of Appeals decision. For the Canadian Supreme Court decision, see [here](http://scc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2147/index.do). For its discussion of how intention fits in, see starting at Paragraph 49 (“The general rule is that the defendant’s intention is irrelevant to a finding of infringement”). Basically, an innocent farmer has a defense of being able to rebut a presumption of use. See Paragraph 56; see also Paragraph 95. Burden of proof, though, presumably on innocent farmer. ---
**Author:** ![Labrador\_Deceiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7c8e57/32.png) [@Labrador\_Deceiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Labrador_Deceiver)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2012, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/monsanto-is-it-really-teh-evil/638500/118 "2012-10-26T14:23:14Z")
> [@Agnostik](#): > > I don’t think GM technology, as with most technology, should be categorically labeled as bad. The problem seems to be that in so many cases this technology is used not to improve the human situation but instead solely to increase profits for companies like Monsanto at the expense of everyone else. > > Safety and concern for human well-being has never been Monsanto’s strong suit: > > - monsanto manufactured toxic PCBs (apparently quite sloppily!) contaminating water and people around their factories. Paid $600M to settle claims for victims in Anniston, Alabama alone. > [www.reuters.com/article/2009/11/11/us-food-monsanto-idUSTRE5AA05Q20091111?irpc=932](http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/11/11/us-food-monsanto-idUSTRE5AA05Q20091111?irpc=932) > - Monsanto is partially responsible for contamination in at least 21 superfund sites (EPA superfund database [http://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/srchsites.cfm](http://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/srchsites.cfm)) > - Monsanto described its ubiquitous roundup weed killer in public advertisements as “safe as table salt” until it got sued by the NY attorney general. Glyphosate, the active ingredient in roundup is now implicated as a cause of birth defects on the basis of several studies: [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2011/06/24/roundup-scientists-birth-defects\_n\_883578.html](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2011/06/24/roundup-scientists-birth-defects_n_883578.html) > - bt toxin from GM foods (which was claimed to break down quickly upon ingestion) was found in the blood of at least 69% of women in this study as well as in agricultural runoff [http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/05/31/study-found-toxin-from-gm-crops-is-showing-up-in-human-blood.aspx](http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/05/31/study-found-toxin-from-gm-crops-is-showing-up-in-human-blood.aspx) > > Certainly doesn’t make me inclined to trust any of Monsanto’s claims especially when it comes to food. . I’m not sure how accurate your claims are, but I can say that at least one is misleading, at best. I’m not finding any evidence that the NY Attny General “sued” Monsanto for their ad spots. It looks like they voluntarily removed the spots after he complained, despite the fact that they complied with the EPA. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2012, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/monsanto-is-it-really-teh-evil/638500/119 "2012-10-26T16:55:48Z")
> [@Labrador\_Deceiver](#): > > I’m not sure how accurate your claims are, but I can say that at least one is misleading, at best. I’m not finding any evidence that the NY Attny General “sued” Monsanto for their ad spots. It looks like they voluntarily removed the spots after he complained, despite the fact that they complied with the EPA. Another is misleading, or outright [false.](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10854122) > [@](#): > > Reviews on the safety of glyphosate and Roundup herbicide that have been conducted by several regulatory agencies and scientific institutions worldwide have concluded that there is no indication of any human health concern. Nevertheless, questions regarding their safety are periodically raised. This review was undertaken to produce a current and comprehensive safety evaluation and risk assessment for humans. It includes assessments of glyphosate, its major breakdown product [aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA)], its Roundup formulations, and the predominant surfactant [polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA)] used in Roundup formulations worldwide. The studies evaluated in this review included those performed for regulatory purposes as well as published research reports. The oral absorption of glyphosate and AMPA is low, and both materials are eliminated essentially unmetabolized. Dermal penetration studies with Roundup showed very low absorption. Experimental evidence has shown that neither glyphosate nor AMPA bioaccumulates in any animal tissue. No significant toxicity occurred in acute, subchronic, and chronic studies. Direct ocular exposure to the concentrated Roundup formulation can result in transient irritation, while normal spray dilutions cause, at most, only minimal effects. The genotoxicity data for glyphosate and Roundup were assessed using a weight-of-evidence approach and standard evaluation criteria. There was no convincing evidence for direct DNA damage in vitro or in vivo, and it was concluded that Roundup and its components do not pose a risk for the production of heritable/somatic mutations in humans. Multiple lifetime feeding studies have failed to demonstrate any tumorigenic potential for glyphosate. Accordingly, it was concluded that glyphosate is noncarcinogenic. Glyphosate, AMPA, and POEA were not teratogenic or developmentally toxic. There were no effects on fertility or reproductive parameters in two multigeneration reproduction studies with glyphosate. Likewise there were no adverse effects in reproductive tissues from animals treated with glyphosate, AMPA, or POEA in chronic and/or subchronic studies. Results from standard studies with these materials also failed to show any effects indicative of endocrine modulation. Therefore, it is concluded that the use of Roundup herbicide does not result in adverse effects on development, reproduction, or endocrine systems in humans and other mammals. For purposes of risk assessment, no-observed-adverse-effect levels (NOAELs) were identified for all subchronic, chronic, developmental, and reproduction studies with glyphosate, AMPA, and POEA. Margins-of-exposure for chronic risk were calculated for each compound by dividing the lowest applicable NOAEL by worst-case estimates of chronic exposure. Acute risks were assessed by comparison of oral LD50 values to estimated maximum acute human exposure. It was concluded that, under present and expected conditions of use, Roundup herbicide does not pose a health risk to humans. Shocking, I know, that “Earth Open Source” would provide slanted reporting. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2012, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/monsanto-is-it-really-teh-evil/638500/120 "2012-11-12T20:09:36Z")
I have no idea what is going on in this thread but there is another thread where Bricker is complaining that liberals don’t do enough to combat the liberal’s war on science, so I thought I’d just drop by and say that people should stop attacking science (if that’s what they’re doing), science has enough problem without having liberals attack it as well. There is NOTHING wrong with genetically modified foods NOTHING, there are risks associated with having only one strain of any crop out there, genetically modified or not. Monsanto is evil but not because they sell genetically modified seeds but because they sell those seeds to subsistence level Indian farmers who would be better off with their highly durable current crop than with the monsanto disease resistant high yield seeds that require a lot more maintanance than the typical subsistnence farmer can provide. It reminds me of when infant formula makers convinced Subsaharan Africa that their baby formula was better for their children than breast milk (it may not be much worse but it certainly isn’t better) and it also happened to increase birth rates (lactation hinders ovulation), something these mothers didn’t really need. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/monsanto-is-it-really-teh-evil/638500.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/monsanto-is-it-really-teh-evil/638500.md?page=7)