×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Monsanto Executive Wins World Food Prize

samzenpus posted about 10 months ago | from the best-of-brand dept.

Biotech 271

sfcrazy writes "A top Monsanto executive has won the prestigious World Food Prize. Secretary of State John Kerry announced the award where Robert T. Fraley, the executive vice president and CTO of Monsanto, won the prize along with two other scientists from Belgium and the US. The award was given for devising a method to insert genes from another organism into plant cells, which could produce new genetic lines with highly favorable traits."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

271 comments

Proofreading? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44055771)

Cells instead of sell maybe?

Re:Proofreading? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44055927)

It is Monsanto. "Sell" isn't exactly wrong.

Re:Proofreading? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44055971)

Samzenpus, delete this story and resubmit it. Your idiocy has ruined this one.

Re:Proofreading? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44056293)

Samzenpus, delete this story and resubmit it. Your idiocy has ruined this one.

If you smoked as much pot as that guy you would have missed it too.

Re:Proofreading? (1)

c0d3g33k (102699) | about 10 months ago | (#44056321)

I'd have to agree. There were only three sentences in the summary. The error wasn't exactly hard to spot, given that the sentence in question was both grammatically and factually incorrect.

Re:Proofreading? (4, Interesting)

ackthpt (218170) | about 10 months ago | (#44056415)

It is Monsanto. "Sell" isn't exactly wrong.

True dat.

The award was given for devising a method to insert genes from another organism into plant sell, which could produce new genetic lines with highly favorable traits.

What's missing is the next bit, which should be something like this: "And then ream everyone in court who tries to keep some seed and use it to replant. Also, investigate, harass, litigate and otherwise bully Monsanto even suspects of using some of their "Genetic Property". Also, lobby for legislation which requires food aid from the US to be GMO crops and any seed giving to developing nations through US aid to be their property, so they can come knockin' later when that country's farmers prosper a bit and the native seed banks are all but extinct."

Well done them.

Re:Proofreading? (4, Informative)

ChromeAeonium (1026952) | about 10 months ago | (#44057107)

And then ream everyone in court who tries to keep some seed and use it to replant.

There's always the option of not buying them and going with open pollinated seed. If you get sued for violating a contract you signed, then that is on you. And before you bring up the inevitable claim of suing for cross pollination, wrong. [npr.org]

lobby for legislation which requires food aid from the US to be GMO crops

That's new on me. Point me to that specific legislation, because that sounds an awful lot like a load of made up bullshit that someone pulled out of the usual place. Yeah, for some crops like corn and soy, most of the aid is genetically engineered, because most of the crop is genetically engineered. This isn't a conspiracy; it's just how supply chains work.

Re:Proofreading? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44056681)

Monsanto doesn't "sell" any more then Microsoft does. They lease out their "IP". They are working on "embracing and extending" the world food supply. Currently the natural plants and the bees feel a bit like Word Perfect. Farmers downwind are getting introduced to SCO like tactics, only the courts and congress are backing Monsanto.

Re:Proofreading? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44056759)

Mmm bacon corn.

Re:Proofreading? (2, Insightful)

DragonTHC (208439) | about 10 months ago | (#44057063)

so let me get this straight, a guy was given a food prize for making food less food-like?

Re:Proofreading? (2)

DragonTHC (208439) | about 10 months ago | (#44057075)

it's more like Dr. Frankenstein winning the Nobel prize in medicine.

Re:Proofreading? (4, Insightful)

Zaphod-AVA (471116) | about 10 months ago | (#44057313)

The day someone returns life to a dead organism, they have damn well earned a Nobel prize.

Re:Proofreading? (3, Informative)

ChromeAeonium (1026952) | about 10 months ago | (#44057349)

I think it would be more like giving a health prize to a pharmaceutical company for vaccine manufacturing. Sure, despite the public controversy concerning whether or not they cause autism, it would be true that the company has produced good things that have combated disease, although giving it to a corporate suit is still kind of bullshit. That's how I feel about it. Even if their seeds are helping people (for example, this [forbesindia.com] just popped up in the news), giving the prize to executives doesn't seem right. Perhaps individual scientists or teams, but corporate executives? I don't like it.

As a side not, the Frankenstein thing is pretty silly. No one calls it Frankenstein when someone picks out a somatic mutant of a fruit tree and grafts it to another tree, no one calls it Frankenstein when you chemically double the chromosomes of a plant either to cross it with a non-doubled one to get a triploid or to produce a plant with homozygous alleles from a pollen cell, no one calls it Frankenstein when you cross two plants that can't produce viable offspring and then remove the embryo before it dies to culture it into a hybrid that could never exist in nature, no one calls it Frankenstein when you blast a culture of cells with radiation or apply mutagenic chemicals to create all sorts of random mutations, and no one calls it Frankenstein when you select random mutation after random mutation in the form of artificial selection, a process that has caused such great genetic shifts as to create corn from teosinte [wikipedia.org] and broccoli, kale, kohlrabi, cabbage,and cauliflower (all the same species by the way) from wild mustard. Yet now this is Frankenstein? I mean, I suppose you could go the appeal to nature route and argue that everything else is just manipulating natural forces in a beneficial way, but of course, one could point to horizontal gene transfer and say the same of genetic engineering, not that the argument means much anyway.

Re:Proofreading? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44056219)

They also forgot the (D) after John Kerry

Re: Proofreading? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44057039)

He's no longer an elected official, and his position is technically nonpartisan.

Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44055773)

Just what is a "plant sell"?

Re:Huh? (1)

Virtucon (127420) | about 10 months ago | (#44056007)

My wife goes to those, she brings home a lot of tomato plants and flowers and plants them in the yard. ;-)

i can haz editor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44055775)

plant cell

Fraley is a scientist, not just a C-level (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44055787)

The linked article is biased as hell, could you find no other source for this news?

(Also-- "plant sell"? Please.)

Re:Fraley is a scientist, not just a C-level (2)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 10 months ago | (#44055907)

Here's one that's a little less slanted:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/business/monsanto-executive-is-among-world-food-prize-winners.html [nytimes.com]

Also, Robert Fraley holds a National Medal of Technology, awarded by Clinton in 1999.

Re:Fraley is a scientist, not just a C-level (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44055939)

NY Times? Are you shitting me? There's probably several "Heil Obama"s scattered around in there, along with some Liberal-wacko environmental propaganda and a plea for more food stamps.

Re:Fraley is a scientist, not just a C-level (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44056061)

Try reading the article first fucktard.

wording (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44055789)

plant cell so you can sell ?

Monsanto speak (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44055797)

How apt that a story about Monsanto has a typo replacing 'cell' with 'sell'

Ruin the US wheat crop, get a prize! (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44055809)

Last week, Monsanto's leak of genetically modified wheat polluted countless acres of US wheat leading to countries around the world banning the import of all US wheat. Today, Monsanto wins the World Food Prize!

Good job Monsanto. Thank goodness no media outlets carried that story. Oh. Except Reuters. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/31/us-wheat-korea-idUSBRE94U0KW20130531

Re:Ruin the US wheat crop, get a prize! (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 10 months ago | (#44056023)

Countless acres: One site in Oregon
Around the world: 2 countries in Asia

What is it about GMO that drives people to this sort of hysteria?

Re:Ruin the US wheat crop, get a prize! (5, Insightful)

arth1 (260657) | about 10 months ago | (#44056375)

What is it about GMO that drives people to this sort of hysteria?

That the consequences are irreversible. You can't put the genie back in the bottle again.

It also ups the ante in the arms race of evolution, which isn't universally seen as a good thing.

Calling objection "hysteria" doesn't make it so. Some protesters are quite enlightened and think long term.

Re:Ruin the US wheat crop, get a prize! (0)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 10 months ago | (#44056403)

I'm not calling objection hysteria. I'm calling statements like "untold acres" when one plot was found hysteria.

Re:Ruin the US wheat crop, get a prize! (5, Insightful)

mcmonkey (96054) | about 10 months ago | (#44056431)

I'm not calling objection hysteria. I'm calling statements like "untold acres" when one plot was found hysteria.

They're not telling us how many acres of this stuff is out there. Sounds like "untold acres" to me.

Re:Ruin the US wheat crop, get a prize! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44056699)

You can't put the *gene* back in the bottle again.

Re:Ruin the US wheat crop, get a prize! (5, Insightful)

ChromeAeonium (1026952) | about 10 months ago | (#44056885)

It also ups the ante in the arms race of evolution, which isn't universally seen as a good thing.

It certainty is a bad thing, which is why millions of people protested conventional breeding when late blight overcame the conventionally bred resistances in tomato and when hessian flies overcame conventionally bred resistance in wheat. Oh wait, that never happened because it would be absolutely idiotic, yet somehow, when genetic engineering is involved, the same basic facts of population genetics are suddenly terrible and proof that the technique itself is bad. Perhaps it is because the vast vast majority of the opposition to genetic engineering is coming from those with no background in agricultural or plant science and thus due to their complete lack of context it seems reasonable to them.

Calling objection "hysteria" doesn't make it so. Some protesters are quite enlightened and think long term.

And most of the protesters are the agricultural equivalents to the anti-vaccine movement. And when you are doing little in the way of scientifically justifying your concerns, instead preferring to use bunk science [wikipedia.org], fearmongering [organicconsumers.org], and outright vandalism [biofortified.org] on non-corporate [redgreenandblue.org] projects [freshplaza.com] and farmer's fields [staradvertiser.com], you shouldn't be surprised when you get characterized poorly. Hell, there is no small opposition to even things like Golden Rice (biofortified with -carotene) and the Arctic apple (which does not oxidize when cut). I'm sure there is a perfectly good reason as to why that is, if not unscientific hysteria, because this stuff [facebook.com] isn't looking good.

Just about everything carries risk (again for context, even conventional breeding conventional breeding [nap.edu] carries risk), just about everything has some negatives that come with the positives, there are actual issues, and not every genetically engineered organisms will necessarily turn out to be a good thing. But to paint the anti-GMO movement as a whole as anything even remotely reasonable would be like saying young earth creationists simply have a dispute with the minor details of a few phylogenies.

Re: Ruin the US wheat crop, get a prize! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44057061)

It's clear enough you raise a good point when two links from slashdot you see that 200,000 farmers committed suicide because of Monsanto. Can people really believe that?

Re:Ruin the US wheat crop, get a prize! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44056985)

> Some protesters are quite enlightened and think long term.

I've yet to see any legitimate arguments against GMO. Please enlighten.

Re:Ruin the US wheat crop, get a prize! (2)

Mashiki (184564) | about 10 months ago | (#44057357)

That the consequences are irreversible. You can't put the genie back in the bottle again.

You know people said the same thing about Norman Borlaug [wikipedia.org] when he started messing with double rotations, plant genetics, and started the green revolution. Go back and read the magazine articles, news paper stories and watch the TV spots on it. And note how well that worked out, anyone else want to disagree he's one of the greatest humans of the 20th century? Didn't think so.

Re:Ruin the US wheat crop, get a prize! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44056379)

Like industrial fertilizers, only more so, genetically modified crops will promote indifference to improved cultivation practices and environmental stewardship.. Hey this roundup-resistant corn means I can pollute the water table with herbicides and still have a bumper crop!

Shrinking bio-diversity -- I recently read about farmers in India bringing back traditional salt-tolerant, but lower-yield rice varieties, due to increasing salt content in the soil caused in part by climate change and rising sea levels. In 50 years maybe farmers somewhere will need a drought resistant/salt tolerant variety of heirloom wheat but can't find viable seeds because everyone's using commercial product bred for high yield in a different climate. Diversity is good.

The very real possibility that the food supply will be dominated by patented genomes owned by a very small number of large corporate interests.

The high likelihood of unintended, unforeseen and possibly harmful consequences. Monsanto's goal of maximizing profits is not entirely in line with safe sustainable agriculture. Did I say roundup-resistant crops?

Consider what modern agriculture did to the tomato.

Re:Ruin the US wheat crop, get a prize! (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 10 months ago | (#44056807)

Countless acres: One site in Oregon

Out of the 200 million acres of wheat planted in North America, it was so conveniently only found exactly where the anti-GMO activists looked for it, but subsequently no where else. If I was a conspiracy theorist, I would say that the anti-GMO activists found it so easily, because they planted it.

Cool a Skull And Bones Guy (Kerry) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44055819)

Give an award to a guy who condones death on the world and the world food supply.

Makes sense.

Yes all the dangerous studies mean nothing. Look aside and everyone praise the deathmongers patting each other on the back.

Please view this for the reality of the situation:

http://www.gmofilm.com/trailer.aspx

Who woulda thunk? (3, Insightful)

macbeth66 (204889) | about 10 months ago | (#44055869)

Winning an award for poisoning people and contaminating innocent neighbor farmers' fields.

Freudian slip (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44055903)

The award was given for devising a method to insert genes from another organism into plant sell, which could produce new genetic lines with highly favorable traits.

Indeed.

By the by, who is in the running for the World Feeding Hungry People Prize this year?

Re:Freudian slip (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44055949)

By the by, who is in the running for the World Feeding Hungry People Prize this year?

Hitler and Satan. It was close this year.

gmo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44055911)

"which could produce new genetic lines with highly favorable traits" or kill us

Re:gmo (4, Informative)

Will.Woodhull (1038600) | about 10 months ago | (#44056437)

Those "highly favorable traits" are resistance to the herbicides that Monsanto also sells. For every USA acre sown with their GMO corn they can be sure of selling an appropriate amount of Round Up to treat that acreage at least a couple of times.

The foreign markets will be more lucrative, though. Many countries in South America, Africa, and elsewhere do not have the regulatory mechanisms to assure that no more than a certain amount of Round Up is applied, and that it is only applied when the weather is good for keeping it on the cultivated fields. That means that Monsanto will be able to sell much more Round Up per acre to these foreign users, who can splash it around like holy water. If the morning's dose gets washed into the streams by the afternoon's rains, what the heck, it doesn't cost that much to just spray the fields again the next day.

Of course the ecosystem does not have the genes to protect itself from Round Up. But since the effects of poisoning it will not show up until after the fatter end of year bonuses to the Monsanto's executives, there is no reason for this company not to push their GMO products AND their wonderful herbicides.

There is a whiff of corruption about the USA State Department now. I am really surprised and disappointed that John Kerry is involved in this. I thought he had more sense.

Re:gmo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44056501)

And what about the efforts to derive drought resistant rice through GMOs, or golden rice, or Bt to prevent the application of insecticides?

Re:gmo (4, Informative)

Will.Woodhull (1038600) | about 10 months ago | (#44057083)

Monsanto is developing drought resistant rice through selective breeding, which will compete with 4 or 5 other drought resistant strains of rice already developed in other countries. There are no stories about Monsanto doing any drought resistant GM rice. If it was happening, Monsanto would be blowing its horn about it. So parent post is factually wrong on this one.

Monsanto has gained approval to market a drought resistant GMO corn. The only thing is, it is not any better than strains of drought resistant corn already on the market, developed at agricultural colleges to meet the specific conditions of various areas. The Monsanto GMO corn is not as good a solution as the strains that have been bred for each region. Monsanto's long term goal is to probably combine "Round Up Ready" GMO corn with GMO drought resistant corn and drive all other strains out of the market. That will ensure an increase in the flow of Round Up, which is one of Monsanto's biggest revenue streams. (What Round Up can do to a trout streams is something else again.)

There has been a noticeable increase in Bt resistant pests in areas where Monsanto GM Bt crops have been grown. Perhaps it should not be a surprise that not much research on this "aberration" is being funded.

Aren't you the little Monsanto fanboi. But your post does provide a convenient place to air some of the other problems that are associated with Monsanto's exploitive business practices.

Re: gmo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44057071)

You realize glyphosate is off-patent now, right?

Re: gmo (1)

Will.Woodhull (1038600) | about 10 months ago | (#44057229)

Yes, the principle ingredient in Roundup went off-patent more than 10 years ago. Monsanto holds patents on the mechanisms, processes, and specific formulations used to produce the various Roundup poisons. I understand that Monsanto says about half of its revenues come from Roundup and associated products (I think that includes the Roundup Ready seeds, too.)

The literature Monsanto provides on using Roundup on Roundup Ready fields is specific to Monsanto products. That is, you plant with Roundup Ready corn, then you can either buy the right type of Roundup to use on that field or you can try to figure out what concentrations, surfactants, other additives you could use if you buy your poison from one of Monsanto's competitors. In some cases the use of specific Roundup poisons is apparently specified in the licensing contract on the seed (the same contract that states that the farmer cannot harvest seed for another year's crop from his Roundup Ready fields).

Re: gmo (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 10 months ago | (#44057279)

You realize glyphosate is off-patent now, right?

You realize that Monsanto themselves still produces more than half of all glyphosphate anyway, right?

Fits With Obama Peace Prize (5, Insightful)

Bob9113 (14996) | about 10 months ago | (#44055923)

Hey, if Obama can win the Nobel Peace Prize for expanding our wars and the war powers assumed by his office, why shouldn't a company that that profiteers on regulatory agriculture monopolies get the World Food Prize? I understand The Pope is being considered for an equally prestigious anthropology prize.

Just like the Nobel (4, Informative)

aNonnyMouseCowered (2693969) | about 10 months ago | (#44056045)

There appears coincidentally to be a connection between the Nobel and this so-called World Food Prize. The Nobel awards were started by the man who invented dynamite. The Food Prize, according to the NY Times, "was started in 1987 by Norman E. Borlaug, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 for bringing about the Green Revolution, which vastly increased grain output, and who thought there should be a Nobel Prize for agriculture". One may well argue that dynamite contributed to world peace in the same way the Green Revolution, with its focus on massive crop monocultures, contributed to global food production.

A Monsanto executive winning this award shouldn't be surprising, even without the allegations of financial "compensation". The Green Revolution was all about increasing the supply of food, never mind the quality, or the ecological or social side effects. At who knows what cost, there's no question Monsanto technology helps increase food output.

Re:Just like the Nobel (1)

atriusofbricia (686672) | about 10 months ago | (#44056183)

There appears coincidentally to be a connection between the Nobel and this so-called World Food Prize. The Nobel awards were started by the man who invented dynamite. The Food Prize, according to the NY Times, "was started in 1987 by Norman E. Borlaug, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 for bringing about the Green Revolution, which vastly increased grain output, and who thought there should be a Nobel Prize for agriculture". One may well argue that dynamite contributed to world peace in the same way the Green Revolution, with its focus on massive crop monocultures, contributed to global food production.

A Monsanto executive winning this award shouldn't be surprising, even without the allegations of financial "compensation". The Green Revolution was all about increasing the supply of food, never mind the quality, or the ecological or social side effects. At who knows what cost, there's no question Monsanto technology helps increase food output.

Did you save more than a billion people from starvation? Did you prevent untold suffering and and social problems by ensuring sufficient food for a growing population? No. No you didn't. You know who did? Norman Borlaug.

Re:Just like the Nobel (2)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 10 months ago | (#44056203)

> One may well argue that dynamite contributed to world peace in the same way the Green Revolution, with its focus on massive crop monocultures, contributed to global food production.

You can argue that if you want. But then you have to explain away the fact that Borlaug saved more lives (now estimated in the billions) than any man to walk the earth.

Good luck with that.

Re:Just like the Nobel (5, Informative)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 10 months ago | (#44056255)

http://artsandsciences.colorado.edu/magazine/2010/06/green-revolutions-dark-side-effect-disease/ [colorado.edu]
http://newsdesk.org/2008/08/dark_side_of_th/ [newsdesk.org]
http://www.hrw.org/news/2005/09/04/dark-side-ethiopia-s-green-revolution [hrw.org]

etc etc

At "best" the "Green Revolution" postponed the inevitable and meanwhile increased the number of people who would eventually inevitably die from starvation as the land becomes unable to support farming due to depletion and destruction of soil diversity inherent to these methods.

HTH, HAND

Re:Just like the Nobel (3, Insightful)

yndrd1984 (730475) | about 10 months ago | (#44056409)

Just because something is predicted by repeatedly-incorrect Malthusian doomsday scaremongers doesn't mean it's inevitable.

Re:Just like the Nobel (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 10 months ago | (#44057161)

Just because something is predicted by repeatedly-incorrect Malthusian doomsday scaremongers doesn't mean it's inevitable.

Ask the Indian farmers killing themselves because their land will no longer produce crops due to so-called "green revolution" farming practices what "inevitable" means.

Re:Just like the Nobel (2, Informative)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 10 months ago | (#44056713)

The Green Revolution saved billions from famine and disease. As scientific understanding of the process and technology improve leading to improved sustainability. Current systems are very wasteful; some 30-40% of all food ends up not being consumed. RIGHT NOW we produce enough for estimated stable long term population levels of the planet.

http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/dsd_sd21st/21_pdf/agriculture_and_food_the_future_of_sustainability_web.pdf [un.org]

In the meantime birth rates in human populations are declining due to the overall economic improvements. Some areas are even experiencing sub replacement birth rates.

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf [un.org]

Re:Just like the Nobel (0)

ChromeAeonium (1026952) | about 10 months ago | (#44057009)

Be grateful that you were born in a part of the world that is able to complain about that which has saved the lives of millions of people. Not everyone is so fortunate.

Re:Fits With Obama Peace Prize (4, Funny)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about 10 months ago | (#44056489)

Hey, if Obama can win the Nobel Peace Prize for expanding our wars and the war powers assumed by his office, why shouldn't a company that that profiteers on regulatory agriculture monopolies get the World Food Prize?

To be fair, Obama didn't win the Nobel prize for ending wars. He won the prize for not being Bush.

Re:Fits With Obama Peace Prize (1)

radarskiy (2874255) | about 10 months ago | (#44056619)

"Obama didn't win the Nobel prize for ending wars"

Correct. Henry Kissinger won the Nobel prize for ending wars.

Re:Fits With Obama Peace Prize (1)

argStyopa (232550) | about 10 months ago | (#44056917)

"...expanding our wars and the war powers assumed by his office..."

Now that's not exactly fair; Obama won his Nobel actually for doing nothing.

In fact, given the schedule of the deliberations, it was decided before he was even formally president (Jan 21).

All the spell check in the world... (0)

bmo (77928) | about 10 months ago | (#44055957)

won't fix stupid.

>plant sell

Uh huh...

--
BMO

Re:All the spell check in the world... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44056031)

Are you saying they're not injecting the genes into the sale of the plant? Did you see this was for Monsanto?

Re:All the spell check in the world... (1)

Will.Woodhull (1038600) | about 10 months ago | (#44056483)

It's all about selling more Round Up. Since the GMO plants are resistant to it. That it involves plant sales is only a logistical device; the strategy is to get everyone everywhere to put Round Up on all their acreage.

Later on, Monsanto will buy the rights to the Miracle Grow trade name. And develop a line of chemicals that can be sprayed on all the ecosystems to help them recover from the mysterious global ecosystem diseases.

Monsanto Round Up, and Monsanto Miracle Grow. The stuff our surviving grandkids will be able to rely on to help them get to the 22nd century.

Monsanto won what? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44055965)

That's like saying Hitler won the fucking nobel peace prize.

The biggest danger to the human race right now is not terrorists or asteroids. It's Monsanto. These money hungry whores are destroying our food resources and replacing them with engineered replacements without realizing the full long-term impacts on both our health and the planet's.

Re:Monsanto won what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44056119)

Exactly what evidence is that based on? The only "evidence" I've seen against GMOs is really bad science http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/once-more-bad-science-in-the-service-of-anti-gmo-activism/

Re:Monsanto won what? (1)

manu0601 (2221348) | about 10 months ago | (#44056397)

Using roundup ready GMO means roundup is used on the plant, and you get roundup in you food. Using BT-producing GMO means there is botulism toxin on your food. Are you sure about the consequences?

Re:Monsanto won what? (4, Informative)

J053 (673094) | about 10 months ago | (#44056581)

Using roundup ready GMO means roundup is used on the plant, and you get roundup in you food. Using BT-producing GMO means there is botulism toxin on your food. Are you sure about the consequences?

Uhh... Bt-producing GMO plants have a gene from Bacillus thuringiensis in their DNA. Bt has been used for years as an alternative to more-harmful pesticides, and can even be used on certified organic crops. It has nothing whatever to do with botulism (from Clostridium botulinum).

You really should make sure you know what you're talking about before you make outrageous and trivially refutable statements. Just sayin'

Re:Monsanto won what? (1)

manu0601 (2221348) | about 10 months ago | (#44056751)

Yes, of course it is not botulism toxin, I should not post too early in the morning.

Anyway, my point holds. Are you sure eating toxins from bacillus thuringiensis is fine? And you did not comment on roundup?

Re:Monsanto won what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44057393)

Milk has a bacteria in it that has the BT gene. Been drinking that for thousands of years.

Re:Monsanto won what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44056943)

alot of nations are beginning to ban GMO crops, and most ppl simply wont deal with GMO related products.

Re:Monsanto won what? (1)

ehynes (617617) | about 10 months ago | (#44056639)

BT stands for Bacillus Thuringiensis [wikipedia.org], not botulism toxin. It is a bacteria that kills some species of insects by damaging their guts. It poses no known danger to humans, but its widespread use could adversely affect the balance of insect populations.

News Flash! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44055975)

Evil corrupt guy gives another evil corrupt guy an award for furthering the the cause of evil and the sterilization of the human race. Film at 11.

Bait? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44055989)

Bait-story, much?

unforseen consequences? (1)

hurwak-feg (2955853) | about 10 months ago | (#44056047)

Can != should. What happens when these plants pollenate other plants? Is there going to be any ecological impacts? Monsanto is playing a dangerous game. As of August, Monsanto has $3,000,000,000 US in cash. This is such a farce. There is plenty of food to go around. It is a distribution problem. With their insane lawsuits, lobbying, and self terminating plants, they are part of the problem. Lets not forgot about that recent case where we found out it is apparently not ok for journalists to investigate the animal side of the food industry. This whole food business is corrupt to the core. Feeding people healthy food is a political problem, not an economic or supply problem. Now they get an award for fucking or food economy and risking environmental/ecological problems? This bullshit is tiring.

Re:unforseen consequences? (0)

yndrd1984 (730475) | about 10 months ago | (#44056545)

What happens when these plants pollenate other plants?

Floral sex? Seriously though, at most it will lead to normal crossbreeding.

Is there going to be any ecological impacts?

With the stuff in use now and currently in development, probably not. In the long run, possibly, but it's hard for me to get upset with an existing technology because it might possibly lead to something else that isn't even on the drawing board yet.

There is plenty of food to go around. It is a distribution problem.

Absolutely right. But that's only because advances made in the last half-century let us grow so much more food. So why stop now and risk turning our merely political problem back into a supply and political problem?

not ok for journalists to investigate the animal side of the food industry

Sure, GMO seed companies and their long history of animal cruelty. *eyeroll*

Biased much? (0)

mosb1000 (710161) | about 10 months ago | (#44056085)

Monsanto is aiming for complete control of global food production through its extremely controversial genetically modified crops. These GM crops not only pose unknown risks to human lives, but also threaten the human existence at large.

Really? How can you say for certain that something poses "unknown" risks? And if the risks are unknown, how can you say for certain they threaten all of human existence? And given the expiratory nature of the patents monsanto uses to enforce their intellectual property, isn't it impossible for them to actually achieve "complete control of global food production through its extremely controversial genetically modified crops?" Wouldn't they need the political clout to extend patents to an unlimited timeframe and require use of their GMO crops in all cases before they could have complete control, or even dominance.

Re:Biased much? (1)

hurwak-feg (2955853) | about 10 months ago | (#44056113)

I agree that global control is a stretch, but their US market share is near monopoly.

Re:Biased much? (2)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 10 months ago | (#44056341)

Nonsense. The idea that Monsanto has a monopoly is flat out wrong.

There are several major crops where Monsanto has a lot of competition, and others where Monsanto doesn't even offer products. Corn, which is Monsanto's biggest product has a 40% market share.

In only soybeans could you say they have a monopoly. And the first generation patent that gives Monsanto the edge in this market expires in 2014.

http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/roundup-ready-patent-expiration.aspx [monsanto.com]

what?! (2)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 10 months ago | (#44056161)

They're just as "too big to fail" as the big investment companies except unlike last time, you can't eat money. That deserves a prize? They deserve to be split up, have all their lawyers disbarred forever, and all their ridiculous "patents" invalidated. THAT would be a benefit to global food.

Great (1)

DaMattster (977781) | about 10 months ago | (#44056287)

Let's give an award to an employee of a company that's basically polluting the agricultural gene pool! Boo on Monsanto, Archer Daniels Midland, and their ilk!

They told me if I voted for Romney (1)

AntiBasic (83586) | about 10 months ago | (#44056319)

They told me if I voted for Romney, we'd see a regime increasingly in bed with multi-national companies unethically exploiting the world's food supply... and they were right!

Re:They told me if I voted for Romney (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44056439)

They told parent if he told the same smug joke over and over, he would be modded up by other smug Slashdotters and gain karma . . . and they were right!

"... genes from another organism into plant sell" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44056607)

Plant sell? Well that still makes sense, and cents, even if it was an accident.

Unlike most posters... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44056925)

... I'm not going to send this to the grammar-Auschwitz. Instead, I must point out the fact that Kerry(D) backs Monsanto... Par for the course in the fight between the 99% vs the 1%...which in and of itself is another fraud. Anarchists (no gov't) thinking that Communism (total gov't) would be the perfect ally... Fools, so many fools...

Surprise! Monsanto has been paying the WFP (5, Informative)

Camael (1048726) | about 10 months ago | (#44057013)

If you look at the website [worldfoodprize.org] of the World Food Prize org, you will find :-

The World Food Prize sincerely thanks the following sponsors for supporting its annual programs: ...
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation DuPont Pioneer John Deere Foundation
The Mathile Institute for the Advancement of Human Nutrition Monsanto DuPont Pioneer
Ruan Transportation Management Systems Claudia and Paul Schickler....

So, Monsanto is one of the sponsors of WFP. A pretty important one too, as shown by this link which used to exist on the Monsanto website [googleusercontent.com].

The World Food Prize Foundation on Friday accepted a $5 million contribution from Monsanto Company to ensure the continuation of the annual World Food Prize International Symposium -- now known as the "Borlaug Dialogue." The funds support a renewed fundraising campaign to transform the historic Des Moines Public Library building into a public museum to honor Dr. Norman Borlaug and the work of the World Food Prize Laureates.

When you look up the WFP website [worldfoodprize.org] , you will find that "The World Food Prize is sponsored by businessman and philanthropist John Ruan and is located in Des Moines, Iowa."

Not in itself damning, until you realise that :-

Monsanto has more facilities in Iowa than in any other state in the country [monsanto.com]

Monsanto has made substantial investments in Iowa [wqad.com]

Monsanto actively lobbies to change laws in Iowa [grist.org]

I think its fair to say that Monsanto has a lot of influence in Iowa.

I question the integrity of this "prize".

Too little, too late. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44057043)

Soylent products have been known about for years.

Let's sum up... (1)

Arkh89 (2870391) | about 10 months ago | (#44057197)

Today : Microsoft listened to customers and removed the "always connected" feature from the XBox, US House wants sustained presence on moon and Mars, Microsoft starts $100k security bug bounty program, Monsanto CTO wins World Food Prize...

April's fool... check.
International Joke dat... check.
Carnaval... check.
SYSTEM FAILURE.

EP'! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44057323)

my resignation any doubt: FreeBSD between each BSD see. The number From one folder on [samag.com] in the Raymond in his Very distracting to FreeBSD used to To the transmiision as WideOpen, - Netcraft has the project Lite is straining else to be an tired arguments purposes *BSD is Play area Try not consistent with the Wasn't on Steve's my efforts were
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...