Conspiracy Theory Update - Theres No Monsanto Act

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
And this doesn't actually confirm there was anything sinister about the bill - just that the public thought their was and the senators acted according to the public perceptio and were influenced by it.
The original article which infowars uses...
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/senate-continuing-resolution-monsanto-rider-97301.html

It tries to imply Monsanto being behind it and trying to usurp oversight power, but they don't really give any evidence of it or references.
The perception was that, it's still not necessarily correct, but that is what they're responding to.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
The bill protected Farmers that had already planted a crop, if that crop was called into question by something like a court action.

Here is a good simple explanation of it

In fact seed companies would make more if crops had to be destroyed and new crops planted.

From Wikipedia

 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
Didn't the debunking community debunk the notion that there is something commonly called the "Monsanto Act"? If there is no Monsanto Act then what in the world is the Senate talking about at the below?


http://www.infowars.com/victory-senate-to-kill-monsanto-protection-act-amid-outrage/
There is no Monsanto Act, but did not the debunkers also say that the provisions of the Farmer Assurance Provision are in force for 6 months.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmer_Assurance_Provision
 

dunbar

Active Member
from 'The Nation':
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
There was NO Monsanto Protection Act. What it did, was to allow farmers, that had already planted an allowed crop, to grown and to SELL that crop, even if so judge that wouldn't know a sugar beet from turnip, had ruled against allowing that crop. To lose an entire season crop, could easily bankrupt many farmers. Yep, most farms are owned by families, not some mega corp.

GMO crops are tested before they are even offered for approval, normal hybrid aren't. Back in the 60s, a poison potato resulted from normal hybridization. Google it.

Do you know how many types of GMO crops are being grown in the US?

Monsanto is not that huge, it is slightly larger than Whole Foods is.
 

dunbar

Active Member
There was NO Monsanto Protection Act. What it did, was to allow farmers, that had already planted an allowed crop, to grown and to SELL that crop, even if so judge that wouldn't know a sugar beet from turnip, had ruled against allowing that crop. To lose an entire season crop, could easily bankrupt many farmers.

And put a nasty dent in big agra's bottom line, not to mention all the speculators in the futures market. The rider was written by Monsanto for Monsanto to protect the interests of... Monsanto.

Yep, most farms are owned by families, not some mega corp.
Well that's not quite true is it?
GMO crops are tested before they are even offered for approval

They are tested by the corporations that created them and then submitted for approval to regulatory boards comprised of ex employees of the very same companies - its called revolving door regulatory capture and it's a total farce.

normal hybrid aren't. Back in the 60s, a poison potato resulted from normal hybridization. Google it.

Well then that should be addressed by regulators and lawmakers.

Do you know how many types of GMO crops are being grown in the US?

At least one too many.

Monsanto is not that huge, it is slightly larger than Whole Foods is.

In terms of what exactly? Monsanto has 5x the equity, 6x the total assets, 6x the net income, 5x the operating income, 3 billion dollars more in annual revenue. It also has inordinately greater influence within politics.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
I don't think this legislation allows or protects the planting of crops that have been found to be environmental hazards.

The Farmer Assurance Provision Act seems to protect those crops that have already been planted and deemed environmentally safe from being destroyed prematurely in the event of a dispute. That is to say, if there is a lawsuit disputing the safety of the crop, or some procedural non-compliance during the initial evaluation process, those crops are protected pending the outcome of a review.

I find that statement a little misleading in that I don't think it's the judge that determines if a GMO crop is an environmental hazard in these lawsuits against the USDA. It seems the court only rules on whether or not the USDA had followed proper procedures when it evaluated the potential hazards of a GMO crop and if any new evidence of potential environmental hazards warrants a review by the USDA. After a court ruling, the process goes back to the USDA who ultimately determines the merits of the complaints or finish (restart) their evaluation of the GMO crop in question.

I don't see how or in what sense, section 735 of the Farmer Assurance Provision absolves corporations of liability. This notion is often quoted but never qualified neither by those repeating it, nor by Jon Tester when he first said it in his remarks to the senate.

Odd to find opposition among family farmers since the act can only be invocted at their request of a farmer, grower, farm operator, or producer.
 

dunbar

Active Member
Yahoo makes the revenue 14.8B vs. 12.8B, which in my book is quite reasonably defined as "slightly larger".

Slightly larger if you look at the revenue. You could also compare the number of employees in each company, in which case wholefoods employs more than double the people. But in almost every way that actually matters, Monsanto dwarfs wholefoods by at least 5x.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Most farms are owned by families, sometimes as family owned companies (for tax reasons).

It did get opposition from the some boutique farmers with tiny farms, less than 100 acres. Many of these are in organic, back to nature, New Age hippie movement.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
Slightly larger if you look at the revenue. You could also compare the number of employees in each company, in which case wholefoods employs more than double the people. But in almost every way that actually matters, Monsanto dwarfs wholefoods by at least 5x.

Can you list ways it actually matters?
You'd think to an evil company like Monsanto, what "actuallly matters" would be the revenue.
 

dunbar

Active Member
5x the equity, 6x the total assets, 6x the net income, 5x the operating income, 3 billion dollars more in annual revenue, inordinately greater influence within politics.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
But only 15% more revenue?? Boy that makes Monsanto pretty inefficient - buy Wholefoods shares now - they're obviously got the goods on Monsanto, and all that money Monsanto is spending to destroy agriculture is just being wasted!!:rolleyes:
 

dunbar

Active Member
all that money Monsanto is spending to destroy agriculture is just being wasted!!:rolleyes:

I don't think 15 billion annual revenue can really be considered as "not that huge" or a "wasted" or futile enterprise. Monsanto's net income or bottom line profit for 2011 was approximately 1.7 billion$ while WholeFoods' was only 340 million, monsanto has 5x the profits of Wholefoods.


Monsanto is a massive global corporation that holds a virtual monopoly over the seed industry.
Monsanto is a massive global corporation that holds unwarranted power and influence over regulatory, judicial, and legislative bodies around the world.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Well, plants have been patented in the US, since the 1930s. Haven't you ever noticed that the more expensive Rose bushes will be listed at having a patent?

 

Bill

Senior Member.
Monsanto is a massive global corporation that holds unwarranted power and influence over regulatory, judicial, and legislative bodies around the world.
[/ex]
I must be missing the point of this. Name an international corporation or industry that doesn't lobby world governments to advance their business interest or higher former government officials for the connections and influence they can bring to the company. Environmental and advocacy groups engage in similar practices. That doesn't make the practice or the practitioners inherently wrong and it seems biased to single out a specific company for the practice.
 

dunbar

Active Member
I must be missing the point of this. Name an international corporation or industry that doesn't lobby world governments to advance their business interest or higher former government officials for the connections and influence they can bring to the company. [...] That doesn't make the practice or the practitioners inherently wrong and it seems biased to single out a specific company for the practice.

Well I'd say that you are definitely missing the point if you take it for granted that the way of the world is sane or rational or healthy to begin with. I sort of agree with you in that a form of lobbying is necessary in order to apprise lawmakers of new developments and opening avenues of opportunity or potential threats or dangers, in this lobbying is essential and indispensable to the governance of society. That being said, lobbying, as it is practiced today is inherently wrong, extremely inappropriate and unethical, and verging on criminal.

Monsanto is remarkable in this respect in that while all corporations do engage in lobbying efforts, very few can boast such an illustrious gallery of rogues who have passed from its boardroom and executive offices through the revolving door into some of the highest and most influential positions within the government. I think the only corp. to outdo Monsanto in this regard is possibly Goldman Sachs.

The reason I'm going through the rigmarole on this is that a dubious claim was made about how Monsanto is just an innocuous smallish to medium size corp. just trying to play by the rules and turn a modest profit. The claim is bunkum and I debunked it 'cause I'm a debunker and that's just what we debunkers do.
 
Last edited:

JRBids

Senior Member.
I don't waste time with distinctions like good and evil, I try to stick solely to the practical implications when developing an opinion on issues like this.

Suggest you do that then, Dunbar.


Well I'd say that you are definitely missing the point if you take it for granted that the way of the world is sane or rational or healthy to begin with. I sort of agree with you in that a form of lobbying is necessary in order to apprise lawmakers of new developments and opening avenues of opportunity or potential threats or dangers, in this lobbying is essential and indispensable to the governance of society. That being said, lobbying, as it is practiced today is inherently wrong, extremely inappropriate and unethical, and verging on criminal.

Monsanto is remarkable in this respect in that while all corporations do engage in lobbying efforts, very few can boast such an illustrious gallery of rogues who have passed from its boardroom and executive offices through the revolving door into some of the highest and most influential positions within the government. I think the only corp. to outdo Monsanto in this regard is possibly Goldman Sachs.

The reason I'm going through the rigmarole on this is that a dubious claim was made about how Monsanto is just an innocuous smallish to medium size corp. just trying to play by the rules and turn a modest profit. The claim is bunkum and I debunked it 'cause I'm a debunker and that's just what we debunkers do.

This, after admonishing me from using the word "evil" as a descriptor of Monsanto?
You conveniently hand waved his question, by the way.
 

Bill

Senior Member.
Well I'd say that you are definitely missing the point if you take it for granted that the way of the world is sane or rational or healthy to begin with.

That's opinion and hyperbole, it doesn't actually explain anything.

That being said, lobbying, as it is practiced today is inherently wrong, extremely inappropriate and unethical, and verging on criminal.

While I can't say I approve of lobbying, that is a subjective personal opinion. Other than the effects of technology, I can't see how the way lobbying is practiced today differs that much from how it was practiced in the past in both it's goals and outcomes. Companies have always used money and the promise of future employment to influence the outcome of government policy. Nothing I have seen makes Monsanto a greater offender than Boeing, Apple, the MPAA, the RIAA, the Sierra Club or countless other entities that try to influence government so why single Monsanto out as the "big bad wolf" of business.

Monsanto is remarkable in this respect in that while all corporations do engage in lobbying efforts, very few can boast such an illustrious gallery of rogues who have passed from its boardroom and executive offices through the revolving door into some of the highest and most influential positions within the government. I think the only corp. to outdo Monsanto in this regard is possibly Goldman Sachs.

More hyperbole. What makes them worse than others?

The reason I'm going through the rigmarole on this is that a dubious claim was made about how Monsanto is just an innocuous smallish to medium size corp. just trying to play by the rules and turn a modest profit. The claim is bunkum and I debunked it 'cause I'm a debunker and that's just what we debunkers do.

That actually seems to be a minor portion of it. Your major argument seems to be "I don't like Monsanto's business practices therefore Monsanto is bad". There is nothing objective involved. I've also picked up undertones of "I don't like GMOs, Monsanto makes GMOs therefore I don't like Monsanto". This is also not objective.

As for Monsanto's size compared to Whole Food Markets it really depends on the metrics you want to compare. As I read the financials they are both Large-Cap companies with MON being just over twice as large as WFM. Yes Monsanto has almost four times as much total cash but they are also carrying 78 times as much debt. In the absence of other information just picking a couple of statistics tells you very little about a company. You have to look at the whole thing.
 

betterways

New Member
But only 15% more revenue?? Boy that makes Monsanto pretty inefficient - buy Wholefoods shares now - they're obviously got the goods on Monsanto, and all that money Monsanto is spending to destroy agriculture is just being wasted!!:rolleyes:

Monsanto doesn't have the revenue yet. Wait untill they've succeeded in controlling & patenting all the seed & therefore the world's food supply.
 

betterways

New Member
Well, plants have been patented in the US, since the 1930s. Haven't you ever noticed that the more expensive Rose bushes will be listed at having a patent?


That rose doesn't ruin the DNA of all the other roses all around it. And if you do grow a rose that end up contaminated with it's DNA, the patent holders don't sue you or demand royalties. And it's a perennial. Growers don't need expensive seed to replant every year.
 

scombrid

Senior Member.
That rose doesn't ruin the DNA of all the other roses all around it. And if you do grow a rose that end up contaminated with it's DNA, the patent holders don't sue you or demand royalties. And it's a perennial. Growers don't need expensive seed to replant every year.

I've read court the cases in which Monsanto went after patent violators.

Monsanto didn't go after people who simply had some Monsanto genes show up in their crop. Monsanto went after people that deliberately set aside seed stock that was round-up resistent and then used that seed in the round-up ready way. In other words the farmers were applying round-up over their crops indicating that they knew that they had round-up resistent plants. The farmers knew that they were effectively stealing Monsanto's technology.

It isn't like Monsanto was going from field to field testing plants and then nailing anybody that happened to have had their seed stock contaminated by neighboring farms.

For all I find wrong with big agribusiness (and it isn't limited to the Monsanto boogeyman) I haven't found wrong doing in their attempt to protect intellectual property from theft.
 

scombrid

Senior Member.
And if you do grow a rose that end up contaminated with it's DNA, the patent holders don't sue you or demand royalties. And it's a perennial. Growers don't need expensive seed to replant every year.

They'll sue you if you clone the patented rose and start to sell it.

That's effectively what the farmers that got sued did. They produced their own round-up ready seed stock and proceeded to use it.
 

betterways

New Member
OK - any idea when that is planned for?
???? They are working on it now. They already own many of the large seed companies. They also bought out one of the major researchers into the demise of bee populations. And of course, they've been infiltrating our government agencies.

Of course, the purpose of all this is to sell their chemicals. Lots and lots of chemicals.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Evidence? Do you have any? Even your own comments conflict with each other. Is Monsanto trying to corner the seed market or the chemical market?


What is your feelings about the Arctic apple and Golden rice?
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Evidence? Do you have any? Even your own comments conflict with each other. Is Monsanto trying to corner the seed market or the chemical market?


What is your feelings about the Arctic apple and Golden rice?


BTW, farmers in developed countries stopped saving seeds over 50 years ago. Farmers CHOOSE to use GMO seed because they get better yields with less costs and less damage to the environment.


There is NO evidence that GMO crops cause or even increase CCD. CCD is a major problem in countries where there is not a GMO crop for a thousand miles.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
???? They are working on it now. They already own many of the large seed companies. They also bought out one of the major researchers into the demise of bee populations. And of course, they've been infiltrating our government agencies.

Of course, the purpose of all this is to sell their chemicals. Lots and lots of chemicals.
Really? There are hundreds of brands of glyphosohate in the market of which Round Up is one, and not even the cheapest. 10% of their revenue is based on Round up. Unless they plan to undercut the competition it seems a poor business model. Don't forget RR soy comes out of patent soon so they will probably start losing out to generics. Hardly owning the food supply
 

MikeC

Closed Account
???? They are working on it now. They already own many of the large seed companies. They also bought out one of the major researchers into the demise of bee populations. And of course, they've been infiltrating our government agencies.

Of course, the purpose of all this is to sell their chemicals. Lots and lots of chemicals.

Yah but you were saying they are going to patent all the seeds....so what's the plan for that?

Acquisitions are pretty much a normal commercial activity - whether you like it or not.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Agent K Ghislaine Maxwell was arrested in New Hampshire Current Events 11
Mick West TFTRH #13: Professor David Keith – Geoengineering Research and the Chemtrails Conspiracy Theory Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 2
Rory The Conspiracy Theory Spectrum Practical Debunking 12
Mick West Conspiracy Theory or "Devil Theory" of Politics Conspiracy Theories 0
Mick West Paper: How paranoid are conspiracy believers? Practical Debunking 21
G Applications of Game Theory to Assessing the Plausibility of Conspiracy Theories Practical Debunking 1
Mick West Explained: Unburned trees next to burned down structures as evidence of secret "energy weapons" Wildfires 120
Mick West Hurricane Harvey. Cat 4. Major flooding. Conspiracy Theories. Current Events 10
Mick West Consensus Messaging vs. Message Targeting in Science Communication Practical Debunking 16
txt29 Conspiracy Theory: No blood on truck in Nice Conspiracy Theories 34
qed On Skeptoid's definition of Conspiracy Theory General Discussion 15
Mick West Pete Santilli's Malheur (Burns, Oregon) FBI False Flag Conspiracy Theory Conspiracy Theories 4
Mick West Fear From Above: Chemtrails vs. Conspiracy Theory in the Bay Area Contrails and Chemtrails 9
Spectrar Ghost Claim: Army Manual Outlines Plan To Kill Rioters, Demonstrators In America Conspiracy Theories 0
Idrinkyourmilkshake My experience believing in a CT. Escaping The Rabbit Hole 24
Auldy Why is The Monarchy The Subject of Conspiracy Theories Conspiracy Theories 19
Mick West Charlie Hebdo Conspiracy Theories - Ignore or Address? Conspiracy Theories 255
Leifer Has the accusation of "shills" become an independant conspiracy ? Conspiracy Theories 89
M Debunk: The horizon never falling as proof of flat Earth theory Flat Earth 29
Thor Odinson Debunked:Solar System Warming (Climate Change Conspiracy Theory) Conspiracy Theories 113
NotQualified Claim: Pictures show Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi is a Mossad agent named Simon Elliot General Discussion 13
Tunnelvisionary Community aspects of Conspiracy Theory Practical Debunking 96
Critical Thinker Gawker article: Why I Write About (and Debunk) the Chemtrail Conspiracy Theory Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Lode Claim: "The Conspiracy Theory Is True: Agents Infiltrate Websites" General Discussion 12
Karen Chun Who is Making Money off the Chemtrail Conspiracy Theory? Contrails and Chemtrails 45
dunbar Usage of the term "Conspiracy Theory" Practical Debunking 134
Willie The 440Hz tuning frequency conspiracy theory Conspiracy Theories 42
Alchemist The Most Outrageous 9/11 Conspiracy Theory 9/11 8
Soulfly Democrats and Republicans differ on conspiracy theory beliefs General Discussion 1
Mick West Glenn Beck's Conspiracy Theory About People Calling him a Conspiracy Theorist Conspiracy Theories 155
Mick West Glen Beck's Oklahoma Tornado Atheist Conspiracy Theory Conspiracy Theories 90
WavedRhyme The royal presidential bloodline conspiracy theory Conspiracy Theories 3
Mick West The Conspiracy Theory Flowchart "THEY" Don't Want You To See Practical Debunking 3
Mick West Conspiracy Theory Poll Results Shows Party/Age/Race Splits on Chemtrails, etc. Contrails and Chemtrails 21
Mick West Four Types of Event Conspiracy Theory Practical Debunking 14
FreiZeitGeist Australian Science: Chemtrails – Conspiracy Theory? Contrails and Chemtrails 31
Mick West Debunked: The CIA invented the term "Conspiracy Theory" in 1967 with memo 1035-960 Practical Debunking 28
Danell Zorn Facebook and CIA conspiracy theory Conspiracy Theories 116
scombrid Infowars/AlexJones are pushing the Chemtrail/Geoengineering Conspiracy Theory Forward Contrails and Chemtrails 2
J Janet D's Chemtrail Conspiracy Theory Story (Part I) Escaping The Rabbit Hole 7
J Janet D's Chemtrail Conspiracy Theory Story (Part I) Escaping The Rabbit Hole 0
J Penultimate conspiracy theory Conspiracy Theories 1
Leifer Conspiracy Theory Theory Conspiracy Theories 0
JFDee New York Times: Talking to family members fallen for conspiracy beliefs Practical Debunking 5
T Is it less rational to believe in several conspiracy theories than only one? Conspiracy Theories 31
C Iran promotes anti-semetic conspiracy theories via American Herald Tribune Conspiracy Theories 0
GeorginaB Twitter is banning accounts linked to QAnon conspiracy Conspiracy Theories 0
A Why 9/11 Truthers Are Wrong About The Facts | (Part 1 w/ Mick West) 9/11 1
Mick West Discussing 5G EMF Concerns, Theories, and Conspiracy Theories 5G and Other EMF Health Concerns 15
JFDee 9/11 Conspiracy Idea Slipped into Academic Course Material (France) 9/11 8
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top