The faces behind "Mr. Monsanto"

I've been told in no uncertain terms that it's my turn to do a post on Monsanto & Co., so here it is - a view of some of the faces behind Monsanto's media monitor, Mr. Monsanto.

PHOTO: Mica Veihman, head of Monsanto’s social media team (seated), with Chris Paton and Kathleen Manning, is tapping into Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. From the St. Lois Business Journal on 8th August 2009.

Regular readers will remember Kathleen for the noteworty line that no blog is too big or small for Monsanto to monitor.

* This post is part of North Coast Voices' effort to keep Monsanto's blog monitor (affectionately known as Mr. Monsanto) in long-term employment.

Naughty, naughty, Monsanto

As U.S. multinational Monsanto appears to have the ear of Australian governments and seems determined to establish a strong GM crop presence in this country, perhaps it's time to look at the company's track record regarding corporate ethics.

Here is a list compiled from a cursory look using Google.

Oct 1998
Playing God in the garden article in The New York Times.
I thought about Maryanski's candid and wondrous explanations the next time I met Phil Angell, who again cited the critical role of the F.D.A. in assuring Americans that biotech food is safe. But this time he went even further. ''Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food,'' he said. ''Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the F.D.A.'s job.''

Aug 1999
Monsanto GM food ads found to mislead
Monsanto, the US based food company, has been criticised by the Advertising Standards Authority for misleading the public about its genetically modified food and crops. In a report published today, the authority has upheld four complaints made by environmental groups about Monsanto's 1998 UK advertising campaign.

Aug 2000
Philadelphia Jury Rules against Monsanto in Chemical Contamination Case
Aug. 24--A Philadelphia jury stunned the Monsanto Co. yesterday by ruling that the company should pay $90 million in damages to the state of Pennsylvania for selling defective and toxic PCBs that left PennDot's Harrisburg headquarters contaminated after a 1994 fire.

Mar 2001
Italian police raid Monsanto GM stockpile according to BBC News report.
Police in Italy have raided a warehouse of US biotech company Monsanto and seized 112 tonnes of genetically modified maize, the use of which is illegal in that country.

Feb 2002
Monsanto Held Liable For PCB Dumping article in The Washington Post.
An Alabama jury yesterday found that Monsanto Co. engaged in "outrageous" behavior by releasing tons of PCBs into the city of Anniston and covering up its actions for decades, handing 3,500 local residents a huge victory in a landmark environmental lawsuit.

Oct 2003
Monsanto Fined for Crop Tests; Modified Corn, Cotton Improperly Handled
Monsanto Co. and its research partners paid $63,000 in fines for previously undisclosed violations in 2001 in testing genetically modified crops, the government said yesterday.

Dec 2004
Monsanto 'cheated' farmers, India panel claims
More than two years after the controversy, a House panel has recommended compensation for the farmers from multinational seed company, Monsanto, holding the company responsible for the non-flowering of maize seeds supplied to farmers in the name of Cargill 900 M.

Jan. 2005
SEC SUES MONSANTO COMPANY FOR PAYING A BRIBE
MONSANTO SETTLES ACTION AND AGREES TO PAY A $500,000 PENALTY
MONSANTO ALSO ENTERS INTO DEFERRED PROSECUTION AGREEMENT WITH DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

2006
A Columnist Backed by Monsanto
Michael Fumento's failure to disclose payments to him in 1999 from the agribusiness giant has now caused Scripps Howard to sever its ties to him Scripps Howard News Service announced Jan. 13 that it's severing its business relationship with columnist Michael Fumento, who's also a senior fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute. The move comes after inquiries from BusinessWeek Online about payments Fumento received from agribusiness giant Monsanto (MON ) -- a frequent subject of praise in Fumento's opinion columns and a book.

Dec 2007
Monsanto busted for contempt of Advertising Authority in South Africa
Transcript of the advertisement here.

Confession:

This list was ready for posting last Friday, but I decided to tease 'Mr. Monsanto' who twice clicked onto North Coast Voices early that morning in the obvious expectation of yet another mention.

We haven't forgotten you, Mr. Monsanto

It has been a while since North Coast Voices ran a post on Monsanto, the US-based biotech giant which dominates around 95 per cent of the global genetically modified seed market.

Here are some recent items:

Gene-altered crop studies grow

Labs move beyond corn and soybeans into rice, wheat

Worst Companies in the World: US, Monsanto, Peabody and Barrick

The United States was voted the Worst Company in the World, followed by Monsanto, Peabody Energy Corp. and Barrick Gold

Monsanto acts quickly to resolve harvest mistake
Monsanto Co. has claimed responsibility and pledged "to take appropriate actions," to prevent experimental cotton and cottonseed from entering the marketplace as either fiber, livestock feed or oil products.

Anger over first large-scale GM canola trial

OPPONENTS of a commercial trial of genetically modified canola in WA say there is no guarantee the 1000 hectare operation can be contained.

The State Government announced yesterday that 20 farmers would be involved next year in WA's first large-scale trial of GM canola.

It will be carried out by global seed and pesticide giant Monsanto, the Department of Agriculture and Food in WA and private grain carrier Co-operative Bulk Handling (CBH).

MADGE Mothers Are Demystifying Genetic Engineering

MADGE is a network of individuals interested in how our food is grown and the effects it has on our health. We are concerned about the lack of adequate labelling and testing of GM foods.
We advocate on behalf of consumers for the right to know what is in our food. We promote information on natural foods and healthy farming practices.
Click here to receive our weekly newsletter.

Historical photograph found at Google Images.

* This post is part of North Coast Voices' effort to keep Monsanto's blog monitor (affectionately known as Mr. Monsanto) in long-term employment.

Just a few words for Mr. Monsanto

Hearing a Victorian farmer admitting on the ABC TV Landline program last Sunday that his genetically modified canola test plot took more time and money to raise than his adjoining non-GM plot, I began to feel that North Coast Voices has lately been a bit neglectful of the job security of that Monsanto employee paid to monitor the blogosphere.

To make it up to Mr. Monsanto as he/she is affectionately known Down Under, here are a few updates.

From AFN in late September:

Ninety per cent of Australians want all genetically modified (GM) products labelled and are less likely to purchase such products, according to a recent Newspoll poll.According to the poll, which was commissioned by anti-GM campaigners Greenpeace, when asked if food products from GM crops and animals fed with GM feed should or should not be labelled, 90% of the respondents said they should be labelled. The 25-34 age group was the most keen for labelling of GM food (95%), with the 18-24 age group indicating the least support for GM labelling (86%).
Fifty-four per cent of respondents outlined they would be less likely to purchase GM food if given a choice, while 2% said they would be more likely to buy it and 42 per cent suggested it would have no impact on their purchase. The 18-24 age group was once again the least concerned about GM-food, as 61 per cent reported that it would have no impact on their purchases. Across states the statistics were similar, except in Western Australia and Tasmania. WA consumers were more likely to show little concern as only 45% would be less likely to purchase compared to the Australia-wide leaders Tasmania - where 71% said they would be less likely to purchase GM-food.
The survey questions are here.

A few words on seed servitude were found in Multinational Monitor in its Sept/Oct 2008 issue:

In the United States, industry leader Monsanto has pursued thousands of farmers for allegedly saving and replanting its patented Roundup Ready soybean seeds. An analysis by the Center for Food Safety documented court-imposed payments of more than $21 million from farmers to Monsanto for alleged patent infringement. However, when one includes the much greater number of pre-trial settlements, the total jumps to more than $85 million, collected from several thousand farmers.

In September Worcester Telegram & Gazette News also reported:

Monsanto has filed about 125 lawsuits to stop patent infringement, and it has been able to avoid court in all but eight of those cases, winning those eight.

Open Secrets lists Monsanto as donating $1.3 million to congressmen and senators standing for re-election this year.

Madge and ABC National Rural News that same month told us that GM canola grower Evan Ryan found that drought hits all crops regardless:

Some of the country's first GM canola crops are struggling with the drought. Northern Victorian grain grower Evan Ryan from Yarrawonga says if the rain stays away he may even have to cut his valuable crop for hay.

Now we are in October, Delaware Online told us last week that all was not rosy for Monsanto:

Monsanto Co., the world's largest seed maker, said Wednesday its loss narrowed to $172 million in its fourth fiscal quarter as sales rose 35 percent. Its loss amounted to 31 cents a share in the three months ended Aug. 31, versus a loss of $210 million, or 39 cents a share, in the same period a year ago. Sales rose to $2.05 billion from $1.5 billion last year. Monsanto also reported a smaller loss of 3 cents a share from ongoing business during the quarter, down from 18 cents year ago. Those figures factor in the one-time sale of its Posilac milk hormone business, and a separate legal settlement.

Finally, last Monday GM-Free Ireland published the results of a recent survey:

As well as this growing consumer rejection of GM food in America, GM companies have had to face opposition by US farmers and regulatory authorities to a series of new GM products.

Both GM rice and GM wheat faced such strong opposition from farmers that they never made it out of field trials, and have never been grown commercially in the USA.

Hardly any GM sweet corn1 for human consumption is grown either (as opposed to maize grown for animal feed), for the simple reason that it tastes so bad that consumers wonít buy it. Attempts to launch GM alfalfa, Americaís fourth most widely grown crop, have also fallen flat. Farmers took legal action against the release of the crop and won.

In 2007 the USDA was ordered to withdraw its approval of the GM alfalfa, a ban was placed on all planting of the crop and the sale of GM alfalfa seeds has now been prohibited throughout the USA. There is also evidence that US plant breeders are rejecting GM technology in favour of more reliable and effective methods such as marker assisted selection. Despite soya being one of the most widely grown GM crops, the newest high-yielding soya strains are non-GM.

For the first time in the USA, a major labelling initiative is underway that will finally provide consumers with the option of choosing a wide range of non-GM foods. The biggest companies in the natural and organic industry have united to develop a non-GMO label scheme that offers consumers the choice they clearly wish for, backed up by a robust verification system to ensure that it is a claim they can trust.

This new ëNon-GMO Projectí will be launched next year. It is led by a group of companies with combined annual sales of at least $12 billion - equivalent to almost 10% of the entire UK food and drink industry.

Around four hundred companies across the US and Canada have pledged their support, and at the outset around 28,000 different products are likely to be covered by the scheme. With US consumers, farmers and politicians losing their enthusiasm for GM crops, it is not surprising that the GM industry has scaled up its efforts to find a new market in the EU.

But in Europe, over 175 regions and over 4,500 municipalities and local areas have declared themselves GMO-free.

Major countries that once supported GM, like France and Germany, no longer do so, and the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are all committed to GM-free policies.

Land of the GM-free report here.

So to recap: Monsanto - with uncertainty growing in its 'home' market - is setting Australian farmers up to produce grain crops that many consumers do not really want to use or eat, and probably intends to sue the pants off some of these same farmers to help protect its not so healthy corporate bottom line.

Bravo, Monsanto!

Monsanto graphic from Google Images

'Mr. Monsanto' bravely soldiers on through hyperspace

It seems that biotech/chemical giant Monsanto just can't help itself recently. It has to have a daily peek at North Coast Voices.

Not once, not twice, but three times it visited in the early hours of yesterday morning our time.

And, bless its sweet little toes, even some of those commenting on our posts were pursued back through hyperspace to see where they came from.

What is fascinating about Monsanto's obsessive blog monitoring is that it is inadvertently networking Australians who have concerns about genetically modified crops and food, but who haven't sought to contact others before.

North Coast Voices remains very happy to indulge 'Mr. Monsanto', so here is a little something for the 'employee extraordinaire' to read today.

Monsanto's U.S. website helpfully provides a little financial information on share performance.

In the spirit of ethical investing, perhaps readers world-wide might check their portfolios for Monsanto stock and adjust accordingly.

One has to wonder if Monsanto will continue to enjoy investor confidence, in light of the fact that not only has consumer resistance obliged it to try and off-load its dairy synthetic hormone business this year - last year the U.S. Patent Office reviewed and rejected four of its existing GM patents and the European Patent Office revoked a GM soyabean patent.

See here for previous post about Monsanto's monitoring.

Monsanto plays the smart@rse

I got the steely eye this month and a pointed reference to the need for 'somebody' to do a post on Monsanto to keep readers up to date and "Mr. Monsanto" on his/her toes - so here goes.

Some folk just can't help themselves - they have to try to go that one step too far.

This is Monsanto blogging last Tuesday mocking concerns about the environmental impact of GM seed varieties known as Roundup Ready; "It's a bird, it's a plane, no, it's SUPERWEED!"....And finally, what the heck is a superweed? Seriously, this term gets thrown around a lot, primarily in non-agriculture venues. I imagine pigweed standing tall with a red cape, refusing to die. Glyphosate may no longer be able to kill these weeds, but that by itself doesn't make them "superweeds." There was a time when glyphosate wasn't around, and guess what? These weeds existed....

The first resistant weed –horseweed – was discovered in Delaware in 2000. But, I guess the mainstream media has decided weed resistance is now in vogue."

Yep, that's right! It's perfectly fine that wild weeds are developing spontaneous genetic responses to Roundup and other glyphosate products used as part of genetically modified grain and cotton agriculture.

Something which was pointed out in late 2009 in a PNAS article concerning the dicot weed Palmer's Pigweed; "This occurrence of gene amplification as an herbicide resistance mechanism in a naturally occurring weed population is particularly significant because it could threaten the sustainable use of glyphosate-resistant crop technology."

Nothing we at Monsanto need to worry about! After all there are at least 18 glyphosate resistant varieties of weed globally, but other herbicide manufacturers are having similar problems so ours doesn't really count.

And even though the media has been reporting on 'superweeds' since news first got out between 1987 and 1996 we'll just pooh pooh all this attention, reset that ticking clock to 2000, ignore the fact that the we knew about the potential for herbicide resistance long before putting GM seed on the market, that our patented meddling has created almost one new resistant variety each year and pretend it's really all the farmer's fault anyway.

Oh, well done Monsanto!

* This post is part of North Coast Voices' effort to keep Monsanto's blog monitor (affectionately known as Mr. Monsanto) in long-term employment.

Is Monsanto telling untruths?

On 3 March 2011 the bio-tech multinational Monsanto Corporation stated on its own corporate blog Beyond The Rows in the post Monsanto's Commitment: Farmers and Patents:

It has never been, nor will it be Monsanto policy to exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of our patented seed or traits are present in farmer's fields as a result of inadvertent means.

ABC Rural reported on 16 March 2011in Farmer claims flooding caused GM contamination :

In a written statement to ABC Rural, plant breeder Monsanto says It has never been, nor will it be, its policy to exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of patented traits are present in a farmer's paddock or grain as a result of inadvertent means.

In a 29 March 2011 statement on the same company blog in PUBPAT Allegations Are False, Misleading and Deceptive Monsanto again stated:

It has never been, nor will it be Monsanto policy to exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of our patented seed or traits are present in farmer’s fields as a result of inadvertent means.

Monsanto confirms this policy in a letter from its legal representatives Wilmer Hale on 28 April 2011:

However, I can find no formal Monsanto policy document online which sets out this exemption for accidental contamination of non-GMO farmland or crops.

Nor can I find any current publicly available company documents which define the terms trace amounts and inadvertent means.

As accidental contamination by GMO seeds in Australia has been recorded at seventy per cent of the area of one West Australian organic farm, one has to wonder why trace amounts is so vague a phrase and what implications this may have as contamination instances spread.

It also remains a concern that while Monsanto continues to insist on patent enforcement it also insists that it is not liable for loss suffered from accidental contamination according to this legal opinion of 19 February 2011:

The language: "In no event shall Monsanto or any seller be liable for any incidental, consequential, special or punitive damages" limits and restricts the ability to sue for any damages. There is no "hold harmless" clause contained in the agreement to benefit the growers.

Monsanto's agreement shifts all liability to the growers, including contamination issues or any potential future liability.

* This post is part of North Coast Voices' effort to keep Monsanto's blog monitor (affectionately known as Mr. Monsanto) in long-term employment.

Hey, 'Mr. Monsanto' - are you enjoying this blog?

It seems that North Coast Voices may have joined the growing list of blogs being monitored by that genetically modified seed production giant, Monsanto.

Last week WaterDragon mentioned the Australian state of play concerning genetically modified canola and, up pops Monsanto (St. Louis, Missouri USA) scanning our site six hours later at 6.56am on the same day.
Monsanto also clicked the linked items.

In June Gristmill reported receiving a cease and desist letter from Monsanto's legal office.
At the same time it was reported that Monsanto was hiring a social media specialist to monitor Internet blogs.

We have decided to make the new 'Mr. Monsanto' very happy with today's Internet hunt and publish a form letter found at the Australian Network of Concerned Farmers:

To farmers considering growing GM canola or crops, ………………(date)

On behalf of growers wishing to remain GM-free, I wish to notify you of our intention for our property and produce to remain GM-free and of the risk that the planting of any GM crops on your property poses to our properties. Accordingly, we are also notifying you that we will not accept the burden of any damage, or loss, which may be consequent on any decision by you to grow GM crops. Should you wish to grow GM canola or other GM crops, you must ensure none of your GM crop or residue escapes and contaminates our land holdings or otherwise causes damage or loss.

Governments have recommended common law as suitable for recovering any damage and economic loss associated with GM crops. Therefore we will be seeking legal recourse if GM crops result in any costs, damage or economic loss including, but not limited to:

• Testing costs or additional contractual requirements required due to market perception that your choice to grow GM crops will cause contamination of our crops and/or produce.
• Segregation costs over and above what is currently required.
• Loss of market access or market premium due to detection of GM in our produce or an inability to prove a GM-free status.
• Loss of certification if applicable.
• New control measures required to remove canola from grain sold including any grading at outturn.
• Any payments due or deducted as end-point royalty or user fees from GM companies for unintentional GM use.
• Any costs associated with destroying unauthorised GM crops on our property.
• Spray drift from post emergent glyphosate or glufosinate ammonium.
• All associated and consequent costs and all legal costs.

We emphasise that this list is not closed, and the nature of GM technology means that the scope of potential damage and downstream effects may be far-reaching and significant. We accordingly are putting you on notice so you are aware that these and other scenarios and losses are fully foreseeable and not remote from any action taken by you to plant GM seeds.

While it is our preferred option to ensure the company selling you GM seeds is liable for any economic, environmental or health losses, we regret to inform you that as a GM grower, you will be held jointly and severally liable for any loss we experience. We suggest that you ensure that your insurance covers you for any future claims made against you.

Please be advised that following crop management plans or coexistence principles will not provide sufficient mitigation or afford you an adequate legal defence as these plans are based on an assumption that non-GM growers will accept unrealistic impositions. Management impositions NOT accepted include, but are not limited to:

• A "tolerance level" of GM contamination which will not be accepted in either seed or produce for market as these limits are set on labelling requirements for GM if applicable, not for non-GM products. As GM canola oil escapes a label for GM in Australia, to give consumers the promised choice, a "GM-free" or "Non-GM" label will be required. Any grower whose produce bears a "GM-free" label can be in breach of the Trade Practices Act 1974 if any amount of GM is detected in the product, even if unintentional. Action has recently been taken successfully against a company for false and misleading labelling when 0.007% GM was detected in both "GM-free" and "Non-GM" labelled products.
• Providing 5 metre or larger buffer zones on non-GM properties where produce derived from these buffer zones are not to be marketed as "GM-free".
• Responsibility for notification to the GM companies if unwanted GM plants are found on our property, following recommendations for volunteer control at our expense and allowing the GM companies access to assess if contamination was suitably controlled.
• Any fees applicable for growing GM crops if contamination is not controlled or a GM-free status is not proven unless the GM crop was deliberately planted.
• Sowing crops any differently to what is current best management practise (eg sowing crops off-season to avoid coinciding flowering times).
• Application of additional chemicals or tillage to control unwanted GM plants on our property.
• Routinely testing for GM.
• Cleaning out machinery more than is normally required.
• Compulsory quality assurance or identity preservation requirements.
• Loss of ability to save crop seed for replanting.
• To market produce co-mingled with GM produce if there is any sign of market rejection for GM.

As a precaution, we will be retaining seed samples pre seeding and post harvest and collecting any evidence of economic loss we have experienced.

Thank you.

….……………………………(signature) ……………………………(witness signature)

………..………………………… (name) ………..………………………(witness name)

…………………………………(address) ………..……………………(witness address)

…………………………………………… ………………………………………………….

Note: Please retain a copy of this letter.

Update 19.08.08:

Good morning, Monsanto. So nice of you to drop in four times this morning by 9am AEST. I'm particularly impressed that you spent over 41 minutes at North Coast Voices on one visit alone. You are turning out to be a real inspiration to WaterDragon who tells me that there is another Monsanto-related post on the way.

The lights weren’t on, but Monsanto was at home

MADGE Australia and friends went to see Monsanto and came away with a story to tell:

Monsanto turned out the lights yesterday after the ladies of MADGE Australia, Cropwatch, and Gene Ethics arrived to deliver bags of GM canola roadside weeds.

Agri-chemical giant Monsanto is the patent holder of the GM Roundup Ready canola crop recently planted in Australia. Bob Phelps of Gene Ethics also attended.

After obligatory photos in the Monsanto lobby, the ladies went to the door. It was locked. Then the Monsanto lights went out.

MADGE Australia's Madeleine Love explained the visit.

"The GM weeds were Monsanto's property, and they were on our roadsides. We'd prefer not to be cleaning up, but we didn't want to leave them there to contaminate GM free crops."

"They were physically removed from beside farmer Gai Marshall's GM free canola crop near Berrigan, NSW. There are many more, further up the road."

"Monsanto was told about their GM weeds, but they didn't come and clean them up.

Monsanto has a record of suing farmers who accidentally have these GM plants on their property [Percy Schmeiser]."

"We don't know anyone in Australia who would want GM weeds, so we were returning them to their owners. Strangely, Monsanto didn't seem to want them either."

* This post is part of North Coast Voices' effort to keep Monsanto's blog monitor (affectionately known as Mr. Monsanto) in long-term employment.

In 2007 Monsanto spent US$4M+ on lobbying, in 2008 it spent US$8M+, while in 2009....

Graph U.S. Agricultural sector lobbying expenditure 2009

Monsanto & Co. continues to expand its dominance of the world seed and genetically modified food additive markets with certain of its corporate expenses rising each year this century.

In 2006 this biotech multinational spent over US$3 million on lobbying governments and government agencies. By 2008 it was spending over US$8 million. In 2009 so far Monsanto & Co has spent over US$6 million on similar activities.

It is only one of 342 agricultural sector lobbyists in the United States listed by Open Secrets but is by far the biggest spender this year.

The U.S. agricultural lobby sector in 2009 is worth $25,721,913, has made over $2 million in campaign contributions for the American 2010 election cycle to date and Monsanto is in the top five donation contributors.

In February of this year Monsanto approached the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) seeking a ruling that stearidonic (SDA) omega-3 soybean oil was generally recognised as safe.

Monsanto intends to market SDA soybean oil as a food ingredient in the United States in a variety of food products including baked goods and baking mixes, breakfast cereals and grains, cheeses, dairy product analogs, fats and oils, fish products, frozen dairy desserts and mixes, grain products and pastas, gravies and sauces, meat products, milk products, nuts and nut products, poultry products, processed fruit juices, processed vegetable products, puddings and fillings, snack foods, soft candy, and soups and soup mixes. SDA soybean oil will be added to foods at levels that provide 375 mg SDA/serving.

Now it is reported that Monsanto is positioning itself to release soy-based GMO omega-3 oil on the market sometime after 2010 and according to a Monsanto media release the FDA has announced this month that genetically modified omega-3 oil is safe to use (however the FDA makes it plain that it has solely relied on Monsanto's own assessment).

Are we getting close to quod erat demonstrandum?

* This post is part of North Coast Voices' effort to keep Monsanto's blog monitor (affectionately known as Mr. Monsanto) in long-term employment.

Monsanto: St. Lois we have a problem

Despite its market dominance Monsanto & Co. is continuing to show financial loss according to the St. Lois Business Journal this month:

Monsanto Co. reported Wednesday a wider fourth-quarter loss on charges from recent layoffs and the sale of its sunflower operations. Monsanto lost $233 million in the quarter ended Aug. 31, compared with a loss of $172 million a year earlier. Results reflected restructuring charges that included the costs of staff reductions, streamlining brands, and office and facility consolidations. Monsanto recently cut 1,800 jobs, including 300 in St. Louis.

Monsanto's woes do not stop there however, because there is growing unease among government regulators around the world who suspect that anti-competitive practices abound in the global seed industry, not least in the multinational's home country America.

Here are the opening paragraphs of 23 October 2009 of The American Antitrust Institute white paper discussing the issue Transgenic Seed Platforms:
Competition Between a Rock and a Hard Place?:

With the widespread adoption by farmers of corn, cotton, and soybean seed containing transgenic technology, the U.S. seed industry has changed rapidly in the past twenty years. The largest changes include the creation of strongholds of patented technology and the gradual elimination of the numerous regional independent seed companies through consolidation. Resulting increases in concentration in affected markets has been driven largely by the industry’s dominant firm, Monsanto.

A threshold question to consider is whether Monsanto has exercised its market power to foreclose rivals from market access, harming competition and thereby slowing the pace of innovation and adversely affecting prices, quality, and choice for farmers and consumers of seed products. If the answer to this question is yes, remedying the intractable competitive situation that prevails in the transgenic seed industry may require antitrust enforcement, legislative relief, or both. The problem highlights both the importance of competition policy and the security and diversity of a key agricultural sector.

White Paper PDF download here.

* This post is part of North Coast Voices' effort to keep Monsanto's blog monitor (affectionately known as Mr. Monsanto) in long-term employment.

Monsanto is another word for elitist ethnocentrism

This is Monsanto & Co. on Twitter last week:

MonsantoCo
Even after supplying those who need it this year, the US be able to save 10% of this year's corn harvest for the future. #ThankaFarmer about 5 hours ago from Twuffer

This is what the media reported in the five days before Monsanto made that boast:

• It's estimated one-sixth of the global population, about one billion people, are malnourished and going hungry every day. And there are real fears that number will be much bigger by 2050, when the world's population is projected to pass nine billion.
• In Guatemala, over 400,000 families are in desperate need of food due to a disastrous drought and crop failure. Guatemala’s President Alvaro Colom has declared a national state of calamity due to extreme food shortages. Hardest hit are young children and pregnant women, who are vulnerable to malnutrition and need sufficient nourishment to grow and fight off disease.
• The United Nations children's fund (UNICEF) has urged for more action to be taken in southern Sudan to stop severe food shortage in parts of that region. UNICEF's Deputy Executive Director Hilde F. Johnson who visited in the vast region said now is the time to act. "Now is the time to act. Everybody needs to do their best to stop this humanitarian emergency, which is already affecting 1.5 million people across southern Sudan," said Johnson in a statement received here Friday.
• The number of U.S. households unable to put adequate food on the table increased sharply during the latest recession, reaching the highest level recorded since USDA began monitoring household food security in 1995. Proportionally, increases in food insecurity were greatest in groups that were historically less vulnerable to food insecurity.

I don't know what is more confronting - Monsanto's corporate elitism when it comes to American society, its insular ethnocentricity (based as it is within a global super power which is also one of the leading cereal-growing nations) or its determination to treat its audience like dumb idiots. No wonder this multinational appears to be losing market share.

More on Monsanto:
Monsanto Pulls GM Corn Amid Food Safety Concerns,Scoop, 17 November 2009
Monsanto faces 'distrust' in seed battle, Delaware Online, 15 November 2009

* This post is part of North Coast Voices' effort to keep Monsanto's blog monitor (affectionately known as Mr. Monsanto) in long-term employment.

Monsanto According To Monsanto: no blog is too big or small, we read all of them

No blog is too big or small, we read all of them says Monsanto on its new blog Monsanto According to Monsanto.

On the first post by Kathleen our blog North Coast Voices gets not one but two links within the text.

So if all blogs are read - does someone also go out on behalf of Monsanto and take notes at any protest rally or town meeting?

Spin Watch tells us a little about corporate strategy in relation to the Internet.
Source Watch tells a similar story and Gene Watch records Monsanto's alleged attempts to deceive as well as quotes a section of the book Don't Worry, It's Safe to Eat .

Kathleen may like to think that she is the 'nice' face of a 'good' company.
Sadly for Kathleen I am too old to for fall for the froth and spin, when court transcripts and research papers (some discussed elsewhere on North Coast Voices) tell of a socially and environmentally irresponsible, destructive multinational who doesn't give a toss about the rest of the world.

Graphic is Kathleen's avatar

* This post is part of North Coast Voices' effort to keep Monsanto's blog monitor (affectionately known as Mr. Monsanto) in long-term employment.

Monsanto propaganda rules! Or does it?

Monsanto propaganda rules - or does it?

Here is Monsanto's spin laced with alternative images:

Monsanto's research program centers on increasing yields for three key crops used for food, feed, fiber and fuel - corn, soybeans and cotton. The company's research pipeline uses more precise breeding techniques to develop higher-yielding germplasm. Other technologies result in plant traits that provide better protection against pests and better weed control. Monsanto's objective under this new commitment is to double yield for these three crops by 2030 in countries where farmers have access to current and anticipated new seed choices offered by the company.
{Genetically Modified Crops Implicated in Honey Bee Collapse Disorder}

This would mean, for example, that corn production in the prominent agricultural markets of Argentina, Brazil and the United States would reach a weighted average of 220 bushels per acre by 2030, compared to 109.1 bushels per acre in 2000. Soybean production in those countries would rise from a weighted average of 39.5 bushels per acre in 2000 to 79 bushels per acre in 2030. Cotton would increase from 1.4 bales (672 pounds) per acre to 2.8 bales (1,344 pounds) per acre.
{GM crops have failed and Canola yeild stoush}

Monsanto will establish a five-year, $10 million grant for rice and wheat research to be administered by a panel of world experts on food production in developing countries. Rice and wheat are key crops for food security, but are not a primary focus for the company. The chairperson of this panel will be named in the near future. A panel of independent judges will select one project per year to receive a $2 million grant. Further details on this program will be developed and announced in the coming months. {GM trial results spark debate}

* This post is part of North Coast Voices' effort to keep Monsanto's blog monitor (affectionately known as Mr. Monsanto) in long-term employment.

From the Truth Is Stranger Than file: GMO Death-Tech meets Hit Squad

"A death-tech firm weds a hit squad.”
Blogger Rady Ananda

It appears that bio-tech giant Monsanto & Co. has graduated from in-house open source intelligence gathering and moved on to involve itself in the murky world of Blackwater ops.

From The Sovereign Independent, 1 November 2010:

Monsanto hired mercenary Blackwater to infiltrate anti-GMO groups

A spokesperson for Monsanto, reached by Scahill, first denied the relationship with Blackwater, but then admitted that Monsanto had paid Total Intelligence for intelligence reoprts

“… about the activities of groups or individuals that could pose a risk to company personnel or operations around the world which were developed by monitoring local media reports and other publicly available information. The subject matter ranged from information regarding terrorist incidents in Asia or kidnappings in Central America to scanning the content of activist blogs and websites.”………

The documents obtained by Scahill show that Monsanto paid Blackwater’s subsidiary, Total Intelligence a total of $232,000 for intelligence services provided in 2008 and 2009. Aside from the brief statement provided to Scahill, Monsanto is keeping quiet on the matter, as is Blackwater and the other organizations cited in Scahill’s article. Scahill said the Canadian Military paid Blackwater over $1.6 million for training, which was provided through Blackwater’s subsidiary, the Terrorism Research Center. Blackwater violated some US export control laws, reported Yahoo News this past August, violations which included the provision of training to the Canadian Military. While the list of violations the US Department of State found Blackwater guilty of is extensive, the company was only fined $42 million. The company name ‘Blackwater’ was changed to Xe (pronounced ‘zee’) in 2009, which Source Watch called a ‘rebranding effort.’ The company is now up for sale. AFP reported Blackwater operatives were accused of killing 17 Iraqis, wounding a further 22 in what was said to be an unprovoked attack in 2007. The company was later cleared of all wrongdoing. Blackwater was ordered out of Iraq earlier this year because of that violent incident said CBS News.

GMO FOOD PRODUCTS AND PRODUCTION AIDS APPROVED FOR SALE/USE IN AUSTRALIA

* This post is part of North Coast Voices' effort to keep Monsanto's blog monitor (affectionately known as Mr. Monsanto) in long-term employment.

Bless their cute curly heads! Monsanto blogs on morality

From Monsanto according to Monsanto post on 20 July 2009:

In this video I discussed the issue of other farmers saving patented seed with farmers who don't believe in that type of farming practice.

If you think about it, it's pretty simple. The law is the law. When you sign an agreement, you must obey that agreement. Just like when I buy a CD of my favorite artist (which I do have quite the collection), I don't burn it for friends. At the same time, I download quite a bit of songs to jam to on my iPod and I buy each and every one of those songs from iTunes.

Although these examples are on a much smaller scale, it's the right thing to do.

My parents raised me to always do the right thing, even if it costs more or doesn't seem like the most appealing option. I was raised on good morals, which I credit and thank my parents daily for. Just as I was raised on these morals, so were the two farmers featured in this video.

I hope you see it that way.

Leaving aside the ungainly stretch inherent in likening perpetual seed patents to music copyright, the irony of Monsanto blogging about morals is readily apparent.

This is the same company which spent years happily spreading dioxin/PCB contamination across the world. Here is a brief potted history of its recent transgressions and another about heavy metal contamination due to Monsanto mining operations.

Sadly Monsanto does not appear to see that its recalcitrant past concerning environmental degradation and denial of human rights makes a mockery of its current claim that; The law is the law.

Picture from Google Images

* This post is part of North Coast Voices' effort to keep Monsanto's blog monitor (affectionately known as Mr. Monsanto) in long-term employment.

Monsanto's role in "Fat Boy" A-Bomb

It is nice to see that Mr. Monsanto still follows North Coast Voices and clicks on to read what we may have to say on biotechnology.

So as not to disappoint this reader, here is the following from Wikileaks which suggest that Monsanto apparently had a contract with the US Government team when the atomic bomb Fat Boy (which eventually devastated Nagasaki) was being created at Los Alamos:

Scale of American effort where known Appreciable;

Monsanto contract on Po. Chem. 1-2 Physicists 3-5 chemists at Los Alamos

From MetroActive:

1939-1945--Monsanto conducts research on uranium for the Manhattan Project in Dayton, Ohio. Dr. Charles Thomas, who later served as the company's chairman of the board, was present at the first test explosion of the atomic bomb.

From Dayton Daily News in February 2007:
While they worked on the atomic bomb in the 1940s, employees of Monsanto Chemical Co.'s Dayton Project unknowingly were exposed to radiation that would be a carcinogenic time bomb for some of them.
Now, thanks to a federal decision this month, dozens of cancer- stricken Cold War workers and their widows may finally be compensated for on-the-job toxic exposures they sustained some 60 years ago.
U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Michael O. Leavitt has approved special status for the Monsanto workers, meaning they don't have to prove an occupational link if they have suffered from any of 22 cancers known to be caused by radiation.

Yes, GM seed giant Monsanto really has a corporate track record to be admired.

It truly inspires confidence in their assurances that genetically modified crops are always benign and will be so in Australia.

Photo of Fat Boy from Google Images