Social Responsibility & Agribusiness

Main Page | Report this Page

Science Forum Index » Agriculture Forum » Social Responsibility & Agribusiness

Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2

Author

Message

Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2003 11:26 pm

Guest

Lynne Welker <kattylynne@wapda.com> writes

Quote:

But even those who didn't attend a "farm aid" concert are still
entitled to object to the pillaging of third world farmers by Monsanto
and other western purveyors of agricultural technology. It's just
plain wrong, and a company with a flowery ethical statement like
Monsanto should be ashamed of such conduct.

You were talking about an indian 'subsidiary'.

I seem to remember that india (like some other countries) does not allow
foreign companies unless they have a minority interest. The amount of
control monsanto may have of the company, let alone the salesforce, may
be very weak indeed.

The loan and buyback system has a very long ancestry in india, probably
extending over several thousand years.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
DEMON address no longer in use.

Jim Webster

Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2003 11:54 pm

Guest

"Lynne Welker" <kattylynne@wapda.com> wrote in message
news:5dc3cf6b.0309211706.9857ca8@posting.google.com...

Quote:

"Jim Webster" <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<bkjfvg$2r9$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>...
/snip/
as Dean commented

Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store

This happens with all companies to all farmers, never worried you before
when it happened to us, why is it worrying you now?

Jim Webster

I don't know about Mr. Branson, but some of us WERE worried about it
when it happened to American farmers. Sure, we all like getting
chicken for $0.49 a pound. But some of us DO care about issues like
the environmental impact of corporate farms, the social impact of the
depopulating of rural America,

but we have had over a century of the company store mentality, and everyone
has tucked into their 49 cent chicken

Jim Webster

Martin Branson

Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2003 6:58 am

Guest

Dean Hoffman wrote:

Quote:

I didn't see one thing mentioned in the article. How did conventional
cotton planted the same time as the GMO cotton yield? I know nothing about
raising cotton.
The yields of corn, soybeans and milo vary can vary considerably with
weather conditions. The timing of rains can make a tremendous difference.

I also know nothing about raising cotton. Clearly, other variables
also help determine yield. But that's beside the point, in a way. The
claim is that Monsanto promised yields of 4 to 7 tons per hectare. The
farmers also claim that the price Monsanto ultimately paid for the
crop was below what they were led to expect.

I don't dispute, as a matter of agricultural science, that promising a
particular yield, particularly on a crop varient which is untested in
the region, is absurd. But if a respected American agribusiness comes
offering magic beans, why wouldn't third world farmers expect
beanstalks which grow to the sky? These people don't have PhDs from
Cornell, so in a sense they are at the mercy of Monsanto's marketing
folks.

Which takes me back to my original point: Monsanto's corporate
responsibility. I'm not an attorney, and won't pretend to know what it
takes to prove liability. But Monsanto's corporate creed precludes
hiding behind legalisms in a situation like this. The "Sharing"
portion of the pledge states:

"We will share knowledge and technology to advance scientific
understanding, to improve agriculture and the environment, to improve
crops, and to help farmers in developing countries."

In Indonesia, they had a short, failed program, which saddled farmers
with debt. They pulled the plug at exactly the wrong time, costing
them a year's crop. Now, if their creed means anything, they have a
moral duty to make good on the losses these farmers expected.

If you're going to behave like Enron, be honest enough to dump the
pledge from your website. Then, you can use third world farmers as
guinea pigs, exploit them in any way you see fit, and be less
vulnerable to criticism.

Jim Webster

Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2003 8:12 am

Guest

"Martin Branson" <nybranson@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f2f860a1.0309220457.69000b7c@posting.google.com...

Quote:

Dean Hoffman wrote:
I didn't see one thing mentioned in the article. How did
conventional
cotton planted the same time as the GMO cotton yield? I know nothing
about
raising cotton.
The yields of corn, soybeans and milo vary can vary considerably with
weather conditions. The timing of rains can make a tremendous
difference.

I also know nothing about raising cotton. Clearly, other variables
also help determine yield. But that's beside the point, in a way. The
claim is that Monsanto promised yields of 4 to 7 tons per hectare. The
farmers also claim that the price Monsanto ultimately paid for the
crop was below what they were led to expect.

I don't dispute, as a matter of agricultural science, that promising a
particular yield, particularly on a crop varient which is untested in
the region, is absurd. But if a respected American agribusiness comes
offering magic beans, why wouldn't third world farmers expect
beanstalks which grow to the sky? These people don't have PhDs from
Cornell, so in a sense they are at the mercy of Monsanto's marketing
folks.

I have rarely seen such patronising comments in my life. These are people
who have been growing cotton all their lives and some of them will have seen
trial plots and will have discussed the matter widely.
Do not patronise people just because they live a long way away and don't
have English as their first language

Jim Webster

Martin Branson

Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2003 10:23 am

Guest

Dean Hoffman wrote:

Quote:

Apologies, Dean, I have no idea about the relevant success of the
conventional cotton crop in Indonesia during the year in question.
Although if it was also a failure, I would imagine Monsanto would've
mentioned that.

In any case, the issue I initially raised is not the failed crop the
first year - heck, if seed companies were held responsible for failed
crops, they would all be bankrupt. I only take issue with their abrupt
and untimely pullout from the program, which left their client-farmers
with nothing to plant.

It would have been a very small financial matter for Monsanto to say,
"We're not going to do this anymore, but since we got you to quit
planting regular cotton, and have decided not to provide you with our
cotton anymore, and the planting season is upon us, we're going to
furnish you with non-GMO seed that you'd have had from your prior
year's crop if you were still saving seed." Instead, they pulled out
and left these guys with nothing. THAT is where I have an objection to
their conduct.

Martin Branson

Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2003 3:15 pm

Guest

Jim Webster <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote -

Quote:

They have indeed been growing cotton all their lives, many of them are
from families who have been growing it for generations, and no doubt
know far more about it than I do. But they have NOT been growing GMO
crops from patented American seed, and likely do not understand the
issues pertaining to GMO, not the intricacies of American patents and
business law which Monsanto incorporates as part of their seed
licensing agreement.

The fact is that Monsanto brought new seed with big promises, and
failed to deliver. The science of genetically engineered crops is
beyond the ability even of most highly educated Americans to
comprehend. I don't think I'm being patronizing when I say that it
wouldn't be hard to pull the wool - or cotton - over the eyes of third
world farmers who know nothing about such things but what Monsanto has
chosen to tell them. If you don't don't think Monsanto is a master of
spin, check out http://www.monsantoindia.com and compare it to what
you read elsewhere.

Jim Webster

Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2003 3:26 pm

Guest

"Martin Branson" <nybranson@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f2f860a1.0309221315.1d0c893d@posting.google.com...

Quote:

Jim Webster <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote -

I have rarely seen such patronising comments in my life. These are
people
who have been growing cotton all their lives and some of them will have
seen
trial plots and will have discussed the matter widely.
Do not patronise people just because they live a long way away and don't
have English as their first language

Jim Webster

They have indeed been growing cotton all their lives, many of them are
from families who have been growing it for generations, and no doubt
know far more about it than I do. But they have NOT been growing GMO
crops from patented American seed, and likely do not understand the
issues pertaining to GMO, not the intricacies of American patents and
business law which Monsanto incorporates as part of their seed
licensing agreement.

all the above are pretty well irrelevent as the law doesn't happen in South
America and India which is why so much is grown from home saved seed
etc.Note Brazil, 70% GM soya planted 'illegally'

Monsanto is hardly going to go through nameless indian villages taking
people to court when their entire net worth isn't going to cover a lawyers
time

Jim Webster

Dean Hoffman

Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2003 4:47 pm

Guest

On 9/21/03 8:06 PM, in article
5dc3cf6b.0309211706.9857ca8@posting.google.com, "Lynne Welker"
<kattylynne@wapda.com> wrote:

Quote:

I don't know about Mr. Branson, but some of us WERE worried about it
when it happened to American farmers. Sure, we all like getting
chicken for $0.49 a pound. But some of us DO care about issues like
the environmental impact of corporate farms, the social impact of the
depopulating of rural America, and other important issues pertaining
to the industrialization of agriculture. It has had costs and benefits
to be sure.

But even those who didn't attend a "farm aid" concert are still
entitled to object to the pillaging of third world farmers by Monsanto
and other western purveyors of agricultural technology. It's just
plain wrong, and a company with a flowery ethical statement like
Monsanto should be ashamed of such conduct.

Farm numbers and rural population have been decreasing in the U.S. for
decades. Farm population peaked sometime in the 1920s or 1930s. I think
something like 30 million people lived on farms at the peak.
The introduction of the internal combustion engine is one thing that
allowed farms to get bigger and bigger. No need to rest mule or horse teams
while working the fields. Early tractors weren't much by modern standards
but they could go continuously.
Modern farming methods are more benign environmentally than they once
were. Conservation tillage, soil sampling, and automated
fertilizer/chemical applicators are some examples of improved practices and
equipment. There is always room for improvement.
There is more concern about water contamination here in Nebraska than in
the past. Some livestock confinement operations were stopped or scaled
back due to the nearby towns or neighboring farmers raisin a stink.
There are some experimental operations set up with methane digesters to
use manure to generate electricity. One is a dairy in Wisconsin and
another is a hog confinement operation in Iowa. The dairy sells the excess
electricity to the local utility.
American farmers get sold a bill of goods too, sometimes, just like the
Indonesian cotton farmers did. One was a certain number (strain) of Pioneer
brand corn. The yield would have been really good but the crap fell over in
a good wind. Another was a marketing scheme some local farmers got hooked
on. It was "......to hedge". One farmer told me he lost money in the 6
figures U.S. dollars. One of the local farmer's coops went belly up partly
because of this scheme. It wasn't illegal but people got caught up in
something they didn't understand completely.

Dean

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2003 11:12 pm

Guest

Martin Branson <nybranson@hotmail.com> writes

Quote:

You do not need to know any of this to grow the crop.
It's no different to a new variety when you use a new spray, which
happens all the time.

Quote:

The fact is that Monsanto brought new seed with big promises, and
failed to deliver.

<yawn> Nothing new with salesmen doing that, then,
Lesse, my agmags are full of precisely this, and no GMO in the UK
either.

Quote:

The science of genetically engineered crops is
beyond the ability even of most highly educated Americans to
comprehend.

I doubt that, it's not exactly complex. It's just another technique for
introducing traits into farm crops, and that has been going on for
decades, millenia even.

Quote:

I don't think I'm being patronizing when I say that it
wouldn't be hard to pull the wool - or cotton - over the eyes of third
world farmers who know nothing about such things but what Monsanto has
chosen to tell them.

I rather doubt that, excluding the more gullible ones.

Quote:

If you don't don't think Monsanto is a master of
spin, check out http://www.monsantoindia.com and compare it to what
you read elsewhere.

And any cosmetic, anywhere ....

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
DEMON address no longer in use.

Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2 All times are GMT - 5 Hours The time now is Fri Sep 05, 2008 1:30 am Science Forum Index