Talk:Monsanto

From SourceWatch
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Initial Discussions

Ollopo Re: your changes. Your statement that "this study made no effort to determine which specific herbicides the subjects were exposed to" is unecessary as my statement is still true and in fact consistant with your edit. I am not implicating Roundup and Parkinson's. I say "herbicide". AFAIK It could include Roundup.

I agree that there is nothing wrong with the statement "Herbicide exposure has been linked to Parkinson's disease among other things.", but by itself why does that statement belong in an article about Monsanto, attached to a paragraph about roundup? The study in question didn't distinguish between who made the herbicides or what kind of herbicides they were.

In further researching the herbicide/Parkinson's link I found that the herbicide in question is Paraquat, thus I will delete the reference. However this does not absolve Roundup (Glycophosphate). [1][2] [3] See references. In addition, it has been linked to cancer as well [4] [5].

I think you mean "glyphosate"...

It's commonly known by both.

Regarding the change of the sentence "has resulted in" to "may", again my statement is correct. Monsanto's GE crops has resulted in the creation of "superweeds".

According to which source? While there are some roundup resistant weeds out there, is isn't clearly known if any of them got their resistance through gene transfer from RR crops. The RR gene itself was a naturally occuring gene from the Petunia that Monsanto transferred into their crops.

You aren't seriously suggesting that the sudden emergence of superweeds is because petunias have started transferring their genes en masse are you? Are petunias found all over the world, especially near agricultural fields? RR crops are. I think that it is accepted that RR crops are the source of the transferrence [6].

LOL - No, I wasn't suggesting transfer from petunias. I was pointing out that the gene was naturally occurring in at least one species that we know of. As far as where RR weeds are coming from, the best scientific explanation is that we are selecting for them, just as we have selected for all the other herbicide resistant weeds out there. While gene transfer can't be ruled out, it isn't the most likely scenario. Keep in mind that, world wide, there are only 6 glyphosate resistant weeds. The Australian Ryegrass, for example, is believed to have evolved it's own resistance (Sept.-Oct. 1998 issue of Weed Science).

My statement that "There is now an attempt to verify worldwide how bad the problem has become" is correct. Don't know why this was deleted, thus I'm reinserting it.

okee dokee, I probably took it out trying to clarify the language, not because I disagreed with it. But I need to put back the count of how many are glyphosate resistant.

You've got a good point here. The overuse of herbicides in general has created resistance worldwide. My comments implied that they are all Roundup resistant. I think the issue is that because of how widely RR crops are planted they make up a disproportionate amount of the threat. 12 million acres are planted with RR soybeans alone. RR crops are tied to Roundup herbicide and Roundup makes up 40% of Monsanto's annual revenues. Thus glycophosphate is a particular threat. You'll notice that the Farm Assist page on managing resistance only mentions glyphosphate (the active ingredient of Roundup) resistance [7] [8]. Also keep in mind that Roundup is not the only herbicide that Monsanto manufactures. Check [9] here for a long list (as of 1995) of Monsanto herbicides.

I'm going to leave it in the form that Debbie Saye modified as it is neater.

Huh, I still don't understand why you are saying that glyphosate is a "particular threat". Herbicide resistance is an old phenomenon. New herbicides are invented, plants develop a resistance, then the cycle starts over. Right now, Glyphosate is one of the *least* resisted herbicides - look at this graph: [10]

Sorry hadn't seen your latest replies here. Hope I answered them.



You do have a valid point regarding my quote from Science. I should not have said "has indeed".

However I am providing more from the article and another link that clarifies it.

.....

By the way, thanks to Debbie Saye for the improvement.

-- I reverted the lead par -- while I understand the point you are trying to make as a lead par it doesn't work for what is supposed to be a descriptive article. What "some people" think of Monsanto is better left to intelligent readers to make up their own minds based on the evidence. The whole article needs some reworking and structure but at the moment I don't have time. -- bob

Alright, though I think that it needs some kind of descriptive opening statement.

I think I've clarified it. Hope this helps. Lots of research. After this you'll need the help of a professional geneticist :-)

Is a PhD in Weed Science good enough, I have one of those who gives me lots of help.

This statement the manufacture of Monsanto's GE crops has resulted in the creation of "superweeds" goes to far. The article you cite don't support a statement that strong: [11] - The resistance has come about not through gene transfer from GM herbicide-tolerant crops, as some have feared, but through natural evolution. [12] - Modified Crops Could Lead to "Superweeds," Study Suggests (Snow didn't even work with GE crops). [13] - I think you wanted to use this article to support your next point, not the prior one...


First the good changes. I appreciate your linking to the actual cancer study. Probably should be done for others mentioned. I also appreciate the addition of "due to the fact that Schmeiser had not profited from the infringement".

Next though, your change "whether that resistance was created through breeding or genetic engineering" is obfuscating the point. My comments, which you deleted that "Genes engineered to instill the resistance to herbicides are migrating to wild plants (horizontal gene transfer) via pollen and are spreading" is absolutely correct. Why did you erase it? I've already pointed out why the issue with glyphosphate is unique and why and why it is a troubling issue aside from the issue of herbicide resistance in general. Your repeated deletions and changes amounts to an attempt to water down the serious concerns relayed in the many articles I've supplied about glyphosphate. You are deleting statements that are true. Also deleting statements such as "This has alarmed many in the scientific community" which is supported by the references is an attempt to water down the issue plain and simple. I am adding a quotation on this.

The change of "plant" to "gene" while technically correct is misleading.

"Mr. Schmeiser saved the seed and reused it "for production and advantage," the majority noted. "Whether or not patent protection for the gene and the cell extends to activities involving the plant is not relevant to the patent's validity" [14] The Majority ruling.

"The team of dissenting judges in the latest decision, led by Justice Louise Arbour, said the ruling contradicts the Harvard mouse judgment. The majority is effectively allowing Monsanto "to do indirectly what Canadian patent law has not allowed them to do directly: namely, to acquire patent protection over whole plants," wrote Arbour" [15] Also [16] (one of the 4 dissenting judges) this is because the gene is found throughout the plant and can't be separated (except in a lab).

C'mon Ollopo, this is getting old and I've done enough on this. After this I leave it to the editors to decide what stays and what goes.

I leave this article to the judges to decide.

Hi there! You seem to be getting fussy about this, when it looks to me like the article is getting better and better. Let's just focus on a couple of technical facts.
A) There have been exactly *zero* confirmed cases of a weed species acquiring roundup tolerance through gene transfer from a GE crop. Zero, zip, nill, none. While weed scientists believe it will happen sooner or later, it has not happened yet. So please, stop trying to state that this has already happened, because there isn't any evidence to back that up. When a confirmed case is found, it *will* make news in the Weed Science community, and a handful of grad students will probably complete their PhDs studying it.
B) Regarding the Schmeiser case, the patent is on genes and cells, but specifically *not* on plants. The fact that you quote the *dissenting* judges above doesn't carry legal merit, those are the judges whose opinion did not win. The ruling is perfectly clear that it is about genes, not plants. Also, FWIW, the court didn't "allow" the patent, they decided to let the laws passed by the legislature stand.


I am not a weed scientist but it's clear that one reason that glyphosphate resistance is a big issue is precisely because glyphosphate is a weaker herbicide that can be sprayed on RR food fields which are everywhere. When tolerances are aquired the farmers are forced to expand to ever stronger chemicals. I suspect, that most of the resistances mentioned in WeedScience are not associated with food crops. Neither farmers or the public wants stronger chemicals used around food.

This is why glyphosate is considered such a great herbicide, it replaces a bunch of much more toxic herbicides that were in use before. When farmers switch to a RR crop system, they can switch to using Roundup exclusively, which is less toxic than the other synthetic alternatives.

"Using Roundup exclusively?" WOW! Just stunning after all this discussion. Using Roundup exclusively IS the problem! Haven't you figured that out by now? Roundup is quickly losing it's worth due to growing resistance leaving many farmers with little option but to use more toxic alternatives. It's a toxic arms race and it's all spelled out in the (unchanged) article.

"One might ask, "How do resistant weed populations develop"? Any herbicide that provides control of a particular weed can miss that one in a million individual that is resistant. If the primary weed control program for a field relies on the same herbicide or use of herbicides with the same SOA that one resistant weed can turn into a large population of resistant weeds over the course of a few years. The most extensive example of this is during the late 1980 through early 1990s when a class of chemistry that kills weeds by inhibiting the ALS enzyme was extensively used in many crops. In soybeans alone by the late 1980s well over 90% of the acres in the mid- south relied on this one site of action (ALS inhibitor) to control weeds. The herbicides in this class of chemistry include Scepter, Pursuit, Canopy, Classic, Pinnacle, Harmony Extra, Beacon, Accent, Python, and Staple. The result of this is that today a significant percentage of the cocklebur and most of the Palmer amaranth populations in Tennessee are resistant to ALS inhibiting herbicides. The most recent example is the development of glyphosate- resistant horseweed (marestail) that now is a problem in most of West Tennessee. The main cause of this is that weed control programs on well over 90% of the soybean and cotton acres relied exclusively on glyphosate over the last several years." WEED RESISTANCE TO HERBICIDES

Another thing that you don't seem to be getting is that though there may be only a few glycine resistant weeds, these particular weeds are closely associated with our food supply. We don't want to have to use stronger chemicals than Roundup, but resistance is leaving us little choice. On the other hand organic is looking better all the time.

Now which of these is the correct statement (I've italisized the three of them)

  • "While gene transfer can't be ruled out, it isn't the most likely scenario."
  • "While there are some roundup resistant weeds out there, is isn't clearly known if any of them got their resistance through gene transfer from RR crops."
  • "The resistance has come about not through gene transfer from GM herbicide-tolerant crops, as some have feared, but through natural evolution."
  • "While weed scientists believe it will happen sooner or later, it has not happened yet."

No offense intended Ollopo but I'm curious, when you say "Is a PhD in Weed Science good enough, I have one of those who gives me lots of help", do you mean that you do not personally have a PhD in Weed Science but are consulting with one?

As far as all the changes you've made, IMO they are not an improvement at all. For example I thought we agreed above to leave in the statement "There is now an attempt to verify worldwide how bad the problem has become" yet it is gone again. However as I don't own the article and as I don't wish to play this back and forth game forever, I leave the article to you and the other editors. Again you may be correct about actual number of cases of gene transfer related to Roundup I'm not sure at this time. If I get more pertinent information I will include it.

About cases of herbicide resistant gene transfer I read:

"Transgenic crops, i.e., those that are engineered with specialized traits like herbicide resistance, could pass their special genes to nearby weeds via a hybridization process called transgene escape....Gene flow from genetically modified crops can and probably will occur. The risks of transgene escape are real, and they are quantifiable in most cases. We need to discuss what levels of risk are acceptable for wide scale release of crops in locations where they may have wild relatives. This has yet to be the focus of the many discussions on the subject," says Dr. Paul Arriola, Assistant Professor of Biology at Elmhurst College in Elmhurst, Illinois, asserts: When a crop grows near its weedy relative, it is inevitable that the genetically-engineered trait will move into the weed," says Allison Snow, associate professor of plant biology at Ohio State University." [17] "Transgenic crops are crops engineered with specialized traits such as resistance to viral diseases, insect pests and herbicides.... It's inevitable that these and other fitness-related traits will make their way into weed populations," Snow said. "The result may be very hardy, hard-to-kill weeds." [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]

[26] This appear to be a good paper on the subject.

The key phrase is can and probably will occur, this is correct, it probably will occur sooner or later, but is hasn't happened yet, or if it has it hasn't been discovered, researched, and published yet.

Perhaps you are right about actual cases I am not sufficiently expert to comment further but I'd suggest that SourceWatch check this out with an expert.

Ollopo, Re: the patent question, again, technically the patent is on the gene but the effect is to give Monsanto a patent on the plant. The ruling was 5 - 4. Pretty close. Additionally you should read again the comments from both the majority and minority. See also [27] # 108.

Heya IP address person.

Gotta make this short.

1: do you mean that you do not personally have a PhD in Weed Science but are consulting with one? You are correct, I am consulting with one.

2: I'm going on vacation tomorrow - I leave the article in your capable hands.

3: Please, whatever you do, don't say that gene transfer from GMO to weeds *has* happened, because we don't know that it has yet. Say that it is likely, or that it is a concern, or that it is ineveitable, just don't say it has already happened.

Ta-ta!

Hey Ollopo,

I've been in contact with Paul E. Arriola (and a couple of others) now Associate Professor of Biology at Elmhurst College in Elmhurst, Illinois. He was kind enough to respond to my query and says (I've italicized):

"The statement is essentially correct, "There have been exactly *zero* confirmed cases of a weed species acquiring roundup tolerance through gene transfer from a GE crop." Though there are some intriguiging cases where there is no other way to explain developed resistance (i.e. canola in Canada, and wild beets in Europe.) (See Norm Ellstrand's book "Dangerous Liaisons.") The only way to address the criticism of the poster quoted above would be for Monsanto to provide researchers with appropriate genetic probes. However, since this violates company policy regarding "confidential business information it is not likely to happen. Scientists expressing concern about negative consequences for wide scale GM release have recommended for years that GM producing companies make available probes that could be used for long- term monitoring, but the call has fallen on deaf ears in both industry and the federal government."

He also says in a later email in reply to my question: "Cannot independent researchers *not affiliated with Monsanto* simply do some investigating themselves. It would seem a simple thing to do. Could it be perhaps that some have and know the answers but are disallowed from publishing their results?"

"Yes, they can, but without Monsanto's probe, or some comparable bit of DNA that can be traced directly back to a particular gene insert, one can not be 100% certain that the resistance (or other trait) came directly from a hybridization event. I know it seems silly since the likelihood of a transgenic character appearing in the wild genome de novo is pretty much zero, but to point a finger at any one company we must deal in absolutes."

Another wrote saying essentially the same thing regarding lack of availiable information. So it could be happening but could Monsanto be keeping a lid on it? I'm not saying they are, just asking.

Then Jim Thomas of Etc Group formerly RAFI sent me this article (from 18 April 1999 Independent on Sunday repeated in Genetically Manipulated Food News which is respected):

"Rogue genes cross to weeds"

http://www.millennium-debate.org/indsun18ap.htm http://home.intekom.com/tm_info/rw90426.htm#02

It states that transgene escape involving the herbicide resistance trait has indeed occurred. Don't know why there's no more about it though. The sender says that he's going to look in his archives. Thanks much to Jim.

I have forwarded it to Arriola and a couple of others to see what they think, and to make sure I'm not reading this wrong.

I expect to put some of this in with cautions.

Incidentally apparently English Nature about which the article makes this comment: "English Nature, the Government's official wildlife adviser, says the discovery proves its predictions that planting GM crops will lead to the creation of new hybrid varieties" was "axed" in some way for it's criticism of GM crops.

http://www.global-reality.com/biotech/ARTICLES/dynamicnews.asp?NewsID=98 http://argument.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/story.jsp?story=462856

Enjoy your vacation.

Heya IP-person (should that be IP-guy or IP-gal?)

Good to see you communicating with Associate Professor Arriola - the more experts the better. He both agrees with my point and makes a good one of his own, i.e. there are no confirmed cases, but Monsanto doesn't make it easy to confirm cases. I think we are coming close to agreement on how the article should be phrased. We can't state *as a fact* that the gene transfer has occured, but we can talk about the strong likelihood.

The article '"Rogue genes cross to weeds"' doesn't do a good job summarizing the study. The actual study is here, all 120 pages, is here: [28]. Here are some observations I made:

Thanks for this.


1: They did get the two species to hybridize, but they didn't find that the herbicide tolerant gene had transferred (they did PCR analysis), if I read the study right. They *did* have PCR primers for both the glufosinate and glyphosate tolerant genes. (see table 4.1)

The next two observations are sort of asides:

2: FWIW, the tolerance they experienced was to glufosinate, not glyphosate. The two are structurally different and have different modes of action.

3: FWIW, the company that produced the GM crop was Aventis, not Monsanto.

Thanks - I'll have a great time - hold down the fort!

With my limited understanding I seem to be reading something different. Some isolated quotations:

"In the period 1998 to 2000 gene flow was detected from GM trials into adjacent OSR crops. At one of the FSE sites gene flow decreased rapidly with distance from the pollen source. However at both FSE sites, levels of herbicide-tolerance in excess of 0.5% were found in some samples taken at 100m from the source while at one FSE site levels of herbicide-tolerance in excess of 0.5% were found in some samples taken at 200m, though the overall trend was for gene flow to decrease with distance." p.2 It seems unlikely to me that spraying and therefore aquired tolerance would have occurred at that distance.

"Despite the barriers at the NIAB site, the extent of outcrossing detected from the transgenic plots for both the glufosinate and glyphosate markers was surprisingly high." p.42

"The results from PCR testing therefore indicate that herbicide spot testing is likely to underestimate the true proportion of plants containing the transgene." p.58

I read that the reason that one of the reasons the study was initiated was:

"In 1998 it was brought to our attention by a consultant working in the North Humberside area that wild turnip or bargeman's cabbage was a weed problem in oilseed rape in this area and he suspected that hybridisation was occurring between the two species. We examined sites near Patrington, North Humberside and observed plants of intermediate morphology between oilseed rape and wild turnip. The wild turnip appeared to be poorly controlled by the standard herbicides used on oilseed rape and farmers were using additional Fortrol (cyanazine) treatments in an attempt to control the weed." p. 81-82

"Glufosinate tolerance was detected in six B.napus plants and four hybrids. All these plants were found either on the side of the field that had been treated with glufosinate in 1999 or in the untreated strip. p.93 Also graphs "Hybrids detected by their glufosinate-tolerance" and "Figures in parenthesis are glufosinate-tolerant".

Graph on page 95 "Frequencies of glufosinate tolerant seeds harvested from hybrid plants in the field".

"Many of these expressed tolerance to one or other herbicide, showing that they were pollinated by B.napus and were therefore a form of hybrid. Some plants seemed more likely to produce this type of hybrid than others did, implying a genotypic tendency." p.106

"F1 hybrids were found to be fertile under field conditions, although seed production was low compared to either parent species. Thus, F1 hybrids may provide an avenue for introgression to take place. p.107

"A larger sample size was needed to make firm conclusions about introgression taking place in this population. However the evidence here from AFLP, hybrid progeny testing and field-testing pointed towards the presence of an introgressing population.... Herbicide-tolerant hybrids have already been recorded post-harvest at the Patrington site, after a single GM crop." p.108

"Therefore it is not clear how transgenes will persist in subsequent generations of volunteers and feral plants." p.112

"This study is significant in that it revealed for the first time that there are weedy populations of B rapa co-existing and hybridising with oilseed rape in England, in situations similar to those reported in Denmark. It is likely that these populations will readily acquire genes from oilseed rape particularly if they enhance the survival or fitness characteristics of the B rapa growing as a weed in oilseed rape crops.... The fate of the herbicide-tolerance transgene in the B.rapa population at Patrington is intriguing. This marker will allow the extent of backcrossing to either parental species in following generations to be assessed." p. 113

The conclusions on p.2 state: "There may be a need to review isolation requirements in keeping with current legislation on contamination thresholds in crops, in light of this research."

Note this article of the study:

"The studies, carried out between 1994 and 2000 by the National Institute of Agricultural Botany and the Laboratory of the Government Chemist, shows that genes from GM oil seed rape, engineered to be resistant to herbicides, contaminated conventional crops. And GM oil seed rape that had escaped from a crop harvested in 1996, persisted for at least four years. The report also shows that the GM crop interbred with a weed, wild turnip, giving it resistance to herbicides and thus raising the prospect of the development of super weeds."

Mae-Wan Ho and Joe Cummins comment: "A careful reading of the report reveals that things are considerably worse than the data suggest. If anything, this experiment appears to be designed to underestimate gene flow, so the true extent could be considerably higher, as we shall show later.... The researchers monitored the spread of glufosinate-tolerance from the F1 hybrid to onventional OSR. As explained, only 5/8 of the pollen released carry the glufosinate-tolerance gene, so gene flow is underestimated by 37.5% from this factor alone, as the report points out. But that's not the only source of underestimate.... The spread of herbicide tolerance gene, apart from contaminating neighbouring crops, has the potential to create herbicide tolerance weed. But more insidious effects may come from the male-sterility gene to which the herbicide tolerance gene is linked. As one-quarter of the pollen from the GM F1 hybrid contains the barnase gene, the male sterile trait could be directly transferred by pollen to non GM OSR as well as wild relatives. This could severely compromise the agronomic performance of conventional crops and cause wild relatives to go extinct." Chronicle of An Ecological Disaster Foretold.

Also this article "Pollen-Mediated Movement of Herbicide Resistance Between Commercial Canola Fields" Science Jun 28 2002: 2386-2388. I have not read it.[29]

The study calls repeatedly for more research, still it doesn't matter which herbicide is involved. The issue is can the herbicide resistant gene transfer to wild plants. This study indicates yes. 

 This should put doubts to rest [30]

One last note. I received this comment from Allison Snow which confirms that there has been transfer of the hebicide resistance gene. I believe that she is referring to the article posted just above. My assumption is that Arriola was not aware of it (as neither was your Phd).

So far, only a few crops have been commercialized with the Round-Up Ready transgene (soybean, cotton, corn, and canola). This transgene has moved to weedy populations of volunteer oilseed rape (B. napus) in Canada, where volunteers from the crop often are considered to be a weed. The transgene may have been detected in weedy Brassica rapa in eastern Canada, but I've forgotten the details of this publication. To find out more, check with Dr. Suzanne Warwick, at Agriculture Canada, who is the author of a recent paper on this topic.

So I Googled on Warwick and found this right off When Genes Escape. Very interesting. Although one reseacher comments that he doesn't think that the weeds created will be a big problem the interesting thing I think is that the biotechnology giants are slowly having to give ground to science inch by bloody inch. The wall of propaganda is cracking. P.S. check the references at the bottom for more.

-- Starting to shift material to case study pages to reduce file size from 68k+. Might archive some of this talk page later too. --Bob Burton 00:32, 23 Dec 2004 (EST) 

Good luck.  Hopefully the many nuanced points won't be lost.  But it's in good hands.

I notice that since the move of the the Anniston, Round-up Ready and Organics information that was originally a part of this page traffic to these pages has been negligible (around 25 hits each) while the main article has had good visitation (around 400). Perhaps reinserting some of the text with links to the rest of the information from moved Monsanto pages is in order.

There are two problems: 1) Technically the page is still way too big - ideally it should be less than 30K and it is currently 48k. 2) File size apart, long articles are hard to read.

Yes traffic numbers may be down on the new pages but that could be simply because the Google indexing can take a while to catch up with new files.

I agree that it would be useful to have a teaser to the side pages enticing traffic to the main page to continue on -- I have been meaning to get back to finihsing sorting this page out have had a few distractions of other pages. I'll see if I can get back to it in the next few days cheers - --Bob Burton 20:25, 11 Jan 2005 (EST)

--- Well the idea was to shorten the pages per Mr. Banner (now 32K), but get some of the original articles back onto the main page where they can be seen. It looks like I messed up in changing the linked article titles a bit thus creating duplicate pages. Apologies.

Hi Bob,

It looks like most or all of the links on the Monsanto page and connected articles are useless. It appears that the brackets for the links have been changed to parentheses which I assume would cause the problem. Without the links the article is unsupported. I don't know why this occurred but can someone fix it?

Thanks much

On closer inspection it appears that the changes have occurred on the "Labeling Issues" page, the "Goliath and David" page, the "Campaign to Undermine Organics" page, and some at the top of the main article. Also when I get to the page a script keeps comming up that says, "an error has occurred in the script on this page" but I don't know if that's a site issues or a local system issue.

Bob .. fixed wiki on main Monsanto page, but it needs dividing ,,, serious OVERBYTE, ... this talk page, as well. Not my "bag" so won't mess around.
Artificial Intelligence 14:43, 19 Mar 2005 (EST)

Thanks for the nudge -- forgot that I needed to pencil the M pages in for a chunk of work - sometime this week I'm hoping --Bob Burton 22:11, 19 Mar 2005 (EST)

At 32K I don't see the overbyte. It's already been reduced/moved considerably.

finally got around to adding in some of the references for the various Monsanto articles -- added refs 1-25 on this main page but there's plenty more left to be done. Volunteers welcome ... otherwise I'll get back to it when I can. cheers --Bob Burton 00:30, 6 May 2005 (EDT)

Say, could this photo be added to the main Monsanto page?

I can't see why not though do we know whether it is copyright free? Also perhaps worth considering the best section to add it to. I downloaded the pic and couldn't see any restrictions in the file properties section. Do you know how to add pics? Or do you want me to post a brief note on how to do it? Cheers --Bob Burton 02:13, 4 Sep 2005 (EDT)

The picture came from this site. Now I cannot seem to locate the specific page but I doubt that they'd mind. I would need help on adding the pic, I am not registered though, could someone else add it? Thanks.

Re: reducing the size. Could the section at the end of the article Monsanto's High Level Connections to the Bush Administration beginning with the words "Monsanto is a supporter of anti-environmental groups" to the end of the article be re-added to the main page - it really should be there. And thanks for adding the pic, worth a thousand words. Perhaps it can be lowered to be directly parallel to the table of contents so that the first paragraph is not indented?

Just a peeve, The sections at the bottom of the articles titled "Articles cited in this article" is redundant and really adds to the congestion and kilobytes.

I agree -- I remember spending a chunk of time compiling them so I think they relate to material I moved off the main page - possibly a few months ago. Yesterday I was trying to see if the citations matched the sections I moved off the main page but they didn't seem to. We could move them to a side page or this talk page until we have it all cleaned up and then relocate them to any appropriate pages. --Bob Burton 16:32, 7 Sep 2005 (EDT)

...

Are not all these refs already in the main text? Why do they need to be here twice? The other refs on the main page I have moved to the right pages I think.

I'm slow. I just realized why we should have a page of links called "Articles cited in this article". If the link goes dead or changes at least we have a reference rather than just an address. Sorry. I'll see if I can move those you've already list to a new page though I don't know how complete it is.

I would hereby like to nominate the Monsanto Corporation, along with other luminaries such as Exxon and Unocal, Phillip Morris and R.J. Reynolds as Most Deserving of Having their Charters Revoked. Are their any seconds?

CEO & Directors

Chairman
GRANT, HUGH

Directors
MCMILLAN, CHARLES S., Chairman: SARA LEE
PARFET, WILLIAM U., Director: CMS ENERGY, PAREXEL INTL
KING, GWENDOLYN S., Director: COUNTRYWIDE FNL
BACHMANN, JOHN W.
LONG, SHARON R.
ATLEE, FRANK V. III
POSTE, GEORGE, Officer: CAREMARK RX
STEVENS, ROBERT J., President: LOCKHEED MARTIN

Executive Vice President
STEINER, GERALD A., Officer: PFIZER

Treasurer
PALEY, ROBERT A., Officer: PFIZER

[31]

Associated Companies

Associated Companies

Miscellaneous

Interesting, seems the more you dig with this company the more you find. We'll call it the "Corporate Iceberg Rule" OR "Monsanto's Law".

Per 144.138.152.68 Important Footnote: IG Farben was broken up after WWII by the Allied into Bayer, Hoechst, BASF. Therefore the cooperation with IG could not have happened in 1967, but must have been with one of three mentioned above. In Frankfurt/Main, where I lived for 17 years, the IG Farben building was still called that in the seventies. It was so big, that when plans were made to make Frankfurt/Main the West German capitol (before the plans for Bonn) that it was cosidered to have the Bundestag Parliament there. If Monsanto dealt in 1967 with a German company, it was probably Hoechst in Frankfurt.

It appears that the company did continue to exist until 2003, though most of its assets had been transferred to the other companies [32]. More info on Monsanto's connections to I.G. Farben [33]

I wonder what the chance is of a collaborative documentary/book by Robert Greenwald, Andy Rowell, George Monbiot, Charles Benbrook, Arpad Pusztai, Ignacio Chapela, Steven Drucker, Jeffery Smith, John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton, Gerald E. Markowitz/David Rosner et al?

funny how there's no women on that list... how could you not think of Vandana Shiva or Anuradha Mittal?

You're right. So I'll add Vandana Shiva and Margaret Mellon. I looked at a couple of pages on Anuradha Mittal and though she's written on the G.E. debate I'm not sure she's is as much an expert as the others. ... I'm recanting. Just looked a bit more. Besides she's from California (my state) :-). Another: Mae Wan Ho.

More: Jane Akre/Steve Wilson, Joe Cummins, Samuel Epstein, William Sanjour, Caroline Cox, Andrew Kimbrell.

An entire article removed via link on main page by "Rock911" on April 9th (it's now the 17th) that no one caught. How to protect it?

The World According to Monsanto

Bravo to Marie-Monique Robin for her exceptional work in The World According to Monsanto. Belatedly I finally got a chance to see the documentary. Rather than just a bland film of court files Marie-Monique traveled to various parts of the world where Monsanto's heavy foot has fallen and there documents the damage done - often with video, including vintage clips. Very professionlly done it gives the viewer a good (but nasty) taste of a company that just has a problem with telling the truth and with ethics in general and thus why we cannot trust it. Hopefully she will update (and expand) it periodically since the company is still going at it full bore. I also hope that it can be shown at major theaters around the world. Miocene 15:11, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Notable quotes

(These quotes are important, but took up A LOT of the main page. I think it makes sense to move them to the discussion page)

These truly are notable quotes. As such I decided to give them their own page. Miocene 04:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Talk:Monsanto&oldid=670072"