cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Frequent Contributor

interesting

0 Kudos
15 Replies
Senior Advisor

Re: interesting

It's not interesting for me. This is serious business for an export market.

 

I'm mad as hell at Monsanto. They screwed up big time. They were warned. They were irresponsible. And I'll guess it came from their arrogance. And there is no excuse on earth for this.

 

I was trying to sell some wheat this afternoon. I was wondering why I wasn't getting the calls back. I think there was some behind the scenes hesitation.

0 Kudos
Senior Contributor

Re: interesting

GMO apples. That's awesome. Looks like the tip of the iceberg to me. If they can prevent bruise on fruit, next should be an anti-fungal property. Scab occurs on apples within the same parameters as it occurs in wheat. A constant and costly battle every spring. Next should come an insecticide in the tree just the same as a treated seed. Oriental fruit moth tries to lay an egg, and swat! They're both dead. Smiley Happy as you can see, I am all for GMO products so long as they are tested and safe. Lots of hungry chinese to feed Smiley Happy Only my 2cent, but wonder what REALLY happened with that wheat in Oregon
0 Kudos
Veteran Contributor

Re: interesting

What do you suppose the tech fee would be on an apple tree? They have a lifespan of decades, big m couldn't stick it in and break it off on an annual basis. They would REALLY have to bend you over when you first plant the trees. I am not against GMO, just the way it has been marketed, and the arrogance of a company that steamrolls ahead without addressing the public's fears. It would have been more productive to prove to everyone beyond a doubt the products are safe, instead of fighting it out in courtrooms all around the globe. The courtroom tactic might be good for the lawyers, but it has really soiled big m's image. I know you can't convince everyone, but more unbiased information wouldn't have hurt any. Research by independent sources might be more convincing.

0 Kudos
Senior Advisor

Re: interesting

LCF, I have the same feelings on the wheat issue, there is more to the story than meets the eye. I feel like there is something they're not telling us. If it was a legitimate trail leak, M has more security and safety issues than most back yard gardners.

Should they be under litigation, were there any laws broken or was it only sloppy research?
0 Kudos
Honored Advisor

Re: interesting

I am not caring to defend Monsanto this time, but If they had permission to experiment with gmo wheat in that area,  how would there not be volunteer to deal with in the future?  And who was supposed to take care of that volunteer, monsanto or the farmer?  If the farmer was paid to destroy it.......................?????

Oh yea, I forgot.------------- we have the deep pockets form of justice.  If I ran over a little corn last evening ----Maybe the neighbors--- he will sue John Deere.  Lucky me.

0 Kudos
Senior Advisor

Re: interesting

I'd be willing to bet Monsanto was not arrogant on this in the sense we usually mean.  I'd bet they were internally betrayed by bureacracy.  People in the middle with responsibility but not the authority to make things happen, who kind of let one litte thing slip or trusted someone instead of checking up or otherwise failed to take the final definititive step to make sure the trait was controlled.

 

Monsanto may still be fully culpable.  I'm just saying their guilt could have been caused as much by human nature as lack of concern.

 

The GMO genie is out of the bottle, in any event.  It is probably necessary to feed humanity.  We should be actively trying to guide and control it.

 

Big drug companies, big armies, big government - this kind of t hing is sadly going to happen and the hell of it is, real people may pay the price for faceless workers failure to comply.

 

It goes to show that we should all have a backup plan and never trust what seems to be as the final determiner of our livelihood.

0 Kudos
Senior Advisor

Re: interesting

Who said any farmer was involved?

 

There are contracts and confidentiality agreements, procedures and government requirements a mile high on these things - probably mostly generated by Monsanto itself. This was their material and their responsibility and their researchers under contract. The whole point is to make entirely sure there is no escapes if any work is done in the open.

 

I am no longer interested in giving corporations breaks when it comes to responsibility. We've had Starlink and Liberty Link and a few other fiasco's and uninterested parties always take a hit for the company. Monsanto absolutely knew what was at stake. Monsanto is 100% culpable. There's no wiggle room. The knew exactly what the consequences were.

 

Responsibility - what's your policy?

 

 

0 Kudos
Senior Advisor

Re: interesting

Sorry, this kind of thing wasn't done by 'faceless workers'. Monsanto spent huge sums 'buying' researchers and agronomy departments. This was all subject to contracts and controls. It was very controversial.

 

Washington State University was one of the few who resisted and took a lot of heat over it.

 

I don't buy the idea of a big company pushing people around and assuring them and then not living up to their responsibilities.

 

Monsanto forced the issue on wheat and they lost because we had competitors who would have effectively locked us out of the Pacific Rim market if there was a screw up.

 

Yes, Monsanto WAS arrogant. I remember them assuring us they were working on a 'secret' project to guarantee segregation of GMO wheat in the market. They refused to comment on what it might be. It was never mentioned again. Anything to get RR wheat in the field.

0 Kudos
Senior Advisor

Re: interesting

I've spent years in some huge organizations and you and I are going to disagree on this.  I was commenting on the internal dynamics of a monster organization.  This is very much a "what you see depends on where you stand" issue.  If you are looking for arrogance, you will see it (whether it is there or not).

 

Of course, Monsanto is culpable and responsible.  That is stiuplated.  So, the end objective is the same no matter how one analyzes the process or mechanics.  

 

In Japan, the president of the company would resign if the problem was bad enough.  In the U.S., some people in middle echelons will be found, accurately, to have not been aggressive enough (even though they were subtly encouraged not to be) and they will get the ax.

 

This is not like ADM price fixing.

0 Kudos