March Against Myths

[bilby]

For the last two years, protestors have marched under the banner of the March Against Monsanto (MAM) in coordinated demonstrations around the world in opposition to genetically engineered crops, the companies that make them or market them, and governments that approve their sale. Thousands of people have participated. While many protestors may have good intentions, hoping to improve the food system, the organizers of the March Against Monsanto and many prominent NGOs that promote this event often misrepresent biotechnology and farming.

It’s time to take back the science; it’s time to march against the March Against Monsanto. In this spirit, Karl Haro von Mogel, David Sutherland and Kavin Senapathy are planning a counter protest to take place on May 23, 2015—the same day as this year’s March Against Monsanto.

http://www.mamyths.org/2015/04/call-for-action-its-time-to-march-against-the-march-against-monsanto/

 

[ApostateAbe]

This is a great idea. I think I will participate in Denver, even if I am a lone wolf, just so I can argue with the Marchers against Monsanto. Here is the Facebook page of March Against Myths:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/MarchAgainstMAM/

 

[tupac chopra]

Monsanto don't do science.
Science is a neutral enterprise. Monsanto are in the business of making money. They design studies to get their products approved. They hide the raw data.
What's interesting is that you two actually believe that Monsanto is trying to find the truth rather than make money. Very naive. Their studies are designed not find out whether things a safe to eat but to get them approved.

If they actually did neutral investigation then it could be damaging for business, so they don't do that.

 

[Kharakov]

You really, really need to show up drunk wearing this shirt:


Really.

 

[tupac chopra]

Researchers Uncover Multiple Sources of Bias in GMO Risk Assessments

The GMO risk assessment process claimed to protect the public acts instead to protect industry. Scientists Hartmut Meyer and Angelika Hilbeck reviewed Monsanto’s rat toxicology studies on GM maize NK603 and identified flawed methods that bias results in industries’ favor. One such method is the use of multiple unrelated ‘pseudo-controls’ that make aberrant results look normal. Pseudo-controls have become a common component of other GMO risk studies, not only feeding trials. Meyer and Hilbeck also found that GMO studies routinely fail to use procedures like randomized selection of animals and blinded experiments, both of which guard against biased and inaccurate results.

 

[bilby]

Monsanto don't do science.

Actually, they do. It's not all they do, but they definitely do some science.

Science is a neutral enterprise. Monsanto are in the business of making money.

All companies are. That's what companies are for.

They design studies to get their products approved.

No. Just like every other technology company, they test their products to see if they work as designed; and they do R&D to identify new products that they might be able to market. They also comply with the regulations imposed on them; If the USDA or FDA require them to do some tests, they do those tests, because that is a requirement of doing business.

They hide the raw data.

They publish quite a lot of data. They also keep a lot of data confidential - which is no different from what every other company does. It's their data, after all. As they are not using tax monies to do their research, they have no obligation to publish the results, much less the raw data.

What's interesting is that you two actually believe that Monsanto is trying to find the truth rather than make money. Very naive.

What on Earth makes you think that? Monsanto is a company. Companies try to make money. 'Finding the truth' is the purview of religions.

Technology companies use science as a tool to ensure that their products do what they are designed to do. This is simply good business; Customers don't come back if the product you sell them doesn't do what it was claimed to do.

Their studies are designed not find out whether things a safe to eat but to get them approved.

No. Their studies are to find out whether a new product does what their customers want it to do. Being safe to eat is one of the things their customers want from some of their products.

If they actually did neutral investigation then it could be damaging for business, so they don't do that.

If they actually did neutral investigation then they would be a public research laboratory. They are not. Neutral investigation is not what companies DO.

You have some very strange expectations of Monsanto. They sell seeds. They develop new seeds. They test those seeds to meet regulatory requirements, and to ensure that their products do what it says on the label.

Are you upset because other companies don't do neutral scientific investigation? Do you demand the raw data from studies of grocery purchasing habits run by Coles? Do you expect Pizza Hut to employ scientists to prove that Oregano is safe to eat?

Why do you expect a seed and agricultural chemicals company to do all these other things? Why do you single out Monsanto, but not other companies?

Why do you project your ideas about what a company SHOULD do onto everyone else? It amazes me that you are so divorced from reality as to think that I believe that Monsanto is trying to find the truth rather than make money. Who the FUCK expects ANY company to care about 'finding the truth'?

 

[tupac chopra]

Science is a neutral enterprise. Monsanto are in the business of making money.

All companies are. That's what companies are for.

What you don't seem to understand is that making money and doing neutral investigation are conflicting interests.
That's why Monsanto don't actually do SCIENCE.
They might pay scientists to produce a study, (and hey if they don't like the study they don't even have to release it. If they don't like the data they keep it secret). But this is not the same as doing a neutral investigation.

If they actually did neutral investigation then......blah blah blah

There you go. Science is a neutral investigation. So Monsanto is not doing science. You can see it, but you can't quite bring yourself to just admit it can you?

 

[skepticalbip]

All companies are. That's what companies are for.

What you don't seem to understand is that making money and doing neutral investigation are conflicting interests.

Absolutely not. The investigation is to develop new products (that customers want and will buy) and to test those products to be sure they meet the advertised claims and do no harm. If the new products aren't something customers want and will buy then they make no money. If the product doesn't meet advertised claims then there no repeat customers and they will make no money. If the product does harm then they will have their ass sued and they will lose money.

That's why Monsanto don't actually do SCIENCE.
They might pay scientists to produce a study, (and hey if they don't like the study they don't even have to release it. If they don't like the data they keep it secret). But this is not the same as doing a neutral investigation.

I understand that you hate big business but this is just insane.

 

[tupac chopra]

What you don't seem to understand is that making money and doing neutral investigation are conflicting interests.

Absolutely not. The investigation is to develop new products (that customers want and will buy) and to test those products to be sure they meet the advertised claims and do no harm.

So if you don't do a neutral investigation into whether they are harmful then you can't establish they do no harm.

I understand that you hate big business but this is just insane.

Flacid attempt to poison the well by making this personal rather than about science.

Is it too much for you to avoid personal comments (and false ones at that) and stick to science?

 

[skepticalbip]

Absolutely not. The investigation is to develop new products (that customers want and will buy) and to test those products to be sure they meet the advertised claims and do no harm.

So if you don't do a neutral investigation into whether they are harmful then you can't establish they do no harm.

Monsanto does the investigation to protect their ass. You just don't like that their findings are not what you want them to be.

ETA:
I notice that you clipped the explanation of the reason Monsanto does good science. Monsanto does science because they want to know about the product because:

If the new products aren't something customers want and will buy then they make no money. If the product doesn't meet advertised claims then there will be no repeat customers and they will make no money. If the product does harm then they will have their ass sued and they will lose money.

 

[bilby]

All companies are. That's what companies are for.

What you don't seem to understand is that making money and doing neutral investigation are conflicting interests.

No they are not.

That's why Monsanto don't actually do SCIENCE.

Not all SCIENCE is original basic research. Science is a methodology.

They might pay scientists to produce a study, (and hey if they don't like the study they don't even have to release it. If they don't like the data they keep it secret). But this is not the same as doing a neutral investigation.

Nobody said it was.

Try to grasp this:

It is unreasonable to expect a company to do neutral basic research.
Monsanto is a company.
Their not doing neutral basic research is not a failing; it is expected.
Monsanto is no different from ANY company in this regard.

If you set Monsanto an unreasonable hurdle, and they don't leap it, then that's not their fault, nor is it something they should be concerned about.

If you set the same hurdle for all companies, then they would (almost) all fail.

Wholefoods don't do neutral investigations as to whether their products are safe to eat.
Eden Foods don't do neutral investigations as to whether their products are safe to eat.
Natures Path don't do neutral investigations as to whether their products are safe to eat.

Why do you expect Monsanto to meet some arbitrary criterion you have set for them, that no other company is expected to meet?

 

[Togo]

What you don't seem to understand is that making money and doing neutral investigation are conflicting interests.

No they are not.

It is unreasonable to expect a company to do neutral basic research.

So.. they're not conflicting interests, but they might as well be?

Monsanto is a company.
Their not doing neutral basic research is not a failing; it is expected.
Monsanto is no different from ANY company in this regard.

Except that they do, in fact, publish research which they claim is neutral. It's just that it turns out it isn't neutral.

Most companies, when they publish research which they claim is neutral, and it turns out not to be, get heavily criticised. Particularly when that research favours them commercially. Look what happened to tobacco company research.

So why should Monsanto get special treatment? Surely they should be criticised for producing biased research in exactly the same way that any other large company would be?

 

[Malintent]

All companies are. That's what companies are for.

What you don't seem to understand is that making money and doing neutral investigation are conflicting interests.
That's why Monsanto don't actually do SCIENCE.
They might pay scientists to produce a study, (and hey if they don't like the study they don't even have to release it. If they don't like the data they keep it secret). But this is not the same as doing a neutral investigation.

If they actually did neutral investigation then......blah blah blah

There you go. Science is a neutral investigation. So Monsanto is not doing science. You can see it, but you can't quite bring yourself to just admit it can you?

Those people that do the science you say should be done have not released any peer reviewed papers that show a link between GMOs and health problems. Or can you demonstrate me wrong about that? Anti-GMO is up there with anti-vaccination.... not based on science.

So, your nitpick about (pure) science being unable to be produced by profit motivated people is just a red herring.

regardless of motivation, the facts are there is no evidence that indicates that the thousands of years of selective breeding we have done on domesticated life forms to manipulate their DNA is any different than the process of manipulating DNA more directly in a lab.

 

[Jokodo]

No they are not.

It is unreasonable to expect a company to do neutral basic research.

So.. they're not conflicting interests, but they might as well be?

Monsanto is a company.
Their not doing neutral basic research is not a failing; it is expected.
Monsanto is no different from ANY company in this regard.

Except that they do, in fact, publish research which they claim is neutral. It's just that it turns out it isn't neutral.

Most companies, when they publish research which they claim is neutral, and it turns out not to be, get heavily criticised. Particularly when that research favours them commercially. Look what happened to tobacco company research.

So why should Monsanto get special treatment? Surely they should be criticised for producing biased research in exactly the same way that any other large company would be?

Not comparable at all. The tobacco companies produced biased research to counter a large pre-existing body of evidence that smoking is harmful, and in the face of a priori reasons to believe that it should be. On the other hand, we don't have any evidence that GMOs are harmful, and no a priori reason to believe they should be. So, even if it is in Monsanto's economic interest to produce biased research (and it is), we have no evidence that they're doing is.

 

[fromderinside]

Monsanto don't do science.
Science is a neutral enterprise. Monsanto are in the business of making money. They design studies to get their products approved. They hide the raw data.
What's interesting is that you two actually believe that Monsanto is trying to find the truth rather than make money. Very naive. Their studies are designed not find out whether things a safe to eat but to get them approved.

If they actually did neutral investigation then it could be damaging for business, so they don't do that.

So why aren't there more horses on the hiways and byways.

 

[bilby]

No they are not.

It is unreasonable to expect a company to do neutral basic research.

So.. they're not conflicting interests, but they might as well be?

No.

So there is a difference between 'investigation' and 'basic research'.

Monsanto is a company.
Their not doing neutral basic research is not a failing; it is expected.
Monsanto is no different from ANY company in this regard.

Except that they do, in fact, publish research which they claim is neutral. It's just that it turns out it isn't neutral.

'Turns out'? Are you seeking to imply that this is the case for ALL of Monsanto's research? That's a big claim.

Most companies, when they publish research which they claim is neutral, and it turns out not to be, get heavily criticised. Particularly when that research favours them commercially. Look what happened to tobacco company research.

Indeed. And I have no problem with that. But there is zero evidence that Monsanto has falsified results on the scale that the tobacco companies did; and yet the criticism they face is far harsher than that faced by the tobacco companies.

Or did I miss the international 'March Against Marlboro'?

Comes to that, Monsanto have not acted any differently from any other biotechnology company. Where is the March Against Syngenta?

The response to Monsanto is not proportionate. As a company, they are neither especially good, nor especially bad. But they have become the scapegoat for the anti-science movement to focus their hate upon.

That is stupid, unjust, and wrong.

Even if GM technology was truly evil, targeting Monsanto would be a stupid approach to try to stop its spread.

So why should Monsanto get special treatment? Surely they should be criticised for producing biased research in exactly the same way that any other large company would be?

I agree wholeheartedly. But they are not - they are criticised far more harshly and with far less justification than any other technology, agricultural chemical or seed producer.

The hate is irrational, disproportionate and ugly. It is very much 'special treatment'; most of the marchers against Monsanto would struggle to name another biotech company. They certainly don't treat other biotech companies the same way they treat Monsanto - and yet there is nothing to suggest that Monsanto are guilty of some particularly heinous offense, of which all other companies in the field are innocent.

I don't care for Monsanto. If they went bust tomorrow, that wouldn't bother me. But if they (or any company) went bust because of a witch hunt, rather than because of a genuine problem with their products or their business model, I would be pissed off by that, and so should anyone who gives a shit about living in a rational and equitable society.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Dateline Apr 1, 2020: Announcing the march against marches against things!

 

[DBT]

Dateline Apr 1, 2020: Announcing the march against marches against things!

To take place on quantum scale in order to utilize probability wave function and superposition to achieve the desired state, however briefly.

 

[ronburgundy]

The investigation is to develop new products (that customers want and will buy) and to test those products to be sure they meet the advertised claims and do no harm.
....

[then from your next post]

Monsanto does the investigation to protect their ass.

Your latter statement is correct, while the former is false because profit can still be made despite wrong-doing and lies.

Monsanto is solely concerned about profit. Products do not need to be shown to be safe or actually meet advertised claims for companies to make billions in profits. Any honest corporate lawyer will tell you that companies very consciously and explicitly choose to make false claims and/or put out or fail to recall potentially harmful products based upon risk/reward calculations that the likely levels of profit exceed the likely payouts due to lawsuits, etc..
First, consumers must become aware that the product doesn't do what it claims and/or is harmful (and often this is unlikely due to the indirect and not easily testable nature of the effects), and then they must be able to prove it (which is a much higher bar), and even then they are likely "to make profits that far exceed any legal payouts. Also, given the religion of "business is business" in which ethics are deemed not to apply to economic transactions, companies are rarely held accountable by consumers for past wrongs. This is also aided by the shell company names under which so many products are marketed, and the near monopolies or vertical control they often hold on particular markets.

In sum, company claims of product attributes or safety are not based upon science. They are based upon reward-risk profitability estimates made by a combination of their lawyers, marketers, and accountants who merely use both the science the company makes public and the science they keep secret (often b/c it contradicts their claims) as one factor in their calculations. They only make claims consistent with valid science under those circumstances where they estimate that the cost of ignoring the science outweigh the profits.

Unlike anti-GMO activists, I'm not ignorant enough to think that GMO is inherently dangerous or something to be especially frightened about. But I am also not ignorant enough to think that corporations care about valid science or public safety, beyond the most minimally level that the situation requires them to in order to be profitable, and often profits are greater when the science and public safety are disregarded.

 

[EricK]

Dateline Apr 1, 2020: Announcing the march against marches against things!

You'd think they'd hold it in March.