Talk:Monsanto

POV

I'm no fan of Monsanto... but by saying "they are easily the most reviled" isn't exactly a neutral viewpoint, nor is it particularly informative.Snefreely 05:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Monsanto/Pfizer ownership

Monsanto is currently owned by Pfizer. (... through a middle-company buy-out, iirc.)

Monsanto is NOT owned by Pfizer. Monsanto merged with Pharmacia in 2000. Pharmacia took the medical research divisions they were interested in (which included Celebrex) and then spun off the Agricultural divisions into the "new" Monsanto. From 2000 until 2002, Pharmacia still owned about 85% of the "new" Monsanto. In 2002 the "new" Monsanto was spun-off completely, and has been a completely seperate company since then. Also in 2002, Pharmacia was purchased by Pfizer, but Monsanto was already a seperate company and wasn't part of this. Kenj0418 15:46, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Reference to "Monsatan"

I removed the line "It is negatively referred to by many of its most outspoken critics as Monsatan." I don't see any value in having what insults opponents use against Monsanto included. Other corporate pages I checked don't have this sort of comments included either. (For example, "Fix Or Repair Daily" (an insult concerning the quality of Ford vehicles) isn't on the page on Ford).

I think the Monsatan information should remain. It helps clarify Monsanto's dubious distinction as "most reviled". From what I can see, the company name is a household word in much of the world, and much of that is due to various court cases and publicity (not because lots of people use Round-Up on their lawns). Monsatan is not at all the same as Fix Or Repair Daily, which is simply a sweeping negative product opinion. Widespread use (albeit in activist circles) of a nickname like Monsatan is a fact, and illustrates the extraordinary degree of conviction of its detractors that is a major element of the Monsanto's social context. E.g.: Monsanto boss's grand vision gets reality check ... Robert Shapiro figured his biotechnology factory could serve both humanity and investors. But consumers are wary of food seen as unnatural. Now his products are labelled 'Frankenfoods' and the firm is demonized as "Monsatan." - Globe and Mail 22-Dec-99 - Tsavage 23:15, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't questioning the fact that some people called Monsanto "Monsatan". I was only questioning whether this was relevant to the entry and NPOV. I've found several other, more prominant, entries that contain derisive nick names, namely Slick Willy, and Tricky Dick, so I've added Monsatan back. I've created a new section specifically about Monsanto's controversies. I placed the Monsatan comment there. I also mentioned the use of the term frankenfoods. Based on a Google test, this term for GE foods appears much more common than the use of Monsatan. Kenj0418 22:05, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

I also removed the politics section. All but two of the people it refered to are no longer in office. Also, the section was unsubstatiated and of questionable NPOV. Kenj0418 19:40, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Section on mergers

I notice that the current section on "spin-offs and mergers" section only includes big movings and shakings. Do we need a new section for smaller acquisitions such as their March 25 purchase of Seminis Inc.[1] This section could also include analysis of acquisitons. For example, what is the significance of them buying up "the largest developer, grower and marketer of fruit and vegetable seeds in the world"? mennonot 04:15, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That would be...fun. (I was going to add Seminis, but decided to wait until it was fully approved and finalized, which I think is still a few weeks away. It's cool when Wiki articles are more or less real-time, but I guess it's a matter of exactly how up-to-the-minute one wants to be. In this case, Seminis could have been added a couple of months ago, or only when it's a done deal.) Tsavage 04:56, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

23-Mar-2005 Monsanto announced Seminis finalized so I added an initial line in the intro. Tsavage 00:00, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

I added the NPOV tag to the top of the page. This article seems heavily biased against Monsanto. A few of the more aggregious examples of bias here:

1. Board of Directors section - this section lists numerous people as directors, although none of their names appear as directors on the company's website (http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/layout/about_us/board.asp). Assuming these are actually former directors, the only reason for apparently including them is because of their negative associations. (Although the fact that someone was an assistant to a friend of Hitlers is bit of a reach.)

The BoD listing is now simply a list of members as listed on the Monsanto site as referenced above (see also [[#Board of Directors listing Board of Directors listing] below.

2. "In 1967, Monsanto enters into a joint venture with IG Farben, the key supplier of poison gas to the Nazi racial extermination program." Again, the only purpose of this seems to try to attack Monsanto by association. Also, according to the linked article, this company was no longer in existence in 1967. Was the joint venture with Bayer (the successor company?) if so, apparently the old name was chosen here only for its negative past.

This reference has been deleted.

3."Infact its yield was even far lower than the hybrid variety that led to a number of suicides among cotton farmers, especially in Andhra Pradesh" - First, this is poorly written -- did Monsanto's cotton suposedly 'lead to' the suicides, or is it being compared to some hybrid that did(which isn't explained further). Either way that some cotton seed caused suicides is a outlandish claim to be made in a supposedly encyclopedic article. --Kenj0418 18:14, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

This section was rewritten, and the reference to suicides no longer appears.

At some point previously, the NPOV tag was removed. My notes reflect the current situation compared to the concerns noted here. --Tsavage 17:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Monsanto-Iraq

in this german newspaper interview article: http://www.taz.de/pt/2005/03/12/a0154.nf/text in 3/2005 is written:

"But which is, if the large companies really come into difficulties? They are nevertheless very effective Maschinerien, which manufacture and drive goods out favorably. Do we at all still get along without their goods?

Manfred Max-Neef (alternative nobel prize 1983): I would ask rather: Do we have to really go down with those? Which those drive, is sometimes simply insufferable. Take they for example the new seeds law of the US administration for the Iraq: All farmers in the Iraq are therefore forced to burn their seeds. They may buy seeds only at the US company Monsanto. That stands literally in such a way in the law. And Monsanto brings a step more near to its company target: Monsanto formulated the modest requirement to control in 20 years the world market for seeds to 100 per cent. That is everything, only 100 per cent. Work on it, and many do not notice it." ( supp. by automatic translation)

Is this true ? (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manfred_Max-Neef)

http://www.grain.org/articles/?id=6

Yes, include it.

Board of Directors listing

I have removed the Board of Directors section altogether from this entry since it was inflammatory to the point of childishness. I cannot find other large corporations thathave similar information. This article is still awash in bias, but the BoD stuff was ridiculous. Dottore So 15:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

This appears to have been reinserted and now lists the BoD as posted on the Monsanto Web site. --Tsavage 17:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup tag (Aug-05) removed

I removed the cleanup tag. The article seems to be in reasonably good shape, with no problems obvious to me with NPOV, grammar, content or references. There was also no reason for the original tagging, here on the Talk page (as of today; I didn't search the history). I also checked the various Talk page concerns (again, as of today), and all appear to have been addressed. --Tsavage 17:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Major edit to Monsanto vs Schmeiser

I cut down the Schmeiser case coverage to proportional length and summary depth. The case is covered in detail elsewhere, as referenced in the article (Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser and in the hopefully soon to be merge section in Percy Schmeiser). --Tsavage 21:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I merged the longer form coverage from the Percy Schmeiser bio article with what was at Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser, and now also moved and merged the original longer text that was here. --Tsavage 19:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

False information is stated in this section of this article. Schmeiser alleged that GMO seed contaminated his field accidentally, but evidence showed that the entire field was planted with GMO seed by Mr. Schmeiser. To say it was "accidental" is a complete misstatement of the facts of the case. Objectivity must be preserved. Landroo 18:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Sanitizing

Anon users in the 71.142.216.* range (such as 71.142.229.107) seem to be attempting to "sanitize" this page by deleting references to legal actions and controversial products that the company has been associated with. I don't think such information should be removed, as it is all verifiable, but I don't want this this article to read like a burning effigy of Monsanto either. I deleted one of the external links (there were already several that described lawsuits and controverseys). Would anyone else care to re-review this for NPOV? Jasmol 15:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

If it's different cases, why not include them all? I think they are all of interest.

The statement regarding Schmeiser vs. Monsanto reads as the Supreme Court of Canada ruling in favour of Monsanto. The section may have been cut down for space, but the content left is in itself misleading. The supreme court of Canada did rule in favour of Monsanto on some issues, but overruled the Federal Courts of Canada ruling against Schmeiser ordering him to pay monsanto $15/acre technology fee. The judgement of the Supreme Court of Canada for the independant canola farmer is noteworthy against an agricultural giant like Monsanto.

Response: It shouldn't be about a little guy beating a big corporation, it should be about the facts. The facts of the case should be presented accurately and for the most part, in this article they are not. It seems that several people involved with writing this article have had a heavy bias in the subject and they should withdraw their contributions. For example, "seeds blew off a truck and into his field" is blatantly mis-stating the facts of the case, as court evidence showed, it's physically impossible to plant 900 acres of a pure stand of canola without deliberately doing so. His motives were clearly to enrich himself by knowingly committing fraud. The propaganda to the contrary is clearly generated to favor the anti-gmo point-of-view, and should be eliminated from this discussion. This is not a forum for furthering the causes of the anti-gmo movement.Landroo 03:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

While inclined to agree that the article may need improvement, and removing any inaccuracies such as that above, I think it quite possible that a "balanced" view will not present Monsanto in a creditable light. It may assist balance by asking contributers to disclose any interest Winstonwolfe 04:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC).

Once again, let the facts speak for themselves. Who cares about what "light" is cast? Who cares which agenda is supported? If you want to contribute to an encyclopedia, leave your personal attitudes at the door, and stick to the facts.Landroo 15:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Selecting which facts are portrayed is hardly unrelated to personal attitudes - nor are they something that can be left at the door. This is not to deny that there may be an objective reality, but any simplification into an brief encyclopedia article will inevitably - even with the best of intentions - be tarred with the bias of contributors. Anything manifestly incorrect should not be tolerated, but what you view as "the facts" may not be something others agree with; for example, clearly there is disagreement over the significane of the legal ruling above. Legal decisions are usually not black and white x is right, y is wrong, "facts", so this is hardly surprising. In a wider view, the major historical interest in Monsanto may not be its bottom line, or directors, but the ethics of its production of GMOs, and if that is where most contributors interests lie, that may justify it being the major part of this article. Incidentally I am not personally opposed to responsibly handled GMOs, nor am I defending my own writing - if you view logs you will note I haven't contributed to the case law being criticised. Winstonwolfe 05:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Taking over the world?

Is it true that Monsanto has explicitly expressed a desire that all the world's crops (or food crops, or something) be grown from Monsanto seed? --대조 | Talk 18:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Untested products?

I am doubtful of this statement at the end of the article's introduction:

"Some genetically engineered products are regulated by existing environmental laws, while other products have not been rigorously tested for safety."

Is this meaning to claim

1. Monsanto is violating envionmental laws with some of their GMOs?
2. Environmental laws don't cover some of their GMOs? or
3. Monsanto's GMO's are regulated, but some other (non-GMO) products aren't tested?

Regardless of which was the intended meaning, the statement is too vauge. If someone can clarify what this statement means, and provided some sort of source for the intended claim they should add that back to the article, until that happens, I am removing this statement. kenj0418 04:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Texas City Disaster

The statement on the Texas City Disaster appears to be inaccurate. It reads in relevant part:

"In 1947, ammonium nitrate fertilizer made by Monsanto and loaded on the French ship S.S. Grandcamp was responsible for the Texas City Disaster in Galveston Bay."

The available online documentation indicates that this is not true.

• Three Supreme Court justices, in their dissent to Dalehite v. U.S. [2], state that: "The fertilizer had been manufactured in government-owned plants at the Government's order and to its specifications."

• The Wikipedia page on the Texas City Disaster states that: "The 35% ammonium nitrate, used as fertilizer but also in high explosives, was manufactured in Nebraska and Iowa (not at the nearby Monsanto or Union Carbide plants) and shipped to Texas City by rail before being loaded on the Grandcamp, adjacent to a cargo of ammunition."

• The Handbook of Texas [3] contains the following statement: "More than 3,000 lawsuits involving the United States government, since the chemicals had originated in U.S. ordnance plants, were resolved by 1956, when a special act passed by Congress settled all claims for a total of $16.5 million."

The Monsanto plant in Texas City was destoyed in the explosion. Thus it would appear that Monsanto and its employees who perished were victims of the disaster, not the perpetrators. Absent evidence to the contrary, the statement blaming Monsanto for the disaster is inaccurate and should be removed.

I corrected the account, and removed a reference to the error in the later saftey award entry. --Tsavage 21:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

On 29 Apr the Tsavage version was reverted anonymously without explanation. Restored Tsavage version since objections above were not addressed. Highnote 15:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda section

I think the Propaganda section is clearly NPOV. It makes no distinction between propaganda and the accepted practice of simple advertising. It states the propaganda campaign as a given, and the very use of the term is non-neutral, as are the unsubstantiated claims (a single website as evidence). The section is even more clearly biased against Monsanto than the rest of the article, and I have temporarily removed it, until it can be cleaned up. Globber 17:00, 8 Aug 2006 (UTC)

While not an expert, I find it difficult to see how the deleted opening paragraph (under) is NPOV.

"Over the last several decades Monsanto has transformed its corporate business from the exclusive manufacture of toxic chemicals including PCBs, Agent Orange, herbicides and pesticides to the world's largest seed owner. They have ushered in a new era of patent protected, genetically modified plants and GMO food. Monsanto's Round Up Ready crops dominate America and are spreading around the globe". Winstonwolfe 04:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The aim of the section was to discredit Monsanto, and the potrayal of a chemical company exclusively concerned with spread toxins into a biotech company making frankenfood is obvious. Besides, the points made in this blurb are already included elsewhere Globber 13:00, 9 Aug 2006 (UTC)