Cultural/Political/Social Trends & Divergence Thread

[soon]

Monsanto produces pesticides that contain Neonicotinoids which are proven to be the cause of the global Colony Collapse. Pollinators are needed for food production. Neonic's kill bees and other pollinators like buterflys (it also kills off milkweed which is a shelter for butterflies). The bees make contact with sprayed plants and carry the neonic back to their hive where it kills the entire colony. Monsanto sells products with the potential to end humanity. In Ontario we lost 58% of our pollinator bees in 2012. And thats in addition to the collapses that begin around 2006. Similar and higher numbers recorded around the world.

2013 saw EU roll out bans on neonics. This year Canada is set to roll out a few bans on its use.

I really doubt that not wanting world wide food production to grind to a halt is a far left agenda item or a propaganda tool, lol. I think everyone would care.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pesticide-bee-bird-deaths-neonicotinoids-1.4296357

https://www.motherjones.com/food/2016/01/epa-finds-major-pesticide-toxic-bees/

Edited August 23, 2018 by soon

[Whiskey Rose]

The scary thing is that we are ALL eating this shit. We are not getting spikes in cancer rates because we are smoking, or need to make healthier lifestyle choices...we are getting cancers and women are becoming more infertile and children more and more have deadly allergies, because we are ingesting poison every day in our food. And if you try and eat only organic, you will go broke because it is so expensive.  Even the so-called "organic" food grown by large scale commercial providers (such as President's Choice) have their fields directly next to ones that are sprayed..so for sure there is cross contamination. You just can't escape it. 

[wasted]

1 minute ago, Whiskey Rose said:

The scary thing is that we are ALL eating this shit. We are not getting spikes in cancer rates because we are smoking, or need to make healthier lifestyle choices...we are getting cancers and women are becoming more infertile and children more and more have deadly allergies, because we are ingesting poison every day in our food. And if you try and eat only organic, you will go broke because it is so expensive.  Even the so-called "organic" food grown by large scale commercial providers (such as President's Choice) have their fields directly next to ones that are sprayed..so for sure there is cross contamination. You just can't escape it. 

The “logic” is that you are going to die anyway. The object is to raise people out of abject poverty. Everyday is a gift. 

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, Len Cnut said:

Even if they didn't know its still pretty fucked up though right?  I mean if you don't do due dilligence about this shit you are basically endangering a fuckload of lives.  I'm not a fuckin' scientist by any means but I woulda thought this shit would be tested, tested and re-tested to make sure the shit is safe.

They have surely done due diligence,  they have to. Lots of tests. But when the toxicity is very low it is often impossible to detect in limited lab tests, the true trial is when it is applied in nature and potentially affect millions of humans. 

It's the same case with drugs and side-effects, if they are very low or only affect a small population segment, they are often not discovered in clinical trials. Hence why continued testing takes place post-approval. 

[killuridols]

2 hours ago, wasted said:

We can worry but Trump might nuke us, so let’s party like it 1999. 

They might nuke us all but in the meantime you have the right to live a somewhat healthy life, without six fingers or twelve tumors in your head.

2 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

And they didn't? Is it really Monsanto's fault if someone has been misusing their product? Is it BMWs fault when someone crashes their car? Not necessarily. What I haven't seen is evidence that Monsanto has misled or lied about the inherent, known dangers of glyphosat or its usage. But not saying their didn't, just that such genuine criticism tends to drown in all other things. 

Monsanto says the farmers have misused the pesticides and not taken the precautions needed but even if that was the case, dont they idiots know who they are hiring to do the job?

Didn't they even think that those people might not know how to handle the pesticides?

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

What I miss is the evidence that Monsanto instructed a usage of their pesticides that they knew would result in disease. I think that piece of evidence is crucial. And it might exist, maybe in some of those articles that were posted. But just appealing to emotion, or pointing out that the system is flawed, doesn't do it for me when it comes to who is at blame. Monsanto is evil because of child leukemia or Monsanto is evil because pesticides are carcinogenic, isn't enough. I miss some causative steps there. But I am also not predisposed to hate on large multinational companies that disrupt dear industries and hence communities by aggressively selling progressive products like generically modified crops

No one is hating them because they are amazing capitalists (we already know you adore them) but because the cancers and malformation in children and adults seem to be directly related to the use of their products.

You can't put the blame in people who are the weakest link of the chain. If you do that, then you are just shit like them. 

[Len Cnut]

1 hour ago, wasted said:

The “logic” is that you are going to die anyway. The object is to raise people out of abject poverty. Everyday is a gift. 

See you at the Mickey D's drive-thru boss

[SoulMonster]

2 hours ago, soon said:

Monsanto produces pesticides that contain Neonicotinoids which are proven to be the cause of the global Colony Collapse. Pollinators are needed for food production. Neonic's kill bees and other pollinators like buterflys (it also kills off milkweed which is a shelter for butterflies). The bees make contact with sprayed plants and carry the neonic back to their hive where it kills the entire colony. Monsanto sells products with the potential to end humanity. In Ontario we lost 58% of our pollinator bees in 2012. And thats in addition to the collapses that begin around 2006. Similar and higher numbers recorded around the world.

2013 saw EU roll out bans on neonics. This year Canada is set to roll out a few bans on its use.

I really doubt that not wanting world wide food production to grind to a halt is a far left agenda item or a propaganda tool, lol. I think everyone would care.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pesticide-bee-bird-deaths-neonicotinoids-1.4296357

https://www.motherjones.com/food/2016/01/epa-finds-major-pesticide-toxic-bees/

Horrible. But doesn't make Monsanto out to be the bad guy unless they knew. I agree with criticising overuse of pesticides, but that critic goes out to those who allow it (politicians), those that do it (farmers), and those who make it possible (manufacturers)...and mostly on the politicians. It is more a criticism of the system than individual players who operate within that system, especially if they are not aware of any ill-effects. 

[SoulMonster]

51 minutes ago, killuridols said:

You can't put the blame in people who are the weakest link of the chain. If you do that, then you are just shit like them. 

Of course you can. Just like you won't put the blame for a drunk moron crashing his car, on BMW. If the manufacturer has done sufficient job in informing customers of correct usage and potential ill effects of misuse, then the responsibility in its entirety lies with the customers. Even if they are morons. 

Of course I don't know if Monsanto did their job here, for all I know they might have lied and misled, I am talking about the principle. 

Edited August 23, 2018 by SoulMonster

[soon]

2 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Horrible. But doesn't make Monsanto out to be the bad guy unless they knew. I agree with criticising overuse of pesticides, but that critic goes out to those who allow it (politicians), those that do it (farmers), and those who make it possible (manufacturers)...and mostly on the politicians. It is more a criticism of the system than individual players who operate within that system, especially if they are not aware of any ill-effects. 

I would call on Monsanto to know if their products that will come in contact with pollinators will adversely affect pollinators prior to release. The onus is on them to think that through. But they have "known" at least since EU started imposing restrictions in light of scientific studies, in 2013. 

And the criticism does also go to politicians as I stated in an earlier post. But its not as simple as you lay out. You make a case for 'best efforts' and 'good intentions' that is directly at odds with all we know about the current organization of capital. Viewing the current organization of capital as anything other then inherently ecocidal prevents one from reaching accurate conclusions. Id add that framing the free market and govenerment oversight as benevolent forces that self regulate and balance one another is also misguided. 

A more realistic way of walking through it would be; Monsanto could've known, they would lobby for deregulation to avoid being found out, they would pad politicians pockets, and kill activists in opposition. Those same politicians are under the same duress or payroll from McDonalds and CocaCola who want big agriculture to stay just as theyve designed. So neonics gets into the market place where factory farmers who only speak english have their Temporary Foreign Workers who speak no english use the product to their own peril. The TFWs have little to no legal recourse or even access to the world beyond the farm fences. I do not believe that the system is detached from its players - it is designed for those players to act in precisely those manners. Its a production line.

Edited August 23, 2018 by soon

[SoulMonster]

45 minutes ago, soon said:

I would call on Monsanto to know if their products that will come in contact with pollinators will adversely affect pollinators prior to release. The onus is on them to think that through.

The onus is on them to test their products according to current regulations for that product group, and I am sure they did that. So why wasn't it discovered that glyphosate could possible be carcinogenic under certain conditions, say that one in a million would develop leukemia after ten years when exposed to a certain concentration? Because you cannot test for that. You cannot expose one million people in a ten year trial to study it. The real test is the natural world. This is analogous to drugs: miniscule side-effects, and especially those that affect small populations, are typically only discovered post-approval. 

So I won't automatically assume Monsanto didn't test according to regulations, nor that they had any reason to believe there was any risk involved with limited glyphosate exposure. This is analogues to so many other chemicals where ill-effects were only obvious much later, like smoking and x-rays. 

The question is again: Did Monsanto not disclose negative effects? Did they fault when instructing users? Possibly, but I don't feel this discussion has been on that level yet. 

[soon]

5 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

The onus is on them to test their products according to current regulations for that product group, and I am sure they did that. So why wasn't it discovered that glyphosate could possible be carcinogenic under certain conditions, say that one in a million would develop leukemia after ten years when exposed to a certain concentration? Because you cannot test for that. You cannot expose one million people in a ten year trial to study it. The real test is the natural world. This is analogous to drugs: miniscule side-effects, and especially those that affect small populations, are typically only discovered post-approval. 

So I won't automatically assume Monsanto didn't test according to regulations, nor that they had any reason to believe there was any risk involved with limited glyphosate exposure. This is analogues to so many other chemicals where ill-effects were only obvious much later, like smoking and x-rays. 

The question is again: Did Monsanto not disclose negative effects? Did they fault when instructing users? Possibly, but I don't feel this discussion has been on that level yet. 

I think this response is to someone else? I am talking about neonics and colony collapse.

[DieselDaisy]

Quote

 

Neil Young & Promise Of The Real, "Monsanto Years"

You never know what the future holds in the shallow soil of Monsanto, Monsanto
The moon is full and the seeds are sown while the farmer toils for Monsanto, Monsanto
When these seeds rise they're ready for the pesticide
And Roundup comes and brings the poison tide of Monsanto, Monsanto

The farmer knows he's got to grow what he can sell, Monsanto, Monsanto
So he signs a deal for GMOs that makes life hell with Monsanto, Monsanto
Every year he buys the patented seeds
Poison-ready they're what the corporation needs, Monsanto

When you shop for your daily bread and walk the aisles of Safeway, Safeway
Find the package to catch your eye that makes you smile at Safeway, at Safeway
Choose a picture of an old red barn on a field of green
With the farmer and his wife and children to complete the scene at Safeway, at Safeway

Dreams of the past come flooding back to the farmer's mind, his mother and father
Family seeds they used to save were gifts from God, not Monsanto, Monsanto
Their own child grows ill near the poisoned crops
While they work on, they can't find an easy way to stop, Monsanto, Monsanto

Don't care now what the Bible said so long ago not Monsanto, Monsanto
Give us this day our daily bread and let us not go with Monsanto, Monsanto
The seeds of life are not what they once were
Mother Nature and God don't own them anymore

 

 

[SoulMonster]

17 minutes ago, soon said:

I think this response is to someone else? I am talking about neonics and colony collapse.

Ah, sorry. Still, I am sure Monsanto did all required testing for all that was at the time conceivable. Glyphosate was considered entirely safe. No one had any reason to expect its negative effect on DNA or pollinators, unfortunately. History is filled with examples of products having unexpected ill-effects and it is not possible to test for all, either because we don't have tests for all or because it would be such a burden that none could bear it. But fortunately, history is even fuller with examples of products that do as expected with nothing bad.

The burden on devising good tests for product groups lie with regulatory bodies. If Roundup has ill effects on pollinators, that is a failure on the system for not requiring adequate testings that would reveal it before the product was approved, on regulators for not requiring such tests, on the scientific communities for not realising it, on producers for not realising it. Again, I don't see that Monsanto should bear the entire burden. 

[soon]

42 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Ah, sorry. Still, I am sure Monsanto did all required testing for all that was at the time conceivable. Glyphosate was considered entirely safe. No one had any reason to expect its negative effect on DNA or pollinators, unfortunately. History is filled with examples of products having unexpected ill-effects and it is not possible to test for all, either because we don't have tests for all or because it would be such a burden that none could bear it. But fortunately, history is even fuller with examples of products that do as expected with nothing bad.

The burden on devising good tests for product groups lie with regulatory bodies. If Roundup has ill effects on pollinators, that is a failure on the system for not requiring adequate testings that would reveal it before the product was approved, on regulators for not requiring such tests, on the scientific communities for not realising it, on producers for not realising it. Again, I don't see that Monsanto should bear the entire burden. 

It is because "history is full of examples of products having unexpected ill-effects" that it is reasonable to expect companies to act in a thorough and preemptive manner.

I appreciate you acknowledging that capitalism would do any manner of wrong-doing if not for government regulation. However, as Ive said, those govt regulations are compromised - if not sometimes dictated by - underregulated market forces and criminality. The regulatory process is more informed by capital then science. It is informed more by multinational entities then human needs and wants.

There is an individual responsibility on the part of every Monsanto worker to protect things like humanities ability to produce food! There is a corporate responsibility, but as you say they deny this in favour of profit and need an outside force to regulate them. That outside force is us. Informed by the people on the ground, science, and un-compromised ethics, we are the only potential honest brokers.

Edited August 23, 2018 by soon

[killuridols]

2 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Of course you can. Just like you won't put the blame for a drunk moron crashing his car, on BMW. If the manufacturer has done sufficient job in informing customers of correct usage and potential ill effects of misuse, then the responsibility in its entirety lies with the customers. Even if they are morons.

In this March 29, 2013, photo, former farmworker Fabian Tomasi, 47, shows the condition of his emaciated body as he stands inside his home in Basavilbaso, in Entre Rios province, Argentina. Tomasi’s job was to keep the crop dusters flying by quickly filling their tanks but he says he was never trained to handle pesticides. Now he is near death from polyneuropathy.

Again with the moron stuff?? Calling these poor, barely schooled people MORONS paints you as a person, really, it is so bad that you are standing so high in your pedestal and are blinded to see that you cannot compare these people to drivers of a BMW!!!

If Monsanto was a good company, with ALL THE MILLIONS THEY EARN from Argentina (and Southamerica), the least they could do is care a fucking iota about its people! If Monsanto had any good in their hearts, they'd become interested in the problems generated by their products, whether they are directly or indirectly responsible for what is affecting this people, ultimately they could give a heck and say "hey, we are going to train these people who know nothing, teach them how to use them, provide them with proper apparel and equipment so they can work under the best conditions we can provide". BUT NO, the greed inside and their hearts of stone cannot drop one single good idea. After all, who's playing with environment other than them? Who are the ones manipulating soybeans?

I repeat, blaming these people for their ignorance is what a capitalist jerk would do. At least have the decency to be transparent and admit that Monsanto doesn't give a damn about these people, because they probably see them as obstacles and shits who should not be around their soybean fields, anyway, right? They'd rather have their fields clean of people and other obstacles interfering with their making-dollars machine.

"Monsanto has turned to South America as a crucial growth market. Monsanto sold 7.5 percent of its products to Argentina in 2013, compared to 5.9 percent in 2010, according to one report."

 

An activist from the organization Malvinas Por La Vida shows that this soy field where pesticides are sprayed is less than 200 meters from the closest home. (Photo by Kamilia Lahrichi.)

"The company did not respond to questions about herbicide use in Argentina and declined to be interviewed when contacted by VICE News. Fernando Giannoni, Monsanto's director of corporate affairs for southern Latin America, told Bloomberg the company plans to create a register of herbicide users and only sell products to "certified appliers." (shouldn't have they done this before they started?)

 

[SoulMonster]

46 minutes ago, soon said:

It is because "history is full of examples of products having unexpected ill-effects" that it is reasonable to expect companies to act in a thorough and preemptive manner.

I appreciate you acknowledging that capitalism would do any manner of wrong-doing if not for government regulation. However, as Ive said, those govt regulations are compromised - if not sometimes dictated by - underregulated market forces and criminality. The regulatory process is more informed by capital then science. It is informed more by multinational entities then human needs and wants.

There is an individual responsibility on the part of every Monsanto worker to protect things like humanities ability to produce food! There is a corporate responsibility, but as you say they deny this in favour of profit and need an outside force to regulate them. That outside force is us. Informed by the people on the ground, science, and un-compromised ethics, we are the only potential honest brokers.

What I am saying is that you cannot test for any conceivable or inconceivable ill-effect of any product to be launched. If so, no new, innovative products would be brought to market. You either cannot devise tests that thoroughly answers a question, or it becomes too expensive. So products are approved based on a risk-cost assessment based on current knowledge and understanding. Usually this goes right, like with microwaves, phones, lane assist on cars, most drugs, most food additives, but occasionally it doesn't, as with cigarettes and x-rays. I really don't think we can devise a perfect system, or even one that is much better than what we currently have. 

[killuridols]

People treated like numbers and without the possibility of having a say in their lives.

How bad Monsanto is?
A millionaire large company playing God in the fields of the third-world, deciding people living in those fields are not worth a dime, because their experiments and innotive products are a greater good for humanity (). So they are "the chosen ones" to be sacrificed on behalf of the rest, after all, who cares for them? They are morons and ignorant, they don't produce anything of importance, they are a burden on their countries, so let's kill them, huh?

Who cares if their children are deformed and they grow cancer in their feet. They were doomed anyways.

Disposable humans. We all will die anyway.

[SoulMonster]

25 minutes ago, killuridols said:

Again with the moron stuff?? Calling these poor, barely schooled people MORONS paints you as a person, really, it is so bad that you are standing so high in your pedestal and are blinded to see that you cannot compare these people to drivers of a BMW!!!

[…]

I repeat, blaming these people for their ignorance is what a capitalist jerk would do. 

You don't seem to get my point. I am not saying that Monsanto hasn't done anything wrong and that the Argentinian users are morons  What I am saying is that I don't know enough to blame Monsanto and not blame misuse by farmers in Argentina. Maybe Monsanto hid data that would imply RoundUp was dangerous, maybe they didn't sufficiently inform customers about usage. Or maybe the users didn't take required precautions and handled the fertilizer as instructed. I don't know. I won't simply jump to any conclusion because one part is poor people and the other part is a multinational organization.

And also that I am not willing to accept the principle that the fault always lies with the manufacturer when someone misuses a product, not even if the users are morons. At the end the responsibility lies with users to follow recommendations, and if they are too stupid to handle fertilizers the way they should then maybe they shouldn't do that, you know? And stay away from heavy machinery and sharp objects, too, while we're at it. I hope you see my point this time.

Regarding an earlier point I forgot to comment on, and I don't think it was your point although I suspect it could have been: Someone said large corporations are inherently evil. I disagree. Large corporations are inherently indifferent. That's because humanity, good or bad, gets stripped away due to cumbersome and laborious decision-making processing in large organizations. And when you strip away the effect that humans bring, you get indifference, not evil. It is still governed by humans who are good and bad and everything in between, but since decisions are usually made by so many people in concert, a myriad of people and divisions who had their say and will influence the result, this anthropomorphic effect is diluted, is washed away, is reduced to the median, so you are left with a machine that is just doing as per the statues, which is usually to increase profits just within the current regulatory frameworks. Small companies, on the other hand, that are run by few people typically get colored by those people to a much larger extent and can be said to be "good" or "bad". Just my five cents.

[Kwick1]

Corporations have a duty to their stockholders and a duty to operate legally within the Regulatory environment. The manufacturing of pesticides is the manufacturing of an inherently dangerous product. In the US, one must be certified to purchase and spray certain classes of pesticides and certification is no easy or inexpensive task. The result is often small farmers will use lesser pesticides such as Round Up or a generic similar pesticide that doesn't require certification. However unless the corporation hid or failed to adequately test or didn't instruct on its use correctly I don't know that it's responsible for its use. Do I personally think such pesticedes are bad?  YES. Do I want them used on foods that I consume? NO. I do think pesticide companies should spend more $ on organic farming and helping farmers not rely on pesticide. 

As for the Round Up law suits, I haven't read much about them but my initial thought was we knew Round Up was bad. Heck, I'm so old I remember 7 Dust and my grandmother having a sock filled with it and telling us grandkids to slap it around our ankles before going in the garden. 

[killuridols]

8 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

You don't seem to get my point. I am not saying that Monsanto hasn't done anything wrong and that the Argentinian users are morons  What I am saying is that I don't know enough to blame Monsanto and not blame misuse by farmers in Argentina. Maybe Monsanto hid data that would imply RoundUp was dangerous, maybe they didn't sufficiently inform customers about usage. Or maybe the users didn't take required precautions and handled the fertilizer as instructed. I don't know. I won't simply jump to any conclusion because one part is poor people and the other part is a multinational organization.

And you didn't read the articles...

Monsanto claim is that the farmers misused the products and that their products are safe when they are used following their guidelines.

10 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

And also that I am not willing to accept the principle that the fault always lies with the manufacturer when someone misuses a product, not even if the users are morons. At the end the responsibility lies with users to follow recommendations, and if they are too stupid to handle fertilizers the way they should then maybe they shouldn't do that, you know? And stay away from heavy machinery and sharp objects, too, while we're at it. I hope you see my point this time.

And Im not going to accept that you call those people "too stupid" and say blasphemy like "then maybe they shouldn't do that, you know?"

Obviously, you live too well in your castle and you have never come close poverty.... They shouldn't do that? OH TELL ME WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO DO THEN? Work at the Monsanto offices?
Those jobs are the only jobs available for them. There's nothing else and nothing better. They get what they can and go with it. That's not being stupid, that's being in disgrace and having no choices.

No one has made a case of "all manufacters are to blame when someone misuses a product". You are generalizing so you can clean Monsanto of their responsability with the cancers and malformations. This is a very specific thing and a problem that involves Monsanto.

So many millions earned and invested and no one made a study of the population where they were going to set feet? Didn't they know where they were coming? Didn't they research the demographics of the zone? I say they are the ignorants and morons. Following your train of thought:.... if you don't know the country you're making business with then stay away from them?

25 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Regarding an earlier point I forgot to comment on, and I don't think it was your point although I suspect it could have been: Someone said large corporations are inherently evil. I disagree. Large corporations are inherently indifferent. That's because humanity, good or bad, gets stripped away due to cumbersome and laborious decision-making processing in large organizations. And when you strip away the effect that humans bring, you get indifference, not evil.

I didn't say any of that. I think it was Diesel Daisy.

Large companies should start re-thinking their impact in the lives of people. If its necessary, create new departments with scientists, doctors, philosophers and sociologists. If you know you are going to impact the environment and people's lives with your product, then you should know better than the rest.

You owe this to the community because after all, you're making money out of that community.

[killuridols]

Growing up this was an usual view of my rides on a bike

Back then I would read "Cargill" everywhere and I didn't know what it meant or what it was. I didn't know English at all.

 

[EvanG]

17 minutes ago, killuridols said:

Growing up this was an usual view of my rides on a bike

 

Growing up, this was my view when I went for a bike ride to the city:

[killuridols]

1 minute ago, EvanG said:

Growing up, this was my view when I went for a bike ride to the city:

It shows....

 

[killuridols]

I don't care what you think my life was awesome, cornfields, wheat, cows and pesticides included....

[EvanG]

I was kidding anyway, I didn't grow up near any red light districts.

This is more realistic, a lot of water and windmills.