% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Monsanto Company Message Board

  • I am an avid investor, however, there are certain companies I will never invest in. Monsanto is one of them. Just thu DD, one can easily surmise that this company is not worth it in the long term.

    Here is just one article in a long list of articles that sum up the social inequity of this company. Just think, if no one invested in this company, they might get a clue that we don't want GMO, termimator genes, or corporate food control.
    Shame on everyone here for not thinking with their money:

    Monsanto’s Harvest of Fear
    Monsanto already dominates America’s food chain with its genetically modified seeds. Now it has targeted milk production. Just as frightening as the corporation’s tactics–ruthless legal battles against small farmers–is its decades-long history of toxic contamination.
    by Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele May 2008
    An anti-Monsanto crop circle in the Philippines

    No thanks: An anti-Monsanto crop circle made by farmers and volunteers in the Philippines. By Melvyn Calderon/Greenpeace HO/A.P. Images.

    Gary Rinehart clearly remembers the summer day in 2002 when the stranger walked in and issued his threat. Rinehart was behind the counter of the Square Deal, his “old-time country store,” as he calls it, on the fading town square of Eagleville, Missouri, a tiny farm community 100 miles north of Kansas City.

    The Square Deal is a fixture in Eagleville, a place where farmers and townspeople can go for lightbulbs, greeting cards, hunting gear, ice cream, aspirin, and dozens of other small items without having to drive to a big-box store in Bethany, the county seat, 15 miles down Interstate 35.

    Everyone knows Rinehart, who was born and raised in the area and runs one of Eagleville’s few surviving businesses. The stranger came up to the counter and asked for him by name.

    “Well, that’s me,” said Rinehart.

    As Rinehart would recall, the man began verbally attacking him, saying he had proof that Rinehart had planted Monsanto’s genetically modified (G.M.) soybeans in violation of the company’s patent. Better come clean and settle with Monsanto, Rinehart says the man told him—or face the consequences.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • agree! in the past they had heavy connection with administration, but future is dark for Monsanto. People will unite across the globe to protect future from this monster. Just look this movie

    • holt_guy, I'm not going to try to defend everything Monsanto has done. But I do think you should be careful and not trust everything you read on the internet.

      First, terminator genes. You should know that propagandists are playing with your mind. First, as another poster has pointed out, Monsanto has not either developed, used or sold seeds with the terminator gene. Neither has anyone else used or sold them. There is a patent for making such plants, but farmers don't plant patents, they plant seeds, and the seeds simply don't exist. Anyone who has told you that such seeds are being used by Monsanto to force farmers to buy new seed each year has been taking advantage of your gullibility. It ought to make you angry.

      Just think. If Monsanto seeds won't reproduce viable seed, why has Monsanto gone to the trouble of forcing farmers to sign contracts about not replanting, and of suing farmers who save and replant their seeds? Why have farmers been able to claim that the roundup-ready soybeans found on their land was a result of accidental wind-blown pollen? (By the way, soybeans are not wind-pollinated.)

      Also, be aware that there's a rather complex history of corporate rearrangements that has left the name Monsanto attached to an agriculture corporation that had nothing to do with the chemical pollution issues of the past. The old Monsanto chemical company created an agricultural division, and later spun off its chemical division. The pollution quarrels are with the chemical division. But the agricultural division also owned some drugs, and the combined drug and agricultural company, still called Monsanto, was acquired by a drug company, American Home products. Later American Home Products was acquired by Pfizer. Finally Pfizer spun off its agricultural division, keeping the name Monsanto.

      Blaming the present Monsanto for the sins of the past Monsanto makes no sense. By analogy, if my mother had been married to a criminal, and she later divorced him and married my father, can I be blamed for what the criminal did before I was born?

      • 1 Reply to c_rader
      • Mr. Radar: A small correction:
        the old Monsanto (MTC) was acquired by Pharmacia (PHA) and then Pharmacia was acquired by Pfizer (PFE) and the new monsanto was spun off from Pfizer. American home products changed their name to Wyeth (WYE) but they never acquired Monsanto. They came close but it never happened.

    • scott2536 Apr 9, 2008 1:27 AM Flag

      Why did this farmer choose to plant GMO seeds?
      Because he would make more money than with regular hybrid seeds.

      Why did he decide to save GMO seeds in violation of the contract that he signed when he bought them?
      So he could make more money than the ethical farmers that honored their contract.

      The guy was a greedy criminal.

    • Too bad people like yourself can't think for yourself. You hear a rumor and it's automatically true. Ever heard of the term 'embellishment'? As for as GMO's are concerned, Monsanto removes a gene that specifically targets an aspect of the organism to produce a specific result. It's like it alters the entire plant's traits. Besides, how exactly do you propose to ffed a growing world population which will encroach on more and more arable land? I love gmo's....tastes like chicken!

    • This is pile of recycled crap that has been thrown at Monsanto over the years -- on face its lots threating ...but when you reach into more detail you see why its crap. If you follow MOn you would understand and is not worth fighting...but in case you want examples:

      1. milk from bgh treated cows is not detectable as being different in composition or any other meaning except words -- if we include facts not relevant for safety on food people will not know what is safe and not safe.

      2. The US has patents it makes the country the way it is --- it makes it possible to innovate without it we do not innovate. Where there is no innovation things fail e.g. can't capture value from GM wheat so wheat yields aren't helped by Gm technology - wheat is barely a profitable crop even with the current higher price. Most customer pay the price for their seed and don't steal it. Hwne they do so are prosecuted- thats the law and MON has never lost a case - its not fair to those who do pay.

      3. GM technology saves massive amounts of know harmful chemcials from being used on crops.

      4. GM technology has never been shown to be harmful by any peer reviewed research.

      5. Eveidence of Gm genes "contaminating" mexican were not correct when they were first reported were shortly after discredited by the science establishment and recently data showed that there is no comingling.

      6. Co mingling of non-organic with organic does not harm anyone except the ridiculus rules that organic products producers set up.

      7. Most of MON Gm users are small farmers many are in the developing world.

      8. MON is working ( and doing more than Greenpeace or FOE) to elevate poverty in the developing world by worlking with other GMOs and government agencies.

      I could could go on and on but lets not let facts get in the way of crap.......

    • Monsanto has been heavy handed in the past in dealing with farmers who stole licensed technology. For some reason, farmers think they should get all the goodies for free. Probably due to having the feds send 'em welfare checks all the time for having good "heart land values". If growers don't want Monsanto's technology they don't have to buy it. If the demand for old fashioned low yielding seed that requires lots of pesticides to bring the crop to yield is sufficient, then someone will offer it. Apparently, the opposite is the case.

      By the way, the terminator gene technology (which makes a lot of sense to limit the inadvertent spread of GMO pollen),is a USDA invention and not a Monsanto technology.

      As for corporate food control, do you grow your own food? Didn't think so. Like everyone else you buy it from a corporation.

    • Yeah, eff corporate pigs man, let's go smoke a bong and play a guitar.

101.31-0.09(-0.09%)10:00 AMEDT