if there is no basis for the concerns about GM food - there has been ZERO hospitalization due to GM food in 20 years while organic food has killed people - why must a company react to shareholders who buy a few shares and demand equal status with those who own 99.9% of the rest of the shares. Monsanto is well aware of the continuous lies that are spread by the people who want to sell organic food. The role of the organic industry is not hidden. I would argue they should be required to sue the organic activists who are spreading lies for personal gain - includes those that buy MON shares solely to be able to attend annual meetings and cause fuss. If they buy shares solely to cause disruption to business isn't that a conspiracy to damage?
we should be focused on what has the most negative effect with Ag and farming just cultivation is the biggest effect period - even going from non cultivated to organic is a massive impact - the change from organic to conventional or GM is a tiny change. I would argue GM with use of safer herbicides and Bts etc brings conventional closer to organic with better yields. We can cultivate 100 acres with organic or 50 with GM and get the same total production overall but the GM by saving acres cultivated has a massive benefit. we need to get the most out of each acre and leave more non-cultivated/ organic would make us do the opposite. I don't think the average anti-Gm activists or organic activist gets this - they think organic is natural !
testing chemicals in culture human or animal cells has limited value - add too much sugar to cells and they die. You have understand that cultured cells are very sensitive to many changes unless they have perfect growth conditions. This is why it is not wise to believe scientist who have no experience in toxicity testing.
Glyphosate is less toxic than table salt in a rat feeding study - feed enough to a bunch of rats and they will die. if you have to feed more to kill 50% it is less toxic than something that gives the same kill rate with far lower concentrations. So it actually takes twice as much glyphosate to kill 50% of rats than it takes salt to kill 50%.
Would you ban salt being used - no its actually essential o life but does and context is important.
In the French study the damage went down as the dose increased. This is another way to assess whether the results are real. A toxin's toxicity doesn't go down with increased dose. In eth French study at least for male rats the higher dose cured cancer ! Of course they didn't mention that as a conclusion before the study was useless
try looking at this - while you worry about GM food the radon gas is killing you _ I suspect you didn't realize that is close to the #1 killer
so companies that make actually killing machines are better? the companies that helped Hitler were better. Amazing - are you 2 years old ? billions of acres, trillions of GM meals zero hospitalization and this is a problem - whoow you are no idea of how to assess risks do you ..........................................do you know what the biggest environmental cause of cancer is ......................................................................smoking and radon gas ---------------------------------------------------organic food has been documented to have killed people - I guess that is better is it ? What planet are you from? Mars
you are confused _ insecticide amounts per acre have gone down. level of glyphosate have gone up it wasn't used over the top of crops before until GM crops. the total amount of herbicide has gone up due to more acres but soy, corn and cotton need less herbicide - they use fewer herbicides and more of the less toxic ones (e.g. glyphosate). Wheat has no GM option so continues to have to use the most toxic ones. They have to use those that last longer in the soil. The study that is quoted for pesticide use increases was by a lab scientist from CA who hasn't a clue about farming and its about 10 years old now. How could farmers save money by using more herbicide? Why would they spray with aerial sprays of nerve poisoning insecticides when they have BT traits ?
Then people say the BT s or herbicide traits cause resistance to occur - like this never happened with other methods. Of course if they hate these Bt and herbicides they should be happy the products are becoming useless. Of course they are not the companies are coming out with additional methods to add in to avoid the 5% of resistance (i.e. 95% are OK)
But I know facts will not pursue you
but organic is up ! why have people been documented to have died from organic food and not from GM food? Why are most of the FDA recalled foods organic? why I am wasting my time explains common sense to you
showing cause rather than coincidence is a science - that paper is not valid science
did you know that only 10% of published research (and this is really well planned out and executed research is reproducible by another team)
It sells a tiny acreage of sorghum. Sorghum and Sugar cane are not worth getting into. GM traits will be difficult due to cross-pollination issues. Just because you can make a trait in a crop doesn't mean you should. The cost of reg approval means you have to be on probably 25 millions to get a return... plus their biofuel business model just sent through the floor with the oil price war. MON could buy their genomics assets in a fire sale but I doubt it will even bother as DNA patents per se are not worth it any more. This company like Sapphire Energy is in deep trouble unless they can show their business model will work in a low oil price environment and that means showing a highly profitable product competitive with $60 oil
it has no products to speak of that have any future ! Its genomics biofuel etc have not panned out and I suspect will go under soon
I like the French study that was supported by an institute that included a Chiropractor ...have you heard the one about the chiropractor, the physicist and the economist who went into bar to drink organic vodka - they came out without a worthless boson from the joint between them.
Can I suggest a discussion on Monsanto stock as opposed to using this as another place to spread erroneous fiction about Monsanto's products or practices.
The change in reporting of sales from Q1 to Q3 will mean the next Q1 report in Jan 2015 will look like the company has lost a whole lot of sales. even though as their management has already explained ignorant fools will assume that Monsanto is "going down the tubes" and link executives exercising their stock options as further proof of the end of Monsanto is nigh. So we can expect the stock price to tank ? Or can we ?
I would expect the price to bounce up with the Q3 results when all of sudden the Q1 results added to Q3 will now make the sales substantially better than last year... is this inevitable?
BTW Monsanto doesn't sell fertilizers except for soybean inocula which is highly environmentally friendly negating the need for soy beans to need any synthetic fertilizer and I am sure you have never heard or thought that was happening because no anti-GM website mentions it. I also think that saying that since Monsanto doesn't allow testing of seed (not true) then they must be hiding something. Seems like a product of a sick mind who is deceptive. Monsanto people feed their families like nearly all US population food that is derived from GM crops. If you eat chicken, pork or beef even sometimes if it is organic it was feed some feed containing GM grain extracts. If you use insulin the insulin was produced in a vat that was fed sugar from GM corn. But if you think GM is so bad why aren't the hospitals filled with people who did not eat organic? Are you saying the people hospitalized didn't eat organic because there is zero evidence that organic is healthier for you. In fact organic food has killed people. That is well documented. look at the FDA food recall list its 75% organic due to bacterial contamination
repeat : Monsanto executives have sold their stock over the last 14 years and it has nothing to do with where the comp-any is going - I guess if anything their sales are correlated with increased stock price - as they sell the stock goes up. The stock buy back is designed in part to ensure that stock option exercising doesn't dilute and lower the price.
You can, as many have done before you, try to create a conspiracy or rationale that means that management is bailing but it doesn't hold up.
Sometimes stock option exercising and sales appear as sale of stock