momoese

Monsanto Pays 93 Million to Victims In Settlement | NationofChange

momoese

barnetmill

I am new here, but anyway the source you quoted "http://www.nationofchange.org/monsanto-pays-93-million-victims-settlement-1330446939" and the following article is far from objective or even accurate.
An example The point is the author of the article and reviewers there of are likely ignorant of what they are discussing. Toxicologists are less concerned about dioxins being caustic and more with them being highly toxic. On the basis of its affinity for the Aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR or AHR) it is said to be among the toxic substances known. This is the receptor that reacts to many organic pollutants and turns on the cellular detoxification machinery. Dioxin is thought to be a carcinogen on this basis and the World Health Organization has published tables showing its toxicity based on assays using laboratory assays as the source.
The Monsanto enterprises have done a lot of reprehensible things, but it would seem better to speak of what they have done in a calm objective manner instead of an editorial being presented as news. The NY Times would be a more objective source of information.

The PCBs that Monsanto produced are probably much worse than the dioxins since they appear much more likely to bio-magnify as they go up the food chain and also have dioxin like properties besides a lot of other poorly understood toxicities. Several of our local waterways are polluted with both dioxins and PCBs and I am well aware of the challenges that this poses to our environment. Past activities by Monsanto have been involved in these local impacts. But I would prefer to read things by people that are trying to inform me with facts rather than solely with an agenda.
I do not mean to offend and of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But I did come to this forum to obtain reliable information and what is offered in this thread to me is not.

momoese

What is accurate is that Monsanto is finally being held accountable, and that is a great thing.

momoese

Perhaps you'd rather hear the news from Bloomberg.
Monsanto Settles West Virginia Lawsuits Over Nitro Plant - Bloomberg

paulorph

That money is a drop in the bucket of all the damage that Monsanto has done over the years. Plus added to all the money they have made over the years. They are probably laughing in their board room.

__________________
Hi from cold Ann Arbor,Michigan! Go Blue!

momoese

True, but hopefully a wake up call for people. They will continue "business" as usual.

barnetmill

A colleague that was a former Monsanto employee, a chemist and specialist in PCBs and dioxins, took some sort of stock option for his retirement. Really lost a lot on that. But did the people at Monsanto that were responsible lose anything. I do not know. With the way the big corporations move their money and sell their assets to setup companies it is hard to figure that out.

A big question is how do you undo environmental damage or health impacts to humans with a civil suit where a lot of the money goes to the legal team involved. The object is maybe not to bankrupt Monsanto, but to correct what was done. Also do you sue the employees that earned good incomes, the municipalities & state governments that collected taxes and turned blind eyes to the pollution. In our local region you are dealing with the raw untreated discharges at one time of three major chemical plants and a paper mill.
The sorry fact is that all of us leave a pollution footprint from what we do which is as serious overall as anything else that goes into our environment. A lot of pollutants are simply runoff from lawns and parking lots, barbeque grills, trash fires, internal engine exhaust, power company emissions, etc. Looking solely at Monsanto as a crusade will solve very little.

momoese

I'm not sure who that remark was directed at or why you brought it up, but as for myself I do things at a local and state level to help fight urban pollution that has nothing to do with Monsanto. That said I'd love nothing more than to see this monster be taken down.

barnetmill

The articles conclusion was:
Apparently they could be held accountable in the future according to the conclusion. I am sure their lawyers are aware of every possibility.
To date no major cleanup of the site. Monsanto offered to cleanup some homes for $9 million.

momoese

That $9 million could turn into billions according to some sources. Who knows if they will actually perform this cleanup.

As for the term "accountable", in my book this is the same thing. They would not have agreed to pay out the money if they were not guilty.

barnetmill

Here is crux of my disagreement and this is not directed in personal manner, but rather to a commonly held belief that these polluting companies are monsters. There were and are pluses and minuses to them. They should be held accountable, but taking them down if that means their destruction would also not be a good thing. Chemical plants produce much needed products and at the same time produce pollutants also. We need proper regulation relative to production and proper disposition of pollutants. These companies were part of the building of america. Now that a lot of production is shifting out of the country to places w/o regulation they are polluting elsewhere and we going into debt buying our consumer goods from aboard. There are no easy answers to this. We need to seek the best answers and I think looking upon solutia and monsanto totally in a negative light is not the best way to solve our problems. I am sitting inside right now because it is raining. But just looking around there are a myriad of plastic consumer products about. I have electricity powered by a coal fired powerplant, the ceiling and walls are covered by dry wall, there is paper everywhere and all of this is produced by polluting industries. We need the products and yet are impacted from the byproducts. I am looking for better answers, but doubt that "taking down" of monsters is it.

momoese

When I say "monster" I'm talking about a company that is in the process of trying to control the worlds food supply and self non-regulating itself in the process. The pollution and lack of caring for humanity is only part of the issue.

sunfish

barnetmill

See snopes:
HR 875: The End Of Organic Farming? - snopes.com from Old 27 March 2009, 09:13 PM

this information dates from 2009 below:
2. H.R.875 : Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009
Sponsor: Rep DeLauro, Rosa L. [CT-3] (introduced 2/4/2009) Cosponsors (40)
Committees: House Energy and Commerce; House Agriculture
Latest Major Action: 4/23/2009 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry.

All of this seems to be much ado about nothing. Makes more sense to worry about how the coming season is going to be.

scottu

We are screwed!

__________________
Viva La Banana

Nicolas Naranja

It's a good point that you make about the US exporting our pollution. We also export our bad labor practices. Everything has two sides. I live in an agricultural area and we grow a lot of sweet corn. Bt sweet corn would virtually eliminate the need to spray the crop. So you have to ask yourself what is worse, genetically modified corn or having your house bathed in methomyl, endosulfan, chlorpyrifos, and methyl parathion. The end consumer doesn't have to deal with the chemicals, they just want worm free corn. The collateral damage is a tiny externality.

__________________
Some people go bananas, I went plantains.

momoese

The enlightened consumer looks for worm damaged corn as a sign that it's safe to eat. I've been doing this for years.

barnetmill

Is the Bacillus thuringiensis (or Bt), a Gram-positive, soil-dwelling bacterium, the cause of all of the controversy over genetically engineered cultivars? I would like to know just what horrible things this genetic modification of crops is supposed to do?

Nicolas Naranja

No, there is nothing wrong with Bt. It is the foundation of most organic farmer's insect control program. The problem with genetic engineering is that people fear that scientist may be fooling around with things they don't fully understand. And to some extent, I'd have to say their right. I don't think that GMOs are going to kill me, but I don't think that all the implication of playing with genes has been established. Potentially a genetic modification may trigger the production of a protein that wasn't normally produced or may decrease the production of a protein that was previously produced. Also you have people that are just generally religiously opposed to GMOs.

I personally have some major issues with monsanto fighting so hard against labeling. People need perfect information for price discovery. Let the consumer price it in.

__________________
Some people go bananas, I went plantains.