Social Question

syz's avatar

How does Monsanto do it?

Asked by syz (34168 points ) September 14th, 2013

Setting aside the widely accepted perception that Monsanto is a tool of Satan, if they control all of the seed (I’ve seen quotes of 80 to 97%) , how are they not considered a monopoly?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

36 Answers

rojo's avatar

M-O-N-E-Y = influence=power

Dutchess_III's avatar

But it’s illegal to create a monopoly, no matter how much money you have.

rojo's avatar

Who makes the rules and what do you need to buy those people?

ragingloli's avatar

loopholes and bought lawmakers and “enforcers”.

Coloma's avatar

With Monsantos money, power and political strings they can make damn sure they are only called a corporation not a monopoly. Money and power can rewrite anything to it’s own advantage including sugar coated descriptives.

Jaxk's avatar

Better Living through Chemistry.

ragingloli's avatar

@Jaxk
6 Million Jews disagree.

El_Cadejo's avatar

As said above, money and lobbyists.

on another note it should be interesting when some disease or parasite attacks this wonderful mono-crop we’ve set up and effectively wipes out most of the corn grown in this country.

Adirondackwannabe's avatar

Money, and stupid politicians and a Supreme Court that thinks unlimited money in politics is fine.

deni's avatar

Money is everything. You can buy any label in this country for the right amount of keesh. So sad.

CWOTUS's avatar

I hate being the only one trying to inject some reason into these witch hunts, but… it just ain’t so.

If Monsanto really were a monopolist in agricultural seed production, then how would it be possible for entire countries in Europe to ban their products? Not only are they not a monopoly producer of “seeds in general”, but they have serious competition in GM (genetically modified) sees, as well. Players such as Syngenta (a $37 billion corporation) and DuPont (on par with Monsanto in total market value at around $56 billion) are serious about GM seeds, and not everyone wants GM crops and seeds, so there are other players in the seed market, too.

The fact is that Monsanto is not a monopoly. In market economies it is nearly impossible to become a monopoly without a government franchise. I’m not suggesting that Monsanto doesn’t attempt to obtain that; they very well might. But don’t confuse public relations (even the bad public relations that some try to foist onto them) with fact.

Oh, what the hell. Go ahead and confuse them. I’m still holding onto the stock regardless.

Coloma's avatar

Well…they will never get their hands on my 18th generation, hybrid morning glory seeds. Just try Monsanto!
I shall sic my geese on you and bury your representitives in a place in the Sierras where they will never be found because the coyotes, cougars, and vultures will leave no trace. lol

zenvelo's avatar

@Dutchess_III It is not illegal to become a monopoly. They have done it by getting patent protection on their seeds, and by aggressive lobbying to get laws in their favor.

I’m not saying it’s right, it’s just that they have spent a lot of money to get their way.

philosopher's avatar

I sure someone will be angry that I post the truth but, watch this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mUDeKapnhVs
Cheerios are GM , many cereals, all non organic corn, most soy and much more.

philosopher's avatar

TPP was probably written by Monsanto lawyers. America is becoming a third world nation. Lou Dobbs, who is an Economist has said this.
Studies done by legitimate scientist confirm that GM substances promote tumors, Roundup promotes Cancer and Neurological Disorders.
Monsanto funds campaigns.
When the side effects of GM substances, Roundup effect these corrupt immoral politicians and their families maybe they will get it. As Nancy Reagan did when Ronald developed Alzheimer’s. Both U.S. political parties are corrupt beyond repair.

syz's avatar

@philosopher Could you please link to the studies that you mention?

Dutchess_III's avatar

Correct me if I’m wrong, but GMO’s are supposed to eliminate the need for Roundup.

osoraro's avatar

@Dutchess_III No. There are “Roundup Ready” GMO crops. Roundup is an herbicide that kills weeds. The Roundup Ready GMO crops allow you to use Roundup around them so that the weeds are killed and not the plants you want.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Thank you for that clarification.

BTW, I’m fairly certain McDonalds uses GMO apples in their kids snacks.

philosopher's avatar

@osoraro
The links I posted would help people comprehend what reality is.

Dutchess_III's avatar

@philosopher All of those sites have one agenda: to prove that GMO’s are harmful, whether they are or not.

osoraro's avatar

People who are anti-GMO want to see poor people die.

(If that statement doesn’t induce a heated debate, I don’t know what will).

Dutchess_III's avatar

GMO crops have the potential to end world hunger. (Just thought I’d help out…)

osoraro's avatar

@Dutchess_III (but I said it more inflammatorily)

Jaxk's avatar

I’m feeling a lot of love here!!!

Dutchess_III's avatar

I didn’t want you to catch on fire, @osoraro!

philosopher's avatar

@Dutchess_III
You get to choose for yourself.
Savvy, objective people do not wish to be used as lab rats. Legitimate objective studies make the side effects of Roundup and GM substance clear. In five to ten years it will be as clear as the side effects of cigarettes.
The passage of TPP by both parties is going to make it much easier for Monsanto, other international corporations and pharmaceutical companies. They will make great profits at the expense of our health, economy and quality of life.
Over 90% of American’s want GM substances labeled and Roundup banned.

Dutchess_III's avatar

They already used the lab rats.

Why the hell do they want Roundup banned now, just in the last couple of years, after 40 years on the market?

Even if 90% of Americans want GM substances labeled, that doesn’t mean they aren’t just being hysterical. How many Americans became rabidly anti-vaccine after Jenny McCarthy started her idiotic spiel? Did that make them right?

As I said, I am very certain that McDonalds is already using GMO apples for their kid’s snacks.

philosopher's avatar

@Dutchess_III
You choose to delude yourself. Legitimate science says your wrong.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Show me some legitimate science then.
I don’t consider websites called “Natural society,” “Reset me.com”, ”.gmfreecymru.org,” “Ecowatch.com,” and “Natural news,” to be either legitimate or scientific.
They are nothing but blogs with a few big words thrown in to confuse the easily confused.

If we were to present you with legitimate, scientific findings you would reject them out of hand because there is no evidence that GMOs causes tumors or autisim or whatever else the bloggers claim, and that’s not what you want to believe.

osoraro's avatar

“Over 90% of American’s want GM substances labeled and Roundup banned.”
Which is why Oregon and California, two of the most hippy dippy anti-GMO states in the country, failed to pass GMO labelling laws.

philosopher's avatar

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/29992-monsanto-is-in-hot-water-again
All the studies are done by objective, legitimate scientist. If people choose to delude themselves it is not my problem. As the saying goes you can lead a horse to water but, you can not make it drink.
Monsanto’s propaganda team and lawyers are hard at work to deceive people.
@Dutchess_III believe as you choose. Obviously you do not choose reality. It is not worth my time to debate with you. Eat Monsanto GM food substances covered in Roundup and see for yourself.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Hmmm. truth-out.org (whose very name suggests conspiracy assumptions)
or
Scientific American?
What to do. What is a girl to do?

osoraro's avatar

@Dutchess_III Actually truth-out isn’t a bad website as those things go, but since it’s a left wing progressive/socialist blog, it will only post things that are favorable to that side of the equation. Like any website dedicated to a particular political viewpoint it has a tendency to ignore or dismiss anything that its readers won’t like to read. It’s not like, say, Natural News which is wacky and posts anti-science all the time.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther