Secondly, and I apologize for Godwining the thread, you probably know that IBM built and sold machines to Nazi Germany, having full knowledge that they will be used for oppression and murder. They even found a way to avoid the business ban during wartime. Hell, ever seen the serial numbers tattooed on the arms of concentration camps' prisoners? You can thank IBM punch-card systems for that.

And yet I'm willing to bet that you don't avoid IBM computers, servers and software for that reason. Because what they did during WWII has little to do with the quality of hardware they manufacture now. And so is with Monsanto. The fact that they did work on herbicides-turned-chemical-weapons for USGOV doesn't mean anything about their ability to put healthy food on your table.

If you want someone to blame for Agent Orange, blame the DoD.

Monsanto & healthy food is an oxymoron. Try drinking some Roundup. I hear it's "safe" ;-)

Apparently he succeeded. I guess it's a lesson in designing propaganda - be an asshole, people will believe you.

Also, I'm not particularly convinced that the insane amount of stuff farmers dump on their crops is really better than replacing all of it with just one pesticide.

Well, it's supposed to be "safe". Why didn't he drink it?

And the interview was originally about Golden Rice.

> Also, I'm not particularly convinced that the insane amount of stuff farmers dump on their crops is really better than replacing all of it with just one pesticide.

Actually, in a functioning ecosystem, no pesticides are needed. Insects & other microorganisms are natural parts of the food web.

http://www.permaculture.com/node/140

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yPjoh9YJMk&feature=youtu.be

Urine is also safe. Would you drink your own in front of a camera if I asked you to during an interview on water purification systems?

Most people react negatively to such weird requests, especially if they're out of the blue, in front of a camera, and asked by person who evidently tries to prove some point at your expense.

> And the interview was originally about Golden Rice.

Yes, which has nothing whatsoever to do with Roundup. Golden rice is a cool piece of biotech created to save more than half a million lives of children annually (and save many more from blindness) and is given away for free to grow (and replant) by people that need it. Bringing up Monsanto's pesticide in that interview was disingenuous, not to mention off-topic.

> Actually, in a functioning ecosystem, no pesticides are needed. Insects & other microorganisms are natural parts of the food web.

First of all, not really. That is, sure if you don't mind half your crops being rotten. I've never seen the evidence that you can successfully run a high-yield zero-pesticide farm. But I'm not that into farming and I'll be more than happy to learn I'm wrong.

But more importantly, even if possible, apparently almost no one does that. Especially not organic farmers, who dump even more chemicals on food than usual, with only difference is that those chemicals have "organic-certified" label. So between "a lot of pesticides", "even more pesticides applied by industry that tries to cheat you into thinking they're not using pesticides" the "one pesticide" solution suddenly doesn't sound that bad.

The differences are I'm not trying to peddle my urine as the "only" way to grow food and urine actually is safe. Roundup is not safe.

Btw, urine is a wonderful fertilizer. It's more effective & more environmentally friendly than the petrol biz solutions.

It's funny that the people spraying pesticides need to wear haz mat suits. If it were so safe, why wear the suits?

Here's some of the effects that these "safe" pesticides have on people.

http://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/argentina-the-country...

IMO, this whole notion that we accept poisons on our food is ridiculous. But ymmv. Many people are content getting fat & diabetic eating McDonalds.

> That is, sure if you don't mind half your crops being rotten.

Sorry, but that's a load of BS. Local farms don't really have this issue. Also note there is a huge problem of waste with conventional farming & animal meat production.

Re: "pests". Pests have predators. If you encourage the predators to thrive, you don't have a pest problem. Conventional monoculture chemical agricultural practices are prone to disease & pests because the natural food web & community is disrupted. It's an unsound architecture that requires expensive & destructive inputs to maintain. It's the industrial model fighting nature.

Why not work with nature instead?

> I've never seen the evidence that you can successfully run a high-yield zero-pesticide farm.

See the links I posted above. Both high-yield farms use zero-pesticides.

> But I'm not that into farming and I'll be more than happy to learn I'm wrong.

Maybe you should look more into it before stating such a strong opinion...It sounds like you are heavily influenced by propaganda from large chemical & petrol companies. I don't blame you, they have huge marketing budgets & are owned by the same interests that run the major media outlets. Too bad nature doesn't have a marketing department, huh?

> But more importantly, even if possible, apparently almost no one does that.

That's untrue. Natural methods are still dominant in most of the world. America is an outlier.

America subsidizes petrol chemical centralized agriculture. We don't subsidize natural methods. Lobbying & corporate interests drive this behavior.

> Especially not organic farmers, who dump even more chemicals on food than usual, with only difference is that those chemicals have "organic-certified" label.

The USDA Organic label is pretty asinine. Many think it's a way of sabotaging natural chemical free methods.

Note that natural food webs don't need chemicals. It has been done successfully but does not receive much attention on a large scale because it does not suit large scale corporate interests. If you take an interest in chemical free gardening, you can try it out yourself.

Natural methods emphasizes small, autonomous farms. It's also better for the environment since natural ecosystems are built (serving a variety of functions), instead of the monoculture pesticide drenched, petrol subsidized, environmentally destructive system that we have today.

So many companies and countries have regrettable histories that pointing fingers seems redundant to me.

An entity which has no moral issue from profiting, immensely, from the production of poison.

I'm not a fan of Monsato, but I'm a fan of putting the blame in a precise way, on those responsible and only for the things they're actually responsible for.

Monsanto had told the US government about dioxin contamination of 2,4,5-T as early as 1952.

Besides, Monsanto long ago spun off their chemical division as Solutia. We're not even talking about the same company.

In the end, you're confusing the name of something with the actual something.

But if you do and his head starts to hurt so he grabs some Aspirin, don't ever bring up Bayer. ;).

If the shareholders are lax in demanding moral behavior, then immoral behavior will result. The company should absolutely be shut down.

> Otherwise, they'll just join other companies or start new ones and continue to do evil

Actually, nobody will want to hire them. After all, nobody wants to lose their money in a company that was shut down.