• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, the online home of TRIBE MAGAZINE. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register. Join us!

Monsanto Protection Act

glych t.anomaly

TRIBE Member
Yeah that article was great and very illuminating.

i send it to people that hate Monsanto and they tell me its more lies and propaganda from the machine.


TRIBE Member

Oh look a meme says something, it must be true
Subscribe to Cannabis Goldsmith, wherever you get your podcasts

Boss Hog

TRIBE Member
Personally I can't wait until Monsanto makes it rain free rice to all the starving nations of the world.


TRIBE Member
Monsanto makes the wrong choice – again

Link | May 20th, 2015

Just what exactly is Monsanto playing at? Apparently not satisfied with its continuing role as the favourite pantomime villain for every anti-GMO activist in the world, the St Louis-based company everyone loves to hate seems to be doing everything possible to make its predicament worse.

I’m a fan of some aspects of its biotech work. Unlike Bill Nye the Science Guy, I’ve not had the pleasure of visiting Monsanto’s HQ or been on a guided tour of the labs and greenhouses, but I occasionally run into Monsanto people at conferences and the like. I had a brief conversation with Robb Fraley at the World Food Prize, and later at the IQ2 debate in New York that he and Alison van Eeenenaam won.

Monsanto doesn’t ask my advice. But I give it anyways – for two years at least I’ve been urging the company to ditch the glyphosate division and focus entirely on seeds. Most anti-GMO people don’t seem to realise it, but glyphosate has been off-patent for a while, and most of it these days is made in generic form in China. Roundup is a cash cow for the company, but nowadays comprises only a third of overall turnover.

I see biotech as a disruptive technology in agriculture, potentially challenging the age of chemistry – meaning chemical inputs such as pesticides and fertilisers – and ushering in an age of biology, where the technology is in seed genetics rather than in added inputs from outside. In principle this should be more sustainable, more targeted and help address public concerns about industrial agriculture.

Because Monsanto is still a maker of Roundup-brand glyphosate, the old idea that all GM crops are a Monsanto plot to sell more weedkiller refuses to die. I often think that herbicide tolerance is the ‘original sin’ of GM crops – people simply can’t get over it, or understand that there are many different traits nowadays. For the antis, all roads lead back to Roundup. Seralini, Benbrook, the Center for Food Safety – they’re all obsessed with Roundup.

My recent New York Times piece on pesticide-reducing Bt eggplant in Bangladesh was tailed by all the usual comments about Roundup, even though the Bt trait has nothing to do with herbicides, and indeed often enables a 100% reduction in insecticides. Things have got even worse recently with the furore about the WHO ‘probable carcinogen’ designation.

So what does Monsanto do? Instead of hiving off Roundup and becoming a non-pesticides seed company, it does the precise opposite. In seeking to take over Syngenta, it looks to double down in agro-chemicals, including many more forms of pesticide and insecticide in Syngenta’s current portfolio, most of them far more toxic than glyphosate.

Indeed, according to the Wall Street Journal, Monsanto has pledged to regulators that it would sell off Syngenta’s seeds division, keeping the chemicals instead. It combines this with the usual arrogant corporate PR campaign with soft-focus imagery and warm words – all the sort of stuff that just puts thinking peoples’ backs up.

This is to my mind the exact opposite of what the company should be doing. Okay, so I accept its corporate strategy is none of my business, and I’m an ignorant outsider who knows very little about its real-world operations.

But the problem we have today is that Monsanto is in the way – the awful reputation that Monsanto has managed to garner – up there with Chernobyl and Union Carbide – is not just hindering the rollout of large-scale GM crops in Europe and North America, it is potentially affecting such badly-needed innovations as virus-resistant cassava and wilt-resistant banana in East Africa, which are both opposed by anti-Monsanto activists.

Similarly in Bangladesh, where the Bt brinjal project has seen very successful results in pesticide reduction and increased productivity, anti-Monsanto attitudes are probably the biggest single problem: because of the use of the Bt trait, the crop is seen as a Trojan horse for the hated Monsanto. (And I’m apparently the Trojan horseman!)

I believe that biotechnology is too important to the future of world farming, particularly in developing countries, for its future to be curtailed because of this toxic witches’ brew of corporate myopia combined with public hysteria. Yes, the green movement is in the way of GM technology, but so too, judging by its lamentable current performance, is Monsanto.

At this rate I will be joining the March Against Monsanto on May 23 (though I’ll wear my Groucho Marx glasses to be on the safe side!). The corporate bigwigs ensconced in their offices in St Louis still don’t seem to get it. If Monsanto wants to get out of the hole it is in, it needs to change its business positively, not sell more chemicals and pump out more PR. Perhaps this message needs further amplification before it finally hits home.
Subscribe to Cannabis Goldsmith, wherever you get your podcasts
Subscribe to Cannabis Goldsmith, wherever you get your podcasts


TRIBE Member
The paragraph was added in the U.S. House of Representatives to a bill that would replace the Toxic Substances Control Act, according to an article in the New York Times. The Times called the addition a “legislative gift.”

If approved, the legislation may shield the company from a lawsuit initiated last August by Spokane, which alleged Monsanto sold chemicals for decades that it knew were a danger to human and environmental health, and is at fault for polluting the Spokane River.
Addition to U.S. House bill could protect Monsanto from PCB lawsuits | The Spokesman-Review
In a statement, Monsanto said it “did not ask for any language to be included” in the bill.

“Monsanto does not consider either version of the bill, with respect to the effect on preemption, to be a ‘gift,’ ;););)


TRIBE Member
Monsanto Paid Senators $58 Million to Pass Anti-GM Labeling Bill AnonHQ
Monsanto’s blood money matters more than the demands of over 90% of this country calling for clear and concise, on-package labeling, not QR codes.
Alexander R-TN $980,283
Ayotte R-NH $235,956
Baldwin D-WI $160,709
Barrasso R-WY $207,250
Bennet D-CO $473,397
Blunt R-MO $2,069,365
Boozman R-AR $646,471
Brown D-OH $379,952
Burr R-NC $1,933,705
Capito R-WV $456,720
Carper D-DE $203,662
Casey D-PA $405,550
Cassidy R-LA $504,933
Coats R-IN $527,927
Cochran R-MS $2,333,394
Collins R-ME $596,291
Coons D-DE $86,858
Corker R-TN $664,527
Cornyn R-TX $1,688,149
Cotton R-AR $508,940
Crapo R-ID $1,170,466
Cruz R-TX $1,647,662
Daines R-MT $596,781
Donnelly D-IN $363,199
Enzi R-WY $350,502
Ernst R-IA $256,998
Feinstein D-CA $1,645,599
Fischer R-NE $536,262
Flake R-AZ $535,102
Franken D-MN $286,547
Gardner R-CO $946,349
Graham R-SC $1,131,590
Grassley R-IA $1,929,489
Hatch R-UT $725,633
Heitkamp D-ND $236,975
Heller R-NV $258,140
Hoeven R-ND $405,020
Inhofe R-OK $938,853
Isakson R-GA $1,227,649
Johnson R-WI $489,435
King I-ME $74,515
Kirk R-IL $718,270
Klobuchar D-MN $720,592
Lankford R-OK $226,040
Lee R-UT $77,950
McCain R-AZ $4,496,004
McCaskill D-MO $383,024
McConnell R-KY $3,373,204
Moran R-KS $2,284,551
Nelson D-FL $873,540
Perdue R-GA $489,830
Peters D-MI $238,147
Portman R-OH $1,011,940
Risch R-ID $367,154
Roberts R-KS $2,808,111
Rounds R-SD $258,600
Rubio R-FL $1,141,265
Sasse R-NE $329,935
Scott R-SC $403,300
Shaheen D-NH $167,474
Sessions R-AL $927,652
Shelby R-AL $843,957
Stabenow D-MI $1,565,978
Thune R-SD $1,900,160
Tillis R-NC $437,750
Toomey R-PA $682,904
Vitter R-LA $657,365
Wicker R-MS $789,690

$58,991,192. That is a hell of a lot of money to throw around to fight a basic right granted to countries all over the world.


TRIBE Member
GMO labelling is a bit of a sideshow anyway - a GM label tells you nothing about nutrition or safety or anything worth knowing about, sometimes will even be signs of a superior, more healthy product!

Much ado about nothing....

Applied Mythology: The Non-GMO Food Label Is A Lie

And this was a good piece in Vox:

The controversial GMO labeling bill that just passed the Senate, explained - Vox

"Are GMO labels actually informative?

ot particularly. Sorry!

The fact that a plant’s genes have been altered through recombinant DNA techniques — rather than conventional crossbreeding or radiation breeding (allowed in organic food!) or RNA interference or whatever — is simply not very meaningful.

Virtually all of the food in our stores, conventional or organic or GMO or otherwise, has had its genes altered in some way. The mere fact that crop scientists and breeders used one technique to do so rather than another is about as informative to the consumer as whether a car part was made by robots or human workers.

What would be meaningful is to hear more about what specific altered traits a plant or animal actually has — and what those traits mean. Was this corn modified with a Bt gene for pest resistance? If so, that may have allowed farmers to use fewer chemical pesticides and preserve local biodiversity. Good news! Was this soybean modified to be resistant to Roundup? If so, there may be concerns about weed resistance, although that really depends on the farmers’ practice.

But you won’t learn any of that from a simple label that says "contains genetically modified ingredients." That phrase tells you nothing. At worst, it just perpetuates the scientifically unsupportable belief that modern-day genetic engineering is something horrifying to be shunned. At best, it’s just empty words on packaging.

Now, it’s true that (some) polls have found 80 percent of consumers support GMO labeling. But polls have also found 80 percent of consumers support labeling any food that contains DNA — which is all food. A label that says "contains DNA" would be equally meaningless.

It could be interesting, someday, to have QR codes that lead to clearer information around food. What kinds of traits does this food have? How was it grown? What does that mean for farmers and health and the environment? But right now that’s not on the table."​

The masses have convinced themselves something is important - probably under the influence of a pernicious, well funded and long running anti-GMO marketing campaign from Big Organic.


TRIBE Member
One of the pernicious effects of an irrational campaign to label GMOs. Even though, ironically, the end product of sugar derived through conventional sugar beets, sugar cane or GMO sugar beets is ***100% chemically identical***, campaigners have put Round Up Ready beets in their cross hairs and the big sugar buyers are starting to source sugar cane from abroad (higher price, much higher carbon footprint, far more pesticides used) and conventional sugar beet sugar (FAR MORE pesticides needed than GMO sugar beets, see below). Sugar buyers are switching in anticipation of GMO labelling laws which may include Round Up Ready Beet-derived sugar as requiring a "GMO" label.

The anti-GMO hippies and neo-primitives say they care about the environment, then they advocate for policies which, in the real world, mean more environmental damage in multiple ways.

And again, no chemical difference in the end product of sugar - so for an imaginary fear we must source our sugar from the two worst ways possible and eschew the best, most environmentally sustainable way.

We are our own worst enemy.

As consumers shift to non-GMO sugar, farmers may be forced to abandon environmental and social gains
Posted by Andrew Kniss | Weed Control Freaks | May 12 2016 | Link

Dan Charles at NPR
has recently done two interesting pieces about sugar production. In the first, he uses sugar as a proxy to look at the environmental costs and trade-offs of growing food in different places. It makes for an interesting comparison because there are two completely different crops (sugarcane and sugarbeet) that can be grown to produce the exact same product, refined sugar. The two crops have very different climatic needs, pest management requirements, and growing seasons. It is an interesting read.

The second piece, which I found even more interesting, reports on the impact of some major sugar buyers have had by moving away from sugar produced by GMO sugarbeet:

Deborah Arcoleo, director of product transparency at the Hershey Co., told me that in 2015, “we started reformulating Hershey’s Kisses, Hershey’s milk chocolate, and Hershey’s milk chocolate with almonds, to move from beet sugar to cane sugar, and that’s complete. Now we’re looking to do that across the rest of our portfolio, to the extent that we can.”

Hershey’s is one of the top sugar users in the country, and other companies have made similar moves.

The result has been a remarkable change in the American sugar market. Slowly, but consistently, a gap has opened up between the price of sugar from cane and sugar from beets.

“The current price for beet sugar is about 3 to 5 cents below the price for cane sugar on the spot market,” says Michael McConnell, an economist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service.

It means that buyers are paying 10 to 15 percent more for cane sugar.
In order to respond to these recent changes, Dan Charles says that US sugarbeet farmers “are thinking about going back to growing non-GMO beets.” This may seem like a trivial change to people not actively engaged in the sugarbeet industry. But for a sugarbeet farmer to even consider this is nothing less than remarkable.

I’ve previously written about some of the drastic changes that farmers experienced in the transition from conventional to GMO sugarbeet production. Duane Grant, a sugarbeet grower in Idaho, was interviewed just a few years ago about the prospect of moving back to non-GMO sugarbeet:

Part of Grant’s intense interest in [GMO] beets definitely stemmed from his own farm’s experiences with the “traditional regimen” of herbicide products and application timing and methods. “It was a nightmare,” he recalls of those pre-Roundup days. “We had failures all the time — fields that would become unharvestable because of our failure to control weeds. We had an army of people applying herbicides around the clock or just at night. We did micro-rates, we did maxi-rates, you name it.”

“We had one sprayer for every 500 acres, so eight sprayers running around,” Grant relates. “They would work whenever they could. It might be all night long; it might be 24 hours straight because they had a window.

“It was a horrible life. Just last spring (of 2011), as the Roundup litigation was progressing through the courts and it was unclear whether we’d be able to plant Roundup Ready seed, my sugarbeet manager flat-out told me, ‘If we have to be conventional again, I’m quitting. I can’t do it.’

“I’m so glad we got to plant Roundup Ready beets!”​
Sugarbeet growers are not exaggerating when they talk about the drastic shift they observed in the switch to GMO seed. The herbicide regimen used to include 4 to 6 different herbicides applied between 3 to 6 times per year, at 5 to 10 day intervals.


A typical herbicide regimen in conventional sugarbeet production in the US before the adoption of Roundup Ready (GMO) sugarbeet varieties.

Even after this much herbicide spraying, Around 40 to 60% of sugarbeet fields had to be hand-weeded because the herbicides rarely provided complete weed control. Compare that to the Roundup Ready (GMO) system, where 2 or 3 applications of glyphosate have replaced the many herbicide sprays that were used previously, while providing better weed control.


A typical herbicide regimen in Roundup Ready (GMO) sugarbeet in the US. Glyphosate is typically applied 2 or three times. A residual herbicide is sometimes added to the last herbicide application.

A typical herbicide regimen in Roundup Ready (GMO) sugarbeet in the US. Glyphosate is typically applied 2 or three times. A residual herbicide is sometimes added to the last herbicide application.


But it isn’t just the simplicity or the significantly improved weed control of the Roundup Ready sugarbeet system that convinced farmers to switch. Conventional sugarbeet herbicides can cause severe injury under adverse environmental conditions. Some growers refer to conventional sugarbeet herbicides as ‘chemotherapy’ for the beets. They injure and weaken the beets, but they hurt the weeds a little more. This is why the conventional herbicides were often applied multiple times at short time intervals. A higher, one-time dose of the herbicides would provide better weed control, but it would also cause more severe injury to the beet crop. As with chemotherapy, the weeds would eventually die after several applications, but the beets would be substantially weakened (like the photo on the left in the figure below). Conversely, Roundup applied to Roundup Ready sugarbeet (photo on the right) virtually eliminated the potential for crop injury due to herbicides.


Photos were taken on the same day from a weed control study near Scottsbluff, Nebraska, 2002. (Kniss et al. 2004)

The improved weed control provided by Roundup Ready varieties led to rapid environmental gains. By 2009, only two years after widespread adoption of GMO sugarbeet, over 50,000 acres of sugarbeet fields were converted to some form of reduced or conservation tillage practices in Nebraska, Colorado, and Wyoming. That number is probably much higher now. Conservation tillage practices improve soil health, reduce soil erosion, and preserve soil moisture. Conservation tillage simply wasn’t possible in sugarbeet before the introduction of Roundup Ready varieties, because intensive tillage was needed to obtain adequate weed control in the crop.

The combination of improved tillage, reduced crop injury, and improved weed control has contributed significantly to increased sugarbeet yields in the High Plains growing region. Not all of the yield gains can be attributed directly to GMO, but I would suspect it is a substantial proportion.


So to summarize, GMO sugarbeet has reduced herbicide use, increased soil health, decreased risk of crop injury, increased yield, and has even allowed farmers to spend more time with their families. Knowing all of that, I was struck by the last line of Dan Charles’ piece, where a sugarbeet grower, Andrew Beyer, is quoted:

“To me, it’s insane to think that a non-GMO beet is going to be better for the environment, the world, or the consumer.”

But Beyer says he’ll do it if he needs to. He’ll do what his customers want.​

Andrew Beyer isn’t being facetious when he says he thinks GMO sugarbeets are better for the environment, the world, and the consumer. He truly believes it, as do most sugarbeet farmers in the US. And the data suggests they’re right.

But these same farmers are willing to grow what the customer wants. If Hershey’s and others want a non-GMO sticker on their candy badly enough, sugarbeet growers will go back to producing non-GMO sugarbeets. Even if it means abandoning all the benefits this technology has provided.
Last edited:


TRIBE Member
You're such a GMO lover!

Your argument that GMO is better for the environment is only true if you take industrialized monoculture as a given!
Subscribe to Cannabis Goldsmith, wherever you get your podcasts


TRIBE Member
Not necessarily, even on smaller scales if you are growing round up ready beats - you will not till the soil as much (great for keeping carbon in the soil, not the sky - and for farmers it means less work!)

And you will have to buy less inputs to take care of your fields since you can rely on fewer, less toxic herbicides.

Your issue is thinking that GMO tech = chemicals, GMO tech = Big Ag

When "GMO" is really a HUGE spectrum of technologies, many of which will work at all levels of agriculture. Some are developed by corporations, some are developed by universities and non-profits working to solve issues affecting small farmers in places like Uganda and India, given for free to ensure a staple crop survives a critical threat from a pest.

And since we have 7 billion mouths to feed and growing - why wouldn't we pick "the best tool for the job", today?

I know food religionists imagine some future where we can feed everyone based on boutique farming - without realizing that we'd need so many more small boutique fields we'd be chopping down verdant rainforests to make space since these farms grow so much less per acre. They will have higher carbon footprints from the cutting down of forest to make room for many more small farms and the fact most employ soil-till methods which release carbon every time the soil is tilled.

Your problem might be falling for a utopian narratives that imagines we can feed the world with small-scale, boutique farming that relies on religious based ideas for its farming rather than practical ones.
Last edited:


TRIBE Member
The Need for Improved Food Production
Published by Steven Novella under General Science | Link

There are two undeniable trends that impact global food production – increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is warming the planet, and the human population is growing. The former affects production, the latter demand. In both cases there are anti-scientific ideological groups hampering progress, and even denying that there is a problem.

By 2050 it is estimated that the world human population will be 9.7 billion. This means we will need to produce 87% more food than we produce today. Johannes Kromdijk and Stephen P. Long argue in a recent paper that we need to act now if we are going to avoid a serious food shortage. They argue we are “One crop breeding cycle from starvation.”

Rising CO2

Some who deny the reality of global climate change have argued that, even if CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere, who is to say it’s a bad thing? Plants breath CO2, so increasing CO2 should just increase plant growth.

Kromdijk and Long point out that this view is naive. This is based on the simplistic thinking that if some is good then more is better (the fallacious basis of the entire supplement industry). In reality, biological systems exist in a complex homeostasis. Further, evolution is very efficient at optimizing biological systems to their current environment. If you rapidly change that environment, there may not be time for evolution to catch up.

They give this quick summary of the science:

The chloroplast accounts for the majority of leaf nitrogen in crops. Within the chloroplast about 25% of nitrogen is invested in the carboxylase, Rubisco, which catalyses the first step of CO2 assimilation. Most of the remaining nitrogen is invested in the apparatus to drive carbohydrate synthesis and regenerate ribulose-1:5-bisphosphate (RuBP), the CO2-acceptor molecule at Rubisco. At preindustrial [CO2], investment in these two aspects may have been balanced resulting in co-limitation. At today’s [CO2], there appears to be over-investment in Rubisco, and despite the counter-active effects of rising temperature and [CO2], this imbalance is predicted to worsen with global climate change.

Rising CO2 is causing an imbalance in how plants incorporate nitrogen and carbon, causing a deviation from evolved optimality. Wild plants will adapt eventually, but crops are not evolving under natural selective pressures. They change through deliberate cultivation, which means we (not nature) have to develop cultivars that are adapted to a world with higher CO2.

Sorry, global warming deniers, but rapidly changing the environment is probably not a good thing.


This brings us to the other anti-science ideology, the pro-organic, anti-GMO movement. This movement is almost entirely based on the appeal-to-nature fallacy, and scaremongering about new technology. Daniel Engber wrote in a recent commentary that the movement is more akin to a religion, and is simply not about facts.

One of the talking points in the anti-GMO movement is that we do not need to increase our food production. We produce more than enough food today to feed the world’s population, the real problem is distribution. While this is true, it entirely misses the point – the point that Kromdijk and Long now make explicit. It actually misses two points.

The first is that agriculture has a huge footprint on the planet. According to a National Geographic study in 2005, 40% of the Earth’s land mass is used for agriculture. All of the best land for agriculture is already being used. The same study indicates that we could potentially double the land mass used for agriculture, but we will be spreading into less desirable land, and devastating natural ecosystems in the process (mostly in Africa and South America).

Remember, we will need to produce 87% more food by 2050, and we cannot simply increase land use 87%. We need to use our land more efficiently.

The authors point out that two-thirds of the calories consumed by humans come from just four staple crops: rice, wheat, maize and soya bean. So clearly part of the solution will need to involve improved efficiency in these crops.

There are multiple potential solutions. A lot of land is used for raising animals for meat. There is some efficiency to be gained by reducing the total number of calories derived from meat. However, much of this land is used for grazing and is poorly suited for crops. In any case reducing meat consumption is probably going to be necessary.

Microfarming is another opportunity – breeding insects for food. This does not mean you will have to eat whole insects. Insect protein can be milled into a flour substitute. I haven’t tried cricket bread, but I understand it tastes just fine.

No matter what else we do, however, we also need to increase the efficiency and productivity of our major crops. This takes time.

This is the other point that the anti-GMO crowd misses – they argue that we don’t need GM technology to feed the world today, but that is not the point. We need to the technology to feed the world tomorrow.

Kromdijk and Long point out that the breeding cycle, the time it takes to develop a new cultivar and then deploy it in the field, is about 20 years. That means that any new cultivar we start developing today will become available around 2036. This further means we are coming up fast on the time necessary to develop solutions for 2050 – and the clock doesn’t stop at 2050.

No matter how you slice it, we need to prioritize agricultural efficiency and we need to be availing ourselves of every possible technology in order to do this.

Organic farming is going in the wrong direction – this is boutique farming with lower yields and therefore greater land use, catering to the well-fed. Proponents argue it is more sustainable, but that is not true if you consider land use.

I have argued before, organic farming is an ideologically driven false dichotomy. We need to utilize whatever methods are evidence-based and produce the optimal sustainability and efficiency. Organic farming, I believe, stands in the way of that progress and is therefore bad for the environment.

Genetic engineering is one technology (no one says it is the only technology) that can be used to address this looming crisis.

This is where the paper gets pretty technical, but basically they are talking about using GM technology to develop cultivars that “Optimize photosynthetic leaf nitrogen allocation.” Essentially, they want to make photosynthesis more efficient. This will also include optimizing the sensing and incorporation of CO2 into the plant.

There are also other research programs underway to genetically improve photosynthesis in major crops, like wheat and soy. This could improve yields 36-60%. It’s a good thing that we are not yet at the theoretical maximal efficiency for photosynthesis – turning sunlight into plant calories. But in order to take advantage of the potential to improve efficiency, there is no question that we need genetic engineering.


It is easy to dismiss warnings of future doom by appealing to the historical fact that the doomsayers have all been wrong before. This is a legitimate point – we are not always dealing with a zero-sum game, and technology and simple human cleverness has a way of changing the game and earning us another generation or century of growth.

But there are limits, and our success has come at a cost. Converting natural ecosystems to farmland (again – 40% of the Earth’s land mass) has had devastating effects on the environment and animal populations.

Earth-bound human population cannot grow forever. At some point we have to reach an equilibrium point. We also have to decide what we want to the Earth to look like at that point. It seems obvious to me that we would want to feed ourselves with the smallest amount of land possible, leaving the rest for living space and natural ecosystems.

In order to achieve this end we need to continue to use human cleverness and technology, including genetic engineering.

This means that right now it is a pretty close contest between global warming deniers and anti-GMO alarmists in terms of which ideological group will have the greater negative impact on our environment.


TRIBE Member
$58,991,192. That is a hell of a lot of money to throw around to fight a basic right granted to countries all over the world.

Yeah it should have cost them nothing as GMO labeling provides no benefit whatsoever to the consumer so the decision not to require it should be easy.


TRIBE Member
Monsanto Paid Senators $58 Million to Pass Anti-GM Labeling Bill AnonHQ
Monsanto’s blood money matters more than the demands of over 90% of this country calling for clear and concise, on-package labeling, not QR codes.
Alexander R-TN $980,283

Ah ok these numbers were bothering me and all looked SUPER HIGH. I looked at Lamar Alexander's profile on open secrets:


Couldn't see Monsanto in his top 20 donating companies for any of the available years.

I ended up finding on Open Secrets (which was not mentioned as a source in the anonymous article) the actual source of their numbers (take a look - the numbers match up exactly and you can see Lamar Alexander's $980,283 for starters):


This sums up *ALL OF AGRIBUSINESS* donations to senators across 20+ years. In fact, if you look at only 2016, numbers are FAR smaller:


And Monsanto is just one piece of all of agribusiness, which includes the following groups of corporations:

Crop Production + basic processing
Farm Bureaus
Food and kindred products
Food and Processing Sales
Food Stores
Forestry + Forest Products
Meat Processing & Products
Poultry & Eggs
Sugar Cane & Sugar Beets
Vegetables, fruits and tree fruit​
Monsanto donations will be just one of many companies under just ONE of these sub-groups.

So the errors here are many:

1) Attributing ALL donations to ALL senators from ALL Agribusiness to Monsanto
2) Attributing ALL donations from ALL these sources going ALL the way back to 1990 as being recent donations tied to a GMO labelling bill (one would assume donations in 1990 from poultry farmers or fruit orchards had NOTHING to do with a 2016 lobbying bill)
3) Making a claim that these exaggerated and over-hyped donations influenced the outcome of the vote without offering any concrete connection of donation to vote outcome.

Pretty shoddy work there on the part of Anonymous and March Against Monsanto!
Last edited:
Subscribe to Cannabis Goldsmith, wherever you get your podcasts