India: Greed has to end

[nairiporter.livejournal.com]

India cuts Monsanto cotton seed royalties despite threat to quit

India 'not scared' if Monsanto leaves, as GM cotton row escalates

Of course, everyone is well aware of the farce that Monsanto has been playing for years. The general scheme goes as follows. Some limited seed funds are given by the company to a university or lab for a one-year period. Once the product or process is developed, it is patented with the researcher and the company. The company then buys out the share of the patent from the researcher. Such companies or patents or products are bought and re-bought many times over by financial capitalists, and the resultant drug, crop or other product is priced many times over the usual prices. That is, by the way, how US health care has become the most expensive while remaining nowhere being efficient or accessible enough for the American people.

Meanwhile, back to India... The introduction of GMO crops, while being crucial for feeding millions of people, has changed the landscape of the Indian cotton industry, rendering its production patterns and profitability rates unrecognisable, ultimately turning India from a major exporter to a major importer of agricultural technology and know-how. And this goes way beyond the cotton industry, as this crop production is very closely intertwined with other important crops an industries. After cotton, the corn industry has been growing exponentially, with big profits for the companies that are running the show, and of course major producers like India desperately needing the relevant technology in order to stay afloat on the market, meet the demand of the local market, and use their potential in a way as efficient as possible. The problem is, India is still lagging far behind other countries in terms of productivity, even after years of Monsanto involvement.

As for Monsanto's corporate practices and instincts, it is no surprise that their talk of "technology" has served as a convenient smokescreen that "tries to hide its real objectives of control over seed where genetic engineering is a means to control seed", as Dr. Vandana Shiva, an activist, author and founder of the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, has argued. So, while a possible Monsanto withdrawal from India may hurt both that country's agriculture and the company's bottom-line in the short term, it would rather have a positive effect in the long run, as it would demonstrate that neo-colonial economic practices of exploitation and blackmail will not hold water in the 21st century.

Comments

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

Brief quibble, but I'll get back to the point in a moment: I'm not going to say that Shiva is wrong here, but it's hard to accept what she's saying at face value because of her past history and specific biases against anything remotely GM (to the point of pushing for the rejection of food aid after the devastating cyclone in 1999 because it was - in her opinion - part of a conspiracy to use her people as guinea pigs in some kind of weird "GMO-food" experiment.)

Anyway, one might argue that the problem is a problem with capitalism itself, in which something like a seed can be patented in the first place. I understand that research and money go into things, but we're talking about patents on lifeforms. There's something maybe troubling there. While I don't fully agree with the stance completely condemning capitalism entirely, I can appreciate that our current model doesn't always lend itself to equitable outcomes. The kind of contracts where farmers plant seeds, agree to not save any, and re-buy the next year have been around for over a century (for long before the original Monsanto even existed, not to speak of the current company.) If anything, there may be a problem with how we approach agriculture entirely. Monsanto isn't unique or particularly evil, unless we consider the industry as a whole to be evil (and that might actually be an argument we can make!) I know that my leftist friends would argue that it might be time to reevaluate the basic assumption that something as vital as food should be something on which profits are based.

Beyond Monsanto or even India's own burgeoning agritech industry, I think a good avenue for helping the farmers, in both the short and long term, would be investment in better irrigation and access to financial services. It was the crop failures due to poor irrigation and rising debt that started the rash of farmer suicides (and when Monsanto introduced its Bt-cotton several years later, it improved the economic position of many farmers, though that didn't stop many from associating the company with the suicides.) But it points to the need for infrastructure investment. Financial assistance and education, irrigation systems, and perhaps even better government assistance during times of downturn. These measures might help far more than going the independent route from Monsanto - and if that is where India chooses to go, they will certainly make the farmers that much more robust and able to succeed as they set out on their own.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

Reminds me of the practice of Monsanto and the likes to sue whichever farmer has incidentally found a few GMO seeds blown by the winds into their farm and cast roots there.

[dreamville-bg.livejournal.com]

Yes, Ms Shiva is regularly cited on GlobalResearch.ca. Says enough, I think.

Good points overall.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

I've often wondered during these online discussions... why is it that people constantly look for quibbles, minor holes to punch into others' exposition, things they can disagree with, tiny infinitesimal missteps? Be it one among many otherwise reliable links that comes from a not-so-reputable source, or the name of some activist being occasionally cited who turns out to hold some pretty weird views overall... Can't people just see the broader point that's being made, and share their opinion on it? Why do they have to look for ways to inflict some wound, no matter how minor and meaningless it is?

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

The devil is in the details, as they say. Nothing is ever perfect. And most people feel a kind of Schadenfreude to find that out.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I suppose because it's easier to pick at minor things than simply admitting a post *is* entirely valid and there's nothing whatsoever wrong with its substance because well, as Frida said, Schadenfreude is a thing and the Internet tends to lead to accentutating the negative as a general rule. At least that's my experience. Granted, interactions mostly limited to Facebook nowadays may skew that point.

If this is in reference to my post in the other thread, I do regret writing the one line and not limiting it to the broader point because that led to a useless jump down a rabbit trail that could have been avoided by just not writing that to begin with.

TBF, whenever Frida, or Nairi, or for that matter most of the posts on here written by people outside the USA are written, there is relatively little to criticize about them in substance because the posts are valid in big and medium picture terms. I personally am not sure how to write "I agree with this" a bunch of times without seeming repetitive and shallow and the posts to me deserve more in-depth responses than that.

[garote]

I find that to be collectively true except when they decide to write about American culture and religious politics. Then it's often a barrage of tired stereotypes; the equivalent of writing about the French and calling them "cheese-eating surrender-monkeys" with the expectation of being taken seriously.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

I don't really see pointing out a legitimate problem with an argument as "wounding" someone. Frankly, a bad source seriously undermines an argument. In a discussion about, say, the benefits and risks of vaccination, one might quote doctors, immunologists, and even parents. If one were to quote, instead, Andrew Wakefield or Joseph Mercola, someone could be well justified in just dismissing what is being said outright. Even if what someone is saying is 100% factual, the baggage attached by including such people in the discussion completely poisons the well, and thus an otherwise strong argument is weakened needlessly.

Argument and discussion demand accuracy and precision. Language is tricky, even more so through text without the benefit of facial expressions and other cues. I mean, in an informal setting like this, of course no one is asking for cited references and bibliographies and the vetting of every possible source. But the fact remains, it would also be absurd to just say: "Eh, say whatever you want, it doesn't matter if you can actually back it up with argument and sources." There is the value in trying to do better in how we argue - and I'd think that a good way to accomplish that is to point out places where such improvement can be made.

I mean, which of these two statements is more valuable?

-You're totally right. I share your opinion on this.

-You're totally right. I share your opinion on this. Hey: there's a problem with source X you're using. If you use someone else, your argument will be even stronger!

If "one among many otherwise reliable links" comes from a not-so-reputable source, then pointing that out helps the poster in the future to not include that source, so that ALL of that poster's links will be reliable. Being told "hey, you're wrong about this" is not an "attack," unless someone is more concerned with looking correct than actually being correct.

With regards to this OP: the issues raised are real, and the arguments presented are strong ones (though I do disagree with the ongoing vilification of Monsanto, a company guilty of almost none of the things it is constantly accused of.) The problem is that those otherwise strong arguments can only be weakened by including the words of Dr. Shiva, someone who lies about being a physicist and who places her own personal political ideology over the actual lives and survival of the people she purports to represent. If pointing out that including Dr. Shiva is a bad rhetorical move somehow equates to some kind of attack that has "wounded" the OP, then I'm left to wonder just how fragile the nature of conversation has become.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

I don't really see pointing out a legitimate problem with an argument as "wounding" someone

Wouldn't it have been a beautiful world if everyone thought of it that way!

I share your opinion on this. Hey: there's a problem with source X you're using. If you use someone else, your argument will be even stronger!

It would've been an even more awesome world if everyone responded in the way you describe. I've yet to see that happening, though.

The fragility of the conversation is not the point. So many people's drive to knock the conversation down just for its own sake, is what I'm talking about. That may not include you, but the observation kind of sticks out after a few similar cases that I've observed within a short time span.

But don't mind me. I'm just a fragile little snowflake who doesn't know what he's talking about. Do proceed if you please.

[garote]

Dexeron made a pretty good response to this, but I do have two things to add:

First, contrary to how it may appear, I don't have the time to read everything posted here, let alone respond to everything. Same with the other political "forum" I frequent. And if I did have that kind of time, I would promptly invest it elsewhere, like my garden. (No offense!)

Sometimes I have a solid hour to think something through and write a nice little collection of comments. That's when I'm here "at my best". Most of the time I have a few minutes to read, then a few minutes to make one response, then I'm off doing something else. And in most of those cases, probably to the detriment of the forum (since I expect a lot of people behave this way), I choose the reply I can make the most quickly ... and that usually takes the form of a critique.

Of course, referring to the exchange that led you to direct me here, I should have known better than to say anything contrary under a comment by ddstory, since I was put permanently on ddstory's shit list the day I joined the forum.

The second thing I feel I should add is something that probably nobody wants to hear, or think about:

Reasonable, thoughtful, long-form replies to the posts here often get crickets in response.

I remember many incidents where, after knocking holes in someone's argument (or references) back and forth, they've said the equivalent of, "Oh yeah? Well if you're so smart, what would YOU do/legislate/say?" ... And I write a long, careful explanation of my position, taking care not to ruffle any feathers ... and that gets zero responses (or barring that, a pleasant but meaningless response) and the exchange just stops cold.

"Was that worth it?" I ask myself...

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

So you figured it's better to just stick to looking for meaningless holes in people's arguments?

[garote]

When I point out a hole it's because I think it's meaningful. For example, my attack on Monsanto's ability to patent "life forms" below. It's only somewhat related to the discussion about India.

If you're talking about my response to ddstory, well, as dexeron said, "a bad source seriously undermines an argument."

[ponitacupcake.livejournal.com]

I'm skeptical of any anti-GMO and anti-Monsanto claims because of the sheer amount of BS on the internet.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

It's Monsanto. Given what a bunch of assholes they are, believing the worst *is* the most direct option.

[ponitacupcake.livejournal.com]

Um no, the best thing is to think critically and look at the facts.

Otherwise one is giving into emotion and woo.

Much of the online criticism of Monsanto falls apart under scrutiny.

[garote]

How about the criticism that they are deliberately downplaying the role of biodiversity in effective crop yields, in order to push their chemical-dependent portfolio?

[ponitacupcake.livejournal.com]

I would research it myself.

Many companies are evil but Monsanto is one that seems to have a Derangement Field around it.

[nairiporter.livejournal.com]

I agree with ponitacupcake. Just assuming something based on the identity of the subject you are discussing is not a rational approach.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Re: lifeform patents, this is a local interest of mine as Luther Burbank is somewhat local and is why we can patent plants (and, in turn, seeds and such today). Edison testified in Congress and got the extension added to Smoot-Hawley, it's been a bit of a boon.

[garote]

It seems pretty hokus-pocus to me.

In inventing a novel gene sequence, scientists are merely rearranging data that codes for collections of enzymes and promoters taken from other organisms. As far as I know, no scientist has yet invented a sequence from whole cloth that happens to assemble an enzyme to catalyze a brand new reaction - only discovered them in currently living or newly bred organisms and collected them for use elsewhere.

No one can patent the process that turns genes into enzymes into metabolic activity into behavior, because that all clearly existed way before any scientist thought to examine it. With that being the case, why do patents on genes get to include this mechanism in their description of what makes them "novel"?

Compare it to the printing press. Johannes Gutenberg could patent that device, no problem. But say he sticks the letters into a particular arrangement inside the press, so it only generates a particular page of print. Does his patent now cover the words on the paper?

How is this different from Monsanto, or anyone else, claiming patent rights to a copy of the gene sequence inside some creature they assembled from parts in their lab?

I'm a software programmer by trade. I can't patent my shit, and I understand why. Nevertheless I can assert copyright, and take people to court for infringement if they violate my license. Why does Monsanto get to patent their shit???

"Because otherwise they wouldn't have a business model" IS NOT A VALID REASON.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Whatever the conceptual merits of Genetically Modified food, Monsanto's corporate practices are so often trawling the gutter that I'd believe the worst about them in every case because they go out of their way to achieve it. Frankly, too, countries should have as much sovereignty over their food supply as they can get because nothing good comes of giving unaccountable people the ability to strip cupboards bare on spurious means without any real accountability.

[garote]

Nice to see India playing hardball with Monsanto.

Most of Monsanto's methodologies are ill-suited to the problem of crop yields in India. The main issue is, India is tropical and subtropical land: a hugely diverse place in terms of growing environments - soil types, geology, hydrology, pests, infrastructure, weather, etc. Monsanto's bread and butter is a genetic monoculture assisted by mechanized procedures developed in the flat, temperate United States. To put it bluntly, fuck that shit. India needs to maintain its seed stock biodiversity as a given in any solution that stands a chance of really (pun intended) taking root. It should remain a net importer of technology and "know-how", but change the charter to match what it needs, and demand a lot more fine-grained collaboration with farmers when writing that charter.

That's going to be very hard, in the Indian bureaucracy though.