Monsanto and PCBs

blamanj writes: "While this story isn't about the gadgetry that typically appeals to /.ers, it's worth a look. The Washington Post has acquired documents showing how a Monsanto Corp. PCB plant polluted a small town in Alabama with full knowledge of what it was doing. Their own tests showed that when fish were placed into a local stream, "Their skin would literally slough off." They showed no concern for the residents, only about potential expensive regulations or bad publicity. Why is this relevant? Well, Monsanto is currently one of biggest proponents of GM (genetically modified) foods." Very thorough investigative article about how a corporation reacts when a profitable business line is threatened, or a cautionary tale about wonder technologies, take your pick.

Large biotech firms

Be not surprised by this sort of actions. These people are so bottom line centered, they hired a private investigator in Canada to determine if a farmer was using their GM seed for a crop without their permission (or without paying a fee...something to that effect).

I love the smell of greed in the morning. It reminds me what a miserable bunch of animals humanity really is...

Re:Large biotech firms

Living near the Candian boarder I've been reading about this in our local newspapers. Seems a canadian farmer obtained some freshly harvested canola seed which he planted the very next year. Well, this wasn't the cheap stuff, it was Monsanto RoundUp-Ready canola (GM to resist RoundUp... spray field with RoundUp, kill everything but the canola... better yields, only downside is possible glyphophosphate poisoning). But, the license for Monsanto RR canola specifically states that it cannot be harvested for use as seed (that is, you have to keep buying your seed from Monsanto each year). Somone reported the farmer and Monstanto investiaged and sued. Farmer made some pretty weak excuses, but at least did grab some media attention.

What he did was illegal, but I don't blame him. Farming is hard business these days, especially when only certain crops get subsidies and the seed and fertiziler companies are out to suck the farmer's wallet dry.

Re:Large biotech firms

1) "Genetic Drift" was most like an error on the poster's part

2) It wasn't soy, it was canola

3) The "patented" Monsanto canola was *not* sterile, and in fact propagated quite readily, which means that:

seeds spilling from Monsanto harvest would *grow* quite well wherever they sprouted, regardless if they'd been paid for or not. The trucks would bounce down the road with a bed full of canola and canola would go everywhere. Wind can pick up canola and spread it (and then spread itself). Birds, animals, etc could also carry it around. The facts are, the man had been a canola farmer for decades. DECADES. He'd also developed his own seed stock. His field, by his hand or by accident, became contaminated with Monsanto's version of canola (but not the whole field!) There was no judgement regarding whether or not it was intentional or not, but the courts forced said farmer to destroy his ENTIRE crop, his entire SEEDBANK, and his LIVLIHOOD because Monsanto has the legal backup to have it done. They did not have to prove he intentionally planted Monsanto seeds, which were VIABLE and are like every other fucking plant and spread. He even proved that after he burned his fields that Monsanto plants came back up! They reproduced and spread! How can this be legal? Should they salt his fields, too? No, Monsanto wants him to pay like everyone else and because the onus of proof is upon him to prove otherwise, he's a thief.

God bless the Corporation!

Re:Large biotech firms

If an individual had systematically poisoned a river running through a town we would call it Terrorism and imprison or execute that person. When a corporation like Monsanto does the same thing, we call it business, and most likely we will simply fine the corporation for a minuscule percentage of their wealth, and let them continue these practices.

Corporate...

...fuckwits. They should be made to move to the town they polluted. With their families.

Re:Corporate...

My comments were aimed at the people making the decisions. They are the ones who should take responsibility, not people who just do what they are told.

The best way to punish corporate fuckwits is not to impose financial penalties. That can be factored in as an expense and risk factor. These people should be made to live in their own filth. We should show them complete disregard for their lives, just as they have for others.

Why is it that if I kill someone by accident, I'll go to jail (most probably). But if some corporate idiot kills tens or hundreds of people in a cimmunity, he'll still get his bonus?

Re:Corporate...

After a couple of well publicised incidents in the UK (Hatfield train crash etc.) the subject of "corporate mansluaghter" (manslaughter in the UK is, I think, similar to 2nd degree murder in the states). Obviously not popular with big companies because it could actually mean executives going to jail when their negilgence results in someone getting killed. It doesn't make a lot of sense that if you drive a car dangerously and kill someone, you go down; if you drive a company carelessly and kill someone, you might get a fine of 0.0000001% of your turnover.

One thing I've noticed in the UK, is since the privatisation of our railways, almost all incidents have been blamed on the driver - who is normally dead so can't fight back. This way nobody can sue the company. Hatfield was one of the first ones where they couldn't do that 'cos unless the driver stopped the train, got out, broke the rail himself, got back in, backed up to get some speed and then drove round the corner he couldn't possibly be at fault.

If corporations want the same rights as citizens, they should have the same responsibilities. Mind you, when they do send execs down (fraud or whatever), they get a nice open prison with full access to laptops, cellphones etc. so they can just carry on working. There is no justice.

Monsanto akin to evil corporations from the movies

I never thought companies like Monsanto existed outside of the paranoid writings of science fiction writers or in surreal alternate reality fantasy stories until I found out about their infamous Monsanto Terminator Seeds [google.com]?

Selling third world farmers infertile seeds so they have to keep buying your seeds with the full knowledge that these sterile seeds could spread and render entire regions infertile is so nefarious, mere words cannot convey the feelings of disgust I feel.

Re:Monsanto akin to evil corporations from the mov

This is a massive red herring, and needs to be squashed because it obscures more legitimate criticisms of both Monsanto and GM technology.

In general, all hybrid seeds are "infertile", in that the seeds of the plants grown from them do not have the desirable properties of the hybrid. This is a fact about hybridisation. Of course, if you produce new kinds of seed through genetic modification rather than hybridisation, then the resulting seed will not be a hybrid and will "breed true". By putting the terminator gene into their roundup ready seeds Monstanto were actually restoring the status quo ante rather than unleashing some new horror on the world.

Second, farmers ,always buy new seed every year, because retained grain is a poor and inefficient way to grow your pants. New seed comes from new healthy hybrids grown for seed, rather than second generation plants. Anyone trying to live in this hypothetical idyll of sowing the seed kept back would quickly (over about four to six growing seasons) find themselves back at the sort of yields enjoyed in the Middle Ages. Even the Third World isn't particularly interested in that kind of farming any more.

Finally, your assertion that "sterile seeds could spread and render entire regions infertile" is interesting. I was not previously aware that sterility was a hereditary property. In any case, if "sterile" seeds spread, all you would have to do would be to plough the "sterile" seeds into the ground and plant a different kind of seed. It's done all the time with weeds.

My main problem with this is that there are huge, massive problems with Monsanto - a total disregard for safety testing, obsession with secrecy and a tendency to corrupt governments, encouragement of the overuse of pesticides, etc - and this obsession with "Terminator [wooooh!] Genes" obscures it. It implies that if only Monsanto would stop making terminator genes, there would be nothing wrong with the rest of the GM industry.

Re:Monsanto akin to evil corporations from the mov

Your comment contains a number of falsehoods which I will be more than happy to address:

1. all hybrid seeds are "infertile"

This happens to a false and incorrect statement. With canola [uoguelph.ca] it is difficult to create hybrids that are fertile and increase crop yield. Please note that this does not mean infertile; it just means difficult to reproduce. Cross-fertilized plants are rarely fertile. But that's nowhere close to never fertile.

2. farmers ,always buy new seed every year, because retained grain is a poor and inefficient way to grow your pants [must control bad jokes...]
(By the way, how does your first point of "all hybrid seeds are infertile" tie in with your second point of "new seed comes from new healthy hybrids grown for seed"? If the hybrids are all infertile, why would I grow hybrids for seed)?

While, yes, as a farmer I supplement my existing gene-lineages (both plant and animal) with external lines for hybrid vigor and outside traits every year; I also breed my existing plants and animals for specific traits. If I started off with one line of genes, and attempted to maintain that line forever, yes, I might have problems. But I don't. I select outside strains to enhance certain qualities that I believe my strains are deficient in. However, assuming I made a good starting selection of lineages, I don't need to acquire outside stock. You're talking about a minimal initial genetic selection that doesn't allow for cross-breeding over a number of generations. Sorry, but I'm aware that this could be a problem and either: start off with a reasonable selection of different genetic strains, or supplement my breeding stock every year. But if I start off with a good selection, I don't need to buy new seeds every year.

3. our assertion that "sterile seeds could spread and render entire regions infertile" is interesting

Seeds aren't the issue here. Pollen is. For example, corn cross-pollinates. If I've got some sterile corn that swoops across the pasture and cross-pollinates with my good "breeding" corn, I've got a problem. And we haven't had a chance to get to the seed part yet.

And, also, sterility is the final "hereditary property". If I've got a ewe that hasn't bred by the time she's two, I'm going to cull her. And, guess what, all of the genes that I've worked on breeding into her are gone.

By the way, if I plough the "sterile" seeds into the ground and plant a different kind of seed, I've lost time, money and productivity. The things that I grow aren't comparable to "weeds".

Appalling, but not suprising.

Unfortunately, stuff like this happens all too often. Here in Ohio our EPA is so bad that they actually fired someone for reporting that a school was built on a Military waste dump. I work for a group [ohiocitizen.org] that deals with these political and corporate problems everyday, and it's really eye-opening to see the disregard some people have for public health and the enviroment.

Guilt By Association, don't buy it

Why is this relevant? Well, Monsanto is currently one of biggest proponents of GM (genetically modified) foods.

It should be obvious, but it probably needs to be said:

To claim that GM foods are bad because a corporation that have done evil things is a proponent of it, is no more valid an argument than claiming that since Hitler claimed that 2+2=4, the real value must be something else.

If there are any real factual arguments against GM foods, by all means present them. But if this is the best argument, it's a big endorsement of GM foods.

Re:Guilt By Association, don't buy it

To claim that GM foods are bad because a corporation that have done evil things is a proponent of it, is no more valid an argument than claiming that since Hitler claimed that 2+2=4, the real value must be something else.

Not exactly. The main line of pro-GM arguments is that we can trust the science and the corporations. First, we are supposed to trust GM producers to do safety tests for the product and publish immediately any health issue that comes up. Second, we are supposed to trust the GM industry as a whole with essentially taking over the management of agricultural bio-diversity and become the unofficial management of the planet's supply of food.

Most critics of GM focus on the first problem (health) because it is more concrete and easy to explain ( and to scare with). But the second problem is by far the most dramatic. The possibility of a disaster that will make the Irish famine look like small potatoes should scare the bejesus out of everyone.

The science is an unknown, as research and commercial deployment go in lockstep. It isn't 2+2=4. Furthermore, the most important aspect of GM is management of food supplies (practical ad hoc decisions), not theoretical scientific questions. So it all boils down to an issue of trust. Can we entrust the future of the food supply of the planet to entities whose time is measured by wall-street ticks?

The new information simply reinforces the feeling that the only sane answer is NO.

Re:Guilt By Association, don't buy it

... make the Irish famine look like small potatoes ...

Um, small potatoes would have been an improvement on the Irish situation. ;)

Re:Guilt By Association, don't buy it

The main line of pro-GM arguments is that we can trust the science and the corporations.

That is only the line of argument to people who are unwilling to spend the time and effort necessary to examine the science--and I am not aware of too many people who argue that we can trust the corporations! Rather, it is people who understand the science who should keep an eye on what the corporations are doing.

For instance, GM crops that
* Allow massive pesticide use
* Do not produce fertile seed
* Massively overexpress the natural BT toxin
are all really stupid ideas in the long term, since they, respectively,
* Increase toxic residues in food, runoff, etc.
* Lead to a catestrophic situation (no crop) instead of a bad one (crop from poor stock) if for any reason the seed cannot be obtained next year
* Rapidly generate resistance to a substance that could otherwise be safely used for decades

On the other hand, GM crops that
* Increase the nutritional value of the crop
* Increase yield (all other things being equal)
* Increase natural resistance to disease (but not by having the plant make tons of one particular toxin)
are all really useful, for hopefully obvious reasons.

The sane answer is: pay attention to what corporations are doing, and (try to) call them when they do something stupid. If you don't have the background to decipher their claims yourself, find someone who can. But the bottom line is that GM crops are not inherently bad; just that a few of the simplest, greediest, short-sighted implementations by corporations are.

Re:Guilt By Association, don't buy it

To claim that GM foods are bad because a corporation that have done evil things is a proponent of it, is no more valid an argument than claiming that since Hitler claimed that 2+2=4, the real value must be something else.

A number of people have stated that this analogy is incorrect already, but none of them seem to be getting the point through to people, so let me try an analogy to show why these actions are in fact reason to question the GM production from Monsanto.

Let's say that you have a friend who you've known for a fair while and trust. You tell this friend a secret which is really important to you that it is kept secret and they break your trust by telling a whole bunch of people your secret with no reasonable justification for these actions. Needless to say you're pretty annoyed, you yell and scream etc, etc. Then you notice that your friend gets on really well with your girlfriend.

Now, there is no evidence to suggest that your friend is doing anything with your girlfriend and before this friend betrayed your trust you never would have even thought he would steal your girlfriend - but you never would have thought he'd breach your trust either. It's pretty clear in this situation that while you shouldn't jump to conclusions you probably shouldn't put blind faith into your friend who has clearly and blatantly betrayed your trust.

Now lets suppose that you know a corporation who makes weed killer and the weed killer works really well - you've been buying it for a fair while now. Suddenly you discover that in producing this weed killer the company has been dumping all kinds of dangerous chemicals into a river - affecting a significant number of people - with no good reason.

Then you notice that this corporation is producing genetically modified foods (which you regularly eat). Clearly it's not a time to go jumping to conclusions, but it's also not all that wise to continue to put your blind faith in the corporation.

Whether or not there is evidence that the GM foods produced by Monsanto are good, bad or indifferent is irrelevant. When a company shows this much flagrant disregard for the health and saftey of people, it is probably worth taking a closer look at their other areas of operation - not doing so is akin to burying your head in the sand.

Re:Guilt By Association, don't buy it

If there are any real factual arguments against GM foods, by all means present them.

What about the recent unexpected contamination of natural Mexican corn by genetically modified corn? If you're not familiar with this, here's the scoop: the Mexican equivalent of the US Department of Agriculture tested some corn-seed in Oaxaca and found that it had between a 3-60% rate of transgenetic contamination from species of corn that had not been imported into Mexico.

from:
UC Berkeley [eurekalert.org]
Reuters [northernlight.com]
Nature, Vol. 413, September 27, 2001 [biotech-info.net]

My real factual argument against GM foods follows.

One: until a GM food product has existed for a number of years it is impossible to be 100% certain what effects it might have. (Think about drugs the FDA approved as good...thalidomide for one).

Two: apparently, based on the links mentioned above, it is impossible to control the dissemination of GM foods -- even the Monsanto Terminator gene isn't going to stop corn pollen.

Thus: we can't be what effects a GM food might have on the environment.

Ergo: this is a good argument for the strict control of GM foods.

And I might add, you probably don't trust Microsoft with Passport. Why would you trust Monsanto with GM foods?

Re:It's called Ad Hominem

Er... are you saying that Kraft Dinner isn't a cold, dark evil?

You ever read the ingredients list? I'd sooner smoke than eat KD!

Monsanto and The PCB's...

More interesting and relevant from the article is the premise that they were aware as early as the late 1930's that they were doing lasting damage--and worked very hard to keep that from surfacing--since they had a complete monopoly on PCB's period. And production continued until two years before PCB's were banned for good in 1979.
Good corporate citizenship it wasn't. Worse, at the level intimated in the article (if true,) that particular factory and its overseers were committing mass murder. One has to wonder about our corporate law structure on that note.
Are fines and clean-up measures a reasonable response?

Re:Relevant?

There is no 'Monsanto'.

I've seen this argument posted a couple times to the thread. I'm going to play pedant boy for a minute here.

Yes, there is a Monsanto. Under U.S. law, Monsanto is a legal entity. It even has legal status as a person. Now, while the actions of Monsanto may be directed and carried out by thousands of individuals, ultimately, those actions are carried out under the 'Monsanto' corporate personhood.

Now, either the corporation takes a huge legal hit due to the corporation's past actions - halt of operations, massive compensation, et al - or the individuals directly responsible for the decisions must stand to account for the actions of Monsanto. A person - which a corporation legally is in American - may do great work in the community, may support a family, but if that person commits voluntary manslaughter, that person is going to have rights revoked and operations halted for a while, and the people who relied on the convict will have to find other ways to get along. Harsh as hell, but if corporations get to be people, they get to be subject to the same punishments as people.

Either way, someone has to take responsibility for this mess, be that someone a person, or the corporation.

There's only one solution.

Write your representatives and demand the institution of a Corporate Death Penalty.

Corporations have made huge strides in gaining "personhood" rights, with none of the responsibilities.

They have evolved to become wholly irresponsible citizens of the nations. This must stop. Either send the corporate structure back two hundred years, withdrawing all the privileges they've gained in that time; or make them take on the responsibilities that all other citizens must accept.

Write your representative. Make a difference.

Re:There's only one solution.

What is to stop a dead corporation's entire board and employees from just creating a totally new corporation doing exactly the same thing?

Cash?

A CDP means that the original corporation is disolved. It no longer possesses assets. Its shares are worthless. Its patents no longer belong to it, and may even be public domain depending on how the corporation is dissolved.

In order to create Monsanto II, the shareholders are going to have to buy new offices, new labs, new vehicles, new everything. They'll have to do this in the face of a strengthened competition and in the face of every broker on Wall Street knowing that the people who put together Monsanto I lost the original investment completely. The two facts together, with the knowledge that Monsanto II shares are just as likely to become worthless as Monsanto I's were if its business plan involves doing exactly the same things again should make raising investment a tad tricky.

The only question really is how do you make sure a CDP power is fair and not routinely abused by the kinds of corporations that buy government?

Where do guys like you come from?

Or you can ignore all the ravings of web lunatics, and read this page [snopes.com] which gives some useful information and links about this crapola.

Do you even realize the multi-million dollar P.R. bullshit you're parroting?

Did you even read the page you linked to? It didn't hold any actual core information, but it did suggest that you read through the available papers before rendering judgement.

Now maybe there has been a mountain of new data made available since you last looked at the question. But from my searches, based on the thousands of documents collected over the last thirty years from every imaginable level of the medical/scientific/governmental community, the conclusion you reached seems to me, frankly, ill-considered to say the least.

It seems to me that you are jumping very, very quickly to pre-set conclusions, your thought processes masquerading under the guise of scientific rationale. Sorry Charlie. You may have read a few clever books, but Real scientists aren't made into fools by the P.R. jockeys.

Honestly. People think that just because the X-Files were stupid that bad things don't actually happen in the world. "I don't believe in Conspiracies." Well genius, do you believe in "Corruption"?

Go look at the fish in Anniston.

Better hurry, because in another year, there'll be some new & dangerous fool just like you, sir, declaring that it never happened because he's been programmed since birth to reject everything but the 'official' story.

Do you even understand the basic principals behind advertising and mass persuasion?

Sheesh.

-Fantastic Lad

Wow....

Just glad to see this on slashdot. I would've submitted it myself if I thought it had any chance of being posted. Some of my favorite tidbits are....

1. 'The (Mosanto) committee even drew up graphs charting profits vs. liability over time.'

2."It is our desire to comply with the necessary regulations, but to comply with the minimum,"

3. "Please let me know if there is anything I can do . . . so that we may make sure our Aroclor business is not affected by this evil publicity," (hazard warnings)

4. "It only seems a matter of time before the regulatory agencies will be looking down our throats,"

5. '...the memo did not go so far as to propose a cleanup -- "only action preparatory to actual cleanup."'

To raise a little dissent, I have to say that I really despise the way this story is put out, apparently without any copy of the 'confidential' documents. It seems like a routine thing with most stories of this nature. God forbid they put up a .pdf or something. To put it simply, I trust the corporate media about as much as I trust Mosanto. And when the quotes trail off as if to say "I love.............hitler", I find the word-chasm annoying. I'm sure it's not misrepresentation in this case, but goddamnit, they have the full version and I don't see why they can't put that out......

Equal Time

Before this discussion gets biased, we must present equal time for the Libertarian side of the argument:

If the people of Anniston simply stopped buying products from Monsanto, then they could use their "market forces" to stop this kind of activity.

If all we do is ask for "government regulation" then companies will just start producing thier deadly chemicals outside our borders. Then America would lose twice!

So remember, kids: Trust the market, it is perfect.

And don't eat the fish.

separate issues here

I'll probably burn the little karma I built up, but what the heck.

I think writers of these headlines should try to maintain a certain level of objectivity and integrity when posting it. Let's separate the issues.

1st: Monsanto is a big corporation that does bad things.
2nd: Monsanto is a Biotech company.

The author most likely isn't very fond of the idea of GM food, I quote:

Why is this relevant? Well, Monsanto is currently one of biggest proponents of GM (genetically modified) foods.

However, this has nothing to do with the fact that Monsanto produces GM seeds. If it were some chemical plant, it would be just as relevant .

Maybe I'm overreacting, it's just that a lot of people bash genetic modification as a "bad thing" perse, which is something I don't agree with.

Meneer de Koekepeer

Evolution and the corporate lifeform

I have begun to consider corporations a separate evolving lifeform. Corporations have committed many acts inimical to human life. Tobacco companies, Monsanto, Hooker Chemicals - all acted to maximize their selection function (profit). Every superfund site has a similar corporate story. Unfortunately for those of us who have to live on this planet, maximizing health (human, animal or environmental) is not a part of their fitness-selection function.

Employees in cash stressed companies knows that in questions of "cash" vs "morals", cash usually overrules.

Corporations have totally warped the political process in the US since the mid 1970s when they were granted "equal" free-speech right in the political forum. Deep pockets and harassment lawsuits have allowed them to drown out public discourse and common sense.

Our problem is corporate survival has nothing to do with human survival.

It's all about the Benjamins

The reasoning here:

PREMISE A - Corporations only care about profit and nothing else. After all, without profit they're not going to be around for very long. And they seem capable of doing anything to protect the profitable product lines (see Pinkertons beat up union organizers, PCB cover-up, Microsoft strong-arm tactics, Just Following Orders, etc.)

PREMISE B - We're capable of manufacturing products of incredible potency: carcinogenic chemicals, genetically modified organisms, and someday self-replicating nanotech bots that can reduce North America to chum.

PREMISE C - Corporations tend to be the ones manufacturing these products.

PREMISE D - Some of these products have a negative impact on our quality and length of life, the number of limbs our children are born with, and the aesthetics of the world around us.

CONCLUSION - Perhaps we should be a little worried about the impact free market rules have on the world around us and our own livelihoods. When corporations have the ability to let loose technological advancements purely in the name of profit, the results may be less than desirable.

Genetically modified food has existed for ages

As long as agriculture has existed, plants have been genetically modified to produce harvests with particular attributes, including resistance to pests, resistance to harsh climate, or resistance to disease. The process of genetic modification was done by combining the seeds of two or more plants that had the desired traits.

The plants produced by this genetic manipulation weren't called "genetically modified," they were called "hybrids." Still, the end result is the same: the genetic structure of a plant was purposefully changed by humans to produce a new plant that had desired traits.

Ever eaten corn? It's a genetically modified plant. The corn you eat is not "natural." It was made, through trial and error.

How about potatoes? The potato itself is a natural plant (well, tuber.) However, farmers have modified potatoes for 1000s of years to produce different strains that have resistances, or have a higher nutritional value, or keep longer, or have a different taste.

Ever seen a white orchid? Not natural. Genetic modification. Orchids are not white by nature. (Granted, you're not supposed to eat orchids, but I think you get my point.)

So, what's the big to-do about genetically modified foods? It's not a new science, merely a new approach to an ancient art.

However, I will agree that Monsanto is a perfect example of a sleezy coorporation. But I also think that Micheal needs to lay off the scare-tactic propoganda. That, or he should go work for Microsoft as Chief FUD Officer.

Re:Genetically modified food has existed for ages

You have a valid, if simplistic, point. What you're missing however is that GM foods are a radical departure in the degree that an organism can be manipulated generation to generation. These new hybrids are introduced with minimal testing and as a large scale monoculture. This is bad.

In a larger sense, the tragedy of this industry is that the "science" that goes on loses much of its objectivity when research is results and profit driven, and not released for public scrutiny. We as the consuming public and we as educated people are forced to trust a faceless organization with limited liability and a very poor track record for honesty.

One avenue to take if you don't like what they did

If you look at the article, there's an email this story [washingtonpost.com] link which enables you to send the story off to someone of your choice, along with comments. My choices were: NPR [npr.org] and PBS [pbs.org], both organizations which rely heavily upon corporate donations, notably the Monsanto Corporation. In the comments, I requested that they consider refusing donations from Monsanto, which would have the dual effect of making a public stand for what is right as well as denying Monsanto a hefty tax write-off. Like they need it. I agree with a previous poster who compared them to Microsoft. No doubt a merger is in the works :)
Other good choices for the email link would, of course, be your state and national representatives, particularly if you live in a state which Monsanto has operations in (Like, almost anywhere?)
Fortunately, the Post is a big paper with a good reputation. Stories like this need to see the bright light of day. It is what evildoers fear most.

Regulation Problem

Many (many) years ago I took a B-School class (Organizational Behavior) where I read a great article called "On the Folly of Rewarding A While Hoping for B" (still have it, it's by Steve Kerr if you want to read it). It gave numerous examples of skewed reward (or regulatory) systems and their consequences. One example was pollution regulation, where a simple calculation would show that it was to the companies benefit to risk the fine, rather than clean up the problem. Kerr's solution was to change the reward system as follows: The President of XYZ Corporation had to choose between a) spending $11 million dollars for anti-pollution equipment or b) incurring a fifty-fifty chance of going to jail for five years.

The marklet requires checks

The most telling quote is, I believe,

Monsanto's critics, Kaley says, do not understand capitalism.

The critics understand unchecked capitalism all too well. If monetary profit is all that matters, then the evidence clearly demonstrates that people suffer. This is yet another datum.

There is absoloutely no guarantee that an unregulated market will lead to an optimal outcome for actual people. On the contrary, some people will suffer greatly.

Frankly, we can't trust an invisible hand.

PCBs have nothing to do with GM foods

At least there are no PCB's in my foods. PCB's are very very toxic and persistent material (they don't break down). Good old General Electric is going to have to dredge the Hudson river to clean up the PCB mess it made years ago, and hopefully it will cost about 500 million $$ so hopefully it will discorage them and others from this kind of pollution. Seems fines are the only remedy corporations understand which is sad...
The times [nytime.com] has a short abstract [nytimes.com] about the GE cleanup.

The scariest quote from the story

At the very end of the article is the scariest quote, from a Monsanto 'environmental affairs director':

"I'm really pretty proud of what we did," Kaley said. "Was it perfect? No. Could we be second-guessed? Sure. But I think we mostly did what any company would do, even today." [emphasis added]

One libertarian's perspective

Please note that this is my personal opinion, but as a libertarian, its heavily set on punishing those responsible for hurting another person or persons.

First of all, you must understand that the majority of environmental damage is caused by government regulations, subsidies, intervention or on land owned by the government and leased to a corporation. A great website that speaks about free-market environmentalism is www.perc.org [perc.org].

A libertarian knows that Monsanto doesn't care so much BECAUSE they're so heavily in bed with the government -- and our government can subsidize or "free up" environmental rules for any corporation they want to, because we've given them the power to.

In a libertarian society, the federal government would have ABSOLUTELY NO CONTROL over environmental regulations -- people would be free to pollute as they please. But here is the restriction in a free society: if you pollute your own land, that land will now be useless for you, and have absolutely no value for you in the future. In a free-market society, government won't own land, so you can't lease it only to treat it badly and move on. Secondly, if you pollute your own land, and the pollution crosses over to someone else's property, airspace, or drinking water, YOU WILL BE LIABLE. Bar none.

Today, the government lets the polluters pollute, and really just keeps the big pro-earth groups happy with thousands upon thousands of regulations that have loopholes for government's greatest supporters. Get government out of this mess: the environment is not what you want to protect, you want to protect private property.

If you're worried that pollution done now might contaminate someone's property 100 years down the road, I can see where a little government intervention on a local level is necessary -- ON A LOCAL LEVEL. Let the city or county government enact rules as to what corporations or individuals can do now. If a corporation wants to, they can always move to a city that lets them do what they want to do (and the people of that city they move to made the decision to live there and accept it).

I know, its not a perfect answer -- BUT ITS FAR FAR BETTER than what we have now.

It's Solutia, not Monsanto, who's at fault

A quick history lesson. In 1997, the original company (that was named Monsanto), spun off its chemicals business as Solutia [solutia.com] to focus on "life sciences". Among other things, Solutia got the PCB-polluting factory, plus the lion's share of those executives who were around when the decisions were made. It's Solutia that has all the legal and financial responsibilites for the dumping, and don't worry about them being some sort of "shell" company, they have assets of several billion dollars.

Fast forward a few years to 2000, and Monsanto was merged into Pharmacia [pharmacia.com] and ceased to exist as a seperate company. The new company decided that it wanted to be just a pharmaceutical company, so it spun off a big piece of itself and named the new company Monsanto [monsanto.com], because of the "proud heritage" of the original name.

This is obviously not such a good idea in retrospect, as the new company, which has nothing to do with PCBs, is now getting a big black eye in the media. However, if you check the markets, it's Solutia whose stock price has plummeted, which indicates that the big investors, at least, know which is which.