Not so long ago, I was an utterly obscure farmer-blogger dashing off indictments of industrial agriculture for some 30 loyal readers (many of them house-mates and relatives).
And then, evidently by the miracle of the Google search, a functionary from Monsanto's legal office discovered my blog and fired off a cease-and-desist letter. I published it, added a tart response, and alerted a few editors to the exchange. Within days, my site meter showed thousands of readers piling in. Within months I had a paid writing gig. Thanks, Monsanto! Evidently, the GMO seed giant is still paying folks to scan Google for blogs that dare criticize it -- only now it has evidently outsourced the task to the PR-flack powerhouse Edelman.
Just today, a week after we published a (highly sarcastic) guest post by Claire Hope Cummings titled "All Hail Monsanto," a gentleman from Edelman wrote to one of my Grist colleagues to offer his services "tracking down information or putting one of you in contact with a representative from Monsanto that can insightfully answer any questions you may have concerning the company and its sustainability goals."
You never know -- we might just take him up on that.
I have recently heard similar tales from other food-politics bloggers who have had the unbridled nerve to question Monsanto's benevolence: A cordial email from an Edelman employee offering informational services that might better explain Monsanto's intentions.
In her post that inspired the Edelman missive, Cummings had some fun at the expense of Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant for declaring that "Skepticism is a commodity the world can't afford right now." What he meant was: Let us benevolent experts take care of the food supply -- you consumers just shut up and eat!
Well, I'm here to inform our readers over at Edelman that while we're always open to new information, we'd prefer to keep our skepticism well-honed, thank you very much.
And while we're happy to engage in friendly email exchanges, we also remember that Monsanto is fully capable of turning that smile upside-down -- and even baring its fangs. I remember that cease-and-desist letter. I also note that, according to a 2005 Center for Food Safety report (PDF), Monsanto wields an "annual budget of $10 million and a staff of 75 devoted solely to investigating and prosecuting farmers" deemed to violate its draconian gene-patent claims.
Michael Pollan on agriculture and health care
Tweet for the bees
Soda lobby gets its game on
Comments
View as Threaded
Erik Hoffner Posted 3:03 am
13 Jun 2008
Erik
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,200+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
ekologkonsult Posted 11:45 pm
13 Jun 2008
http://theorchidblog.blogspot.com/2006/06/monsanto-sweden ...
The CEO people in the boards of these companies recieved emails with offers. In Sweden Monsanto is also very much integrated with the agritechnical university SLU. It´s a "I scratch your back, you scratch min" relationship where SLU gets funding for testing Monsantos products, and Monsanto gets good PR by so called independent researchers from SLU standing up for Monsanto.
"I have nothing to declare, but my genius." O.Wilde
Permalink
Anastasia Posted 1:02 pm
14 Jun 2008
For more scientific discussion on GMOs, visit my blog: GeneticMaize.
Permalink
Russ Posted 7:53 pm
14 Jun 2008
This is a perfect example of the corporate linguistic agenda regarding the public consciousness and public discourse.
As much as possible, in speaking and thought, they want to replace normal human language with "branding"-inflected language. But they also want total control over how that language is used - i.e., only in officially approved ways.
The agenda is to privatize public discourse itself, and eventually internal thinking. A cease-and-desist letter is a terroristic supplement to the general brainwashing campaign.
Two excellent books on the subject:
Hannah Arendt The Origins of Totalitarianism (for the general relation of propaganda and top-down terror).
Naomi Klein No Logo (for the branding ideology specifically).
Permalink
Bud Dingler Posted 9:58 am
15 Jun 2008
how many of the posters have any scientific background that enables them to really look at technology like GMO and separate the danger from the mundane?
to here tell it here - all we have to do is have 5 gazillion hippies farming 2.5 acres plots with hoes and roto-tillers and all of our health and environmental problems would go away.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 12:27 pm
15 Jun 2008
A: Wrong question. One doesn't need ANY scientific background to know that genetic engineering is an affront to nature, which is more fundamentally important than meaningless nitpicking about which potential harms GE may cause. The real question is, why do you idiots worship science as if it's a religion? Actually, you're not even worshiping science, which would be bad enough. You're worshiping technology, which is the worst aspect of science, because it produces all the environmentally harmful stuff.
But hey, it's quite clear from the last paragraph in your post that you're an anti-environmentalist anyway, which is the only type of person that could support this Nazi science.
Permalink
Anastasia Posted 2:22 am
17 Jun 2008
And Russ, if you bothered to develop a product and to trademark the product's name, wouldn't you want people to use the name properly? I'm not saying that Roundup Ready or any other product on the planet shouldn't be criticized, but that companies have the right to ensure that their trademarked names aren't misused. In this case, the name was twisted to be a catchphrase. It's not some corporate mind control agenda, it's business.
For more scientific discussion on GMOs, visit my blog: GeneticMaize.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 4:14 am
17 Jun 2008
(2) Why is the use of reason to study and understand the natural world essentially the worship of that activity?
(3) Why is the use of technology to achieve our goals essentially the worship of technology?
(4) How does Bud Dingler's remark indicate he's an "anti-environmentalist"?
(5) Exactly what makes genetic engineering "Nazi science"?
Permalink
morganmghee Posted 5:38 am
17 Jun 2008
Permalink
morganmghee Posted 6:12 am
17 Jun 2008
As for the patent issue, monsanto cannot be expected to be allowed, nor should it try, to simultaneously actively seek to control a major portion of the food supply AND make genetic changes to the food AND copyright the food. Food is not a couch, or a shaving lotion, it is life and at a certain point people will not stand for it to be controlled. (Let them eat Cake)
Scientists will tell you we do not know everything about what our body does with food. What bit absorbed makes us this kind of human. There are more receptors in our intestines than our brains, I believe I read somewhere. Those of faith would tell you that it is arrogance to believe we are capable of improving on what has been created. Scientists can explain to you in very clear detail the chain of life and how simple it is to disrupt, yet they will still tell you there are masses of missing information in the story, and pulling one unknown string in a sweater known to fall apart at the 'flap of a butterflies wing' is true human folly. Those of faith would speak of folly also, vanity and greed.
Permalink
landers53 Posted 3:38 am
10 Jul 2008
For those who really don't understand what Monsanto is doing to everyone who is not a rich elite, please read the following articles that is a 3-part book review of F. William Engdahl's book, "Sees of Destruction".
http://tinyurl.com/5v9odw
http://tinyurl.com/6mk4ka
http://tinyurl.com/6a7l9t
For those of you who, after reading these articles, still support Monsanto, you are either employed by Monsanto or are employed by one the the psychopathic rich elite who benefit from the profits of Monsanto.
Cheers!
Permalink