Dupont complains that Monsanto is running a seed market monopoly

(NaturalNews) Chemical and agricultural giant DuPont has accused rival Monsanto of maintaining a seed monopoly, in a complaint filed with the U.S. Departments of Justice and Agriculture.

"Monsanto has engaged in numerous practices that improperly seek to expand the scope of intellectual property rights at the expense of competition, innovation, and choice," the 18-page DuPont report reads.

DuPont, which owns the genetically modified seed company Pioneer Hi-Bred International, is Monsanto's main competitor in the agricultural biotech field. The two companies are already in court over a failed licensing deal.

The complaint alleges that Monsanto controls 98 percent of the U.S. market in soybeans, 79 percent of the market in corn and 60 percent of the market in patented soy and corn genetics. It accuses the company of using coercive tactics to rope farmers and seed dealers into agreements that make them dependent on its patented and expensive products.

"The ag biotech trait market is firmly in the grip of a single supplier, acting as a bottleneck to competition and choice... it also threatens the global goals for agriculture in the 21st Century doubling the world's food supply by 2050," the report reads.

Monsanto has been accused of many of the same practices by biotechnology critics, who allege that Monsanto's herbicide-resistant crops increase reliance on Monsanto chemicals and point to the company's aggressive prosecution of farmers who save and replant Monsanto seed. The company has also been known to sue farmers whose crops become genetically contaminated through cross-pollination with Monsanto-modified crops.

Although biotech critics tend to single out Monsanto as the world's largest supplier of genetically modified seed, they also level many of the same criticisms at DuPont, Bayer, and other biotech companies. Big seed companies in general have come under fire for encouraging farmers to plant expensive modern hybrids over native varieties, thus reducing seed diversity and exposing the world to a greater risk of food shortage.

The DuPont complaint comes ahead of five planned Department of Justice and Agriculture hearings into concerns about competition and monopoly in the agricultural marketing sector.

One does not typically exceed the acute limit for water consumption because of the thirst mechanism

Then what causes one to typically exceed the acute limit for water consumption?

yet the aspartame limit is far below that

What is the acute limit of aspartame consumption? How many liters of a soft drink sweetened with aspartame does someone have to consume to cause serious physical harm?

What is it about drinking too much Crystal Lite that causes crippling headaches?

Secondly, is there a chronic limit for water consumption like there is for aspartame?

Not sure what you mean by "chronic limit" but water does have an LD50. I don't remember what that is but I'm sure you can find it.

I’m fine with the stuff being on the market, but let’s be honest about it—on both sides.

Then let's be honest. If I have to tell someone explicitly that consuming too much of something (in this case aspartame) can cause harm to them then that person is an idiot. Your criticism was splitting hairs. You'd have to consume huge quantities of aspartame sweetened beverages to cause physical harm, just like with water. To a person with normal intelligence, it is understood that when a product has been on market for 30 years without any negative impact, we're not talking about someone who might have intentionally abused the product causing themselves harm. On the other hand, long distance runners have, on many occasions, consumed too much water, thereby diluting the sodium in their blood and causing hyponatremia and, in many cases, death. I've never heard of anyone dying from ingesting too much aspartame. You?

So, we have one study where 35 percent of the volunteers tested had headaches after taking aspartame, compared with 45 percent who had headaches after taking the placebo. Then we have another study where 33% of of the subjects given aspartame claimed to have headaches compared with 24% on placebo treatment. Then we have another study that tested people who suffered from mental illness. You don't really want to reference that mess, do you?

I don't know Gondring, having almost a quarter of the people given a placebo claiming they experienced headaches shouldn't cause anyone to come to a single conclusion, other than more testing needs to be done.

And lots of testing has been done. Over 200 studies have been done in the US to determine the safety of aspartame and its relationship to everything from lymphoma to epilepsy. The FDA maintains it is perfectly safe. The Scientific Committee on Food (although European, they are highly independent) did a review of more than 500 papers on the subject of aspartame and came to the conclusion that concerns about aspartame causing any adverse reactions were unfounded.

The medical community has known for years that many people claiming to suffer reactions to certain things are subject to ingrained reactions that cause them to believe strongly that the a particular ingredient is causing their symptoms, and in its absence, those symptoms cease to exist. This also works the other way in that if they believe a certain ingredient causes a reaction, they will develop that particular reaction when consuming that ingredient. As our research proves, people will believe what they want to believe

Why else would 30% of the US population believe they suffer from some food allergy when the reality is only about 2-3% of the population suffers from food allergies?

It's interesting to note that in the Duke study the lead researcher commented that upon further questioning of the volunteers, one subject who claimed to get headaches from aspartame often ate peanuts with her diet soda and was allergic to peanuts. Other subjects drank caffeine during the test and admitted that caffeine also gave them headaches. We know that headaches can be caused by caffeine consumption and Dr. Schiffman even said that caffeine from tea, coffee and soda was the more likely cause of their headaches.

Beyond that though, do you believe industry should just sit back and allow the toxic terrorists to make all sorts of unfounded and total BS claims against their products to scare the public thereby causing them to lose money on their development? As a conservative, is that ok with you? If some lame brained organizations publish research showing that aspartame causes epileptic seizures, Lupus, Multiple Sclerosis, a wide variety of cancers, fibromyalgia symptoms, spasms, shooting pains, numbness in your legs, cramps, vertigo, dizziness, headaches, tinnitus, joint pain, depression, anxiety attacks, slurred speech, blurred vision or memory loss, should they just sit idly by and allow these scumbags to destroy their business?

Or, should they fight back? What would a conservative do? Do you think independent agencies are going to conduct research on their own to prove that these claims are BS? Have you ever been involved in any research within a university? Do you think finding the truth that proves the fear-mongers to be full of it generates additional grant money? Grant money flows to those who find problems and are adept at scaring the public. No research showing aspartame to be harmless is going to hit the grant jackpot.

So, what is industry to do? Well, they fund their own research. If you think that just because industry happens to fund research it means that research is flawed, then you don't know very much about the process. There is a great deal of legitimate research being done via industry sponsorship. The companies I've worked for have been active in supporting such research and we do it not to influence a desired outcome but, instead, because we really want (and need) to know the truth. Like the drug industry, we know where the good work is being done and we willingly sponsor the work of these people because it is beneficial to our industry. Poisoning your customers is not a successful model for success. Neither is fighting class action lawsuits. Are you stuck in a lab or do you have some business experience? Either way, I shouldn't have to be explaining this to you.

People who don't understand this process, or the industry itself, believe that there is a cozy relationship between industry and the FDA. This is more BS. I spent almost a decade in a regulatory capacity tasked with shepherding products through the FDA. I can tell you, with certainty, that the relationship between industry and the FDA is highly adversarial and the FDA does industry no favors. The FDA is all about not making mistakes and covering their butts.

You didn't bother to look through all the information in these studies, in addition to all their references and, quite frankly, neither did I. You don't know what is legitimate and what isn't. I do know, however, that this is the most studied food ingredient in history and that there are hundreds of studies out there, done by universities, private research organizations, the government, and the food industry that say you are wrong.

I think I'll go with them.

By the way, I can cite many poisonings and deaths from people consuming too much water, especially in long distance runners. "The New England Journal of Medicine looked at participants in the 2002 Boston Marathon, measuring salt levels from runners’ blood samples before and after the race. Investigators also had runners fill out questionnaires on their fluid consumption during the race and weighed them before and after running. Results showed 13% of the 488 runners enrolled in the study who completed the race developed hyponatremia." Seems this is a fairly significant problem.

Hyponatremia

I'm still trying to find someone who either died or suffered from aspartame toxicity.

Water from the tap or a bottle is perfectly safe isn't it? Or should we add a diclaimser to water by saying something like water is perfectly safe at typical, moderate levels of consumption as a non-nutritive thirst quencher? I mean, it's killed a lot more people than aspartame has.

If I were writing in a scientific journal maybe I would offer such qualifications. Maybe not. For the purpose of posting on this forum however, it's ridiculous to suggest a disclaimer is needed on something that has been used for more than 30 years without any negative impact, and has been studied more than any other food ingredient in history. Unless, of course, you're the kind of scientists who thinks writing about potable water should also come with a disclaimer.

As our research proves, people will believe what they want to believe

So much revealed in that one quote.

Arrogance, us-vs-them, know-it-all-ism, frustration with people in general. Hatred of others, jealousy that others see things differently.

Personally, I believe nothing, nor in anything. I like people. That is healthy and sane.

Belief is insanity. There is only One G-d. G-d put the souls in people, there is nothing closer to G-d in this world than a soul of a person, in a person.

Belief, by itself, of itself, is idolatry. To believe, is to not bet a peace with Our Creator's Creation. "Belief" is the anchor which inspires "us v them": hatred, jealousy, envy, arrogance, frustration with others. Belief is really a fundamental denials of reality, of G-d.

- - -

I know that if holding an apple in my hand, I release my grip, the apple will fall. This is not a matter of "belief". It is experience, knowing. It is the mind at peace with the world.

All of the "believing" and fervent prayer of a believer will not make the apple suspend, or rise. Thus it is clear that belief is meaningless folly.

To take the world as it is, observe it for what it is, act within what it is -- that is true wisdom and peace.

Yet our opponent insists that we break the peace, by demanding "belief" in the dogma as he states it to be.

All of the "believing" and fervent prayer of a believer will not make the apple suspend, or rise. Thus it is clear that belief is meaningless folly.

Do you really believe that?

To take the world as it is, observe it for what it is, act within what it is -- that is true wisdom and peace.

Agreed. But one must believe that one's observations are correct. And one must make inferences from observations--and believe those inferences to be correct.

Yet our opponent insists that we break the peace, by demanding "belief" in the dogma as he states it to be.

Well, I don't think belief is altogether wrong, but I also don't have belief that what has been presented is all of the story. For example, what if ASP alone is not the cause of headaches, but is a co-factor along with sun exposure (you'd be surprised how many things can sensitize a person to sun, or how many things end up being co-factors)? What if the more controlled experiments involve people in a controlled environment, such as indoors, so this effect doesn't show up?

The problem with much of medical research these days is that it's done by people who aren't very well trained in science. And also, Mase is right that the FDA screws up a lot of research with its attitude.

For example, suppose you have a prospective psychotropic drug that actually does affect mood. Suppose it improves mood in 10% of people, makes 20% worse, and doesn't affect 70%. In research terms, that might not be seen as a successful product, yet in actual clinical practice, it might help many patients who fail to respond to other medications. Those who don't respond, or respond negatively, will be taken off the med and another medication or approach might be tried, so there's more than the "average score" benefit in actual clinical application.

As I wrote before, I lost a long reply to your long post and I am not going to re-write it or summarize, but here are some points.

I'm glad you looked at the studies more in-depth, but you seemed to have missed many things. If you read the SCF report, you can see the blatant bias in it. And I'd like the cite on wording of the FDA saying "perfectly safe." Recall that Duke (albeit not Dr. Schiffman, to my knowledge) was caught with not reporting dropouts from studies. For example, "exercise is better than antidepressants" wouldn't look so good if you don't report that many in the exercise-only group dropped out because it wasn't working for them.

[...] I spent almost a decade in a regulatory capacity tasked with shepherding products through the FDA. I can tell you, with certainty, that the relationship between industry and the FDA is highly adversarial and the FDA does industry no favors. [...]

How is it that you were in the industry so long and you don't understand the meaning of "toxicity" or the difference between acute and chronic exposures?

You're right that the relationship CAN be "highly adversarial" and usually is...but not always.

[...] The FDA is all about not making mistakes and covering their butts. [...]

Agreed. FDA and I have a mutual ...um...dislike... based on the Yale/PPA fiasco.

I don't mean that at all. However, I am not a layman who fails to understand how the funding works. It doesn't have to be direct bias to have an effect. Look at climate research.

If climate researchers are told, "you will get all the funding you want if you get certain results," it doesn't mean that anyone has to fake data. It can mean that studies that might end up poking holes in a crisis will be left undone, whereas those likely to support a theory are funded and completed and published. Ergo, one sees a bias without any direct fraud.

Even more directly, if a research group does publish bad findings, you can be sure they won't receive much additional funding until they can design their studies to reduce negative impact to the desired outcome.

There is a great deal of legitimate research being done via industry sponsorship. The companies I've worked for have been active in supporting such research and we do it not to influence a desired outcome but, instead, because we really want (and need) to know the truth. Like the drug industry, we know where the good work is being done and we willingly sponsor the work of these people because it is beneficial to our industry.
[...]

[...]No research showing aspartame to be harmless is going to hit the grant jackpot.

Um...we were talking about Duke receiving Monsanto funding...weren't we?

Poisoning your customers is not a successful model for success. Neither is fighting class action lawsuits.

Sadly, knowing the truth can lead to more liability, according to the $1,000/hr lawyers. Ever try to convince executives to contradict that advice? Hint: even after the company lost multi-millions because of said lawyers, it's not an easy sell.

Are you stuck in a lab or do you have some business experience? Either way, I shouldn't have to be explaining this to you.

Evidently (and honestly, no offense meant), I have more --or just different--experience than you in some of these matters, both technically and on a business side.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.