Monsanto?!
 

What are all your thoughts on Monsanto being a major sponsor of FIRST?

Re: Monsanto?!
 

Anytime we can reach out to businesses and the community to share what FIRST has brought to all of us, we should. Have they showed interest?

Re: Monsanto?!
 

Is their cash any less green than any other business?
I thought their display was well-thought-out and well done. It highlighted the scientific and technological aspects of agrarian careers - something that is often wrongfully forgotten. It was interactive, interesting, and worked for many age groups.
Many people don't realize that many of the biggest historical advances in many technologies - for instance dial-up modems and instant global weather reports - were pioneered by the American Farmer.
Good for them for reminding us that agriculture truly is a cutting-edge sector, and the people who work in it are out standing in their field (ha!).

Re: Monsanto?!
 

They also gave tons of volunteers to Championship.

Re: Monsanto?!
 

We are hoping Monsanto to sponsor us and give us that miracle fertilizer to grow our team and genetically modify our mentor to be super duper mentors!

Re: Monsanto?!
 

They're hardly the only FIRST sponsor with business practices I find distasteful. That doesn't mean that everything they do is wrong, or that they're less valuable as a sponsor to the program. So long as champs is in St Louis, it makes sense to have them onboard.

Re: Monsanto?!
 

So, it's ok for a company that profits off of finding a more efficient way to kill people (Boeing, Lockheed, and their ilk) to sponsor FIRST but not these guys?*

I guess I just don't understand all the hate for these folks. Their money is just as green, their volunteers just as helpful, and their goals are probably just as noble.




*I don't have a problem with these companies either.

Re: Monsanto?!
 

If anything I would bet it is greener, they probable genetically modified it so it would stay green year round and be Round-Up resistant.


I kid of course. There are very few companies out there that have business practices every one will agree with. As long as they are operating within the law then I think it would be a slippery slope for FIRST to decline them as a sponsor based on their business practices.

Re: Monsanto?!
 

This.

Moreover, business practices aside, GM crops are hugely important to modern society and we need people going into agricultural sciences.

Re: Monsanto?!
 

I agree with you totally all though there practice is distasteful you learn from experince that you never turn down a sponsor ship oppertunity money is money.

Re: Monsanto?!
 

I my humble opinion money is not money, when its tainted! I am NOT talking specific to Monsanto there is a huge discussion about and its impact. Depending on which side you are, the resources can be considered as good or tainted. I will not be the judge, jury or executioner. I will leave it to smart people at FIRST to evaluate the ethical part of it and trust they will do a good job. When I seek sponsor I stay from certain businesses who I don't approve off, but this doesnot mean that I am expert in other businesses and know that their money is not tainted. Its my judgement call. As far as Monsanto is concerned I would not mind their presence as long as FIRST has made that decision.

Re: Monsanto?!
 

Speaking hypothetically, why turn down a good deed from a bad person/organization? If, say, the mafia were to donate money and supplies to hurricane relief efforts, should that be denied?


disclaimer: I am not comparing Monsanto to the mafia, nor do I oppose GMOs.

Re: Monsanto?!
 

Wait, seriously? Mafia presumably is an organization that primarily works in illegal industries.

Monsanto is a perfectly legal company whether you agree with their business practices or not.

Re: Monsanto?!
 

As far as I'm concerned every dollar they give to FIRST is a dollar they aren't spending prosecuting a farmer.

I'm not a Monsanto fan, but they're far from the most morally bankrupt American company and FIRST is a pretty darn good cause for them to be giving to.

Re: Monsanto?!
 

The statement was intentionally hyperbolic to provoke thought and discussion of the issue here. It was in response to the post above it, regarding "tainted money," and contained a direct analogy to real world events. I prefaced it with "speaking hypothetically" for a reason.

Re: Monsanto?!
 

I'll say the same thing I said privately then: That argument is flawed. It means that any arguments (or at least any parallels we could draw) are based on the assumption that Monsanto has done something illegal (or, has not paid the court ordered penalty for illegal actions if they DID do something illegal). You may call them morally repugnant (and there's a chance I'd even agree with that) but to claim they have broken the law and not paid all legally required penalties is a dangerous road to tread on.

Now, what discussion should we be having here? A discussion about whether a company that makes its profits in ways that some of us call questionable should be allowed to donate to groups? A discussion whether FIRST should have turned away funding from a company that makes its profits this way? Or can we just be happy that some of this, in your opinion, ill gotten money is being given back to a group that isn't bad?

I'm cool having any of those discussions, but if this is going to turn into comparing a legal company to an organization focused on illegal activities or in attacking specific companies I'm not so sure that this is the proper forum.

Re: Monsanto?!
 

Please find where I claimed they have broken the law. You won't be able to, because I didn't. You're attempting to insert assumptions about the intents of my statements that aren't actually present in my statements. Please read what I read and take it literally, rather inserting your own biases when you attempt to read between the lines.

My point was rhetorical. My choice of using the mafia was intended to find an organization that everyone could find obvious flaws with and largely contempt towards, as well as drawing a parallel to the real word activities of the Yakuza in Japan after the 2011 tsunami. The idea was to demonstrate that even "morally repugnant" organizations can do good deeds. Rather than follow was is essentially a ad hominem attack on the organization, this action of the organization should be viewed on its own merits.

You seem to grasp the basic point of my comment. Rather than attempting to spin my post into something it was not meant to be, and which nobody but yourself has drawn publically, you can chose to continue with the conversation.

Re: Monsanto?!
 

Would any single person legitimately feel comfortable showing the CEO of Monsanto this thread? There was already a similar discussion (although the issue was different) with FIRST being sponsored by Jane Cosmetics. I know we may not all agree on our sponsors, and that's fine. No company is perfect. But are we really going to go back and forth on CD having conversations about our sponsors that could easily be interpreted as ungrateful?

Nobody is forcing any of our sponsors to help us. It's by their own choice, and they could at any point decide to stop sponsoring FIRST. The best way we can hold on to our sponsors is by showing gratitude to them. I've yet to see a thread on CD that THANKS major FIRST sponsors. I've only seen ones questioning them. I can tell from these threads most people are grateful, but I'm not so sure we do a very good job of showing it.

Re: Monsanto?!
 

That's not the issue here. We're discussing ethics, not legality. If the only judgement of a company's ethical practice is strict adherence to the law, then pretty much any business is ethical. I don't think most would agree with this assessment. Sean's point was to pick an *obviously* unethical organization giving money to an *obviously* ethical cause to stimulate discussion.

Something that makes this situation different than other ethical decisions involving individuals and corporations is that sponsorship of an FRC team is rarely a large net benefit to the sponsoring organization (at least short term). The extra press and attention the brand gets is not particularly notable, certainly not for the cost. It's a lot harder to argue that agreeing to be sponsored by an organization is a form of supporting that organization. Choosing not to be sponsored by a company you have deemed unethical for whatever reason doesn't hurt the company or prevent it from growing at all.

Buying company product, working with the company, working for the company, these are when ethical decisions obviously come to play. I don't necessarily see how they do here.

Re: Monsanto?!
 

1.) There is almost always some measured net benefit to a corporation's sponsorship of FRC teams and/or events. It is up to each corporation to figure out how - some need more PR, some need better interns/employees and some want a combination of both plus tax incentives.
2.) The whole 'ethics' debate here is about Monsanto's intent vs. execution. They use technology to address a growing world problem (great intent) yet repeatedly hide or undermine attempts for transparency or to study the side effects (questionable execution). We can even supersede the GMO debate since drought-resistant GMO wheat is a key reason the Midwest survived the Dust Bowl in the 1930's.
3.) At this time, no one can claim 100% certainty about whether Monsanto's current practices have long-term detrimental effects on human health. The studies I've read make conclusions one way or the other and yet have glaring holes in the scientific method. Being "pretty sure it's safe" or "pretty sure it's bad" just isn't good enough.
4.) Here's the X Factor (to address Chris's statement): When was the last time you ate something grown from Monsanto seeds and/or used with other Monsanto products? Are you sure it was so long ago? It is increasingly difficult to avoid derivative food products from a given company, especially foods from publicly-traded companies with incentives to delay transparency to the consumer.

As an overall FIRST sponsorship - it's not like I'm going to Monsanto to sponsor my own hobbies, so it really isn't my concern who they sponsor. -0.02.

GMO vs non-GMO debate is healthy for these forums. Perhaps a FIRST alum will solve the problem Monsanto is trying to address, but without chemical baths. Comparing Monsanto to the Mafia is a little extreme, but I understand the point made.

Re: Monsanto?!
 

Monsanto Hawaii has supported us the last several years, and we even got a much larger grant amount through their corporate U.S. Site grant this past year.

Aside from the GMO-nonGMO debate, our team is grateful for the opportunity they provide our team members in getting the experience of FIRST Robotics. We treat them like any of our other supporters with the utmost respect and professionalism.

Re: Monsanto?!
 

I feel it's worth noting that there are a few other areas of concern for Monsanto. There's GMO as a whole, which I don't think is obviously or inherently bad. Genetic modification to resist pesticides is of a much greater concern to me as these modifications find their ways into other crops and plants in the environment, requiring the invention of more exotic and dangerous pesticides to keep up.

The biggest ethical concern I have is with their business practices. Monsanto has patented genome sequences for plants. This alone is fairly ridiculous, literally patenting a form of life, but their enforcement of these patents is particularly terrible. If a non-Monsanto farmer sits near a Monsanto farm, there's a significant chance of some of the Monsanto seeds spilling over into this farm. Monsanto then sues the pants off of anyone whose farm somehow acquired even a tiny number of Monsanto crops without having bought their seeds - even though the seeds were bought and paid for by another farmer and there was zero human intervention leading to the "infringement". In many situations this essentially forces farmers to either buy Monsanto to avoid these lawsuits or fold entirely. It's weird because they aren't suing for theft - Monsanto loses no money - and the other farm likely doesn't care that they lost a dozen seeds due to wind, but they're suing for *patent infringement*.

Ethical consumerism is a whole 'nother debate, but it's highly likely that you have eaten Monsanto products several times a week if not daily. With thousands of brands sourcing from Monsanto it's practically impossible to avoid them without serious concentrated effort.

Re: Monsanto?!
 

Monsanto has a MASSIVE presence in Saint Louis, so it would make sense to sponsor a massive event like the CMP.

I might not agree with some of their practices, but without GM crops we probably wouldn't be able to eat any tomatoes. Plus, just cross pollinating plants is genetically modifying them. Mendel has been doing that since like the 1840s, and he was nowhere near the first. (Just the most notable to me)

Re: Monsanto?!
 

There really isn't so much of a debate about GMOs as a whole as there is a very small, loud minority of people shouting "HEALTH!" and making sensationalist claims in the absence of evidence. You'd be hard-pressed to find any rational criticism about genetic modification in principle, because it's precisely the same thing we've been doing for the entire history of human agriculture.

Re: Monsanto?!
 

Exactly. My high school (the School of Environmental Studies) spends nearly half a school year between junior and senior years on GMOs, related business practices, and the like. If you want to talk unethical business practices, GMOs are a great way to start a discussion. Health, not so much.

Re: Monsanto?!
 

I don't think anything about GMOs are inherently unethical in terms of business practices. The do present the opportunity for ethical dilemmas to be created, but I don't blame the GMOs for that. It's more of a dilemma of our intellectual property system, and the abuses of it, as well as our corporate farming structure.

Re: Monsanto?!
 

Oh, I agree there's nothing inherently unethical with businesses involving GMOs, but it's a fantastic portal into talking about unethical business practices, as well as general human behavior in regards to the environment and the effects of technology on the environment and human culture. It's a very interesting subject that has a large variety of ramifications that are all in my opinion fascinating.

Re: Monsanto?!
 

[quote=Andrew Schreiber;1382836]Wait, seriously? Mafia presumably is an organization that primarily works in illegal industries.

Monsanto is a perfectly legal company whether you agree with their business practices or not.[/QUOTE/]

I just did a project on them and im fine with there gmo's what im not fine with is the way they spread there gmo's to other farms suing land owners for accidently growing there patented corn, when the seeds float in through the wind.

Re: Monsanto?!
 

Did anybody go on a Monsanto tour that was offered at champs?

Re: Monsanto?!
 

In general shouldn't we want all organizations to come into FIRST. Their money and volunteers can help us on our mission but also by being involved in FIRST their organization can change as well. The ideals we support of GP and coopertition could spread to more organizations and that is not going to happen if we shut anyone out.

Re: Monsanto?!
 

I have no issue whatsoever with GMOs in general, but I have a serious problem with some of the things we're GMing Os to do--like produce systemic neonicotinoid pesticides that are toxic to honeybees.

It's very hard to get a handle on what is and isn't true in this regard, though, because it's basically impossible to find anything from an unbiased source.

Re: Monsanto?!
 

Can you point us to more information on this? The only lawsuit I'm aware of that sounds like that was actually brought by farmers against Monsanto: http://www.osgata.org/osgata-et-al-v-monsanto/

Re: Monsanto?!
 

Probably the Schmeiser case, where every court involved found Schmeiser's story to be false.

I'm not a big fan of some of what Monsanto is doing, but they're not boogeymen.

If we want a real kerfuffle, let's get the Koch brothers and George Soros to sponsor FIRST!

Re: Monsanto?!
 

I don't really see the point in arguing ethics here. There are a lot of people who could question the ethics of a bunch of defense contractors sponsoring teams and events, but I don't see that happening on here. At the end of the day, does it really matter if they support our organization or not? You don't have to reciprocate that support if you don't like the corporation, so I don't see an issue.

Re: Monsanto?!
 

Charles Ponzi.

Re: Monsanto?!
 

Pretty sure some Koch companies already do. Specifically Georgia-Pacific and Molex (in some way, shape, or form). :)

Re: Monsanto?!
 

I know. :D

Re: Monsanto?!
 

That was neither corn nor accidental. If it's what Stephen was alluding to, he's contributing (intentionally or not) to the distortion of fact that surrounds most "discussions" of Monsanto.

Stephen, what was your project about?

Re: Monsanto?!
 

Would anyone in this thread object if Nestle sponsored FIRST?

How about Apple?

Re: Monsanto?!
 

The sponsors' advertising is on the robot.

Speaking of ethics or lack there of, are there any teams sponsored by big banks that took the bail out?

If so, the teams potentially have many of my friend's and my own money towards sponsorship of their team. You are welcome; however, I'm never going to be able to retire due to what happened (as far as I'm concerned, the big bank owes me somewhere between 75 to 85k).

Re: Monsanto?!
 

The Kochs and Soros have created value along the way. Ponzi played a negative sum marketing game to perfection, for a while. Ponzi's successors live on today at the highest levels in the current political system in the USA.

Re: Monsanto?!
 

Hmm, lets nuke Michigan FIRST & more in middle America by banning support from Gettlefinger Motors and Fiat (oops, sorry, Chrysler).

And teams supported by NASA (and perhaps related, but not directly government organizations like the JPL) sponsorship are directly (ie without other non-political societal constraints on disbursement of the common weal) supported by the citizens of the United States. Should every resident involved in FIRST be an equal recipient of the largess of the US government? Our elected representatives are playing pretty loose with all of our money, in many ways. In practice, the 14th Amendment can be pretty nasty when it comes to pork.

You want purity of essence? Say hello to a $@#$@#$@#$@# fine team, Caution!

Re: Monsanto?!
 

Alright, what if a cigarette company started sponsoring FIRST? I would contend that FIRST shouldn't let cigarette advertising into FRC events even if it means turning down equally green money.

I don't think we should get too up in arms about Monsanto sponsoring FIRST (although I don't support their business practices/patent litigation).

Re: Monsanto?!
 

I think we should stop listing all of the businesses that should get turned down by FIRST. It is FIRST's responsibility to decide whether or not something is appropriate. If they feel like a sponsor is a bad influence to the students then I am positive they will act.

Re: Monsanto?!
 

Yes, that was my point, but poorly said. I should have said, "probably a distortion of...."

Re: Monsanto?!
 

Directly from the monsanto website: http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pa...ave-seeds.aspx They use this clause to get farms that seeds blow into or that birds drop.

Supreme court hearing about monsanto: http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-patents-sue-farmers-547/

the supreme court case is called monsanto Vs. Farmer if you would be interested in looking up more information on it

Also Back in a believe march of 2013 the goverment passed the farmer assurance provision (otherwise know as the Monsanto protection act) that first gave them the ability to do this eventually this ended at the end of the fiscal year. but lead it to the supreme court.

And my project was on gmo's in general with the focus on monsanto, but by doing this I uncovered all this information that im presenting Then I wrote a secound short essay about buisness practices based on this. Your right in the fact that this is not 100% accurate in all regards, but I do belive based on facts that Monsanto has sued farmers for inadvertly growing there "patented seed." now I will also state that Monsanto did sue farmers for saving seeds. (which is what the supreme court okayed them to do) but have they taken advantage of this? Absolutly!

Re: Monsanto?!
 

Why did you only focus on the bail out portion and relate it to Engineering companies?

What got the big banks to the point of having to have a government bailout is the unethical part that I'm talking about. Granted, part of that is the Fed not having insight or oversight into big banking policies and keeping them in line to prevent their big cash grab from middle Americans' pockets for those of us who played by the rules and didn't bite off more than we could chew with a mortgage (there goes that can of worms).
Why does the Fed money have to be funneled through NASA to the Teams?

Re: Monsanto?!
 

Not so. Monsanto has never used that clause in cases of accidental "contamination" of fields. Monsanto has always promised that they would not do so. Monsanto is even legally bound to live up to that promise.

The suits are brought by Monsanto against farmers who do exactly what the page you linked to says will lead to their being sued: saving and replanting seeds in violation of the agreement they signed when buying the seeds. This is standard practice with any supplier of hybrid seeds, and is not anything specific to either genetically engineered seed in general or Monsanto in particular.

That's the OSGATA et al. v. Monsanto case I mentioned. It was the farmers who sued Monsanto in an attempt to prohibit Monsanto from taking action in a hypothetical case of accidental contamination. The courts ruled that the OSGATA group had no justification for bringing suit, but also ruled that Monsanto's existing promise not to sue in such cases was legally enforceable.

I can find no Supreme Court case by that name.

I don't know where you're getting your information, but it is not accurate. That provision has nothing to do with either seed-saving or crop contamination. It's about getting permission to plant crops that have had their legality for commercial use removed by court decision, allowing a growing season not to be lost while the appeals process is underway.

It's closer to 0% accurate. Your references actually show that Monsanto does not sue for inadvertent cultivation of such seeds. They are vigorous in their prosecution of those who intentionally plant Monsanto-patented seeds without having paid for them, but that's not the same thing at all.

Re: Monsanto?!
 

You covered the banks fairly well (but ignored the encouragement of bad loan practices by FNMA and certain members of Congress). In order to make a sarcastic point, I though we'd more on to more unethical behaviors by those in high places (how much did Fiat pay for Chrysler?) (and Gettlefinger Motors was a direct reference to a group that disparately benefited from political largess during that crisis). When does the money stop being tainted?

It is not "Fed money" being "funneled through NASA," it's our money, extracted from us by the taxing power of the government, funneled through the IRS, the Treasury Department and NASA, with some help from Congress at every turn. It is far more efficient for me to donate directly to a team; no bureaucrats taking a cut along the way, no decisions for or against teams by slightly interested bystanders. Pure application of the fruits of my labor to a good cause.

Re: Monsanto?!
 

The problem with Monsanto isn't that it's bad, it's that people think it's bad and Monsanto doesn't care. GMO foods on a whole get more of a bad rap because of Monsanto, and that bleeds into many other areas.
For example, take golden rice. Rice fortified with vitamins for poor people in East Asia. Leaders there rejected it due to it being "untraditional". No exactly related to Monsanto, but definitely related to their perception of GMO foods. GMO needs to have a large and positive media campaign, and currently the big name for that is Monsanto. They are indirectly/ inadvertantly letting GMO foods become negative things in the public eye.

Re: Monsanto?!
 

There are a lot of people who could question why our populace, ( posters on this message board ) doesn't understand the need to legitimately defend our borders, our nation, and our people.

Re: Monsanto?!
 

And there's a lot of folks who would question if the defense industry enabled that defense or merely profited off it.

Re: Monsanto?!
 

We the people, via the government, issue contracts to the defense industry.

We the people are responsible for the policy we enact and the contracts we issue.

We the people cannot pass the buck on to the industry and demonize them when we fail to take responsibility for our own actions.

And in the past few years we the people have decided to radically shrink our defense spending. The Air Force will be the smallest since WW2. The Army is radically shrinking. And so on.

Yet we the people continue to ravage the rest of the populace with non-defense entitlement programs that consume over 50% of the total US budget.

And BTW: The defense so called 'profits' and ROI are well understood and within acceptable standards relative to other industry segments and sectors.

Re: Monsanto?!
 

Color me confused - I don't really understand what about 80% of the comments here have to do with coopetitive robotics. Take it it chit-chat, or take it to PM.
This is a live, public, searchable forum. Real conversations have real ramifications.

Re: Monsanto?!
 

Take your political rhetoric elsewhere please.

Re: Monsanto?!
 

Basically some people are offended by certain companies or industry segments coming anywhere near kids or these robotics programs.

Depending on who is chattering, the aggrieved person may be complaining that the sponsor is involved in feeding 9 billion hungry souls, defending innocents from foreign terrorists and threats, or that grandma through her retirement fund, helped a company take a risk and develop a product that eventually earned her some retirement income through the companies profit.

So I guess the alternative is to form the "Cat Food Brigade", and shove grandma over the cliff in her wheelchair while she eats lunch from a tin of cat food........ ah, but I digress... That's an old Alan Simpson ploy...

Re: Monsanto?!
 

Okay guys, everybody calm down. Chief Delphi is the place to talk robots, not politics. While people are entitled to such opinions, here is not the place to get into a debate about them. Please take it somewhere else (slashdot.org would be an excellent place). This thread isn't about FIRST anymore, and for all intents and purposes this is a FIRST forum. Chief Delphi is one of the few bastions of the internet where it isn't flagrantly political, and preferably we can work together to keep it that way.

Thank you.

Re: Monsanto?!
 

I strongly disagree with their business practices and products, but I can say it was very generous of them to sponsor FIRST.

Re: Monsanto?!
 

We are going to take a break from this.