Monsanto, aka EvilCorp : I find it very hard to know what is true and what isn't

[G.O.O.]

Title says it all.

Context : I'm in favor of a science-based approach to GMOs and glyphosate (since my country is currently debating about whether or not we should ban it ; I personally think we shouldn't). However each time I want to discuss these subjects things end up about Monsanto and what they did.

Problem is : some of the things I'm being told are just false, or heavily biased. I know they did some shady stuff, like paying a former IARC researcher to smear the IARC, or the dicamba debacle. But I more often than not get the story about how Indian farmers got driven to suicide by GM cotton (far from being that simple) or the fact that Monsanto made the agent orange (a different Monsanto than the one we know today, who made the product under US law among other chemical companies).

Also each time I talk about this I seem to get a new story I've never heard before, and I'm pretty sure that if I google these stories I'll get confirmation from a bunch of more or less reliable websites. As a result I'm unable to tell what is true or not.

Can you help on this, ERA ?

 

[BackLogJoe]

From what I understand, it's not a "different" Monsanto that made Agent Orange. They just spun off the chemicals division into another company called Solutia.

 

[fieldafar]

Here's a good starting point:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Monsanto

 

[DrROBschiz]

Monsanto is about as evil as any other multinational corporation

No more no less. They likely dodge taxes, engage in litigation, walk ethical gray areas for profit.l, likely dump money to influence public policy in their favor.. so on so forth

Its the same story. They arent inherently evil at every level but the system that allows them this degree of power and influence is whats flawed


Regarding their products? GMOs are safe and so is round up when used properly. Uhh operative term is that last part

 

[PrimeBeef]

Monsanto is about as evil as any other multinational corporation

No more no less. They likely dodge taxes, engage in litigation, walk ethical gray areas for profit.l, likely dump money to influence public policy in their favor.. so on so forth

Its the same story. They arent inherently evil at every level but the system that allows them this degree of power and influence is whats flawed


Regarding their products? GMOs are safe and so is round up when used properly. Uhh operative term is that last part

Click to shrink...

It's not really hard to use round up properly. Most just don't read the directions or care.

 

[Oscillator]

To me, it doesn't matter if the stuff Monsanto's doing isn't technically as evil as claimed. My problem with them, and industrial farming practices in general, is bigger than socioeconomics. Gene splicing, pouring chemicals onto the soil, limited varieties/monocultures, deforestation, etc. are going against millions of years of natural genetic evolution and biome development, and thousands of years of plant breeding.

People keep saying "we need to feed the world". But a huge portion of today's food crops are grown just to keep prices of restaurant and processed food down. And call me every nasty name in the book, but I don't agree with feeding the entire world. It's causing overpopulation, which is a massive strain on the environment.

 

[Palette Swap]

Subscribed because I’m exactly in the same spot as G.O.O. and I honestly don’t know what to trust, as the public discourse surrounding them here is a complete wasteland that’s held either by Monsanto lobbyists or batshit insane activists Typically, I can’t take at face value Marie-Monique Robin’s word on the issue given how fallacious and anti-science half her arguments are.

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

With their products they are taking risk we can't assess properly. From long term health risks to long term negative effect on eco-systems and their balance.
And they use their political influence to avoid regulation and promote a scientific point of view thats in their favor.

But all of that is profit driven, not driven by "evil".

Money always guides research and that can lead to problems.
For example fossil fuel money guided research and development into the respective motors and stuff. Science' attention only shifted to electro mobility 100 years later, way too late.

 

[Elfotografoalocado]

Well, for instance the EU's current official stance on Roundup is based on a very flawed report that mostly references Monsanto's own risk assessments and ignores independent peer-reviewed papers that show a bit of a darker take on the product.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...sed-on-plagiarised-monsanto-text-report-finds

I'd say it's one of the shittiest companies out there.

 

[Fiye]

To me, it doesn't matter if the stuff Monsanto's doing isn't technically as evil as claimed. My problem with them, and industrial farming practices in general, is bigger than socioeconomics. Gene splicing, pouring chemicals onto the soil, limited varieties/monocultures, deforestation, etc. are going against millions of years of natural genetic evolution and biome development, and thousands of years of plant breeding.

People keep saying "we need to feed the world". But a huge portion of today's food crops are grown just to keep prices of restaurant and processed food down. And call me every nasty name in the book, but I don't agree with feeding the entire world. It's causing overpopulation, which is a massive strain on the environment.

Click to shrink...

Do elaborate, please.

 

[G.O.O.]

Well, for instance the EU's current official stance on Roundup is based on a very flawed report that mostly references Monsanto's own risk assessments and ignores independent peer-reviewed papers that show a bit of a darker take on the product.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...sed-on-plagiarised-monsanto-text-report-finds

I'd say it's one of the shittiest companies out there.

Click to shrink...

Thing is, the protocols are correct and nothing says that independant research deserve mention. There is a problem with the fact that not every copy and pasted bit is referenced as such (because that's a common practice, and on that there *is* a responsibility by monsanto) but as far as science goes, it's fine.

 

[Anarion07]

To me, it doesn't matter if the stuff Monsanto's doing isn't technically as evil as claimed. My problem with them, and industrial farming practices in general, is bigger than socioeconomics. Gene splicing, pouring chemicals onto the soil, limited varieties/monocultures, deforestation, etc. are going against millions of years of natural genetic evolution and biome development, and thousands of years of plant breeding.

People keep saying "we need to feed the world". But a huge portion of today's food crops are grown just to keep prices of restaurant and processed food down. And call me every nasty name in the book, but I don't agree with feeding the entire world. It's causing overpopulation, which is a massive strain on the environment.

Click to shrink...

The use of antibiotics and medicine in general also "go against millions of years of natural genetic evolution".

 

[kmfdmpig]

To me, it doesn't matter if the stuff Monsanto's doing isn't technically as evil as claimed. My problem with them, and industrial farming practices in general, is bigger than socioeconomics. Gene splicing, pouring chemicals onto the soil, limited varieties/monocultures, deforestation, etc. are going against millions of years of natural genetic evolution and biome development, and thousands of years of plant breeding.

People keep saying "we need to feed the world". But a huge portion of today's food crops are grown just to keep prices of restaurant and processed food down. And call me every nasty name in the book, but I don't agree with feeding the entire world. It's causing overpopulation, which is a massive strain on the environment.

Click to shrink...

Advocating for the poor to hurry up and die of starvation is not a take I expected to see this morning. Thanos would be proud.

 

[Oscillator]

The use of antibiotics and medicine in general also "go against millions of years of natural genetic evolution".

Click to shrink...

Modern medicine only dates back to the 1700s. How did the human species survive before that?

 

[Deleted member 24118]

The use of antibiotics and medicine in general also "go against millions of years of natural genetic evolution".

Click to shrink...

Probably not the best argument to use against a guy who wants a chunk of the population to die off lol.

 

[G.O.O.]

Modern medicine only dates back to the 1700s. How did the human species survive before that?

Click to shrink...

erm, badly. Like 1 in 5 women dying in childbirth.

 

[Oscillator]

erm, badly. Like 1 in 5 women dying in childbirth.

Click to shrink...

https://slate.com/technology/2013/0...-in-the-20th-century-are-midwives-better.html

In the United States today, about 15 women die in pregnancy or childbirth per 100,000 live births. That’s way too many, but a century ago it was more than 600 women per 100,000 births. In the 1600s and 1700s, the death rate was twice that: By some estimates, between 1 and 1.5 percent of women giving birth died. Note that the rate is per birth, so the lifetime risk of dying in childbirth was much higher, perhaps 4 percent.

Click to shrink...

It was worse, but not nearly 20%.

 

[G.O.O.]

https://slate.com/technology/2013/0...-in-the-20th-century-are-midwives-better.html



It was worse, but not nearly 20%.

Click to shrink...

Possible, I didn't check my numbers in a while.

Not even sure I mixed up with child mortality, because the rate was significantly higher.

 

[jetpacks was yes]

People keep saying "we need to feed the world". But a huge portion of today's food crops are grown just to keep prices of restaurant and processed food down. And call me every nasty name in the book, but I don't agree with feeding the entire world. It's causing overpopulation, which is a massive strain on the environment.

Click to shrink...

You're... actually being serious? So which ones should die off, the poors over there or the poors over here? Or both? Maybe just the weak and disabled?

Jesus Christ.

 

[Elfotografoalocado]

Thing is, the protocols are correct and nothing says that independant research deserve mention. There is a problem with the fact that not every copy and pasted bit is referenced as such (because that's a common practice, and on that there *is* a responsibility by monsanto) but as far as science goes, it's fine.

Click to shrink...

The authors said they found “clear evidence of BfR’s deliberate pretence of an independent assessment, whereas in reality the authority was only echoing the industry applicants’ assessment.”

Molly Scott Cato, a Green MEP, said the scale of alleged plagiarism by the BfR authors shown by the new paper was “extremely alarming”.

“This helps explain why the World Health Organization assessment on glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen was so at odds with EU assessors, who awarded this toxic pesticide a clean bill of health, brushing off warnings of its dangers,” she said.

The study found plagiarism in 50.1% of the chapters assessing published studies on health risks – including whole paragraphs and entire pages of text.

The European Food Safety Authority (Efsa), based its recommendation that glyphosate was safe for public use on the BfR’s assessment.

A separate analysis of research methods used to evaluate glyphosate by the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also raised questions about regulatory independence.

It found that EPA regulators used unpublished industry reports in 63% of the studies they evaluated, whereas the IARC relied solely on publicly available literature.

Almost three-quarters of the peer-reviewed papers looked at by IARC found evidence of genotoxicity in glyphosate, compared with just 1% of the industry analyses, according to the study published in Environmental Sciences Europe.

I don't know, that looks extremely fucking worrying to me. Looks like extreme levels of corruption and bad practices that most probably are putting public health at risk. Having more than 50% of the report being plagiarized is already a huge red flag, it being plagiarized from industry reports at odds with peer-reviewed papers is even more so, as is brushing off the concerns from those peer-reviewed papers, and the excuses the agency is giving are pathetic.

 

[Oscillator]

Each continent should grow most of their own food (in addition, no fertilizer imports, fishing only in their territorial waters, and growing largely native crops), and have strict food export limits.

No doubt blood will be shed in the process. But I look at things not from a modern political human rights perspective, but from the beginning, and far into the future. I want there to still be wilderness on this planet 1,000 years from now.

 

[G.O.O.]

“This helps explain why the World Health Organization assessment on glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen was so at odds with EU assessors, who awarded this toxic pesticide a clean bill of health, brushing off warnings of its dangers,” she said.

Click to shrink...

Not at all. The IARC calculates danger and the EFSA calculates risk, which isn't the same thing (and to be honest, the greens are *absolutely terrible* at this, I honestly think they're a bigger threat to the environment than every other party...)

As said by the IARC (*not* the WHO, which matters because a joint FAO/WHO committee got the same conclusions as the EFSA) :

The (IARC) Monographs are an exercise in evaluating cancer hazards, despite the historical presence of the word ‘risks’ in the title. The distinction between hazard and risk is important, and the Monographs identify cancer hazards even when risks are very low at current exposure levels, because new uses or unforeseen exposures could engender risks that are significantly higher.

Click to shrink...

"probable human carcinogen" also includes food, like hot water or red meat, without taking into account the realistic level of exposure. That's not what the EFSA is looking for.

there also is a case of conflict of interests by one of the IARC experts, who failed to declare a job as a consultant for two lawyer firms involved in a case against Monsanto. Not sure that it mattered in the end though, but many people forget that part of the story.

 

[Elfotografoalocado]

Not at all. The IARC calculates danger and the EFSA calculates risk, which isn't the same thing (and to be honest, the greens are *absolutely terrible* at this, I honestly think they're a bigger threat to the environment than every other party...)

As said by the IARC (*not* the WHO, which matters because a joint FAO/WHO committee got the same conclusions as the EFSA) :


"probable human carcinogen" also includes food, like hot water or red meat, without taking into account the realistic level of exposure. That's not what the EFSA is looking for.

there also is a case of conflict of interests by one of the IARC experts, who failed to declare a job as a consultant for two lawyer firms involved in a case against Monsanto. Not sure that it mattered in the end though, but many people forget that part of the story.

Click to shrink...

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-...e-worlds-most-popular-herbicide-roundup-30308

There are genuine concerns for both the molecule itself and much more importantly, for the commercial implementations of the molecule, especially considering the increased volumes in which it keeps being used. All while Monsanto undeniably seeks to undermine the neutrality of regulators and floods the scientific world with PR and hush money. There's also the grave concern of resistance to the compound caused by relying exclusively on this one pesticide.

 

[spam musubi]

To me, it doesn't matter if the stuff Monsanto's doing isn't technically as evil as claimed. My problem with them, and industrial farming practices in general, is bigger than socioeconomics. Gene splicing, pouring chemicals onto the soil, limited varieties/monocultures, deforestation, etc. are going against millions of years of natural genetic evolution and biome development, and thousands of years of plant breeding.

People keep saying "we need to feed the world". But a huge portion of today's food crops are grown just to keep prices of restaurant and processed food down. And call me every nasty name in the book, but I don't agree with feeding the entire world. It's causing overpopulation, which is a massive strain on the environment.

Click to shrink...

Can you explain what's bad about "going against millions of years of natural genetic evolution and biome development"? How are GMOs worse than antibiotics?

 

[G.O.O.]

There are genuine concerns for both the molecule itself and much more importantly, for the commercial implementations of the molecule, especially considering the increased volumes in which it keeps being used.

Click to shrink...

I don't know about that but I'd say that's possible. In the US glyphosate is used with glyphosate-resistant crops, which might become a problem - but that's for the US.

However I doubt that Monsanto stil actively tries to undermine regulators and scientists now that glyphosate is in public domain. The main question we have today about glyphosate is "what are we going to use if it gets banned", none of the existing solutions being as clean or tested. It'll be even worse if we ban it for bad reasons, because any substitute we'd find might face the same problems.

 

[shnurgleton]

Eating GMO crops is ok and won't hurt you

Copyrighting GMO crop strains is monopolistic behavior that prevents the hungry from being fed

 

[G.O.O.]

Copyrighting GMO crop strains is monopolistic behavior that prevents the hungry from being fed

Click to shrink...

Mostly because R&D costs a lot, just like pharmaceuticals. Not that there isn't anything to say about patents.

Public GMO research would be amazing though.

 

[SegFault]

People keep saying "we need to feed the world". But a huge portion of today's food crops are grown just to keep prices of restaurant and processed food down. And call me every nasty name in the book, but I don't agree with feeding the entire world. It's causing overpopulation, which is a massive strain on the environment.

Click to shrink...

Are you volunteering to stop eating then?

 

[shnurgleton]

People keep saying "we need to feed the world". But a huge portion of today's food crops are grown just to keep prices of restaurant and processed food down. And call me every nasty name in the book, but I don't agree with feeding the entire world. It's causing overpopulation, which is a massive strain on the environment.

Click to shrink...

wtf

So you think people should just starve to death

I have a few nasty names for people who favor the death of millions

 

[Pomerlaw]

People keep saying "we need to feed the world". But a huge portion of today's food crops are grown just to keep prices of restaurant and processed food down. And call me every nasty name in the book, but I don't agree with feeding the entire world. It's causing overpopulation, which is a massive strain on the environment.

Click to shrink...

First off, you have no idea what is causing overpopulation.

Secondly, I hope you get banned.

 

[thewienke]

Monsanto Bayer regularly has internal conversations about how to feed the world. While corn and soy are a huge part of their product line, they have a very large vegetable division as well. I think they do a lot of good and necessary work overall.

Like what was already mentioned, Bayer acts more as a pharmaceutical company with a significant R&D investment that has to be recouped through sales. That alone won't make them very popular.

 

[Masoyama]

Modern medicine only dates back to the 1700s. How did the human species survive before that?

Click to shrink...

By and large we did not. Call me bourgeois but I like having my parents alive past 40 and not worry about having a dozen dead children in my future.

To me, it doesn't matter if the stuff Monsanto's doing isn't technically as evil as claimed. My problem with them, and industrial farming practices in general, is bigger than socioeconomics. Gene splicing, pouring chemicals onto the soil, limited varieties/monocultures, deforestation, etc. are going against millions of years of natural genetic evolution and biome development, and thousands of years of plant breeding.

People keep saying "we need to feed the world". But a huge portion of today's food crops are grown just to keep prices of restaurant and processed food down. And call me every nasty name in the book, but I don't agree with feeding the entire world. It's causing overpopulation, which is a massive strain on the environment.

Click to shrink...

I know some people here really hate the poor / minorities but it is rare for someone to be so open about their disdain of non whites.

 

[Mechaplum]

Each continent should grow most of their own food (in addition, no fertilizer imports, fishing only in their territorial waters, and growing largely native crops), and have strict food export limits.

No doubt blood will be shed in the process. But I look at things not from a modern political human rights perspective, but from the beginning, and far into the future. I want there to still be wilderness on this planet 1,000 years from now.

Click to shrink...

Are you the one doing then blood shedding or starving? Environmentalism is good because it has vastly better utility to humankind in the long run. This “millions should perish for Mother Nature” takes are hilariously evil.

 

[Deleted member 14459]

I am pro-GMO as technology - but Monsanto's reputation is earned. Biggest problem with Monsanto is that they control large parts of the supply chain (seed, pesticides, finance) of their products with the intent of deriving monopoly rent and increasing subsistence farmers dependencies on external (monopoly) inputs. They have played a central (but not sole) part in certain regions in increasing farmer debt - we can argue about consequences of life without GMO but that is beside the point, their action and inaction can and should still be considered through an ethical lens (just as it is not sufficient to say we cannot criticize VW because we productivity would be lower without car technology). To say all multinational corporations act the same is simply misleading and inaccurate, that is as accurate as to say that all politicians are the same. Monsanto's use of extremely aggressive lobbying, smearing and discrediting tactics, as well as explicit intent to influence university researchers/research is well recorded - and that they have engaged in that is a strategic choice not their fate (as a corporation). Monsanto is also a very big GOP donor and it's split between Dem and GOP candidates in federal elections heavily favors GOP candidates 4:1.

Of course people will create very strong legitimization and compartmentalization to working somewhere and construing them as "good" - there are many normal people working for the GOP who legitimize their involvement and compartmentalize their actions at work in relation to what they do at home/the values they hold etc.

 

[UltimateHigh]

Are you volunteering to stop eating then?

Click to shrink...

this is a good question.

 

[SegFault]

this is a good question.

Click to shrink...

The answer is no. Anyone who advocates for shit like that is somehow never included in the “other” group that has to die. Funny how it works huh?

 

[Kill3r7]

Stick to the facts and take all allegations with a grain of salt. There is enough case law on them for anyone to form an educated opinion.

 

[G.O.O.]

Stick to the facts and take all allegations with a grain of salt. There is enough case law on them for anyone to form an educated opinion.

Click to shrink...

That's easier said than done.

Last time I met with friends, one of them told me that I should look "what they did in Africa", and not the kind of guy who talks about things he doesn't know. I take it with a grain of salt, but I can't even look up what he's talking about without stumbling into a ton of BS.

 

[OG Kush]

The Rich Roll Podcast – Zach Bush, M.D. on GMO’s, Glyphosate, and Healing the Gut
and
Zach Bush, MD On The Science & Spirituality of Human And Planetary Transformation (don't mind title, still mostly about GMOs, Monsanto (now called Bayer)
Listened to these 2 podcasts this past week... and yeh fuck Monsanto. I mean I've known they were scummy before they but this just solidified it.

 

[chicken_pasta]

People hate GMOs (and Monsanto, as a result) largely due to ignorance and fear.

 

[The Albatross]

That's easier said than done.

Last time I met with friends, one of them told me that I should look "what they did in Africa", and not the kind of guy who talks about things he doesn't know. I take it with a grain of salt, but I can't even look up what he's talking about without stumbling into a ton of BS.

Click to shrink...

I have an anti-GMO friend who is like this too, it's really hard to have an informed conversation about Monsanto because there's so much insane information on the internet about them. His fascination is on squid DNA being in ... like ... tomatoes or something, and that's his go to, or on Roundup being in milk, or w/e.

I'd say most people like me (E.g., internet informed millennials) are anti-monsanto because of the string of documentaries from the 2000s, some of which may not be reputable, but some of which probably are.

 

[NarohDethan]

Last time I met with friends, one of them told me that I should look "what they did in Africa", and not the kind of guy who talks about things he doesn't know. I take it with a grain of salt, but I can't even look up what he's talking about without stumbling into a ton of BS.

Click to shrink...

This was Nestlé, no?

 

[House_Of_Lightning]

Each continent should grow most of their own food (in addition, no fertilizer imports, fishing only in their territorial waters, and growing largely native crops), and have strict food export limits.

No doubt blood will be shed in the process. But I look at things not from a modern political human rights perspective, but from the beginning, and far into the future. I want there to still be wilderness on this planet 1,000 years from now.

Click to shrink...

"Pol Pot had the right idea. He was just an underachiever."

 

[G.O.O.]

I have an anti-GMO friend who is like this too, it's really hard to have an informed conversation about Monsanto because there's so much insane information on the internet about them. His fascination is on squid DNA being in ... like ... tomatoes or something, and that's his go to, or on Roundup being in milk, or w/e.

I'd say most people like me (E.g., internet informed millennials) are anti-monsanto because of the string of documentaries from the 2000s, some of which may not be reputable, but some of which probably are.

Click to shrink...

Marie-Monique Robin's world according to monsanto is very popular in France, I suspect everyone left-of-center has seen it at some point. And it's plain awful.

This was Nestlé, no?

Click to shrink...

Maybe. I think I'll just ask sources next time I see him.

 

[Deleted member 14459]

Title says it all.

Context : I'm in favor of a science-based approach to GMOs and glyphosate (since my country is currently debating about whether or not we should ban it ; I personally think we shouldn't). However each time I want to discuss these subjects things end up about Monsanto and what they did.

Problem is : some of the things I'm being told are just false, or heavily biased. I know they did some shady stuff, like paying a former IARC researcher to smear the IARC, or the dicamba debacle. But I more often than not get the story about how Indian farmers got driven to suicide by GM cotton (far from being that simple) or the fact that Monsanto made the agent orange (a different Monsanto than the one we know today, who made the product under US law among other chemical companies).

Also each time I talk about this I seem to get a new story I've never heard before, and I'm pretty sure that if I google these stories I'll get confirmation from a bunch of more or less reliable websites. As a result I'm unable to tell what is true or not.

Can you help on this, ERA ?

Click to shrink...

A pro-tip, it is increasingly common that peer-reviewed scientific articles are released in open access pre-publication format. I looked up some recent publications for you regarding Monsanto that focuses on their ethical conduct (rather than science on GMO safety) - what you find on Internet at large is mediatic shit/propaganda in both directions:

Krimsky, S., & Gillam, C. (2018). Roundup litigation discovery documents: implications for public health and journal ethics. Journal of public health policy, 1-9.

McHenry, L. B. (2018). The monsanto papers: Poisoning the scientific well. International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine, (Preprint), 1-13.

Here is data on their PAC spending/GOP support: https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=c00042069&cycle=2018

Their lobbying to get a neonics ban in wild refuges (connected to the rapid dwindling of wild bee populations) lifted by Trump is also fairly well documented and his nomination of a former Monsanto executive to lead the US Fish and Wildlife Service, which decides on such bans...

 

[btags]

To me, it doesn't matter if the stuff Monsanto's doing isn't technically as evil as claimed. My problem with them, and industrial farming practices in general, is bigger than socioeconomics. Gene splicing, pouring chemicals onto the soil, limited varieties/monocultures, deforestation, etc. are going against millions of years of natural genetic evolution and biome development, and thousands of years of plant breeding.

People keep saying "we need to feed the world". But a huge portion of today's food crops are grown just to keep prices of restaurant and processed food down. And call me every nasty name in the book, but I don't agree with feeding the entire world. It's causing overpopulation, which is a massive strain on the environment.

Click to shrink...

 

[Oscillator]

I know some people here really hate the poor / minorities but it is rare for someone to be so open about their disdain of non whites.

Click to shrink...

I didn't single out non-whites. Food engineering/food globalism has also made whites dependent. Can you imagine the aftermath of processed food ingredients such as cheap corn syrup and cheap vegetable oil disappearing? Not to mention coffee?

Also, I don't want there to be bloodshed, but I just don't see the world surviving under the current unrestrained agricultural system.

I won't go on for worry of sticking my foot in my mouth and earning another ban. Just please be aware that there's an immensely destructive side to this world that gets ignored far too often.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/oct/02/truth-about-pineapple-production
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_agriculture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertilizer#Trace_mineral_depletion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_Indonesia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_use_in_livestock
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_Atlantic_northwest_cod_fishery

 

[Dirt McGirt]

Modern medicine only dates back to the 1700s. How did the human species survive before that?

Click to shrink...

Our ancestors were mainly surviving, creating medicine along the way so you don't have to worry about dying of diarrhoea today, but can focus on gamingand complaining about overpopulation.