[cm2012]

Monsanto and Roundup in the modern era are obviously good for the world.

Advertising and marketing are tools, not inherently good or bad.

Being cookied online for the purpose of tracking advertising effectiveness doesn't hurt the end user.

It's so unlikely for obese people to permanently lose weight without extreme surgical or therapeutic intervention that its unethical for doctors to recommend diet and exercise alone as if that recommendation is efficacious.

That should do it.

[bad_good_guy]

Can we get a full disclosure on point 4, are you obese? It's very possible for obese people to lose weight, it just needs to be treated like quitting smoking is treated.

[cm2012]

I am overweight but not obese. But this is not an anecdotal issue, the literature is crystal clear on this.

[meiraleal]

I know personally not one but some obese people that became fit only with diet (mainly long fasting) and exercises. I myself had an obese BMI (32) and now it is normal (24).

You can choose a better literature. It is all over the internet.

[tudelo]

Can I have a tl;dr on what's good about Monsanto?

Also for point 4, do you think it's unethical for doctors to have faith that a patient can persevere through a completely conquerable challenge? Is it kind of like underprescribing for someone who is in pain? I guess in that way I can kind of see what you're getting at.

[cm2012]

The main thing they're hated for is patenting GMO seed varieties in support of their roundup pesticide product line. Roundup works by making seed varieties that work just like normal plants but are immune to the roundup pesticides. So a farmer can place pesticide on a field, and it will only kill weeds, not their crops.

The "hate evil Monsanto for destroying nature" bandwagon ignores that:

1) 99% of anti-gmo stuff is anti-science fear mongering. There are very few good general anti-GMO arguments.

2) Farmers love roundup because it increases crop productivity per acre sustainably.

3) Using roundup greatly decreases the amount of pesticide needed per acre of crops, since it can be targeted so much more precisely. So it makes the world's water supplies and crops cleaner overall.

4) Because round-up seeds are so great, farmers sometimes try to grow it without paying licensing fees (because why would you if you can get away with it?).

5) Monsanto is very legally aggressive defending its seed patents, since why would anyone pay to license their seeds if you can just steal it? Monsanto spent a lot of money developing the science for roundup seeds.

6) Monsanto has never sued someone for accidentally having round-up seeds (cross contamination). They have an amazing win rates on their lawsuits specifically because they only target cut and dry cases.

7) But the bandwagon is against the evil Monsanto, so people are overly credulous on the farmer side.

The vast majority of things Monsanto is criticized for play out just like the above.

As a separate example, check out this Quora answer for, "Is Monsanto evil?": https://www.quora.com/Is-Monsanto-evil. And let me know which side seems more reasonable to you.

Documentaries are an awful way to disseminate accurate knowledge. It's 90% emotion driven, and almost always has a narrative to tell that they're not going to want pesky facts to get in the way of.