> Decent behaviour is admirable, but I don’t know if I’d call it
> breathtaking and audacious.

In some situations decent behaviour is just that, but, then in this
context, no one suggested that it was.

> Monsanto has a public image problem -  like Darth Vader had a public
> image problem>

It would be hard to find a better analogy.  Just as Darth Vader is an
entirely fictitious villain, created to scare, annoy and the entertain
the masses and create reputation and profits for the creators, the
"Monsanto Monster" that people love is a creation of fantasy designed
for similar purposes and just like Darth Vader, people love to embellish
and extrapolate from the stories. Here is just one more example.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/monsanto.asp

The real Monsanto is far less exciting.  It is an organization of many
enterprises and people scattered widely with different purposes, goals
and ideas, but focused generally on increasing the amount and
reliability of food production.
http://www.monsanto.com/whoweare/Pages/default.aspx

> this is the company that had to publicly deny they were trying to
> develop a termination gene in seeds. Why did they have to publicly
> deny this?

Could it be that they are innocent?

For that matter, it is completely plausible that there are, responsible,
Mandatory and non-malicious reasons for undertaking such research --
with no intention of applying it to current production.

For those interested in understanding the issue and going beyond
rhetoric, let's examine the possibilities.

Suppose you were a company that was creating more
increasingly robust crop varieties -- plants which could withstand
herbicides, drought, pests and root disturbance and which were designed
to produce abundant and viable seeds under conditions which would
destroy normal crops.  Would you not feel obliged to have a way to stop
it from becoming a noxious and unstoppable weed?  Would regulators not
insist on such a mechanism?

Whether such a crop is ever developed, produced and marketed, having a
complete understanding of all aspects of the plant in its environment
and the implications is part and parcel of responsible research.

> But after reading the discussion here, I suppose I should also wonder
> if I was misinformed about the death star.

This is only an issue for those who cannot tell the difference between
fact and fiction.

> My concern is that Monsanto’s products improve efficiency in
> agriculture while sacrificing resilience. And their products have
> created vast monocultures of corn and soybeans, making it more
> difficult for bees to thrive and produce a crop of honey.

This is a concern shared by informed and thoughtful people worldwide,
including many people who work for Monsanto I am sure, and not just the
lunatic fringe.

Looking at the current rate of progress, it is not inconceivable that
within decades, not only will there be little good, accessible bee
pasture left, but that many food crops could be altered to where they do
not require bee pollination.

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html