16 votes

The Monsanto Menace

By Chris Parker

When you're good at something, you want to leverage that. Monsanto's specialty is killing stuff.

In the early years, the St. Louis biotech giant helped pioneer such leading chemicals as DDT, PCBs, and Agent Orange. Unfortunately, these breakthroughs had a tendency to kill stuff. And the torrent of lawsuits that comes from random killing put a crimp on long-term profitability.

So Monsanto hatched a less lethal, more lucrative plan. The company would attempt to take control of the world's food supply.

It began in the mid-'90s, when Monsanto developed genetically modified (GM) crops such as soybeans, alfalfa, sugar beets, and wheat. These Franken-crops were immune to its leading weed killer, Roundup. That meant that farmers no longer had to till the land to kill weeds, as they'd done for hundreds of years. They could simply blast their entire fields with chemicals, leaving GM crops the only thing standing. Problem solved.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

the People granted this monster a charter

... now the time has come to revoke Monsanto's corporate charter and dissolve Monsanto

Thanks Ecliptic

Thanks to you and others who posted informative comments here.

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

It's not Monsanto

They're not the problem. Intellectual property is the problem.

Monsanto could do none of this without the state enforcing IP.




Certainly government is the MAIN problem,

but give Monsanto its due: they do not take responsibility for the contamination damage done by their GMO products, they conspire to prevent safety testing of their products, and they actively suborn the legal system (part of "government," granted) to avoid paying damages. The fact that they are theoretically a private company (one whose business model largely depends on buying political favor) does not automatically make them good guys, a legitimate part of the free market. Absent government, they would still be a problem. Certainly it is government that now protects them from the negative consequences of their reckless actions -- but those reckless actions would need to be curbed, even in a free, an-cap society. (Time to organize a lynch mob, maybe?)

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose


This is really an excellent article. It doesn't give any satisfactory answers to the problems Monsanto poses, but the inference I draw is that having a monopoly provider of "justice" will always be subject to "capture" by the highest bidder. When there is no free market in justice, you frequently get NO justice.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose