In the early years Monsanto, 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 came from random killing put a crimp on long-term profitability. So Monsanto hatched a less lethal, more lucrative plan. The company attempted to take control of the world's food supply.
That's the start of Chris Parker's profile on Monsanto, which we published online last week -- and the comments cropped up faster than GMO corn.
Says Andy Peters:
While I appreciate Westword's support for longer form journalism like this, I'm not sure what new information it's brought to the table. "Monsanto is evil cuz here's a tangentially related quote from a competitor, and here are some angry farmers and circumstantial evidence of cronyism," is old hat by now. So what's new? Why can't organic farmers affected by GMOs litigate? Or can they and they choose not to? Why have Monsanto's products seen such success despite evidence that seems to condemn them? How does Monsanto exert monopoly pricing power when it only serves a plurality of the market? If neither Monsanto nor USDA test GM products before they go to market, what is the purpose of the approvals process? Is it simply a charade?
If you like this story, consider signing up for our email newsletters.
SHOW ME HOW
Good question. What do you think of GMOs?