Chief Executive magazine’s “CEO of the Year” (2010):
Who can it be now?
One wonders, at times, what manner of being Monsanto chief executive Hugh Grant really is: “The — I’m sure I don’t know! — [reverberating high-pitched voice] Anti-Christ?!“
Bad Dana Carvey impressions aside, it's hard not to speculate on the motives and underlying psychology of executives who behave like Grant (and sadly they are many). They appear to transcend mere greed ... and not in a good way.
As U.S. patent law (which the company vigorously enforces against the rest of the world) now stands, Monsanto has the right to sue farmers whose crops become contaminated by its Roundup Ready transgenic seed — without the growers’ knowledge and against their will — for patent infringement. This is the legal rationale under which an association of organic farmers is now suing Monsanto, alleging that the altered genes cause “environmental harm,” meaning that enforcement of the patent would be void and all current and prospective lawsuits against farmers annulled. But the real purpose of the lawsuit, according to this article, is to undermine the patent itself.
Why is this important?
As I said four paragraphs above, organic canola is extinct. And the same will soon be true of other species, for, as Monsanto can’t help but be aware, its products are incompatible with those of nature: The engineered genes are now part of those species’ genomes, and are rapidly displacing their natural counterparts. If this trend continues, eventually every farmer on earth will, in principle, owe royalties to Monsanto Corporation.
Also, we don’t yet know how vulnerable the modified genomes may be. They are doubtless conveniently immune to a Monsanto-produced herbicide, but can we be sure that they will also be immune to the parasites, diseases and other adversities that may befall them? And since genetically modified crops have existed only in recent times, is it wise to make the entire human species a test subject to find out what hidden pathologies may lurk in them, only to manifest after a period of decades? It may well be that no such threat exists, but the Precautionary Principle would suggest that this be verified through extensive longitudinal clinical studies before the products are unleashed to monopolize vital elements of the global food market. And when the scale, scope and stakes are astronomical, it is suicidal folly not to heed that principle.
There are several reasons why Monsanto has been voted as Most Evil Corporation, despite stiff competition from such entities as BP, Chevron and Halliburton, capturing 51 percent of all votes cast in a Natural News poll. But perhaps more than any other, this irresponsible decision to cry Profit! and let slip the genes of war will forever mark this company as a pariah in the eyes of all who care about the foods they eat.
I will watch the progress of this lawsuit closely, report on developments as I learn them, and proffer such aid as lies within my power to the plaintiffs, for the future integrity of our food supply depends upon it, no less than does the faith of my fellow citizens in American justice.