The Wingnut Defense of Monsanto

Some of the wingnut comments under my WalletPop column about Monsanto are predictably dumb.

This writer and the commentators have way too much time on their hands; a problem with seeds that can feed the hungry? sheesh.

Do most of you people really have any idea what you are talking about? So many sheep in the world just hate something because someone more insane and more convincing told them to hate it. [...] Yell about the seeds that are grown and altered so they can feed people in places where there is no rain...

I wrote an entire paragraph preemptively debunking the "Monsanto feeds hungry people" argument, but to put it another way, how does suing farmers for royalties feed hungry people? How does destroying non-GMO crops with mutated super-weeds feed the hungry? How does organ damage due to GMOs help the hungry? Eat all you want -- don't worry about the kidney failure. And by the way, those super weeds killing your crops? You'll need to switch to Monsanto GMOs in order to stop them. And then Monsanto will own your ass. Good luck and God's speed.

If we have to use GMO crops to feed the hungry, and there is no other way to do it, we should at least have some transparency, choice and competition until something better comes along. We need warning labels on foods containing GMOs. Monsanto needs to stop suing farmers. Farmers should be allowed to choose what they do with their seeds and their crops. And no single corporation should be allowed to control so much of the food supply.

That leads me to another point. A couple of commenters argued with my point that Monsanto controls most of our food supply. If 70 percent of our corn, for example, is grown from patented Monsanto GMOs, and corn is in just about every food product, doesn't that indicate that Monsanto controls -- with government sanctioned patents -- most of our food supply? Or least a disproportionately large chunk of it?