The Death of Monsanto

Written By Jason Stutman

Posted September 29, 2015

Percy Schmeiser is a 70-year-old independent farmer who has a David-and-Goliath story to tell.

After years of working the field, Percy’s crop was allegedly ruined by cross-pollination with genetically modified organism (GMO) seeds. These seeds were produced by none other than agricultural biotech giant Monsanto (NYSE: MON), known by many as “the world’s most evil corporation.”

For those who are unfamiliar with cross-pollination, this simply means that Monsanto GMO seeds from surrounding farms somehow found their way onto Percy’s organic field and began to overtake his crop.

According to the farmer, his life of hard work was essentially ruined — it took over half a century to cultivate that crop, and now all those efforts were in vain.

On its own, this story seems sad enough, but what comes next is almost unbelievable: Monsanto filed a lawsuit against Percy, asking for $100,000 in damages for infringing on its patent rights. Pretty audacious, right?

Well, it would have been — if Percy had been telling the truth.

Now, some of you may find this shocking based on what you’ve been told before, but I promise I’m not making it up. As it turns out, scientific analysis proved that 90% of Percy’s crop was GMO — a statistical impossibility from cross-pollination in a single season.

In other words, Percy Schmeiser had been knowingly cultivating Monsanto’s GMO seeds — he was a thief parading as a victim.

It’s for this reason that Percy ultimately lost the case and was ordered to pay $140,000 in damages and legal fees to Monsanto. Yet Percy stubbornly went on to tell his original story, spreading the myth that Monsanto maliciously drops lawsuits whichever way the wind blows, ultimately feeding into the common public misconception that Monsanto is some kind of villainous force.

Quasimodo Corp.

While much of the public has been led to believe that Monsanto is as evil as they come, the truth is far less exciting.

Monsanto has, in fact, never filed a single lawsuit against a farmer on grounds of cross-pollination. Instead, the company primarily seeks damages from farmers who re-cultivate their patented GMOs (like Percy did), a practice specifically forbidden by contractual purchase agreements these farmers have willingly signed.

And the kicker? Monsanto actually donates the received damages to charity. The company isn’t going after farmers for money — it’s simply concerned with defending its patent portfolio and ensuring continued innovation. After all, if these patents were not protected, there would be little incentive for continued research and development in GMOs.

Now, for many, this naturally brings up the question of whether or not we should be developing GMOs in the first place. There is a common belief that GMOs aren’t good for human health.

The truth, however, is that this is yet another widespread myth, as an overwhelming majority of scientific experts agree that genetically modified food is perfectly safe for human consumption. In fact, not a single study denouncing the safety of GM food has ever successfully made it through the scientific peer-review process. Not a single one.

For many people, this fact is difficult to believe, mainly because our society has been filled with anti-GMO propaganda lately. Companies such as Whole Foods (NASDAQ: WFM) like to insinuate health risks of GMOs through non-GMO labeling, but that’s nothing more than a marketing gimmick.

Just think about it: How else are they going to convince you to buy a tomato at twice the price and half the size?

Ultimately, you have to respect the science here and ignore the noise. Don’t take my word for it, though; just see what these highly respected organizations have had to say:

“The science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.” —The American Association for the Advancement of Science

“There is no justification for the special labeling of genetically modified foods… Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years and during that time, no overt consequences on human beings have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature.” —The American Medical Association

“No effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of GM foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.” —The World Health Organization

“Far from presenting a threat to the public health, GM crops in many cases improve it…” —The American Society for Cell Biology

“Foods can be produced through the use of GM technology that are more nutritious, stable in storage, and in principle health promoting — bringing benefits to consumers in both industrialized and developing nations.” —Royal Society of Sciences, U.S. National Society of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, et al.

“All criticisms against GMOs can be largely rejected on strictly scientific criteria.” —French Academy of Sciences

I actually have an entire collection of quotes similar to those listed above, but for the sake of space, I won’t list them all here. The conclusion should be relatively simple either way: The GMOs at your grocery store pose no concerning threat to your health.

Whether popular or not, this is not an opinion — it’s a scientific fact.

Just to be clear, though, the primary reason for these findings is that GMOs are subject to highly rigorous testing and regulation. Certain GMOs can, of course, be harmful to human health, but those strains simply don’t make it through the filter.

The Future of GMO

For the most part, GMOs have been developed to increase crop yield. Drought- and herbicide-resistant crops are incredibly valuable to the agriculture industry, so this has been a large area of R&D focus for companies like Monsanto for some time.

Current research projections, such as those from the Global Harvest Initiative, expect food demand to double by 2050. Yet at our current rate of output, there will be a significant gap in supply and demand:

Food Production Gap

Denouncing the use of GMOs in food production is not just scientifically invalid; it’s potentially damaging to our future food supply. No matter your beliefs on genetic modification, GMOs will be an essential aspect of food production as we move into the future — it’s simply the only way to keep up with inevitable demand.

In addition to output, there’s also been a recent focus on developing GMOs specifically for nutritional benefit.

One example of such efforts is Golden Rice, a variety of Oryza used to deliver vitamin A to children more effectively. Believe it or not, Big Bad Monsanto actually grants free licensing for humanitarian use in developing nations.

There’s also modified pineapples with lycopene to prevent lung and prostate cancers, Omega-3 oils proven to prevent heart disease, and low-allergen peanuts to prevent deadly reactions — all made possible by GMOs.

The Next Monsanto

While there’s no arguing it’s incredible what we’ve accomplished so far, this is only the beginning of what genetic modification will be able to do for our food supply. Not only will our crops eventually be safe from plant diseases that destroy 15% of the global annual harvest, but our food will be packed full of nutritional benefits in ways we never even imagined.

Don’t like carrots but need Vitamin A? No problem — here’s an apple packed with the stuff. Don’t eat meat but need the iron? Fine, you can have this potato instead. As a matter of fact, you can eat any fruit, vegetable, or grain in your pantry — they all contain every nutrient you need.

The question for investors, of course, is “How will we get there?” Will Monsanto continue its monopolistic reign in agricultural biotech forever? Not likely.

Despite Monsanto’s strong portfolio of over 4,000 granted patents, the company no longer owns the intellectual property at the forefront of agricultural biotech.

In fact, a much smaller company, worth less than $1 billion today, controls the single patent that could very well take Monsanto down on its own.

Specifically, this company owns the rights to a new gene-editing technology more precise than anything Monsanto, or any other company, for that matter, has up its sleeve.

Keep an eye out in the coming months as we put together a presentation on this exciting new technology and tell you about the company that controls it. The MIT Technology Review is already calling it the “Biggest Biotech Discovery of the Century,” so it’s definitely something you’re not going to want to miss.

Until next time,

  JS Sig

Jason Stutman

follow basicCheck us out on YouTube!

Angel Pub Investor Club Discord - Chat Now