[wideawake]

Putting aside emotionalism like "world hunger" and "starving children" and subjectivism like "it" (what is "it"?) "would be a lot worse" we can talk about facts: namely that Monsanto has been motivated by profit to help vastly improve crop yields.

For this accomplishment they have received exactly what they sought: money.

You don't like the methods, you don't like the crops.

Fine.

Buy a farm and grow ones you like, or buy from a supplier that you do like.

I'm not sure what farm subsidies have to do with this - supporters of farm subsidies would argue (in my opinion falsely) that the subsidies are the only things enabling them to compete with Monsanto.

If they went away, Monsanto would survive.

While we can debate the merits of ending the international grain trade, food shortages do not cause people to "rise up Funding [sic] Fathers' style" - the Founding Fathers did not take up arms because they were hungry.

In fact, they would probably have been more worried about food than suffrage if they were hungry. It was their prosperity that enabled them to sustain the long war.

[goodwithagun]

Monsanto gets quite a lot of our tax dollars as well. They have allies on both sides of the aisle. If their methods are so wonderful they can use their own profits for research, development, marketing, etc., instead of the profits from my paycheck. Monsanto is not the only corporation doing this, but this article isn’t about all of them. Because I dislike them I don’t directly purchase their products. We grow as much of our own food as possible from hierloom seeds and purchase meat and eggs from a local farmer that shares our ideas on food production. You see? I practice what I preach. Please don’t accuse me of doing otherwise. I have no problem with companies making money. I do have problems with crony capitalism tethered to an attempt to control my food supply.