THE MONSANTO MODEL

Surveillance, suppression, and a $63 billion cautionary tale for the ages

In America, you can sell poison, profit from it, sue the people who complain, and still get a standing ovation from your shareholders. That, in short, is the Monsanto way. Or was. The name may be gone, but the rot metastasized.

Monsanto didn’t just manufacture chemicals—it manufactured reality. And when that reality started cracking under the weight of independent science, investigative reporting, and cancer lawsuits, they didn’t reform. They retaliated. They built a private intelligence fusion center to spy on their critics, intimidate scientists, and discredit journalists like they were rogue agents leaking nuclear codes.

They stalked researchers. Monitored activists. Dug through social media like paranoid exes. Monsanto treated dissent like espionage and weaponized surveillance with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer to the spine.

Carey Gillam, an investigative journalist who dared to document the cancerous legacy of Roundup, became a top target. Monsanto crafted detailed strategies to “neutralize” her influence. They manipulated Google search results to bury her work. They ghostwrote hit pieces and handed them off to supposedly neutral third-party scientists like laundering dirty money through lab coats.

This wasn’t crisis management. It was corporate counterintelligence. Monsanto assembled dossiers like a wannabe CIA—only with worse ethics and better lobbyists. The goal wasn’t to win the argument. The goal was to erase the opposition before the public ever heard them speak.

Then, just when you thought this couldn’t get any dumber, Bayer entered the chat.

In 2018, the German pharmaceutical giant bought Monsanto for $63 billion—an acquisition that now reads like a high-stakes remake of Weekend at Bernie’s. Bayer married a corpse and was shocked when the honeymoon smelled like legal briefs and glyphosate. Within two years, Bayer had lost nearly $40 billion in market value, choked on jury verdicts linking Roundup to cancer, and watched its brand get dragged through every court in America like a parade float on fire.

But here’s the kicker: even after all that, they kept the playbook.

In 2019, it came out that Bayer’s subsidiaries in Europe were tracking journalists and activists across seven countries—creating illegal dossiers without consent, ranking them by “influence,” and storing them like digital mugshots. French media exposed it. Bayer apologized with all the sincerity of a telecom outage message. And then they moved on.

Because this wasn’t a glitch. It was the model. The Monsanto Model.

And it never died.

Today, the tactics live on—refined, anonymized, scaled. Big Oil sends operatives to infiltrate climate protests. Big Pharma sues whistleblowers into silence while buying favorable science one grant at a time. Tech giants run “trust and safety” teams that flag independent journalism as disinformation while profiting off conspiracy-fueled engagement.

These companies don’t fear debate. They fear disclosure.

And they’ve learned it’s easier to buy silence than defend their crimes. That’s why they hire PR necromancers like FleishmanHillard and FTI Consulting to spin cancer studies into lifestyle advice. That’s why they fund fake think tanks with real influence. That’s why your newsfeed is full of sanitized talking points and empty headlines about productivity hacks and startup funding instead of corporate espionage and chemical warfare in your breakfast cereal.

Meanwhile, the press barely flinched. The Monsanto surveillance scandal should’ve been a headline on every front page in the country. Instead, it was relegated to B-sections and business columns—when it was mentioned at all. Advertisers don’t like cancer lawsuits. Billionaires don’t like whistleblowers. And too many editors don’t like risking access for the sake of truth.

So the story died the way so many vital stories die: not with a bang, but with a bored shrug from someone checking traffic numbers.

This is the cost of corporate complicity. This is what happens when the guardians of truth hand over their keys to the PR firms. Monsanto’s real product wasn’t Roundup—it was silence. It was manufacturing the illusion of consensus by suppressing every voice that dared to shout “this is wrong.”

And they got away with it. For years. They still are.

Now they want legal immunity.

In Tennessee, lawmakers—backed by farm-friendly rhetoric and industry-scripted talking points—are advancing a bill that would effectively shield pesticide companies from class action lawsuits. The language sounds harmless. It just says companies can’t be sued if their labels were approved by the EPA. But what it really means is this: if the EPA—an agency already caught colluding with Monsanto—rubber-stamps a label, then Bayer is untouchable.

That’s not oversight. That’s a get-out-of-cancer-free card.

This bill doesn’t protect farmers. It protects corporations from farmers. It’s not about food safety. It’s about liability insulation for companies whose own scientists warned their products might be dangerous. It’s Monsanto’s legacy in legal form—a legislative ghostwriting of corporate absolution.

And it’s not just Tennessee. Similar bills have been introduced in sixteen other states. Bayer is playing statehouses like a piano, hoping no one notices the hands behind the curtain. But people are noticing. Hundreds of Tennesseans have already filed lawsuits against Bayer. These are landscapers, home gardeners, and farmworkers—people whose lives were upended by exposure to Roundup. This law would bury their claims under a mountain of bureaucracy and EPA deference.

Let’s not forget: this is the same EPA that relied on Monsanto’s ghostwritten science to evaluate glyphosate. The same EPA that allegedly buried evidence of cancer risks. And now, Bayer wants that same compromised process to serve as a legal shield? That’s not regulation. That’s state-sanctioned gaslighting.

This isn’t just a corporate cover-up anymore. It’s corporate indemnity by design.

If passed, this bill would do exactly what Monsanto tried for decades to do with lawsuits, scientists, and surveillance: make the truth inadmissible.

This isn’t just about Monsanto. This is about what happens when corporations become states, and surveillance becomes a service. It’s about what happens when truth becomes a threat to be neutralized, not a value to be protected.

The next time a brand tells you the science is settled, ask who bought the lab. The next time a news outlet seems weirdly quiet, ask who’s signing their checks. The next time someone says “no one’s talking about this,” remember—it might be because someone made sure of it.

Monsanto may be dead. But their model is alive.

And now, so is the reckoning.

---

CLOSER TO THE EDGE
Independent journalism with a flamethrower. We expose what others bury, we name names, and we don’t blink.

If you're tired of silence, then subscribe and help us drag the truth back into the light.