Monsanto?

Whatever Happened to Monsanto?

Revisiting a fiery post I wrote back in 2011 — with fifteen years of new information.

Years ago, I sat down and typed out a red-hot post about Monsanto. My hands were literally shaking as I wrote it. Rereading it now, I still recognize the woman who wrote it — I still care with my whole heart about what's in our food and where it comes from. But I've also learned a great deal since then, including this: the strongest case is always the accurate one, made in love rather than fear. So instead of just polishing the old post, I want to revisit it honestly — what has held up, what has changed, and what I'd say differently today.

First, the big one: "Monsanto" doesn't exist anymore

The German company Bayer bought Monsanto in 2018 for around $63 billion and promptly retired the name — largely to distance itself from all the controversy the name had come to carry. So when people say "Monsanto" today, they're really talking about Bayer's crop-science division. The products and the patents didn't disappear; they just changed owners.

Roundup and glyphosate — the story that exploded

This is where the last fifteen years got dramatic. In 2015, a World Health Organization research agency (IARC) classified glyphosate — the weedkiller in Roundup — as "probably carcinogenic." That single classification set off a flood of more than 100,000 lawsuits, many from farmers and groundskeepers who developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after years of heavy use. Bayer has paid out over $10 billion in settlements.

The U.S. EPA — along with European and other regulators around the world — has repeatedly reviewed glyphosate and concluded it is not likely to cause cancer at normal exposure levels. In June of 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7–2 that federal law shields the company from most of these "failure-to-warn" lawsuits, a decision expected to wind down the bulk of the litigation. The honest, careful bottom line from the science seems to be this: there may be an increased risk with heavy, long-term occupational exposure — farmworkers spraying it for years — but there is no good evidence of harm from ordinary home use or from the trace amounts on food. (Tellingly, Bayer has already reformulated the Roundup sold for home lawns to remove glyphosate entirely.)

So the concern I had wasn't imaginary — but it belongs mostly to the people handling these chemicals by the barrel, not to a mom washing her strawberries - so they say!

The seeds, the patents, and the farmers

My old post was full of worry about farmers being sued and losing the ancient right to save their own seed. That concern is real, and it's worth understanding accurately. Genetically modified seeds are patented, and they're sold under contracts that forbid saving and replanting them. In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously (in Bowman v. Monsanto) that a farmer can't legally replant saved patented seed. And the company did sue — roughly 145 farmers over the years, with several hundred more cases settled out of court. The steady consolidation of the world's seed supply into a few giant companies is a legitimate thing to keep an eye on, and I do.

But I also repeated a scarier version of the story that simply doesn't hold up: the idea that farmers were being sued when a neighbor's GMO pollen blew innocently into their fields. In the famous cases, the farmers had actually, knowingly grown and saved the modified crop — not been "contaminated" by accident. And the company publicly pledged (a pledge the courts held it to) not to go after farmers over trace, inadvertent presence. I want to pass along the true version, not the frightening one.

Are GMOs actually dangerous to eat?

There are perfectly good reasons a person might choose to avoid them: wanting to reduce exposure to the herbicides some GMO crops are engineered to be sprayed with, supporting a different kind of farming, or simply wanting to know what's in the food. And there's genuinely good news on that last one. Since 2022, U.S. law finally requires foods made with GMOs to say so on the label — you'll see the word "Bioengineered." Between that, the "USDA Organic" seal, and the "Non-GMO Project" butterfly, you now have real tools to choose with your eyes open. That transparency is a win, and it's the kind of thing worth being grateful for.

And the aspartame scare

My original post passed along some alarming claims about aspartame causing a whole list of cancers, plus a story about it being sneakily "certified organic." I have to set that record straight: those specific claims aren't accurate (and aspartame is about 200 times sweeter than sugar, not the wild number I'd cited).

What's true is more measured. In 2023, that same WHO agency (IARC) classified aspartame as "possibly carcinogenic" — but on limited evidence — while the WHO's food-additive committee reaffirmed that it's safe within the daily limit. To put that limit in perspective, a 150-pound adult would need to drink somewhere around 9 to 14 cans of diet soda a day to exceed it, and the FDA disagrees with the cancer classification altogether. My own honest take? I'd rather just skip it and reach for whole foods and a little stevia (you know how I feel about sugar!) — but that's a personal preference, not a cancer warning.

(You'll find my current list of favorite books, films, and products over on my recommendations page.)

Lots of love to you and yours,

Steffanie

Nothing in this post is medical, legal, or financial advice. It reflects my personal perspective and my best read of the current public information; science and policy on these topics continue to evolve. Please consult qualified professionals for decisions about your own family's health.