Free Yourself Daily Hub

In the first post, we talked about Roundup not just as a chemical, but as a symbol of a much larger system. A system where convenience often outweighs caution, where exposure happens quietly over time, and where families and children carry risks they never agreed to take on. We looked at glyphosate’s history, its widespread use in food and neighborhoods, its potential effects on fertility and children, and why the Supreme Court is now being asked to decide whether companies can be held accountable when harm appears years later.

This second part widens the lens.

Because Roundup was never meant to stand alone. It was always paired with something even more powerful: control over seeds.

From Monsanto to Bayer: How a Pharma Company Came to Own Our Crops

When Monsanto was acquired by Bayer (for $63 billion), a German pharmaceutical and chemical company, it marked a turning point that many people didn’t fully notice at the time. A company best known for medicine suddenly held enormous influence over agriculture. Seeds, chemicals, and pharmaceuticals were now housed under the same corporate roof.

This matters because food is not just another industry. Seeds determine what gets grown, how it gets grown, and who gets to grow it. When seed ownership is concentrated in the hands of a few global corporations, decisions about our food supply move further away from farmers and communities and closer to boardrooms.

Bayer didn’t just acquire Monsanto’s products. It acquired its patents, its contracts, and its enforcement model.

Why Seeds Are Patented in the First Place

For most of human history, saving seeds was normal. Farmers harvested, selected the strongest plants, and replanted year after year. This wasn’t just tradition—it was how resilience was built into food systems.

That changed when genetically engineered seeds entered the market. Companies argued that because they invested heavily in developing new traits—like herbicide tolerance—they deserved intellectual property protection. Patents became the tool that made this possible.

Once a seed is patented, the farmer doesn’t truly own it in the traditional sense. They purchase the right to use it for one growing season under strict agreements. Saving and replanting those seeds, something farmers had always done, suddenly became a violation of patent law.

This transformed seeds into a recurring revenue product. Farmers must return to the same company every season to buy again.

Why Farmers Feel Trapped

Many farmers don’t choose this system because they love it. They choose it because it’s often the only viable option.

Modern agriculture is built around uniformity. Equipment, crop insurance, commodity markets, and distribution networks all favor standardized crops. If neighboring farms plant patented seeds, cross-pollination can occur. If the market expects a certain yield or trait, opting out becomes financially risky.

Over time, this creates dependence. Farmers rely on patented seeds, paired chemicals, and contracts that limit their autonomy. Walking away can mean losing competitiveness, income, or even the ability to farm at scale.

Suing Farmers to Protect the System

Monsanto became well known for aggressively enforcing its seed patents. Farmers were sued for saving seeds. Others were drawn into legal battles over patented genetics found in their fields, even when they claimed it arrived through drift or contamination.

These cases sent a clear message: the patents would be defended.

Farmers have sued Monsanto far less often than Monsanto sued them—and successful outcomes for farmers have been rare. While Monsanto filed well over a hundred patent enforcement lawsuits and won nearly every case that went to trial, farmers have only won a handful of cases against the company, usually outside of seed patent disputes.

Notable exceptions include limited settlements, such as Percy Schmeiser’s counterclaim in Canada, and more recent crop-damage cases related to chemical drift. In the core issue of seed patent enforcement, courts have overwhelmingly sided with Monsanto, leaving farmers with few clear legal victories and reinforcing a power imbalance that has defined modern agriculture for decades.

One of the lawyers involved in representing farmers against Monsanto was Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who argued that the system placed farmers at an unfair disadvantage and treated them as infringers rather than stewards of the land. These cases weren’t just about contracts—they were about power.

When a corporation has the resources to litigate indefinitely and a farmer does not, the imbalance becomes impossible to ignore.

Federal Preemption: The Legal Shield Bayer Is Seeking

This brings us back to the Supreme Court.

Federal preemption is a legal doctrine that says federal approval can override state laws and lawsuits. In the context of Roundup, Bayer is arguing that because a federal agency approved the product’s label, states should not be allowed to hold the company responsible for failing to warn people about risks.

If that argument succeeds, it doesn’t just affect Roundup cases. It reshapes accountability.

It would mean regulatory approval could function as immunity. Companies could meet minimum federal requirements and still avoid responsibility when real-world harm emerges later. State courts, juries, and individuals would lose one of the few remaining avenues to challenge corporate misconduct.

This case does not stop with agriculture. If federal approval is allowed to shield Bayer from accountability, the precedent would extend far beyond farming. It would signal to other industries that regulatory clearance can function as legal protection, even when harm emerges years later. Pharmaceuticals, chemicals, consumer products, and other regulated sectors could point to the same defense, shifting risk away from corporations and onto the public. What’s being decided is not just the fate of one company, but whether regulatory compliance replaces responsibility across entire segments of business.

What Seeds Bayer Controls and Why It Matters

Bayer, through its ownership of Monsanto’s former seed business, controls a significant share of the global seed market, particularly in major commodity crops. Its portfolio includes genetically engineered seeds for corn, soybeans, cotton, and canola—crops that form the backbone of modern industrial agriculture.

Today, Bayer is estimated to control roughly a third of the global commercial seed market, with especially dominant positions in genetically engineered corn and soy. These crops are not niche products. They are foundational ingredients in processed foods, animal feed, and export markets. When one company holds this level of influence over what seeds are available, how they are licensed, and what chemicals they are paired with, it shapes the entire food system from the ground up.

This is not just about ownership on paper. Seed control determines which traits are prioritized, which farming methods are supported, and which farmers are able to compete. When patented seeds dominate the market, alternatives become harder to access, more expensive, or simply unavailable.

Industrial Farming vs. Organic and Sustainable Farming

The farming model built around patented seeds and paired chemicals is often described as efficient, but it comes with tradeoffs.

Industrial agriculture relies on uniform crops bred for consistency, chemical tolerance, and large-scale harvesting. This system favors monocultures, where vast areas are planted with a single crop variety. While this can increase short-term yields, it also increases vulnerability to pests, disease, and soil depletion—making chemical inputs a necessity rather than a choice.

Organic and sustainable farming take a different approach. Instead of relying on patented seeds and synthetic chemicals, these systems focus on soil health, crop diversity, and natural resilience. Farmers often use non-patented or open-pollinated seeds, rotate crops, and rely on biological methods to manage weeds and pests. The goal is not maximum output at any cost, but long-term productivity without degrading the land.

One system depends on external inputs and legal contracts to function. The other depends on ecological balance and farmer knowledge passed down over time.

Farmers can’t simply switch to sustainable farming because the system they operate in makes transition risky and costly. Industrial farming depletes soil over time, and restoring that soil through regenerative practices takes years, not months. During that rebuilding period, yields often drop, while expenses for new equipment, different seeds, and added labor increase.

At the same time, many farmers risk losing crop insurance, guaranteed buyers, or financing tied to conventional methods. For farms already operating on thin margins, even one low-yield season can threaten their survival. This isn’t a lack of willingness—it’s the reality of a system that punishes soil replenishment and rewards output.

Why This Matters More Than Ever

When one company controls seeds, chemicals, and the legal rules that govern accountability, the system becomes closed. Farmers lose flexibility. Families lose transparency. And the public loses leverage.

Food is foundational. Whoever controls seeds helps shape health, economics, and national security. The question is not whether innovation should exist, but who it should serve.

If companies are allowed to patent life, dictate growing conditions, and then shield themselves from accountability, the costs don’t disappear. They are absorbed quietly by farmers, parents, and future generations.

This is why people are paying attention now.

Not because this is new—but because the consequences are becoming impossible to ignore.