> I'm not sure why you're singling out Monsanto, to the exclusion of the government meddling.
I'm sure you meant "to the exclusion of the [lack of] government meddling, [quashed on behalf of and directly coordinated with Monsanto by a public official.]"
First, the OP doesn't say anything about "on behalf of and directly coordinated with".
Second, my intent is to point out the futility of vesting greater in public agencies to handle problems arising (in part) from malfeasance in public agencies.
It seems like the old adage about digging deeper to get out of the hole you're in. I'll grant that there may be ways to finesse this, with proper checks and balances. But it would certainly be an exception to see a proposal that tries to create such interlocking responsibilities, rather than just casting Public Choice economics to the wind.
I'm sure you meant "to the exclusion of the [lack of] government meddling, [quashed on behalf of and directly coordinated with Monsanto by a public official.]"