Here you go: Monsanto's Harvest of Fear[1]

This article is complete garbage, and I honestly wouldn't take anything it claims too seriously. It's basically just presenting anecdotes and exaggerated half-truths as irrefutable facts.

Just using the earlier section as an example: Rinehart claims that the Monsanto investigator acted belligerent and "...began verbally attacking him...", however Monsanto claims that the investigators were courteous and professional, and that Rinehart "...became angry, attracting the attention of others in the store, prompting Monsanto’s representatives to leave." when they asked him about the deliveries he was making in unmarked brown bags, and that "They were there for less than two minutes."

Do you see the problem? It's a classic case of he-said/she-said, and it's basically Monsanto's word vs Rineharts. Arguing this type of "evidence" is moot.

Furthermore, this article makes claims that are just outright false/ignorant.

Under "Control of Nature":

For centuries—millennia—farmers have saved seeds from season to season: they planted in the spring, harvested in the fall, then reclaimed and cleaned the seeds over the winter for re-planting the next spring. Monsanto has turned this ancient practice on its head.

The authors dishonestly (or perhaps ignorantly?) claim that Monsanto is spearheading a movement to disrupt seed saving, and that it was an extremely common practice before the big-bad Monsanto started poking its head around in agriculture.

The truth is that seed saving hasn't been common practice in many parts of the world since the introduction of hybrid variety crops, which lose vigour after the first generation, and require purchasing new seeds every year. So claiming that "Monsanto has turned this ancient practice on its head" is just completely dishonest, and demonstrates that the authors aren't actually competent or informed about the very subject they're covering.

And just a paragraph later they make another completely false/dishonest claim:

in 1980 the U.S. Supreme Court, in a five-to-four decision, turned seeds into widgets, laying the groundwork for a handful of corporations to begin taking control of the world’s food supply. In its decision, the court extended patent law to cover “a live human-made microorganism.” In this case, the organism wasn’t even a seed. Rather, it was a Pseudomonas bacterium developed by a General Electric scientist to clean up oil spills. But the precedent was set, and Monsanto took advantage of it.

Companies have been able to patent new varieties of plants since the 1930s because of the Plant Patent Act.

At the bottom of the first page there's a picture of Gary Rinehart with the caption:

Monsanto brought false accusations against Gary Rinehart—shown here at his rural Missouri store. There has been no apology. Photographs by Kurt Markus.

The reason Monsanto never apologized for investigating Gary is because they technically weren't wrong. Gary wasn't illegally reselling their patented seeds, but his nephew Tim was, and was doing so through Gary's company.

Keep in mind these are just a a few of many erroneous claims made on the first page.

The authors of this article obviously never bothered to fact check, or do even the most basic of research into the claims they were presenting.

I'm not going to bother going through debunking all 6 pages of this article (unless you actually want me to), but if the first page is any indication, it's full of crap.

^{Footnote: Please don't take anything /u/Fonguhl says seriously. He's not interested in honestly debating GMO safety, and all he does is spam GMO-related threads with conspiracy website.}