The market has forced Monsanto to abandon Prosilac, a bovine growth hormone used to artificially boost milk production in cows.  First, Monsanto could not convince enough consumers that milk from treated cows was as good as milk from untreated cows. Then, Monsanto could not convince enough governments to outlaw labels that revealed if the milk was from untreated cows. Now, Monsanto has decided sell its division that produces Prosilac. This would have happened long ago, but Monsanto persistently manipulated the market and suppressed information. 

Prosilac, a bovine growth hormone that boosts milk production in cows would have been eliminated from the market long ago, but Monsanto's aggressive market manipulations kept the flawed product alive way past its shelf life. People just won't believe it is safe to drink milk from cows treated with growth hormones.  If performance enhancing drugs in baseball is bad enough to warrant congressional hearings, production enhancing drugs in milk cannot be good.  Try as they might, Monsanto could not convince consumers. 

A free market competitor would have stopped trying to sell a product the market did not want, but not Monsanto. Monsanto kept trying to put lip stick on its pig.  When sellers of milk tried to sell consumers what they wanted -- milk from untreated cows, Monsanto sued them.  Monsanto sued the milk sellers claiming they were misleading consumers.

Under Monsanto's Orwellian logic, if consumers were given a choice between milk from treated cows and milk from untreated cows, they would be mislead into thinking milk from untreated cows is better.  Monsanto, for the sake of proper thoughts in the minds of consumer, asked government to outlaw labels that told if the cows had been treated with growth hormones.  This attempt by Monsanto to police the thoughts of consumers is chilling.  It strikes at the heart of free markets.  

In a perfect market, there is equal access to information.  In a market where Monsanto participates, there is very unequal information and thus, a very imperfect market.  The result is what economist call inefficiency.  Parents would call it not having a choice, and being afraid of the consequence of letting their children drink milk from cows on performance enhancing drugs.  The market sent the message that Prosilac is not worth keeping, and Monsanto finally got the message.   

This story is not over.  There will be a buyer for Prosilac and new lipstick on the pig.  There is, however, reason to expect the market will continue to reject this flawed product.  Based on Monsanto's retreat from Prosilac, prospects for a new owner seem bleak . . . but lets hope it isn't China.