Ontario Agriculture

The network for agriculture in Ontario, Canada

Monsanto Seed Business Role Revealed in the US Mainstream Media. Any Thoughts?

I saw this article yesterday on Monsanto and wondered what everyone thought of the issues.

Joe

AP INVESTIGATION: Monsanto seed biz role revealed
By CHRISTOPHER LEONARD (AP) – 1 day ago

ST. LOUIS — Confidential contracts detailing Monsanto Co.'s business practices reveal how the world's biggest seed developer is squeezing competitors, controlling smaller seed companies and protecting its dominance over the multibillion-dollar market for genetically altered crops, an Associated Press investigation has found.

With Monsanto's patented genes being inserted into roughly 95 percent of all soybeans and 80 percent of all corn grown in the U.S., the company also is using its wide reach to control the ability of new biotech firms to get wide distribution for their products, according to a review of several Monsanto licensing agreements and dozens of interviews with seed industry participants, agriculture and legal experts.

Declining competition in the seed business could lead to price hikes that ripple out to every family's dinner table. That's because the corn flakes you had for breakfast, soda you drank at lunch and beef stew you ate for dinner likely were produced from crops grown with Monsanto's patented genes.

Monsanto's methods are spelled out in a series of confidential commercial licensing agreements obtained by the AP. The contracts, as long as 30 pages, include basic terms for the selling of engineered crops resistant to Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, along with shorter supplementary agreements that address new Monsanto traits or other contract amendments.

The company has used the agreements to spread its technology — giving some 200 smaller companies the right to insert Monsanto's genes in their separate strains of corn and soybean plants. But, the AP found, access to Monsanto's genes comes at a cost, and with plenty of strings attached.

For example, one contract provision bans independent companies from breeding plants that contain both Monsanto's genes and the genes of any of its competitors, unless Monsanto gives prior written permission — giving Monsanto the ability to effectively lock out competitors from inserting their patented traits into the vast share of U.S. crops that already contain Monsanto's genes.

To Read the Rest of the Article - Click Here.

Views: 403

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I'm sure that Monsanto has the farmer's best interests at heart. Wouldn't they?
It is the power of money that allows them to do what they are doing with nobody at any level standing in their way. Not to say that we cannot make a difference.
Monsanto's best interest is at Monsanto's hart.
Ya think, maybe?

rein minnema said:
It is the power of money that allows them to do what they are doing with nobody at any level standing in their way. Not to say that we cannot make a difference.
Monsanto's best interest is at Monsanto's hart.
Can someone please explain to me how Monsanto corp. are able to sue farmers that have planted non Monsanto seed brands that have been pollinated by a neighbors round up ready Monsanto bean, the pollen carries the gene that shows in the bean. why can't the farmer sue Monsanto for contaminating his crop?
Also there is evidence that tests on the food safety of genetically modified crops where either falsified or conducted in a manner to achieve a predetermined outcome. If genetically engineered food causes cancer that takes 30 years to develop, as some independent test point to this possibility, then Monsanto has already killed off mankind.
interesting you should say that Pat.

Bayer Admits GMO Contamination is Out of Control

EXTRACT: Bayer has admitted it has been unable to control the spread of its genetically-engineered organisms despite 'the best practices [to stop contamination]'(1). It shows that all outdoors field trials or commercial growing of GE crops must be stopped before our crops are irreversibly contaminated.

for a complete article, go to:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aT1kD1GO...

and the verdict early in dec./09 http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_19777.cfm

makes one wonder how the integrity and traceability of crops can be maintained if there is contamination unbeknown to the farmer.
As it was put to me recently regarding another issue:
he who holds the gold makes the rules
In this case, Monsanto holds a product that they developed and no one else has been able to develop or market a similar or better product. If it was so bad for farmers then they would not buy it. It is no different than Microsoft and Intel owning the computer market in their respective divisions, whether we agree with how they got there or not.
When farmers complain to me about Monsanto's marketshare, I state - well, do not buy it then!
In marketing, the consumer's dollar speaks louder than any marketing campaign.
owning all the food in the world is very different than owning computer rights. as an agriculturist you must know this. Once the monopoly of the private ownership of all the worlds food is achieved as Monsanto and the word bank already have in sight, followed by pressure by the world bank on countries toward the privatization of fresh water distribution to companies owned by the word bank, all the boarders on our maps will be nothing but lines, more important than oil is food and water own it all you rule the word, poison it all you kill the world. We all know that large corporations will do anything for a buck and cannot be trusted. yet when they claim to be able to offer a few more dollars an acre this seems to blindly buy their trust. the problem is deeper than the seed choice of each individual grower, cross pollination is eradicating natural strains of corn, rice and soy world wide, once conventional strains are overwhelmed they fall under the criteria protected by the patent holder and become their property. then what happens if it is discovered that the genetically modified food is unsafe? There is no reversing the process.
Wayne, it almost sounds like you are campaigning for Trish Jordan's job.

Wayne Black said:
As it was put to me recently regarding another issue:
he who holds the gold makes the rules
In this case, Monsanto holds a product that they developed and no one else has been able to develop or market a similar or better product. If it was so bad for farmers then they would not buy it. It is no different than Microsoft and Intel owning the computer market in their respective divisions, whether we agree with how they got there or not.
When farmers complain to me about Monsanto's marketshare, I state - well, do not buy it then!
In marketing, the consumer's dollar speaks louder than any marketing campaign.
Why would you say that? ;-) I do not think I could get paid enough to move to "Winterpeg" and do her job.

John said:
Wayne, it almost sounds like you are campaigning for Trish Jordan's job.

good thing your not an Indian cotton farmer check out the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frVP6eEeKq4

John said:
Wayne, it almost sounds like you are campaigning for Trish Jordan's job.

Wayne Black said:
As it was put to me recently regarding another issue:
he who holds the gold makes the rules
In this case, Monsanto holds a product that they developed and no one else has been able to develop or market a similar or better product. If it was so bad for farmers then they would not buy it. It is no different than Microsoft and Intel owning the computer market in their respective divisions, whether we agree with how they got there or not.
When farmers complain to me about Monsanto's marketshare, I state - well, do not buy it then!
In marketing, the consumer's dollar speaks louder than any marketing campaign.
you have a good christmas.

Pat stocking said:
good thing your not an Indian cotton farmer check out the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frVP6eEeKq4

John said:
Wayne, it almost sounds like you are campaigning for Trish Jordan's job.

Wayne Black said:
As it was put to me recently regarding another issue:
he who holds the gold makes the rules
In this case, Monsanto holds a product that they developed and no one else has been able to develop or market a similar or better product. If it was so bad for farmers then they would not buy it. It is no different than Microsoft and Intel owning the computer market in their respective divisions, whether we agree with how they got there or not.
When farmers complain to me about Monsanto's marketshare, I state - well, do not buy it then!
In marketing, the consumer's dollar speaks louder than any marketing campaign.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Agriculture Headlines from Farms.com Canada East News - click on title for full story

Midwest Farmers Continue Moving Corn and Soybean Planting Dates Earlier

Across the U.S. Midwest, corn and soybean producers are steadily shifting planting dates earlier.

Ontario Pig Producer Disease Advisory -- PED and PDCoV Risks Rising This Winter

Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea (PED) and Porcine Deltacoronavirus (PDCoV) remain serious threats to Ontario swine operations, particularly during the winter months.

New rules boost water storage and conservation

New and expanded Water Act exemptions will increase water availability, improve conservation, support agricultural production and help protect communities from future emergencies. Currently, many dugouts are sized too small to capture available water because of a 2,500 cubic metre exemption limit. Effective immediately, farmers and ranchers can fill their dugouts up to 7,500 cubic metres – triple the previous limit – provided the water is used for agricultural purposes. This change helps protect them from future droughts and supports strong agricultural operations. “Albertans asked for practical improvements to make more water available, and we’re delivering. These changes make it easier for farmers, businesses and communities to access and store water. It’s good for communities, the environment and the economy.” Grant Hunter, Minister of Environment and Protected Areas “Reliable access to water is essential for Alberta’s farmers and ranchers, especially as they manage drought ris

Calf Health Management — What Does the Science Say?

Sometimes two research studies will ask a similar question and get different results. That doesn’t mean that one is right and the other is wrong, or that it’s a coin toss, or that research is pointless – it just means that details and context are important. If we want to know whether a particular management practice helps prevent scours in beef calves, large-scale studies that measure signs of scours, treatment and recovery rates in beef calves are more helpful than studies that compare rectal temperatures or white blood cell numbers in a few dairy calves. This is where “systematic reviews” are helpful. A systematic review clearly defines what kind of existing studies will help answer a specific question. Then it finds all the published studies that meet those criteria, reviews them, and identifies what they all agree on. Systematic reviews are extremely helpful when trying to make recommendations to real-life producers. Claire Windeyer and a team of veterinary researchers from the U

Ag Minister Launches National Consultations to Shape the Next Agricultural Policy Framework

Agriculture Minister Heath MacDonald has kicked off consultations to shape Canada’s Next Policy Framework, which will guide federal–provincial–territorial support for the agriculture and agri food sector from 2028 to 2033.

© 2026   Created by Darren Marsland.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service