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: 370

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

Ag in the House: Dec. 1 – 5

A Liberal minister reminded the House the carbon tax doesn’t apply to farmer

Ontario Animal Health Network (OAHN) Swine Network Quarterly Industry Report

Starting in 2015, Senecavirus A (SVA) has caused intermittent complications with respect to the export of Canadian cull animals to the United States. This disease resembles reportable swine vesicular diseases. This is a national issue and since June 2025 has impacted Ontario cull sow movements. In July 2025, the APHIS and the USDA removed the export eligibility status for a cull sow assembly in Ontario due to SVA lesions being seen in cull sows sent to a USDA processing facility. These lesions initiated foreign animal disease investigations at this US processing plant. The suspect animal(s) were initially quarantined for individual inspection and further testing. Since the initial site, another 2 Ontario cull sow assembly sites have also had their export eligibility status revoked by APHIS and the USDA for similar reasons. The affected assembly sites accept cull sows from Quebec, the Maritimes and Ontario. Each affected assembly site must action the USDA requirements including emptyin

New restrictions placed on hunting, farming 'incredibly destructive' wild boars in Alberta

Wild boars have been declared "a pest in all circumstances" by the Alberta government effective Dec. 1, meaning new restrictions have been placed on keeping them in captivity and hunting them in the wild. It is now illegal to keep, buy, sell, obtain or transport wild boars in Alberta without a permit. That also means no new wild boar farms will be permitted in the province. The hunting and trapping of wild boars in Alberta is banned as well, with the exception of land owners or occupants killing the animals on their own land. Any person who kills a wild boar is now required to report the date, location and number of boars killed to the province as soon as possible. Hannah McKenzie, the province's wild boar specialist, says the changes were made due to the dangers posed by existing wild boar populations and the risks associated with more escaping from captivity. "In addition to damaging agriculture and the environment, wild boar pose a serious risk for the introduction and spread of

CUSMA Review Raises Concerns Over Potential U.S. Tariffs on Canadian Pork

As the first formal review of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) approaches in July, pork producers across North America are bracing for potential impacts—especially the possibility of new U.S. tariffs on Canadian agriculture. Florian Possberg, Partner at Polar Pork Farms, says the U.S. political landscape is shaping expectations. He notes that U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly pushed for a baseline 15% tariff on foreign goods in recent global trade discussions. If that approach carries into the CUSMA renegotiation, it could disrupt one of the pork sector’s most critical trade corridors. Free Trade Has Been Essential for Pork Movement Possberg emphasizes that under CUSMA, both live hogs and processed pork products have flowed freely across borders without tariffs. This freedom is especially important given the highly integrated nature of North America’s pork supply chain. The best-case scenario, he adds, is that tariff-free access continues unchanged. The wor

FCC report highlights productivity as key to Canada’s agricultural future

Canadian farmers could see significant income gains and new opportunities if agricultural productivity growth returns to historic highs. The Farm Credit Canada (FCC) report titled Reigniting agricultural productivity in Canada, estimates that boosting productivity growth to two per cent annually could unlock $30 billion in additional farm income, generate $31 billion in GDP, and create nearly 23,000 jobs across the country. Canada has long been a standout among global food producers. Over the past half-century, the agriculture industry has achieved significant productivity growth through better farm management, improved input efficiency and technological innovation. The report warns, however, that productivity growth has slowed in recent years, threatening the industry’s competitiveness and Canada’s ability to meet growing national and global food demand. “Canada’s agricultural productivity growth has consistently outpaced other G7 countries for more than three decades, showing the s

© 2025   Created by Darren Marsland.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service