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: 610

▶ 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: Oct. 26 – 30

Minister MacDonald highlighted how the government is supporting food security

Exploring grape pomace’s potential as pork sausage preservative

Scientists at Iowa State University are studying grape pomace as an alternative preservative for pork breakfast sausage. The U.S. sausage market exceeds $7.5 billion. Processed meats often use synthetic ingredients to maintain overall quality, stability and safety. However, consumer preferences toward “clean-label” ingredients and recent reassessments of some food additives, such as butylated hydroxyanisole, are boosting interest in more natural alternatives. Grape pomace is a by-product of winemaking, obtained after pressing white grapes or after fermentation and pressing of red grapes. GP represents a rich source of fiber and phenolic compounds, but it is usually composted, used as animal feed or discarded. “This winemaking by-product is often wasted, but we know that GP has some antimicrobial and antioxidant properties,” said Aude Watrelot, assistant professor of enology in food science and human nutrition. “How effective would GP be when substituted for current additives in a po

Canadian Pork Research Enters New Phase with More Flexible Funding for Industry Priorities

Canada’s pork industry is strengthening its approach to research and innovation through a funding model designed to address both long-term industry priorities and emerging challenges facing producers. Swine Innovation Porc (SIP), the national organization coordinating research for Canada’s pork sector, has released its 2025–26 annual report, highlighting the continued development of its national research programs and the introduction of additional funding flexibility. At the centre of this approach are two complementary initiatives: the established Swine Cluster program and the newer Advancing Swine Research Program. Together, these programs are intended to strengthen the industry’s ability to invest in scientific discovery while supporting practical research that responds to changing production conditions. Building on More Than a Decade of Collaborative Research Since 2010, Canada’s Swine Cluster program has provided a foundation for coordinated research involving universities, re

Canadian Swine Researchers Face November 13 Deadline for Up to $150,000 in Research Funding

Swine Innovation Porc is seeking research proposals focused on animal health, biosecurity, production efficiency, sustainability and pork quality, with funding available for projects addressing key challenges facing Canada’s pork industry. Canadian swine researchers have until November 13 to submit letters of intent for a new round of funding through the Advancing Swine Research Program, an initiative designed to strengthen the competitiveness, efficiency and long-term sustainability of Canada’s pork sector. Administered by Swine Innovation Porc (SIP), in partnership with the Pork Promotion and Research Agency (PPRA), the program supports industry-focused research that delivers practical benefits to producers, processors and the broader pork value chain. Successful projects may receive funding covering up to 50% of eligible project costs, with a maximum contribution of $50,000 annually over three years, representing a potential investment of $150,000 per project. Research Prioritie

When Pork’s Seasonal Recovery Doesn’t Arrive: What Canada Packers’ Q3 Results Reveal About the Market

Canada Packers’ third-quarter results offer a revealing look at the pressures facing North American pork production. Beyond the company’s $28.1 million loss, the more important story involves weakening pork demand, unusually compressed processing margins, and questions about when the industry can expect more favourable market conditions. For an industry accustomed to seasonal fluctuations, the absence of a typical summer recovery in pork values may be one of the most significant developments emerging from Canada Packers’ latest earnings report. The company reported third-quarter sales of $420.7 million, down 12.7% from the same period in 2025, alongside a net loss of $28.1 million compared with a profit of $25.6 million a year earlier. Adjusted EBITDA declined to $31.5 million from a pro forma $56 million in the comparable period, reflecting the effects of broader market compression. The reported net loss also included a $47.6 million non-cash decline in the fair value of biological

© 2026   Created by Darren Marsland.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service