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: 523

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

Map: Prairie Dryness, Drought Little Changed in May

Abnormal dryness and drought across Western Canada were little changed in May compared to a month earlier. The latest monthly update of the Canadian drought monitor shows 19% of Prairie agricultural lands were being impacted by abnormally dry or drought conditions as of the end of May. That is 2 points higher than the end of April but slightly below 21% at the end of March and sharply below 47% in February. Much of the Prairie Region received below to well below normal precipitation in May, with the Peace Region, south-central Saskatchewan, and southern Manitoba recording less than 25% of normal. On the last day of the month, however, a large storm system in Alberta produced 40 to 80 mm of precipitation alone. In east-central Alberta up to 300% of normal monthly precipitation fell in the one day. Significant rainfall was also recorded in western regions of Saskatchewan but at lower levels than in eastern Alberta, the monitor said. Temperatures were generally below normal across

U.S. Soybean Ending Stocks Steady

U.S. soybean ending stocks – both old and new-crop - were left unchanged in USDA’s June supply-demand update on Thursday. For 2026-27, USDA made no changes to the U.S. soybean balance sheet this month. Estimated production remained at 4.435 billion bu, up 173 million from 2025-26, while the crush was held at 2.75 billion bu and exports at 1.63 billion. With no changes, forecasted 2026-27 U.S. soybean ending stocks were left steady from May at 310 million, modestly below the average trade guess of 314 million bu. The USDA also kept the 2026-27 season-average farm price unchanged at $11.40/bu, up from the 2025-26 estimate of $10.40. For old-crop 2025-26 soybeans, the USDA raised crush by 20 million bu, citing stronger soybean meal exports and domestic meal use, while soybean oil use for biofuel was also increased. However, exports were lowered by 20 million bushels based on available U.S. Census data, offsetting the increase in crush and leaving ending stocks unchanged at 340 mi

Only Modest Adjustments for Old-, New-Crop U.S. Corn

The USDA left its 2026-27 U.S. corn outlook virtually unchanged this month, with the only supply-side change a 3 million-bu increase tied to a higher import forecast carried in from the old-crop balance sheet. In its June supply-demand update on Thursday, USDA left 2026-27 U.S. corn production unchanged at 15.995 billion bu, while all major demand categories were also steady. Feed and residual use was held at 6.1 billion bu, food, seed and industrial use at 6.955 billion, including 5.6 billion for ethanol, and exports at 3.15 billion. With no change in use, the small increase in 2026-27 beginning supplies carried directly into ending stocks, which were raised 3 million bu from May to 1.96 billion, slightly above the average pre-report trade guess of 1.942 billion. The season-average farm price was unchanged at $4.40/bu. Corn futures were trading about 7-8 cents/bu lower this afternoon, following the report’s noon hour EST release. For old-crop 2025-26, USDA also made only mo

Don’t miss June 12 deadline: Share your feedback on the Beef Cattle Code of Practice

Public comment period nearing close on proposed updates to national beef cattle care standards.The Beef Code outlines expected and recommended animal care practices for beef cattle. The public comment period is an opportunity for anyone who has an interest in how beef cattle are raised in Canada, including consumers, veterinarians, food service professionals, and producers, to review the draft content and share feedback. Feedback gathered through the public comment period is critical and helps determine the content of the final document. Strong producer feedback from all regions of Canada is an important step in this process. The Beef Code is meant to drive continuous improvement in animal welfare and is built to be scientifically informed, practical, and reflect societal expectations for responsible farm animal care. The Code uses an outcome-based approach that focuses on achieving successful standards while allowing for flexibility in how these outcomes are met rather than dictati

From the Government Desk: ABP keeping up momentum

Spring is always one of the best times of year in this business. Calving is underway, seed is going into the ground, and there’s a sense of momentum heading into the grazing season. This year, that momentum also includes a few policy wins worth noting. Strychnine is back in 2026! After its approval was pulled in 2023, producers have been searching for a useful option to control infestations of Richardson’s ground squirrel. If you’re impacted, you’ll know why this is a meaningful development. The rollout is still underway, with initial access expected toward the end of May. For some, that timing will miss the most effective spring window, which is frustrating. There is expected to be another opportunity later in the summer, but it won’t fully replace what many producers were hoping for this spring. That said, getting this approval across the line was no small task. This was very much an Alberta-led effort, with strong collaboration between cropping groups and ABP to build the case. A

© 2026   Created by Darren Marsland.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service