Photobucket


La Vida Locavore
 Subscribe in a reader
Follow La Vida Locavore on Twitter - Read La Vida Locavore on Kindle

Monsanto Under Fire For Anticompetitive Behavior

by: Jill Richardson

Sun Dec 13, 2009 at 22:27:31 PM PST


Bookmark and Share
As you may already know, Monsanto has come under fire for anticompetitive behavior, and the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) will be investigating them. With the seed industry, it isn't just about what size market share you have (even though Monsanto IS the Coca-Cola of the seed industry). Even more important are what traits you control. If another company wants to engineer Roundup Readiness (a trait controlled by Monsanto) into their seeds, they need to come to Monsanto begging in order to do so. As Monsanto's spent the past decade or so gobbling up smaller seed companies (see a picture of it here) - and the traits they own - Monsanto controls an awful lot of traits, and thus an awful lot of the seed industry.

This week the AP wrote up Monsanto's role in the seed industry and Monsanto responded on their blog.

Jill Richardson :: Monsanto Under Fire For Anticompetitive Behavior
The AP says:

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.

Note that they say that Monsanto's traits are in 80 percent of corn. Monsanto doesn't actually sell all of that corn. I would assume that much of it is Pioneer corn (owned by DuPont), with Monsanto's traits engineered into it. The AP explains how that works:

Monsanto's methods are spelled out in a series of confidential commercial licensing agreements obtained by the AP...

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.

While Monsanto does not sell 90% of all seeds, the article quotes an agricultural economist who believes Monsanto has control over as much as 90 percent of all seed genetics. He continues, saying that with so much control Monsanto can increase their prices in the long term because they have no competition. Then the AP reports on seed price increases over the past few years:

The price of seeds is already rising. Monsanto increased some corn seed prices last year by 25 percent, with an additional 7 percent hike planned for corn seeds in 2010. Monsanto brand soybean seeds climbed 28 percent last year and will be flat or up 6 percent in 2010, said company spokeswoman Kelli Powers.

They go on to explain the specific methods Monsanto used and uses to get control of the market. For example:

One contract gave an independent seed company deep discounts if the company ensured that Monsanto's products would make up 70 percent of its total corn seed inventory...

Quarles said the discounts were used to entice seed companies to carry Monsanto products when the technology was new and farmers hadn't yet used it. Now that the products are widespread, Monsanto has discontinued the discounts, he said.

And how about this?

The Monsanto contracts reviewed by the AP prohibit seed companies from discussing terms, and Monsanto has the right to cancel deals and wipe out the inventory of a business if the confidentiality clauses are violated.

Thomas Terral, chief executive officer of Terral Seed in Louisiana, said he recently rejected a Monsanto contract because it put too many restrictions on his business. But Terral refused to provide the unsigned contract to AP or even discuss its contents because he was afraid Monsanto would retaliate and cancel the rest of his agreements.

And then there's the deal they make with smaller seed companies: You can use our traits but if you are bought by another seed company, you must destroy all of the seeds you have with our traits in them. As a result, Monsanto's had a cheap and easy time buying up smaller seed companies:

Monsanto's provision requiring companies to destroy seeds containing Monsanto's traits if a competitor buys them prohibited DuPont or other big firms from bidding against Monsanto when it snapped up two dozen smaller seed companies over the last five years, said David Boies, a lawyer representing DuPont who previously was a prosecutor on the federal antitrust case against Microsoft Corp.

Competitive bids from companies like DuPont could have made it far more expensive for Monsanto to bring the smaller companies into its fold. But that contract provision prevented bidding wars, according to DuPont.

You can read Monsanto's rebuttal here.

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Controlling inputs (4.00 / 4)
I have written previously of my belief that federal subsidies, which go to farmers in the first instance, stay with farmers only until input vendors can calculate how much they can afford to raise prices. Market control, such as that exerted by Monsanto, is what makes this possible, and ensures the longterm negative trend of net farm income.

In a monopoly/oligopoly ag economy, subsidies to farmers are in effect subsidies to the corporations that supply inputs and buy products, not to farmers. For example, subsidies that enable vertically integrated meat companies to buy feedstock below the cost of production.


there's also a pretty clear line (4.00 / 4)
between the amt of subsidies received by farmers and the amt paid to banks by farmers. Go figure. Until recently, that is. I forget what happened when the two numbers stopped tracking one another. I think bank debt overshot subsidies.

"I can understand someone from Iowa promoting corn and soy, but we are not feeding the world, we are feeding animals and soft drink companies." - Jim Goodman

[ Parent ]
farm payments (4.00 / 2)
Fascinating information. I wonder if someone tracks changed subsidy payments with changed farmer payments to banks, ag chemical vendors, and seed vendors; and changed farmer receipts from integrated processors like Dean and Tyson. Information graphics such as those from Michigan State would be great.

Here's a study about benefits from subsidies realized by the broiler industry.

[Feeding the Factory Farm: Implicit Subsidies to the Broiler Chicken Industry


[ Parent ]
That's probably the one (4.00 / 2)
by Elanor Starmer (I'm guessing... I didn't click it). But I was at the NFFC meeting where she presented it, and you've linked to the NFFC site. She and her fellow researchers also did a paper on the effects of subsidies on the hog industry. Both are excellent, and I relied on them and cited them in my book I believe.

"I can understand someone from Iowa promoting corn and soy, but we are not feeding the world, we are feeding animals and soft drink companies." - Jim Goodman

[ Parent ]
You're right, you fox. nt (4.00 / 2)


[ Parent ]
SmartStax (4.00 / 3)
I will be very interested to see how the control picture changes following 2010 commercial introduction of the SmartStax omnibus products from a joint venture between Monsanto and Dow.

Monsanto wants to have (4.00 / 4)
a worldwide monopoly on seeds & crop genetics.  This is not only a Really Bad Idea, it is also illegal under U.S. and European antitrust laws, afaik.

It's way past time for the Justice Department to intercede and indict.  And if Justice won't do it, maybe the EU will, as they did with Microsoft -- only I hope that they will treat Monsanto much more harshly than MS.

Just my two cents.

The most remarkable thing about my mother is that for thirty years she served the family nothing but leftovers. The original meal has never been found. -- Calvin Trillin


Monsanto is the Goldman Sachs of Ag. (4.00 / 3)
They lie, cheat, and steal; but they also control USDA and The State Department.

I surprised that nobody has written about the new Ag program for Afghanistan? If Clinton tries to inject GMO seeds into the Afghan farming, they will have more resistance that just bullets.


This is the real problem (4.00 / 3)
but they also control USDA and The State Department

Until this is changed, we're going to continue on as we have been.

Regarding locavores as elitists - explain to me how supporting local business is elitist....


[ Parent ]
So if Monsanto is the Coca-Cola of seeds . . . (4.00 / 4)
who is the Pepsi-Cola?

The answer to this question will go a long way toward determining whether Monsanto is a monopoly, and whether they are abusing that status.

By the way Coca-Cola's share of the US soft drink market is somewhere between 40% and 50%, according to a fifty-second Google search for the term "Coca-cola US market share".

I have succumbed to the Twitter craze. @Omir55


DuPont. (4.00 / 3)
Syngenta is pretty big also.

[ Parent ]
Yeah I figured (4.00 / 3)
maybe Syngenta was R.C. or Schweppes?

"I can understand someone from Iowa promoting corn and soy, but we are not feeding the world, we are feeding animals and soft drink companies." - Jim Goodman

[ Parent ]
And is there a Faygo? (4.00 / 2)
or a Boylan's?

Heh...

Coming soon to a Philadelphia near you!


[ Parent ]
Bayer? (4.00 / 3)
In marketshare, not in quality or anything.

"I can understand someone from Iowa promoting corn and soy, but we are not feeding the world, we are feeding animals and soft drink companies." - Jim Goodman

[ Parent ]
Here's a good image that shows market share (4.00 / 2)
[ Parent ]
But does DuPont have Pepsi's share of the seed market? (4.00 / 3)
And more importantly, does Coca-Cola make anything that's patented enough to force Pepsi to use it in their products?

Maybe I'm stretching this analogy more than I should be, but I think it's important to think of these sorts of things.

I have succumbed to the Twitter craze. @Omir55


[ Parent ]
well, Monsanto's more of a Microsoft (4.00 / 3)
if you want to get more accurate about it. All I meant by calling them the Coca-Cola is that they are huge but not so big in marketshare that they are the only important company. The market is dominated by a number of large players, like the soda industry.

"I can understand someone from Iowa promoting corn and soy, but we are not feeding the world, we are feeding animals and soft drink companies." - Jim Goodman

[ Parent ]
Actually I think that's a better analogy (4.00 / 3)
both in terms of market share and to their approach to the market (historically anyway).

I have succumbed to the Twitter craze. @Omir55

[ Parent ]
Political Activism Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Notable Diaries
- The 2007 Ag Census
- Cuba Diaries
- Mexico Diaries
- Bolivia Diaries
- Philippines Diaries
- My Visit to Growing Power
- My Trip to a Hog Confinement
- Why We Grow So Much Corn and Soy
- How the Chicken Gets to Your Plate

Search




Advanced Search


Blog Roll
Blogs
- Beginning Farmers
- Chews Wise
- City Farmer News
- Civil Eats
- Cooking Up a Story
- Cook For Good
- DailyKos
- Eating Liberally
- Epicurean Ideal
- The Ethicurean
- F is For French Fry
- Farm Aid Blog
- Food Politics
- Food Sleuth Blog
- Foodgirl.ca
- Foodperson.com
- Ghost Town Farm
- Goods from the Woods
- The Green Fork
- Gristmill
- GroundTruth
- Irresistable Fleet of Bicycles
- John Bunting's Dairy Journal
- Liberal Oasis
- Livable Future Blog
- Marler Blog
- My Left Wing
- Not In My Food
- Obama Foodorama
- Organic on the Green
- Rural Enterprise Center
- Take a Bite Out of Climate Change
- Treehugger
- U.S. Food Policy
- Yale Sustainable Food Project

Reference
- Recipe For America
- Eat Well Guide
- Local Harvest
- Sustainable Table
- Farm Bill Primer
- California School Garden Network

Organizations
- The Center for Food Safety
- Center for Science in the Public Interest
- Community Food Security Coalition
- The Cornucopia Institute
- Farm Aid
- Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance
- Food and Water Watch
-
National Family Farm Coalition
- Organic Consumers Association
- Rodale Institute
- Slow Food USA
- Sustainable Agriculture Coalition
- Union of Concerned Scientists

Magazines
- Acres USA
- Edible Communities
- Farmers' Markets Today
- Mother Earth News
- Organic Gardening

Book Recommendations
- Animal, Vegetable, Miracle
- Appetite for Profit
- Closing the Food Gap
- Diet for a Dead Planet
- Diet for a Small Planet
- Food Politics
- Grub
- Holistic Management
- Hope's Edge
- In Defense of Food
- Mad Cow USA
- Mad Sheep
- The Omnivore's Dilemma
- Organic, Inc.
- Recipe for America
- Safe Food
- Seeds of Deception
- Teaming With Microbes
- What To Eat

User Blogs
- Beyond Green
- Bifurcated Carrot
- Born-A-Green
- Cats and Cows
- The Food Groove
- H2Ome: Smart Water Savings
- The Locavore
- Loving Spoonful
- Nourish the Spirit
- Open Air Market Network
- Orange County Progressive
- Peak Soil
- Pink Slip Nation
- Progressive Electorate
- Trees and Flowers and Birds
- Urbana's Market at the Square


Active Users
Currently 0 user(s) logged on.

Powered by: SoapBlox