anti-GMO 2000 words Topic - GMOs and ethical issues with focus on GMO corporations, food control, and monopolies

Running Head: MONOPOLIZING THE AGRIBUSINESS 0

Monopolizing the agribusiness

Name of Student

Name of institution

Date

Introduction

The first genetically modified plant cell was accomplished in the year 1982 by the Monsanto corporation scientists, since then agricultural products have been genetically modified to resist pest attack and include herbicides to improve production. The agricultural technology companies involved in this sector have developed and patented catalogues of seeds, animal boost hormones, herbicides and pesticides. These products have been reported to be functionality mind blowing to the farmers. Though research has now shown these supposed advancements have been found not to work as effectively as their producer’s report (Robet, 2009). How is it then that that these products still find their way into the market? Sometimes to be banned years after they have bought havoc to communities .

Dangers of seed monopolies and global food control.

Until the year 1980 the US Patents and trademark office denied patents to seed company since there were too many variables involved “it is like describing a widget”. But in 1980 the US Supreme Court indeed turned the seeds into the widget and allowed a few corporations to take charge of food supply. Main among them is the Monsanto which created patented seeds resistant to Roundup which both made its convenient to win the market since now the farmers needed both of the corporation’s products. The Monsanto Corporation is aggressive in protecting their patents. The traditional reusing of seeds after the harvest lead to legal suits against farmers (Food And Water Watch, 2013).

Today just a handful of companies control the food supply chain as far as seeds are concerned. The Monsanto, Syngenta, DuPont and Bayer represent almost 80% of the world’s total market share. Each one of them has, in the recent past, been involved in buying sprees and merging with smaller companies to monopolize the industry. When most of the major companies merge together that leaves just a few companies left in the market to compete. Just a few years ago Monsanto competitively bought new seeds in the market. After attaining a huge market share the seed prices have drastically risen. Merging a dominant company in the seeds industry with a big agrochemical company like Bayer will result a in double threat to our food supply (Scientific American, 2009).

Monopolies within food supply chain are a big concern. First the companies are industrial scale, globalized, and chemical-extensive oriented who will then determine what we eat. Currently US and other countries depend highly on Monsanto for its seeds, whether non-GM, GM or hybrid. Specifically in the US over 90% of corn is grown using the Monsanto seeds. While most citizens have shifted to GM corn, this GM form has high calorific value but less nutrients than are found in traditional reusable seeds (Vanity Fair, 2008).

Confining farming practices to narrow options through heinous practices such as use of GM seeds resistant to roundup. Roundup alone will kill food varieties. Food variety depends on reproducibility and replanting. Denying the farmer the right to replant will eliminate crop diversification. Genetic contamination of the indigenous crops will steal from small farmers competitive varieties. At the same time, they cannot afford the GM seeds. In the long run only seeds from Monsanto and a few other corporations will be cultivatable. Therefore, both farmers and consumers will be forced to limit their choices to the corporations catalogues. Thereby controlling what is grown, how and when. The monopoly will stifle competition, acquire the power to set prices at their will and eliminate the small farmers who will be unable to conform to the new dynamics. The companies are already holding the largest chunks of cultivatable lands hence they can easily shift products and market prices to their convenience (Haas Institute, 2013).

Through mergers the companies will have access to more technologies needed to take control of the agribusiness. The more a company can get hold of important genomic research, related to chemicals and soil control, the better they will be able to exploit the market. Merging companies aids in the privatization of research thus these companies become virtually the only venues to carry out research. Having private research facilities can stop damaging information from reaching the main stream public. A group of 24 anonymous entomologists opposing the Monsanto operations to create corn seeds,were unsuccessful in stopping the operations. This is because they needed access to the company to carry out the research and validate their clams of environmental violations. This is practically impossible since there is very little independent research ever done (Aljazeera, 2012).

The leaders in the agribusiness play a key role in the political front. The Monsanto company, has an estimated political campaign contribution of about $829,667 among other enormous expenditures. No doubt, companies such as Monsanto are well connected with the government and have political ties. This enables these companies most whom have dreadful histories, like that of agent orange made by the Monsanto company used by the US military in Vietnam, poses a great dangers such as bad food, eradication of small businesses, rigged trade, mono-cropping, poor health, environmental devastation, soil degradation among others. In the past, Bayer and Monsanto have introduced highly toxic products into the markets, if the same corporations take control of all agribusiness a recurrence of their past is very likely to occur. This means introduction of environmentally harmful products, bribery for cover-ups, and monopolistic tactics on an essential entity for life which would be against the humanity (The Guardian, 2016).

The abuse of GMO corporate seed patents and their effects on the farmers.

Like any other patented products GMO seed buyers have to sign agreements that limit the use of the seeds. Taking into considerations that these products are a basic need for any human, the corporations deny the consumers the fundamental rights to investigate if the product will thrive, fail or even cause harm. The only research information seen by the consumer are heavily guarded by the corporations. Reports are blocked before reaching the consumers attention if results are not flattering. The fact that the companies have seed patents is absurd for many farmers. It’s unlike the Microsoft software and other patented products that are used again and again; the Monsanto seeds cannot be replanted. The company has a ‘police’ division who check on farmers lands who confront them to sign documents that gain Monsanto access to their private land (The Guardian, 2016).

Monsanto has a hostile position in protecting their intellectual properties, Bowman vs. Monsanto case is the most cited and probably the reason why the company will continue to tighten its rules on protecting it’s patents. The company filed a litigation against Bowman for replanting seeds after the first generation, he argued that the patent contract was exhausted after the first generation. The court ruled the case as an infringement of patent since the second generation contained patented genes. Bowman had to pay over $ 80, 000 to the company. Also through privatization of research and patents protection, researchers cannot access samples to investigate on adverse issues associated with the products. It therefore makes it convenient for the company to privatize the research, control the results and avoid spilling negative information to the consumers (Aljazeera, 2012).

Today many farmers are faced with penalties and litigations curtsey of the awkward take on self-replicating patented products. Prohibiting replanting destroys and displaces the importance of diversity, whereby the newly produced seed is allowed to develop naturally to various strains by adjusting to the nature. With newly introduced seeds that come with compulsory registration the old seeds remain genetically contaminated and possibly get lost. The protection does not cater for the loss of indigenous seeds. In Indian cotton growers hardly have the indigenous cotton seed, the roundup contain a bacteria that have eliminated all other cotton varieties (Robert, 2009).

The abuse of the intellectual properties rights has led to contamination of seeds. Seeds are the basic elements and the starting point of the food supply chain, when the GM crops are grown among existing natural varieties they pollinate them. Patenting seeds ought to be unique, this is because limiting the use of self-replicating products, plant or organism, is wrong and dangerous. The law need to enforce a mechanism that would limit the current patent system for self-replicating products. These limitations are not only unfair but also dangerous to the agricultural sector, normally farmers take a portion of their harvested products to the store and replant during the next season. By overthrowing diversification planting farmers will have no other option but to purchase the Monsanto products, this will increase the cost of production and possibility create a debt load (Robert, 2009).

Sooner or later many governments will endorse memorandums with the companies to offer their high quality seeds and other products at to their farmers. Currently India has signed a US-India knowledge initiative, others include Monsanto-Rajasthan MOU. The penetration of the killer corporations into such countries will gain access to remaining indigenous seeds, take the away from the framers by contaminating them and later sell them under harsh agreement of not replanting. These MOUs will empower the harsh patent protection rules in the regions (Aljazeera, 2012).

The major biotechnology and agricultural technology corporations that control and fund research into GMOs

The agribusiness industry is run by a few companies who have repeatedly tried to merge together to leave the whole food supply system to a tiny number of people. Determining what each one of us will have at the table. By the year 2009 the top agribusiness corporations were: Syngenta, Bayer, BASF, Monsanto, Dow, DoPont. A few years later there were suggested mergers between Dow and DoPont, Bayer and Monsanto among massive buying spree resulting to absorption of nearly any standing small agribusiness. The EU and U.S regulatory societies have thwarted the said mergers to avert creating monopolistic systems in the sensitive food supply chain (Robert,2009).

Monsanto is an old company with quite a dark history concerning environmental pollution, manufacturing among the most toxic products ranging from PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) which were banned in the 1979, to the Agent Orange used in Vietnam air strike among others. Currently the company stands tall in the life science industry. After the first introduction of GM in the 1980s the company has radically invented the industry with new and mean advancements. The company is currently eying the milk industry, probably to patent calves and limit birth rate. The company was the first to successfully modify a plant cell, it now runs numerous research and tests that ensure that consumer live a few steps behind their ill inventions (Robert 2009).

The company’s roundup is the main revenue winner, accounting for 27% of the total revenues the company collects. Its patent rights ought to have exhausted by the year 2000, but just about then a new ‘resistant’ weed emerged which led to introduction of another version of roundup. Currently there are over 147 roundup ‘tolerant’ weeds and an assurance of no-competition as long as new tolerant weeds keep emerging. The company seem to have collaborated with patent attorney to ensure its patent is timeless, but introducing new problems at the opportune moments. The fact that the companies privately control the research it’s capable of plotting for whatever result so pleases them. They bar access of independent researchers and produce dubious results such as the tolerant weeds have emerged due to farmers negligence, the company is currently planning to second generation crops resistant to two more herbicides (Robert, 2009). Simply creating problems and solutions at the same time!

Bayer is am major livestock pharmaceutical company, just like Monsanto, its research facilities are inaccessible by independent researchers. They control what livestock consume and consequently have a hand on the human health and bio ecology. Although various bodies regulate their procedure inability to independently carry out satisfactory test on the livestock products provide enough loopholes for dubious processes seen in Monsanto. DuPont is the second largest seed company, it noted that Monsanto is the single gate keeper that allows it to raise of keep off competition (Huffingtonpost, 2016).

In conclusion.

Monopolizing the food supply chain goes beyond providing seeds, agrochemicals or livestock pharmaceuticals to the key custodians, the companies are working hard to get hold of all farming activities. Thereby being able to control what we eat, how it’s grown and when. Monopolizing the food supply chain will affect the farmers, but it’s a concern to everyone. Changing the indigenous food containing the right nutritional requirement with high calorific value foods will impact negatively on the global health. Inability of regulate these companies operations will lead the farmers into debts, the patent protection system need to be fair to users. Finally allowing the merger to take place, it will only allow this agribusiness controllers to do what it pleases them with the most essential commodity that is food. Reducing competition, creating problems to increase profit and dominating the supply chain are the major motives for the mergers.

References.

Robet L. S. (2009) Ho Will Control The Green Economy? Worldetccom.

Food And Water Watch (2013) Monsanto Corporate Profile. Retrieved On April 16th k2017 from FT. Http://Www.Salon.Com/2013/05/30/Monsantos_Patent_Lawyers_Get_A_Gift_From_Th e_Supreme_Court/

Scientific American (2009) Do Seed Companies Control GM Crop Research? Retrieved on April 16th 2017 from FT. Https://Www.Scientificamerican.Com/Article/Do-Seed-Companies-Control-Gm-Crop-Research/

Haas Institute (2013) Bowman Monsanto, The Monopoly Over The Global Food System. Retrieved On April 16th 2017 from FT. Http://Haasinstitute.Berkeley.Edu/Bowman-V- Monsanto-Monopoly-Over-Global-Food-System

Vanity Fair (2008) Monsanto’s Harvest of Fear. Retrieved On April 16th 2017 from FT. Http://Www.Vanityfair.Com/News/2008/05/Monsanto200805

Huffingtonpost (2016) Bayer-Monsanto Deal Hints At Dark Future Of The Corporate Monopolies. Retrieved On April 16th 2017 From FT. Http://Www.Huffingtonpost.Ca/Colin-Todhunter/Bayer-Monsanto- Monopoly_B_12025918.Html

The Guardian (2016) Farming Mega-Mergers Threaten Food Security, Say Campaigners. Retrieved On April 16th 2017 From FT. Https://Www.Theguardian.Com/Global- Development/2016/Sep/26/Farming-Mega-Mergers-Threaten-Food-Security-Say- Campaigners

Aljazeerea (2012) The Seed Emergency: The Threat To Food Democracy. Retrieved On April 16th 2017 From FT. Http://Www.Aljazeera.Com/Indepth/Opinion/2012/02/201224152439941847.Html