{"id":79916,"date":"2016-09-19T12:00:57","date_gmt":"2016-09-19T11:00:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=79916"},"modified":"2016-09-18T15:42:59","modified_gmt":"2016-09-18T14:42:59","slug":"monsanto-and-bayer-why-food-and-agriculture-just-took-a-turn-for-the-worse","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2016\/09\/monsanto-and-bayer-why-food-and-agriculture-just-took-a-turn-for-the-worse\/","title":{"rendered":"Monsanto and Bayer: Why Food and Agriculture Just Took a Turn for the Worse"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"defotoberg<\/a>

defotoberg | Shutterstock.com<\/p><\/div>\n

16 Sep 2016 – <\/em>News broke this week that Monsanto accepted a $66 billion takeover bid from Bayer.\u00a0The new company would control more than 25 per cent of the global supply of commercial seeds and pesticides.\u00a0Bayer\u2019s crop chemicals business is the world\u2019s second largest after Syngenta, and Monsanto is the leading commercial seeds business.<\/p>\n

Monsanto\u00a0held\u00a0<\/a>a 26 per cent market share of all seeds sold in 2011. Bayer (mainly a pharmaceuticals company) sells 17 per cent of the world\u2019s total agrochemicals and also has a comparatively small seeds sector.\u00a0If competition authorities pass the deal, the combined company would be the globe\u2019s largest seller of both seeds and agrochemicals.<\/p>\n

The deal marks a trend towards consolidation in the industry with Dow and DuPont having\u00a0agreed to merge<\/a>\u00a0and Swiss seed\/pesticide giant\u00a0Syngenta merging with ChemChina,<\/a>\u00a0a Chinese government concern.<\/p>\n

The mergers would mean that three companies would dominate the commercial agricultural seeds and chemicals sector, down from six \u2013\u00a0Syngenta, Bayer, BASF, Dow, Monsanto and DuPont. Prior to the mergers, these six firms controlled 60 per cent of commercial seed and more than 75 per cent of agrochemical markets.<\/p>\n

Alarm bells are ringing with the European Commission putting its approval of the Dow-DuPont deal temporarily on hold,\u00a0and the US Senate Judiciary Committee is about to hold hearings on the deal due to concerns about consolidation in the industry, which has resulted in increased seed and pesticide prices.<\/p>\n

In response to the Monsanto-Bayer merger, US National Farmers Union President Roger Johnson issued the following statement:<\/p>\n

\u201cConsolidation of this magnitude cannot be the standard for agriculture, nor should we allow it to determine the landscape for our future. The merger between Bayer and Monsanto marks the fifth major deal in agriculture in the last year\u2026 For the last several days, our family farm and ranch members have been on Capitol Hill asking Members of Congress to conduct hearings to review the staggering amount of pending merger deals in agriculture today. We will continue to express concern that these megadeals are being made to benefit the corporate boardrooms at the expense of family farmers, ranchers, consumers and rural economies. We are pleased that next week the Senate Judiciary Committee will be reviewing the alarming trend of consolidation in agriculture that has led to less competition, stifled innovation, higher prices and job loss in rural America\u2026 all mergers, including this recent Bayer\/Monsanto deal, [should<\/em>] be put under the magnifying glass of the committee and the U.S. Department of Justice.\u201d<\/p>\n

For all the rhetoric that we often hear about \u2018the market\u2019 and large corporations offering choice to farmers and consumers, the evidence is restriction of choice and the squeezing out of competitors. Over the years, for instance, Monsanto has bought up\u00a0dozens of competitors<\/a>\u00a0to become the largest supplier of genetically engineered seeds with seed prices having\u00a0risen<\/a>\u00a0dramatically.<\/p>\n

Consolidation and monopoly in any sector should be of concern to everyone. But the fact that the large agribusiness conglomerates specialise in a globalised, industrial-scale, chemical-intensive model of farming that is adversely affecting what we eat should have us very concerned.\u00a0Do we want this system to be intensified even further just because their business models depend on it?<\/p>\n

Farmers are increasingly reliant on patented corporate seeds, whether non-GM hybrid seeds or GM, and the chemical inputs designed to be used with them.\u00a0Monsanto seed traits are now in\u00a080 per cent of corn and more than 90 per cent of soybeans grown in the US. It comes as little surprise then that people in the US now consume a largely corn-based diet: a less diverse diet than in the past, which is high in calorific value, but\u00a0low in health-promoting, nutrient dense food<\/a>. This health-damaging \u2018American obesity diet\u2019 and the agricultural practices underpinning is now a global phenomenon.<\/p>\n

By its very nature, the capitalist economic model that corporate agriculture is attached to demands expansion, market capture and profit growth. And, it must be accepted that it does bring\u00a0certain benefits<\/a>\u00a0to those farmers who have remained in agriculture (if not for the 330 farmers who leave their land every week, according to data from the National Agricultural Statistics Service).<\/p>\n

But in the US, \u2018success\u2019 in agriculture depends on over\u00a0$51 billion of taxpayer handouts<\/a>\u00a0to over a 10-year period to keep the gravy train on track for a particular system of agriculture designed to maintain corporate agribusiness profit margins. And such \u2018success\u2019 fails to factor in all of the external\u00a0social, health and environmental costs<\/a>\u00a0that mean this type of model is ultimately unsustainable. It is easy to spin failure as success when the parameters are narrowly defined.<\/p>\n

Moreover, the exporting of the Green Revolution paradigm throughout the globe has been a boon to transnational seed and agrochemical manufacturers, which have benefited from undermining a\u00a0healthy, sustainable indigenous agriculture<\/a>\u00a0and transforming it into a profitable enterprise for global capital.<\/p>\n

And not just profitable for global capital \u2013 but its company managers too. For example, a\u00a0few months ago, according to\u00a0Reuters<\/a>, Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant could receive more than $70 million if Monsanto were to be taken over by Bayer. At the time, Monsanto said it was open to engaging in further negotiations with Bayer after turning down its $62 billion bid. The report shows how Grant\u2019s exposure to shares and options meant he had an incentive to hold out for the highest possible sale price, which would not only be in the interests of shareholders but also increase the value of his holdings. Other senior figures within Monsanto would also walk away with massive financial gains.<\/p>\n

These corporate managers belong to a global agribusiness sector whose major companies rank among the Fortune 500 corporations. These companies are high-rollers in a\u00a0geo-politicised<\/a>, globalised system of food production whereby huge company profits are directly linked to the\u00a0worldwide eradication of the small farm<\/a>\u00a0\u2013 the\u00a0bedrock of global food production<\/a>, \u00a0bad food and poor health<\/a>,\u00a0inequitable, rigged trade<\/a>,\u00a0environmental<\/a>\u00a0devastation,\u00a0mono-cropping and diminished food and diet diversity<\/a>, the\u00a0destruction of rural communities, ecocide<\/a>,\u00a0degraded soil<\/a>,\u00a0water scarcity and drought<\/a>,\u00a0destructive and inappropriate models of development<\/a>\u00a0and farmers who live a\u00a0knife-edge existence<\/a>\u00a0and for whom\u00a0debt<\/a>\u00a0has become a fact of life.<\/p>\n

A handful of powerful and politically connected corporations are determining what is grown, how it is to be grown, what needs to be done to grow it, who grows it and what ends up on the plate. And despite PR platitudes about the GMO\/chemical-intensive model just being part of a wider mix of farming practices designed to feed humanity, from\u00a0India<\/a>\u00a0to\u00a0Africa<\/a> indigenous models of agriculture are being squeezed out (through false argument and deception<\/a>) as corporate imperialism puts pay to notions of food sovereignty.<\/p>\n

We should be highly concerned about a food system increasingly dominated by companies that have a history (see this<\/a>\u00a0on Monsanto and\u00a0this<\/a> on Bayer) of releasing health-damaging, environmentally polluting products onto the market and engaging in bribery, cover-ups, monopolistic practices and what should be considered as\u00a0crimes against humanity<\/a>?<\/u><\/p>\n

Despite the likes of Hugh Grant saying the Monsanto-Bayer merger will be good for farmers and \u201cbroader society\u201d, most of all it will be good for shareholders and taxpayer-subsidised, state-assisted company profit.\u00a0That\u2019s the type of hegemonic rhetoric that\u2019s been used down the ages to disguise the true nature of power and its beneficiaries.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s not so much the Monsanto-Bayer deal is a move in the wrong direction (which it is), but increasing consolidation is to be expected given the trend in many key sectors toward monopoly capitalism or just plain cartelism, whichever way you choose to look at it. It\u2019s the system of industrialised, capital-intensive agriculture wedded to powerful players whose interests lie in perpetuating and extending their neoliberal economic model that is the real problem.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe have justified the demise of family farms, decay of rural communities, pollution of the rural environment, and degradation of soil health as being necessary\u2026 The problems we are facing today are the consequence of too many people\u2026 pursuing their narrow self-interests without considering the consequence of their actions on the rest of society and the future of humanity.\u201d Professor John Ikerd, \u2018Healthy Soils, Healthy People<\/a>\u2019<\/p>\n

So what is the solution? We could start here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

_____________________________________<\/p>\n

Colin Todhunter<\/em>\u00a0is an extensively published independent writer and former social policy researcher based in the UK and India.<\/em><\/p>\n

Go to Original \u2013 counterpunch.org<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The mergers would mean that three companies would dominate the commercial agricultural seeds and chemicals sector, down from six \u2013 Syngenta, Bayer, BASF, Dow, Monsanto and DuPont. Prior to the mergers, these six firms controlled 60 per cent of commercial seed and more than 75 per cent of agrochemical markets.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[225],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-79916","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-spotlight"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/79916","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=79916"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/79916\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=79916"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=79916"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=79916"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}