At first glance, it was an open-and-shut case. In 1998, Mississippi farmer Homan McFarling bought soybean seeds with genetic traits owned by Monsanto, then as now the world's dominant provider of genetically modified seeds -- and also the biggest herbicide maker.
Like all farmers who buy GM seeds, McFarling signed a contract obliging
him not to hold back any of the resulting harvest as seed for the next
year's planting. But McFarling saved his seeds anyway -- and Monsanto
busted him. Hot to protect its multibillion-dollar investment in
genetic modification, Monsanto set loose a cadre of rent-a-cops into
the farm belt in the late 1990s, in search of farmers who dared defy
its patent claims.
According to a comprehensive 2005 study
[PDF] by the Center For Food Safety, "Monsanto has an annual budget of
$10 million and a staff of 75 devoted solely to investigating and
prosecuting farmers." By the time of the study, the company had
launched 90 lawsuits involving 147 farmers and 39 small businesses, CFS
McFarling was one of Monsanto's first targets. The giant corporation
sent the full weight of the law crashing down on the farmer's head,
suing him and winning a judgment of $780,000 (he had originally bought
$24,000 in seeds, according to a
New York Times account from 2003.
Preventing people from saving seeds and freely propagating crops has
been tried before. In medieval times, merchants in the Levant strove
mightily to corner the coffee market by refusing to export raw coffee
beans that might be replanted. Their effort eventually failed, and
coffee now flourishes in Latin America, South Asia, and southern Africa.
But Monsanto has patent law on its side. Monsanto has established for
itself the right to claim ownership of genetic material -- a
revolutionary step in the history of property rights.
And McFarling trespassed on those rights. He signed a contract and then
reneged on it. Case closed. Early this month, the Supreme Court upheld
Monsanto's claim against McFarling (through the appeals process, the
fine has been whittled to $350,000). The seed giant's case was so
strong that the court made its ruling without comment.
Yet the logic behind Monsanto's claim, so airtight on its own terms, has serious implications for broader society.
Desire to plant Roundup-Ready soybeans -- engineered so that the plants
can withstand infinite doses of Monsanto's flagship herbicide -- is
what plunged McFarling into his legal mess.
Herbicide-tolerant soy roared through the farm belt like a prairie fire
in the 1990s. Introduced in 1995, it accounted for nearly 50 percent of
all soy by 1998, the year that McFarling made the seed order he will
rue for the rest of his life. Today, more than 90 percent of soy
planted in the United States is herbicide-tolerant -- and the great
bulk of it contains Monsanto's Roundup-Ready trait. Globally, 91
percent of genetically modified soy contains [PDF] Monsanto traits; the company's market share in the United States is likely even higher.
To understand how this product conquered the farm belt so rapidly, you
have to understand how large-scale commodity farmers make decisions.
Your neighbor tries a new product, and suddenly boasts weed-free fields
and yields that trump yours.
He reveals that he bought newfangled, high-dollar seeds -- and more
than made his money back with the higher yield. So you do the same.
Trouble is, everyone else does, too -- and the higher yields nationwide
lead to lower prices for soy, erasing any advantage of the new seeds.
Indeed, USDA figures show that soybean production surged after the
introduction of herbicide-tolerant varieties in 1995 -- and prices
dropped. Soy prices didn't recover in any meaningful way until the
great biofuel boom that started in 2006. All things being equal,
technologies that increase yield end up lowering prices -- erasing any
net gain for farmers.
Thus in their rush to adapt new technologies, farmers aren't working in
their own interest, but rather in the interests of big corporate buyers
like Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill -- and, of course, in the
interests of the companies that sell the new technologies, like
And once new technologies gain traction, they can be nearly impossible
to resist. If soybean prices are dropping because all farmers are
adopting a new technology, then holding out can seem insane. Say you're
trying to make a living growing soybeans, and you'd prefer not to use
GM seeds. By holding out, you get low prices and subpar yields -- a
Even when prices are high -- as they are now, because of the biofuel
boom -- there's economic pressure to submit to GM seeds. Farmers know
that good times don't last forever; you have to "make hay while the sun
shines." To wring every penny out of the soy rally, you have to
maximize yield. And that means planting Roundup Ready soy -- and
dousing it with Roundup, Monsanto's flagship herbicide.
Thus farmers hardly enter into Monsanto's "technology agreements" under
completely free-market conditions. Their choice is essentially to
submit to Monsanto's terms, or live with lower yields.
Remember, 90 percent of U.S. soy -- our second-biggest crop -- is
genetically modified to be herbicide-resistant; and more than 90
percent of that contains traits owned by Monsanto. For corn, our
biggest crop, 60 percent is GM -- and nearly all of it contains
Since the U.S. food system relies so heavily on these two crops,
essentially our entire food supply is genetically modified, to the
benefit of one company. Since the U.S. doesn't require companies to
label GM ingredients, it's impossible to know how much of the U.S. diet
contains genes owned by Monsanto. In a much-cited study from 2000,
the Grocery Manufacturers of America estimated that 70 percent of food
in the U.S. contains genetically modified traits. The proliferation of
GM seeds has only grown since.
Somehow, a single corporation has managed to use patent law to gain de
facto control of the nation's two biggest crops -- and managed to annul
the age-old right of seed-saving over a broad swath of farm country.
Monsanto may have airtight logic on its side for patent law, but it has
clearly run afoul of a much less-enforced branch of legal code:
The time has come to bust up this giant seed trust.
Monsanto's Latest Court Triumph Cloaks Massive Market Power
Monsanto's latest court triumph cloaks massive market power
By Tom Philpott
Grist Magazine, Jan 17, 2008
Straight to the Source