1
Sam Humphrey
WRTG-1150
9:00 a.m.
Research Outline
FACT CLAIM
Apel, Andrew
1. “In India, for instance, the introduction of insect-resistant cotton has been
catastrophic for makers of chemical sprays, reducing sales by up to 70% in some
regions.”
2. “India’s chemical companies support opposition to GM cotton, and chemical
companies there and elsewhere lobby government to restrict biotech crops.”
3. “In the USA, and in other developed nations where numerous biotech crops are
legal, the producers of biotech seeds are also producers of chemical crop
protection products. This allows the corporations to offset a decrease in chemical
sales with an increase in seed sales. In developing nations, there is no such offset.
Their chemical companies have no biotech seed technology, and there- fore face
financial ruin with the adoption of biotech crops.”
4. “Food companies have substantial financial interests in opposing agricultural
biotechnology, and support its opposition both in cash, and in kind. In 2006, the
world’s seven largest food advertisers spent nearly US$8 billion on advertising
[7]. This represents a tremendous outreach effort, by the wealthiest food retailers,
to the wealthiest consumers. In some countries, this outreach regularly includes
advertising claims that certain food items are ‘GM-free’.”
5. “A wide variety of tests [are] available, with costs ranging from US$6 to
US$600 per test.”
6. “In the US, which is comparatively friendly to GM crops and foods, the value
of the GMO testing market was estimated at US$106 million in 2007 and forecast
to reach US$193 million by 2012.”
Di Sabato Guerrante, Rafaela
1. “In concordance with the ideas of Chandler [1], Penrose [4] and Fleck [9],
according to which one of the forms of company growth is its diversification into
2
related areas, Monsanto has always sought to diversify into these, taking
advantage of its dominance in certain product distribution channels and of the
expertise of its personnel, the latter an achievement attained over time, as Penrose
asserts, or by means of the contracting of market specialists, an idea which is
opposed by her.”
2. “The entry of the company into the food additive market, beginning to produce
in 1904 and 1905, respectively, caffeine and vanillin”
3. “The diversification into the pharmaceutical sector and its precursors, marked
by the beginning of the production of phenacetin, an analgesic compound, of
phenolphthalein, used in laxatives, of glycerol phosphates – present in nervous
system tonics -, in 1912; in 1915, of nitrochlorobenzene, a raw material utilized in
the synthesis of drugs, and in 1917, by the expiration of the patent held by Bayer
in the US for acetylsalicylic acid, which al- lowed Monsanto to add another
product to its al- ready very diverse portfolio”
4. “Diversification in 1967, into the following sectors: semiconductor materials,
surfaces for sports and recreation, engineered composites, protein foods and
graphics systems”
5. “Migration to non-related areas, such as children’s toys for schools and
playgrounds, soy- based beverages, and valves and control systems for industrial
processes, following acquisition of the US Fisher Governor Company.”
6. “In many of the diversification initiatives under- taken by Monsanto, the
company presented re- current behaviors in its attempts to overcome its lack of
internal capacities in those areas in which it desired to act or to strengthen its
participation. These behaviors consisted of: the acquisition of, or formation of
joint ventures with, companies al- ready active in target markets; the absorption of
technology by means of licensing of technology packages; and the incorporation
of tacit knowledge by hiring of human resources specializing in areas of interest.”
With regard to the acquisition of companies, many examples from the company’s
history may be cited. Amongst these are:
7. “The purchase, in 1920, of 50% of R. Graesser, a chemical company, leader in
the production of phenol in the UK market. At this time, Monsanto perceived the
3
excess of phenol in the post-WW1 US market, the need to find an alternate
market for it, and the convenience of integrating it into the production of
phenolphthalein. This was Monsanto’s first step into international markets.”
8. “The acquisition, in 1929, of two US industrial plants belonging to Rubber
Service Laboratories, specializing in the production of chemical additives used in
rubber processing, which allowed Monsanto to commence production of
polymerization accelerators and antioxidants, amongst other additives.”
9. “The acquisition in 1955, of the US Lion Oil Company, with the aim of
integrating its assets, strengthening its activity in the petroleum sector, since
Lion’s nitrogenated products - anhydrous ammonia, nitric acid and ammonium
nitrate - could be used as a raw material in the production of Monsanto’s
fertilizer. This integration forced the company to turn its attention to the
agricultural sector, with the creation of an action plan for the company in this
market.”
10. “The acquisition, 1969, of the US Farmers Hybrid Companies, a small group
specializing in the production of corn hybrids, this being the first sign of
Monsanto’s interest in entering the market for genetically - modified (GM) seeds.
Many other acquisitions of seed companies- Jacob Hartz, Agracetus, Agroceres,
Anglo - Dutch Unilever, Asgrow Seed, Braskalb, Calgene, Dekalb, Grupo,
Maeda, Holden’s Foundation Seed, Limagrain Canada Seeds, Plant Breeding
International Cam- bridge (PBIC), Selected International Seeds Operations of
Cargill, Sementes Hatã, Seminis, Western Seed and Poloni Semences - would
follow this, leading to the company’s consolidation in this area.”
11. “The purchase of G. D. Searle, in 1985, an American pharmaceutical
company, holder of the patent for aspartame, which was to expire in 1992. This
acquisition provided Monsanto with the capabilities which it needed to establish
itself in the pharmaceutical market.”
Eisberg, Neil
1. “Swiss agribusiness Syngenta has assumed full ownership of GreenLeaf
Genetics, which offers licenses for corn and soya bean genetic material to
4
foundation seed companies and facilitates the licensing of biotech traits. The deal
dissolves a joint venture partnership between Syngenta Seeds and Pioneer HiBred, part of US major DuPont. No financial details were disclosed.”
Herrera, Stephan
1. “Last January, Monsanto announced its $1.4 billion acquisition of Seminis, a
fruit and vegetable seed company from Oxnard, California. Investors and
environmentalists rarely agree on anything when it comes to Monsanto, but it
seems that the Seminis deal—and on a smaller scale, the $300 mil- lion purchase
of the Emergent Genetics cot- ton seed company of Boulder, Colorado in
February and the $40 million acquisition of Lincoln, Nebraska–based grain seed
firm NC+ Hybrids in March—has brought back bad memories of Monsanto’s
exuberant expansion in the late 1990s into the soy and seed corn business.”
2. “After a decade of slow (and in some years, no) growth, in just the past two
years, for example, sales of apples, oranges and bananas in the United States have
started to recover, according to the US Department of Agriculture. Likewise,
leading producers Brazil and the United States, and even niche producers such as
New Zealand, have all reported robust growth in exports of both fruits and
vegetables to the seemingly insatiable market that is China.”
3. ““I think that Monsanto would be very foolish to bring forward [GM] whole
fruits or vegetables,” says Lindsay Keenan, a GM campaigner for Greenpeace
International in Amsterdam. “But, Monsanto can clearly benefit by having their
patented genes in as many seeds as possible. The company is also quite capable of
attempting to intro- duce [GM] fruit and vegetables in markets where it believes it
can get away with it like the United States and Canada. Since GM papaya, for
example, is only grown in Hawaii, but sold widely in the United States, they
might assume that the [fruit] market is wide open.””
Kershen, Drew L.
1. “If science plays a vital role in promoting sustain- able intensive global
agriculture, then the Royal Society is guardedly optimistic that the urgent
challenge will be met and that the world society will reap the benefits – adequate
amounts of nutritious, safe food raised by economically, socially, politically and
5
environmentally acceptable agricultural techniques, among which genetically
modified crops will have an important place.”
2. “Scientists have been genetically modifying plants for 25 years, since the early
1980s; developers have commercialized genetically modified crops for 15 years,
since the mid-1990s.”
3. “Hundreds of millions of hectares planted and harvested with transgenic crops
provide the agronomic evidence that genetically modified crops are simply new
crop varieties that present no unique or different risks than crops raised through
conventional or organic means.”
4. “Building upon this substantial scientific and agronomic experience, reliable
studies have shown that these genetically modified crops have created positive
farm income effects, nonpecuniary benefits for farmers in terms of their labor,
safety and resources, important yield increases, improved environmental
agricultural footprints and marked reductions in green-house gas emissions.”
Kim, Sook-Jin
1. The article addresses and walks the reader through the heirloom seeds that were
present in South Korea, and how corporations came and took over the industry,
and thus tried to remove the heirloom seeds from the market and dominate the
market with GM seeds.
McHughen, Alan
1. “This dichotomy between medical and agricultural applications of the same
technology likely contributed to a common belief in scientific circles that public
skepticism of agricultural biotechnology (but not medical biotech) is largely
driven by ignorance and that ‘if only we can teach them the science, the public
would accept agbiotech as readily as they do medical biotech’. But this is facile,
and often incorrect, thinking. As eloquently articulated by Mohr and Topping [1]
in a recent review of consumer behavior, the scientific community should not
assume consumer skepticism of agbiotech is owing to sheer and simple
ignorance.”
2. “Clearly, not all antibiotech sentiments are based on the ignorance of
agriculture or of the rDNA technical mechanisms; the motivation in at least some
6
cases seems based primarily on commercial and/or socioeconomic factors, not on
health or environmental risk. Such players will cite, for example, concerns such as
increased domination of the food supply by private corporations, or the likelihood
of benefits of GE crops accruing disproportionately to large rich farmers at the
expense of smaller, poorer farmers, or of disrupting the international trade
dynamic. Although these issues may be legitimate points for discussion and
debate, they are not borne of technical ignorance and they are not scientific risk
based threats to health or environment.”
McMahon, Karen
1. “If the acquisitions are approved, Syngenta with its NK Brand and Garst and
Golden Harvest brands will arguably become the second largest branded seed
corn company in the U.S. Syngenta reports its corn market share is 15%. Holding
first place is Pioneer Hi-Bred International; it says it has about 40% of the corn
hybrid seed market. Monsanto reports it has 14% of the U.S. corn market through
its Dekalb and Asgrow brands.”
2. “Monsanto faces other competition, including that from the market
leader. Pioneer just purchased the gene research company Verdia and now has its
own glyphosate-resistant trait to use in both corn and soybeans. This trait may not
be available for five to six years. In the meantime, Pioneer plans to offer its own
corn rootworm trait, developed with Dow AgroSciences, in the next couple of
years. It already offers corn borer and other insect control that is tolerant to overthe-top applications of Liberty herbicide through Herculex I, another trait
developed with Dow.”