Scientists in the biotechnology industry –– or public university researchers working on its behalf –– created genetically modified organisms and seeds by transferring genes between species that do not naturally interbreed. The primary seeds introduced commercially in the mid to late 1990s were (and for the most part remain) soybeans, corn, cotton, and canola engineered to resist herbicides or insects, or both.

For example, St. Louis-based Monsanto Corporation is well known for its RoundUp Ready soybean seeds. They sprout into plants resistant to the glyphosate herbicide that Monsanto makes and markets as RoundUp. This technology allows farmers to spray RoundUp to kill weeds without harming the RoundUp Ready plants.^12,13

In its initial marketing and public relations campaign for these GMOs, the biotechnology industry touted the notion that planting them would reduce the use of pesticides. However, that has not happened. Prior to the emerging problems with weeds and insects developing resistance, the technology allowed farmers to grow and harvest more corn, soybeans, or other commodity crops with less effort. Combining this increased supply of U.S. grain with that from other major agricultural producing countries around the world meant that the corporate agribusiness traders could drop the price they paid to farmers for the grain crops. It also created a market for seed, chemical, and fertilizer inputs to grow the biotech crops.

These genetically modified seeds are expensive and protected with patents –– a cornerstone of biotechnology. Patents give Monsanto, for example, control over the seeds so it can charge more for them and prevent farmers who bought and planted them from saving the next generation of seeds for future use. Seed saving is a money-saving farm practice that dates back many centuries. For at least five years, Monsanto has used the patents on its genetically engineered seed varieties as the legal basis for persecuting hundreds of U.S. and Canadian farmers.^14,15

The Downsides of Genetically Modified Crops Range from Environmental to Economic

The technology can harm wildlife. A four-year study released in 2005 compared GM canola to its conventionally bred equivalent. “It found that in GM fields there were fewer seeds, bees and butterflies.” ¹⁶

GMOs also can threaten farmers’ wellbeing. They face loss of exports because of consumer rejection in major foreign markets. They also can bear legal responsibility if their crops become contaminated with modified traits.¹⁷

While consumers worldwide, but particularly in the Europe and Japan, are opposed to the current generation of GMOs designed to resist pests and herbicides, the agrochemical and food industry is hoping that engineering certain traits into the end food product could sweeten consumer attitudes on the technology. This could usher in an end to independent grain growing. “GMOS are the key to controlling grain farming,” says John Ikerd, emeritus professor of agricultural economics at the University of Missouri. “Once you can genetically engineer a crop with specific traits in the end product, you can’t have a market unless agribusiness says you can. When you link genetics to an end product, you have the ability to control what farmers grow. It becomes a contract situation.” ¹⁸

This Has Already Happened in U.S. Livestock Production

“The meatpacking industry has consolidated and increased profits over the past 20 years, all the while paying farmers less and less for their livestock. Four companies slaughter more than 80 percent of feed cattle and half of the hogs in the United States.” This situation “gives meatpackers excessive control over the contractual terms under which farmers raise and sell livestock. Meatpackers increasingly own the livestock, which carry future profits. Meanwhile, it is up to the growers to raise and deliver the animals while absorbing all the risk should the market price drop…” ¹⁹

< previous | next >