Hacker News Reader

Comment by temphn | Hacker News Reader

Monsanto has received terribly negative press, this is true. Part of that negative press is due to public dislike of GMO foods in Europe. Part of that is due to their DRM-like technology that stops farmers from replanting seeds after one generation.

If you invented a new kind of seed which was significantly more productive but cost billions in R&D to develop, what business model would you use instead?

Put in other words, is the objection to agricultural biotechnology in general (like the Green Revolution) or to Monsanto's specific implementation, and if so what are the top flaws in their approach in your view?

View on HN

No, those aren't really the major problems that people have with Monsanto. We should start by discussing their lawsuits against farmers because Monsanto grain blew onto their fields and move up from there.

The most famous such case (and probably the one you're thinking of) is Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser in which the farmer who was sued almost certainly saved and re-used seed, then lied about the accidental nature of the crop's presence on his farm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeis...

To be fair: farmers weren't simply getting sued for having Roundup-ready crops; they were finding their fields populated with Roundup-ready plants, and then using Roundup on the field. There was an element of getting-something-for-nothing on the farmer's side, too.

I agree with your and dionidium's characterizations. My intent wasn't to paint a one-sided anti-Monsanto picture (although I think I ended up doing that, and alas can't edit my original post at this point), but rather to offer an alternative to temphn's characterization of the public's issues with Monsanto.

> and then using Roundup on the field. There was an element of getting-something-for-nothing

Using RoundUp means more herbicide sales for Monsanto.

The herbicide isn't what's interesting or valuable.

> The herbicide isn't what's interesting or valuable.

Headpalm.

You DO realize that the point of the gene is to SELL ROUNDUP, right? Not using RoundUp on "RoundUp Ready!" crops kind of defeats the entire purpose.

"Sales for Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides peaked at about $4 billion in 2008 when the product line generated record gross profit of nearly $2 billion.

Roundup-branded glyphosate, commercialized by Monsanto in 1976, is one of the few blockbuster molecules developed by industry since the early 1970s. Methyl-tert butyl ether (MTBE), invented by Arco Chemical in the 1960s and commercialized in 1979, is the only other molecule developed by industry since the 1970s to generate sales of more than $1 billion/year."

http://www.chemweek.com/chem_ideas/Rob-Westervelt/Blog-Monsa...

The licensing fees we're talking about farmers getting sued over are for the Roundup-ready crops, not the herbicide. The point of the Roundup-ready system is that it allows you to plant crops that aren't killed by Roundup. As someone else noted, you can buy Roundup itself at Wal-mart.

I think even a cursory read of the thread would have indicated to a good-faith commenter that I know the basics of the difference between Roundup and the Roundup-ready GMO product.

> As someone else noted, you can buy Roundup itself at Wal-mart.

And who do you think makes money when you do that?

Hint: It rhymes with "Monsanto".

> that I know the basics of the difference between Roundup and the Roundup-ready GMO product.

Not in dispute. Dispute is over your claim of them getting something for "nothing" because they used RoundUp.

Monsanto gets paid if they use RoundUp. RoundUp, unlike seeds, doesn't grow itself.

I don't understand this debate that you think we're having, and because I'm pretty sure I'm not really a party to it, I'll let you have the last word.

You're right about the seed currently being a bigger source of revenue and profit than RoundUp, because it's currently protected by patents whereas the herbicide patent expired in 2000, and now Monsanto is being undersold on generic glyphosate (without its special additives) by Chinese chemical producers who have been incentivized and subsidized by their government.

However, RoundUp seed patents begin expiring with soybeans first in 2014, and it looks like canola will follow a year or three later.

RoundUp (the herbicide) apparently accounts for 10% of Monsanto's revenue, but the corresponding seed will soon account for zero.

Monsanto's primary business model is essentially peddling genetic DRM, and their secondary business model involves suing people who weren't particularly interested in associating with them in the first place. They've also been involved in bribery and coercion scandals on multiple levels, and (speaking as a GMO advocate here) they're incredibly irresponsible with their technology. It's no surprise they're unpopular.

It's true that Monsanto has put a lot of money into R&D, and that they're occasionally misrepresented by extremists and farmers who want to give the appearance of being small businesses, but that hardly justifies most of what they've done. And if they're really in such a precarious position, attempting to achieve a "food monopoly" is even more irresponsible than it would be otherwise.

> If you invented a new kind of seed which was significantly more productive but cost billions in R&D to develop, what business model would you use instead?

If the new crop is more expensive because of IP regulations, it is NOT an improvement.

There's just no way to reconcile feeding the poor with making massive profits on patents.

It's also misleading to focus on the crop itself; soil management is a far bigger issue. If your crop produces more, it means it depletes the soil more. Topsoil depletion is a huge issue wherever there is intensive modern farming.

The goal with patents is to control the food supply, not increase it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com