Seeds of Greed: America’s Growing Agricultural Monopolies

100 acres of soybeans grow in the Hill and Dale Farm of Berryville, VA. Photo by US Department of Agriculture photographer Lance Cheung.

Although the antiquated monopoly powers of Standard Oil and U.S. Steel have been replaced by the advent of notorious tech giants Google and Amazon, uncompetitive monopoly power in the US has manifested itself in ways far more diverse and subtle within the present market space. Across industries, power has gradually consolidated into a few corporations whose pervasive market share has affected American consumers in the most intimate of ways.

Since the Gilded Age of robber barons, corporations have found new, creative methods of concentrating market power and formulating legal justifications for their noncompetitive practices. Beyond simple lobbying tactics, these corporations have increasingly relied on the expansion of intellectual property law to do so.

Consider the American soybean industry. The United States is the second largest producer of soybeans in the world with nearly 87 million acres of American farmland dedicated to their production, an area larger than the state of New Mexico. Nearly 77% of soybeans go towards animal feed, meaning that in every hamburger, scrambled egg, tofu stir fry, or glass of milk lies the product of more than half a million American soybean farmers. Given that soybeans are the US’s largest agricultural export, the critical role they play in the broader American economy is undeniable.

In 1980, federal patents were extended to cover “live human-made microorganisms,” signifying that the commercialization of living specimens had become a new form of profit. Now, companies could patent and trademark genetically modified organisms, like soybeans, and enjoy complete monopoly power over their products, with the ability to charge whatever price they see fit. Such new economic incentives immediately prompted the development of genetically modified plants (GMOs), the immense profits of which were boundless. However, there is a fine line between stimulating innovation and entrenching monopolistic power.

Currently, 90% of all soybean seeds in the United States are sold by Monsanto, a subsidiary of German conglomerate Bayer. As the sole producer of Roundup, an ubiquitous herbicide used by both average Americans and farmers alike, Monsanto specifically modified “Roundup Ready” seeds to be genetically resistant to its own herbicide, giving farmers no choice other than to buy from Monsanto itself. What’s more, farmers who wish to buy these patented seeds must also sign a contract with Monsanto promising never to save or resell excess seeds, meaning that farmers are forced to repurchase from Monsano year after year, harvest after harvest. 

Monsanto’s monopolistic aims are not exclusive to soybeans, as the corporation has demonstrated a fierce commitment to further consolidating American seed production. After acquiring seed production company Seminis, which controlled 40% of the market for vegetable and fruit seeds, Monsanto bought out Emergent Genetics, the country’s third-largest cottonseed company. Currently, Monsanto controls nearly 34% of the global seed market, a truly astounding figure.

Though Progressive era legislation like the Sherman Antitrust Act was intended to prevent such overwhelming market consolidation by prohibiting anticompetitive agreements and the monopolization of markets, the enforcement of antitrust law was crippled by decades of Reaganomic policies. Coined by critics of the Reagan administration’s impassioned economic libertarianism, these lax corporate regulations functionally decimated key provisions within federal antitrust law. Laissez-faire economic policies continued beyond the Reagan administration under subsequent presidential administrations across party lines. The danger of such unfettered consolidation, besides diminishing consumer welfare and worker exploitation, primarily lies in its manipulation of the legislative process. 

Since the infamous 2010 Supreme Court case, Citizens United v. FEC, which ruled that limiting corporate political donations is unconstitutional, Monsanto has poured millions of dollars into lobbying efforts, donating to both Republicans and Democrats alike, in order to promote any and all profit-maximizing legislation. With intellectual property legislation used to protect their agricultural monopoly, Monsanto has since used lobbying to advocate for more customized legislation.

In 2013, Democratic President Obama signed into law the Farmer Assurance Provision, derisively known as the Monsanto Protection Bill, which effectively barred federal courts from halting the sale of genetically modified seeds, regardless of any potential health concerns that may arise in the future. Monsanto has also historically lobbied against bills requiring the labeling of consumer GMO products as well as other regulatory policies. With these legislations, Monsanto continues to profit from a constant diminishment of consumer welfare. 

It is undeniable that patents, a way of guaranteeing intellectual property rights, are needed to promote innovation. However, given that such intellectual property rights can be a form of monopoly itself, it is crucial that our lawmakers walk a fine line between promoting innovation and ensuring a fair economic landscape. Constantly extending patent lengths, the property they trademark, and styming fair market competition has real repercussions for American consumers.

Data from the US Agriculture Department shows that soybean seed prices have risen 201% since the turn of the century. By contrast, consumer prices only rose 57% in the same period, all while the real wages of American workers across industries have stagnated since the 1980s. 

For decades, the libertarian debate has been stubbornly concerned with the conflict between free market and government, constantly lamenting any form of government intervention and decrying Red Scare epithets at the mere mention of government regulation. Proponents of such sentiment vehemently praise the “free market” for its capacity to determine what is right and efficient, and any attempt to restrict its autonomy is viewed as an unjust constraint. 

However, such an argument fails to realize that markets cannot function without governmental law. The rules of the market must be defined by property rights, contract law, legal enforceability, and a whole amalgamation of government institutions and legal frameworks in order to exist at all.  

It surely is a puerile conviction to believe that there exists, floating somewhere in the void, the “free market” upon which government encroaches. Rather, it is government policies that define and enforce the rules of the market, and currently the rules of our American market are patently unfair, continuously manipulated by the lobbying efforts of corporations like Monsanto. 

Indeed, a broad amalgamation of consumer and non-consumer goods alike in the United States have had their prices artificially increased by an extensive network of corporate lobbying at all levels of industry from pharmaceuticals to agriculture. Americans pay more for healthcare, insulin, and broadband than the rest of the developed world, and such high prices are surely not consequent of a free and fair market landscape.

In our economy, government backed monopolies pervade every level of industry. Monsanto is in no way an outlier, but rather a smaller illustration of a greater economic phenomenon. No singular political party is to blame; Republicans and Democrats alike draft these monopolistic legislations and rake in millions of political donations in the process. No, this is an affliction of our entire economic-political order itself. It’s time to root out the disease.

Daniel Kim (CC ‘24) is a Columnist Writer at CPR and is in the Economics-Political Science joint major program. In his free time, he can be found listening to Verdi on his way to the 115th halal cart.