I currently stand alone in a high school human geography class, to say that Monsanto, Syngenta, DuPont, BASF, Cropsciences, Dow Agrisciences, and Bayer are, in fact, GOOD companies. However, theyre being a tough crowd. Is there anything you could say to your credit to help me turn the tides on these scare tactics?

Expert response from Lawson Mozley

Sixth Generation Farmer, Master’s Student, Agronomy, University of Florida

Friday, 07/08/2015 11:10

It’s a bit difficult to address your question because it’s unclear which characteristics of these companies seem less than desirable to your classmates. However, I’m a farmer and my goal is to produce crops and livestock in a manner that is both sustainable for the environment and cost effective and nutritious for the end consumer. I think that’s a good goal. In order to do that, I purchase products like seeds and pesticides from these companies and other agricultural companies. Any business could be evaluated as “good” or “bad,” based on a number of criteria.

 

When I’m making purchasing decisions, the first consideration is if I really need the product – does it provide an advantage like a positive impact on yield or disease resistance? To some degree, I do think about whether or not I like the business as a customer, usually based on current or past experiences.

 

Some people don’t like companies simply because they’re perceived as large corporations. I disagree. Many of the technologies we use in agriculture require resources that small companies may not be able to provide. For example, one tool I use on my farm is GMO seeds. (I also use non-GMO seeds depending upon the needs of my farm each year.) It takes more than $130 million to bring a new GM seed to market in the United States, mostly based on safety testing and other regulatory costs. Developing this type of technology has to be economically efficient for the company. This is just one example, but I view the positive impacts from being able to use GM crops, such as reduced pesticide application and even improved soil health, as a good thing. And if you think about the benefits that I can see from these types of technologies as a farmer in a developed nation like the United States, you can imagine how much more of a difference access to these technologies can make for farmers in developing nations.

 

Producing enough food to adequately feed a growing world population requires many types of tools and technologies for farmers, and people along the food supply chain. I think that companies like the ones that you mention above are vital to the development and distribution of technologies that have the potential (real and future) to improve people’s lives around the world and to do so with minimal impacts to the environment.

Expert response from Lawson Mozley

Sixth Generation Farmer, Master’s Student, Agronomy, University of Florida

Friday, 07/08/2015 11:10

It’s a bit difficult to address your question because it’s unclear which characteristics of these companies seem less than desirable to your classmates. However, I’m a farmer and my goal is to produce crops and livestock in a manner that is both sustainable for the environment and cost effective and nutritious for the end consumer. I think that’s a good goal. In order to do that, I purchase products like seeds and pesticides from these companies and other agricultural companies. Any business could be evaluated as “good” or “bad,” based on a number of criteria.

 

When I’m making purchasing decisions, the first consideration is if I really need the product – does it provide an advantage like a positive impact on yield or disease resistance? To some degree, I do think about whether or not I like the business as a customer, usually based on current or past experiences.

 

Some people don’t like companies simply because they’re perceived as large corporations. I disagree. Many of the technologies we use in agriculture require resources that small companies may not be able to provide. For example, one tool I use on my farm is GMO seeds. (I also use non-GMO seeds depending upon the needs of my farm each year.) It takes more than $130 million to bring a new GM seed to market in the United States, mostly based on safety testing and other regulatory costs. Developing this type of technology has to be economically efficient for the company. This is just one example, but I view the positive impacts from being able to use GM crops, such as reduced pesticide application and even improved soil health, as a good thing. And if you think about the benefits that I can see from these types of technologies as a farmer in a developed nation like the United States, you can imagine how much more of a difference access to these technologies can make for farmers in developing nations.

 

Producing enough food to adequately feed a growing world population requires many types of tools and technologies for farmers, and people along the food supply chain. I think that companies like the ones that you mention above are vital to the development and distribution of technologies that have the potential (real and future) to improve people’s lives around the world and to do so with minimal impacts to the environment.