In a recent Fortune magazine article by Dan Mitchell he touts the amazing power of Monsanto to always win. The company has done very well financially for a variety of reasons, such as being nimble in the marketplace, entering into farm productivity analytics business, and having a friendly regulatory environment in the U.S. However, Mitchell glosses over each of the potential hits to Monsanto's business almost as if they don't exist.
First he states that the anti-GMO movement is insignificant "because Monsanto...is an unstoppable Leviathan." Is Monsanto in a different universe than Leviathans such as Eastern Airlines, Pan Am, WorldCom/MCI, and Bear Stearns that were once giants but no longer exist? I am not suggesting that Monsanto is in impending dire straits. On the contrary, they are an extremely profitable business. But this is a classic nearsighted perspective about a good business: that the arrow always and forever points up.
Next, he writes that the company is hedged to the hilt because it is always developing new seed varieties (mostly GMO), and claims that "any loss is also a potential gain." Accepting the oxymoronic nature of that statement, this seemingly infallible aspect of their business may have a few more cracks in it than he sees through his Roundup colored glasses. For example, Europe is nearly entirely closed to GMO products, China is closing off its markets to them and Mexico just banned GMO corn. Maybe Monsanto doesn't need these markets to continue their bumper profits, but they definitely need the U.S. This is the area that the company should not be complacent about. Yes, up to now they have been able to lobby their way out of almost any regulation through the #PaytoPlay U.S. congress, but that ship is starting to take on a little water. The campaign finance reform movement is actually gaining significant traction with 16 states already having passed resolutions calling for a constitutional amendment and another 21 with pending resolutions. There has even been preliminary action in the U.S Senate with Senator Tom Udall recently introducing a constitutional amendment on campaign finance. More directly on the grassroots side against Monsanto, Vermont just passed a GMO labeling bill and once certain thresholds are reached, Maine and Connecticut's GMO bills will automatically be enacted. These movements have passed through their infancy and are now starting to toddle their way into mainstream discussions and state houses.
In addition, the "GMOs are the same as other food" and "high fructose corn syrup is just like sugar" studies that the big AG companies pull out from their self-financed "science" holes are being shown as the frauds they are. As an example, Dana Flavin, MD, PHD has an excellent review of the dangers of HFCS in this Life Extension magazine article. All it takes is a handful of real studies to make it to mainstream consciousness for a big backlash to occur. If the faked Lancet article associating immunizations with autism can wreak havoc like it has, then the real study by UC Davis showing a link of autism with pesticide exposure in pregnancy or the Scandinavian meta-analyses showing double the lymphoma rate in farmers can as well.
I don't believe that Monsanto's stock price has anything to worry about in the near term and the AG giant may very well be profitable for a long time to come. However, in order to do that they will need to remain nimble. When the legal bribery of congress, the FDA, and USDA comes to a close and when the populace decides to start eating actual food instead of a box of 37 ingredients, Monsanto better have a plan. And that plan probably shouldn't include brain damage and lymphoma as side effects.
First he states that the anti-GMO movement is insignificant "because Monsanto...is an unstoppable Leviathan." Is Monsanto in a different universe than Leviathans such as Eastern Airlines, Pan Am, WorldCom/MCI, and Bear Stearns that were once giants but no longer exist? I am not suggesting that Monsanto is in impending dire straits. On the contrary, they are an extremely profitable business. But this is a classic nearsighted perspective about a good business: that the arrow always and forever points up.
Next, he writes that the company is hedged to the hilt because it is always developing new seed varieties (mostly GMO), and claims that "any loss is also a potential gain." Accepting the oxymoronic nature of that statement, this seemingly infallible aspect of their business may have a few more cracks in it than he sees through his Roundup colored glasses. For example, Europe is nearly entirely closed to GMO products, China is closing off its markets to them and Mexico just banned GMO corn. Maybe Monsanto doesn't need these markets to continue their bumper profits, but they definitely need the U.S. This is the area that the company should not be complacent about. Yes, up to now they have been able to lobby their way out of almost any regulation through the #PaytoPlay U.S. congress, but that ship is starting to take on a little water. The campaign finance reform movement is actually gaining significant traction with 16 states already having passed resolutions calling for a constitutional amendment and another 21 with pending resolutions. There has even been preliminary action in the U.S Senate with Senator Tom Udall recently introducing a constitutional amendment on campaign finance. More directly on the grassroots side against Monsanto, Vermont just passed a GMO labeling bill and once certain thresholds are reached, Maine and Connecticut's GMO bills will automatically be enacted. These movements have passed through their infancy and are now starting to toddle their way into mainstream discussions and state houses.
In addition, the "GMOs are the same as other food" and "high fructose corn syrup is just like sugar" studies that the big AG companies pull out from their self-financed "science" holes are being shown as the frauds they are. As an example, Dana Flavin, MD, PHD has an excellent review of the dangers of HFCS in this Life Extension magazine article. All it takes is a handful of real studies to make it to mainstream consciousness for a big backlash to occur. If the faked Lancet article associating immunizations with autism can wreak havoc like it has, then the real study by UC Davis showing a link of autism with pesticide exposure in pregnancy or the Scandinavian meta-analyses showing double the lymphoma rate in farmers can as well.
I don't believe that Monsanto's stock price has anything to worry about in the near term and the AG giant may very well be profitable for a long time to come. However, in order to do that they will need to remain nimble. When the legal bribery of congress, the FDA, and USDA comes to a close and when the populace decides to start eating actual food instead of a box of 37 ingredients, Monsanto better have a plan. And that plan probably shouldn't include brain damage and lymphoma as side effects.
