The ag commodity market has changed since sept 26, now wheat and barley prices are half the value they were this time last year, and that's with a collapsed Aussie dollar.

Poor returns are destined to curb production, a much more reliable way to cause starvation than the affordability of food.

Foxy rightly points out that there are only a handful of chemical and seed companies to deal with full stop. Why dealing with Monsanto specifically is a problem is a trifle naive. Big companies have the research and development funding that can have real impact, I wish it were otherwise but that is reality. They can only make money when their product has value for the farmer.

The IAASTD call for small scale ecological farming will be warmly welcomed by those who have to return to the country to tend the plots. I look forward to being a landlord.

examinator, the proximate causes of the recent spike in food commodity prices was George W Bush’s energy independence scheme, couple with severe droughts in several major grain exporting countries, Australia included. The consequence of providing what was effectively a subsidy for ethanol drove up the price of corn due to extra demand. This also effectively soaked up the existing pool of coarse grains on the market for animal feed. The result was a shortage of grains and so higher prices because supply could not keep up with demand. Corn farmers responded by increasing the acreage of corn, in the process increasing the demand for fertilizers and, because they grow RoundupReady corn in the US, the demand for glyphosate. Higher demand with no more supply leads to higher prices.

As a response to increased food commodity prices, farmers have sown more land to food crops and increasing production. This is now driving food prices down. The credit crisis is also reducing demand for fuels and reducing the prices of fertilizers.

I don’t believe that being President of the UN General Assembly of Foreign Minister in the Sandanista government automatically results in a clear understanding of agriculture or trade. D'Escoto is wrong if he is implying that a handful of multinational companies have control of agriculture. Even in the US, there are more than 200 seed companies selling corn commercially. Many are small, but they still exist and meet a significant portion of the market.

At the end of the day, a company will only be as successful as its products. If it markets seed farmers want to grow, you can expect its profits to increase. If seed from one company is too expensive for farmers to buy, they will go elsewhere. If you don’t want supply and demand dictating the market place, what other system should there be and how would it produce price signals?

Shaddow minister,
Denial is no answer to anything did you read the quote from the President of the UN general Assembly? I took it from the source document... copy of his speach. Are you saying he is ignorant? fair crack of the whip!
try http://www.competitivemarkets.com
Read the proveable facts in foxy's post from the same conference.
Your comment remind me of the old saying "there is none so blind as he who WILL not see".
Prove to me that these quotes are wrong!

not only is this post based on ignorance, it is also pointless. a people without democracy should confine themselves to discussions of sports and celebrity.

Examinator,

All I see is the futile banging on the anti globalisation drum yet again.

Lets review the last decade or so:

When genetic engineering first started the greens threw a hissy fit and managed to block all research in most countries. The USA being the major exception, but even here such onerous liability conditions were laid on them that required extremely tight contractual conditions with whom so ever used their product.

The US based companies incl Monsanto developed and rolled out these products at great financial risk and spent the better part of a decade testing and proving that they are safe, better for the environment by using less chemicals, and produce far more.

Now with the US conglomerates having a de facto monopoly bestowed on them by the green movement, the rest of the world is now saying that it is not fair.

The expression "you made the bed now lie in it" springs to mind.

Remember no one is forced to buy their product. If the greens were correct and no one wanted to buy their product they would not be making a profit but a huge loss.

I have not had time to go through all of Foxy's quotes but the one "Today, Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), Bunge, and Cargill control 90% of the world's grain trade." Is definitely rubbish.

Considering that food supply is often heavily subsidised and as a result controlled by regulatory bodies such as the AWB this is simply not possible. If you have proof that it is, I would like to see it.

PS
The head of the UN general assembly is toothless political appointee whose job it is to spout populist rhetoric. I doubt many people actually know who he is.

Shadow minister,
Thank you for your comment but what you offered is a lot of assumptions and rhetoric....facts old boy facts

First I'm not on about anti-globalism nor am I a greenie.

Your depiction of the president of the UN is inaccurate. Oh as for being unknown that is irrelevant a bit like saying that the global crisis isn’t happening because most people don't know who the president of Lehman Bros is and he's biased.

I tend to play the ball not the man. The challenge still stands.

Agronomist,
I hope you appreciated my warped sense of humour :-)
Good comment but one wonders if you get dizzy with all that spin.
Eg” 200 different seed distributors” the question is how much of the market do they control? That a bit like when I owned pet shop(s) as a small business man and how within 4 months the supermarkets in the same centres increased their pet products from 2 bay shelves to 32 . Their staff used to list my prices and then theirs dropped to undercut me. The centre ignored terms of my pet product exclusivity contract answering in essence …the super markets are more important… No grizzles here, that's business but it indicates the shallowness of that argument.
As for blaming GWB one needs to ask .
- How does that affect the companies blinding profit increases in both $ and % ?
- That higher demand for Glyphos( roundup) was largely due to restrictive contractual obligations on farmers and chemical suppliers therefore an artificial self created demand? To justify price rises?… market manipulation, perversion or profiteering by any name.
Ford/GM et al don’t demand that customers use their brand of over priced petrol (market determined) and unrestricted access to your car to enforce it .

As for the argument ‘it’s legal?” I refer to the power imbalance (unlevel playing field) in my example.

Finally show me your proof, I know where the money is.