Monsanto has already started selling Roundup Ready 2 Yield, which has a higher price, many years left on patent and somewhat better yields than the initial Roundup Ready.

The gene provides resistance to the herbicide Roundup, which had killed most types of plants. It enabled Monsanto to charge “technology fees” for genetic traits in addition to the purchase price of seed and introduce contracts prohibiting buyers from replanting the soybeans produced, so they must buy seed every year.

Monsanto sells its own seed with the gene and also licenses other companies to incorporate it in their seed, for a technology fee. Varieties engineered to include Monsanto’s Roundup Ready gene account for 90 percent of U.S. soybeans and over half of corn.

Several factors may discourage continued use of Roundup Ready 1 seed after Monsanto drops the prohibition on replanting. “Some nations require licenses for the import of genetically engineered crops to be periodically renewed,” according to The New York Times. “Monsanto said it would maintain those licenses through 2017.” But if they expire after that, beans produced with the earlier version of the seed could not be exported to certain countries. That would prevent Roundup Ready 1 beans from being sold into the general market.

Also, if the higher yield claimed by Monsanto for Roundup Ready 2 Yield pans out, farmers will be less likely to save and replant the earlier version. But perhaps the biggest factor that may discourage replanting Roundup Ready 1 after it goes off patent is growing weed resistance to Roundup herbicide.

The introduction of Roundup Ready corn two years after soybeans ensured that Roundup would be sprayed on many fields every year, and that weeds would develop resistance to the herbicide. Monsanto is responding with a new gene that makes crops resistant to additional herbicides that kill the resistant weeds.

Monsanto purchased an exclusive license from the University of Nebraska for the soybean gene for resistance to the herbicide Dicamba. Soybeans combining Dicamba and Roundup resistance are in Monsanto’s “product pipeline.” Weed resistance and a new gene to address it arrived just in time to protect Monsanto’s market share as the patent expires on Roundup Ready 1.

Market dominance by any firm is dangerous. In addition to aggressive pricing, it can give a single company the power to dictate the terms of production. For example, one company with sole control of superior genetics could dictate that farmers give up ownership of the crop, in return for access to the seeds. The company could stop selling seed and instead offer only contracts for planting, spraying and harvesting the company crop on farmers’ land.

The University of Nebraska license raises a serious policy question. Should public institutions grant exclusive licenses for technology developed with public funds to a company that already has a very dominant market position? Or should public institutions focus on developing new knowledge and crop varieties available to the public?

The question may soon face wheat producing states. Monsanto is reportedly talking with 10 public universities to gain access to their wheat lines to develop genetically engineered varieties. Each will need to decide whether publicly produced wheat genetics should remain available to the public, or sold into the exclusive control of the highest bidder.

At the heart of the issue is the obligation of public research universities to do research that is available to and benefits the public, including farmers.

For example, we need new research to develop our understanding of the interactions between the millions of different soil organisms and how they are affected by farming practices. Such research would develop knowledge that farmers could use to manage their farms in ways that increase beneficial organisms and suppress harmful organisms.

Likewise, traditional breeding is needed to develop varieties for use by farmers serving organic markets and markets for crops that are not genetically modified. Improvement of such varieties would also be good for producers of genetically modified crops because availability of alternatives reduces the price-setting power of seed suppliers.

It is exactly the type of research that should be done by public research universities: research that serves the common good.

Agree or disagree? Send your comments to Chuck Hassebrook, chuckh@cfra.org or 402.687.2103 x 1018.