Monsanto
Monsanto is one of the largest supporters of agricultural suppliers, with Syngenta being a large agricultural industry known for the production of chemical insecticides and pesticides. A merger between the two corporations would be a mega-merger that seeks to control the industry by owning a more significant percentage of market shares. The merge between Monsanto and Syngenta can be termed as a product-extension merger: the entities would group their products and sell them within the same market hence attracting a more extensive base of clientele. The Monsanto-Syngenta should be opposed massively due to the potential negative impacts that it implies. Don't use plagiarised sources.Get your custom essay just from $11/page
The merger would encourage the monopolization of partnership between a crop chemical company and a seed company. Monopoly capitalism would result in fewer companies ensuring that the entity created will have enough political power to shape the food system rules to fit their interests hence undermine smaller corporations. The sector will become more impervious to complaints regarding unfair business practices such as unnecessary costs of agricultural products. A mega-merger between the two entities will result in the restructuring of worldwide food production and instigation higher charges for farmers and higher food expenses for consumers. If the merger goes through, it will result in climate change and the loss of biodiversity due to the creation of a large scale, chemical-based monoculture farming. In the end, food security will be threatened.
The Monsanto-Syngenta merger deal in the global agrochemical and seed industry should be opposed as it poses a significant threat to farmers, food prices, and the environment. The merger can result in stifling of competition in the industry and reduction of innovation. It is bound to cause the loss of livelihood for many farmers and promote loss of biodiversity alongside climate change. To ensure that the agricultural sector develops and both farmers and consumers are sufficient, active reviewing of the merger and outlining of associated negative impacts rather than the promised benefits that cannot be guaranteed.