DOCSLIB.ORG

Biotechnology & Crop Production Agriculture

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Biotechnology & Crop Production Agriculture New Product Opportunities: Future Growth of Crop Biotechnology Biotechnology & Crop Production Agriculture – Background on Sector Impacts Eric S. Sachs, Ph.D. Monsanto Company At the End of the First Decade: In 2006, farmers around the world harvested biotech crops for the 11th year 11 years of commercial experience on over 1.4 billion acres demonstrates – Proven economic and environmental benefits – Solid record of safety – Promising future benefits from new products 2 Biotech Crops Can Help to Address Urgent Global Challenges Lack of reliable food Insufficient Limited source, malnutrition fresh water arable land Soil Demand for food, Biological degradation feed and fuel competition 3 Agriculture’s Imperatives FOOD: Deliver twice as much food in 2050 as is produced today. ENVIRONMENT: Reduce environmental impacts by getting more from each unit of land, water and energy devoted to crop production. CLIMATE CHANGE: Adapt to climate change by improving yield stability in the face of climate stress. ECONOMIC SUCCESS: Deliver economic benefits for all farmers, small and large. 4 The Environmental Challenge: The Role of GM Crops 53rd Brazilian Congress of Genetics, Águas de Lindóia, S.P., Brazil, September 2, 2007 “Producing the food for the world’s 6.6 billion people on 20% less land than when the world population was 2.5 billion has, as we have seen, been possible though a combination of selection, breeding, improved irrigation systems, soil conservation, and the judicious application of fertilizers.” “Certainly the more productive the lands devoted to agriculture may be, the less pressure will be felt on the remainder – high agricultural productivity in this sense leads directly to the preservation of biodiversity.” “Rational approaches to agriculture and food technology should lead gradually to the acceptance of GM and other technologies and to their widespread use to help solve the many problems of agriculture.” Peter H. Raven, President, Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis [email protected] 5 of BreedingandBiotech DevelopmentPathways Success willDepend onaContinuedApplication Germplasm Genes DISCOVERY GENOMICS MARKERS PHASE I BIOTECHNOLOGY ELITE GERMPLASM BREEDING PHASE II IT PLATFORM PHAS ANALYTICS E III PHASE IV COMMERCIAL Seed SoldToFar m ers 6 Future Products from Ag Biotech OmniSoy CRWIII HBC a’ Bt/RR2 SCN Yield I YGVT PRO Stacks Soy Protein High Processing: Rust Stearate High Oil Soy RR2Y Drought II Feed: HVS Dicamba Disease Mavera™ high-value corn with lysine Cold 2008 2009+ Yield Nitrogen YGVT Stacks Drought I Lygus Omega-3 BG3 Water usage efficiency Germplasm Gains Dicamba Extrax™ corn processing system* RR2+ Yield HS Canola Modified Oil Canola CORN OILSEEDS COTTON Commercialization dependent on many factors, including successful conclusion of regulatory process7 * Renessen product; Renessen is a Monsanto/Cargill joint venture Innovations in Ag Technology Will Continue to Increase Yield Productivity Advances Assisting in Protecting and Boosting Yields 300 ) e 250 200 150 Average U.S. 100 Corn Yield in Average Corn Yield 50 (in bushels per acr 2007 was 151 Bushels Per 0 1970 1990 2010 2030 Acre Historical Yield Data 30-Year Trend, Based on Historical Yield Data INNOVATIONS IN AG TECHNOLOGY THROUGHOUT THE VALUE CHAIN CONTRIBUTE TO YIELD GAIN 8 Innovations in Ag Technology Will Continue to Increase Yield Productivity Advances Assisting in Protecting and Boosting Yields 300 ) e 250 Sizable Gains 200 Will Be Realized 150 From Marker- Assisted 100 Breeding Average Corn Yield 50 (in bushels per acr 0 1970 1990 2010 2030 Historical Yield Data 30-Year Trend, Based on Historical Yield Data Molecular Breeding Benefit INNOVATIONS IN AG TECHNOLOGY THROUGHOUT THE VALUE CHAIN CONTRIBUTE TO YIELD GAIN 9 Innovations in Ag Technology Will Continue to Increase Yield Productivity Advances Assisting in Protecting and Boosting Yields 300 ) Grain Yield e 250 Potential in 200 2030 150 100 Average Corn Yield 50 (in bushels per acr 0 1970 1990 2010 2030 Historical Yield Data 30-Year Trend, Based on Historical Yield Data Molecular Breeding Benefit Biotechnology Yield Benefit INNOVATIONS IN AG TECHNOLOGY THROUGHOUT THE VALUE CHAIN CONTRIBUTE TO YIELD GAIN 10 Driving Yield Higher Depends on Stacking Traits Rain Shelter Trial Corn Plot at A Monsanto Research Site Soil-applied RW Protection RW Protection HT CB Protection +CB Protection +CB Protection Yield = 94 bu/ac +HT +HT +HT Yield = 113.7 bu/ac Yield = 150 bu/ac Yield = 198.1 bu/ac Roundup YieldGard® Corn Borer YieldGard Corn Borer with YieldGard Plus with Ready® with Roundup Ready Roundup Ready Corn 2 Roundup Ready Corn 2 Corn 2 + Force® insecticide Corn 2 11 Corn Rootworm Protected The drought of 2002 Corn is Helping to Maximize reduced the value of US Yield Under Drought corn harvest by over $2 b Conditions Av Yield = 129 bu/A 2002 Harvest value = $10.32 b Rootworm-Protected Corn Av Yield = 160 bu/A 2004 Soil Insecticide Harvest value = $12.8 b 12 Corn Drought Event Offers Visual Evidence of Increased Yield in Stressed Conditions DROUGHT-TOLERANT CORN FAMILY: Lead Project COLLABORATION WITH Drought-tolerance family aimed at providing consistent yield and buffering against effects of water limitations Targeting 8-10% yield improvement in water-stress environments SUPERIOR, NE FIELD TRIALS – 2007 2007 FIELD TESTING SHOWS VISUAL PROOF OF YIELD IMPROVEMENT Water stress exposure during different stages of development can have significant effect on corn yield; Monsanto’s lead drought-tolerance trait shows a significant yield advantage compared with controls under CONTROL HYBRID WITH GENE drought stress (76 BU/AC) (94 BU/AC) Discovery Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Launch Proof of Concept Early Development Adv. Development Pre-Launch 13 Second-Generation Corn Leads Advancing Rapidly COLLABORATION Phase 2 Gene Leads Work To Improve Ways Plants Use Water WITH POLLEN GROWTH CONTROL Neg PLANT + GENE C Pos 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 GROWTH 1 2 UNDER SILK POLLEN - SILK DATES DROUGHT EXPANSION PHOTOSYNTHESIS EFFICIENCY + GENE A CONTROL Efficiency, LIGHT ENERGY in Drought LOSS 0.3 25% + GENE B 0.25 0.2 0.15 ROOT 0.1 MASS 0.05 IMPROVEMENT, 0 LEADING TO BETTER WATER UPTAKE ENERGY CONTROL + GENE D BUILDING A FAMILY OF GENES CONVEYING DROUGHT TOLERANCE 14 Drought Tolerant Cotton is in Early Development Drought Tolerant Cotton • Drought leads advancing to greenhouse screens • First leads in field testing are showing promise • Up next: Continued evaluation to assess drought performance GENE 1 GENE 2 WITH GENE CONTROL WITH GENE CONTROL AS PHASE 1 PROJECT, TESTING MULTIPLE GENES FOR IN-FIELD PROOF OF CONCEPT Discovery Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Launch Proof of Concept Early Development Adv. Development Pre-Launch 15 Nitrogen Use Efficiency Leads Show Yield Improvement Under Normal Nitrogen COLLABORATION •Targets ways to WITH use nitrogen more efficiently, LEAD PERFORMANCE UNDER NORMAL NITROGEN CONDITIONS exploring potential to boost yield 12 10 (bu/A) * under normal e 8 * * * s * * * nitrogen conditions a 6 4 cre or stabilize it in n 2 low nitrogen 0 -2 environments Yield I TRIALS IN MULTIPLE TRIALS IN MULTIPLE HYBRID BACKGROUNDS HYBRID BACKGROUNDS •Under normal (16 LOC) (15 LOC) nitrogen 2005 YIELD 2006 YIELD TRIALS: 2007 YIELD TRIALS: conditions, lead TRIALS: SUFFICIENT N LEVELS SUFFICIENT N LEVELS (23 LOC trait has TOTAL) (37 LOC TOTAL) (20 LOC TOTAL) demonstrated yield 2005 2006 2007 advantages in Statistically significant @ p≤0.10 multiple *Bar color correlates with the specific hybrid background tested. Same bar color in backgrounds over different tests and different years indicates same hybrid was used. multiple years All trials conducted under sufficient nitrogen application levels. Discovery Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Launch Proof of Concept Early Development Adv. Development Pre-Launch 16 2nd Generation RR Soybean Offers Yield Advantage Roundup RReady2Yield™ Soybeans Near-Isoline Comparisons: RR2Y vs. 12% Roundup Ready® ease 10% r 11% 8% • Compared with Roundup Ready® 9% 9% 6% soybeans, this new technology along with 7% 7% conventional and molecular breeding is 4% expected to deliver increased yield 2% • Roundup RReady2Yield™ soybeans offer Over Roundup Ready 0% Percent Yield Inc 7% - 11% yield advantage based on three 2004 2005 2006 2007 4-YEAR years of field comparisons* AVG Roundup RReady2Yield soybeans yield 7 to 11 percent • Four years of data continue to validate higher than Roundup Ready® soybeans based on 73 7-11% yield advantage Monsanto field trials from 2004 to 2007. Discovery Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Launch Proof of Concept Early Development Adv. Development Pre-Launch See notes on Roundup RReady2Yield on slide 24. Yield estimates based on average yields of 64 bu/a obtained in 2004. Lower yielding environments may not see the same level of yield increase. 17 * This range represents a 95% statistical confidence interval. Individual results may vary, and performance may vary from location to location and from year to year. Intrinsic Yield Soybeans Aimed at an Additional Yield Boost COLLABORATION Higher-Yielding Soybeans WITH 2007 HIGHER YIELDING SOYBEAN • Higher-yielding soybeans AGRONOMIC TESTING VERSUS CONTROLS aimed at boosting Percent yield difference vs. control 6.0 intrinsic yield rol) 7.1% 6.2% 6.2% 6.2% 6.1% potential of 5.0 soybeans Product through 4.0 Concept insertion of Target Range key genes 3.0 • Trait will be 2.0 stacked on top 1.0 of RR2Y and other soybean- Average Yield Advantage 0.0 pipeline traits (Bu/A Increase Over Cont EVENT 1 EVENT 2 EVENT 3
Load more

Recommended publications
  • TRIPS and MONOPOLIES on SEEDS and MEDICINES Vandana
    295 PROFITEERING FROM DEATH: TRIPS AND MONOPOLIES ON SEEDS AND MEDICINES Vandana Shiva 1 1 WTO AND THE TRIPS AGREEMENT The Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement of WTO is the most far reaching in terms of creating corporate rights and corporate monopolies. During the Uruguay Round of the GATT, the United States introduced its flawed patent system into the WTO, and thus imposed it on the rest of the world. US Corporations have admitted that they drafted and lobbied on behalf of TRIPs. As a Monsanto spokesman said, “The industries and traders of world commerce have played simultaneously the role of patients, the diagnosticians, and prescribing physicians.” TRIPs not only made Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) laws global geographically, but also removed ethical boundaries by including life forms and biodiversity into patentable subject matter. Living organisms and life forms that are self-creating were thus redefined as machines and artifacts made and invented by the patentee. Intellectual property rights and patents then give the patent holder a monopolistic right to prevent others from making, using, or selling seeds. Seed saving by farmers has now been redefined from a sacred duty to a criminal offence of stealing “property”. Article 27.3 (b) of the TRIPs agreement, which relates to patents on living resources, was basically pushed by the “Life Science” companies to establish themselves as Lords of Life. The chemical companies of the world have bought up seed and biotechnology companies and reorganized themselves as Life Science corporations, claiming patents on genes, seeds, plants and animals. Ciba Geigy and Sandoz have combined to form Novartis, Hoechst has joined with Rhone 1 Phd in the Philosophy of Science (1978) , Right Livelihood Award (1993), director of the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, New Delhi, India.
    [Show full text]
  • A Global Citizens Report on the State of Gmos Synthesis Report !"#$%&'$#&(#)')$ "*+$,'$-.'!"#+
    !"#$%&'$#&(#)')$ "*+$,'$-.'!"#+ Published by A Global Citizens Report on the State of GMOs Synthesis Report !"#$%&'$#&(#)')$ "*+$,'$-.'!"#+ !"#$%&'$"()*)+,-."/,0%1*" %-"*2,"3*'*,"%4"#56."7 8'$.,"91%:).,.;"8')$,<"=,>2-%$%?),. 3@-*2,.)."/,0%1* Coordinated by Vandana Shiva, Navdanya Debbie Barker, Centre for Food Safety Caroline Lockhart, Navdanya International Front page cartoon: Sergio Staino Layout, production and printing: SICREA srl, Florence Contact: [email protected] Available for download at www.navdanyainternational.it www.navdanya.org Thanks go to all those who readily contributed in the realization of this report, particularly Sergio Staino, creator of the cover cartoon, Maurizio Izzo of Sicrea for production and Massimo Orlandi for press and communications. Thanks also go to Christina Stafford and interns Tara McNerney and Tanvi Gadhia of Center for Food Safety (CFS) and Sulakshana Fontana, Elena Bellini and Filippo Cimo of Navdanya International for their diligent coordination, editing and translation efforts. Final thanks also go to Giannozzo Pucci, Maria Grazia Mammuccini and Natale Bazzanti for their cooperation and assistance in realizing this report. This publication is printed on ecological paper SYMBOL FREELIFE SATIN ECF *$%/012/$-3435678$)690:4$ 07$4;6$+4246$0<$%&'8$=$ >2/86$(:0?3868@$>23/6A$!6B;70/0C368 Coordinated by Navdanya and Navdanya International, the International Commission on the Future of Food and Agriculture, with the participation of The Center for Food Safety (CFS) Contributing organizations:
    [Show full text]
  • Protecting and Promoting Traditional Knowledge: Systems, National Experiences and International Dimensions
    United Nations Conference on Trade and Development PROTECTING AND PROMOTING TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE: SYSTEMS, NATIONAL EXPERIENCES AND INTERNATIONAL DIMENSIONS Sophia Twarog and Promila Kapoor, Editors UNITED NATIONS New York and Geneva, 2004 i Note Symbols of the United Nations documents are composed of capital letters combined with figures. Mention of such a symbol indicates a reference to a United Nations document. The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The views expressed in this volume are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the UNCTAD secretariat. Material in this publication may be freely quoted or reprinted, but acknowledgement is re- quested, together with a reference to the document number. A copy of the publication contain- ing the quotation or reprint should be sent to the UNCTAD secretariat (c/o Administrative Secretary, Division on International Trade in Goods and Services, and Commodities, Palais des Nations, 1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland). Cover photo by Jean Philippe Soule courtesy of www.nativeplanet.org UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATION Symbol No. UNCTAD/DITC/TED/10 ISSN: 1812-7061 Copyright © United Nations, 2004 All rights reserved ii Foreword The preservation, protection and promotion of the traditional knowledge, innovations and prac- tices of local and indigenous communities (TK) is of key importance for developing countries. Their rich endowment of TK and biodiversity plays a critical role in their health care, food security, culture, religion, identity, environment, sustainable development and trade.
    [Show full text]
  • Transgénicos: El Prontuario Criminal De Monsanto Por Fernando Glenza
    Transgénicos: El prontuario criminal de Monsanto Por Fernando Glenza Agencia Prensa Mercosur Una reciente resolución de las autoridades científicas de Argentina invita a recordar la historia negra de esta transnacional norteamericana que atenta contra el medio ambiente y la vida. Monsanto se presenta a sí misma como una empresa visionaria, una fuerza de la historia mundial que trabaja para aportar ciencia de vanguardia y una actitud ambientalmente responsable a la solución de los problemas más urgentes de la humanidad. Pero, ¿qué es en realidad Monsanto? ¿Cuál es su origen? ¿Cómo llegó a ser el segundo productor mundial de agroquímicos y uno de los principales proveedores de semillas en el planeta?. ¿Es Monsanto la compañía "limpia y verde" que proclaman sus anuncios, o los mismos apenas representan una operación de imagen que oculta la naturaleza criminal de la compañía? En una Resolución del 13 de diciembre de 2004, el Comité Nacional de Etica en la Ciencia y la Tecnología (CECTE), dependiente del Ministerio de Educación, Ciencia y Tecnología de Argentina, tomó conocimiento de la convocatoria al Premio "Animarse a Emprender", instituido por el Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas, Educativas y Técnicas (CONICET) y la empresa Monsanto, que otorgaba 30 mil dólares al mejor proyecto en el área de biotecnología y medio ambiente, y recogió las inquietudes formuladas sobre este premio por algunos investigadores. En atención a esas consideraciones, el CECTE estimó que es "inconveniente" que una institución pública de la ciencia y la tecnología se asocie en el otorgamiento de premios a la investigación científica o tecnológica con organizaciones o empresas que "son objeto de cuestionamientos éticos por sus responsabilidades y acciones concretas en detrimento del bienestar general y el medioambiente".
    [Show full text]
  • Monsantos Harvest of Fear
    Monsanto's Harvest of Fear | Politics | Vanity Fair http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805?pri... I NVESTI GATI ON Monsanto already dominates America’s food chain with its genetically modified seeds. Now it has targeted milk production. Just as frightening as the corporation’s tactics–ruthless legal battles against small farmers–is its decades-long history of toxic contamination. BY DONALD L. BARLETT AND JAMES B. STEELE MAY 2008 No thanks: An anti-Monsanto crop circle made by farmers and volunteers in the Philippines. By Melvyn Calderon/Greenpeace HO/A.P. Images. Gary Rinehart clearly remembers the summer day in 2002 when the stranger walked in and issued his threat. Rinehart was behind the counter of the Square Deal, his “old-time country store,” as he calls it, on the fading town square of Eagleville, Missouri, a tiny farm community 100 miles north of Kansas City. The Square Deal is a fixture in Eagleville, a place where farmers and townspeople can go for lightbulbs, greeting cards, hunting gear, ice cream, aspirin, and dozens of other small items without having to drive to a big-box store in Bethany, the county seat, 15 miles down Interstate 35. Everyone knows Rinehart, who was born and raised in the area and runs one of Eagleville’s few surviving businesses. The stranger came up to the counter and asked for him by name. 1 of 19 4/18/2010 9:28 PM Monsanto's Harvest of Fear | Politics | Vanity Fair http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805?pri... “Well, that’s me,” said Rinehart.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategic Report for Monsanto Company
    Strategic Report for Monsanto Company Kevin Yamazaki Anastasia Dialynas Jed Cullen April 7, 2010 Monsanto Company Table of Contents Executive Summary................................................................................................... 3 Company History ....................................................................................................... 5 Monsanto’s Beginnings (1901-1960)........................................................................ 5 The Birth of Monsanto’s Agricultural Division (1960-1997) ...................................... 5 The ‘New’ Monsanto (1997-2009) ............................................................................ 7 Competitive Analysis................................................................................................. 9 Internal Rivalry........................................................................................................ 10 Entry Threat............................................................................................................ 12 Buyer Power........................................................................................................... 14 Supplier Power ....................................................................................................... 16 Substitutes.............................................................................................................. 17 Complements ......................................................................................................... 21 Financial Analysis...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Monsanto-Report
    Monsanto Ein Gentechnik-Gigant kontrolliert die Landwirtschaft Report von Greenpeace Deutschland April 2005 Herausgeber: Greenpeace e.V., 22745 Hamburg, Tel. 040-30618-0, Fax 040-30618-100, Email: [email protected], Politische Vertretung Berlin, Marienstraße 19-20, 10117 Berlin, Tel. 030-308899-0, Fax 030-308899-30, Internet: www.greenpeace.de Studie: Monsanto – Ein Gentechnik-Gigant kontrolliert die Landwirtschaft • V.i.S.d.P.: Henning Strodthoff• Stand: April 2005 • Titelfotos: Ulrich Baatz, Christian Lehsten, Matthias Ziegler / Greenpeace. Inhaltsverzeichnis 1. Einleitung 1 2. Die Macht-Strategien Monsantos 2 2.1 Strategie 1: Kaufen 3 2.2 Strategie 2: Patentieren 3 2.3 Strategie 3: Kontrollieren 4 2.3.1 Kontrolle durch Verträge 5 2.3.2 Kontrolle durch Detektive 5 2.3.3 Kontrolle durch erzwungene Einigungen 6 2.3.4 Kontrolle durch Verklagen 6 2.4 Strategie 4: Kontaminieren 7 3. Monsanto weltweit 8 4. Monsanto drängt auf den deutschen Markt 10 5. Einflussnahme auf politische Entscheidungsträger und Institutionen 11 6. Monsanto und das Gesetz 12 7. Monsantos Skandalchronik 15 8. Mangelhafte Produkte 16 9. Zusammenfassung 17 10. Quellen 19 1. Einleitung 1901 gründete der Pharma-Angestellte John Francis Queeny die Chemie-Firma Monsanto. Schon das erste Produkt, das Monsanto 1903 auf den Markt brachte, war ein ökonomischer Glücksgriff - der künstliche Süßstoff Saccharin. Seitdem expandierte das Unternehmen unaufhaltsam zu einem führenden Pharma- und Chemieproduzenten. In Monsantos Produktpalette finden sich Aspirin ebenso wie das gefürchtete Vietnamkrieg- Entlaubungsmittel "Agent Orange", dioxinhaltige Herbizide und das Rinderwachstumshormon rBST. Ende der 1970er Jahre nahm der Konzern die Entwicklungsarbeit an gentechnisch veränderten Pflanzen auf und war damit einer der Pioniere auf diesem Sektor.
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court Eastern District of Missouri Eastern Division
    Case: 4:05-cv-01108-ERW Doc. #: 190 Filed: 09/20/07 Page: 1 of 50 PageID #: <pageID> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION HILMER SCHOENBAUM, ) on behalf of himself and all ) others similarly situated, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 4:05CV01108 ERW ) E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND ) COMPANY, PIONEER HI-BRED ) INTERNATIONAL, INC., and ) MONSANTO COMPANY, ) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on Defendants E.I. DuPont De Numours and Company; Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.; and Monsanto Company’s Joint Motion to Dismiss [doc. #138]. I. BACKGROUND FACTS Defendant Monsanto Company develops, manufacturers, licenses, and sells agricultural biotechnology, agricultural chemicals, and other agricultural products. Monsanto developed plant biotechnology that enabled the creation of genetically improved crops by transferring into crop seed one or more genes that give the resulting plants various favorable traits. One type of genetically modified crop seed marketed by Monsanto is Roundup Ready® corn and soybean seed, which is resistant to glyphosate-based herbicides, such as Monsanto’s Roundup® brand herbicide. One other genetically modified crop seed is Monsanto’s YieldGard® corn seed, which is resistant to certain pests and insects. Monsanto holds the patent on these technologies. Case: 4:05-cv-01108-ERW Doc. #: 190 Filed: 09/20/07 Page: 2 of 50 PageID #: <pageID> Monsanto sells its patented technology to seed producers, including Defendants E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company (“Defendant DuPont” or “DuPont”) and Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. (“Defendant Pioneer” or “Pioneer”), under a license to use the gene technology to create certain genetically-modified soybean and corn seeds.
    [Show full text]
  • RESTRICTED Bayer Annual Report 2020 Five-Year Summary 2
    Bayer-Geschäftsbericht 2018 A Zusammengefasster Lagebericht 1 Fehler! Kein Text mit angegebener Formatvorlage im Dokument. Annual Report RESTRICTED Bayer Annual Report 2020 Five-Year Summary 2 Five-Year Summary € million 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Bayer Group financial KPIs Sales 34,943 35,015 36,742 43,545 41,400 EBITDA1 8,801 8,563 9,695 9,529 (2,910) EBITDA before special items1 9,318 9,288 8,969 11,474 11,461 EBITDA margin before special items1 26.7% 26.5% 24.4% 26.3% 27.7% EBIT1 5,738 5,903 3,454 4,162 (16,169) EBIT before special items1 6,826 7,130 6,013 6,975 7,095 Income before income taxes 4,773 4,577 1,886 2,853 (17,250) Net income (from continuing and discontinued operations) 4,531 7,336 1,695 4,091 (10,495) Earnings per share (from continuing and discontinued operations) (€)1 5.44 8.29 1.80 4.17 (10.68) Core earnings per share (from continuing operations) (€)1 6.67 6.64 5.60 6.38 6.39 Free cash flow 5,806 5,202 4,652 4,214 1,343 Net financial debt 11,778 3,595 35,679 34,068 30,041 Capital expenditures (newly capitalized) 2,627 2,418 2,368 2,920 3,138 Return on Capital Employed (ROCE) (%) 10.3 10.8 4.0 3.7 – 16,5 Bayer AG Total dividend payment 2,233 2,402 2,611 2,751 1,965 Dividend per share (€) 2.70 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.00 Bayer Group nonfinancial KPIs2 Number of smallholder farmers in LMICs who have received support (million) – – – 42 45 Number of women in LMICs who have gained access to modern contraception (million) – – – 38 40 Number of people in underserved communities whose self-care needs have been supported by Bayer interventions
    [Show full text]
  • October 23, 2008 a Private Sector Approach to Agricultural Biotechnology Dr
    SM October 23, 2008 A Private Sector Approach to Agricultural Biotechnology Dr. Robb Fraley Dr. Dusty Post Chief Technology Officer Global Corn Technology Lead Monsanto Company Monsanto Company Notes Certain statements contained in this presentation are “forward-looking statements,”such as statements concerning the company’s anticipated financial results, current and future product performance, regulatory approvals, business and financial plans and other non-historical facts. These statements are based on current expectations and currently available information. However, since these statements are basedon factors that involve risks and uncertainties, the company’s actual performance and results may differ materially from those described or implied by such forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause or contribute to such differences include, among others: continued competition in seeds, traits and agricultural chemicals; the company’s exposure to various contingencies, including those related to intellectual property protection, regulatory compliance and the speed with which approvals are received, and public acceptance of biotechnology products; the success of the company’s research and development activities; the outcomes of major lawsuits, including proceedings related to Solutia Inc.; developments related to foreign currencies and economies; successful operation of recent acquisitions; fluctuations in commodity prices; compliance with regulations affecting our manufacturing; the accuracy of the company’s estimates related to distribution inventory levels; the company’s ability to fund its short-term financing needs and to obtain payment for the products thatit sells; the effect of weather conditions, natural disasters and accidents on the agriculture business or the company’s facilities; and other risks and factors detailed in the company’s filings with the SEC.
    [Show full text]
  • Monsanto Company 2016 Annual Report
    2016 ANNUAL REPORT A LIMITLESS PERSPECTIVE MAKING LIMITED RESOURCES WORK FOR 9 BILLION PEOPLE Water, air and soil are as relevant as they’ve ever been. And with the growing demand on them for nourishment of an increasing population, sustainability is more than a buzzword—it’s a priority, and an opportunity to unlock possibilities. We’ve always needed our world’s finite resources. With 9 billion people, our global resources will have to work harder and deliver more value in the face of climate change as we work to conserve and preserve our planet. Local challenges call for creative problem solving. Today and in the future, those who act as good stewards of our resources can discover the infinite possibilities within them. 2016 FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS (in millions, except per share amounts) Years ended Aug. 31 2016 2015 2014 % Change 2016 vs. 2015 OPERATING RESULTS Net Sales $ 13,502 $ 15,001 $ 15,855 (10%) EBIT1 $ 2,408 $ 3,500 $ 3,952 (31%) Net Income Attributable to Monsanto Company $ 1,336 $ 2,314 $ 2,740 (42%) Diluted Earnings per Share2 $ 2.99 $ 4.81 $ 5.22 (38%) OTHER SELECTED DATA Free Cash Flow 3 $ 1,724 $ 2,089 $ 959 (17%) Capital Expenditures $ 923 $ 967 $ 1,005 (5%) Depreciation and Amortization $ 727 $ 716 $ 691 2% Diluted Shares Outstanding2 447.1 481.4 524.9 (7%) 15.85 5.73 2.09 15 5.22 5.23 13.5 4.81 1.72 4.48 2.99 0.96 AS REPORTED ONGOING AS REPORTED ONGOING AS REPORTED ONGOING 2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016 NET SALES EARNINGS PER SHARE FREE CASH FLOW In billions of dollars, In dollars, In billions of dollars, for years ended Aug.
    [Show full text]
  • Concentration of Market Power in the Eu Seed Market
    1 CONCENTRATION OF MARKET POWER IN THE EU SEED MARKET AUTHOR: IVAN MAMMANA STUDY COMMISSIONED BY THE GREENS/EFA GROUP IN THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT Concentration of market power in the EU seed market 3 INTRODUCTION 3 CONCENTRATION OF This study sheds light upon the increasing concentration of the EU seed market. It uses industry data to show that the mantra of the seed lobby and giant seed companies, that the EU market is healthy MARKET POWER IN and diversifi ed and there are some 7000 mainly small and medium enterprises (SMEs), is misleading. Notably, in the absence of freely available data and independently verifi able statistics, the European Commission is forced to rely upon industry statistics and further promotes the industry myth. This THE EU SEED MARKET allows the corporations to dominate the narrative and manipulate the arguments to the general public on what is in their best interest. The European Commission has been accused of drafting the seed marketing law 1 to benefi t the big seed lobby, who in turn claim they are not a big lobby but a multitude of some 7000 medium and small players. The DG SANCO of the European Commission routinely contradicts itself when its representatives state quote industry fi gures that there is no concentration in the EU market(s), while in their own impact assessment for the Seed marketing regulation they state that 95% of the vegetable seed sector is controlled by a mere 5 companies. In the case of maize, just 5 seed companies control around 75% of the EU market share.
    [Show full text]