For plants designed in a lab a little more than a decade ago, they've

come a long way: Today, the vast majority of the nation's two primary

crops grow from seeds genetically altered according to Monsanto company patents.

Ninety-three percent of soybeans. Eighty percent of corn.

The seeds represent "probably the most revolutionary event in grain

crops over the last 30 years," said Geno Lowe, a Salisbury, Md.,

soybean farmer.

But for farmers such as Lowe, prices of the Monsanto-patented seeds

have steadily increased, roughly doubling during the past decade, to

about $50 for a 50-pound bag of soybean seed, according to seed

dealers.

The revolution, and Monsanto's dominant role in the nation's

agriculture, has not unfolded without complaint. Farmers have decried

the price increases, and competitors say the company has ruthlessly

stifled competition.

Now Monsanto -- like IBM

and Google -- has drawn scrutiny from U.S. antitrust investigators, who

under the Obama administration have looked more skeptically at the

actions of dominant firms.

During the Bush administration, the Justice Department did not file

a single case under antimonopoly laws regulating a dominant firm. But

that stretch seems unlikely to continue.

This year, the Obama Justice Department tossed out the antitrust

guidelines of its predecessor because they advocated "extreme hesitancy

in the face of potential abuses by monopoly firms."

"We must change course," Christine Varney, the Obama administration's chief antitrust enforcer, said at the time.

Of all the new scrutiny by Justice, the Monsanto investigation might

have the highest stakes, dealing as it does with the food supply and

one of the nation's largest agricultural firms. It could also force the

Obama administration, already under fire for the government's expanded

role in the economy, to explain how it distinguishes between normal

rough-and-tumble competition and abusive monopolistic business

practices.

Monsanto says it has done nothing wrong.

"Farmers choose these products because of the value they deliver on

farm," Monsanto said in a statement. "Given the phenomenally broad

adoption of these technologies by farmers, such questions are normal

and to be expected."

Even with the growing cost, farmers have embraced the genetic

modifications because they save work and enable them to cultivate more

land. The modified plants can stand up to the powerful herbicide

glyphosate, best known commercially as Roundup, allowing them to use

the weedkiller not just before planting but also after the crops have

come up.

"Everybody wants it, and Monsanto is seeing what the market will

bear," said Lowe, 39. "People say that's capitalism. The question is,

where does capitalism meet corruption?"

Before it jumped into biotechnology, Monsanto was already one of the

nation's largest chemical companies and had patented glyphosate,

bringing it to market as Roundup in the '70s.

The product kills just about all weeds, and for farmers it served as

a wonderfully effective herbicide. Instead of tilling the earth, they

could simply blanket it with Roundup. Because the chemicals in Roundup

break down quickly in the sun and rain, seeds could be planted shortly

afterward.

It became one of the best-selling herbicides ever, and the seed

patents at the center of the antitrust allegations were built upon that

chemical's appeal.

If there was a practical drawback with Roundup, it was that it

couldn't be used after planting: Applying Roundup at that point would

kill the crops, too.

Scientists wondered: Could they develop plants that could withstand Roundup?

The answer emerged, partly by accident, out of Louisiana muck.

Monsanto was producing Roundup at a plant in Luling, La., and the

water and sludge in the waste ponds around the plant were exposed to

the chemical. It was the perfect place to find organisms that could

withstand the chemical's lethal effects.

After bacteria discovered in the pond sludge proved resistant to the

chemical, scientists isolated the gene that gave the bacteria Roundup

tolerance and placed that gene, known as CPS4, into soybeans, then

corn.

The resulting plants, called "Roundup Ready," represented a

billion-dollar breakthrough and, as Monsanto sees it, a just reward for

its $1.5 billion investment in biotech research.

"During the same period, our competitors . . . largely ignored

biotech," the company said in a statement. "Monsanto took risks our

competition chose not to take."

Although farmers have grumbled about Monsanto's regular price

increases for Roundup Ready technology for seeds, it is DuPont, a

Monsanto rival, that has pressed the antitrust case.

Farmers and seed companies "are afraid to speak in public, worried

that they will become victims of retaliation," Thomas L. Sager, DuPont

senior vice president and general counsel, said in a statement. "That's

why it's so important that antitrust investigators move quickly -- to

learn the truth before even more harm is done to America's farmers."

In court papers, DuPont argues that Monsanto has used the dominance

of the Roundup Ready brand to prevent competitors from bringing

innovations to market.

In its view, Roundup Ready is so popular that any new biotech

innovations must be designed to work with Monsanto's technology. But

Monsanto effectively freezes out the competition, it says, by making it

difficult for other companies to win a license to add their traits to

Monsanto-patented seeds.

"Monsanto has abused its unlawfully-acquired monopoly power to block

competition, thwart innovation and extract from farmers unjustified

price increases of over 100 percent in recent years," DuPont argues in

court documents.

A recent paper by Diana Moss of the American Antitrust Institute

broadened the antitrust case against Monsanto and called for legal

enforcement, citing "an almost intractable situation for competition."

The institute has taken donations from DuPont but does not cater to its

donors' viewpoints, officials said.

Monsanto says that the allegations of stifling competition are "without merit" and that it broadly licenses its technology.

"We license Roundup Ready technology to hundreds of independent seed

companies and our major competitors," Lee Quarles, a company spokesman

said. The company won't license Roundup Ready without restriction,

however, because it wants to ensure that any other traits that are

stacked onto the Roundup Ready seeds actually function as promised, a

precaution that protects their brand and their customers, Monsanto

officials say.

Out in the fields, meanwhile, there remains resentment and wonder about the Monsanto-patented seed.

According to Moss, the price of seed from 2000 to 2008 outpaced the growth of crop yields by 2 to 4 percent a year.

Several farmers said the cost of Roundup Ready seeds seemed to rise

faster than their own margins. But that doesn't mean, at least just

yet, that they'll stop using them.

"Everybody likes Roundup Ready," said William Layton, a grain farmer

on the Eastern Shore. "Maybe it costs a little more than we like. But

everybody's going to keep using it."

AMP Section Name: Food and Agriculture