Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 73 Page 74 Page 75 Page 76 Page 77 Page 78 Page 79 Page 80 Page 81 Page 82 Page 83 Page 8418 / SEEDWORLD.COM OCTOBER 2016 and reduce opportunities for pro-competitive research and development collaborations. 3.  The combinations would create substantial vertical integration between traits, seeds and chemicals. “The resulting ‘platforms’ will likely be engineered for the purpose of creating exclusive packages of traits, seeds and chemicals for farmers that do not ‘inter-operate’ with rival products,” she said. “This will likely raise entry barriers for smaller innovators and increase the risk that they are foreclosed from access to technology and other resources needed to com- pete effectively.” Johnson of the National Farmers Union echoed that same sentiment. “Inadequate market competition is one of the most pressing issues facing producers across the country,” he said. “These mergers would result in fewer choices for farmers, higher prices and less innovation. I strongly encourage Congress to con- tinue to examine consolidation and its impacts.” A Cautious Understanding Representatives from the American Farm Bureau Federation and National Corn Growers Association recognized the need for innovation and the current environment with which companies are asked to oper- ate in; however, both agree that two is better than one. “Domestic regulatory hurdles for crop protection chemicals and delays in international approvals for new seed traits represent significant barriers to market entry,” Novak said. “These barriers slow down innova- tion and drive up the cost of seed and chemical. The process of developing and testing new products, and then securing regulatory approval to bring them to market, requires a substantial amount of time and money. As a result, fewer and fewer companies have the resources to be a player in the market. This trend toward consolidation will continue unless and until Congress addresses these regulatory hurdles.” Novak said that it’s important to preserve market competition but that doesn’t mean preserving the status quo. SW YOUR STORY As I sat and listened intently to each representative’s words during the Senate Committee’s hearing on “Consolidation and Competition in the U.S. Seed and Agrochemical Industry,” it was clear that, as a whole, the seed industry needs to do a better job of talking passionately and positively about the future of agriculture. In the past five years, a ton of money, energy and initiatives have been launched with the aim of connecting to consumers, increasing awareness about the importance of the seed industry and promoting the technologies used for crop improvement and food production. We continue to talk about the “need to tell our story,” and to shine a positive light on the industry. Yet, when we have a platform that doesn’t cost us anything, and we are talking to those so- called “decision-makers,” do we take advantage of it? After listening to company executives defend their position, it seemed to be a missed opportunity. There was a lot of talk about history, but it’s that very history that American farmers and consumers don’t want to lose. We can no longer rely on our old talking points about combining capabilities, being farmer focused and creating products that help customers be more profitable. Yes, those are all good, but we need to go further and make this relevant, make it exciting and make it impactful. I understand there’s a great deal of uncertainty that comes along with mergers and acquisitions but if this is what will truly benefit agriculture and create more innovation, then let’s get out of our comfort zone and make the case. No one did a better job of this during the hearing than Monsanto’s Fraley, and there are some lessons to be learned. 1. He smiled, portraying optimism, energy and excitement. 2. He connected with what’s happening today in other industries, citing Google, Amazon and Apple. 3. He acknowledged concerns, taking them and turning them into opportunities for advancement. Here’s an excerpt of Fraley’s testimony: We are witnessing a new era in agriculture as a result of advances in biology and data science. Silicon Valley is digitizing farming around the world. And breakthroughs like gene editing are opening up a whole new world of possibilities in plant biology. These advances are urgently needed to address major challenges facing society … Fortunately, the pace of innovation is accelerating, and new tools and applications are creating a healthy disruption in agriculture. This should not be a surprise, as we live in a world where Google is able to pivot from its traditional space and build a driver-less car … and Amazon is developing a rocket ship! Agriculture can and should similarly embrace these revolutionary technologies. As someone who grew up on a small family farm in Illinois, I understand that change can be unsettling to farmers. But our industry is changing … and it needs to … because the solutions we need can only come if companies embrace new technology, increase their investments, and accelerate research and development (R&D). And that’s why you are seeing the latest round of mergers right now. When you’re talking about the seed industry and trying to make the case for something, your expressions, body language and willingness to engage can go a long way. The eyes of the nation were watching, and from my viewpoint, it was a missed opportunity. Julie Deering “This will likely raise entry barriers for smaller innovators and increase the risk that they are foreclosed from access to technology and other resources needed to compete effectively.” — Diana Moss