Looking back at a landmark move in non-GMO seed stewardship.
By Kendra Morrison
In 2005, Monsanto, then at the height of its influence in agricultural biotechnology, agreed to acquire Seminis, the world’s largest vegetable seed company. Seminis varieties from tomatoes and peppers to melons and squash accounted for significant portions of mainstream seed supply. For the cooperative Fedco Seeds, Seminis represented roughly 11 percent of its seed business at the time, supplying numerous popular garden crops.
With Monsanto’s acquisition, Fedco faced a defining ethical and strategic choice at the intersection of seed sovereignty, corporate consolidation, and the broader non-GMO movement. At issue were not just product sources, but questions of control over the genetic foundation of food production and the long-term resilience of non-industrial seed systems. Two decades later, the repercussions of that choice offer a compelling case study in how principled supply decisions can ripple across the non-GMO seed sector.
The core of Fedco’s 2006 essay “Monsanto Buys Seminis” was a deliberate grappling with competing priorities.
Management needed to provide high-quality, well-adapted seed varieties while aligning with values around genetic diversity and community control of agricultural inputs. The purchase forced Fedco’s management and cooperative membership to choose between continuing business with a principal source of seeds now controlled by a multinational biotech firm or finding alternatives, even if it meant gaps in their catalog.
Fedco responded by polling its cooperative membership and customer base, a move emblematic of its member-owned structure, and found a majority in favor of phasing out and ultimately dropping Seminis and Monsanto seeds.
This decision was not merely symbolic. At a time when corporate concentration in the seed industry was accelerating, with just a handful of firms controlling an outsized share of global seed varieties, Fedco’s choice reflected an effort to assert autonomy and support alternative breeding and supply pathways.
Fedco’s concern with seed industry consolidation was rooted in worries about biodiversity and local adaptability. In its essay, founder C.R. Lawn noted that the industrial seed system relied heavily on biotechnology, corporate concentration, and intellectual property rights, factors seen as mutually reinforcing and diminishing diversity in seed options. Today, those concerns resonate more broadly across the organic and non-GMO industry. The past two decades have seen both consolidation among major agribusinesses and a rising counter-movement anchored in open-source seed initiatives, community breeding programs, and regional seed networks.
Many independent seed companies, inspired in part by Fedco’s stance, now emphasize transparent sourcing, support for public and participatory breeding, and reduced reliance on corporate seed giants.
Farmer and gardener responses at the time underscored a deeper valuation of not just genetics but the ethics of seed ownership. Comments included that supporting large multinationals diverted dollars from producers who were protective of agriculture, health, and the environment, and reflected a desire for buyers’ choice as real democracy in seed markets. These sentiments remain relevant today as growers navigate supply chain transparency and traceability alongside proliferating seed labels and certifications.
Dropping Seminis required real adjustments for Fedco in the short term. The cooperative sourced a one-year buffer supply to ease the transition and began identifying replacements for lost varieties. Over time, this shift opened pathways to small-farm grown and regionally adapted varieties, aligning with Fedco’s broader mission. By the 2006 catalog, the company had expanded the number of small-farm grown varieties significantly compared to the mid-1990s.
The non-GMO and organic seed market, particularly for open-pollinated and heirloom varieties, has become more robust since then, with many suppliers committing to the Safe Seed Pledge, a public affirmation against selling genetically engineered seeds, including Fedco itself.
As discussions around climate resilience and seed sovereignty intensify, Fedco’s 2005-2006 decision offers a historical perspective on how values-driven sourcing can influence market positioning and industry conversation. The cooperative’s emphasis on alternatives supports a broader network of breeders and growers committed to developing varieties suited to diverse agroecological contexts.
The landscape of seed supply has changed in the last 20 years, but the core issues of genetic control and ethical stewardship remain. Fedco’s response to the Monsanto-Seminis acquisition and its legacy suggests that resilience and access are not incidental outcomes but the product of deliberate choices informed by community engagement and long-term strategic thinking.
Thank you to Fedco Seeds for the use of their perceptive and historical essay. You can read their original essay at: https://fedcoseeds.com/resources/essays/monsanto.htm
Sources: Fedco Seeds, “Monsanto Buys Seminis,” Fedco Essays, 2006; Grist, “Two Takes on Monsanto,” 2006; Council for Responsible Genetics, Safe Seed Pledge program documentation.
