Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

The problem with growing corporate concentration and power in the global food system


What are the potential consequences when a relatively small number of large firms come to dominate markets within the global food system? This Perspective examines the implications of corporate concentration and power in the global seed and agrochemical industry, a sector that has become more consolidated in recent years. It outlines the pathways via which concentrated firms in this sector have the potential to exert power in food systems more broadly—both directly and indirectly—in ways that matter for food system outcomes. Specifically, concentrated firms can shape markets, shape technology and innovation agendas, and shape policy and governance frameworks. This Perspective makes the case that a range of measures are needed to ensure that corporate concentration and power do not undermine key goals for food systems, such as equitable livelihoods, sustainability and broad-based participation in food system governance. These include measures to strengthen competition policies, to bolster public sector support for diverse food systems, and to curb corporate influence in the policy process.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.


  1. Howard, P. Concentration and Power in the Food System (Bloomsbury, 2016).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Hendrickson, M., Howard, P., Miller E. & Constance, D. Food System Concentration and its Impacts (Family Farm Action Alliance, 2020);

  3. Too Big to Feed (International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems, 2017);

  4. Wu, T. The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age (Columbia Global Reports, 2018).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Meagher, M. Competition Is Killing Us: How Big Business Is Harming Our Society and Planet – and What to Do about It (Penguin, 2020).

    Google Scholar 

  6. CSM Letter to the CFS Chair on Food Systems Summit (CSM of the Committee on World Food Security, 2021);

  7. Bonny, S. Corporate concentration and technological change in the global seed industry. Sustainability 9, 1632 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Clapp, J. Mega-mergers on the menu: corporate concentration and the politics of sustainability in the global food system. Glob. Environ. Polit. 18, 12–33 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Diez, F., Leigh, D. & Tambunlertchai, S. Global Market Power and Its Macroeconomic Implications IMF Working Paper WP/18/137 (International Monetary Fund, 2018);

  10. Concentration in Seed Markets: Potential Effects and Policy Responses (OECD, 2018);

  11. Fuglie, K. et al. Research Investments and Market Structure in the Food Processing, Agricultural Input, and Biofuel Industries Worldwide (United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service; 2011);

  12. Market Share of Five Largest Agricultural Chemical Companies Worldwide as of 2018 (Statista, 2019);

  13. Analysis of Sales and Profitability Within the Seed Sector (IHS Markit Agribusiness Consulting, 2019);

  14. Deconinck, K. Concentration in seed and biotech markets: extent, causes, and impacts. Annu. Rev. Resour. Economics 12, 129–147 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Shi, G., Chavas, J.-P. & Stiegert, K. An analysis of the pricing of traits in the US corn seed market. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 92, 1324–1338 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Shi, G., Stiegert, K. & Chavas, J.-P. An analysis of bundle pricing in horizontal and vertical markets: the case of the U.S. cottonseed market. Agric. Econ. 42, 77–88 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Torshizi, M. & Clapp, J. Price effects of common ownership in the seed sector. Antitrust Bull. 66, 39–67 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ma, X. & Shi, G. GM vs. non-GM: a survival analysis of U.S. hybrid seed corn. Agric. Resour. Econ. Rev. 42, 542–560 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Howard, P. Intellectual property and consolidation in the seed industry. Crop. Sci. 55, 2489 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Luby, C. & Goldman, I. Freeing crop genetics through the Open Source Seed Initiative. PLoS Biol. 14, e1002441 (2016).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. McMichael, P. in Rethinking Food and Agriculture (eds Kassam, A. & Kassam, L.) 53–75 (Elsevier, 2021).

  22. LeBaron, G. Combatting Modern Slavery: Why Labour Governance Is Failing and What We Can Do about It (Polity, 2020).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Khan, L. & Vaheesan, S. Market power and inequality: the antitrust counterrevolution and its discontents. Harv. Law Policy Rev. 11, 235–294 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Autor, D., Dorn, D., Katz, L., Patterson, C. & Van Reenen, J. The fall of the labor share and the rise of superstar firms. Q. J. Econ. 135, 645–709 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Wright, R. DuPont job cuts hit home state hardest. Financial Times (29 December 2015).

  26. Buck, T. Bayer to cut 12,000 jobs and sell animal health products arm. Financial Times (29 November 2018).

  27. Falkner, R. Business Power and Conflict in International Environmental Politics (Palgrave, 2008).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Barrett, C. B. et al. Bundling innovations to transform agri-food systems. Nat. Sustain. 3, 974–976 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Schimmelpfennig, D. E., Pray, C. E. & Brennan, M. F. The impact of seed industry concentration on innovation: a study of US biotech market leaders. Agric. Econ. 30, 157–167 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Duke, S. O. Why have no new herbicide modes of action appeared in recent years? Pest Manag. Sci. 68, 505–512 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Dayan, F. Current status and future prospects in herbicide discovery. Plants 8, 341 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Clapp, J. Explaining growing glyphosate use: the political economy of herbicide-dependent agriculture. Glob. Environ. Change 67, 102239 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Anderson, M. in Transformations of Our Food Systems: the Making of a Paradigm Shift (eds Herren, H. et al.) 33–35 (Foundation on Future Farming, 2020).

  34. Vanloqueren, G. & Baret, P. V. How agricultural research systems shape a technological regime that develops genetic engineering but locks out agroecological innovations. Res. Policy 38, 971–983 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Beckie, H., Flower, K. & Ashworth, M. Farming without glyphosate? Plants 9, 96 (2020).

    CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Bonny, S. Genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops, weeds, and herbicides: overview and impact. Environ. Manage. 57, 31–48 (2016).

    ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Fuglie, K. The growing role of the private sector in agricultural research and development world-wide. Glob. Food Sec. 10, 29–38 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Rotz, S. et al. The politics of digital agricultural technologies: a preliminary review. Sociol. Ruralis 59, 203–229 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Bronson, K. & Knezevic, I. Big Data in food and agriculture. Big Data Soc. (2016).

  40. Clapp, J. & Ruder, S.-L. Precision technologies for agriculture: digital farming, gene-edited crops, and the politics of sustainability. Glob. Environ. Polit. 20, 49–69 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Wiseman, L., Sanderson, J., Zhang, A. & Jakku, E. Farmers and their data: an examination of farmers’ reluctance to share their data through the lens of the laws impacting smart farming. NJAS Wageningen J. Life Sci. 90–91, 100301 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Bronson, K. Looking through a responsible innovation lens at uneven engagements with digital farming. NJAS Wageningen J. Life Sci. 90–91, 100294 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Lajoie-O’Malley, A., Bronson, K., van der Burg, S. & Klerkx, L. The future(s) of digital agriculture and sustainable food systems: an analysis of high-level policy documents. Ecosyst. Serv. 45, 101183 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Clapp, J. & Fuchs, D. (eds) Corporate Power in Global Agrifood Governance (MIT Press, 2009).

  45. McKeon, N. Food Security Governance: Empowering Communities, Regulating Corporations (Routledge, 2015).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) Reports. United States Senate (2019).

  47. Bayer Corporation’s 2nd quarter disclosure form for 2019. United States House of Representatives and Senate (2019).

  48. EU Transparency Register (European Union, 2019);

  49. Meghani, Z. & Kuzma, J. The ‘revolving door’ between regulatory agencies and industry: a problem that requires reconceptualizing objectivity. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 24, 575–599 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Madureira Lima, J. & Galea, S. Corporate practices and health: a framework and mechanisms. Global. Health 14, 21 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Fabbri, A., Holland, T. & Bero, L. Food industry sponsorship of academic research: investigating commercial bias in the research agenda. Public Health Nutr. 12, 3422–3430 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  52. Krimsky, S. & Schwab, T. Conflicts of interest among committee members in the National Academies’ genetically engineered crop study. PLoS ONE 12, e0172317 (2017).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Guillemaud, T., Lombaert, E. & Bourguet, D. Conflicts of interest in GM Bt crop efficacy and durability studies. PLoS ONE 11, e0167777 (2016).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Fuchs, D. Business Power in Global Governance (Lynne Rienner, 2007).

  55. Ruggie, J. G. Multinationals as global institution: power, authority and relative autonomy. Regul. Gov. 12, 317–333 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Sink, J. & Parker, M. Bayer-Monsanto pledge investment, jobs after Trump meeting. Bloomberg Politics (2017).

  57. Swinburn, B. et al. The global syndemic of obesity, undernutrition, and climate change: The Lancet Commission Report. Lancet 393, 791–846 (2019).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Stuckler, D. & Nestle, M. Big Food, food systems, and global health. PLoS Med. 9, e1001242 (2012).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Grabs, J. & Carodenuto, S. L. Traders as sustainability governance actors in global food supply chains: a research agenda. Bus. Strategy Environ. 30, 1314–1332 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  60. Grabs, J. & Ponte, S. The evolution of power in the global coffee value chain and production network. J. Econ. Geogr. 19, 803–828 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  61. Neufeld, L. et al. Advance Equitable Livelihoods–A Paper on Food Systems Summit ActionTrack 4 (Scientific Group of the UN Food Systems Summit 2021, 2021);

  62. Bartley, T. Power and the practice of transnational private regulation. New Political Econ. (2021).

  63. Ruggie, J. G. & Middleton, E. Money, millennials and human rights: sustaining ‘sustainable investing’. Glob. Policy 10, 144–150 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  64. Khan, L. The New Brandeis Movement: America’s antimonopoly debate. J. Eur. Compet. Law Pract. 9, 131–132 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  65. DeLonge, M., Miles, A. & Carlisle, L. Investing in the transition to sustainable agriculture. Environ. Sci. Policy 55, 266–273 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  66. Springmann, M. et al. Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature 562, 519–525 (2018).

    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Mehrabi, Z. et al. The global divide in data-driven farming. Nat. Sustain. 4, 154–160 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  68. Anderson, M. Rights-based food systems and the goals of food systems reform. Agric. Human Values 25, 593–608 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

Download references


I am grateful to M. Anderson, E. Helleiner, N. McKeon and S. Murphy for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer Clapp.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Food thanks Molly Anderson, Robert Falkner and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Clapp, J. The problem with growing corporate concentration and power in the global food system. Nat Food 2, 404–408 (2021).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

Further reading


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing