The Hidden Politics and Power of Agribusiness

When Bayer acquired Monsanto for $63 billion in 2018, it wasn’t just a mega-merger of agricultural giants — it was a tipping point in the consolidation of global food power. The deal signaled just how far a handful of corporations had come in determining what we grow, how we grow it, and who benefits.

Since then, the biggest players in agribusiness have not only tightened their grip on seeds, pesticides, and farm equipment but have also worked quietly and strategically to rewrite the rules of farming itself. From glyphosate regulation battles to “right to repair” standoffs, these firms have used their economic weight and political savvy to influence laws, regulations, and public opinion in ways that often go unnoticed.

Take lobbying: In the U.S., agribusiness lobbying has more than doubled since the early 2000s, rising from around $80 million per year in 2000 to a staggering $180 million in 2024. Behind the scenes, former industry executives cycle into public agencies, and government regulators retire into industry roles, creating what researchers call a “revolving door” that blurs the line between watchdog and stakeholder. As Silvia Secchi, a professor and researcher at the University of Iowa’s Public Policy Center, told Sentient media last year, “Whether you are moving from the public sector to industry, or vice versa, there are incentives to look after your future self.” That might mean, she explained, being more lenient toward the private sector in how regulations are enforced or fines are assessed — decisions that could smooth the path to a future industry job.

Of course, not all corporate influence over policy processes is so overt. The sheer economic footprint of large industry players — through employment, tax revenues, and political donations — means that governments often prioritize their interests. These companies also shape policy indirectly by taking an active role in public and scientific debates about issues that matter to their business models. In doing so, they write narratives that can sway public opinion in their favor and prompt regulators to approve rules that serve their interests.

Large agribusiness firms often conceal their political influence, but investigations by journalists and civil society organizations have uncovered a clear pattern of efforts to influence policy. One well-documented example is Monsanto’s campaign to preserve the use of glyphosate, a widely used herbicide that the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified as “probably carcinogenic to humans.” The company attacked the agency’s credibility, worked with U.S. regulators to derail a regulatory review of the herbicide, and contracted outside scientists to produce favorable reports, some of which critics called out for being ghostwritten. After Bayer completed its purchase of Monsanto in 2018, the firm continued to try to influence the regulatory environment by lobbying governments, including in the U.S., Mexico, Thailand, and the EU, regarding regulations on the herbicide.

A quieter but no less consequential example of corporate influence is the fight over the right to repair farm machinery. As farm equipment has become increasingly embedded with complex software, manufacturers like John Deere have restricted repairs to authorized dealers and repair shops, which gives those firms enormous power in the repair market — a practice that recently led the U.S. Federal Trade Commission to sue Deere. Frustrated farmers have joined the burgeoning Right to Repair movement, prompting several U.S. states to begin introducing legislation that would allow farmers to repair their own equipment. In response, the machinery firms lobbied hard against Right to Repair legislation, warning that it would encourage modifications to farm machinery that would make it unsafe and unsustainable. The major firms also signed memorandums of understanding with the American Farm Bureau Foundation, discouraging the organization from pushing for Right to Repair legislation and favoring voluntary industry-led measures instead.

Corporate influence isn’t confined to national borders. Major transnational agricultural input firms have found pathways into global food governance through multi-stakeholder initiatives such as public-private partnerships (PPPs), which give them access to policies promoted by international institutions. Many of the large agribusiness firms took a prominent role in the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit (UNFSS), prompting civil society groups to walk away from the summit process. Although the summit’s leadership promised that corporations would not have major roles in leading the work of the summit or defining its outcomes, critics argued that transnational food and agriculture corporations — including seed and chemical firms Bayer and Syngenta as well as fertilizer giant Yara — were nonetheless offered a priority seat at the table and given ample opportunity to steer the agenda.

With far more resources than ordinary citizens or grassroots groups, these firms are well-positioned to get more airtime and dominate policy debates. And when corporations play an outsized role in determining policies, regulatory decisions and rules tend to be weak and ultimately serve the interests of the dominant firms that shaped them. In these ways, corporate political power works to undermine democratic participation in food systems, jeopardizing both food security and the livelihoods that depend on sustainable food systems.

Jennifer Clapp is Canada Research Chair in Global Food Security and Sustainability and Professor in the School of Environment, Resources and Sustainability at the University of Waterloo. Her recent books include “Food” (Polity), “Speculative Harvests” (Columbia University Press), “Hunger in the Balance” (Cornell University Press), and “Titans of Industrial Agriculture.”