Bayer is a German company that is influential worldwide in the chemical and pharmaceutical industries, and one of Europe’s largest. In our country, it began operations in 1954 and carries out production in the areas of HealthCare, CropScience, and Industrial Products.
Since our topic is agriculture and the acquisition of Monsanto, we will focus on Bayer’s rise on the path toward becoming a monopoly in agricultural chemicals and seeds.
Bayer markets close to 60 plant protection products—herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, and seed treatments. In terms of seed production, it has not been present in the market except for limited cotton seed production. Although its products are consistently more expensive than alternatives, Bayer has remained number one due to its superior quality and has become a highly trusted brand among farmers.
Monsanto, through GMO seeds, offers farmers a wide range of field crop and vegetable seeds—especially corn, soybeans, cotton, wheat, canola, sorghum, and sugarcane. Not only in the U.S., but also across production areas in roughly 25 countries, it markets GMO seeds under various brands.
In addition to producing seeds that are resistant to diseases and pests and deliver higher yields, Monsanto also produced agricultural pesticides to fight diseases and pests that attacked crops—often stemming from weak points in the seeds it produced. In other words, it left farmers feeling compelled to buy both its “high-yield” seed and its chemical products.
Beyond the seed-and-chemical trade, the main public debate was about the potential health risks that agricultural products grown from GMO seeds could pose.
For GMO seed producers to convince the world public, there were two major obstacles in front of them: first, hybrid seed producers; second, manufacturers of pesticides used in agricultural pest control.
Even though it has not been scientifically proven—and has not been published in peer-reviewed journals—that GMO products are definitively harmful, GMO opponents, supported by strong financial backing, have often appeared to be “in the right” in the public eye.
Despite the fact that Bayer was allegedly among the leading funders of the public opinion campaign formed against GMO seeds, why did it purchase a company that was number one in GMO seed production for what could be called an enormous price: $66 billion?
For years, you oppose GMO production; with the lobbies you created, you try to keep it out of most countries—especially in Europe—and on the other hand, you buy it for $66 billion.
Yes… Bayer bought it, but why did Monsanto sell?
The only reason for the sale was that Monsanto was poorly managed and failed to establish a strong corporate identity, which led it to be defeated in the face of GMO opponents. They could not build sufficient public understanding to explain what GMO seed really is. They went into $10 billion of debt, and realized that this debt would keep growing and become unmanageable. They chose the path of “sell and be done with it.”
Bayer will not lose money by buying Monsanto, because the backbone of the global anti-GMO lobbying activity has been broken. From now on, Bayer will not be on the side of GMO opponents; and GMO opponents will not find a funder like Bayer. In a short time, TV screens and newspaper columns will start to say that there is nothing to fear about GMOs. Europe will be forced to gradually lift its embargo against GMOs.
So why was Bayer compelled to buy a technology it had opposed for years?
In fact, Bayer executives did not believe GMOs were harmful. However, producing a crop resistant to pests and diseases would mean the end of the agricultural pesticide business they produced. That is why they were within the anti-GMO lobby. But they also saw that, with the growing world population, there would come a day when it would no longer be possible to feed everyone. For the future of their company, they considered it necessary to be inside biotechnology—and by taking advantage of Monsanto’s weakened position, they did not miss this opportunity.
From today onward, opposition to GMOs will decrease in all countries, and the replacement of standard and hybrid seeds with GMO seeds will accelerate.
From the very beginning, we have written that our country should be involved in biotechnology; that GMO products are innocent until their definitive harms are proven; but that results should be observed through cautious and controlled planting and cultivation. We have also written that accepting or rejecting GMOs outright from the start is not a scientific evaluation.
In our view, Bayer’s payment of $66 billion to Monsanto can be interpreted as a giant step toward proving the innocence of GMOs.
16 September 2016
Korkmaz MERT
This article was published in the “Agricultural Engineer Korkmaz MERT” category.
Leave a Reply