Agribusiness: Swarm of controversy

A Bayer-Monsanto merger is an environmentalists nightmare but how solid is the

underlying science?
May 27, 2016 Fuente: Financial Times https://www.ft.com/content/3cab3ab2-236b-11e69d4dc11776a5124d?siteedition=intl&_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs
%2F0%2F3cab3ab2-236b-11e6-9d4dc11776a5124d.html%3Fsiteedition%3Dintl&_i_referer=&classification=conditional_stand
ard&iab=barrier-app
by: Clive Cookson and Pilita Clark
The reaction was immediate. As soon as Bayer launched its $62bn bid for Monsanto on
Monday, environmental protesters launched a campaign against what some activists
immediately branded a marriage made in hell. Stop the monster company, demanded
Campact of Germany.
If the takeover by the German group succeeds, the combined agrochemical entity will be an
irresistible target for groups that regard both corporations but particularly Monsanto
as embodiments of corporate evil.
Campaigners have vilified Monsanto ever since the US company led the scientific
development and commercial introduction more than 20 years ago of genetically modified
crops, which they regard as a threat to wildlife and even to human health.
Anger at Bayer is a more recent development, linked above all to growing concern that its
neonics neonicotinoid pesticides are implicated in the decline of bee populations
across Europe and North America. Bayer and Syngenta of Switzerland are the two largest
neonics producers, which have global sales worth around $2bn a year.
Monsanto is one of a small handful of companiesthat have distinguished themselves by
being the btes noires of the environmental movement, along with Shell and ExxonMobil,
says Craig Bennett, chief executive of Friends of the Earth in England, Wales and Northern
Ireland.
Bayer hasnt had quite that history but, over the last two or three years, its persistent
attempts to shut down the debate over neonics impact on bees and other pollinators has
provoked growing opposition from environmentalists.
Monsanto rejected Bayers offer as financially inadequate but has left the door open for
further talks. The bid was announced two days after activists took to the streets from
Burkina Faso to Brazil and Belgium, for what has become an annual March Against

Monsanto, a global rally denouncing the US agribusinesss GM seeds and contentious

weedkiller, Roundup.

Only a few weeks earlier, activists descended on Bayers annual meeting in Cologne
bearing a petition with more than a million signatures, demanding that the German
company stop making neonics.

Sustainability fears
Some people in Germany regard the proposed deal as clean Bayer buying dirty
Monsanto but environmentalists do not see it that way, says Dirk Zimmermann, an expert
on agriculture at Greenpeace.
Bayer is by no means an exemplary company, he says. After all, their business model is
the same as Monsantos they also sell genetically modified seeds that are resistant to the
herbicides they produce. None of this is compatible with the idea of sustainable agriculture,
or at least our understanding of it.
Neonics are now commanding more of Greenpeaces attention than GM crops, he adds:
Bayer is very big in this business and they are very lucrative products. Evidence from
several studies convinced the EU to impose a moratorium on most uses of the three leading
neonic insecticides two from Bayer and one from Syngenta from December 2013, but
Mr Zimmerman expects the industry to lobby for their relaxation next year.
The company told the FT: Bayer stands by its products. We remain convinced that neonics
are safe for bees when used responsibly and according to instructions.

Dave Goulson, bee expert and biology professor at the University of Sussex, disagrees. A
large majority of independent academics are convinced that these pesticides are harmful to
pollinating insects, he says, though neonics are not the only problem that bees face.
Most of the studies showing that neonics harm bees have been carried out on a small scale
under laboratory conditions, which the manufacturers say do not reflect the way farmers
use them in the field. Normal agricultural practice is to coat seeds with neonics before
planting; the chemicals protect the seed and then the growing plant from insect attack.
Academic experts say the most convincing evidence that the pesticides cause ecological
damage comes from a large-scale experiment published last year by researchers at Lund
university in Sweden. They compared insect life in 16 fields of oilseed rape, half of which
were planted with untreated seeds and half with seeds coated with one of Bayers neonic
products. Bumblebees and solitary bees were much less plentiful in the treated fields but
there was little impact on honeybees.
This is a well-managed study by a research group with a good reputation, says Mike
Garratt, an insect ecologist at Reading University. It clearly shows negative effects on
bumblebees and solitary bees, which are very important pollinators of wildflowers and
crops. Honeybees may be more resilient because they live in far larger colonies which can
more easily survive the loss of some bees.
More important evidence is expected to come from a big field trial undertaken by the UKs
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in Britain, Germany and Hungary, with funding from
Bayer and Syngenta. Its findings are due to be published this summer.
To win public trust, scientists have to be prepared to change their minds if the evidence
against their previous stance becomes overwhelming, says Fiona Fox, director of the
Science Media Centre in London. If the CEH trial does show adverse effects from their
products in the field, science-based companies will have to accept them.

GM debate
Independent scientists are more reassuring about GM crops than about neonics. The
consensus view expressed in a guide published this week by the Royal Society, the senior
UK scientific academy, is that nothing about GM technology is intrinsically harmful.
Crops do not damage the environment simply because they are GM, it says. Regulators
should look at each new crop on its merits, whether it is GM or not, adds Jonathan Jones, a
senior plant scientist at The Sainsbury Laboratory.
But the concern of environmental campaigners about the proposed tie-up between Bayer
and Monsanto extends beyond their specific objections to GM crops and pesticides. Along
with some farming and consumer groups, they see a threat of further concentration of
power in what is already a highly concentrated global seed and farm chemicals industry. It
is the third mega-merger to emerge in six months following the planned tie-up between the
US groups Dow Chemical and DuPont, and ChemChinas announced takeover of Syngenta.

The prospect of the worlds markets for crop seeds and agrochemicals being dominated by
so few companies is just extraordinary, says John Sauven, executive director of
Greenpeace UK. If you said there are only going to be three banks in the world, people
would be screaming from the rooftops, but this is ultimately controlling the worlds food,
he says. It beggars belief that regulators would allow these mergers to go ahead.
Environmental critics are angry, too, about the way in which the industry and Monsanto in
particular have responded to opposition.
They are very aggressive, says Patty Lovera, assistant director of the US-based Food &
Water Watch campaign group. The companys tactics have changed since the late 1990s
when it successfully sued a Canadian farmer, Percy Schmeiser, for patent violation after an
unlicensed variant of the herbicide-resistant Roundup Ready canola was found growing on
his farm. That was terrible PR for them.
Monsanto has been less involved in high-profile lawsuits in recent years. It is still fighting
hard against efforts to impose mandatory labelling of foods containing GM ingredients
the first state law requiring labelling is due to take effect in Vermont in July but is
prepared to accept voluntary labelling on a federal level.
Two years ago Monsanto embarked on a family-oriented advertising campaign, focusing on
the importance of discussing what we eat. It also launched social media sites and a series of
YouTube videos called Give It A Minute which explain some of the controversial issues
associated with the company in a Monsanto-friendly manner with the comments facility
underneath disabled. Monsanto even hired a director of millennial engagement as part of
its push to create a better image around the most-coveted demographic.
Over the past few years we have worked hard to be a part of more consumer-facing
conversations and engage wherever our voice is needed, says Christi Dixon, Monsanto
spokesperson.
In Germany, Mr Zimmerman of Greenpeace worries that a Bayer-Monsanto combination
would empower the pro-GM lobby in Europe where it has so far failed to make much
headway.
The pressure on European politicians is bound to grow if the largest gene technology
company is a homegrown European one, he says.
Additional reporting by Lindsay Whipp in Chicago and Guy Chazan in Berlin
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2016. All rights reserved. You may share using our article tools.
Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.