a bit more complicated - IG Farben also produced multiple Nobel Prices in Medicine, represented the merged version of pretty much the complete German chemical industry.
AGFA, Bayer, BASF, Sanofi all trace back to IG Farben.
Not unlikely that you personally are alive because of their contributions to medicine. Unlike say Coca Cola or McDonalds. But yes, at the same time IG Farben
used slave labor in WW2, experimented on humans and had a subsidiary produce Zyklon B.
WW2 was in some ways as much a war between corporations as it was a war between governments. Not to mention, some corporations happily played both sides of the conflict; ITT [0] and General Motors [1] among the more notorious examples.
What's the PR angle for Monsanto and Bayer in Germany? In the UK, Monsanto is 'the big evil American company' and Bayer is 'the big evil German company' (of course we have own own).
No. GMOs are more or less banned throughout Europe for legitimate ecological concerns, with plenty of grassroots opposition in Germany. The fact that it's a field dominated by one of the more evil companies in the world is secondary.
to be more precise, they can be sold but then need to be labeled. Prob used in animal feedstock, but not attractive to market for human use in that form. I presume animal feed's still a significant market, but unsure if there's significant GMO market penetration there.
Only one GMO (a bt corn I think) could be planted in the EU, and used mostly in Spain, though there's some hope the new rules will enable pro-GMO countries to plant many more in the future (approval process was generally stuck in the Council because enough countries opposed GMOs; now they can just ban them on their own territory w/o preventing pro-GMO countries from using it, and avoiding a conflict is politically attractive).
I personally see it as an ecological gain, due to productivity and so landuse improvements, something europe has basically stagnated at since these bans.
Sad to hear not much chance of improvements in the political sphere on that front..
Sorry, but I have to call bullshit on that. What legitimate ecological concerns? As far as I can tell there has never been any evidence that Monsanto's GMOs cause any legitimate ecological problems. Plus Germany is known to be extremely anti-science, like when the green party wanted to shut down all the power plants despite ostensibly being the party you'd most expect to want to help the environment, not hurt it.
This actually matches what seems to be the prevailing attitude in the US. There's a lot of hate for Monsanto (extending all the way to conspiracy theories) but I don't hear Bayer especially called out as evil (at least compared with some others like Pfizer or Nestlé)
It hasn't happened yet, but I'd suspect the merger will be approved. First, the general assumption among most competition authorities these days is that companies should be free to merge unless doing so would raise serious antitrust concerns. The focus of antitrust theory is on companies that compete directly with each other (e.g. Microsoft versus Google compete directly in search). Vertical integration (e.g. Apple buys Netflix), in comparison, doesn't raise the same concerns of immediate and direct reduction in competition.
In cases where vertical integration raises concerns, antitrust regulators seem to have also gotten more comfortable with attaching merger conditions rather than blocking the merger entirely. For example telecom mergers that produce vertical integration routinely are approved with conditions regarding third-party infrastructure access. The first big deal I can remember with such a condition was the AOL-Time Warner merger, which was approved on condition that Time Warner offer third-party ISPs wholesale access to its cable network.
Now that there are several big regulators involved (the EU, US, and China, mainly), that kind of thing could still scuttle deals, though, if the set of conditions becomes too big and conflicting. I'm pretty sure I recently ran across one such deal, that was approved but with conditions that investors balked at, effectively killing it, but googling isn't turning it up.
Keep in mind that in today's global environment whenever a merger is proposed it has to go through alot of government scrutiny. Not just in the US, but also with the EU and China.
See the Haliburton/Baker Hughes merger that was blown up by the US government.
From a merger arbitrage perspective this has been a very interesting deal. This is the 4th proposal Bayer has made for Monsanto and with an all cash offer this might be enough, again assuming government approval.
They've went from an original offer of $122 to a final offer of $128/share. And the deal includes a breakup fee of $2 Billion for Monsanto if the deal falls through.
Monsanto has played this very well but the $128/share offer represents a 21% bump from yesterday's close, which is a bit concerning. With the other offers that have already been presented such a large premium means the market believes that there is a decent chance that this deal doesn't go through, now most likely due to government interference.
The typical remedy for governments who object to mergers is to have a company sell of a division or twp to show that the new company won't be a defacto monopoly.
Unfortunately in this case there is very little overlap between the two companies. This means that there isn't really anything for Bayer or Monsanto to sell off here.
The newly combined company will own the agricultural space, with a seeds and chemicals integrated vertical that would impress Apple.
The ability to create seeds that can only be controlled by your own pesticides and/or medications could be interesting. and scary. Politics aside, can that be an antitrust issue?
[edit: also, is this another "quiet" inversion also? US loses another business for tax purposes?]
I would think that you would look at in in terms of the (for example) corn market rather than in terms of the Agglomerated Monster corn market. So the Agglomerated Monster corn would just be a product in the corn market, not a monopoly in the Agglomerated Monster corn market.
The article says The tie-up, which will give the new company control of more than 25% of the world's supply of seeds and pesticides, comes amid a wave of mergers in the agriculture sector.
I'm skeptical that there is any particular public benefit to allowing the merger, but it seems a bit exaggerated to talk about the new entity owning the market.
Bayer CropScience is very small, just 2% of the global market, so them merging with Monsanto isn't really a massive game changer, which runs 23% [1].
I don't think it's going to shake up the market very much, could be that they even lose market share when the merged company consolidates its offerings. For example, Bayer's Liberty Link cotton is used when the local pests have become resistant to Monsanto's Glyphosate/Bt cotton, at some point Glyphosate/Bt sales will go down.
In other news, Syngenta (9% of seed market) was recently acquired by ChemChina but that deal is waiting for European authorities.
If there wasn't a patent on everything under the sun, making it hard for other/ new companies to get into different spaces, it would be a good thing for prices, but considering how business today works, this isn't very good...
The competition angle isn't what scares me, it's the incentives created by the appearance that Monsanto, an entity whose primary income streams come from utilizing, manipulation, and corrupting the common-sense understanding of IP laws (even unto victimizing farmers who experience pollen drift from nearby farms which use Monsanto products [0]) has generated an exit at over 20% bump in share price.
IMO, the IP legal structure surrounding Monsanto's activities is no different than a direct government subsidy to that company, and given its downright evil actions, I don't think most voters want to subsidize it.
Your source is very biased. Do you have any evidence of Monsanto suing farmers for unintentionally growing crops from seeds that have drifted onto their fields?
The most well know case is Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser, but the facts do not support the farmer's claims of innocence. It's clear he tried to grow and acquire as many of Monsanto's seeds as he could.
The case you pointed to is about invalidating Monsanto's patents, or at least rendering them unenforceable. It's plainly just an attempt for farmers to save money by using Monsanto's seeds without paying for them and nothing about "victimisation".
>Bayer has been involved in controversies regarding some of its drug products; its statin drug Baycol (cerivastatin) was discontinued in 2001 after 52 people died from renal failure, and Trasylol (aprotinin), used to control bleeding during major surgery, was withdrawn from the markets worldwide when reports of increased mortality emerged; it was later re-introduced in Europe but not in the US.[0]
Can't wait to see what "pharmaceutical" solutions they will bring up together!
Of course there are controversies. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. We have half the folks crying "Hurry up approval of life-saving drugs! Stop stalling! Too much paperwork!" and the other half "Condemn the heartless drug company that rushed in a drug that killed (some) people! No blood for profit!"
one of my concerns regarding this is the likely increase in patenting of genetic plant material, but specifically for the plants that are used in medicine. This will especially be problematic when it comes to medicinal cannabis. Monsanto will engineer a "perfect strain" then make considerable profits off it. That's concerning because it's about to shift the drug war and I'm not sure where it will go.
I mean if a company (Monsanto or anyone else) actually does develop a perfect strain for medical use they certainly deserve the profit, don't they? I'm no fan of Monsanto but it doesn't mean that they're not entitled to the things any other company is entitled to in a capitalist society.
I could certainly see how the drug war could change following this in both good and bad ways, though I'm not sure they're connected enough that it should impact a potential merger?
The faz says that in other news ChemChina is buying Syngenta - these are two big companies; Are there any hidden reasons why agriculture tech companies are so interested in mergers these days?
Hmm.. here [1] it says that "three straight years of declining prices for major crops have pressured profits and forced companies to scale back staff and research."; Does that explain the pressure for mergers in this area?
i am wondering about the larger impact of agricultural issues on the economy & politics; i wonder if anyone ran a study of this factor over the long run:
for example the crash of 2008 was preceded by a long drought that caused a steep increase of food prices; also Arab countries were then unable to keep up food subsidies, so the Arab spring came and forced the governments out; Also the French revolution was preceded by a drought + the French state was basically bankrupt.
Could be interesting? Selling Glyphosate and 'roundup-ready' GMO crops is their main line of business in the United States for a long time!
Monsanto is already a evil evil organisation -- and now they have the inventors of Heroin at the helm.
are we for the legalization of drugs today or against?
Heroin, basically a form of Morphine, has legit medical uses. Just like LSD and other fairly simple, potent molecules. Banning any R&D outright on them was a huge setback for medicine.
speak for yourself, there are plenty of people who think full and unquestionable legalization is the best way to start addressing addiction in modern society rather than treating it like a literal war.
I am living in a city whose drug strategy is a model for others [0]. You can both help the junkies and prosecute the dealers all without gang shootings on the streets.
it didn't, portugal _decriminalized_ possession of drugs, in an amounts reputed for "personal use".
It's still illegal to sell drugs, and if you are caught with a joint you have to face social support, can get various licenses removed, get fined, lose welfare benefits etc.
It's a much better policy than the war on drugs, but it's not legalisation.
> The point of legalization is to stop throwing addicts in jail.
What cave do you live in where you have to legalize heroin to do that? Please visit the link I posted before your comment.
You do not have to legalize heroin to supply clean needles, clean rooms and not prosecute junkies. You can do all that, still keep it illegal to sell and hunt down the dealers.
I think it's less about legalization but rather about decriminalizing it. Making these drugs legal could potentially be dangerous as it sends a message that they are safe to use.
But if you get caught buying or possessing drugs for personal use, this shouldn't have any legal consequences. Portugal is one example, but many European countries do this at least for some drugs.
Jethro: "Your herbicide is too deadly, how can I drink my beer and aim the sprayer at the same time without getting this shit all over my crops and killin em?"
Sales Rep: "Oh, you mean you'd use more if it didn't do that... well I mean, I suppose... we could genetically engineer new crops so you could spray as much as you wanted without harming them"
Jethro: "We farmers are simple folk and we are environmentalist - so - I appreciate such a simple solution. We also need more gopher poison when you get a chance"
The funny thing is there's basically a jethro in my family but I won't get into that here. In California there's still some specialty crops on expensive land that allow for family owned operations but even here it's probably going to be a thing of the past soon.
I worked on an avocado ranch (insert unnamed corporate sponsor here) in undergrad and I met a lot of "jethros" - there's a fraternity called AGR, I think that's where they trained them.
Even the guys with agribusiness degrees at cal poly were hicks, I used to drink beers on the job, etc. And I was in charge of killing the gophers, sometimes with horrible poison, sometimes with "rodex".
The day I quit, I said something about the entire field of agriculture not being interesting enough and I switched majors the next quarter.
A key para Ninety-eight percent of U.S. farms are family farms. The remaining 2 percent are nonfamily farms, which produce 15 percent of the value of agricultural output (fig. 4). Two features of family farms stand out. First, there are many small family farms (< $250,000 annual sales), making up 90 percent of all U.S. farms. Second, large-scale family farms account for 60 percent of all production.
So large closely held farms produce 60% of US output and smaller farms produce another 25% of US output.
that's really interesting although slightly dated dated (it goes against my preconceived notions either way though) - the "million dollar farms" section is notable given the increase recorded from 2003 to 2004, I wonder whether those numbers have shifted significantly in the last decade.
The number of "family farms", however you choose to define that as a meaningful term, is roughly the same percentage. the output has dropped below 50% of total agricultural output however.
Farming is still an industry of family businesses. Ninety-nine percent of farms are family farms, and they account for 90 percent of farm production. Small farms make up 90 percent of the farm count and operate 46 percent of the Nation's farmland. Most farm production, however, occurs on midsize and large-scale family farms.
It's also worth asking the question, "Is the term 'family farm' meaningful in many of these cases?"
If you choose to include midsize and large scale family farms in "family farms", then your source contradicts, the output has dropped below 50% of total agricultural output however. It says as much in the portion you quoted.
Farms have gotten larger as equipment has gotten larger and more effective. This isn't particularly shocking. But much of the consolidation has been individuals and families building up large farms over time.
It certainly appears that production will continue to concentrate under fewer and fewer operators, so the scary stories about the corporate takeover of farming can still come true.
Again, are they "scary stories" or just the reality of where most of our food comes from? I'm also still curious about just how meaningful the term "Family farm" is.
Reread my initial comment. Look for where I use the term. I avoided it on purpose because I think that part of it is a boring discussion.
The majority of our food comes from huge farms running huge machinery. Thousands and thousands of those huge farms are owned by small groups (there's a few million farms in the US, so even 1% of them is still a lot). Are those groups families? Some of the are, some of them aren't.
one thing I noticed is that the document didn't define "family farm" to my satisfaction, but maybe I missed it.
It is worth noting that my family/their farm qualifies some of them as 1%ers (bayfront house in Newport which has architectural significance, members of several country clubs, etc). Personally I have decided to forego 100% of my inheritance and let my sisters take it (I have no problem with being rich, but I do believe that having an inheritance hanging over your head is an innovation killer)
Many documentaries have been broadcasted on TV in France about Mosanto. It was depicted a the evil personified (like http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-world-according-to-monsan...). Most of this must be correct because no repeated broadcast has been prohibited.
Now, I wonder if this was a plot. Maybe Bayer has favored these broadcasts to reduce the cost of takeover. Maybe Bayer is worst than Mosanto. Welcome paranoia.
>Most of this must be correct because no repeated broadcast has been prohibited.
I'm not sure that's a useful heuristic...
We all know Monsanto is not innocent of wrongdoing, but I'll bet 90% of what you read/hear about them is a complete misinterpretation or conspiracy theory.
Well Monsanto is one of the companies that produced the chemical weapon Agent Orange, causing birth defects and death in Vietnam to this day, and the last time Bayer, a producer of poison gas in WWI, had a merger, the result was IG Farben, producer of Zyklon B. So what could go wrong?
76 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 211 ms ] thread/s
AGFA, Bayer, BASF, Sanofi all trace back to IG Farben.
Not unlikely that you personally are alive because of their contributions to medicine. Unlike say Coca Cola or McDonalds. But yes, at the same time IG Farben used slave labor in WW2, experimented on humans and had a subsidiary produce Zyklon B.
History is complicated.
[0] http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/chapter_... (drawing on other sources)
[1] http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Nazis-rode-to-war-on-G...
Only one GMO (a bt corn I think) could be planted in the EU, and used mostly in Spain, though there's some hope the new rules will enable pro-GMO countries to plant many more in the future (approval process was generally stuck in the Council because enough countries opposed GMOs; now they can just ban them on their own territory w/o preventing pro-GMO countries from using it, and avoiding a conflict is politically attractive).
I personally see it as an ecological gain, due to productivity and so landuse improvements, something europe has basically stagnated at since these bans.
Sad to hear not much chance of improvements in the political sphere on that front..
please explain, seems to me to be mostly about green politics.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001%E2%80%9302_Bayer_04_Lever...
What we eat will be decided in Germany and China now. Guten Appetit!
And that's where most of the companies that make the decisions are...
Keeping your own flock of chickens and living off eggs and butter may come back in vogue..
Many would claim that any implementation of IP violates the free market. Monsanto lives off of IP.
Now that there are several big regulators involved (the EU, US, and China, mainly), that kind of thing could still scuttle deals, though, if the set of conditions becomes too big and conflicting. I'm pretty sure I recently ran across one such deal, that was approved but with conditions that investors balked at, effectively killing it, but googling isn't turning it up.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/potash-agrium-merger-1.37579...
See the Haliburton/Baker Hughes merger that was blown up by the US government.
From a merger arbitrage perspective this has been a very interesting deal. This is the 4th proposal Bayer has made for Monsanto and with an all cash offer this might be enough, again assuming government approval.
They've went from an original offer of $122 to a final offer of $128/share. And the deal includes a breakup fee of $2 Billion for Monsanto if the deal falls through.
Monsanto has played this very well but the $128/share offer represents a 21% bump from yesterday's close, which is a bit concerning. With the other offers that have already been presented such a large premium means the market believes that there is a decent chance that this deal doesn't go through, now most likely due to government interference.
The typical remedy for governments who object to mergers is to have a company sell of a division or twp to show that the new company won't be a defacto monopoly.
Unfortunately in this case there is very little overlap between the two companies. This means that there isn't really anything for Bayer or Monsanto to sell off here.
The newly combined company will own the agricultural space, with a seeds and chemicals integrated vertical that would impress Apple.
[edit: also, is this another "quiet" inversion also? US loses another business for tax purposes?]
But imagine how fun it would be if they spun out the new entity and named it "Agglomerated Monster Agricultural Products".
I'm skeptical that there is any particular public benefit to allowing the merger, but it seems a bit exaggerated to talk about the new entity owning the market.
In other news, Syngenta (9% of seed market) was recently acquired by ChemChina but that deal is waiting for European authorities.
[1] Biased source: www.gmwatch.org/gm-firms/10558-the-worlds-top-ten-seed-companies-who-owns-nature
Is that supposed to sound like a good thing?
I can only imagine the power they will wield in future treaty negotiations against the existence of generic seeds on the market.
IMO, the IP legal structure surrounding Monsanto's activities is no different than a direct government subsidy to that company, and given its downright evil actions, I don't think most voters want to subsidize it.
0: https://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.displa...
The most well know case is Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser, but the facts do not support the farmer's claims of innocence. It's clear he tried to grow and acquire as many of Monsanto's seeds as he could.
The case you pointed to is about invalidating Monsanto's patents, or at least rendering them unenforceable. It's plainly just an attempt for farmers to save money by using Monsanto's seeds without paying for them and nothing about "victimisation".
What's wrong with that? If your patent passes on its genes onto my corn, then it's no longer exactly your plant.
Can't wait to see what "pharmaceutical" solutions they will bring up together!
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer
I could certainly see how the drug war could change following this in both good and bad ways, though I'm not sure they're connected enough that it should impact a potential merger?
Hmm.. here [1] it says that "three straight years of declining prices for major crops have pressured profits and forced companies to scale back staff and research."; Does that explain the pressure for mergers in this area?
[1] http://www.wsj.com/articles/chemchina-details-changes-to-str...
and that is supposedly because a glut in corn and soybeans is driving prices down;
http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/High-corn-yield-hurts-...
for example the crash of 2008 was preceded by a long drought that caused a steep increase of food prices; also Arab countries were then unable to keep up food subsidies, so the Arab spring came and forced the governments out; Also the French revolution was preceded by a drought + the French state was basically bankrupt.
Heroin, basically a form of Morphine, has legit medical uses. Just like LSD and other fairly simple, potent molecules. Banning any R&D outright on them was a huge setback for medicine.
Nobody in their right mind wants to legalize heroin.
[0] http://www.dw.com/en/frankfurt-still-germanys-drug-capital-b...
It's still illegal to sell drugs, and if you are caught with a joint you have to face social support, can get various licenses removed, get fined, lose welfare benefits etc.
It's a much better policy than the war on drugs, but it's not legalisation.
What cave do you live in where heroin and other opiate usage isn't already a massive issue, even though it's illegal?
Are you going to start mainlining heroin just because it's legal? I'm not. The point of legalization is to stop throwing addicts in jail.
What cave do you live in where you have to legalize heroin to do that? Please visit the link I posted before your comment.
You do not have to legalize heroin to supply clean needles, clean rooms and not prosecute junkies. You can do all that, still keep it illegal to sell and hunt down the dealers.
But if you get caught buying or possessing drugs for personal use, this shouldn't have any legal consequences. Portugal is one example, but many European countries do this at least for some drugs.
Sales Rep: "Oh, you mean you'd use more if it didn't do that... well I mean, I suppose... we could genetically engineer new crops so you could spray as much as you wanted without harming them"
Jethro: "We farmers are simple folk and we are environmentalist - so - I appreciate such a simple solution. We also need more gopher poison when you get a chance"
I worked on an avocado ranch (insert unnamed corporate sponsor here) in undergrad and I met a lot of "jethros" - there's a fraternity called AGR, I think that's where they trained them.
Even the guys with agribusiness degrees at cal poly were hicks, I used to drink beers on the job, etc. And I was in charge of killing the gophers, sometimes with horrible poison, sometimes with "rodex".
The day I quit, I said something about the entire field of agriculture not being interesting enough and I switched majors the next quarter.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/201431/eib24b_1_.pdf
A key para Ninety-eight percent of U.S. farms are family farms. The remaining 2 percent are nonfamily farms, which produce 15 percent of the value of agricultural output (fig. 4). Two features of family farms stand out. First, there are many small family farms (< $250,000 annual sales), making up 90 percent of all U.S. farms. Second, large-scale family farms account for 60 percent of all production.
So large closely held farms produce 60% of US output and smaller farms produce another 25% of US output.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib-economic-informatio...
Farming is still an industry of family businesses. Ninety-nine percent of farms are family farms, and they account for 90 percent of farm production. Small farms make up 90 percent of the farm count and operate 46 percent of the Nation's farmland. Most farm production, however, occurs on midsize and large-scale family farms.
It's also worth asking the question, "Is the term 'family farm' meaningful in many of these cases?"
Farms have gotten larger as equipment has gotten larger and more effective. This isn't particularly shocking. But much of the consolidation has been individuals and families building up large farms over time.
It certainly appears that production will continue to concentrate under fewer and fewer operators, so the scary stories about the corporate takeover of farming can still come true.
The majority of our food comes from huge farms running huge machinery. Thousands and thousands of those huge farms are owned by small groups (there's a few million farms in the US, so even 1% of them is still a lot). Are those groups families? Some of the are, some of them aren't.
It is worth noting that my family/their farm qualifies some of them as 1%ers (bayfront house in Newport which has architectural significance, members of several country clubs, etc). Personally I have decided to forego 100% of my inheritance and let my sisters take it (I have no problem with being rich, but I do believe that having an inheritance hanging over your head is an innovation killer)
Now, I wonder if this was a plot. Maybe Bayer has favored these broadcasts to reduce the cost of takeover. Maybe Bayer is worst than Mosanto. Welcome paranoia.
I'm not sure that's a useful heuristic...
We all know Monsanto is not innocent of wrongdoing, but I'll bet 90% of what you read/hear about them is a complete misinterpretation or conspiracy theory.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2006/08/0...
http://anonhq.com/yes-bayer-drug-knowingly-infected-people-h...
"Covestro is a spinout formed in the fall of 2015 from Bayer; it was formerly Bayer's $12.3 billion materials science division. "