entities, of which one will be a full agri- culture focused company with the ag-re- lated assets from both Dow and DuPont. Both Pioneer and Dow AgroSciences had parent companies to answer to, so this merger might be able to free up some of the agricultural potential in the new entity in the sense that it can probably be more nimble, and quicker to respond to chang- ing markets. They won’t be as layered in with performance products, specialty chemicals, etc. as they previously have. The combined ag-entity will be a formida- ble opponent to some of the other giants. ES: EUROPE (THE BIGGEST ANTI- GMO REGION) IS HOME TO BAYER, WHICH NOW OWNS THE CREATOR OF THE TECHNOLOGY. WHAT KIND OF AN IMPACT WILL THIS HAVE ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF BIOTECH IN EUROPE AND COULD THESE DEALS CHANGE EUROPE’S OUTLOOK ON GM TECHNOLOGY? GS: For more acceptance of biotech varie- ties and food in Europe, the sheer fact that Bayer is buying Monsanto is not enough. Europeans won’t have a changed opinion now that the biotech varieties are coming from a European company. It is has much more to do with consumer preferences - consumers have been asking themselves. “why would we want any biotech in our food?” Historically, biotech traits have been for the benefit of farmers, with the purpose to combat pests and weeds. And consumers in the US have been largely accepting these traits, whereas in Europe the consumers have been largely opposed to such traits. Whereas we have been debating whether these traits are safe, what really has to change is for consumers to know whether these traits make their lives better. A consumer wants to see benefits for them in the way of improved shelf life, added nutrition, and so forth. With some of the new breeding methods, this whole debate will change. These new technol- ogies will be able to speed up regional adaptation of varieties, which is going to be especially important for those regions which can’t feed its inhabitants. Other examples are crops that can be grown in more extreme weather conditions, including drought and salinity tolerance, or that can be grown in a more sustainable manner. All of these examples, combined with increased yield, will provide enor- mous benefits to mankind and should be part of the discussion as we go forward. We need to better explain to the consumer what changes have been made, and espe- cially what the benefits of such crops are, such as the ability to feed more people. As we go forward with the debate, I am expecting less opposition by consumers to such crops if they are aware it is truly beneficial to the global food supply. With this next generation of breeding methods we will be able to make selections that provide clear benefits for the con- sumers and then we’ll see Europe come around. These new methods have the potential to be the most significant dis- covery of the last century for agriculture, comparable to the discovery of hybrids. There is now a multitude of small and large companies and public institutions that are now using these new methods and they are making remarkable advance- ments. It would be a tremendous pity if such methods would be regulated and removed from the toolbox of many small and medium sized companies and public research institutions. In this respect, we can’t stand in the way of ourselves. It is selfish of certain special interest groups to oppose such methods when you have a billion people going to bed hungry. ES: CAN SUCH MEGA-DEALS MAKE A BIGGER IMPACT IN TACKLING WORLD HUNGER? AND IF YES, HOW? GS: I don’t believe that the rationale for these transactions occurring has anything to do with these companies having sud- denly decided to fight world hunger. These companies are doing that already, inde- pendent of one another, and will continue to do that after the process. But it should be noted that feeding more people is part of the core mission of all companies active in agriculture. If your mindset is not to produce more food, then you’re probably in the wrong industry. The regions with the largest population increases in the next 30 years, includ- ing Northern Africa, India, parts of Asia, are going to place stresses on the global demand for food production in ways that we’ve never seen before. There are regions www.verdantpartners.com/ in this world that are so far behind agro- nomically and a tremendous amount of work can be done in those regions. From a company’s perspective, you can look at this from two sides. There’s the capital- istic side on how to make money on this opportunity, and there is also the phil- anthropic side of doing the greater good. And I think there is room to do the greater good, and still create some profit or at least break even. Of course it is also true that the pro- cess should result in stronger and more robust companies and as such these com- panies can spend more of their resources on innovation, creating better varieties that are more suited for local conditions. The companies resulting from these transactions however, will first need to consolidate and repair themselves, before they are poised for continued growth and prosperity. ES: WHAT PERSPECTIVES DO WE HAVE FROM OTHER SECTORS THAN THE SEED INDUSTRY? SUCH AS THE FOOD AND DRINK OR THE PROCESSING SECTOR? GS: For the food and drink sector but also for the milling and processing sec- tors, much is driven by consistency of their products, and this all starts with the seed. These other sectors might have reservations about these transactions if it would result in a decrease of product offerings. This consistency is important for any end-user of commodities. Some other products, such as high fructose corn syrup or sweeteners, are more commodity driven. But overall, consistency is of para- mount importance. And if there is a strong enough demand, it is hard to imagine why any of those companies want to walk away from a relationship. 24 I EUROPEAN SEED I EUROPEAN-SEED.COM