I'm no fan of big pharma however carrying over these lawsuits is a protection mechanism for the litigants. Companies don't get to dismiss pending lawsuits just because owners change.
@@Kodakcompactdisc Well, considering the general interests and motivation of big corporation, I would guess buying into a monopoly is a factor, the greed factor, and lastly attaining ultimate power and control. This is enough rationale for a corporation to take on a little bit of baggage with the purchase. This CAO has already stated that "Round-up" is not linked to the various cancers in the claim, however when asked what else could be attributed to "farmers" only targeted with these cancers, he skirts the question. Bayer will fight these claims until the claimant are financially exhausted. So it may take billions to save 100's of billions but in my view that answers the last part of Bayer's stated adage, "where we were, where we are now and where are we going"
It would be at some level, thankfully regulations are written by those who are fully aligned with the grand "innovation" of keeping everything the same. The power these companies wield over us all should terrify everyone who follows rules, break them up.
Well DW is German based, Bayer is a German based corporation, and German economy is in the toilet at the moment... I guess it's a win-win for these two
The R&D recoupment argument does make sense - after all, why would anyone take risks losing money in R&D for giving it all away to the competitors? If people aren't happy about this, they should push for goverments to do the R&D and take the risks associated with it itself rather than proxying through the private sector.
As far as I know, all basic research is done on government dime. Corporations only do some innovations (i.e. some tricks to turn known science into "money"). Take rockets or internet for instance. government spent billions of $$$ to research the stuff. Now SpaceX and tech giants are reaping the benefits.
Well companies shouldn't be hurting/killing people while wanting immunity from lawsuits/crimes for harmful products, also big pharma funds most of the scientific papers and government drug admins..
Lotta hate in the comments, i dunno i think this guy was pretty honest and correct about how this sort of innovating chemical giant HAS to run to serve the world
"...at some point, we have to ask, "Do facts matter?' and if they do, we have to act on them." This guy must work for donald j rump. Do facts matter.... classic cover it up with confusing words so you're not actually answering any questions and are deflecting in a way that leaves people not understanding they're being duped.
Bayer: let's buy this company that once helped develop Agent Orange Someone: well, your country once helped gas people... might not be a good look. And, there's a huge chance their current product cause cancer Bayer: trivialities. Also, the laws suck.
Their definition of broken is that it is not profitable enough for them. I am fine with a "broken" system that protects the regular citizen from rapacious oligarchs.
It is a pity the journalist muffed the question on the Monsanto acquisition (9:00), and moreover didn't follow-up with questions on the rationale for continuing with the deal. We may just have got an inkling of what has probably been said behind closed doors a thousand times at Leverkusen since the current CEO joined in early 2023, let alone since March 2015 when IARC first made its announcement to classify glyphosate as Category 2A ("probable carcinogen"), before Bayer made the formal offer to buy the business in May 2016. While the IARC conclusion - based on a partial review of published reports only - held no credibility with authorities or regulatory experts around the world, it was shown to be hubris to assume that there would be a limited impact from inevitable litigation in the US.
Mr. Anderson seems to be very well spoken dude. In most ceo interviews I've seen, the ceo always appeared terrified to answer questions, but Bill has some energy.
I am a subscriber to DW as I enjoy your incisive interviews and analyses.However, this interview and its lack of inciseveness on key issues was outstandingly below standard as it didn't delve deeper into his superficial, brazen answers that did not address the questions asked. He was left off the hook easily. Destroying the Amazonian forest, the Planet's lungs in order to feed the population, Bayers priority, according to the CEO, is as short sighted a strategy as it is, respectfully, nonsensical, if not dumb. The interviewer carried on with her questions..
The overabundance of many, many chemicals (of which glyphosate is one) in our food systems and environments is a problem. However, I urge folks to look at the efficacy and toxicity of the chemicals that would be used in its stead, including many "organic" alternatives for both the user and environment. With widespread dependency on these chemicals for right on time, yields based ag profits, producers are often left to just look for the next thing. Without more widespread adoption of farming practices that require far less or zero of these chems, the problem chemical will shift like a game of musical chairs. Toxicity = dose x frequency of exposure. It is the later that is more troubling when one takes into account the ubiquity of use of glyphosate and other widely used agrichemicals. Instances of herbicide resistance simply compound the problem. To complicate things further these chems are a huge help in selectively targetting invasive plant species where a workforce can't be found or funded to continuously manage large expanses of land. This is an economic and land use issue combined with corporate spin, categorical thinking on the part of proponents and opponents of chems, and using the wrong tools in the wrong ways, in the wrong places (blanket management practices). There isn't a one size fits all answer to these issues while at the same time the highest level of scrutiny needs to persist until solutions are found.
I think it was very hard to get this interview with these critical, well phrased and researched questions through! The compromise was obviously to give as much time as needed to the answers. What came out feels kind of truthful: The substantial questions could not be substantially answered. There is little said besides corporate blabla. If you have nothing to say you can speak as long as you want I guess … It should be pretty clear that Bayer needs a miracle right now, and how this CEO envisions the future of Bayer is hardly how I would see a responsible and innovative biotech company of the future. Acquiring Monsanto in the first place tells more than thousand words. Imo this is well deserved, sorry not sorry
@@vkchaitanya2003 I understand that. But the premise was "Today Bayer’s entire market value is less than half of what it spent to buy Monsanto." And that comparison is meaningless.
Civilization has entered late-stage capitalism. Capitalism is an insatiable hunger, one which is inherently incapable of expressing the concept of "enough" - it's a system that must chronically engorge (without pause). Poverty is the mother of necessity; the comfort of the rich, depends upon an abundant supply of the poor. the Alchemist -Ø1
What a softball interview. What purpose does this actually serve the viewer, if I wanted to I could just go on the company website and read all the pr releases that are posted there to get the same information that was released in this interview. I understand things shouldn't always be confrontational but if you're just going to act as another corporate mouthpiece than you shouldn't even bothering interviewing these executives.
They try to save a big sinking ship with desperate attempts. With his leadership and vision, I do not see any brighter future for Bayer. I am speaking of 20 years of experience in global pharmaceutical industry.
@@mariokajin I did some reading. My conclusion is there can be only one single reason: His task is to bring Bayer down, or at least get it split up. End of Bayer. BTW. The Monsanto deal was not done by him, but by his predecessor.
I get trying, but I think there was pretty much no information gained by the interview in the end. It should have used in parts for a proper documentation instead. Well, guess that would lead into an access question. Doubt there would have been an interview agreed to in an investigative journalism context.
Oh it’s so sad . So many nice questions and none of them answered . You know that the world is in decadence when the people that rule are too small and tiny . Exactly the opposite of the role model. Sad .
