There is a different potential problem with the proposed deal. Bayer's recently appointed chief executive, Werner Baumann, ought to recall the history of the firm which he joined fresh out of university in 1988. 

In 1898, Bayer made a commercial bet on a substance invented 24 years before by a British chemist -- diacetylmorphine, originally thought to be a non-addictive alternative to morphine. The company found it was also highly effective as a cough medicine for tuberculosis, bronchitis and asthma patients, a less toxic replacement for codeine. Bayer branded it "Heroin" because its employees, on whom the drug had been tested, reported feeling "heroic" after taking it. Almost 200 clinical works about the wonder drug were published in its first years of sales, most of them favorable. Heroin came to account for 5 percent of Bayer's profits.

The American Medical Association approved it for use in 1906, already knowing that it was habit-forming. By 1913, though, Bayer decided to pull heroin off the market because its proven addictiveness didn't justify its use -- and because by then it had a different cash cow, the truly harmless aspirin.

An overwhelming majority of scientists -- as opposed to members of the general public, who hold the opposite opinion -- say they believe genetically modified foods are safe. A report released this month by a special expert committee of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences features pretty much the same conclusion after the committee studied pretty much every shred of scientific evidence available. The conclusion, of course, is qualified: It's next to impossible to give a definitive answer to the question of whether a certain product will shorten a person's life if consumed for years. Yet, for all practical purposes, the use of genes from one organism to impart certain qualities to another one, which is grown for food, doesn't appear to make it harmful to humans. 

Science in the 21st century is rather more advanced than it was 110 years ago. Scientists, however, are even now engaged in a dispute -- acknowledged in the Academy of Sciences report -- about the use of a weed-killer that makes it necessary to genetically modify many crops in the first place -- glyphosate, marketed by Monsanto as "Roundup," the most widely-produced herbicide in the world.

Most currently produced GM seeds are resistant to glyphosate. The idea is to make it possible for farmers to spray the crops liberally with the substance so that the weeds die but the crops do not. Last year, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an arm of the World Health Organization, warned that there is "limited evidence" of glyphosate's "carcinogenicity in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma" and "convincing evidence" that it could cause cancer in animals.

David Fuller's view

I will be surprised if Bayer succeeds in its takeover of Monsanto, give the hostility to GM foods in not only Germany but also most of Europe. Additionally, as a leader in its industry, Monsanto is likely to resist a takeover. If the deal is called off, I assume that we will see a partial recovery by Bayer and a selloff in Monsanto.   

Personally, I am relaxed about most GM products, but poisonous herbicides and pesticides are another matter, and logically cannot ever be without some element of risk.   Monsanto’s “Roundup” may be one of the best but comments from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) are cause for thought.     

(See also Eoin’s comment below.)