Bayer will he be able to extinguish the fire procedural turned on by the classification of the international agency for research on cancer ? Since in 2015, an independent entity WHO has classified glyphosate, the primary ingredient in its herbicide star Roundup in the category of 2A, so-called " likely to be carcinogenic to humans ", in the same way as red meat or lamps to get a tan, the firm is driven into a downward spiral. Large law firms have recruited to date, to great fanfare, 125 000 plaintiffs, which pose the threat of a costly judicial sentences. The reputation of the firm is tainted, its action unscrewed to the point that in April 2019, at the annual general meeting of the company, the shareholders had disapproved of 55 % the direction of the group. On Wednesday, the German giant of the agrochemical industry, has announced to conclude a series of agreements to resolve the principal litigation with respect to Monsanto, mark cursed redeemed in 2018. To turn off the complaints, Bayer agrees to pay between $ 10.1 billion and $ 10.9 billion. A massive total, but a "relief" for the company, which hopes to " turn the page ", says Remy Courbon, director of agricultural affairs for Bayer.

The Point : under the terms of the amicable agreement concluded in the United States, Bayer expects to pay more than $ 10 billion dollars to the plaintiffs. Is this a waiver ?

Remy Courbon : We do not renounce anything; we remain convinced, as all of the health agencies, that glyphosate is not a carcinogen under normal conditions of use. But this agreement represents a new departure. It is divided into two parts. The first, proposed by the mediator to the court, Kenneth Feinberg, provides for a budget of 10 to 11 billion, which should allow us to settle the litigation with 75 % of the lawyers of the 125 000 complainants attributing their cancer to our product. This envelope will be used to pay the compensation in exchange for the withdrawal of complaints. But we have proposed a second agreement, always under the auspices of the judge, who will take into account any complaints that would be established in the future. It provides for the creation of a board of five independent scientists who will need to clarify scientifically the links between glyphosate and non-hodgkin's lymphoma [a rare form of cancer, ED]. None of these experts must not link with the industry or be involved in the ongoing procedures. If the commission determines that the glyphosate actually causes this cancer, and at what level of exposure, the plaintiffs will be compensated. In the opposite case, the prosecution will be discontinued. It is very important to us : we do not want to simply put an end to time-consuming procedures, but to set this debate within a scientific framework.

Read also The tombeur of Monsanto before the american justice

What is your schedule ?

The judge still needs to validate the first part of the agreement, but he has already publicly declared favorable, and it should encourage the parties to sign it. This will be done gradually, but these procedures are very common in the United States, and this procedure of compensation should be in place by the end of the year. The second part of the agreement, however, remains to be structured, with the creation of the scientific council. A budget allocation is planned, from $ 1.25 billion, but it will take more time.

The law firms have committed more than $ 100 million in advertising spending in 2019, only to recruit plaintiffs.

A jury convicted Bayer, 2018, considering that the herbicide Roundup caused cancer of the gardener Dewayne Johnson. Two other convictions followed. Are they concerned by the agreement ?

No. None of the three complainants is not in the framework of the agreement. These procedures, however, are still ongoing since Bayer has appealed. But we hope in the future to avoid these procedures emotional in front of a jury, and come back in a dimension that is more scientific.

Since the IARC, in 2015, has classified glyphosate as a " probable carcinogen ", in the same way that red meat, the action of the group collapsed. Your reputation has suffered from scandals linked to Monsanto, and convictions in court. The action is increased from 135 to 70 euros ! Do you expect to get back the money paid in market capitalization ?

The agreement goes well beyond this concern. It is necessary to understand in what situation we find ourselves in the United States : the major law firms have committed to, only the year 2019, over 100 million dollars of advertising expenditures, only to recruit plaintiffs against Bayer ! We were gone for years of procedure, confusion, controversy, debate, media... These attacks are difficult internally, but also for our customers. The agreement will allow us to turn the page, and this is good news ! We have lost in market capitalization, but this is not for the group as a matter of survival, because our economic performance is good. These cases, surprisingly, have had little impact on our sales in the United States, and glyphosate, the formula of which is in the public domain, weighs relatively little in our revenue. In France, our group represents 30% of the sales of glyphosate, which we relate to € 15 million on $ 1.3 billion of turnover. It is clear that this business, for us, is not all that essential. But it is for our farmers. It is incumbent on us at all times : glyphosate is essential for some. This is not a bad product : it has value, interest, strengths... We do not stand for the money, because this is not a financial issue, but to show our channels that we are at their side to defend the tools they need.

If the disputes become less numerous in the United States, it will not solve, in Europe, the battle of public opinion. If the United States does not intend to ban glyphosate. public opinion in Europe, particularly in France, though !

Nothing is settled, it is true. But I remain convinced that the only way to assess the potential risks associated with the product is to deliver the subject in a scientific and regulatory. We are very confident on the fact that it does not present a danger.