注册 登录  
 加关注
   显示下一条  |  关闭
温馨提示!由于新浪微博认证机制调整,您的新浪微博帐号绑定已过期,请重新绑定!立即重新绑定新浪微博》  |  关闭

经略天下

梦想并未破灭!激情和力量,你还是那么勇猛刚强!

 
 
 

日志

 
 

全球农化巨头的演变  

2013-10-13 12:38:58|  分类: 农药化工 |  标签: |举报 |字号 订阅

  下载LOFTER 我的照片书  |

276

Pesticide Outlook – December 2003

DOI: 10.1039/b308486h

This journal is ? The Royal Society of Chemistry 2003

Introduction

When I first became involved in the crop protection industry

it was a growth area that realised significant profitability for

companies lucky enough to discover new chemicals with

international applications in major world crops. From 1970

until the mid 1980s growth had averaged 6.3% per annum

in real terms and everything in the garden looked rosy. Every

company, it seemed, that had a source of chemicals was

evaluating them for potential as agrochemicals as well as for

use as pharmaceuticals, colouring agents, anti-blowing

agents and a host of other possible uses. In the UK alone

there were eight companies involved in discovery – Boots,

Dow (a small involvement to complement the US operation),

Fisons, ICI (then known as PPD – Plant Protection

Division), May and Baker, Murphy, PBI and Shell Research.

Globally, it seemed as if all oil companies were in crop

protection discovery with Elf, Gulf, Chevron and Occidental

all involved. There was no talk of mergers, it was expansion

and profit – except, of course, for Ciba and Geigy who

merged in 1969 to form Ciba-Geigy – a company ahead of

its time it seems. By 1988 things were changing. John Finney

gave the Bawden Memorial Lecture at the BCPC Brighton

Conference that year and he spoke of worries about the fact

that many of the world’s leading agrochemical products

were old and their patents were expiring allowing the intro-

duction of generic competitors, that farmer’s subsidies were

being reduced and this lowered the money that they would

spend on crop protection, the costs of discovery were

increasing substantially and new innovative introductions

were becoming much more scarce and companies were

increasingly introducing ‘me-too’ patent-busting products

rather than new chemistry with new modes of action. I also

seem to remember him saying that he predicted that by 2000

there would only be ten discovery companies in the world

and five of these would be Japanese (he did not write that

down though).

This was all nonsense, of course – or so we thought. The

Japanese market was the second largest in the world and

was guarded ferociously by Japanese companies. When

Western companies tried to enter, it was more often through

collaboration than through establishing a new Japanese-

based company and Japanese companies did not seem very

interested in developing beyond the Far East (as a general

rule).

Success based on major products

But then things began to change very quickly. If the

‘successful’ companies of the 1970s and 1980s are examined

it becomes clear that the success of each one was based upon

an innovative and widely used product or groups of

products. For example, ICI had paraquat, DuPont had

phenylurea herbicides (and later sulfonylureas) and

benomyl, Monsanto had glyphosate, Bayer had OP insecti-

cides (and later imidacloprid), Elanco had trifluralin, Dow

had chlorpyrifos, Ciba-Geigy had 1,3,5-triazines and Rohm

and Haas had mancozeb.

Selling or merging

Several companies that did not have such a major product

THE EVOLUTION OF CROP PROTECTION COMPANIES1

Len Copping, himself involved in the Boots ? FBC ? Schering ? Aventis progression, outlines the various

changes in pesticides companies in recent decades

HISTORY

1Although reasonable care and attention has been taken in the preparation

of this article, some omissions and inaccuracies are inevitable in such a

complex subject.

Figure 1. Evolution of Bayer CropScience

Downloaded on 29 November 2011

Published on 05 February 2003 on http://pubs.rsc.org | doi:10.1039/B308486H

View Online / Journal Homepage / Table of Contents for this issue

decided that it was not worth the investment to stay in

discovery research associated with crop protection. PPG,

Gulf, Occidental and US Borax (to name a few) stopped

altogether selling off any products that they still had. Other

companies sold off their crop protection divisions with the

biggest sale being that of Shell (who had purchased Cela

Merck) with the US operation being acquired by DuPont

whilst its UK research base being purchased by American

Cyanamid (and subsequently closed). Cyanamid were later

acquired by American Home Products (AHP) (some say

because of the high return that it was getting from its imida-

zolinone soybean herbicides), but sales and profitability fell

and AHP sold to BASF.

Others included Philips-Duphar being acquired by

Uniroyal which subsequently became part of Witco;

Pennwalt, acquired by Elf Atochem (subsequently becoming

Cerexagni); ICI acquired Stauffer, changed its name to

Zeneca, became part of the Life Sciences company Astra-

Zeneca and then was merged with Novartis (Ciba-Geigy

plus all its acquisitions plus Sandoz) to form Syngenta.

Mergers were the theme for a while with Boots and

Fisons forming FBC, a company that had some sound

products, but not a lot of market share and was, therefore, a

good target for takeover and Schering obliged. Later,

mergers with Hoechst produced AgrEvo and with Rhone-

Poulenc formed Aventis – a company later acquired by

Bayer to form Bayer Crop Sciences.

Dow and Elanco formed DowElanco, a company that

had many good (if old) products, but the need of Eli Lilly

(one of the owners) for funding for its pharmaceutical

business led to the purchase of the whole group by Dow and

the renaming to Dow AgroSciences. Subsequently, Dow

acquired the agrochemical interests of Rohm and Haas and

the seeds/molecular biology company Mycogen.

In the meantime, some companies continued to work

independently, satisfied with the return from investment in

the discovery of new compounds. Typical of these is FMC

and (until 2001) Rohm and Haas.

Move to towards life science companies

The 1990s were also the time of ‘Life Science’ companies

and mergers that brought together crop protection and

pharmaceutical interests were the order of the day. Massive

companies were set up, notable amongst which were Astra-

Zeneca – a merger of the Swedish pharmaceutical giant

Astra and Zeneca, already a company active in pharmaceu-

tical and agrochemical research, Aventis – a merger of the

life science activities of AgrEvo and Rhone-Poulenc and

Novartis – the life sciences of Ciba-Geigy and Sandoz. By

the end of the 20th century, however, the gloss had gone

from joint life science companies as it was realised that the

synergy that had been expected was not being realised and

these large companies split into the medical and agrochem-

ical activities once again, often with further mergers and/or

take-overs.

The Japanese companies, by and large, kept themselves

small although there was collaboration with other

companies for the development of products internationally.

The exceptions to this were Ishihara Sangyo who acquired

Diamond Shamrock and renamed itself ISK BioScience and

Sumitomo who acquired Chevron and used this as the focus

Pesticide Outlook – December 2003

277

HISTORY

Figure 2. Evolution of Syngenta

Figure 3. Evolution of BASF

Downloaded on 29 November 2011

Published on 05 February 2003 on http://pubs.rsc.org | doi:10.1039/B308486H

View Online

of the US-based company Valent after acquiring companies

in Europe. Later, in the US, Valent acquired the biopesticide

part of Abbott to form Valent BioScience.

Acquiring seed companies

There was also a rush to acquire seed companies as a way to

cash in on the GM crops revolution. Monsanto acquired

almost every seed company available and spent so much

money that it was later acquired by Pharmacia as a step

towards a life sciences company (the flavour of the day in

the 1990s), but Pharmacia recognised the global uncertainty

of GM technology and the general mistrust of transgenic

food in Europe and Japan together with the possible effect

that this might have on its pharmaceutical business. In

August 2002, Monsanto became a 100% publicly traded

company when Pharmacia distributed its 84% stake in

Monsanto to its shareholders, with each receiving a 0.17

share of Monsanto stock for each Pharmacia share owned.

Novartis (the company formed by the merger of Ciba-

Geigy and Sandoz) had a large seed company and Zeneca

had established a joint venture seed company with Royal

Dutch Seed company that was not included as part of the

Syngenta deal. However, Syngenta Seeds continued to

command a sizeable share of the market. DuPont acquired

the world’s largest maize-seed company when it purchased

Pioneer Hi-Bred, while Dow AgroSciences expanded its seed

commitment through the acquisition of Mycogen.

Rise of the generics

Another notable happening of recent years is the success of

generic companies as players in the crop protection chemical

business. Many major companies purchased generic

companies (Dow bought Sanachem and formed the joint

venture DE-NOCIL) and some generic companies even

became involved in new product development (Makhteshim-

Agan and novaluron (Rimon)). The success of these generic

companies and the associated reduction of discovery

companies is reflected by the world’s biggest agrochemical

companies. In the 1970s, the top twenty agrochemical

companies were all discovery companies. Today, the top six

are still discovery-based companies (Bayer CropSciences,

Syngenta, Monsanto, BASF, Dow and DuPont), but within

the top 20 there are now five generic companies and eight

Japanese companies. And only the top seven have sales

totalling $2 billion, with the rest not reaching $1 billion.

Outlook

The development of these companies is shown in the tables

and it is as complete as memory can make it. The industry

has changed and the industry will continue to change. But

with innovation still the target, the industry will continue,

albeit with fewer players.

278

Pesticide Outlook – December 2003

HISTORY

Figure 4. Evolution of several crop protection companies

Figure 5. Evolution of more crop protection companies

Downloaded on 29 November 2011

Published on 05 February 2003 on http://pubs.rsc.org | doi:10.1039/B308486H

View Online

ENVOI

This is the last issue of Pesticide Outlook which will be

edited by myself. I would like to take this opportunity to

thank all those who have assisted me in the production of

the journal – Editorial Board and Advisory Board

members who have suggested many of the articles

included in the journal and refereed many of them to

boot; authors who have written and revised articles on a

wide range of subjects; and readers who have given their

feedback from time to time. To all these, thank you for

making my life easier and more enjoyable.

I was involved in the launch of the journal 14 years

ago and have, with a short break doing other things, been

involved ever since. I have seen the journal expand from 4

or 6 issues per year, I have seen the number of articles per

issue increase, and I have seen the subjects covered

expand, as there has been a move away from just

chemical pesticides, as envisioned in the original title of

the journal, to include IPM and biological control, not to

mention the new biotechnology applications.

During this year the Royal Society of Chemistry sold

Pesticide Outlook

to Research Information Ltd.

(http://www.researchinformation.co.uk). The new owners

see valuable synergy with their existing publications in

the areas of crop protection and pest control, especially

International Pest Control, and would like to further

develop the title in the coming years.

The new editor is Len Copping, who has many years of

experience in crop protection, having worked for Boots,

FBC, Schering etc. He currently acts as a consultant, and

organises many conferences and chairs conference

sessions for SCI and BCPC. He is also the Editor of the

Biopesticide Manual, now in its second edition.

I wish Len all the best as the new Editor – I am sure

that everyone will continue to help him in his new role as

they have helped me over the years. He would be glad to

receive a steady flow of articles for future issues (Email:

lcopping@globalnet.co.uk)

I am sure that Pesticide Outlook will continue to

prosper under new management.

Hamish Kidd

PS. Len Copping has in fact written the last article in this

issue of Pesticide Outlook, providing a suitable link to his

work as the new Editor in 2004.

Downloaded on 29 November 2011

Published on 05 February 2003 on http://pubs.rsc.org | doi:10.1039/B308486H

View Online


  评论这张
 
阅读(366)| 评论(0)
推荐 转载

历史上的今天

在LOFTER的更多文章

评论

<#--最新日志,群博日志--> <#--推荐日志--> <#--引用记录--> <#--博主推荐--> <#--随机阅读--> <#--首页推荐--> <#--历史上的今天--> <#--被推荐日志--> <#--上一篇,下一篇--> <#-- 热度 --> <#-- 网易新闻广告 --> <#--右边模块结构--> <#--评论模块结构--> <#--引用模块结构--> <#--博主发起的投票-->
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

页脚

网易公司版权所有 ©1997-2017