Bayer Completes $63 Billion Monsanto Acquisition: Agricultural Seeds and Chemicals Consolidate Into Big Four Oligopoly

Bayer AG completed its $63 billion acquisition of Monsanto after receiving antitrust approval from U.S. and European regulators, consolidating the agricultural seeds and chemicals industry from the “Big Six” into a “Big Four” oligopoly controlling over 60% of global seed sales and 70% of agrochemicals. The merger, combined with simultaneous ChemChina-Syngenta and Dow-DuPont consolidations, dramatically increased market concentration in inputs critical to global food production.

The Bayer-Monsanto merger was the largest of three simultaneous agricultural mega-mergers announced in 2015-2016 that reshaped the industry:

• December 2015: Dow Chemical and DuPont announced $130 billion merger, planning to split into three companies including agriculture-focused Corteva
• February 2016: ChemChina (Chinese state-owned) acquired Syngenta for $43 billion
• September 2016: Bayer offered $66 billion for Monsanto (finalized at $63 billion)

These three deals consolidated the “Big Six” agricultural companies (Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta, Dow, Bayer, and BASF) into a “Big Four” dominated by Bayer, Corteva (Dow-DuPont agriculture division), ChemChina-Syngenta, and BASF. The consolidation gave these four firms control over more than 60% of global proprietary seed sales and approximately 70% of agrochemical sales, creating unprecedented concentration in inputs essential to farmers worldwide.

The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division approved the Bayer-Monsanto merger only after Bayer agreed to divest $9 billion in assets to BASF, including seed businesses, herbicide brands, and research facilities. The divestitures were intended to preserve BASF as a fifth competitor and prevent excessive concentration. However, critics argued the remedies were insufficient given the scale of consolidation and the elimination of Monsanto as an independent competitive force.

The European Commission approved the merger in March 2018 after extracting similar divestitures, though Democratic FTC Commissioner Rohit Chopra warned that antitrust reviews focused too narrowly on product-by-product overlaps and failed to account for broader competitive effects including reduced innovation, increased portfolio leverage, and enhanced ability to raise prices across multiple product lines.

The agricultural consolidation raised particular concerns because it concentrated control over fundamental inputs to food production—seeds, pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. Farmers faced reduced choices, higher input costs, and fewer alternatives if suppliers raised prices or degraded service. The merged companies gained enhanced ability to bundle products (“trait + chemistry” packages), forcing farmers to buy multiple products from a single supplier.

The investigation of these mergers focused heavily on innovation impacts, recognizing that consolidation in high-R&D industries can reduce research competition and slow development of new crop varieties and agricultural technologies. When competitors merge, they typically eliminate duplicate research programs and reduce overall innovation investment, potentially depriving farmers and consumers of future improvements.

Bayer dropped Monsanto’s 117-year-old name shortly after completing the acquisition, seeking to avoid the negative brand associations Monsanto had developed through its aggressive patent enforcement, GMO controversies, and glyphosate (Roundup) litigation. However, Bayer inherited Monsanto’s legal liabilities, including thousands of lawsuits alleging Roundup causes cancer—liabilities that have cost Bayer over $10 billion in settlements.

Farmer and consumer impacts included higher seed and chemical costs, reduced supplier choices, forced bundling of products, elimination of competing research programs, increased supplier leverage in negotiations, and reduced innovation in crop genetics and agricultural chemistry. Economic studies show that agricultural input consolidation has contributed significantly to rising farming costs that squeeze farmer profits while increasing food prices for consumers.