The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →In a February 2019 interview, Robert (Bob) Reiter, then head of research and development for Bayer CropScience, described how Bayer’s acquisition of Monsanto might affect agricultural innovation. His central argument was that bringing seed and trait development together with crop-protection research could let teams work in parallel, while gene editing and the search for new herbicide modes of action could shape longer-term work. These are Reiter’s views and forecasts from 2019, not a statement of Bayer’s current pipeline.
Who was Robert Reiter at Bayer?
When Agriculture.com published its Q&A on February 26, 2019, Reiter led research and development for Bayer CropScience. He had held a similar role at Monsanto and had joined the legacy Monsanto company in 1998. Agriculture.com reported that he studied horticulture and plant breeding and plant genetics. Bayer later said Reiter became Crop Science R&D head in 2018 and retired in 2025.
The original interview is available at Agriculture.com’s “Q&A: Robert Reiter, Bayer”. Its answers should be read in the context of the post-acquisition integration period, rather than as current guidance.
What did Reiter see as the biggest challenge of the merger?
Reiter’s explanation focused on combining organizations and research capabilities while maintaining momentum on innovation. He argued that Bayer’s crop-protection work and Monsanto’s strength in seeds and traits could be complementary. In his view, integrating those capabilities offered a chance to develop products on parallel tracks—for example, coordinating a crop-protection product with a seed product—instead of treating them as entirely separate projects.
#1 Best Overall
That was a proposed advantage, not a guarantee that every combined project would move faster. Reiter said a traditional new-herbicide development and commercialization effort could take 12 to 14 years. He estimated that a sequential development path—waiting for one component before beginning another—could add 10 years to an innovation life cycle. Those figures are his estimates in the 2019 interview, not independently established industry averages.
What did he say about gene editing and plant breeding?
Reiter predicted that gene editing could have a major long-term effect on plant breeding. “This is technology I believe will, in the long run, fundamentally reshape plant breeding,” he said in the interview. At the time, Bayer and Pairwise were collaborating to investigate tools including CRISPR-Cas9. The statement describes Reiter’s 2019 expectation and the collaboration as presented then; it does not establish the current status of either the work or any resulting products.
Would herbicide-tolerant traits keep relying on older herbicides?
The interview raised a question about the industry’s development of herbicide-tolerant traits for older herbicides, including dicamba. Reiter discussed that approach alongside the need to discover new herbicide sites of action. His answer pointed to continued work on new chemistry rather than suggesting that tolerance traits alone could address weed-control challenges.
Searching for new modes of action
Reiter described Bayer’s work with Targenomix to investigate how molecules affect plants, as part of a broader effort to identify new herbicide sites of action. The 2019 Q&A also discussed a prospective collaboration with Sumitomo involving a PPO inhibitor for corn and soybeans. Commercialization was then expected in the late 2020s; that was a forecast made in 2019, not confirmation of a launch or its present timing.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems2Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute3Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsRank #3
How the later herbicide update fits
In a May 2022 interview, Reiter said a new post-emergence herbicide mode of action announced in 2020 was in Phase 3. He characterized it as a complement to existing modes of action, rather than necessarily a replacement for glyphosate. Phase 3 was the status he described in 2022; it should not be taken as the current regulatory or commercial status. His comments about glyphosate in these interviews are his characterizations, not independent safety findings.
For that dated update, see Agrotypos’ May 30, 2022 interview with Reiter.
What was Bayer doing with biologicals?
Reiter described Bayer’s and Monsanto’s biologicals investments as complementary: one strategy leaned more toward crop efficiency, while the other focused more on crop protection. That comparison reflects his account of the two businesses during the 2019 integration period; it is not a comprehensive description of biological products or current Bayer strategy.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What later happened to Reiter and the projects discussed?
Bayer announced on March 24, 2025, that Reiter would retire and that Mike Graham would succeed him as Head of R&D for the Crop Science Division, effective April 15, 2025. Bayer said Reiter had spent 27 years with the company and 34 years in the industry. In the same announcement, Bayer identified Icafolin and the Preceon Smart Corn System as developments advanced during Reiter’s leadership. The announcement does not, by itself, establish their current regulatory or market status. See Bayer’s March 24, 2025 succession announcement.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
