Debbane rebrands. But what does it mean?

When a company rebrands, it is usually to project a different image of its old self, to approach a new target audience, to embrace a new vision of the future, to indicate some new beginning, values, mission or view of what lies ahead. Which naturally, makes me wonder why did Debbane - one of the most trusted brands in agriculture, a reference to farmers if there was any, and a highly visible visual signal of respect - bother to rebrand.
In 1998, and for a very short period of time, I worked at the Debbane Headquarters being an agriculture engineer who had just finished his military service, and even then I saw an exercise presented by a graphic designer which closely resembles the final effort portrayed here. This is by no means an indication his effort was stolen, I am simply saying that the idea of changing logo (or could it be "uplifting" it?) has been present for a long time now for Debbane. And that the most logical way of doing it is keeping that (very famous) motif of the half-sick/half-healthy leaf and transposing it in today's graphic standards.
But why bother?
That yellow round circle of the old logo was a sign of heritage, immediate (and even blind) trust, plus that intrinsic know-how which comes with decades (yes, they are quite old in the market having celebrated 60 years in 2012) of experience.
Again, the basic rationale of the rebranding eludes me.
In addition, as with other cases of rebranding (Zaatar w Zeit, Enoteca (which is part of the Debbane empire by the way), even Roadster when it changed its selling line) one ends up with two logos present at the same time on the market either because of there is a lag in implementation, or because some details were omitted, or because the logo is so widespread there's bound to be products (from handkerchiefs, to caps, to whatever) which have the old logo still. And look no further than Debbane on the highway to see the old and new cohabitating just meters apart).