December, 1999
headlines and summaries

Return to December article index

Era of genes and dilemmas

December 26
Los Angeles Times editorial

The most profound social question raised by science in the 20th century has been how to wield the power that man acquired upon splitting the atom. Now, as a new century approaches, science is poised to present society with an equally momentous question: how to use man's growing ability to "split" or genetically alter DNA, the chemical code that guides the development of all life on Earth.

The history of atomic power underscores the importance of finding answers collectively, in open forums involving scientists as well as laypeople, poor countries as well as rich ones. In his two books on the development of atomic and hydrogen weapons, historian Richard Rhodes argues that the lack of democratic, open debate in the Atomic Age needlessly stoked public suspicions about science and stymied the development of treaties that could have stemmed today's arms races, in which India builds weapons to deter China, Pakistan to thwart India and so on.

Today's emerging debates on genetic engineering are in similar danger of giving short shrift to consensus-building. Ecological activists who unreasonably oppose any kind of genetically engineered products are pitted against secretive biotechnology companies that want to avoid the government regulation that should go hand in hand with their growing power.

As University of Pennsylvania bioethicist Arthur Caplan recently wrote in the journal Science, the real question is not whether policymakers should allow genetic engineering: The industry's booming growth is unstoppable. Rather, it's how to wield the powerful new tool in ways that ensure "equal access to benefits, and equal distribution of burden." It's a good challenge, one that can be met only through vigorous public debate. 

Please chew on this, Monsanto: Modified food has eaters fed up

December 26
Toronto Star column by Michele Landsberg

As you tuck the left-over turkey back in the fridge, reflect on this: everybody eats.

Because of this human propensity to eat and to care about what we eat, a funny thing happened this year to Monsanto, one of the world's most overweeningly arrogant transnational corporations, as it rushed to the bank. It tripped and fell flat on its face. It got up and fell flat on its face again. And the series of hugely comical pratfalls kept escalating as the year dwindled to its close: most recently, Monsanto tried to hook up with another megacorporation, only to see its share price (and that of its would-be new partner) tumble.

How did it happen? Simple. The lowliest creature on the corporate food chain - the ordinary citizen or, if you will, consumer - stuck out a foot as Monsanto lumbered past.

By now, the biggest bully on the block is beginning to look a bit ridiculous.

Not to mention romantically undesirable. 

Now, several powerful American law firms have joined in a class action suit against Monsanto and other bio-tech companies, accusing them of trying to establish a global cartel in genetically modified (GM) seeds.

Since I first began writing about genetically modified food a year or so ago, I've been fascinated by the rapid escalation in the GM food wars. GM foods have proved to be the perfect tool (remember, everybody eats) to enlist otherwise apathetic citizens in stubborn resistance to runaway corporate power.

The knee-jerk response by industry types was to accuse GM critics of ``hysteria.'' Every corporate pinstripe from President Bill Clinton to U.S. Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman rolled out the sonorous vocabulary, intoning magical words like ``sound science,'' ``reason,'' ``objectivity'' and ``truth'' in order to drown out the supposedly irrational, hysterical, unscientific, unsound shrieks, screams and frothings of the peasant revolt.

Problem: The suits don't have science on their side. It is they who look giddy and ``unsound'' in their rush to embrace permanently life-altering technologies without properly and objectively studying the long-term consequences.

Already, ugly and possibly irreversible damage is being registered as a result of GM crops. Monarch butterflies, it appears, are dying from the toxins exuded in the pollen and leaves of GM corn, engineered to repel insects. And crops engineered to withstand pesticides (Round Up Ready soya, for example) expose earth, air and water to levels of pesticides that may harm all human life.

 Just this month, the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons cited new studies demonstrating that pesticide exposure led to higher rates of prostate cancer and lower sperm production in adults, and immune system damage and lower intelligence in children. 

Governments in Europe and India are now taking action against engineered seeds and crops that contaminate neighboring fields and could lead to permanent loss of food safety.

Aah, how delicious: the ignorant and hysterical peasants, it seems, were right all along. At the beginning of 1999, Monsanto was poised to enforce its GM crops, Terminator seeds, and life-form patents on the entire world. But massive rejection of GM foods has spread from Europe to Asia and now to North America.

Even Mexico's biggest tortilla maker will boycott GM grain. And now, 30 of Canada's most elegant chefs have called for mandatory labeling of all genetically modified foods.

Label them, I agree - the better to shun them. Consumer clout, as we have learned this year, is the one thing these transnational bullies can't stand.

Next month, the 135 countries of the World Trade Organization will meet in Montreal to discuss the United Nations Convention on Biodiversity. I can't wait for more ``unscientific hysteria'' to be demonstrated in the streets to force these biobullies out of hiding. Let them prove the scientific safety of their products before they force them down the world's throats. 

Meanwhile, it's fun to watch Monsanto reeling about, now admitting that it has been ``too arrogant,'' now trying to brush off the ever-mounting heap of failures.

Just this week, the caterer at Monsanto's own London, England staff canteen announced that it would refuse to use genetically modified foods. A Monsanto spokesman dismissed the news as ``a Christmas story.'' 

Yes, indeed. The Jolly Gene Giant, caught red-faced in the pantry once again, his sack of mutated corn chips slung over his shoulder while the intruder alarm goes off.

Food fight

December 25
The Economist

Vancouver -- When it comes to science and food, the Canadians used to have more in common Americans than with fussy Europeans.

No longer, to judge by two recent announcements. First, McCain Foods, a New Brunswick firm that is one of the world¹s largest suppliers of frozen chipped potatoes, revealed that after January 1st it would no longer buy any genetically modified spuds. Then, on December 17th, the federal government said it  would set up a committee of experts to review its system for approving GM foods.

Public confidence in Canada¹s food-regulation system has been sinking for several years. It has not been strengthened by a Food Safety and Inspection Bill, sent to Parliament last spring. The bill simply modernizes existing regulations, say officials, making no changes in standards. That is the problem, counter the critics. They say the existing system is aimed more at easing new products into the market than ensuring safe food. 

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency, which is supposed to enforce food-safety regulations, reports to the minister of agriculture and also promotes farm production and trade. This conflict of interest, unreformed by the bill, 'poses an imminent threat to the future health of Canadians', according to a memo to the health minister signed by 200 government food-safety experts and published in September. They want enforcement of food safety returned to the health ministry, which had it until two years ago.

Regulation of GM foods has become especially controversial. Some 70 percent of processed foods in Canada now have transgenic ingredients, but are not required to be labeled to show this. The scientists said that, because of staff cuts, they had been unable to do their own tests on GM foods. Instead, the government relied on data provided by biotechnology companies in approving the 42 GM crops and foods now on sale. The companies were required to show only that their new products were 'substantially equivalent' to conventionally bred crops, a test that many scientists consider insufficient.

Farmers, too, are grumbling, saying that instead of greater yields, transgenic seeds lead to greater use of chemicals and the probable contamination of nearby conventional crops. A Saskatchewan farmer, Percy Schmeiser, has become a celebrity by taking on Monsanto, an American biotechnology company. It is suing him for patent infringement, accusing him of illegally obtaining and planting its oil-seed rape (canola). Mr Schmeiser, who says he plants only conventional seed, claims the GM rape probably blew in from his neighbour's land. He is counter-suing Monsanto for defamation and contamination of his land. And many other farmers (of rape, maize, soyabeans and now potatoes), sensing a shift in consumers' attitudes, are giving up biotech experiments.

A group of 21 health, environment, farming and consumers' organizations is campaigning for tougher regulations, a ban on new GM crops and mandatory labeling of all foods containing genetically altered products. The government rejects this; it wants the food industry to develop voluntary labeling  standards. It says it will reintroduce the food-safety bill in Parliament this spring, with only minor changes. Public opinion may yet insist on a different outcome.

Face value: Grim reaper

December 25
The Economist

In person, Monsanto chief Robert Shapiro is thoughtful, urbane and affable. He made his name at Monsanto in the 1980s as the brains behind NutraSweet, turning what was a bulk foodstuff into a famous brand.

More recently, Mr Shapiro has gone out of his way to preach corporate responsibility and sustainable development. His big idea is to bring cutting-edge genetics research and molecular design to bear on novel drugs and crops, a new hybrid science that promised "food, health, hope", according to the company's motto.

One industry colleague was quoted as observing, "Bob Shapiro is closer to a genius than an idiot."

But he nevertheless made the elementary mistake of thinking that Europe is much the same as America, and that the aggressive promotion of its technology, and uncompromising dealings with activists and retailers, would win the day. Instead, the fruit of Monsanto's labors, genetically engineered seeds such as herbicide-resistant soyabeans, have been roundly rejected in Europe and Mr Shapiro has become a hate figure among activists. How could a master of marketing and an exponent of business ethics get things so spectacularly wrong?

The price of his mistake became clear on December 19th when it was announced that Monsanto is to merge with Pharmacia & Upjohn, a Swedish-American drug firm. Monsanto's agribusiness unit will survive, but as a separate entity that will be partly floated and, many analysts believe, soon sold. If so, it will mirror the fate of Mr Shapiro, who will hang around as non-executive chairman for the next 18 months before moving on. A year-and-a-half ago, he and his firm were flourishing; now both it and his concept of a life-science company--one that applies biotechnology to medicine, food and farming--have been demonized from India to Indiana.

In part, that is the risk every visionary runs. Anyone who propounds the idea that agricultural biotechnology will save the environment and feed the world¹s hungry is sure to earn as much enmity as admiration--from investors as well as environmentalists. To his supporters, Mr Shapiro is someone who has revolutionized agribusiness, but whose strategy is too long-term for the Internet-crazed investors of Wall Street. To his detractors, Mr Shapiro has huge blind spots. He failed to understand the nature or magnitude of the mess that Monsanto is in, or the way to extricate it, until it was too late.

To be fair, Mr Shapiro and Monsanto have also had their share of poor luck. Popular suspicion of genetic engineering, matched by regulatory vacillation, has spread rapidly across Europe, partly because Britain¹s mad cows and France¹s contaminated blood have shaken public faith in regulators and scientists. Even America, initially immune to such fears, is now vulnerable to them.

Yet Mr Shapiro has also failed to get his message across inside Monsanto. He is a great believer in organizational innovation, hiring bright, motivated people and giving them scope to go their own way, an approach variously described as "exciting", "empowering", "messy" and "Tom Peters gone crazy". While times were good, this did little harm, yet when the European backlash gained ground in 1998, a strong center was needed--but lacking. By then, his team was unused to taking orders or to reporting the firm's course back to the bridge. 

Matters were made worse by the distraction of a proposed merger with American Home Products. The deal's rationale, one former employee says, was not well explained to Monsanto's rank-and-file who resisted such a different corporate culture. In the end, the merger fell through, largely because neither Mr Shapiro nor Monsanto was comfortable with the sort of organization that a larger AHP wanted to impose. He thinks the latest deal will work, in part because leadership in the new firm will not be shared, as it would have been with AHP, but will lie squarely with P&U's Fred Hassan.

The AHP fiasco was not Mr Shapiro's only distraction. As well as betting on biotechnology, he bought a number of seed companies so as to have a lock on the science from laboratory to farm. He paid a large premium for some companies, such as PBI Cambridge, which some thought an odd fit. These deals led to accusations of abuse of monopoly power by both farmers and activists. 

One result was a class-action lawsuit against the firm in America, and a long investigation by America¹s  Department of Justice which has caused Monsanto to withdraw its offer for one seed firm. Another result of the acquisitions was to saddle the firm with more than $6 billion in debt. With this gamble, the company stood to make a lot of money if its biotechnology took off. But when it all went sour, its standing with investors worsened all the more quickly.

Communications with the outside world also failed--and that suggests a wider lesson for technology firms. A shadow fell between Mr Shapiro's idea and Monsanto's reality, because he decided to leave his managers to argue their corner. Mr Shapiro is used to putting the big picture across, but he and his managers were convinced that those whose ignorance led them to reject biotechnology would eventually be swayed by Monsanto¹s assurances of safety and its research, which is highly praised in both industry and academia. 

Company officials have doggedly defended the firm's genetically tinkered seeds and high-tech agrochemicals by trotting out studies on increased crop yields and falling pesticide outlays. Yet the public wants to talk about social values, not soyabean statistics. Mr Shapiro now acknowledges that he was naive, especially when it came to fighting the criticism of pressure groups and the press by scientific arguments alone. What Mr Shapiro seemed to forget was that scientific certainty often sounds like corporate arrogance.

People power blow to GM food

December 24
Express newspaper (UK)

THE biotech revolution is in danger of failure in the face of consumer power, one of the world's top investment banks has warned. 

In a new body blow to the beleaguered industry, Credit Suisse First Boston says the commercial development of genetically modified organisms is suffering from "negative momentum". It says food manufacturers are running scared of GM crops, and that key questions about the technology may not be answered for several years.

Analysts warn in a series of briefings that the issue is out of control for big business and government. "If anyone is in control it appears to be environment and consumer groups."

The Express has been leading the campaign for public choice over GM foods and tighter controls on GM crops since summer 1998.

We have called for all food to be clearly labeled and for delays on commercial planting until independent research has proved they are safe for the environment.

Credit Suisse compares GM technology with nuclear power. It says both are scientifically sound but warns: "No one is building new nuclear plants today."

After surveying consumer reaction, it says: "The march of progress with GM crops no longer appears inevitable to us."

The bank's analysis will cause fresh alarm among investors who have already seen the share values of some biotech firms fall.

In the past year shoppers in Britain and Europe have overwhelmingly rejected GM food. Even US consumers are now beginning to rebel amid fears about the long-term consequences.

The reports are all the more damaging because Credit Suisse's clients have included some of the world's top biotech firms. They follow similar warnings by the influential Deutsche Bank earlier this year.

Friends of the Earth claimed last night that the City was turning its back on biotech firms.

Spokesman Adrian Bebb said: "Time is running out for the biotech industry. "One of the world's biggest financial advisers appears to have little faith in it."

The newly announced merger between biotech giant Monsanto and a Swedish firm is seen as further evidence that the GM revolution is running out of steam. In the past 14 months Monsanto shares have nearly halved in value. Credit Suisse says it believes biotechnology has a long-term future, especially if new GM crops offer consumers better taste, healthier food or less pollution.

But it quotes one firm, Novartis, as predicting that it will take up to five years for Europe to accept the crops.

GM taken off winter menu

December 24
Farmers Weekly

WINTER feeding has a new flavor at one Hants beef farm where GM feed is now off the menu.

Much has been made of GM ingredients in animal feed, but as yet no major retailer has wholly committed itself to sourcing animals fed only non-GM feeds.

Despite this, David and Tina Pybus have taken the decision themselves, and all Aberdeen Angus cross  steers at Pyesmead Farm, Plaitford, Romsey, will be offered GM-free rations this winter.

The decision has been prompted by the Pybuses' belief that supermarkets may require some producers to feed animals with non-GM feeds. 

Trying to stay one step ahead of retailers is the reason for changing diets, says Mr Pybus. "It is an insurance policy against the rules being changed, but we are not being paid any more to do it."

Previously at Pyesmead, cattle have been fed a diet consisting of equal quantities of sugar beet pulp and maize gluten. But this year, to ensure ingredients are non-GM, a switch has been made to a blend from KW Alternative Feeds, compromising 42.5% sugar beet pulp, 42.5% cracker feed — from Ryvita crackers and mainly whole rye — and 15% groundnut oil.

"Although the diet is described as GM free, there is no guarantee it is from non-GM stock," says Mr Pybus. But this is standard policy of feed companies, who are loath to commit themselves to guaranteeing GM-free status. This is potentially difficult, with risks from cross-contamination and contamination in mills, shipping and transport. 

Contrary to perception, GM-free blends actually cost little more than conventional straights, working out at about £5/t more expensive, says Mr Pybus.

An equivalent conventional ration costs £l00-£107/t, compared with the non-GM feed's cost of £112/t delivered and blown into store, says Signet consultant lan Ross. 

One concern about changing to non-GM ingredients is keeping the feeding system simple. The Pybuses did not want to have different feed for calves and finishing cattle, so a ration to suit both had to made.

It also had to fit into the system at Pyesmead Farm. which is set up to reduce the amount of purchased feed used and to make the most of grass, says Mr Ross.

July and August-born calves are bought and brought on to farm in September, then housed for winter on ad-lib silage and some hard feed. "Calves must have 2kg a day of feed. We aim to turn them out after the winter at 180kg, which means a growth rate of 0.8kg a day."

The cattle's second winter is their store phase, says Mr Ross. 

"They want to be 350kg at turnout and need plenty of frame so when they are turned out compensatory growth means they grow really quickly." During the steers' second winter they are fed ad lib silage with no straights at all. Turnout for finishing cattle is in April, about one month before the calves go out after their first winter on farm.

All cattle are sold through Wessex Quality Meats as part of an Aberdeen Angus scheme, and the Pybuses are keen to protect their premium market by taking tough decisions, such as feeding non-GM feed.

When the system works well and cattle hit the right specifications — R4L for conformation and finish — the Pybuses gain handsome premiums, but this requires good management.

The last batch of Aberdeen Angus cross steers sold achieved about 40p/kg more than the average market price, with a carcass weight of 278kg. "It is not like finishing Continental cattle. Regular weigh- ings are needed to ensure cattle are selected at the right finish. But you don't want many cattle grading SLS R4H as these are penalized severely," says Mr Pybus.

But receiving a top price means being in control of the finishing phase, says Mr Ross. Good growth rates in the finishing phase help achieve the right shape of animal, but top class management and a system to match it are also required.

"We select finished cattle every three weeks and watch them like a hawk in between. I think about 60% meet the target grades," says Mr Pybus.

Prince's war on GM 'condemns world to starve'

December 23
The Times (London)

Professor John Beringer, who has just stepped down as chairman of the government committee overseeing the releases of gene-modified plants, said that organic agriculture and "spreading around a bit of manure" were not going to save the planet, feed the hungry or conserve wildlife.

He said he did not care about the future of Monsanto, Novartis and other big biotechnology companies that have faced intensifying opposition to GM products in Europe. His concern was for the poor and hungry and the environment. He said forests full of wondrous species were being devastated across the Far East and the developing world as desperate people scrambled for land to grow crops.

"You see this terrible devastation of people cutting down forests and other areas vital for biodiversity and you witness people growing sweet potatoes on land you would need a rope to climb up. It is just appalling, but they are hungry," the Professor of Molecular Genetics and Dean of Science in the School of Biological Sciences at Bristol University said.

Speaking at the British Ecological Society's winter meeting in Leeds, Professor Beringer, who recently retired as chairman of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions advisory committee on releases to the environment, said that genetic modification offered ways to boost yields of crops such as rice from three to eight tonnes. "No organic farming will have any impact on this," he added.

He said that, if he could sit down with the Prince, "I would say to him that in an overfed country, where you can import food from other people, you can afford to reduce yields and satisfy your whims". He would also tell the Prince: "In a real, hungry world, there are no solutions other than technological ones. I think it is outrageous and disgusting that people are condemned to starve for what is dogma. One and a half billion people already go to bed hungry every night and it is going to get worse."

He showed the audience headlines that he described as "royal warrants" against GM crops. Many developing countries were now too scared to develop these crops because of fears that exports to Europe would be hit.

Professor Beringer said that there was not a shred of evidence to support environmentalists' fears that GM crops are any more of a risk to the environment than conventional ones. Nevertheless, he conceded that some developments carried more risks than others. The Max Planck Institute in Cologne had cloned a gene from a Siberian insect that allowed it to survive at -40C. Researchers were looking at genetically engineering this "antifreeze" gene into potatoes so that they could survive frosts of -10C.

He said the breakthrough could be "brilliant" for boosting yields in countries with harsh weather, such as Russia, but in Britain, where frosts were less severe, it might lead to the potato becoming a nuisance.

Professor Beringer said that it was vital for government to fund research into GM crops. Governments had sold out to multinationals, whom the public viewed as "perverse" and eager for profit. He called for plant breeding to top spending in overseas aid.

Nisshin to end use of GM crops for home products

December 21
Reuters (Japan)

TOKYO - Nisshin Flour Milling Co Ltd , Japan's largest flour miller, said yesterday it will stop using ingredients produced from genetically modified (GM) corn and soybeans in its flour products for home use by the end of next February.

The company plans to use wheat starch as an alternative for corn starch and replace soybean protein with wheat protein due to consumer concerns about the safety of bioengineered food products, a company spokesman said.

"We have decided to use wheat-based ingredients because we found it difficult to secure a sufficient volume of ingredients made from non-GM corn and soybeans," he said.

The company uses a total of 2,000 tons of corn starch, soybean protein and soy powders annually in its flour products for home use, the spokesman said. Nisshin is also talking to its corporate clients about the possible elimination of GM ingredients from its business-use flour products, he said.