Protest May Mow Down Trend to Alter Crops

A storm of protest against genetically engineered foods by foreign governments and consumers has reached U.S. shores, leading some experts to predict that agricultural biotechnology could go the way of nuclear energy--falling out of favor because of public fears and unfavorable economics.

Critics say the industry erred by rushing products with unknown health or environmental side effects to market before the public was ready and harnessing the technology to help farmers and food distributors rather than creating obvious benefits for consumers.

Even industry leaders acknowledge that a protest movement launched in Europe and Asia is having a telling effect in the U.S., bringing threats of a global trade war and stalling the introduction of a new wave of genetically altered crops with improved nutritional benefits.

Agricultural biotech has been a victim of its own success. Five years after the first genetically engineered crop won federal approval, transformed foods are everywhere--more than half the soybeans planted in the U.S. this year and 30% of the corn are from biotech seeds. Oils and sweeteners derived from these crops are ingredients in a host of processed foods such as soft drinks, tortilla chips and French fries.

But the protests may even lead to a rollback of what’s already been done: The American Corn Growers Assn. has urged its members to consider using non-genetically modified seeds next year. “Agriculture has been sold a bill of goods about how great genetically modified seeds would be,” said the association’s chief executive, Gary Goldberg. “We’re sure as hell not going to grow a product the customer doesn’t want.”

The backlash has been noticed on Wall Street too, where doubts are being raised about the viability of ag biotech.

For months, analysts Timothy Ramey and Frank J. Mitsch at Deutsche Banc Alex. Brown have been arguing that “GMOs [genetically modified organisms] are dead.”

In May, Ramey correctly identified the emergence of a two-tier market for grain in which improved grains would sell for less than traditional hybrids. Two months later, he asked, “Are GMOs safe, good for the environment and necessary to support the inevitable growth in the world’s population? Yes, but the same arguments can be made for advancing nuclear power. Despite the support of the scientific community, it is unlikely that we will add any new nuclear power plants any time soon.”

Lack of Public Education Criticized

Other analysts also see problems ahead. “We like biotech genetic engineering long-term because it is a very useful tool and eventually science will win out,” said Paine-Webber’s Andrew Cash. “But in the immediate future, the only thing investors care about is perception. . . . There is a big, dark cloud over those stocks right now.”

The heart of the argument against genetically altered crops is that too little is known about them.

“There need to be long-term studies of the environmental and health effects, which there haven’t been,” said Charles Margulis, who heads Greenpeace’s U.S. efforts to ban genetically modified crops.

Activists from around the country, after a meeting in Bolinas in Northern California in July, have now drafted a list of demands: the labeling of all products derived from genetically engineered crops or animals, an improved system for assessing health hazards, an end to the patenting of plants and animals, and strict corporate liability for damages caused by these products.

The activists aren’t alone in their criticism of the industry. Among the most prominent critics of the big companies is Gordon Conway, president of the Rockefeller Foundation, the nonprofit organization that helped bring about the so-called Green Revolution by promoting high-yield hybrid seeds and improved growing methods to feed the developing world.

Conway fears a growing mistrust of biotechnology, and he faults the corporations that introduced the first altered crops for failing to respond. “As a result of the reaction against what they are doing and the way they are doing it, we may lose the benefits of the technology,” Conway said.

This summer, he took his complaints to the board of directors of Monsanto, a major supplier of genetically engineered crops. “The rush to get products to market,” he told board members, who had invited him to speak, “has led to mistakes, misunderstanding and a backlash against plant technology.”

European Protests Spread to U.S.

“We think these foods are perfectly safe, but European consumers don’t get it yet and we are going to lose sales,” conceded Carl Feldbaum, president of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, which is beefing up its public relations and lobbying efforts to defend its ag biotech members. The backlash “is not going to kill the industry,” he said. “It is going to slow it down.”

Even though no ill effects from modified foods have been reported, protests overseas are having an impact in the U.S.:

* Exporters are asking farmers to separate their genetically modified grains when they reach the silo to satisfy overseas customers who reject biotech crops.

* Like their counterparts in Europe, environmental extremists have been mowing down and uprooting test crops. In recent weeks these self-styled green vigilantes have struck fields at UC campuses in Berkeley and Davis.

* U.S. trade officials are bracing for a fight with Europe over biotech crops in what could become a replay of an earlier battle over a European ban on American beef from hormone-treated cattle.

The Clinton administration has been fighting to remove what it regards as arbitrary trade barriers that block access to overseas markets, including attempts to banish genetically modified crops. When World Trade Organization negotiations open in Seattle next month, the U.S. will back rules “that allow for the use of these technologies,” said U.S. trade ambassador Peter L. Scher.

The U.S. does not oppose labeling of genetically modified products, said Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman, as long as “whatever labeling is scientifically based and would not arbitrarily close doors to our products.”

American consumers, unaware of how quickly genetically modified commodities have slipped into the food supply, may well wonder why the fuss.

Company officials and federal regulators admit that there are potential hazards in manipulating plant genes, but nothing like the claims of “Frankenstein foods” that make daily headlines in Britain.

“There’s a real lack of understanding of the extent of analysis we do to establish safety,” said Roy Fuchs, Monsanto’s director of regulatory science for plant biotechnology. Before introducing a product, the company subjects the altered crop to a battery of tests to ensure that the new traits are not toxic and are unlikely to cause allergic reactions, he said.

But environmentalists point out that the system essentially leaves safety in the hands of a few major seed companies, subsidiaries of multinational corporations such as Monsanto, Novartis and DuPont.

After researchers at Cornell this spring reported that the pollen from genetically engineered corn could kill Monarch butterfly larvae, the Monarch became the symbol for the movement to outlaw all biotech crops.

The industry has launched a counteroffensive, citing scientists who believe the Cornell experiments were conducted under conditions never seen in the field. They argue that the insect-killing proteins in the corn, taken from a bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis, or “Bt,” are less harmful than the chemical pesticides they have replaced.

As proof that the food safety system works, seed producers everywhere point to the same example--an experimental soybean, developed at Pioneer Hi-Bred International--that boosted the value of soybeans as livestock feed by borrowing a gene from the Brazil nut.

Because a small percentage of the public is allergic to Brazil nuts, Pioneer checked out samples of the genetically engineered soybeans, using a standard skin-prick test in allergic volunteers. The transformed soybeans triggered allergic reactions, and Pioneer abandoned the soybeans, concerned that they could accidentally enter human food supplies.

The incident, said Pioneer spokesman Doyle Karr, illustrates the company’s “careful, thoughtful approach to things.”

But those opposed to genetically modified foods point to the incident as proof of the perils of transferring genes from one species to another. “This can be a life-and-death matter,” said Rebecca Goldburg, a scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund.

Worries Over Health Risks

Brazil nuts were known to cause allergies, and patients with allergies were available for testing, she said. But there is no easy way to determine which proteins are likely to produce allergic reactions in all cases.

This summer, Greenpeace and Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports, separately announced that they had detected the presence of genetically modified ingredients in baby foods, infant formula, nutritional supplements for the elderly and other products.

In response, both Gerber and H.J. Heinz announced they would shun genetically modified ingredients in their baby foods, while denying any danger. Some pet food manufacturers are doing the same.

The revolt against these products began in Europe, where confidence in government regulators had been rattled by an outbreak of mad cow disease in British cattle and other instances of food contamination.

As the movement picked up momentum, European supermarket chains promised to yank genetically modified products off their shelves. In Britain and Japan, the governments called for labeling.

Humans began experimenting with crops at least 7,000 years ago with the discovery of bread wheat. Scientific plant breeding was born in the 19th century, when farmers began crossing plants systematically in the search for improved characteristics.

Using these conventional breeding techniques--including radiation and chemical treatment to increase mutations--the seed companies each year offer growers new hybrids promising higher yields or pest resistance or improved flavor.

The process is largely unregulated.

Still, one new variety of potato was withdrawn from the market several decades ago because of high levels of solanine, a natural chemical that can cause intestinal distress. A new celery variety was pulled when food handlers developed allergic rashes.

Long-Term Results Not Yet Known

In fact, many common foods naturally contain low levels of toxic chemicals, with no known impact on health.

“Two of the best carcinogens are present in edible mushrooms that many people enjoy with their steaks and gravies,” said Norman Borlaug, who won the Nobel Peace Prize for developing high-yield wheat varieties that became staples of the Green Revolution.

In the mid-1970s, scientists discovered ways to snip useful genes from one species and splice them into another. The revolution in genetic engineering promised a new era in which crops with improved nutritional value would feed the world.

But the first genetically engineered crops directly benefited growers and seed companies, not consumers, by adding characteristics such as resistance to weedkillers.

In 1992, the Food and Drug Administration decided--over the objections of environmental and consumer groups--to treat genetically engineered crops just like other foods. As long as the transferred genes produced proteins already in the food supply, the agency would not require pre-market approval or special labeling.

The first test under the FDA’s voluntary review system came in 1994, when the agency approved the Flavr Savr tomato, a fruit genetically altered to stay firm during shipping. It proved a flop in the marketplace.

At the same time, Monsanto developed a genetically modified soybean that could resist the company’s best selling weedkiller--Roundup. The herbicide destroyed weeds but spared the genetically altered crop--reducing the need for hoeing while boosting Roundup sales.

And Ciba-Geigy, now part of Novartis, produced a corn with an insecticide from Bt bacteria built into every leaf and kernel to kill the European corn borer.

One concern about such products was that antibiotic resistance genes, now standard in genetically engineered plants, could be taken up by bacteria, creating antibiotic resistant microbes. Highly unlikely, concluded the FDA.

Other researchers believe that the widespread use of Bt crops might create superbugs--pests no longer susceptible to Bt insecticides.

Federal law places the burden on the seed companies and food manufacturers to make sure that their products are safe, said George H. Pauli, the FDA’s director of product policy. But he notes: “For every commercially developed product for sale in the U.S. [the producer] has come in to consult with us.” And the agency retains the power to recall unwholesome products.

The FDA shares responsibility with the Environmental Protection Agency, which looks at the potential dangers of the genetically engineered pesticides, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which reviews impacts on agriculture.

Activists charge that the result is a fragmented system of review that ignores potential hazards.

The Alliance for Bio-Integrity filed suit last year, charging that the FDA ignored the objections of its own scientists in deciding not to require a special review of genetically engineered crops.

A second suit, filed last year by Greenpeace and others, charges that the EPA ignored the possibility that Bt plants might harm beneficial insects and engender resistance in target pests.

“This is not like an oil slick, which you can contain or mitigate,” said Joseph Mendelson, an attorney for the plaintiffs in both of the suits. “These plants reproduce and cross-pollinate. They put their traits into the environment, and there is no way you can recall them.”