© 1999 Nature America Inc. • http://biotech.nature.com

COMMENTARY

HEADING

The real curse of Frankenfood

Henry I. Miller

Antibiotechnology Jeremiahs have long pre- products in this competitive, low profit- by the United Nations (New York), for more dicted that the industry would create some- margin market. than a decade, and has advocated unscientific thing it couldn’t control. Now it seems they Few of the agbiotechnology companies and even bizarre regulatory proposals, were right. After insisting for years that their launched in the 1980s exist today (in contrast including one from the EPA (which will likely own recombinant DNA-manipulated crop to companies, whose be finalized in early 1999) to begin regulating and garden plants merited extraordinary numbers have increased steadily for a quarter garden and crop plants as pesticides! government regulation, agricultural biotech- century). But deep-pocket players like Under this scheme, case-by-case regulato- nology companies are now having trouble and CibaSeeds (now Novartis) are ry review will be required for even small- persuading consumers that foods from these now paying the price for their successful anti- scale field trials of familiar, innocuous, com- plants are safe and not fundamentally differ- competitive strategy: The overregulation mercially important, recombinant plants ent from other foods. they engineered fed the antibiotechnology genetically improved to enhance their pest or In the early 1980s, a few major agrochem- myth that has poisoned the views of con- disease resistance. These will have to be ical/ companies led by the sumers, particularly in Europe and Japan. labeled “pesticide.” Monsanto (St. Louis, MO) approached The companies encouraged government This policy has been excoriated repeated- senior policymakers in the Reagan adminis- policies based on the myth that there is ly by the scientific community. In 1996, 11 tration and requested more restrictive regu- something fundamentally different, unfa- major scientific societies representing more lation, primarily from the US Environmental miliar, and worrisome about the new tech- than 80,000 biologists and food professionals Protection Agency (EPA; Washington, DC), nology. They aggressively disputed the con- published a report which dissected the EPA’s than could be justified on scientific grounds. sensus in the international scientific com- proposal1. However, BIO has continued to Their motive, according to lobbyists and oth- munity that the new biotechnology is no defend the EPA proposal. ers who worked on Monsanto’s behalf at the more than an extension, or refinement, of It is noteworthy that the most recent salvo time, was to use regulation as a market entry earlier genetic techniques, and that the asso- from the scientific community, an October barrier to competitors—in particular, seed ciated risks are basically the same as for 1998 issue paper from the Council for

http://biotech.nature.com • companies and biotechnology startups—that other products. Agricultural Science and Technology2, echoes were less able to bear the high costs of addi- The myth that underpins their monopo- this earlier assessment and specifically tional regulation. listic strategies is now “picking” the corpo- addresses misstatements by BIO. The coun- They achieved their short-term goal. The rate deep pockets. For example, Monsanto, cil’s report concludes that the EPA policy US Department of Agriculture (Washington, which is shipping herbicide-resistant soy- “would undermine public confidence in the DC), the US Food and Drug Administration beans to Europe mixed with ordinary beans food supply,” “discourage development of (Rockville, MD), and (especially) the EPA (because there is, after all, no fundamental pest resistant minor crops or crops resistant promulgated policies that focused specifical- difference between them), has encountered a to minor pests,” prolong the use of chemical ly on and discriminated against crop and gar- consumer backlash there. New regulatory pesticides, and “increase the regulatory bur-

1999 Nature America Inc. den plants and microorganisms crafted with barriers are springing up like weeds. The UK den on all companies.”

© recombinant DNA techniques. Seed and has announced a moratorium on commer- Agricultural biotechnology holds entrepreneurial biotechnology companies cial field introductions of recombinant tremendous potential benefits for the world’s for the most part failed to compete success- plants, and the EU has promulgated unsatis- consumers and farmers. Products will con- fully on this tilted playing field, and subse- factory and contradictory policies on the tinue to emerge in the marketplace, but at a quently many were bought at a fraction of labeling of biotechnology foods. The disturbingly slow rate because of regulatory their true value by Monsanto, Novartis Japanese government has conducted a barriers. Under current circumstances, R&D (Basel, Switzerland), and DuPont plebiscite in which the public got to choose will focus primarily on commodity crops (Wilmington, DE). between two unscientific, discriminatory grown at huge scale, at the expense of oppor- This approach has put federal bureau- schemes for labeling biotechnology foods. tunities to improve important small-acreage crats in the middle of virtually all field trials But cracks are beginning to appear in crops. Innovation will seldom target of recombinant plants during the past 15 industry’s solidarity. A Monsanto public rela- improvement of the of environmen- years and has been a disaster for both small tions blitz in Europe and the company’s quite tally threatened but low-value-added businesses and academic institutions, whose justified unwillingness to voluntarily such as trees, or of subsistence crops such as scientists lack the resources to comply with sequester and label recombinant soybeans millet, cassava and yams. burdensome, unnecessary regulation. The have lately become targets for criticism by The market for agbiotechnology products cost of field testing recombinant plants sky- other major agbiotechnology firms. Because is being undermined and distorted by overreg- rocketed to twenty-fold higher than for vir- of Monsanto’s actions, “We have a PR moun- ulation and by public antagonism. Ironically, tually identical plants crafted with older, less tain to climb,” complained Willy de Greef, both are the industry’s own creation. precise genetic techniques. Added produc- head of regulatory and government affairs at tion costs were a particular disadvantage to Novartis Seeds. Still, the industry as a whole shares the 1. A report from 11 professional scientific societies: appropriate oversight for plants with inherited traits blame. Its Washington, DC–based trade asso- for resistance to pests, July 1996. Coordinating Henry I. Miller is a senior fellow at ciation, the Biotechnology Industry Society: Institute of Food Technologists, Chicago. 2. The proposed EPA plant pesticide rule, Issue Paper ’s Hoover Institution. (e- Organization (BIO), has lobbied tirelessly for #10, October 1998, Council for Agricultural Science mail: [email protected]). overregulation in the US and internationally and Technology, Ames, IA.

NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY VOL 17 FEBRUARY 1999 http://biotech.nature.com 113