Journal of
Commerce

Biotech Battles

The European Union is inching along toward removing one of the major irritants in its trade with the United States: its opaque and politically driven regulation of genetically engineered foods.

The European Parliament recently approved a set of proposed rules governing licensing of new genetically modified (GM) products. With any luck, the new regulations can be approved at the EU level by the end of this year, and implemented by national governments by the end of next year.

This is progress, but it carries a caveat. In the EU, as elsewhere, rules are only as good as the authorities' enforcement of them, and European regulation of GM products has become extraordinarily politicized.

As a result, EU rules have been subverted by national governments, and biotechnology companies have been denied due-process. Monsanto, for example, has been waiting since 1995 for licensing of one of its oilseed products, even though it has passed muster with EU scientific committees.

The blame for such delays rests with governments that have allowed themselves to be swayed by self-appointed consumer advocates raising unfounded fears of damage to human health and the environment. The hysteria has been particularly acute in Britain, where the tabloid press has been in full cry about "Frankenstein foods" grown unnaturally in laboratories rather than in the full glory of nature, complete with chemical herbicides.

British newspapers also carried lurid stories about "killer weeds," allegedly caused by cross-pollination between insect and herbicide-resistant GM crops and weeds in nearby fields. The fear is that cross-pollination would make those weeds impossible to kill off; assurances that GM crops can be designed to avoid such cross-breeding have made little difference.

The latest scare centers on "Trojan fish" - a variety of genetically engineered salmon that can grow up to 10 times faster than normal. Environmental activists claim that these fish, although designed to be sterile, might breed with wild fish and interrupt their migratory patterns, potentially wiping out local populations of the species.

What lies behind these doomsday scenarios is actually quite benign: a scientific process of enhancing certain traits - such as improving the taste of a crop or resisting insects - by isolating the genes responsible for those traits and transferring them from one species to another.

This process of gene splicing has a long history, going back to the plant cross-breeding experiments of a Central European monk named Gregor Mendel in the mid-19th century.

Today, of course, the cross-breeding of plants to improve taste, boost yields or decrease the need for herbicides has become a big business. In the United States, the biotech industry produces billions of dollars worth of bulk commodities such as soybeans and corn, fruits and vegetables, oils and sweeteners. The food-processing industry is a heavy user of these ingredients.

As the industry's market reach has grown, so have the protests of its foes, who fear, among other things, that U.S. agri-business will overwhelm the less technologically sophisticated farming business in the EU and elsewhere.

Yet their argument isn't stated in those terms. It is couched in sensationalistic, headline-grabbing terms of environmental and food safety, and it is aimed squarely at the biotechnology process itself. Last June the European Union caved in, declaring a moratorium on plantings of new varieties of GM seeds until new rules are in place.

The industry and its customers can only hope that the hysteria over GM foods will have died down by the time new rules are in place. Happily, there are a number of signs pointing in that direction.

First, in anticipation of new labeling rules that just took effect this month, several food-processing companies, particularly in the Netherlands, have started labeling products as containing GM ingredients. There has been no noticeable impact on sales. This suggests that in some countries, at least, consumers are decidedly less worried about GM products than their self-appointed guardians in the anti-GM lobby are.

Second, some independent organizations are gearing up a reasoned response to the scare-mongering. An influential British scientific think tank, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, concluded in a recent study that the new technologies can help feed growing populations in poor countries, and that rich countries have a moral obligation to develop them.

And third, Washington and Brussels recently launched a regular exchange of scientific information and views on biotechnology. Over time, this could help to persuade the EU and member states that biotechnology should be regulated like any other industry - with an eye on the facts and not on baseless fears.