FARMERS LOSE FAITH IN BIOTECH CROPS
posted 26th Nov 99

DuPont and others, mindful of their R&D billions, struggle to hold ground as it appears the year 2000 crops will bring the first decline in sales of genetically altered seeds after three years of heady growth. Many farmers remain fans of the seeds and don't share consumers' anxiety over the safety of genetically modified crops. But they can't afford to ignore sales trends. In the end, it is consumers opinions that count, not farmers.

Farmers going back to non-ge seeds is distressing news for the biotechnology industry, which has invested tens of billions of dollars in developing genetically modified crops which are easier to grow and thus can command and get a 25% mark-up. Sales of the GE-seed since introduction the USA in 1996 have reached $US1 billion. Some biotechnology executives thought they would gross $US2 billion next year. That's past tense now because the biotech industry is worried that it may not even maintain sales at the 99 level.

The reversal is turning placing seed orders into a political act. In recent weeks, Mr. Shonsey, the Novartis executive, has ridden in dozens of combines to try to persuade farmers to keep ordering genetically modified seed. He told his staff to lobby growers as well. Monsanto Co., which produces genetically modified seeds for corn, soybeans and cotton, also has its executives barnstorming the Midwest. Other crops that have been genetically modified include: potatoes, tomatoes, squash, canola and sugar beets.

In radio advertisements, town meetings and combine-cab confabs with individual farmers, these executives are struggling to shore up sales of the new seed. After steady price increases, they are promising to freeze prices on next year's batch of seeds. They are also promising to help farmers find buyers for genetically modified crops. Farmers are thinking 'will a strong market exist for genetically modified crops next year?'

Even if Americans are ambivalent about GM foods (genetically modified), they are insistent that they want to know whether their groceries contain bioengineered material. This month, a bipartisan bill was introduced in Congress that would require labels identifying whether fresh produce or any ingredient in packaged foods was grown from GM seed. The bill's introduction drew protests from government food and health agencies, and its passage faces further hurdles from food- industry lobbies. Industry executives fear that a labeling law could initiate in America a backlash to bioengineered food similar to what Europe has seen in recent years. The Food and Drug Administration signaled it is considering changes in its oversight of GM crops.

In Europe, consumer opposition is so intense that "GM-Free" has become an effective marketing slogan. Almost certainly, food companies in the U.S. would rather remove any genetically modified ingredients than carry a label announcing the presence of such ingredients. Indeed, many U.S. food companies are scrambling to find nonmodified ingredients for the products they export to Europe.

Farmers plead that GE seed crops require less herbicide and pesticide and are therefore healthier. They've got a point, but that may only focus attention on what people were eating before the GE debate, i.e. food high in poison from heavy spraying applications. The relativity of `healthier' may suddently become apparent once the Pandora's Box of food quality is opened to the public eye.

The US Government is pretty quickly reflecting shifts in public opinion. The US Food and Drug Administration, under pressure to toughen its oversight of genetically modified crops, signaled that it is considering at least some changes. The FDA decided seven years ago to consider most genetically modified crops as identical to conventional crops, which are considered inherently safe to eat. As a result, the agency doesn't require inventors to get its approval or to put special labels on genetically modified food as long as they use genes that make proteins and enzymes already in the food supply.

Jane E. Henney, FDA commissioner, told a packed hearing in Chicago she is confident the genetically modified crops already in production in the U.S. are safe to eat. "We believe our policy and procedures in this area are well-grounded in science," she said. The FDA hearing on biofoods, the first of three scheduled across the country over the next few weeks, showed that the antibiotechnology movement is becoming a bigger force in the U.S. Charles Margulis, a representative of the European environmental group Greenpeace, sat on the panel that discussed regulatory issues, and hundreds of activists attended the event. The hearing room was so full that the FDA had to broadcast the talks to an overflow crowd in the ballroom of a nearby hotel. Placard-carrying protesters outdoors were joined by children dressed up as Monarch butterflies, the emerging symbol of the antibiotech movement. A Cornell University study last summer suggested that the pollen of bug-proof corn can poison Monarch larvae.

The New Zealand Government, whichever Party(s) that will be, will be under pressure from the Greens from within parliament and the public from without. Changes are in the wind, and they are not genetically modified.