The Power Behind the Clone

Why corporations are on the defensive in the genetic engineering battle. by Mark Lynas

The environmental movement has made some startling converts recently. Chief among these is Monsanto PLC, notorious for its production of noxious chemicals and unwanted genetically engineered soya. Says Robert B. Shapiro, Monsanto's CEO:

"Today there are about 5.8 billion people in the world. About 1.5 billion of them live in conditions of abject poverty. The world population will just about double by 2030. With current best practices applied to all the acreage in the world, you'd get about a third of the way toward feeding the whole population. The conclusion is that new technology is the only alternative to one of two disasters: not feeding people or ecological catastrophe."

So why didn't Monsanto tell us that they just wanted to feed the world? Call us cynical, but we all thought they were in it for the money.

By 'new technology', Shapiro primarily means genetic engineering - the process of altering the DNA which is a key constituent of all living organisms. Sometimes genes from completely unrelated life forms can be merged together - such as fish genes in strawberries, and virus genes in soya. The potential hazards of gene technology, such as the production of novel toxins or the development of unexpected 'superweeds' or 'superpests' are well documented.

But now compare this with the recent submission of Stephen Moll, Monsanto's 'Roundup Ready Crop Director' for Europe and Africa, to the Irish High Court - where the poor beleaguered chemicals corporation had just been hit by an environmentally-inspired injunction preventing it from conducting crop trials on genetically engineered sugar beet.

"A delay of one year will have significant effects for Monsanto. The patents covering Monsanto's glyphosate tolerant technology expire in 2011. The patent life is obviously vital for Monsanto in ensuring that it recoups the vast sums which it has invested in the research and development of this new technology, which is in the region of many tens of millions of pounds. If commercialisation in Ireland were delayed by one year until 2003, this would effectively reduce the commercial life of the product to Monsanto by at least in excess of 10% of the Irish returns." So there we have it. If Monsanto can get its genetically engineered crops accepted in world markets, it is guaranteed monopoly profits on both seed and Roundup herbicide well into the next century (a patent runs for 20 years). If it loses this crucial battle and genetic engineering is banned, it will have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on a failed gamble.

Monsanto has already spent billions of dollars acquiring seed companies, in preparation for the day when genetic engineering gets the final go-ahead. These include Calgene, producer of the failed 'FlavrSavr' transgenic tomato; Agracetus, a subsidiary of W. R. Grace which holds 'species patents' on cotton and soybean (for $150 million); Asgrow Seed (for $240 million); De Kalb (for $158 million); and Holden, bought by Monsanto for a massive $1.02 billion (an unprecedented 23 times the annual sales value for the company).

The pharmaceuticals industry, having invested countless millions in the development of transgenic sheep, cows and pigs, finds itself in the same perilous position. Alexion Pharmaceuticals, in Connecticut in the United States, is breeding pigs with human genes. The idea is that organs can be transplanted from these part-human pigs into people whose heart/liver/kidneys fail without them being rejected by the person's immune system.

Known as 'xenotransplantation', this technology could hold the key to a massive market of half a million organs a year, with a cash value of $6 billion (LA Times, 1 May 1997). The catch is that xenotransplantation (which is subject to a moratorium in the UK) is roundly opposed by a broad coalition of environmentalists, health specialists and religious groups - both on ethical grounds and because of the potential for the emergence of terrible new diseases, which could cross the species barrier from animals to the human population. Don't forget that AIDS is thought to originally have come from apes.

The Roslin Institute in Edinburgh - of Dolly the Sheep fame - made headlines across the globe in February with its breakthrough in cloning technology. Cloning is a clumsy business (it took Wilmut's team 277 fertilized eggs to get one Dolly), but should the techniques be refined the financial rewards could be enormous. Dr Wilmut, speaking to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, predicted that in 20 years 85% of British cattle could be clones, bred to match the qualities of the top 10 to 15% of livestock (Daily Mirror, 7 March 1997).

Less well known is the Roslin Institute's work in the pharmaceuticals sector. The Institute, which is funded by Scottish company PPL Therapeutics Ltd, is 'pharming' new breeds of sheep and cow which are genetically altered to secrete all manner of custom-made drugs for the lucrative health market. Everyone's heard of Dolly, but barely a whimper greeted the news of Rosie the Transgenic Cow. Rosie is not a clone but she is, in genetic terms at least, part human. Her first milking, to the jubilation of her proud parental lab technicians, revealed high levels of alpha-lactalbumin - an important compenent of human breastmilk.

It is worth noting that poor world diseases don't get a look in - a paltry $53 million was all that was spent globally by drugs companies on malaria research last year, even though malaria kills someone every 12 seconds. But never mind the poor. If all goes to plan for the farm-aceuticals industry, they could be sitting on a real transgenic cash cow. Published market research projects global sales of more than $25.6 billion in 2000 and over $81.5 billion by 2010 (Applied Genetics News 20 March 1997).

But none of this is a foregone conclusion. The transnational chemical, seed and pharmaceutical corporations are gearing up for an epic battle against ordinary people worldwide. And there are critical issues at stake. Will genetically engineered crops become accepted, giving the companies ownership rights over practically the whole world food supply? Or will consumers reject the mutant crops and start to demand non-chemical and non-technological foods on their plates?

Now that the anti-genetics campaign is beginning to notch up some serious successes (the European Commission ruled in May that labelling of genetically altered food should be made mandatory) the snowball effect could work just as quickly in reverse. While up to 10% of the US soy crop will be Roundup Ready this year (last year it was 2%), the Europeans are now demanding segregation. Worse still, Brazil, one of the largest soya growing countries in the world, has seen the potential of the 'natural' market and banned the cultivation of transgenic soya on its soil.

Now the biggest global player of all, the World Trade Organisation, is getting ready to muscle in. The WTO, which was created by the rich country governments on behalf of their corporate sponsors, has the power to impose sanctions on any country which imposes barriers to 'free trade'. These 'barriers' can include high environmental or health standards. The EC itself has just been bitten, finding (in a preliminary report) its ban on hormone-soaked US beef overturned by the WTO on these grounds.

The EC decision to require labelling of food products containing transgenic ingredients could have disastrous effects on Monsanto's Roundup Ready crops (including soya), Novartis' Bt Maize and a whole host of novel types of corn, rape seed and sugar beet. It will mean that these crops will have to be kept separated from natural ones at all times. And it will mean that consumers will have a much easier time avoiding them.

European retailers have already begun to make this clear to their US suppliers. In a recent open letter they said: "Consumer acceptance of biotechnology in Europe stands at what is likely to be a decisive crossroads. It is important that U.S. agribusiness understand this. Otherwise, the 1996 U.S. harvest of genetically modified soya and maize could be the last to be welcomed in Europe."

The most likely scenario is that the all-powerful World Trade Organisation will leap to the defence of the US agrochemicals lobby and declare the EC decision illegal. But if the EC decides to stand and fight, it will find an unprecendented alliance of consumer groups, environmentalists, religous groups, organic growers, food processors and retailers massing behind it. And if this battle is won, it could begin to pull the financial rug out from under the biotechnology industry. Then maybe we could be set on a path to a greener, more sustainable future.

ADDRESSES

Roslin Institute,Roslin, MidlothianEH25 9PS 0131 527 4200
Monsanto PLC, Crop Business Unit, PO Box 33, Lane End Road, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire HP12 4AL 0345 023 288