If you are unfamiliar with this subject, click here first for a brief introduction.

Click here for more articles

The Frankenstein Food scare that killed U.K. biotech

Could this happen in Canada? At some point over the next six months, there will be a national panic about genetically modified (GM) foods. The media will begin to hum with stories about little girls dying from allergies, about rats with organ shrinkage, about genetic pollution, about ``unknown risks.'' Students will begin to
demonstrate. Eco-activists will start to fulminate, politicians to equivocate. Newspapers and TV stations will become campaign organs for the anti-GM lobby, and within a short time the media, activists and consumers will have combined to push supermarket chains and food outlets to ban GM foods from their product lines.

Well, maybe not in Canada, but who can be sure, given experience in the United Kingdom? Over a period of only a few months, the country's biotech market and industry have collapsed. As in Canada, the feeling in the U.K., home of the Industrial Revolution, was that people were used to technological change. Politicians, industrialists, farmers, and the people themselves saw the benefits and the potential of the new biotechnology. What is more, they were good at it. In terms of research and development and patenting, the U.K. was a world leader in biotechnology, and certainly streets ahead of its more regulated and cautious European partners.

The tragedy in all this is that biotechnology has an enormous potential for good. Scientists in the U.K., as elsewhere, were working to develop products that required fewer pesticides and herbicides, and thus benefited the environment. They were searching for foods with higher protein and vitamins. They were also developing foods that would have resulted in phenomenally higher yields in developing countries.

Then, in August of last year, a television program called World in Action was broadcast. It involved an interview with Arpad Pusztai, a scientist working for the Rowett Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland. Mr. Pusztai had been conducting research on rats fed with genetically modified potatoes, and the preliminary results indicated the rats experienced stunted organ growth and depressed functioning of the immune system. As a consequence, he said he personally would not eat the potatoes. The Frankenstein Foods scare had begun.

Shortly after Mr. Pusztai had publicized his findings, he was suspended from his work at the Institute. The allegations included irresponsibility and malpractice; his widely cited findings were preliminary and tentative, and had not been subject to
peer-reviewed publication, the usual route for the dissemination of scientific findings. This simply fuelled the flames. The Institute itself had been backed in part by the American biotech giant Monsanto, and journalists smelled a conspiracy.

Like a good novel, the cast expanded as the plot thickened. Monsanto emerged from the shadows as the villain of the piece. The conspiracy scenario -- scientist muzzled by Monsanto -- appears to be the model for recent developments at Health Canada over bovine growth hormone. In the following months, GM foods became ``Frankenstein'' or ``mutant'' foods. And Frankenstein Food was a perfect media scare story. Because the British government had resisted labelling GM food, people were unable to tell whether they were eating GM ingredients. As 60% of processed foods contained GM foods, the chances were that everybody had eaten them. Once the invisible is defined as risky, a panic is
guaranteed. All it took was an enterprising journalist to point out the presence of GM foods in jars of baby food, and the panic itself became uncontrollable.

The Frankenstein scare, as the term suggests, was also bound up with fear of technological progress and its effect on the environment. As Simon Lyster, director general of a consortium of 46 local wildlife trusts, said: ``GM crops made for resistance to herbicide will be sprayed so that all other plants are killed. No plants, no insects, no birds. GM crops will turn our agricultural land into a biological desert.''

GM foods were perfect for activists, because they crossed the boundary between environmental and health issues. Green activists talked of the dangers of cross-pollination, of insect-resistant supercrops that would lead to collapsing bird populations; they talked of superviruses, and the death of local ecosystems. The health lobby recited Mr. Pusztai's ``findings,'' and demanded a moratorium on testing and commercialization of GM products, citing the safety of innocent children and future generations. In the midst of all this, Mr. Pusztai's findings were roundly criticized by a host of internationally established experts who pointed to the inadequacies of the methodology, and the weakness of the inferences he had made from his data. On Feb. 23, the Royal Society publicly dismissed the scare-mongering and appealed for a more measured scientific debate. But by this time it was too late.

The effects of the scare on the industry were astonishing. Consumer groups demanded that this ``invisible'' risk be made visible through labelling. The government tried to resist, but was swept along by events. Restaurants were required to list dishes with GM ingredients. Hastily arranged labelling requirements were botched together for retail food outlets. Local governments banned GM foods from their food outlets, and they were quickly banned from schools.

Then the supply-side blackmail started. Consumer groups began to name and shame supermarket chains and retail outlets that sold GM products. The Iceland supermarket chain banned GM ingredients from its own products, and for a while enjoyed a competitive advantage. Other supermarket chains followed, bowing to activist and consumer pressure. Fast food outlets such as Pizza Express and Domino Pizza did the same.

The regulatory regime was altered. The government recently rushed through a panicked decision to replace 10 members of the 13-strong advisory committee that grants licences for genetically modified crops with people who have fewer industry sympathies. The stance of the committee has thus changed from scientific assessment of probabilities to implementing the precautionary principle.

Advanced Western democracies seem prone to panics about products and industrial processes, and the Frankenstein Food scare is only the latest and most damaging of these in Europe.

Canada appears to be next in line. Activists have already started to exploit the situation. The next six months appear crucial. So my advice is: Beware the forthcoming GM food panic, for it could wipe out a whole market and a whole future industry. We look to Canada for leadership on this issue. I hope you manage it better than we did.

ASIA INHERITS BIOTECH LEAD

In only a few months, the U.K. has gone from having a dynamic, world-class biotech industry and market to the situation now, where the market for GM foods is either dead or dying. Companies that brought money, jobs and know-how are now demonized, as are those who work in them. The raft of restrictive regulations on biotechnological research means companies and scientists involved in the production of GM foods are understandably looking elsewhere. Britain has lost an innovative industry.

Biotech know-how and resources will go where they are welcome, and the countries that will lead the way in this increasingly important field are likely to be in Asia. Among many other projects, the International Rice Research Institute in Manila is currently producing pest-resistant rice that will increase yields by 200%. Of the Asian countries developing biotech, however, China is by far the most significant. Unhindered by phantom scares, it is a sure bet to develop the biggest market for biotech products, and to supply that market with the biggest biotech industry.

Home / Overview / News Cuttings / Other Related Articles  / Contact