The Next Generation of Frankenfoods: So-Called "Functional Foods"

From the UK website www.corporate watch.org June, 2000
The industry strikes back
Functional foods: Good for Monsanto's health

This article is extremely long, but you can jump to the parts of the article that are listed below:

Executive summary, Introduction, Beyond the PR - the reality of the research,
The big biotech companies, Novartis, DuPont & Pioneer Hi-Bred, Aventis,
AstraZeneca, Dow Chemical, Savia, ETH, Switzerland, Cornell University, USA,
University of Nevada, USA, University of California, Berkeley, USA,
International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), Phillipines, Problems with "functional foods",
What future for the biotech industry?, Conclusions, Appendix - Liaisons dangereuses
Footnotes

Executive summary

o A new 'second generation' of GM crops is being developed, consisting of
crops that have been genetically modified to express traits delivering
apparent benefits to the consumer - unlike, as with the 'first generation',
delivering only producer benefits.

o 'Functional foods' are part of this so-called 'second generation'. The
industry hopes this will be the way to introduce genetically modified
products on to the market, and to get around the worldwide resistance that
has so far prevented their success.

o With 'wonder crops', such as vitamin A 'golden rice', these new foods are
being hailed as a panacea for poor people around the world - even though
they have yet to be proven in work outside laboratories, and carry all the
incipient risks inherent in first generation GM products.

o In any case, the vast majority of current corporate research is not
dedicated to crops appropriate for developing countries, but is instead
aimed at creating products targeted at consumers in rich countries. Examples
of such products are vegetables and fruits with "improved" taste, longer shelf-life, and
healthier fats.

o Research on 'wonder crops' is conducted almost solely by a small number
of publicly-funded institutions, rather than in corporate laboratories.
However, the biotech industry has been quick to use them in public
relations campaigns aimed at gaining acceptance for GM generally, and for
pushing their own products on to the market.

Introduction

"Those of us in industry can take comfort of a sort from such obvious
Luddism. After all, we're the technical experts. We know we're right. The
'antis' obviously don't really understand the science, and are just as
obviously pushing a hidden agenda - probably to destroy capitalism."
(Robert Shapiro, CEO of Monsanto).[1]

The biotech industry's aim to dominate world food markets has come unstuck
in many places around the globe. Despite claims that biotechnology will
feed the starving and lead to more environmentally friendly ways of growing food,
huge protests around the world have shaken the industry to the core. Thrown
onto the defensive when the GM furore erupted, the industry has been forced
to come up with a new strategy to try to get consumers to accept
genetically manipulated
products.

Its answer, the 'second generation' of GM crops, is 'functional foods'.

Functional foods are already a widespread, although comparatively recent,
trend in the European food market. While still a new direction for genetic
modification, you can find many non-GM functional food products lining shop
shelves already, ranging from chocolate bars to spreads, cereals and
yoghurt.[2] The main novelty for these functional foods is their claimed
health benefits. That many food products can be beneficial for your health
isn't new. And that certain products are healthier than others isn't new
either - after all, 'light' and 'diet' versions of diverse products have
been around for years. But what is new with many of these functional foods
is that either they contain additives which - it is claimed - give them
totally new (nutritional) qualities, or that the manufacturer has
completely eliminated certain qualities from the food, such as allergenic
proteins, thus making it seem more healthy.[3]

Functional food products already on the market include examples where the
product has vitamins added, or where an allegedly more healthy form of fat
is used in the food manufacturing process. Thus, much of the functional
food already on the market is processed food, where the extra 'function' is
added during the processing, and not - as yet - through genetic
manipulation.

However, biotechnology is increasingly being applied in order to deliver
the perceived consumer benefit inherent in the functional foods trend. The
industry claims that in the future humanity will benefit as vitamins are bred into
basic crop staples in Third World countries to stave off vitamin
deficiencies - especially in children.[4] Other promised novelties include tomatoes that
contain "cancer-fighting substances", or allergen-free peanuts.[5] Another
much-vaunted possibility is for vaccines to be bred into fruits like
bananas to tackle common diseases like Hepatitis B.[6]

Biotechnology, the industry alleges, could hold the key to solving many of
the world's most intractable health problems. At the same time, it is
claimed, the technology could also liberate people from having to take drugs in pill or
vaccine form.[7] However, there is no clear definition of the term
'functional foods', so confusion reigns throughout the industry as to what
the phrase really means.[8] Several other related terms are also being
kicked about, including 'nutraceuticals' and 'medical foods', with 'output
traits' being added to products through 'value-added' biotechnology. This
report will not try to define 'functional foods' any further, but instead uses it as
a broad description for products that have a (claimed) consumer benefit - ranging from taste to
nutritional value, or for food as a carrier of medicine.

Beyond the PR - the reality of the research

When one ventures beyond the headlines, much of the
research actually going on is not particularly
spectacular or groundbreaking. Nor are there very many
products that have actually been brought to market.
Examples of these are oils that are manipulated so
that they contain allegedly more healthy fats, or
fruits and vegetables that stay ripe longer on the
shelf, thus (according to the industry, that is)
delivering a "superior taste".[9] But so far GM
functional foods are very few, Peter Kearns (head of
OECD Task Force on Safety of Novel Foods and Feeds,
and Working Group on Harmonization and Regulation of
Biotechnology) states.[10]

Most of the spectacular products - the ones that get
media attention and which are promised as a solution
to world hunger - are not researched by the big
corporations, but by public institutions.[11] But it
is the commercial sector of the biotech industry that
stands to gain from the good PR these public
institutions' research generates in mainstream media.
For example, as the US industry organisation BIO
trumpets on its website: "It will be possible to grow
and distribute the foods containing edible vaccines
locally at relatively low cost."[12] BIO's president,
Carl Feldbaum, took up the theme in a speech at the
BIO 2000 conference: "Our industry is also making
enormous progress in agriculture; creating more
nutritious foods and helping farmers grow crops with
less pesticides and less disruption of the
environment. An example is what's been called golden
rice, which contains enhanced levels of vitamin A and
iron to fight night blindness in children, and anemia
in adults. Developments such as golden rice will have
the most immediate impact on nations struggling to
improve their people's health and to create the
economic and political stability needed for
prosperity."[13]

Another important player internationally has been
CGIAR (Consultative Group on International
Agricultural Research), a network of academics which
is very influential in the international research
being done in the area of agriculture. The UN's Food
and Agriculture Organisation and the World Bank also
play a big role, and aim to increase their
participation in the future.[14] Public institutions
are leading technological developments, as Peggy
Lemaux, of the Department of Plant and Microbial
Biology at the University of California, explains: "As
for public institutions, I think we started in earnest
on this earlier than companies. They were busy with Bt
and herbicide tolerant crops."[15]

In addition, many of the products still languish in
the conceptual stage. Lemaux estimates that it will
take many years before any of the more hyped crops
bring their promised benefits to the marketplace.[16]
The OECD's Peter Kearns is still more sceptical -
believing that it will take up to a decade for new
products to be produced commercially. And that's only
if they are not "disturbed", he adds.[17]

The big biotech companies

It isn't easy to know what the companies are doing,
since their research stays secret in order that
patents can be obtained to protect new products. This
list is therefore probably far from comprehensive, but
should be seen as just an early attempt to profile the
current state of developments within the industry.

Monsanto

Monsanto has for a long time been the producer of the
much-criticised "health" sweetener NutraSweet, but the
main focus of its biotech work has been aimed at
conferring herbicide resistance on patented seeds
(such as 'Roundup Ready' crops). But, says the
company, it is not the only beneficiary of its work:
"Now and in the near future, the products of food
biotechnology provide food quality improvements which
include better taste and healthier foods."[18] It is
only quite recently that Monsanto began working on
crops with 'output traits', supposedly delivering
benefits to the consumer. Examples so far developed
include high-stearate soy oil, which the company
claims will be healthier in margarines and
shortenings, and which are expected to be released
onto the market this year.[19] Other products coming
within the next two years are 'healthier' vegetable
fats and high-oil corn for animal feeds.[20] Still
further in the future (somewhere between 2002 and
2006) Monsanto intends to release a 'higher-solids'
potato which will absorb less oil during processing -
resulting in "better-tasting french fries" or chips
and crisps. Bruise-free potatoes, without those nasty
black spots, is another of Monsanto's planned releases
by 2006, as is nutritionally-improved canola (oilseed
rape), soy and wheat, and soybeans with improved
taste.[21] The company will also start producing a
tomato with higher sweetness, through its subsidiary
Calgene.[22]

Monsanto has also been developing a high beta-carotene
mustard plant, which it has offered to give to poor
farmers around the world free of charge. This plant,
the company claims, will alleviate vitamine A
deficiency in much the same way as the so-called
'golden rice' (see more below). But the donation seems
to be more about giving Monsanto and biotechnology a
better reputation than any indication of any real
desire to help undernourished children, and is more a
happy accident of other research than a result of any
conscious effort by the company. In addition, there
are many questions still unanswered with regard to the
use of the technology - nobody knows if the mustard
plants will have any of the claimed benefits at all,
or whether they will actually survive in the
fields.[23]

Novartis

"We at Novartis Consumer Health are committed to
becoming a world leader in the understanding and
fulfilment of consumer self-care, health and medical
nutrition needs. SWe aim to achieve that goal through
the provision of the highest-quality, proven, products
and brands within the over-the-counter health and
functional foods and medical nutrition arenas."[24]

"Novartis is dedicated to innovation and to developing
new technologies and products that promote healthy
crops and livestock, and ensure a nourishing food
supply for the future."[25]

In practice, Novartis Seeds is trying to genetically
modify crops to contain healthier oils, as well as
trying to improve the flavour and shelf-life of
vegetables.[26] So far the main focus has been on
developing GM livestock feed. Novartis is already
marketing high-oil hybrids, and corn with higher
digestibility for dairy animals. "Products in our
pipeline include plants with modified oil contents,
higher lysine levels, lower phytate levels and
modified starches", explains Jim Beck, market
development manager at Novartis Seeds.[27]
Furthermore: "In the not so distant future, we're
going to manufacture compounds that plants can't
produce on their own," such as pharmaceuticals,
nutritional and industrial compounds, predicts Dr.
Jeff Rosichan, head of applied biotechnology
research.[28]

Novartis is also the world's leader in the (non-GM)
functional foods industry. Its functional foods
department - with brand names such as Cereal, Gerble,
Ovaltine and Isostar - has an annual turnover of about
$2.4 billion, almost double that of its closest
competitor in the area.[29] Late last year Novartis
launched the new brand name Aviva, solely focused on
selling different 'healthy' functional foods.[30]
Ironically, Novartis clearly states on the website
dedicated to the new brand that it doesn't include any
genetically modified ingredients.[31] In February this
year Novartis and Quaker Oats announced a new joint
venture in the functional foods sector. The company is
called Altus Food Co, and will probably have its first
products on the market next year. "Our plans are very
aggressive. We've got some very exciting products and
projects already near completion", says Greg Shearson,
head of the new company. But it refuses to disclose
any more concrete information on what's in the
works.[32]

That Novartis clearly state that their new brand Aviva
doesn't include any GMOs is hardly reassuring.
According to the Financial Times, Dr Daniel Vasella
(chairman and CEO of Novartis) "believes that tangible
consumer benefits could turn the debate on genetically
modified foods."[33]

DuPont & Pioneer Hi-Bred

These two companies have a joint venture called
Optimum Quality Grains, LLC. They already produce
several (non-GM) soybean oils, such as LoSatSoy',
which they claim are more healthy because they have
lower levels of trans-fatty acids.[34] These products
are then used for example in products by DuPont
subsidiary Protein Technologies International (PTI),
one of the world's largest suppliers of soy.[35] The
joint venture and the acquisition of PTI "are
important steps in our life sciences strategy to grow
in the global food, feed and industrial markets with
higher value products derived through biotechnology",
says Bill Kirk, vice president of DuPont Agricultural
Enterprise. He continues: "We have the most complete
pipeline to move ingredients from the farmer all the
way to the ultimate consumer; no other company can do
that while bringing value to each segment of the
agribusiness market."[36] Current biotechnology
innovations include research into better-tasting soy,
which the company claims will benefit consumers and
growers - especially in the developing world.[37]
DuPont has also bought Cereal Derived Functional
Ingredients (CDFI) from Dalgety plc, to further
enhance the area of functional foods. This company
specialises in wheat products (for example for soups,
ice creams and vegetarian food), and the deal included
the company's R&D capabilities.[38]

Aventis

"In the future, only a few companies will be able to
shape the developments in this [the biotechnology]
industry - Aventis CropScience [S] will be one of
them," Jürgen Dormann, chairman of Aventis, stated at
a recent annual meeting of the company.[39] This
strategy, claims the Aventis website, will partly be
carried out using functional foods: "We are also
investing in innovative solutions designed to enhance
the quality of the foodstuffs produced, an aspect
gaining in importance."[40]

In the company's publication 'Biotechnology and the
Challenge of Caring for a Growing World Population'
Aventis claims that its research conducted to improve
the quality of food will also help alleviate
nutritional problems in the world, and that some
products are already close to reaching the market.[41]

Together with the company Agritope (a subsidiary of
the pharmaceutical company Epitope) it operates a
joint venture called Agrinomics LLC. Agrinomics was
formed in July 1999 to "identify, develop and
commercialize novel genes", for example genes that
"confer desirable traits in certain vegetables", such
as improved nutritional qualities.[42] "This alliance
provides a meaningful commercial outlet for any new
vegetable varieties developed from the expected
discoveries", said Adolph Ferro, CEO of both
Agrinomics and Agritope.[43] The joint venture has so
far been developing slow-ripening melons, tomatoes and
raspberries - the products are currently undergoing
field trials.[44]

AstraZeneca

AstraZeneca is one of the leading companies in the
agbiotech sector. It was also the first company to
introduce a GM product in Europe, a modified tomato
sold as puree.[45] "We believe this market will grow
substantially and consequently we continue to invest
considerable resources in this area of our business,"
says the company.[46] Like Novartis and Monsanto,
AstraZeneca also focuses on the "nutrition
enhancement" of crops.[47] Through its subsidiary
Zeneca Plant Science, it is now developing a tomato
for longer shelf-life (and supposedly therefore better
taste), which will probably reach the market within a
couple of years.[48]

Dow Chemical

Dow is one of the world's largest chemical companies,
with a not-so-bright track record of producing highly
toxic chemicals. It has also started to shift
investment into the agricultural biotech sector,
through subsidiary Dow Agrosciences. "The goal of our
biotechnology activity is to capture value for Dow and
its shareholders. We'll do that through seed sales,
trait marketing and value-added grain alliances," says
Mr. Stavropoulos, CEO and president of Dow.[49]
Examples of the value supposedly added for the benefit
of the consumer are oil and starch modification in
plants.[50] Through its subsidiary Mycogen, Dow
produces a high oleic sunflower (called NuSun), which
is low in trans-fatty acids, and delivers better
"temperature stability", which Dow claim makes for
healthier use as a cooking oil.[51] Corn with
increased starch levels is currently being
developed.[52]

Savia

Alfonso Roma, president of ELM (which later merged
into Savia), last year predicted that within a decade
80% of all fruit and vegetables would be genetically
modified.[53] And Roma is in a position to make his
prediction come true. Savia is the world's leader in
vegetable and fruit seeds, and is involved in
biotechnology (including functional foods) through its
subsidiary Bionova Holding Corporation (earlier called
DNAP Holding Corporation).[54] Bionova claims that it
is providing a "healthier life for everyone", by
developing "superior fruits and vegetables with
enhanced nutritious and disease-preventing
properties".[55] It already produces a series of GM
crops called FreshWorld Farms®, which according to the
company have a superior taste and colour due to the
effect of genetic manipulation prolonging ripening
time (and thus shelf-life of the product). Examples
already on the market are FreshWorld Farms Endless
Summer® Tomato, FreshWorld Farms® Sweet Mini-Peppers
and FreshWorld Farms® Cherry Tomatoes. The company
will soon also start producing sweeter peppers, as
research is now at field evaluation.[56]

Feeding the poor?

As stated before, almost all the PR blitz currently
surrounding biotechnology is centred around
expectations that it could help alleviate malnutrition
in the Third World. But most research being done in
the area is conducted by public institutions around
the world - not the big corporations. Although there
are many institutions conducting research in plant
biotechnology, not many have yet entered the area of
functional foods. The following list details some of
the more important ones that have.

ETH, Switzerland

One of the most widely trumpeted breakthroughs in the
area was when ETH, the federal Swiss Institute of
Technology, last year reported the creation of a new
variety rice enriched with vitamin A and iron
(immediately dubbed "golden rice" in many media). The
research was funded partly by the Rockefeller
Foundation.[57] "People seem happy about GM vaccines.
My claim is that GM rice could bring similar levels of
benefit," says Gordon Conway, president of Rockefeller
Foundation.[58] The Foundation has already poured
hundreds of millions of dollars into this sort of
plant biotech research.[59]

However, the rice so far only exists in the
laboratory, and it is as yet unclear how it will fare
in field trials - especially when tested in different
ecosystems and climates. To develop varieties that
could actually be grown on a widespread scale in
fields around the world (even if this were desirable,
which is far from being the case - see below) might
take at least another decade, and hundreds of millions
of dollars more.[60] The researchers have patented the
new rice, but claim to have done so only to stop
someone less scrupulous from stealing the invention.
The Institute claims that its ultimate objective is to
give 'golden rice' away free to the world's poor.
Whether this actually will be the case is still an
open question, since it is not only ETH and the
Rockefeller Foundation who are stakeholders, but also
many big corporations - because 'golden rice' uses at
least six other processes, for which they hold the
patents.[61]

Cornell University, USA

At Boyce Thompson Institute, Cornell University,
researchers are currently developing a banana that
delivers a vaccine against hepatitis. The bananas
contain a certain protein which when ingested triggers
a response from the immune system similar to
conventional vaccines. The research is still at
laboratory stage, but the first phases of testing have
been carried out.[62] Cornell University's Marc
Weksler claimed in a recent speech that: "Edible
vaccines and GM foods will cause a healthcare
revolution in countries not as well off as my
own."[63]

Loma Linda School of Medicine, USA
LLSM is working towards the creation of an edible
cholera vaccine by adding genes to potatoes. This is
also still at laboratory stage.[64]

University of Nevada, USA

Researchers at the University of Nevada are trying to
develop plant oils (eg soybean oil) that contain
increased levels of vitamins, especially vitamin
E.[65]

University of California, Berkeley, USA

At Berkeley researchers are trying to decrease, and
even remove, the allergenicity of food. Animal tests
have been conducted on the allergenicity of milk,
which according to the researchers proved positive for
most of the dogs on which it was tested.[66]

International Rice Research Institute (IRRI),
Phillipines

IRRI has mainly been interested in raising the yields
from rice (both through biotech and through
traditional methods), which it claims to have done
with considerable success. But Gurdev Singh Khush,
head of the plant breeding, genetics and biochemistry
division, states that they also are working on
consumer benefits - for example rice with higher iron,
zinc and vitamin content.[67]

Problems with "functional foods"

1. False health claims
The first question here is how far the health benefit
claims made for these new products actually stand up
to scrutiny. In addition, the lack of government
regulation has given the companies free rein to make
dubious allegations on behalf of their new wonder
products. Often statements are made that functional
foods will lower cholesterol or prevent cancer -
without any strong evidence that this is really the
case. In any case, diet and health have a complex
relationship. Even if an ingredient in food is
healthy, you can still have too much of it. For
example, added vitamins could be beneficial to a
person suffering from a particular deficiency, but
could be detrimental to someone else. The key point
remains - that a healthy diet is a balanced diet.

2. Misleading overall diet
Another risk is that these new 'functional foods'
might mislead consumers into switching from a diverse,
healthy diet to a basically unhealthy one - with an
increasing reliance on 'functional' additives or
modifications. Many of the products developed so far
(e.g. chocolate bars) are in reality very unhealthy
foods. For example, even if you add vitamins to a
product, it can still contain far too much sugar, fat
or other unhealthy ingredients. The trend towards
functional foods will also make people more dependent
on over-packaged, processed food, instead of cooking
their own at home - again threatening overall health.
For people in poorer countries, this approach might
spell nutritional disaster - if they were to turn from
a truly balanced diet, consisting of many different
traditional ingredients, to a diet based mainly on new
'wonder crops'.

3. Distraction of valuable research resources
Hundred of millions of pounds have been poured into
research for 'golden rice' alone, and much more will
be needed before this crop stands a chance of becoming
widely available. Much of this is cash that could be
put into true sustainable development - promoting
locally appropriate and ecologically benign
agriculture.

4. Accessibility
Wild claims are made on behalf of these new crops -
that they are going to save the world's poor,
preventing vitamin-deficient children from going
blind. But most of the crops will not be accessible
for those who would need them, since they will be too
expensive for poor people to buy. The corporations are
motivated by profits, and by the monopoly control
conferred by the patents system - not by charity. And
having spent vast sums in research, even progressive
companies can ill-afford to give their new products
away. In some cases (e.g. 'golden rice'), statements
that new products will be given away free may well
prove to be empty promises.

5. Power to big companies.
Even if people could afford the crops, widespread
adoption would simply lead to an even bigger
dependence on the companies providing them. Instead of
relying on traditional modes of diverse and
self-sufficient production, farmers are being
persuaded to turn to new 'wonder crops' and throw away
centuries of experience. This in turn will serve to
concentrate power still further in the hands of a few
giant multinational corporations. And since many of
the crops are not adapted to local conditions in the
same way as traditional, local varieties, they are
more reliant on fertilizers and pesticides -
increasing the dependence on big corporations and
intensifying a destructive form of chemical
agriculture. The world's food supply is already being
concentrated in fewer and fewer hands at an alarming
speed. The likely outcome of the widespread adoption
of GM crops remains a nightmare scenario of a few
corporations controlling the whole world's food
supply.

6. Technical fixes avoid the real problem
The new crops are another example of attempts to
develop technical fixes to what in reality are
political questions. The exaggerated claims ("we'll
feed the world") accompanying the 'second generation'
of GM crops are not new - they first surfaced when
herbicide resistant strains were brought to market
several years ago. In reality, the big problem facing
the world's poor is not that there is an absolute food
deficiency, but that they can not afford to buy the
food that is available, and they do not have any land
of their own to grow food on. Thus the technical fixes
serve to divert attention from real problems of
starving people - poverty, injustice, a lack of land
and other resources. And ironically, the
intensification of corporate control that GM crops
promise will only make this problem worse.

7. Exacerbates problems from Green Revolution
Proponents often refer to GM crops as a second Green
Revolution, promising to deliver higher yields and
support growing populations. But the supposed overall
benefits of the first Green Revolution are far from
clear. Switching from diversity to monoculture has
turned farms the world over into wildlife deserts,
poisoning water supplies and destroying wildlife. GM
crops - with their emphasis on global supply lines and
giant corporations - will destroy local capacities to
develop food security and intensify the concentration
of land ownership, as the Green Revolution did before
them. Much of the biological diversity of the world's
farming has now been lost - increasing the reliance of
billions of people on a narrow set of food staples
with a rapidly shrinking gene pool. When monocultures
fail, the results for food security can be truly
catastrophic - leading to famine and starvation.

What future for the biotech industry?

Stung by heavy criticism, many of the big corporations
in the biotech sector have started to look for new
ways of marketing their products and overriding
consumer concerns. The goal has been that of "putting
a human face on biotechnology", as a United States
senate summit called it.[68] The nutritional
departments of the companies have accordingly become
the main venues for this latest strategy, and many new
acquisitions and joint ventures have taken place in
the field during the last few years.

Functional foods are part of what is often referred to
as the 'second generation' of biotechnology,
delivering a supposed benefit for the consumer rather
than the producer.[69] The term 'consumer' can also
include companies who buy biotech inputs for their
products. For example, 'improvements' in plants that
produce industrial oils or biodegradable plastics are
also part of the 'second generation' of
biotechnology.[70]

The industry has high hopes for these products.
According to the Financial Times, Dr Daniel Vasella
(chairman and CEO of Novartis), "believes that
tangible consumer benefits could turn the debate on
genetically modified foods."[71] Peggy Lemaux from
UC-Berkeley, USA, believes that genetic engineering of
functional foods will be the area of greatest activity
for the private companies, since here it is easy for
consumers to see a benefit.[72] And the companies will
keep on innovating, she claims: "Strategies for
creating the new foods will be improved and refined,
just as the computer evolved from a machine that took
up city blocks to one that fits on your wrist."[73]

This is a view shared by Sir Robert May, the UK
government's chief scientific adviser on these issues,
who stated (at the OECD conference on GM food safety,
in Edinburgh 28th February - 1 March 2000) that a
"second generation of GM products was needed that
would provide something that the public wanted."[74]
The two (unnamed) rapporteurs from the same OECD
conference also believe that this might be a way
forward for GM. They state that since there is a
trade-off between the benefits and risks of any new
technique, and that GM has so far failed to deliver
tangible benefits for the consumer, consumers have
naturally been negative towards it. This might change
with these new output traits.[75] This is a theme
continued by the OECD's Peter Kearns. He argues that
biotechnology has an enormous - indeed revolutionary -
potential, and that functional foods are certainly one
of the possible applications. According to Kearns,
functional foods will be important in the future, and
will probably form an essential part of the
biotechnology's 'second generation'. But he is wary
about making predictions, he adds, because "normally
my predictions are wrong".[76]

Conclusions

The biotech industry envisages the development and
commercialisation of a 'second generation' of GM
crops, starting with functional foods, as a possible
strategy to engineer the public acceptance of GM in
markets both in the North and the South. By focusing
on perceived benefits for the consumer, rather than
exclusively for the producer, the industry expects
resistance to GM crops in rich countries to eventually
melt away. And, more subtly, the industry and
supporters in the public sector are aiming to create a
more favourable impression of biotechnology in general
by focusing on potential benefits to starving people
in the Third World. It is likely that the rush of
press stories and apparently exciting new developments
in this area are aimed as much at Northern consumers
as at Southern underconsumers.

Most of the products of this research are still only
beginning to reach the market, but there are large
numbers in the pipeline. However, most 'wonder crops',
such as the famous vitamin A 'golden rice', are still
only at laboratory level, with many years of research
and funding needed before any clear judgement can be
made as to their effectiveness.

The products that are closest to market are mainly
about making basically unhealthy food (such as chips
and crisps) a little bit healthier, and these are
clearly targeted at consumers in rich countries. But
even if they were to work as is claimed in the
corporate PR, these foods are in reality completely
unnecessary when judged against the benefits of a
truly healthy and balanced diet. Instead, by
convincing consumers that unhealthy, fatty foods are
nutritious, these new crops might instead lead to a
deterioration in people's health.

So will functional foods alleviate many nutritional
problems in poorer countries?
The simple answer is no.

Appendix - Liaisons dangereuses

There are many big multinational corporations involved
in the functional foods market. Many food companies
are interested in the area of functional foods because
of the stagnation and slow growth in markets for
traditional food. While the ordinary food market grows
at about 1-3% annually, the functional foods market
has been estimated as growing at 10-15% for the last
couple of years.[77]

Analysts differ considerably over how important they
believe the market can become - the estimates range
from $10 to $500 billion.[78]

But not all commentators agree with this bright view
of the functional foods industry's future. According
to the Financial Times, the story for the sector "has
recently been one of flops and scaled-back
expectations."[79] And many companies, for example
Kellogg's and Campbell's, have already withdrawn
products due to failing demand. Burril's Nutraceutical
Index, which tracks the share price of 20 US companies
in the sector, doesn't hold out any great hope either
- in the last year it actually fell by 8 per cent.[80]

Many of the companies involved are not (as yet) using
genetic engineering, and instead add additives during
processing.

Companies are converging on the functional foods
sector both from the pharmaceutical industry and the
food industry, either by introducing new brands or by
'repositioning' existing brands with functional
enhancements.[81] Some examples are the following:

Pharmaceuticals [82]
o Abbott Labs (with brands such as Ensure)
o Bristol-Myers Squibb
o Johnson & Johnson
o Otsuka
o Procter & Gamble
o Roche
o SmithKline Beecham (produce different drinks like
Lucozade, Ribena and Horlicks)
o Yakult Honsha

Food [83]
o Archer Daniels Midland
o Campbell Soup Company
o Cargill
o ConAgra
o Danone (dairy products like Actimel and Danone Bio)
o General Mills (breakfast cereals like Cheerios and
Fiber One)
o Heinz
o Kelloggs (who produce a whole range of brands, like
Ensemble, All-Bran, K-Sentials, Special-K etc)
o Kraft
o Nestle (milk & yoghurt brand LC1 and nutrition
formula Nutren)
o Quaker Oats
o Unilever (producers of amongst others Flora,
Proactiv and Blue band)

And they are not always working single-handedly. Both
Quaker Oats and General Mills have for example stated
that they are involved in joint ventures with
pharmaceutical companies to "enhance foods and devise
products with health benefits".[84] Functional foods
therefore represent "a further narrowing of the
boundary between the food and pharmaceutical
industries", as the analyst firm DataMonitor puts
it.[85] And even if most of them today might be free
from GM products, there is a great danger that they
will go down this road in the future.

Footnotes

[1] Shapiro, Robert: The welcome tension of
technology: The need for dialogue about agricultural
biotechnology. Center for the Study of American
Business, CEO Series, no 37, February 2000.
[2] For a list of products see for example Beate
Kettlitz, "Functional food - Understanding functional
foods". BEUC, 1999.
[3] Beate Kettlitz, "Functional food - Understanding
functional foods". BEUC, 1999.
[4] See for example "Increasing the Nutritional Value
of Rice", BIO,
http://www.bio.org/food&ag/vitarice.html,
[5] "Seeds of Doubt Harmful Genetic Engineering Can
Yield Healthier Foods", The Alliance for Better Foods,
http://www.betterfoods.org, 13th March 00; "Health and
[6] Nutritional Benefits of Food Biotechnology", The
Alliance for Better Foods, http://www.betterfoods.org,
13th March 00.
[7] See for example "Good Eats, Food, Pharmaceuticals
Can Go Together", The Alliance for Better Foods,
http://www.betterfoods.org, 13th March 00.
[8] Beate Kettlitz, "Functional food - Understanding
functional foods". BEUC, 1999.
[9] "Transgenic products on the market", BIO,
http://www.bio.org/food&ag/transgenic_products.html,
13th March 00; "What's up in Biotechnology", Peggy
Lemaux Ph.D., University of California-Berkeley,
Outreach, http://plantbio.berkeley.edu/~outreach, 29th
March 2000.
[10] Interview with Peter Kearns, Ph.D., head of OECD
Task Force on Safety of Novel Foods and Feeds, and
Working Group on Harmonization and Regulation of
Biotechnology, 30th March 2000.
[11] Correspondence with Ms Lemaux, 24th March 2000
[12] "Nutrition, Quality and Health Benefits", BIO,
http://www.bio.org/food&ag/nutrition.html, 13th March
00.
[13] "Biotech pioneers move center stage: Progress,
prominence and responsibility", speech by Carl
Feldbaum, BIO, March 27th 2000,
http://www.bio.org/plenary.html.
[14] Interview with Peter Kearns, Ph.D., head of OECD
Task Force on Safety of Novel Foods and Feeds, and
Working Group on Harmonization and Regulation of
Biotechnology, 30th March 2000.
[15] Correspondence with Ms Lemaux, 24th March 2000
[16] Correspondence with Ms Lemaux, 24th March 00
[17] Interview with Peter Kearns, Ph.D., head of OECD
Task Force on Safety of Novel Foods and Feeds, and
Working Group on Harmonization and Regulation of
Biotechnology, 30th March 2000.
[18] "The Benefits of Biotechnology", Monsanto's Life
Sciences Knowledge Center,
http://www.biotechknowledge.com, 29th March 2000.
[19] "In the pipeline", Monsanto,
http://www.monsanto.com, 13th April 2000.
[20] "Agbiotech: Healthier Frankenfoods?", The
Alliance for Better Foods, http://www.betterfoods.org,
13th March 00; "In the pipeline", Monsanto,
http://www.monsanto.com, 13th April 2000.
[21] "Agricultural Biotech Products on the Market",
BIO, http://www.bio.org/food&ag/approvedag98.html,
13th March 00; "In the pipeline", Monsanto,
http://www.monsanto.com, 13th April 2000.
[22] "Agricultural Biotech Products on the Market",
BIO, http://www.bio.org/food&ag/approvedag98.html,
13th March 00
[23] "Engineering solutions to malnutrition", GRAIN,
http://www.grain.org, March 2000.
[24] "Consumer health", Novartis,
http://www.novartis.com, 29th March 2000.
[25] "Agribusiness", Novartis,
http://www.novartis.com, 29th March 2000.
[26] "Our seeds", Novartis, http://www.novartis.com,
13th April 2000.
[27] "Novartis Seeds' researchers advance plant
biotechnology", Novartis Seeds press release, 23rd
November 1998.
[28] "Novartis Seeds' researchers advance plant
biotechnology", Novartis Seeds press release, 23rd
November 1998.
[29] James, Angus: "Key players in the global
functional foods industry". Leatherhead RA, 1999.
[30] "Health leaves a sour taste", Financial Times,
13th February 2000.
[31] "Questions & answers", Aviva Life food,
http://www.avivafoods.com, 3rd April 2000.
[32] "Functional food fever hits local tastemakers:
But will health claim heal sales?", The Alliance for
Better Foods, http://www.betterfoods.com, 28th March
2000; "Novartis, Quaker in food deal", Financial
Times, 13th February 2000.
[33] "Novartis, Quaker in food deal", Financial Times,
13th February 2000.
[34] "Agbiotech: Healthies Frankenfoods?", The
Alliance for Better Foods, http://www.betterfoods.org,
13th March 00; "Agricultural Biotech Products on the
Market", BIO,
http://www.bio.org/food&ag/approvedag98.html, 13th
March 00, "New branches on a growing business", DuPont
Magazine Online, http://www.dupont.com, 29th March
2000; "LoSatSoy'", Optimum Quality Grains,
http://www.oqg.com/, 13th April 2000.
[35] "New branches on a growing business", DuPont
Magazine Online, http://www.dupont.com, 29th March
2000.
[36] "New branches on a growing business", DuPont
Magazine Online, http://www.dupont.com, 29th March
2000.
[37] "New branches on a growing business", DuPont
Magazine Online, http://www.dupont.com, 29th March
2000.
[38] "DuPont Purchased the Cereal Derived Functional
Ingredients (CDFI) Businesses From Dalgety plc.",
DuPont News Releases, 26th January, 1998.
[39] "Aventis Agro", Aventis, http://www.aventis.com,
12th April 2000.
[40] "Innovative solutions to all your farming needs",
Aventis, http://www.aventis.com, 12th April 2000
[41] "Biotechnology and the Challenge of Caring for a
Growing World Population", Aventis,
http://www.aventis.com, 12th April 2000
[42] "Agritope fiscal first quarter revenues more than
double", Agritope press release, 14th February 2000;
"Agritope and Rhone-Poulenc Establish Functional
Genomics Company", Agritope press release, 20th july
1999.
[43] "Agrinomics Completes First Functional Genomics
Research Project Agreement", Agrinomics press release,
3rd February 2000.
[44] "Agbiotech: Healthier Frankenfoods?", The
Alliance for Better Foods, http://www.betterfoods.org,
13th March 00; "Agritope Announces Positive Results of
1999 Melon and Raspberry Field Trials", Agritope press
release, 28th February 2000.
[45] "Plant biotechnology", Zeneca Agrochemicals,
http://www.zeneca.com, 29th March 2000.
[46] "Plant biotechnology", Zeneca Agrochemicals,
http://www.zeneca.com, 29th March 2000.
[47] "Plant biotechnology", Zeneca Agrochemicals,
http://www.zeneca.com, 29th March 2000.
[48] "Agricultural Biotech Products on the Market",
BIO, http://www.bio.org/food&ag/approvedag98.html,
13th March 00
[49] "Dow announces biotechnology strategy", Dow
AgroSciences press release, http://www.dowagro.com,
8th September 1998.
[50] "Plant genetics & biotechnology", Dow
AgroSciences, http://www.dowagro.com, 29th March 2000.
[51] "Agricultural Biotech Products on the Market",
BIO, http://www.bio.org/food&ag/approvedag98.html,
13th March 00; "Products", Mycogen Seeds,
http://www.mycogen.com, 13th April 2000.
[52]"Agbiotech: Healthier Frankenfoods?", The Alliance
for Better Foods, http://www.betterfoods.org, 13th
March 00.
[53] "The Look of the Fruit and Vegetable Market in
the Next Decade", Peggy Lemaux Ph.D., University of
California-Berkeley, Outreach,
http://plantbio.berkeley.edu/~outreach, 29th March
2000.
[54] Hoover's Online, http://www.hoovers.co.uk, 28th
March 00.
[55] "Agrotechnology - Life enrichment", Savia,
http://www.savia.com.mx/agro, 29th March 2000.
[56] "Agricultural Biotech Products on the Market",
BIO, http://www.bio.org/food&ag/approvedag98.html,
13th March 2000
[57] "New rices may improve human health", Future
Harvest, 28th March 2000.
[58] "Protestors lobby scientists at GM food
conference", PA News, 28th February 2000; "Poor
Nations Need Genetically Modified Foods", Reuters,
28th February 2000.
[59] "Field of dreams", Financial Times, 25th February
2000.
[60] Koechlin, Florianne, "The 'golden' rice - a big
illusion?", Blueridge Institute, February 2000; Shiva,
Vandana, "Genetically engineered vitamin 'A' rice: a
blind approach to blindness prevention", 14th February
2000; "Engineering solutions to malnutrition", GRAIN,
http://www.grain.org, March 2000.
[61] Koechlin, Florianne, "The 'golden' rice - a big
illusion?", Blueridge Institute, February 2000;
"Engineering solutions to malnutrition", GRAIN,
http://www.grain.org, March 2000.
[62] "Edible vaccines", BIO,
http://www.bio.org/food&ag/vaccine.html, 13th March
00.
[63] "Genetic Foods Could Bring Health Benefits", The
Alliance for Better Foods, http://www.betterfoods.org,
13th March 00.
[64] "Edible vaccines", BIO,
http://www.bio.org/food&ag/vaccine.html, 13th March
00.
[65] "Increasing the Vitamin E content of Plant Oils",
BIO, http://www.bio.org/food&ag/vitamine.html, 13th
March 00.
[66] "Decreasing the allergenicity of food", BIO,
http://www.bio.org/food&ag/allergenicity.html, 13th
March 00.
[67] "Super Rice available to farmers by 2004", The
Alliance for Better Foods, http://www.betterfoods.org,
28th March 2000; "Rice fortified with Vitamin A, iron
soon", Hindu Business Line, 16th June 1999.
[68] "Putting a human face on biotechnology", United
States Senate Joint Economic Committee,
http://www.senate.gov/~jec/bio_report.htm, 10th April
2000.
[69] For example used by the "Rapporteur's summary" of
the OECD conference GM food safety: facts,
uncertainties and assessment, OECD,
http://www.oecd.org, 10th April 2000.
[70] "What's Out There in Terms of Genetically
Engineered Crop Plants and What's Likely to be Coming
in the Future?", Peggy Lemaux Ph.D., University of
California-Berkeley, Outrech,
http://plantbio.berkeley.edu/~outreach, 29th March
2000.
[71] "Novartis, Quaker in food deal", Financial Times,
13th February 2000.
[72] "What's Out There in Terms of Genetically
Engineered Crop Plants and What's Likely to be Coming
in the Future?", Peggy Lemaux Ph.D., University of
California-Berkeley, Outrech,
http://plantbio.berkeley.edu/~outreach, 29th March
2000.
[73] "What's Out There in Terms of Genetically
Engineered Crop Plants and What's Likely to be Coming
in the Future?", Peggy Lemaux Ph.D., University of
California-Berkeley, Outrech,
http://plantbio.berkeley.edu/~outreach, 29th March
2000.
[74] "Call for world to police GM science", The
Guardian, 1st March 2000.
[75] "Rapporteur's summary" of the OECD conference GM
food safety: facts, uncertainties and assessment,
OECD, http://www.oecd.org, 10th April 2000.
[76] Interview with Peter Kearns, Ph.D., head of OECD
Task Force on Safety of Novel Foods and Feeds, and
Working Group on Harmonization and Regulation of
Biotechnology, 30th March
[77] "Novartis, Quaker in food deal", Financial Times,
13th February 2000; "Functional food fever hits local
tastemakers: But will health claim heal sales?", The
Alliance for Better Foods, http://www.betterfoods.com,
28th March 2000.
[78] James, Angus: "Key players in the global
functional foods industry". Leatherhead RA, 1999
[79] "Health leaves a sour taste", Financial Times,
13th February 2000.
[80] "Health leaves a sour taste", Financial Times,
13th February 2000.
[81] James, Angus: "Key players in the global
functional foods industry". Leatherhead RA, 1999
[82] James, Angus: "Key players in the global
functional foods industry". Leatherhead RA, 1999;
"Functional Foods Disease State Analysis", forthcoming
report from the Bowditch Group,
http://www.bowditchgroup.com, 13th March 00;
"Nutraceuticals set to drive the growth of health
foods into the next century", Datamonitor press
release, 1st June 1998.
[83] James, Angus: "Key players in the global
functional foods industry". Leatherhead RA, 1999;
"Functional Foods Disease State Analysis", forthcoming
report from the Bowditch Group,
http://www.bowditchgroup.com, 13th March 00;
"Functional food fever hits local tastemakers: But
will health claim heal sales?", The Alliance for
Better Foods, http://www.betterfoods.com, 28th March
2000; "Health leaves a sour taste", Financial Times,
13th February 2000.
[84] "Good Eats, Food, Pharmaceuticals Can Go
Together", The Alliance for Better Foods,
http://www.betterfoods.org, 13th March 00.
[85]"Nutraceuticals set to drive the growth of health
foods into the next century", Datamonitor press
release, 1st June 1998.

Corporate Watch is a research and publishing group
whose aim is to support activism against large
corporations.

Copies of these briefings can be obtained by sending
an A4 SAE (45p postage) to: Corporate Watch 16b
Cherwell Road, Oxford OX4 1BG Tel/Fax +44 (0)1865
791391 mail@corporatewatch.org www.corporatewatch.org