US firm plans to change consumers' minds about genetically 'edited' food
Johnston, Iowa
GREEN stalks have only just begun to sprout in the test fields where biotech giant DuPont Pioneer is planting rows of a new genetically edited corn. But across the street, in the company's sprawling research campus, executives are already fretting about how to sell it to the world.
On one hand, this corn is a revolution. It will probably be the first plant to go on the market that is developed through the cutting edge genome-editing technique called CRISPR-Cas.
On the other hand, the industry's last big breakthrough of this kind - genetically modified organisms, or GMOs - was an unqualified public relations disaster, even according to its progenitor, Monsanto.
Wary of that, DuPont Pioneer, which is developing a strain of drought-resistant waxy corn, is proactively neutralising sceptical consumers - years before these crops will even be available. The company recently began hosting CRISPR focus groups and launched a website on the technique, complete with animated videos.
The goal is to avoid the sort of public backlash that rocked Monsanto in the late 1990s and still plagues agriculture two decades later. In the United States, consumer scepticism of genetically modified crops has forced biotech companies into long, costly battles over issues such as whether these foods should be labelled. Elsewhere in the world, the public outcry has prevented seeds from winning government approval.
"It's more about social science than science," said Neal Gutterson, the vice-president of research and development at DuPont Pioneer. "(It's) ultimately about getting social licence for this technology."
Odes to plant technology are ubiquitous in DuPont Pioneer's Iowa offices, where even the conference space boasts glossy, museum-like exhibits devoted to genetically modified foods. Plus-sized photos show farmers standing idly in golden corn fields, and mystery hands reaching into overflowing bowls.
But the problem for DuPont Pioneer, and agribusiness generally, is that large swathes of the public do not share this sunny vision of biotech. Since the late 90s, when Monsanto botched the introduction of genetically modified crops in Europe, consumers have treated the term GMO as if it were a dirty word.
According to the Pew Research Center, nearly 40 per cent of Americans believe that GMOs are bad for their health. This assertion is not supported by science, which has concluded that the genetically modified crops on the market are safe for consumption.
But science has made little headway in a fierce debate that has often focused on the perceived values of the companies developing these products. Each year, activists in hundreds of cities worldwide march against Monsanto - and millions of consumers buy "Non-GMO Project Verified" products.
The biotech industry has taken strides to clean up its image in recent years: In 2013, Monsanto shook up its public relations team, and the industry has banded behind a consumer education effort called GMO Answers.
But with CRISPR - a breakthrough gene-editing tool - the field gets a chance at its first real do-over. Unlike conventional genetic modification, CRISPR works directly on the DNA of the plant or animal being bred. While GMOs, as we have traditionally known them, involve inserting target DNA from a different species, CRISPR can directly "edit" an organism's DNA for a result that falls within the genetic diversity of that animal or plant.
The technique was discovered almost simultaneously at several research universities, and has since been licensed out to a number of both noncommercial researchers and private companies. Outside agriculture, CRISPR has diverse applications in medicine, where it is currently being used to develop everything from cancer therapies to novel disease models. WP
