Government intervention is being felt throughout the economy, from basic manufacturing to the most sophisticated telecommunications services. Nowhere is the effect stronger than at the frontiers of science and technology, where a host of new discoveries and developments is confounding existing regulations and rendering old ways of doing business irrelevant. Competing technical standards are on the rise and new ethical quandaries seem to be popping up everywhere, giving rise to increasingly complex regulatory issues that virtually beg governments to wade into the mix.

Perhaps the most intense ongoing debate surrounds the growing sophistication of biotechnology, where the ability of scientists to splice and manipulate genes has moved much faster than public acceptance for genetically modified (GM) organisms and “designer foods.” The United States gives broad latitude to scientists and companies seeking to develop new, disease-resistant plants and has quickly taken the lead as the world’s largest grower of GM crops.17 The European Union, where the public views the latest biotech developments with increasing suspicion, has put strict limits on imports of these socalled Frankenfoods, a move that may cost American farmers $300 million a year in lost corn sales alone. In response, the United States has filed a lawsuit against Europe in the World Trade Organization. For its part, the EU has retaliated through the U.N. Cartagena Protocol, which stipulates that a nation may reject genetically modified imports (even without scientific proof) if it believes such imports threaten traditional crops or reduce the value of biodiversity to indigenous communities. At a February 2004 conference on the Cartagena Protocol, the EU bloc successfully lobbied for more stringent labeling of genetically modified exports—a move the United States contends could disrupt trade by unfairly stigmatizing biotech products. Activists further complicate the picture as they mount successful publicity campaigns, calling into question the health and safety of GM foods. In the United States, the Genetically Engineered Food Alert coalition protested against the presence of an experimental corn variety used in Kraft’s Taco Bell corn taco shells several years ago, and has since raised public sentiment against other Kraft products tested for such ingredients.

German-based Bayer Crop Science abandoned its plans to grow herbicide-resistant corn in Great Britain following anti-biotech campaigns by green and consumer groups. This debate is also raging in developing nations, where lawsuits have emerged as just one tactic to delay the introduction of GM foods. As early as 1998, the Monsanto Company, a pioneer of genetically modified crops, thought it had won official approval in Brazil for five varieties of soybeans that could withstand applications of the company’s Roundup herbicide, which kills troublesome weeds. But a local consumer group and the Brazilian office of Greenpeace filed suit, and a judge issued an injunction that stopped the approval. While the case winds its way through the Brazilian court system, planting GM seeds in the country remains illegal. In Zambia, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) were instrumental in convincing the country not to accept GM products in 2002 for humanitarian food relief, even though 2.5 million Zambians were hungry and at risk of famine. Expressing the frustration of the $3.5 billion GM food industry in the United States, Mark Mansour, an attorney representing several multinational food companies, complains that, “There is no harmony to the legislation being enacted by countries. This makes it very difficult and expensive for food companies to comply.”