Ag-tech upstart is armed to take on Monsanto


Cibus Global uses bioscience to enhance plant genes with a different approach than agribusiness giants.

Enhanced crops, without fear. Photo: Cibus

Enhanced crops, without fear. Photo: Cibus

Israeli crop-protection company Makhteshim-Agan is investing $37 million in San Diego ag-tech startup Cibus Global to spur the development of new strains of crops that will be resistant to various forms of disease, pests, and herbicides.

The investment, which will occur over five years and will eventually allow the Israeli company to acquire slightly more than 50% of the startup, provides a shot in the arm for the 8-year-old upstart whose grand ambitions could put it on a collision course with ag-tech giants like Dow Chemical (DOW), Monsanto (MON), and Syngenta (SYT).

Cibus’s primary asset is its so-called Rapid Trait Development System. Unlike the transgenic approach used by Monsanto, where a foreign gene is inserted into a plant’s genome to confer, for example, immunity to an herbicide (à la Roundup-ready cotton and soybeans), Cibus’s technology teases out such characteristics from the genome without inserting foreign material.

It essentially hurries along standard plant breeding in a highly controlled setting. In simple terms, a molecule is inserted into a plant’s cell, causing the plant to mutate in a desired way. What could take Mother Nature tens of thousands of years to accomplish through millions of mutations over myriad generations takes Cibus anywhere from three to five years, lab to market.

Winning over activists and international governments

This is an important breakthrough for a few reasons: PR, accuracy, and money. While the company is highly successful, Monsanto, for example, has battled a persistent public relations onslaught over its transgenic practices.

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have been largely resisted by European nations, rejected by much of Africa, and railed against by various environmental organizations that claim genetically modified crops are either highly infectious to other crops, potentially dangerous to our health, or both.

A technology that could achieve the same benefits — pest or herbicide resistance, for example — without inserting foreign material into a genome should gain the approval of the marketplace and activists alike.

What’s more, transgenic mutations are highly complex and notoriously difficult to get right — which makes for an expensive process.

Zigging while Monsanto zags

“Monsanto estimates that it takes as much as $50 million to launch a transgenic product, which includes all the regulatory work to get it cleared in the U.S. –- and in some parts of the world, it’s not even possible,” says Keith Walker, president of Cibus. “For us," Walker says, "it’s a $5 million to $7 million exercise to take a product to market. That gives us opportunities to work in crops that are smaller in acreage.”

The arrangement with Makhteshim-Agan allows Walker and his team of bio-scientists to explore any number of crops and characteristics. Walker won’t yet say which crops he’s targeting, but they won’t be the enormous ones where Monsanto already has a foothold: cotton, soy, and corn. But that still leaves plenty of opportunity. “The markets are multiple billions of dollars,” says Walker, “and you don’t have to go against Dow Chemical and Monsanto until you’re ready.”

Cibus has already gone through field testing with several crops and has two herbicide-resistant canola products in the works, one that was developed in-house and will debut in 2011, and another that was developed in conjunction with BASF, slated for introduction in 2013. 

Its success in the marketplace should pave the way for Cibus to launch subsequent products quickly, and there are few ends to what such a technology can accomplish. “Monsanto puts a whole gene in, but it’s not necessary,” says Walker. “Literally, as each day goes by, we see new information coming out of functional genomics research that creates new potential targets of opportunity.”

5 Comments | Add a Comment | Email

"How Cibus technology works is vague from article, but I am not so sure it would be more benign to the environment than Monsanto's."

Go to the website. Cibus's tech looks pretty benign. In layman's terms, it basically "annoys" the plant's DNA in the region where the trait you are trying to modify is coded. This leads to NATURAL mutation. One of the mutants may have the new characteristics you are looking for.

Posted By Tom B. Durham, NC: September 25, 2009 8:27 AM

How Cibus technology works is vague from article, but I am not so sure it would be more benign to the environment than Monsanto's. Article says "…a molecule is inserted.." what sort of melecule, from what? If Cibus's technology is more natural, wouldn't it have a greater chance of being able to spread to other organisms, compared to Monsanto's inserting foreign traits?
Disclosure: Long MON.

Posted By Mark D. Baltimore, MD: September 21, 2009 6:41 PM

Monsanto is hardly the boogey-monster that many make them out to be. They're just a company like any other–trying to turn a profit by providing products that the world market needs. Now–and even moreso in the future–the world needs genetically enhanced crops. As yet, there is no credible alternative to the needs of an ever-growing world population.

That said, I'm all for what Cibus is trying to do. Their methods seem intriguing and I'll be looking forward to seeing what they develop in the future. A little extra competition (not to mention credible alternatives to the status quo) is always a good thing for the marketplace.

Posted By Peter, Des Moines, IA: September 21, 2009 1:35 PM

In response to Brock, it is the biodiversity that Monsanto has protected in the fields that you are ignoring. Try using pesticides in a corn field instead of Monsanto biotech seeds and see what happens to biodiversity.

Posted By Don, North Platte, NE: September 21, 2009 1:04 PM

Woohoo! Great news. Any negative news for Monsanto is good news for the American people and American farmers.

Congrats to Cibus Global on their efforts and progress to date, and I wish them the best of luck in the future. They'll need it to compete and defend itself against such an awfully powerful, scary, and manipulative company. Monsanto scares me, and for all of the biodiversity they've wiped out, they deserve to be wiped out.

Posted By Brock, Columbus, OH: September 21, 2009 11:51 AM
CNNMoney.com Comment Policy: CNNMoney.com encourages you to add a comment to this discussion. You may not post any unlawful, threatening, libelous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic or other material that would violate the law. Please note that CNNMoney.com may edit comments for clarity or to keep out questionable or off-topic material. All comments should be relevant to the post and remain respectful of other authors and commenters. By submitting your comment, you hereby give CNNMoney.com the right, but not the obligation, to post, air, edit, exhibit, telecast, cablecast, webcast, re-use, publish, reproduce, use, license, print, distribute or otherwise use your comment(s) and accompanying personal identifying information via all forms of media now known or hereafter devised, worldwide, in perpetuity. CNNMoney.com Privacy Statement.
Jeffrey O'Brien

Jeffrey O'Brien
Jeffrey O'Brien joined the San Francisco bureau of FORTUNE in June 2006 as a senior editor covering the intersection of science, technology, culture, and business. From 1999-2006, he was a senior editor at Wired magazine. As a writer, his work has been anthologized in The Best of Technology Writing 2007 and in The Best Science and Nature Writing 2005. As an editor, his features have been featured in The Best American Science Writing 2006, The Best American Science and Nature Writing 2006, and The Best Technology Writing 2006. He is also the recipient of a Jesse H. Neal Award for editing best single issue, which he earned in 1998 as the editor of Marketing Computers (Adweek). O'Brien is a graduate of the SI Newhouse School of Public Communications at Syracuse University and was a 2006 Templeton fellow in science & religion at the University of Cambridge (UK).
* : Time reflects local markets trading time.† - Intraday data delayed 15 minutes for Nasdaq, and 20 minutes for other exchanges.• Disclaimer
Powered by WordPress.com VIP.