Episode 40

Cooking it Up in a Lab – Investing in the Future of Bioengineered Food 

By:

Senior Market Analyst at Interactive Brokers

Will we have enough nutritional resources to feed 10 billion humans by 2050? And will it be safe? Find out more, as Christopher Gannatti, WisdomTree Europe’s head of research, talks with IBKR senior market analyst Steven Levine about the growing field of bioengineering, and the influence it’s had on agriculture and the food supply.

Note: Any performance figures mentioned in this podcast are as of the date of recording (September 12, 2022).

Summary – IBKR Podcasts Ep. 40

The following is a summary of a live audio recording and may contain errors in spelling or grammar. Although IBKR has edited for clarity no material changes have been made.

Steven Levine

Hello, and welcome to IBKR Podcasts. I’m Steven Levine, senior market analyst at Interactive Brokers, and your host for today’s program. We’ll be speaking with Christopher Gannatti, WisdomTree Europe’s head of research, about the growing field of bioengineering, and the influence it’s had on agriculture and the food supply.

Welcome, Chris! Thanks so much for taking the time to do this.

Christopher Gannatti

Pleasure to be here. Thanks for having me.

Steven Levine

Thank you. Now, I understand from the presentation you gave on IBKR’s Webinars platform — I believe that was in January this year, it was called ‘Enter the Bio Revolution’ — I found this really fascinating — there were several disciplines, I remembered, that you cited as being heavily transformed by biotechnology, and these included: health, materials, chemicals, energy … just to name a few. And honestly, I have to tell you, it was really hard to choose what industry to talk about here. I liked DNA storage. I thought that was really something, but maybe we can do that another time. Here, I thought … bioengineered food…. I mean, that’s something we could really sink our teeth into. Sorry for the pun there. But this is really a subject I think that really hits daily life — from plant-based meats to ice cream … its potential solutions for world hunger, if I have that right.

So, I guess the first place to start would be is — what is ‘bioengineered food’ exactly? Is it the same as ‘genetically modified’ food? I’ve heard of that, but is there a difference? And what’s the aim of doing this? What are the benefits, in your view?

Christopher Gannatti

I was looking at this, and ultimately, it appeared that depending on the country in which you live — and I’m currently domiciled in the UK — every country sort of has their own structure, their own set of rules as to how these things need to be disclosed, and that’s really the key element. It’s not really to say, at least at the government level, ‘this is bad’ or ‘this is good’. It’s more to say the customer has every right to know exactly what they’re buying, what they’re eating.

Steven Levine

Right.

Christopher Gannatti

And so, it looked like, in the U.S., there was a recent law. When I say ‘recent’, it was 2018, that established this idea of bioengineered food, and it seemed like that replaced what was previously enforced, which, again, on the U.S. side, was, or at least tended to be known as ‘genetically modified’. The standard defines bioengineered foods as those that contain detectable genetic material that has been modified through certain lab techniques and cannot be created through conventional breeding or found in nature. So that’s really the bottom line.

Steven Levine

So, wholly synthetic? Something that is genetically, wholly synthetic?

Christopher Gannatti

In a way, and you learn a lot as you sort of dig into the space. You could have wholly synthetic. So, you could basically say food is comprised of molecules. If we assemble those molecules, however we do it, it’s food. Now, another thing you could do is you could take two naturally occurring things and say, ‘I like the resilience and the yield over here, and I like the flavor over here’, and you can crossbreed them. So, you have two natural things that would have been separate, and what you do in the lab is you sort of bring them together in what you hope is a beneficial manner.

Steven Levine

It’s really interesting. So why would you do this? I mean, what are the benefits of doing this versus just having food? I mean, organically speaking?

Christopher Gannatti

Really the main thing is people have learned, and can ultimately benefit, in the sense that there was something called in the late [19]90s ‘golden rice’, and this was an example. If we think of Asia, and we think of the amount of rice that’s consumed on an annual basis, it’s a staggering, staggering number of billions of people, and it’s a key staple to the diet. Now, if you’re faced with this scenario, where a lot of people are having a deficiency in a particular vitamin – so, at this point it was this idea of vitamin A deficiency — if you could basically put into what they’re eating everyday vitamin A in a safe manner, and you’re basically programming the genetic code of the rice to, instead of being fully natural, to basically synthesize its own version, its own variant of vitamin A, and then ultimately carry that through to the population, you could have the potential to solve a very important issue and provide something that wasn’t previously there. And you have to think of this, because we are in a zone here where maybe there’s eight billion people on Earth today; in 2050, there could be 10 billion people. If we had kept our population at one or two billion, that’s one thing, but the fact of the matter is we’re putting an awful lot of people in place, and those people need resources, and this is one way to potentially go about solving those issues.

Steven Levine

Yeah, I find this fascinating, and I’d like to get to that in just a minute in terms of providing food for the world’s population as it may grow. I mean, the trajectory, yes, it sounds like we could have 10 billion people by 2050. But before we do that, I’m just wondering about the companies that operate in this ecosystem of bioengineering for agriculture, for food. I suspect there are those like Monsanto (NYSE: MON) or Bayer (OTCMKTS: BAYRY) — I think we’ll touch on that a bit later as well — and then there are other producers or, I guess, distributors of bioengineered food. Obviously, there are labs involved … this kind of thing. So, are there public companies you can invest in, or [exchange-traded funds] ETFs, I’m assuming, that are thematic that are centered on bioengineering and agriculture?

Christopher Gannatti

Absolutely. So, thematic exchange-traded funds, ETFs, this is a huge area of interest. They’re getting a lot of focus even this year, where performance of strategies on the growthier end of the spectrum — where a lot of these types of companies fall — have not been the most high-performing … in an environment where the Fed [Federal Reserve Bank], and the ECB [European Central Bank], and the Bank of England … all these different central banks are raising interest rates to fight inflation. And yet people realize the importance of sustainability, the importance of environmental, social, governance [ESG], those type of investment norms. And they recognize, whether it has to do with the population argument, the resources argument, wanting to get into companies like the ‘Beyond Meats’ and ‘Impossible Foods’ of the world … I don’t know that anyone specifically says, ‘I want to get into Monsanto or Bayer’. These are sort of on the other end of the spectrum … well established, longstanding …. some narratives that may not have always been 100% positive going all the way back through history, but by and large, there are a lot of companies doing very interesting things that really get back to that core question – namely, whether it’s this year, where we’ve got droughts in certain areas, and people continue to need food in the face of Ukraine maybe being unable to export certain key ingredients, or in general, the fact that the climate is changing more broadly, and as a result of that, what you used to grow in certain areas is changing. But if you can do it in a smart way, you might be able to become more self-sufficient food-wise, no matter which country you live in.

Steven Levine

Yeah, and I could be completely wrong about this, but I’m curious … because I’m not sure exactly how this is done, or whether it fits into the bioengineering scheme, but there are companies that are printing food. I don’t know how that works exactly, but is there a bioengineering process that is involved in the printing — like the 3D printing of food?  I’m curious about it … not sure exactly how it works, but I thought I’d throw that question out to you.

Christopher Gannatti

Yeah, it’s a crazy one in the sense that … organs are being printed, food is being printed, other things are being printed. I mean, 3D printing is a big thing, and ultimately, the global…. So, you start from basically your — and you say most of what we’re dealing with here is plant-based meat. And so, the market size, globally, of plant-based meat in 2021 was a little above 5 billion USD [U.S. dollars], and it’s expected to grow a little under 20% per year. So, that compound annual growth rate [CAGR] on an ongoing basis … 19.3% all the way up to 2030. And so, you’ve got this growing space … people are interested in plant-based meat. They’ve recognized potential, nutritional benefits and the like. And the question is, okay, how do you synthesize it such that it’s sort of like it maintains some of the characteristics that people have come to know and love about the more longstanding and ‘regular’, for lack of a better term, meat that we’ve become familiar with. And so, with 3D printing, you’re basically taking certain parts of the molecular structures, certain key ingredients, and you’re adding them to the substrate in a way that is able to transpire, and you’re doing it in the right order, and the reason you do it is you’re getting a certain texture, a certain character, a certain flavor to the meat by layering the ingredients in a particular way. So, it’s a very interesting way to get to that end goal of something that’s sort of like what they call it ‘flexitarians’ have become used to. They may not be trying to appeal to the vegan, the full vegan diet, but they want people who love that good, old-fashioned hamburger to…. They want those people to basically feel like there’s no difference.

Steven Levine

Right, right. It’s very, very interesting. You touched on earlier that the ESG importance, or the increasing awareness of those factors that underlie the environment, social, governance, and all those factors that that fall beneath there … I know that the UN [United Nations] has all these sustainable development goals [SDGs]. I think there’s 17 of them that are the backbone, or the blueprint, for everything that’s ESG, it seems, and one of them is … one of their goals is to achieve ‘Zero Hunger’ throughout the world. I mean, a lot of them are very ideal in nature, obviously. They want to have no poverty in the world….  So, as the population rises, like you pointed out, something like 8 billion today … a little over 8 billion …. maybe by 2050, we have 10 billion … and so, yes, people are going to need to be fed, and they’re going to need the resources. It looks like bioengineering can produce more foods, and, perhaps, give it those supplements, or vitamins, that would be healthy for people, if it’s, indeed, healthy, right?

But my questions about this are how — even if we produce more food, it seems that we’ve got a lot of countries today … you also mentioned Ukraine and exports, say, constraints of the agriculture that it exports like wheat … but there’s also those countries that, according to a report, I believe it was the Global Report on Food Crises, there is a pretty long list of countries that they categorize as being in ‘crisis or worse condition’. Countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo or Afghanistan. There are others like, I suppose, Ethiopia, South Sudan, Yemen…. So, even if we can produce more food supply, these countries seem to be typically beset by internal conflicts, by violence, by disease, by economic shocks, and if we can’t get food to them today, how do we get food to them in the future? Or are they in some ways going to be self-sustaining in some political or regulatory capacity that enables them to be self-sustaining by producing it on their own? I’m not sure how that works, but is there any research or strategy that’s out there that tackles these particular hurdles?

Christopher Gannatti

These are essentially the biggest hurdles on Earth: world peace … world hunger … all the rest. But it’s interesting in the sense that the people I tend to at least try to follow, and feel like when I do follow them, I’ve learned something … when they talk about energy, one of the things they say is: ‘It’s not going to be just wind power, it’s not going to be just solar power, it’s going to be the full mix.’ We have to take advantage of everything we’ve learned and recognize that if we limit ourselves and we only use one kind of energy, we’re probably not going to get to where we need to go. We need to recognize there’s a benefit to all sources of energy, and one of the things that we could do in food is we could recognize there’s a benefit from all sources of food. I was reading up on just a little bit of the history and recognized that there was a time that in various places of the U.S. it would have been considered crazy, maybe it was 50, 60, 70 years ago, to have the idea of consuming raw fish. What we know of as sushi.

Steven Levine

Right.

Christopher Gannatti

Sushi was not popular. It was seen as kind of a weird thing, a taboo, and you wouldn’t do it. But today, taste preferences have changed, and fish, in all of its various forms, is a key, and a very important food source. And something to be a little bit provocative here for the listeners: about two billion people today consume the highly protein-intensive insects as part of their diet, whether it’s grasshoppers, beetles … all sorts of different things. Again, it depends on where you are. I grew up in Connecticut in the U.S., so insects being eaten in Connecticut … couldn’t imagine it based on my childhood. But had I grown up in Thailand, or parts of Mexico, it would have been a delicacy. It would have been totally normal, and like I said, there’s a lot of protein. So, you don’t want to write anything off, or say it would be impossible, or say that it would never happen, because we have a very real issue.

And the other thing I would say is — think of India as an example. You didn’t necessarily list it next to some of those other countries, but India has a huge population. They have some very, very poor regions, even if those are next to some very, very rich regions, and about 40% of their food supply spoils. So, one of the things that you can do, you can think of different sources of food, you could think of more, or innovative, production methods, and you can think of what about the food that you’re already producing, actually being able to get where it needs to go without spoiling. And I’ve read in the article, and I can’t verify if it’s true, but if India did not have any spoilage, they would actually produce [enough] food for their population, which is really saying something.

Steven Levine

Yeah, I imagine there are all sorts of constraints, and it’s a very delicate system … supply chains, et cetera … when it comes to food. I mean, if you talk about insects … I think that that’s a very fascinating area … I know that there are certain shops, I think that even they’ve been given some time on television to talk about their chocolate-covered insects, and there’s a whole array of these things, it seems, that people find protein benefit from. I’m not sure, I don’t think that I’ll eat them, but then there are foods that I don’t eat that most people eat, so, I think it comes down to taste, ultimately.

But then there’s also just safety, in general. So, I’d really like to touch on the safety aspect of it, because I see that the U.S. regulators for agriculture, the FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration], the EPA [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency], the USDA [United States Department of Agriculture] … they’ve all come out, I believe, and said that there’s no harm — at least that they can detect — from any kind of bioengineered foods. But, they haven’t always been, I suppose, the most reliable when it comes to product safety. You can think of cigarettes, for example, and cigarettes were allowed to have their own research by their own internal doctors — if they were doctors, I’m not sure … likely they were … they would come out in journals, and on television, and in magazines…. I guess not television just yet. I mean, say, the [19]30s or [19]40s … or maybe on radio …. and they would tout how their cigarettes were like the best cigarettes in the world. I think they [cigarettes] were introduced [in the U.S.] … I don’t know, the 19th century, but it wasn’t until like [19]64 or [19]65 that the FDA finally came out with some kind of label, or requirement for a label, or I think the federal government said, ‘Hey, you know, we got to put labels on these,’ after the Surgeon General warned that they caused cancer … that they caused throat cancer, that they caused lung cancer, they cause chronic bronchitis. But yet this caution label was just ‘Cigarette smoking may be hazardous to your health.’ So, I’m thinking that it’s some kind of lobbying effort to keep federal laws at bay.

So, I’m assuming that the bioengineering companies would be in that same camp, but I could be wrong. I mean, it could be completely safe, but, you know, there’s question marks around that. I’d love to get your insights into … if you think that, at some point in time, these could be something that could be hazardous. I think it’s speculation, but I’d love to get your thoughts.

Christopher Gannatti

It’s one of those things, where if we’re honest about it, when the numbers get big enough, and you basically say, ‘If a billion people took an Advil or Tylenol, could we guarantee that not one person out of those billion people would have a unique allergic reaction of some sort?’ Of course, we could never guarantee. So, there can absolutely be issues with almost anything, and human progress and human science has been characterized by all sorts of beliefs in the past. You cited cigarettes as one. There was a time, historically, where if you were sick, they would actually drain your blood to a certain degree.

Steven Levine

Yeah, that’s right.

Christopher Gannatti

So, if we basically let our knowledge just stagnate, we’d be in a very different world. But what we have to at least try to believe is, at least I think, you can take sort of the more optimistic read, and you can say these government agencies and scientists and companies, generally … we know they want to make money, I mean we can never discount that … I’m sure money was a key motivation, and, like you said, lobbying is something that … I think it affects basically every industry … any industry with significant profits probably has some lobbying going on, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that there isn’t a benefit, in the sense that if you could increase food production, if you could make the ingredients that are available to you at the supermarket healthier and better and potentially more plentiful, maybe it helps a bit with the inflation, maybe it helps a bit with the nutrition, maybe it helps with general health. I don’t think not doing anything is really a good other option, because if you don’t progress down this path and learn what you could learn and develop what you can develop, then you just keep everything the same. But there are already issues with keeping everything the same. Maybe we don’t necessarily have enough supply, maybe certain things are too expensive, maybe certain regions don’t have access to the same nutritional benefits that other regions have, and so at least if you try these techniques, you have a chance of making the pie bigger for everyone.

Steven Levine

Absolutely. I think there seems to be success so far. I mean, at least people don’t seem to be completely deterred by something being bioengineered in terms of food. I can’t tell you how many people would share with me how it seems so unlikely that grapes would be so big in the grocery store, for example, or blueberries. They just seem to be genetically modified, at least according to their perception. And yet, they’re fine with it. I mean, they eat it — whether they are or not, the perception is there, and they still eat it. So, I think that that’s very interesting … that there’s a sort of open-mindedness about it, especially with the printing of the food, as you mentioned earlier. There seems to be an audience for it.

The USDA did come out with some kind of disclosure, and maybe it’s for that reason about one person, or that small fraction of the population that end up having some kind of reaction towards the bioengineered food. Was that what’s behind this disclosure that the USDA requires manufacturers, importers, retailers … to ensure that these bioengineered foods are appropriately labeled? Is that the rationale behind that?

Christopher Gannatti

In in in our view, it ultimately comes down to the fact that you’re getting these products, in some cases, from countries all over the world, and it’s of the utmost importance that you can, as a consumer, walk into the grocery store and have at least a modicum of confidence that you know what it is you’re putting in your shopping cart, putting in your car, putting on your family’s table at the end of the day. And so, this disclosure, just so people can make the informed choices, is never a bad thing. I don’t think disclosure in and of itself means…. ‘Cause the fact that it’s on the shelf means, legally, it is allowed to be there, and it passed whatever the USDA and other agencies might have deemed appropriate tests to pass. So, in the end, it’s almost that side-by-side, ‘Take the Pepsi Challenge’. On the one side, you have the organic, no modification … on the other side, you have the other option, and over time, people are going to make a choice that works for them.

Steven Levine

Absolutely. And just for our listeners, the ‘Pepsi Challenge’, I remember this as a blind taste test that they would put an unlabeled Dixie Cup of Pepsi, and another of Coca-Cola, and you didn’t know which was which, but they had you taste it, and then you said which one you liked better. And I think those Pepsi commercials would say, ‘Nine out of…’ or ‘Eight out of 10 people’ preferred the taste of Pepsi or the taste of Coca-Cola. But this is all very, very much nostalgia, and it does segue, actually, into this next point I wanted to bring up:

In terms of nostalgia, traditional industries seem to give way to these new advanced forms of products, right? So, the dairy industry, for example, we saw Borden go out of business, I believe. They filed for bankruptcy. Or Dean Foods, makers of traditional cow milk … or traditional dairy [products], and a great deal of people seem to be very much more inclined towards things like almond milk, or soy milk, or other types of plant-based milks. It really seemed to have destroyed the dairy farms, but there might have been other issues there as well. But there have to be other producers of organic food, of natural foods, that will suffer in some ways, or be damaged, because of the rise of bioengineered foods. For example, we talked about the label for bioengineered ingredients. Well, you know, I picked up a carton of a Friendly’s ice cream. I was also being nostalgic, right? I remember Friendly’s growing up in in New England, and I really thought, okay, I feel like I’m just going to buy a carton of Friendly’s ice cream. And then on the way to the register, I noticed that it had that label. It said: ‘This product contains a bioengineered ingredient.’ And I was taken aback a bit. I was. I thought, ‘What could that possibly be?’ So, I did look it up … what this bioengineered ingredient was, and I understand it has something to do with manufacturing the flavor from what you would otherwise get from vanilla beans. And these vanilla beans are produced in small farms, I understand, in the rainforest.

So, the decision for whoever owns Friendly’s to make this bioengineered ingredient to produce it in a lab means they’re not getting it from those farmers anymore. So, what does bioengineering do to traditional agriculture? I mean, in general, is there a place for it still? I mean, are people making decisions to do it in the lab and not get it from small farms? Does it put small farms out of business? How does that work?

Christopher Gannatti

It’s an interesting question. I think it goes to the complexity of all the decision-making and the supply chains, because whether you think of it in terms of vanilla, as is the case in this example – other people would read similar articles that would have to do with cocoa, which is another thing that needs to be produced – and we’re at a point, where if we go back to some of our previous logic in the sense that we’re getting towards 8 billion people, then down the line, in the near future, we have 10 billion people, what’s going to happen is the sort of small farm approach in the rainforest, one option would be the whole rainforest just becomes vanilla and cocoa type production, which is not a good option, because we need the rainforests, and that’s important. Or you basically use the artisanal version of vanilla, or cocoa, or whatever the ingredient might be in certain applications. And then in other applications, it’s deemed that you can do almost just as well with sort of a lab culture … lab-produced version, and the benefit is maybe at the end, more people have access to the goodness that people have come to know as vanilla or chocolate flavoring. So, it may be a case where if all the people who want the product are to get it, we cannot 100% rely solely on the more artisanal and traditional approaches.

Steven Levine

That makes a lot of sense. Like you said, I think at the beginning of this, there’s a mix of approaches and processes that we would want to employ and not find any one of them in a concentrated way … like energy, for example. But that brings me to the concentration of these as well. So, it’s one observation that I’ve read about, and I’m not quite sure how this goes exactly, but I understand that the potato famine in Ireland – I believe that was in the 19th century – that, largely, the crop was wiped out because there wasn’t a lot of genetic diversity. It was basically a single strain of a type of crop that a pest was attracted to and wiped the whole thing out. And so, what I understand is that diversity, in terms of the genetics, is really important, but if you’re bioengineering something that’s like, say, the BT corn … if it’s 80% the same genetics, and you get some kind of pest in there that is not deterred by it, or you have somebody who has nefarious purposes and wants to destroy it with some kind of weapon – I suppose that’s possible – are there vulnerabilities that are being taken to account when producing something so concentrated in terms of their genetics?

Christopher Gannatti

It’s a good point. And we just saw that the human race, itself, is vulnerable, in the sense that a virus comes, and it could be the story… could be any virus. It happened to be the COVID-19, the unique strain that we saw emerge in late 2019, or early 2020, and it changed life as we know it for basically two years. So, you sit there, and you say, ‘Wow, a small microorganism … that comes from somewhere. I don’t know where it came from, but it comes from somewhere … out of nowhere.’ We’re changing the way we do things for two years. And so, it goes to show that there are no guarantees even if we did not genetically… I mean, obviously, the Irish potato famine, very well-known piece of history. I don’t believe they were, at least maybe, maybe there was a crop husbandry, and they were trying to breed different things. So, maybe a bit of that was going on, but it certainly wasn’t a lab to the extent that a Bayer and Monsanto would be using, and yet still, there was a famine, there was an issue. And so, we could never sit back and say there’s never going to be a famine, there’s never going to be an issue. You hope that people have learned from historical examples like that, and so you hope that at least if something happens, it doesn’t repeat from a prior incidence. But in the end, there may not be a way to, say, alleviate the risk fully, or mitigate the risk fully, of these types of events from happening. But you do your best, and whether it’s pests, whether it’s viruses, whether it’s a climate— or water-related characteristics to the crop, you make it robust as possible and, in the end, you hope that the nefarious actors are kept at bay. But it’s absolutely true that even today, people with the right knowledge, the right know-how, the right ingredients in their garage … could make viruses. You don’t know what those viruses would do, if they would work, if they would be effective, but many documentaries have already been done to show that the biological capability is already far along in the hands of just about anyone.

Steven Levine

Yeah, and we’ve come a long way, haven’t we? I mean, from the days, I can imagine … the very beginnings … where people were just finding foods that were edible and that didn’t kill them. I mean, that must have been quite a trial-and-error type of process to have to undergo. I mean, what foods  would sustain us? And we’ve come quite a quite a long way from that point to the point where we can actually create those foods now. I mean, that’s pretty remarkable. But where exactly do you see this industry going, say, in the next five to 10 years?

Christopher Gannatti

It’s fascinating, in the sense that what seems to get the eyeballs and the attention today is ‘we’re not going to mass produce’…. Even if many people are eating mass-produced, whatever … you name the ingredient … there’s almost a romanticization of these small producers: the farm-to-table. You go on Netflix, you look at ‘Chef’s Table’, whether it’s about pizza, whether it’s about other things, it’s absolutely incredible how people are sort of journeying to these different locations around the world to go to very specific restaurants and to experience very, very specific local, small-batch, artisanal type cuisines. And so, that’s sort of one extreme. The other extreme is, obviously, as mass produced as you can imagine. And I think you nailed it exactly right, in the sense that for us to be successful, it’s going to require a mixture of different approaches. But in the end, there’s always going to be that allure that brings the human spirit back towards those artisanal, and farm-to-table type means.

Steven Levine

Yeah, I think it’s going to be a fascinating, fascinating journey as we go forward. And, again, there are ETFs out there, other stocks for companies that are aligned with this industry … seem to be making great strides in the industry. And I really appreciate your time for doing this. Thank you so much, Chris.

Christopher Gannatti

Thank you.

Steven Levine

Listeners can read more market commentary, analysis, and insights from WisdomTree Europe at IBKR’s Traders Insight at tradersinsight.news. They’ve got lots of fascinating articles there that delve into a wide range of information … on exchange-traded products (ETPs), from commodities and FX, to equities, fixed-income, and cryptocurrencies, and more. You can also catch their webinars at ibkrwebinars.com. They cover a number of ‘mega-trend’ issues like climate change and the energy transition. You can also hear much more on the topic discussed today, and Chris has great presentation, ‘Enter the Bio Revolution.’

And until next time, I’m Steven Levine with Interactive Brokers.

Read More:

https://www.tradersinsight.news/author/steven-levine/

https://www.wisdomtree.com/blog

Disclosure: Interactive Brokers

The analysis in this material is provided for information only and is not and should not be construed as an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any security. To the extent that this material discusses general market activity, industry or sector trends or other broad-based economic or political conditions, it should not be construed as research or investment advice. To the extent that it includes references to specific securities, commodities, currencies, or other instruments, those references do not constitute a recommendation by IBKR to buy, sell or hold such investments. This material does not and is not intended to take into account the particular financial conditions, investment objectives or requirements of individual customers. Before acting on this material, you should consider whether it is suitable for your particular circumstances and, as necessary, seek professional advice.

The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Interactive Brokers LLC, its affiliates, or its employees.

Any trading symbols displayed are for illustrative purposes only and are not intended to portray recommendations.

In accordance with EU regulation: The statements in this document shall not be considered as an objective or independent explanation of the matters. Please note that this document (a) has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research, and (b) is not subject to any prohibition on dealing ahead of the dissemination or publication of investment research.

Disclosure: ETFs

Any discussion or mention of an ETF is not to be construed as recommendation, promotion or solicitation. All investors should review and consider associated investment risks, charges and expenses of the investment company or fund prior to investing.  Before acting on this material, you should consider whether it is suitable for your particular circumstances and, as necessary, seek professional advice.

Disclosure: Futures Trading

Futures are not suitable for all investors. The amount you may lose may be greater than your initial investment. Before trading futures, please read the CFTC Risk Disclosure. A copy and additional information are available at ibkr.com.