 Davis,
California
May, 2008By Dr. Kent
Bradford, Founder & Academic Director, Seed Biotechnology Center
Source: Annual Report of the
Seed Biotechnology Center (SBC) at UC Davis
Charles Dickens’ A Tale of Two
Cities opens with the famous line, “It was the best of times, it
was the worst of times.” The same can be said of seed
biotechnology, depending upon your perspective. If your crop and
trait are already approved and in the marketplace, this may well
be the best of times.
High rates of adoption of traits such as herbicide tolerance and
insect resistance in cotton, maize and soybean are supporting
seed sales and profits in those crops. The next generation of
traits promising higher yields, stress tolerance or product
quality improvements are in the development pipeline and are
moving toward commercialization. The U.S. Biotechnology
Regulatory Service is considering changes that may ease the
regulatory burden on crops and traits with which the agency has
considerable familiarity, such as those mentioned above.
Acceptance and utilization of biotech crops is increasing,
particularly in China, India, Brazil and Australia. Applications
of genomics and biotechnology to identify molecular markers and
facilitate genetic mapping are making traditional breeding
approaches more efficient in many crops without the use of
genetic engineering. Thus, for some sectors of seed
biotechnology, the future looks open and inviting.
|
It is both
the best of times and the worst of times for seed
biotechnology |
Other developments in recent
years, however, forecast a less optimistic future. Of major
concern is the decision in February 2007 by the Ninth Circuit
Court in San Francisco to re-regulate Roundup Ready (RR)
alfalfa, which had already been deregulated and in the market
since 2005. The Center for Food Safety and other groups claimed
that USDA-APHIS had not fully considered the environmental
impacts of RR alfalfa, particularly the fact that it is
crosspollinated by bees, which could potentially result in
transfer of the RR genes to organic or conventional alfalfa
crops and to economic losses in biotechsensitive markets. While
not requiring that existing plantings be removed, strict
conditions were subsequently imposed on production, harvesting
and marketing of RR alfalfa and further planting of RR alfalfa
seed was banned until APHIS completes an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS), which may take two years.
A key component of the ruling was that economic impacts to other
growers must be considered as an environmental impact. As a
result, new introductions of biotech traits in the future may
require a full EIS. This would mean additional time and expense
to deregulate new biotech crops, a process that is already too
expensive to be profitable for most specialty crops.
 Another
development of concern is the attempt to pass legislation
establishing “strict liability” with respect to biotech crops.
California AB 541, for example, would have allowed the developer
of a biotech variety to be sued for any economic loss suffered
by a grower due to the production of the biotech variety by
another grower, such as loss of market value due to unintended
presence of the biotech commodity. Regardless of any specific
fault on their part, the developer of the variety could be sued
for damages. Fortunately, AB 541 did not pass the California
legislature in 2007. However, efforts are still under way to
incorporate strict liability measures into the Cartagena
Protocol on Biosafety that affects international movement of
biotech seeds. Beyond the issue of biotechnology, all who are
involved in agriculture should be wary of enacting the principle
of strict liability into law. It is the nature of agriculture
that the production practices of growers can influence the
operations of others,
and these situations are handled routinely by communication,
cooperation and accommodation, not by lawsuits. Once the
principle of strict liability for agricultural practices is
enacted into law, it would be hard to contain its application to
a restricted set of situations, and unforeseen consequences
abound. Those supporting the application of strict liability
against biotech crops might well find that it could be applied
to their practices as well.
A third issue of concern is the relationship of biotechnology to
agricultural sustainability. A national effort is currently
under way to establish a set of standards for Sustainable
Agriculture that would be adopted through the
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and eventually be
incorporated into an International Standards Organization (ISO)
standard. The long-term sustainability of agriculture is
critically important, and many groups are exploring ways to make
agriculture more sustainable. However, the initial draft of
these standards would exclude the use of genetically engineered
varieties.
Defining crops developed using biotechnology as “unsustainable”
ignores the fact that current biotech varieties have already
reduced pesticide use by 224 million kg, reduced the
environmental impact of pesticides by 15% and reduced greenhouse
gas emissions by 9 billion kg — equivalent to taking 4 million
cars off the road for a year, according to a recent analysis (www.pgeconomics.co.uk).
Reducing pest losses and improving salt tolerance and water use
efficiency through biotechnology, which have already been
demonstrated, will contribute to the sustainability of
agriculture. Defining biotechnology as “not sustainable” would
handicap efforts to reduce agriculture’s environmental
footprint. In fact, “Biotechnology for Sustainability” should be
a guiding principle for the next decade.
|
Sound
science, constructive engagement and open communication
will sustain agriculture. |
To return again to Dickens’ famous
line, it is both the best and worst of times for seed
biotechnology. Some sectors of the industry with market access
are realizing the enormous potential for crop improvement from
the synergistic utilization of all of the tools being made
available by genomics and biotechnology. Other sectors are able
to use some of the tools, but may be locked out of the use of
transgenics for the foreseeable future due to regulatory and
market hurdles. Both sectors need to be informed and active to
ward off restrictive legislation and standards that would
handicap the industry for years to come. As was well illustrated
in Dickens’ tale about the French Revolution and the subsequent
Reign of Terror, even the best intentioned and idealistic of
causes can be corrupted when zealotry gains the upper hand over
reason.
The SBC is actively engaged in all of these issues as a voice
for science and reason rather than ideology. Sound science,
constructive engagement and open communication are how the SBC
seeks to promote the biological revolution of the 21st century
that will sustain agriculture both locally and globally.
Dr. Kent Bradford can be reached
at
kjbradford@ucdavis.edu |
|
