Forum - Beyond the news
home news forum careers events suppliers solutions markets resources directories advertise contacts search news site plan
 
SeedQuest Forum
A Tale of Two Futures for Seed Biotechnology
By 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

May 2008

Copyright © SeedQuest - All rights reserved
This article may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast
in any form or by any process without prior written permission from SeedQuest


 

 


Copyright © SeedQuest - All rights reserved