David Tricoli used genetic engineering to create a virus resistant melon but the company, Seminis, dropped the melon project and most of its other work on biotech vegetables because of the high costs of obtaining regulatory approval and perceived consumer resistance. There are things growers need and want but are just too difficult to get them out said Mr. Tricolo.
Agricultural biotechnology continues to spread in the USA and worldwide but the extent biotechnology is growing is in a narrow range. Ninety nine percent of the crops are grown in just 6 countries and virtually all the worldwide acreage is devoted to only four crops: soybeans, corn, cotton and canola.
Recent attempts to move genetic engineering to other crops has met resistance or at least fear by food companies and farmers that consumers will balk. And experts say, the time and money involved in clearing regulatory hurdles make it uneconomical to apply biotechnology to any but the most widely grown crops.. The April-June 2004 issue of California Agriculture magazine laments a sharp falloff in efforts to develop genetically engineered fruits and vegetables. The number of field trials in the US involving biotech fruit and vegetables has plummeted to about 20 in 2003 from about 120 in 1999 said California Agriculture.
The difficulty that new gene altered crops have is that food companies and farmers are reluctant to risk losing even a little bit of market share or attracting protests. Virus resistant biotech potatoes were taken off the market by Monsanto after big potato processors and fast food companies told growers they did not want them. Lettuce growers in CA balked at the introduction of Roundup Ready lettuce said K. J. Bradford, vegetable crops professor at Davis. A. McHughen, a plant biotechnologist at the Univ. of CA says in California Agriculture that some companies budget $50 million above what they spend on a conventional crop to bring biotech seed to market, given the health and environmental tests required. The entire market for Iceberg lettuce seeds is $27 million a year, they write, which is why it may be difficult to develop transgenic lettuce.
Some experts say the biotechnology companies must develop crops that offer more for consumers and food companies and not just the farmer.
Julian M. Alston writes in an article “Horticultural biotechnology faces significant economic and market barriers” in California Agriculture that the latest wave of technological change in agriculture is based in molecular biology. Will horticulture participate? High costs for research, development and regulatory approval combined with the small acreages planted and the diversity of varieties will limit the potential for profitable applications of biotechnology to many fruits and vegetables, tree fruits, nuts and nursery crops. In another research article, “Despite benefits, commercialization of transgenic horticultural crops lags”, David Clark et al points out that commercialization is stalled by market reluctance to accept biotech products, particularly in the absence of clear benefits to consumers. High regulatory costs and restricted access to intellectual property create additional hurdles for specialty crops.
Jennifer James in her article “ Consumer knowledge and acceptance of agricultural biotechnology vary” comes to three main conclusions. First, consumers do not agree about whether biotech foods are good or bad. Second, a small group of people strongly oppose them. Third, the majority of consumers are uninformed about the technology and how food is produced. Small anti-groups are successful in influencing public opinion.
Sources:
“Narrow Path for New Biotech Food Crops” by Andrew M. Pollack. The New York Times. Thursday, May 20, 2004. pp C1, C6.
“Fruits of biotechnology struggle to emerge”. California Agriculture, April-June 2004. Volume 58, Number 2
|