In This
Issue:
GLOBAL
SALES OF GM SEEDS CONTINUE TO GROW
Global
sales of GM seed have grown rapidly since 1995, when the first
transgenic seeds were planted commercially. According to a recent
report from the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech
Applications (ISAAA), the estimated value of the global GM seed
market in 2002 was US$4.0 billion. The latest estimate is up from
US$3.7 billion in 2001.
The
value of the transgenic crop market is based on the sale price
of GM seed plus any technology fees that apply. Initial global
sales of GM seed were estimated at $1 million in 1995. Sales increased
in value to US$148 million in 1996, and increased by approximately
US$711 million in 1997 to reach US$859 million. Sales increased
by another US$1,111 million between 1997 and 1998 to reach US$1.97
billion in 1998. Sales continued to increase substantially in 1999
by an additional US$977 million to reach US$2.95 billion in 1999
and in 2000 plateaued at US$3.044 billion. In 2001, there was a
renewed significant increase of $795 million to US$3.7 billion,
and the market exceeded US$4.0 billion for the first time in 2002.
GM soybean accounted for US$2.34 billion, GM cotton for US$849
million, GM maize for US$658 million, and GM canola for US$220
million.
Clive
James, ISAAA Chair and author of the report, estimates that, expressed
as a proportion of the global commercial seed market, GM seed represents
approximately 13% of the estimated US$30 billion plus global commercial
seed market in 2001.
For
more on the status of GM crops and developments in the crop biotechnology
industry, see ISAAA’s latest publication: ISAAA Briefs No.
29 Global Review of Commercialized Transgenic Crops: 2002. For
more information about getting a copy, email publications@isaaa.org.
BIOTECHNOLOGY
FOR AFRICA
Making
biotechnology work in Africa requires harnessing the technology
to address the socio-economic and agronomic constraints faced by
African smallholders, rather than relying on technologies developed
for other contexts. This view was forwarded by Dominic Glover in
a brief entitled “Biotechnology for Africa?” It is
one in a series on “Democratising Biotechnology: Genetically
Modified Crops in Developing Countries” published by the
Institute of Development Studies in the United Kingdom.
Glover
said that, in general, biotechnologies that are appropriate for
smallholder farming in Africa will be those which:
- Are
affordable and do not restrict the freedom of farmers to save
and exchange seeds;
- Are
manageable and appropriate for small plots of land in marginal
areas;
- Are
responsible to local livelihood context, including patterns of
labor availability;
- Are
suitable for use with a varied cropping system, including a number
of different crops;
- Prioritize
traits such as drought tolerance, nutrient-use efficiency and
disease resistance, rather than traits like herbicide tolerance,
which require expensive inputs;
- Are
suitable and acceptably safe for introduction into the local
ecosystem; and
- Are
backed up by appropriate support, such as access to credit, markets,
and extension services.
View
the brief online at http://www.ids.ac.uk/biotech
UK GM DEBATE
WAS AN 'OPPORTUNITY MISSED'
A report
from the UK Government's Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee
on the GM Nation debate says that the public debate did not fulfill
its role in educating and informing the public. The debate did
not involve a wider public, and information that was meant to provide
structure to the debate, was not released on time.
The
debate was designed to increase public awareness of the issues
surrounding the genetic modification of crops and tie in with the
results of the farm-scale evaluations of GM plants also taking
place in the UK. According to the Committee, although the public
debate was imaginative and innovative, and was modestly successful
in some areas, overall it was an opportunity missed.
The
report says that the main lesson to be learned from the debate
is that wide-ranging consultative exercises such as the GM public
debate must be adequately resourced and must be given enough time
to be conducted properly. The full text of the report is available
at http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmenvfru/1220/122002.htm
STRONG GROWTH
FOR KOREAN BIOTECH INDUSTRY
Sustained
government support is boosting the South Korean biotechnology industry
according to a report by the consultancy firm Frost & Sullivan.
The government has identified biotechnology as a high-potential
industry of the future, hence it has dedicated substantial resources
to industry development.
New analysis from Frost & Sullivan for South Korean Biotech Markets, reveals
that revenues in this industry totaled $1.37 billion in 2002 and are projected
to reach $6.59 billion by 2010. "South Korea is primed to grow into an
important biotech destination, attracting active participation from international
and local companies due to strong government support, a well-developed scientific
talent base, and an expanding domestic market," observes Frost & Sullivan
Research Analyst Deepa Aithal.
Major
government initiatives include "Biotech 2000," "Vision
2025" and "21C Frontier R&D" and the setting
up of several research institutes focusing on basic research and
various fields of biotechnology. The government is also planning
to combine biotech and IT industry clusters and create special
industrial regions for knowledge-based, high-tech industries. The
analysts identify agricultural and environmental biotechnology
as new and emerging areas of growth.
For
more information, visit http://www.biotech.frost.com/prod/servlet/vp-portal-home.pag?vpid=2843787
BT COTTON CONTINUES
TO BENEFIT CHINESE FARMERS
The
adoption of Bt cotton by Chinese farmers continues to increase
output per hectare within two years time (2000-2001), and crop
yield gains (approximately 10 percent) extend to all provinces
in China. Bt cotton farmers also increased their incomes by reducing
pesticide usage and labor inputs. Says Jikun Huang, Director, Center
for Chinese Agricultural Policy of the Chinese Academy of Science
in Beijing, and colleagues who re-examined earlier findings on
the effect of Bt cotton in China.
Huang
and his colleagues observed that Bt cotton also continued to have
positive environmental impacts due to reduced pesticide use. Farmers
were also found to have less health problems because of this.
In terms
of policies, the results suggest that the Chinese government should
continue to invest in Bt cotton and other agri-biotech technologies.
Government investments in the regulation of biotechnology will
have to be increased to ensure that widespread use of Bt does not
lead to the rapid development of pest resistance.
The
Chinese government was, likewise, seen as playing a role in reducing
pesticide use among farmers through information, extension related
training, pesticide price and marketing policies. A combination
of Bt cotton and integrated pest management activities was suggested
to make Bt cotton even more beneficial to the farmers.
The
authors concluded that the experience of China with Bt cotton is
not a unique case, and that there are lessons, particularly on
the importance of local research on biotechnology, which other
farmers in developing countries can benefit from. The paper entitled “Bt
cotton benefits, costs and impacts in China” can be downloaded
at http://www.ids.ac.uk/ids/bookshop/wp/wp202.pdf.
KEELEY ON THE
DEMOCRATIZATION OF BIOTECHNOLOGY
”Democratization
of biotechnology is needed if imagined food and farming futures
really are to be ‘pro-poor.’ Responsive and accountable
biotechnology needs to be placed in the context of wider deliberations
about values, livelihoods and the possibilities of different types
of development,” states James Keeley of the Institute of
Development Studies, University of Sussex, in Brighton, United
Kingdom.
The
author also said that decisions about the future of biotechnology
cannot be decided upon on the basis of simple cost-benefit analyses,
laws, or ‘sound science’ alone. It is essential that
the different dimensions of various global genetic modification
(GM) debates, and the multiple perspectives they generate, be analyzed
as a whole.
Keeley
further outlined the challenges for the democratization of biotechnology
which are as follows:
- Understanding
of the impact of different trade choices for developing countries;
- Allowing
alternatives to dominant intellectual property right models;
- Fashioning
regulatory systems that are responsive to local needs;
- Scrutinizing
the role of ‘sound science’ in decision making;
- Carefully
analyzing ‘front-end’ technology choice issues, aside
from ‘back-end’ regulations; and
- Allowing
the marginalized, as well as the elites, to reflect on the role
of different technologies in different food and farming futures.
Download
James Keeley’s paper at http://www.ids.ac.uk/ids/env/PDFs/%20Briefing1.pdf
AUSTRIAN
CONSUMERS STILL OPPOSED TO AGRI-BIOTECH
The
Austrian government is still more inclined to develop anti-biotechnology
laws and regulations due to the strong opposition of consumers
to the technology despite the latter’s science-based pro-biotech
dialogues with government regulators. Thus, in order to change
Austria’s anti-biotech laws, consumer opinion must first
be changed. This was according to the United States Department
of Agriculture (USDA) Foreign Agricultural Services’ report
on the current status of biotech regulations in Austria for 2003.
According
to the report, at present, Austria’s current legislation
prohibits the marketing of all products derived from agricultural
biotechnology. This is despite the industry and agricultural businesses’ importation
of large quantities of soybean meal.
Only
enforcements of regulations from the European Commission (EC) could
make the Austrian environment for agri-biotech more predictable.
If such enforcements could be made, policy makers, scientists,
and other opinion leaders could provide sound and balanced information
for the Austrian publics. To date only six European Union (EU)
regulations are applicable in Austria.
Read
the USDA report at http://www.fas.usda.gov/gainfiles/200310/145986564.pdf. | 
