1. Introduction - ISAAA.org · 2007-03-20 · approval for commercial sale of a genetically...

1

1. Introduction

Global population reached 6 billion on 12October 1999, will reach 8 billion in 2025, 9billion by 2050, and will probably stabilize atbetween 9 and 10 billion during the latter halfof the next century. Thus, in the next 50 yearspopulation will increase by 50% from 6 to 9billion. The magnitude of the challenge offeeding tomorrow�s world is difficult toconceive and the enormity of the task isprobably best captured by the statement: �Inthe next 50 years mankind will consume twiceas much food as mankind has consumed sincethe beginning of agriculture 10,000 years ago.�There is a widely held view in the internationalscientific and development community thatconventional crop improvement alone will notallow us to meet the global food demands of2025. What is being advocated is a globalstrategy that integrates both conventional cropimprovement and biotechnology, specificallyincluding transgenic crops, to allow society toharness and optimize the contribution oftechnology to global food security. Theadoption of such a strategy will capitalize onthe full potential that both conventional cropimprovement and transgenic crops offer. It alsoprovides a unique opportunity to optimize theuse of technology as one of several essentialinputs in a multiple-thrust strategy, thatincludes improved food distribution andpopulation control to ensure global foodsecurity; no approach dependent on a singlethrust will succeed; a strategy with multiplethrusts that addresses all major issues isrequired. There is cautious optimism in theinternational scientific and developmentcommunity that by integrating conventionaland biotechnology applications, a significantcontribution can be made by technologytowards the alleviation of poverty andmalnutrition, which afflicts 1.3 billion peopleand 840 million people, respectively, today,and that global food demands of 2025 andbeyond can be met.

China was the first country to commercializetransgenic crops in the early 1990s. The firstapproval for commercial sale of a geneticallymodified product for food use in anindustrialized country was in the United Statesin 1994 when Calgene marketed its Flavr-Savr� delayed ripening tomato. In the interim,the number of countries growing transgeniccrops has increased from 1 (China) in 1992, to6 in 1996, to 9 in 1998. Global acreage oftransgenic crops increased from 1.7 million hain 1996 and within 2 years reached 27.8million ha in 1998. Transgenic crops wereplanted commercially in 1998 in industrialcountries of the United States, Canada, andAustralia, the developing countries ofArgentina, China, Mexico, and South Africa,with limited small introductory areas plantedin Spain and France, as countries of theEuropean Union continued to debate theadoption of transgenic crops, and productsderived from them.

The adoption rates for transgenic crops globallyare unprecedented and are the highest for anynew technologies by agricultural industrystandards. High adoption rates reflect growersatisfaction with transgenic crops that offersignificant and multiple benefits whichcollectively contribute to a more sustainableagriculture and higher net returns per hectare.The first generation of transgenic crops hasalready demonstrated that incorporation ofinput traits has conferred beneficial control ofbiotic stresses that was not possible withconventional technology, for example,effective and targeted control of specific cottonand maize insect pests as well as papaya andpotato virus diseases. Unlike the first-generation input traits, the second-generationtransgenic crops, with output/quality traits, thatare ready for deployment in the near term, arecapable of delivering significant nutritional and

2

health benefits that will be very evident toconsumers.

This publication is the fourth by the author inan annual review series, published as ISAAABriefs, to characterize and monitor the globalstatus of commercialized transgenic crops. Thefirst review was published in 1996 (James andKrattiger 1996), the second in 1997 (James1997a), and the third in 1998 (James 1998).The current publication presents similarinformation for 1999.

The principal aims of this publication are to:· provide an overview of the global adoption

of transgenic crops in the period 1996 to1999;

· document detailed information on theglobal status and distribution of commercialtransgenic crops in 1999, by region,country, crop, and trait;

· identify countries growing transgenic cropsfor the first time in 1999;

· rank the dominant transgenic crop/traitcombinations in 1999;

· summarize and highlight the significantchanges in transgenic crop developmentbetween 1998 and 1999;

· review the value of the transgenic seedmarket from 1995 to 1999;

· provide an update on developments in thecrop biotechnology industry, particularlythe continuing acquisitions, alliances,mergers, and spin-offs in the private sector,including in the area of genomics, whichremains pivotal to future developments incrop biotechnology;

· provide an overview of the commercialseed industry;

· review the status of transgenic crops inselected developing countries of Asia;

· discuss future traits in biotechnology in thenear term;

· review past plant breeding achievementsin increasing crop productivity of the threemajor staples�wheat, rice, and maize�and assess the potential of a plant breeding

strategy that combines conventional andbiotechnology applications to meet thecereal demands of 2025;

· conclude with a brief overview of futureprospects for transgenic crops in 2000 andbeyond.

Previous Briefs in this series have reviewed theattributes and performance of transgenic crops,and this practice will be continued. Projectsare currently under way in several countriesto assess the ongoing performance of principaltransgenic crops and results from these studieswill be consolidated and findings publishedin a future Brief. Note that the words maizeand corn, as well as rapeseed and canola, areused as synonyms throughout the text,reflecting the usage of these words in differentregions of the world. Global figures on hectaresplanted have been rounded off and in somecases this leads to insignificant rounding-offapproximations. In the ISAAA Briefs Series(Briefs No. 1, 5, 8, and 12) information forChina was not available for 1998; theincomplete set of data for China should beborne in mind by the reader when considering1998 data. For any comparison involving 1998data, e.g., the number of countries reported tobe growing transgenic crops in 1998 was eight(excluding China) which increased to 12 in1999 (including China). It is also important tonote that countries in the Southern hemisphereplant their crops in the last quarter of thecalendar year, and transgenic crop areasreported are planted (not harvested) in the yearstated. Thus, the 1999 information forArgentina is hectares planted in the last quarterof 1999 and harvested in the first quarter of2000. Finally, note that a Preview of thispublication (James 1999) with data on theglobal distribution of transgenic crops wasdistributed in October 1999; additionalinformation has been received since Octoberand this manuscript has been updated with thelatest information, along with some editorialchanges.

3

2. Overview of Global Status and Distribution of Commercial TransgenicCrops, 1996-1999

Information on the adoption of commercialtransgenic crops was provided by manyindependent sources from both public andprivate sectors. Multiple sources of data, as wellas additional and independent commercialmarketing information, allowed several cross-checks to be conducted, which facilitated arigorous verification of the estimates. Forconvenience and ease of interpretation, thedata for the global status and distribution ofcommercial transgenic crops are presented intwo complementary formats. Figures are usedto best illustrate the changes in globaltransgenic area between 1996 and 1999.Companion tables provide more detailedcorresponding information for 1999 andillustrate changes that have occurred between1998 and 1999. Data in Figure 1 graphicallyshows the very rapid increase in global area oftransgenic crops from zero in 1995 to 39.9million ha in 1999. The adoption rates fortransgenic crops in Figure 1 exhibit more than

a 23-fold increase between 1996 and 1999.The high adoption rates reflect growersatisfaction with the products that offersignificant benefits ranging from more flexiblecrop management, higher productivity, and asafer environment through decreased use ofconventional pesticides, which collectivelycontribute to a more sustainable agricultureand higher net returns per hectare. Thecompanion data to Figure 1, in Table 1, showthat the global area planted to commercialtransgenic crops increased from 1.7 million hain 1996 to 11.0 million ha in 1997, to 27.8million ha in 1998 and to 39.9 million ha in1999. Thus, global transgenic crop areaincreased by 9.3 million ha between 1996 and1997, equivalent to more than a 500%increase; by 16.8 million ha, or a 150%increase between 1997 and 1998; and a further44% increase between 1998 and 1999. The44% global increase in area of commercialtransgenic crops between 1998 and 1999,

Million hectares

Figure 1. Global area of transgenic crops, 1995-1999

Source: Clive James (1999).

0

10

20

30

40

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

4

equivalent to 12.1 million ha, represents acontinuing high rate of adoption for this newtechnology and reconfirms the support ofselected Governments and the conviction offarmers in those countries about the values ofthe technology. This has provided farmers theincentive to continue to plant transgenic crops.

Figure 2 graphically illustrates that from 1996to 1999, the substantial share of global

transgenic crops was being grown in industrialcountries, with significantly less in developingcountries. The companion data to Figure 2, inTable 2, confirm that the proportion oftransgenic crops grown in industrial countriesin 1999 was 82%, with 18% grown indeveloping countries, with most of that area(approximately 90%, equivalent to 6.7 millionha) in Argentina, and the remainder in China,South Africa, and Mexico. The relative increasein area between 1998 and 1999, expressed asa ratio, however, was higher for developingcountries at 0.6 compared with 0.4 forindustrial countries (Table 2); this mainlyreflects the high rate of adoption of herbicide-tolerant soybeans in Argentina in 1999 and toa much lesser extent the 0.3 million ha of Btcotton reported for China in 1999. The actualincrease in transgenic crop area between 1998and 1999 was 9.4 million ha in industrialcountries, and 2.7 million ha in developingcountries. In industrial countries, the majorincrease in area was due to soybeans, followedby corn, canola, and cotton; the major increasein developing countries involved the samecrops, but excluding canola.

Table 1. Global area of transgenic cropsin 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999

Hectares Acres

(million) (million)

1996 1.7 4.3

1997 11.0 27.5

1998 27.8 69.5

1999 39.9 98.6Increase of 44 %, 12.1 million hectares or 29.1 millionacres between 1998 and 1999.Source: Clive James (1999).

Figure 2. Global area of transgenic crops, 1995-1999, by region

Million hectares


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Industrial

Developing

5

2.1 Distribution of Transgenic Crops,by Country

Between 1996 and 1999, 12 countries, 8industrial and 4 developing, have contributedto more than a 20-fold increase (23.5) in theglobal area of transgenic crops. The numberof countries growing commercializedtransgenic crops increased from six in 1996(USA, Argentina, Canada, Australia, China, andMexico) to nine in 1998; to 12 in 1999 whenthree new countries, Portugal, Romania, andUkraine grew transgenic crops for the first time.The countries listed in descending order oftransgenic crop area (Table 3) on a global basisin 1999 are: USA, 28.7 million ha representing72% of the global area; Argentina with 6.7million ha equivalent to 17%; Canada, 4.0million ha representing 10%; and China withapproximately 0.3 million ha equivalent to 1%.Australia and South Africa each grew 0.1million ha (<0.1%) of transgenic crops in 1999.The remaining balance was grown in Mexico,Spain, France, Portugal, Romania, and Ukraineeach with <0.1 million ha, collectivelyequivalent to <1% of the global area oftransgenic crops in 1999.

Figure 3 and Table 3 clearly demonstrate thatin 1999, the USA retained its ranking as thecountry with the largest area of transgenics(28.7 million ha). Between 1998 and 1999 theUSA increased its transgenic area by 8.2

million ha, but its global share remained fairlyconstant at just over 70% in 1998 and 1999.The USA grew more than four times the areaof transgenic crops than Argentina in 1999,which occupied second place in both years.The USA increased its transgenic crop area bya factor of 0.4 between 1998 and 1999 andbenefited from a broad array of crop/traitcombinations, including stacked genes forherbicide tolerance and insect resistance inboth corn and cotton. In the USA in 1999, thebiggest increase in transgenic crop area wasin soybean, which increased by almost 50%�from just over 10 million ha in 1998 to almost15 million ha in 1999 on a global basis. Cornhad the second biggest increase in absolutearea, from about 8 million ha in 1998 to 10.3million ha in 1999. An increase of almost 50%in area was realized in the USA for transgeniccotton between 1998 and 1999 when total areareached 3.2 million ha. The most significantarea of transgenic cotton in the US in 1999was herbicide-tolerant cotton (1.5 million ha),followed by equal areas (850,000 ha) of single-trait Bt cotton, and multiple-trait cotton withboth insect resistance and herbicide tolerance.

Argentina�s area of transgenic crops increased0.6-fold from 4.3 million ha in 1998 to 6.7million ha in 1999 due to the 50% increase inherbicide-tolerant soybean and the smallerincrease of almost 250,000 ha of transgeniccorn. Argentina�s proportion of global share

Table 2. Global area of transgenic crops in 1998 and 1999, industrial and developingcountries (million hectares)

1998 % 1999 % Increase (Ratio)Industrial countries 23.4 84 32.8 82 9.4 (0.4)

Developing countries 4.4 16 7.1 18 2.7 (0.6)

Total 27.8 100 39.9 100 12.1 (0.4)Source: Clive James (1999).

6

Table 3. Global area of transgenic crops in 1998 and 1999, by country (millionhectares)

Country 1998 % 1999 % Increase from 1998to 1999 (Ratio)

USA 20.5 74 28.7 72 8.2 (0.4)Argentina 4.3 15 6.7 17 2.4 (0.6)Canada 2.8 10 4.0 10 1.2 (0.4)China <0.1 <1 0.3 1 0.2 (3.0)Australia 0.1 1 0.1 <1 <0.1 (- -)South Africa <0.1 <1 0.1 <1 <0.1 (- -)Mexico 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <1 <0.1 (- -)Spain <0.1 <1 <0.1 <1 <0.1 (- -)France <0.1 <1 <0.1 <1 <0.1 (- -)Portugal 0.0 0 <0.1 <1 <0.1 (- -)Romania 0.0 0 <0.1 <1 <0.1 (- -)Ukraine 0.0 0 <0.1 <1 <0.1 (- -)Total 27.8 100 39.9 100 12.1 (0.4)


Figure 3. Global area of transgenic crops, 1995-1999, by country


Million hectares

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

USA

Argentina

Canada

China

7

remained almost constant at 17% in 1999compared with 15% in 1998. Globally, Canadaretained its third place in 1999 at 10% (thesame as 1998) by increasing its transgeniccanola area from 2.4 million ha in 1998 to 3.4million ha in 1999, its Bt corn area toapproximately 0.4 million ha, and itsherbicide-tolerant soybean from almost 40,000ha in 1998 to 245,000 ha in 1999. China wasranked fourth in 1999, with approximately 0.3million ha of Bt cotton, which is a significantincrease compared with a total area of 63,000ha of Bt cotton for 1998.

Australia grew approximately 125,000 ha ofBt cotton in 1999 (compared with 80,000 hain 1998) while Mexico grew 20,000 ha oftransgenic cotton (mainly Bt cotton) comparedwith 40,000 ha in 1998. South Africa wasreported to have grown almost 100,000 ha ofBt corn in 1999 and just over 10,000 ha of Btcotton. Of the two European countries, Spainand France, that grew transgenic crops for thefirst time in 1998, Spain increased its area ofBt maize from approximately 22,000 ha in1998 to 30,000 ha in 1999 while the area inFrance remained the same at approximately1,000 to 2,000 ha. Portugal, Romania, andUkraine grew transgenic crops for the first timein 1999. Portugal grew introductory areas ofBt maize (about 1,000 ha); Romania andUkraine grew introductory areas (<1,000 haeach) of Bt potatoes with Romania growing14,250 ha of herbicide-tolerant soybean for thefirst time, equivalent to 16% of the nationalsoybean area of 35,250 ha. Finally, Germanywas reported to have grown small introductoryareas of Bt maize in 1999, and 12,000 ha ofherbicide-tolerant maize were grown inBulgaria. These were not included in the globaldatabase, however, because they could not beverified. Thus, in 1999 transgenic crops weregrown in all six continents of the world�NorthAmerica, Latin America, Asia, Oceania, Europe(East and West), and Africa.

2.1.1 Countries Growing TransgenicCrops for the First Time in 1999

Twelve countries grew transgenic cropscommercially in 1999. Three of these�Romania, Portugal, and Ukraine�grewtransgenic crops for the first time. Romaniagrew two crops, 14,250 ha of herbicide-tolerant soybean, and introductory areas of Btpotatoes; Portugal grew introductory areas ofBt maize; and Ukraine grew introductory areasof Bt potatoes. There were also reports thatGermany grew a small introductory area of Btmaize, and that Bulgaria grew an introductoryarea of 12,000 ha of herbicide-tolerant cornwhich are not included in the database becausethey could not be verified.

In summary, the countries listed in descendingorder of transgenic crop area on a global basisin 1999 (Table 3) were: USA 28.7 million ha,representing 72% of the global area; Argentinawith 6.7 million ha or 17%; Canada 4.0 millionha representing 10%; China withapproximately 0.3 million ha equivalent to 1%;Australia and South Africa each grew 0.1million ha of transgenic crops in 1999. Thebalance of <1% was grown in Mexico, Spain,France, Portugal, Romania and Ukraine, eachwith <0.1 million ha. The proportion oftransgenic crops grown in industrial countrieswas 82% (Table 3), less than that for 1998(84%), with 18% grown in developingcountries. Most of that area is in Argentina,and the balance is in China, South Africa, andMexico. As in 1998, the largest increase intransgenic crops in 1999 occurred in the USA(8.2 million ha) where there was a 0.4-foldincrease, followed by Argentina (2.4 millionha) with a 0.6-fold increase, and Canada (1.2million ha) with a 0.4-fold increase. USAcontinued to be the principal grower oftransgenic crops in 1999 although its share ofglobal area was slightly lower (72%) in 1999than in 1998 (74%). The increase in China�stransgenic crop area was the largest relative

8

change, increasing 3.0-fold from <0.1 millionha of Bt cotton in 1998 to approximately 0.3million ha in 1999, equivalent to 1% of theglobal share; Argentina�s global share oftransgenic crop area increased from 15% in1998 to 17% in 1999. Canada�s share of globaltransgenic crop area remained the same, 10%of global area in 1998 and 1999.

2.2 Distribution of Transgenic Crops,by Crop

Figure 4 clearly shows the increasingdominance, in area planted, of transgenicsoybean followed by transgenic corn duringthe period 1996-99. The companion data inTable 4 confirm that the top four transgeniccrops on a global basis in 1999 were soybean

(54%), corn (28%), with cotton and canolasharing third place at 9% each; collectivelythe four crops occupied more than 99% of theglobal transgenic crop area, with the balanceof <1% occupied primarily by insect-resistanttransgenic potato. Soybean retained its firstranking in 1999 as the crop with the largestarea, 21.6 million ha, equivalent to 54% ofthe global share of transgenic crops (Table 4),up from 52% in 1998. The 0.5-fold increasein area planted with soybean between 1998and 1999 was equal to the 0.5-fold increasein cotton. The highest absolute increase in areabetween 1998 and 1999 was recorded forherbicide-tolerant soybean with 7.1 million ha.This was due to two principal changes between1998 and 1999. First, the biggest increase wasin the USA where area of herbicide-tolerant

Figure 4. Global area of transgenic crops, 1995-1999, by crop

Million hectares


0

5

10

15

20

25

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Soybean

Corn

Cotton

Canola

9

soybean increased by 4.8 million ha, from 10.2million ha in 1998 to 15 million ha in 1999;this is equivalent to 50% of the 30 million haof the US national soybean crop in 1999.Second, in Argentina soybean hectarageincreased by 2.1 million ha, from 4.3 millionha in 1998 to 6.4 million ha in 1999; this isequivalent to approximately 90% of the 7.0million ha of Argentina�s national soybean cropin 1999. Additionally, transgenic soybean inCanada increased substantially from <100,000ha in 1998 to 245,000 ha in 1999. Thus, threeprincipal countries grew transgenic soybeanin 1999�USA, Argentina, and Canada�plusintroductory areas in Romania (14,250 ha) andMexico (500 ha) for a total area of 21.6 millionha, equivalent to 54% of the transgenic croparea worldwide.

Transgenic corn retained its second ranking in1999 with 11.1 million ha equivalent to 28%of the total global transgenic area for all crops,and up from 8.3 million ha in 1998. Thus,global transgenic corn acreage increased by2.8 million ha, a 0.3-fold increase, between1998 and 1999. This increase of 2.2 millionha was in the USA where transgenic corn(insect-resistant, Bt/herbicide-tolerant and

herbicide-tolerant) increased from 8.1 millionha in 1998 to 10.3 million ha in 1999,equivalent to 33% of the 31.4 million ha ofthe US national corn crop in 1999. Transgeniccorn also increased significantly in Argentinafrom 17,000 ha in 1998 to 260,000 ha in 1999,and similarly in South Africa from a smallintroductory area in 1998 to almost 100,000ha in 1999. In 1999, transgenic corn wasgrown for the second time in Spain (30,000ha) and France (1,000-2,000 ha), and for thefirst time in Portugal (about 1,000 ha). Inaddition, small introductory areas of Bt cornwere reported to have been grown in Germanyand 8,000 ha of herbicide-tolerant corn inBulgaria, but these are not included in the 1999database because they could not be verified.Approximately two-thirds of all transgenic cornin 1998 was Bt corn. The other traits in cornincluded herbicide tolerance, and multipletraits with stacked genes for herbicide toleranceand Bt. The total number of countries growingtransgenic corn in 1999 was seven, includingUSA, Canada, Spain, France, Argentina, andSouth Africa, all of which grew Bt corn in 1998,and Portugal which grew Bt corn for the firsttime in 1999.

Table 4. Global area of transgenic crops in 1998 and 1999, by crop (million hectares)

Crop 1998 % 1999 % Increase (Ratio)

Soybean 14.5 52 21.6 54 7.1 (0.5)

Corn 8.3 30 11.1 28 2.8 (0.3)

Cotton 2.5 9 3.7 9 1.2 (0.5)

Canola 2.4 9 3.4 9 1.0 (0.4)

Potato <0.1 <1 <0.1 <1 <0.1 (- - )

Squash 0.0 0 <0.1 <1 (- -) (- - )

Papaya 0.0 0 <0.1 <1 (- -) (- - )

Total 27.8 100 39.9 100 12.1 (0.4)


10

The global area of transgenic cotton increased0.5-fold (Table 4), from 2.5 million ha in 1998to 3.7 million ha in 1999, an increase of 1.2million ha. The share of transgenic cotton inpercentage of global transgenic crops remainedconstant at 9% in 1998 and 1999. The USAcontinues to grow most of the transgenic cottonin the world, 3.2 million ha in 1999 comparedwith 2.2 million ha in 1998. Transgenic cottonaccounted for 55% of the 5.9 million ha of theUS national cotton crop in 1999. Transgeniccotton in the US in 1999 comprised Bt cotton,herbicide-tolerant cotton, and cotton withstacked genes for Bt/herbicide tolerance. Asignificant area of Bt cotton was grown in China(245,000 ha) and Australia (125,000 ha) in1999. Mexico continued to grow Bt cotton in1999 (approximately 20,000 ha) and theintroductory areas planted in Argentina andSouth Africa in 1998 increased to about 10,000ha in each of the two countries in 1999.

Thus, six countries grew transgenic cotton in1999�USA, China, Australia, Mexico, SouthAfrica, and Argentina. With the exception ofthe US all countries grew only Bt cotton whilein the US, traits included herbicide tolerance,Bt, and stacked genes for Bt/herbicidetolerance. Whereas the USA currently growsthe majority of transgenic cotton plantedglobally (86% in 1999), the other five countriesare rapidly increasing the area undertransgenics and are equally important partnersin a global strategy that seeks to deploy,diversify, and distribute transgenic crops todecrease dependency on conventionalinsecticides and overcome significant insectpest stresses that constrain crop productivityin the developing world where most of worldcotton is grown.

With the exception of 135,000 ha of transgeniccanola in the USA, the entire area of transgeniccanola is grown in Canada where area

increased from 2.4 million ha in 1998 to 3.4million ha in 1999. Of the 5.9 million ha ofcanola grown in Canada in 1999, 62% wastransgenic for herbicide tolerance. Transgeniccanola ranks third with cotton, after soybeanand corn, in the share of the global transgenicmarket, which was consistent at 9% in 1998and 1999.

Transgenic potato occupied <1% of the globaltransgenic crop market share in 1999 withapproximately 75% (20,000 ha) of globaltransgenic potatoes grown in the USA, 5,000ha in Canada and the balance as introductoryareas in Romania and the Ukraine.

Globally the number of transgenic crops haveincreased from 1 in the early 1990s to a totalof 7 crops in 1999 (Table 4) which include fourprincipal crops (soybean, corn, cotton, andcanola) planted on more than 100,000 ha ,plus smaller areas of three other crops thatinclude 25,000 ha of potatoes, (Bt and virusresistance), <1,000 ha of squash (virusresistance), and 400 ha of papaya (virusresistance). The latter is currently limited toHawaii, USA. Transgenic carnations (color andshelf life) are also marketed in smallerquantities.

In summary, the seven transgenic crops grownin 1999 were, in descending order of area,soybean, corn/maize, cotton, canola/rapeseed,potato, squash, and papaya (Table 4).Transgenic soybean and corn continued to beranked first and second in 1999, accountingfor 54% and 28% of global transgenic croparea, respectively. Cotton (3.7 million ha) andcanola (3.4 million ha) shared the third positionin 1999, each occupying approximately 9%of global area. Potato, squash, and papayaoccupied <1% of the global area of transgeniccrops in 1999.

11

2.3 Distribution of Transgenic Crops,by Trait

Figure 5 demonstrates the marked increase inglobal area of herbicide tolerance during theperiod 1996 to 1999 when it reached 28.1million ha. Insect resistance has also exhibiteda significant increase in area during the sameperiod reaching 8.9 million ha in 1999, withthe stacked trait of herbicide tolerance/insectresistance starting to become evident in 1998with 0.3 million ha, reaching 2.9 million ha in1999. The data in Table 5 indicate that of thefour trait categories in 1999, the dominant traitglobally was herbicide tolerance (71%),occupying almost three-quarters of totaltransgenic area, followed in decreasing orderof importance by insect resistance (22%),stacked traits of insect resistance and herbicidetolerance (7%), and virus resistance/other traits(<1%).

Herbicide tolerance retained its first rankingin 1999 as the trait with the largest area (28.1million ha) with global share remainingconstant at 71% in 1998 and 1999. The largeincrease in area of 8.3 million ha of herbicide-tolerant crops between 1998 and 1999 wasthe highest for all traits and reflected a 0.4-fold increase in area. This was due to threeprincipal changes between 1998 and 1999.First, the biggest increase was in the USA,where area of single trait herbicide-tolerantcrops increased by 4.8 million ha fromapproximately 13 million ha in 1998 to about18 million ha in 1998. Of the 5 million-haincrease in herbicide-tolerant crops in the USA,about 95% can be attributed to the increase insingle trait herbicide-tolerant soybean, and theremaining 5% resulting from a small decreasein single trait herbicide-tolerant corn and asmall increase in single trait herbicide-tolerantcotton. In addition, approximately 1.9 million

Million hectares

Figure 5. Global area of transgenic crops, 1995-1999, by trait


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Herbicide Tolerance

Insect Resistance

Herb Tol/Insect Res.

12

ha of corn and 850,000 ha of cotton, both withstacked genes for Bt/herbicide tolerance, wereplanted in the USA in 1999. The second factorthat contributed to the large increase inherbicide-tolerant crops in 1999 was theincrease in herbicide-tolerant soybean inArgentina, which increased by 2.1 million hafrom 4.3 million ha in 1998 to 6.4 million hain 1999. The third factor was the increase inCanada�s herbicide-tolerant canola, whichincreased by 1.0 million ha from 2.4 millionha in 1998 to 3.4 million ha in 1999.Additionally, in Canada there were increasestotaling approximately 300,000 ha forherbicide-tolerant soybean and corn. Thus, thethree countries�USA, Argentina, andCanada�that grew herbicide-tolerant crops in1998 were also the same countries that grew atotal of 28.1 million ha of herbicide-tolerantcrops in 1999, with the exception of Romaniawhich grew 14,250 ha of herbicide-tolerantsoybean. Bulgaria was also reported to havegrown 12,000 ha of herbicide-tolerant corn butis not included in the data base because itcould not be verified. Thus, USA, Argentina,and Canada account for 99% of the totaltransgenic crop area in the world. Of the 1999global herbicide-tolerant crop area, soybeanrepresents approximately 77%, canola is 13%,with cotton and corn at 5% each. Acorresponding analysis by country indicatesthat 64% is grown in the USA, 23% inArgentina, and 13% in Canada, with a smallarea in Romania.

Insect resistance retained its ranking in 1999as the trait with the second largest area (8.9million ha) equivalent to 22% of global shareof transgenic crops (Table 4), down from 36%in 1997 and 28% in 1998. The 0.2-foldincrease in area planted between 1998 and1999 was the lowest for the top three traitcategories. The increase of 1.2 million ha ofinsect-resistant crops between 1998 and 1999was due to modest increases in two countries.In the USA Bt corn increased by approximately0.5 million ha with a similar increase in Btcotton. In China Bt cotton increased more thanthree-fold to approximately 0.3 million ha in1999. In the USA in 1999 there wereapproximately 7 million ha of Bt corn, 850,000of Bt cotton, and about 20,000 ha of Btpotatoes.

Bt corn was grown in the following sevencountries listed in order of area grown�USA,Canada, Argentina, South Africa, Spain,France, and Portugal. Similarly, Bt cotton wasgrown in the following six countries listed inorder of area planted�USA, China, Australia,Mexico, South Africa, and Argentina. Finally,small areas of Bt potatoes were grown in 1999in four countries that include the USA andCanada which had also planted small areas in1998, with Romania and Ukraine plantingintroductory areas of Bt potatoes for the firsttime in 1999.

Table 5. Global area of transgenic crops in 1998 and 1999, by trait (million hectares)

Trait 1998 % 1999 % Increase (Ratio)

Herbicide tolerance 19.8 71 28.1 71 8.3 (0.4)Insect resistance (Bt) 7.7 28 8.9 22 1.2 (0.2)Bt/Herbicide tolerance 0.3 1 2.9 7 2.6 (8.7)Virus resistance/Other <0.1 <1 <0.1 <1 < 0.1 (-.-)Total 27.8 100 39.9 100 12.1 (0.4)


13

Australia�s hectarage devoted to insect-resistantvarieties in 1999 was exclusively cotton andabout the same as in 1998 with approximately125,000 ha. Similarly, Mexico�s hectarage in1999 was exclusively insect-resistant Bt cottonwith 20,000 ha. The number of countries thatgrew transgenic Bt crops increased from 9 in1998 to 12 in 1999 with Portugal, Romania,and Ukraine growing insect-resistant crops forthe first time. Analyzing the global single-traitinsect resistance area by crop, corn representsapproximately 84% of global area, cotton 14%,and potato 2%. Similarly, a correspondinganalysis by country indicates that of the globalarea for single-trait insect-resistant crop in1999, 89% is grown in the USA, 3% in China,2% each in Canada and Argentina, 1% eachin Australia and South Africa, and theremaining 3% in Mexico, Spain, France,Portugal, Romania, and Ukraine.

The stacked traits of Bt/herbicide tolerancerepresented approximately 7% of globaltransgenic area in 1999 equivalent to 2.9million ha; the increase of 2.6 million habetween 1998 and 1999, equivalent to an 8.7-fold increase was by far the biggest relativeincrease in area for any trait category. Alltransgenic crops with stacked genes in 1999were limited to the USA (2.8 million ha) ontwo crops, cotton, and corn, and Canada (0.1million ha of corn). In 1999 approximately 1.9million ha of corn and 850,000 ha of cotton,both with stacked genes for Bt/herbicidetolerance, were planted in the USA. It isnoteworthy that the stacked genes for Bt/herbicide tolerance in corn and cottonincreased from 1% of global transgenic areain 1998 to 7% in 1999. If commodity pricesallow farmers to purchase the more expensivepackage of stacked genes, these may becomemuch more prevalent, leading to acorresponding decrease in the prevalence ofsingle-trait varieties.

An introductory area of 200 ha of transgenicpapaya, resistant to ring spot virus, was plantedin Hawaii, USA, for the first time in 1998. Thisincreased to approximately 400 ha in 1999.Small areas (<1,000 ha) of virus-resistantsquash were planted in the US in 1999. Thearea planted to quality traits such as shelf life,delayed ripening, and modified oil in soybeanand canola were <0.1% of global area.

In summary, the relative ranking of theprincipal transgenic traits were the same in1998 and 1999 (Table 5), with herbicidetolerance being the highest (71%) in both 1998and 1999. Insect-resistant crops decreasedfrom 28% in 1998 to 22% in 1999. Stackedgenes for insect resistance and herbicidetolerance, however, increased significantly inthe USA in both maize and cotton, from 1% ofglobal transgenic crop area in 1998 (0.3 millionha) to 7% or 2.9 million ha in 1999, equivalentto an 8.7-fold increase; virus resistance traitsin potatoes, squash, and papaya occupied <1%and <0.1 million ha in both 1998 and 1999.

2.4 Dominant Transgenic Crops in 1999

Herbicide-tolerant soybean was the mostdominant transgenic crop grown commerciallyin five countries in 1999�USA, Argentina,Canada, Mexico, and Romania (Table 6).Globally, herbicide-tolerant soybean occupied21.6 million ha representing 54% of the globaltransgenic area of 39.9 million ha for all crops.The second most dominant crop was Bt maize,which occupied 7.5 million ha equivalent to19% of global transgenic area and planted inseven countries�USA, Canada, Argentina,South Africa, Spain, France, and Portugal. Theother six crops listed in Table 6 all occupy<10% of global transgenic crop area andinclude, in descending order of area: herbicide-tolerant canola occupying 3.5 million ha (9%),corn with stacked traits of Bt/herbicidetolerance in 2.1 million ha (5%), herbicide-

14

tolerant cotton in 1.6 million ha (4%),herbicide-tolerant corn in 1.5 million ha (4%),Bt cotton in 1.3 million ha (3%), and finallycotton with stacked traits, Bt/herbicidetolerance in 0.8 million ha (2%).

2.5 Summary and Highlights ofSignificant Changes between1998 and 1999

The major changes in area and global share oftransgenic crops for the respective countries,crops and traits, between 1998 and 1999 wererelated to the following factors:· In 1999, the global area of transgenic crops

increased by 44% (12.1 million ha), to 39.9million ha, from 27.8 million ha in 1998.Seven transgenic crops were growncommercially in 12 countries in 1999, threeof which (Portugal, Romania, and Ukraine)grew transgenic crops for the first time.

· The four principal countries that grew themajority of transgenic crops in 1999 wereUSA (28.7 million ha, 72% of the globalarea), Argentina (6.7 million ha, 17%),Canada (4.0 million ha, 10%), and China(0.3 million ha, 1%). The remainder wasgrown in Australia, South Africa, Mexico,Spain, France, Portugal, Romania, andUkraine.

· Growth in area of transgenic crops between1998 and 1999 in industrial countriescontinued to be significant and 3.5 timesgreater than in developing countries (9.4million ha versus 2.7 million ha).

· In terms of crops, soybean contributed themost (59%) to global growth of transgeniccrops, equivalent to 7.1 million ha between1998 and 1999, followed by corn with 23%(2.8 million ha), cotton with 10% (1.2million ha), and canola with 8% (1.0million ha).

· There were three noteworthy developmentsin terms of traits: herbicide tolerancecontributed the most (69% or 8.3 millionha) to global growth between 1998 and1999; stacked genes of insect resistanceand herbicide tolerance in both corn andcotton contributed 21%, equivalent to 2.6million ha; and insect resistance increasedby 1.2 million ha in 1999, representing10% of global growth in area of transgeniccrops.

· Of the four major transgenic crops grownin 12 countries in 1999, the two principalcrops of soybean and corn represented 54%and 28%, respectively, for a total of 82%of the global transgenic area. The remaining18% was shared equally between cottonand canola (9% each).

· In 1999, herbicide-tolerant soybean wasthe most dominant transgenic crop (54%of global transgenic area, compared with52% in 1998) (Table 6), followed by insect-resistant corn (19% compared with 24%in 1998), herbicide-tolerant canola (9%),Bt/herbicide-tolerant corn (5%), herbicide-

Table 6. Dominant transgenic crops,1999

Crop Million %hectares trans-

genicHerbicide-tolerant soybean 21.6 54Bt maize 7.5 19Herbicide-tolerant canola 3.5 9Bt/Herbicide-tolerant corn 2.1 5Herbicide-tolerant cotton 1.6 4Herbicide-tolerant corn 1.5 4Bt cotton 1.3 3Bt/Herbicide-tolerant cotton 0.8 2Total 39.9 100


15

tolerant cotton (4%), herbicide-tolerantcorn (4%), Bt cotton (3%), and Bt/herbicide-tolerant cotton (2%).

· The four major factors that influenced thechange in absolute area of transgenic cropsbetween 1998 and 1999, and the relativeglobal share of different countries, crops,and traits were:o first, the substantial increase of 4.8

million ha in herbicide-tolerant soybeanin the USA (from 10.2 million ha in1998 to 15.0 million ha in 1999,equivalent to 50% of the 30.0 millionha of the US national soybean crop in1999), coupled with an increase of 2.1million ha in herbicide-tolerant soybeanin Argentina (from 4.3 million ha in1998 to an estimated 6.4 million ha in1999, equivalent to approximately 90%of the 7.0 million ha of Argentina�snational soybean crop in 1999);

o second, the significant increase of 2.2million ha of transgenic corn (insectresistance, Bt/herbicide tolerance, andherbicide tolerance) in the USA from8.1 million ha in 1998 to 10.3 millionha in 1999, equivalent to 33% of the31.4 million ha of the US national corncrop in 1999;

o third, the increase of 1.0 million ha ofherbicide-tolerant canola in Canadafrom 2.4 million ha in 1998 to 3.4million ha in 1999, equivalent to 62%of the 5.5 million ha of the Canadiancanola crop in 1999;

o and fourth, the 1.0 million ha increasein transgenic cotton in the USA from2.2 million ha in 1998 to 3.2 millionha in 1999 (equivalent to 55% of the5.9 million ha of the US national cottoncrop in 1999). The 3.2 million ha oftransgenic cotton in 1999 comprised1.5 million ha of herbicide-tolerantcotton with the remaining 1.7 millionha equally divided between Bt cottonand cotton with stacked genes of Bt/herbicide tolerance.

· The combined effect of the above fourfactors resulted in a global area oftransgenic crops in 1999 that was 12.1million ha greater and 44% more than thosefor 1998; this is a significant year-on-yearincrease considering the high percentageof principal crops planted to transgenics in1998. Commercialized transgenic cropswere grown for the second year in twocountries of the European Union (30,000ha of Bt maize in Spain and 1,000 ha of Btmaize in France) with Portugal growingmore than 1,000 ha of Bt maize for the firsttime in 1999. Two countries in EasternEurope grew transgenic crops for the firsttime; Romania grew introductory areas ofherbicide-tolerant soybean (14,250 ha) andplanted <1,000 ha of Bt potatoes, withUkraine also growing Bt potatoes (<1,000ha) for the first time. There may also havebeen a small area of Bt maize grown inGermany and herbicide-tolerant corn inBulgaria (12,000 ha) in 1999, but thesecould not be verified and thus are notincluded in the global database.

16

3. Value of the Global Transgenic Seed Market, 1995-1999

The value of the transgenic crop market isbased on the sale price of transgenic seed plusany technology fees that apply. Unlike theestimates published in the Preview (BriefsNo.12) in October 1999, the most recentlyrevised estimates from Wood Mackenzie(personal communication 1999) excludenongenetically modified herbicide-tolerantseed. Global sales of transgenic seed havegrown rapidly from 1995 onwards (Table 7).Initial global sales of transgenic seed wereestimated at $1 million in 1995. Salesincreased in value to $152 million in 1996 andincreased by approximately 450% in 1997 to$851 million. Sales increased by another 130%between 1997 and 1998 to $1.95 billion in1998; if sales of nongenetically modifiedherbicide-tolerant seeds are included, totalsales increased by about 10% to $2.26 billionin 1998.

Breaking the sales down by trait category, salesof transgenic herbicide-tolerant seed increasedby 180% from $425 million to $1,188 millionbetween 1997 and 1998. The correspondingincrease in insect-resistant seeds was less thanhalf as much, increasing from $423 million in

1997 to $738 million in 1998. However, thebiggest percentage increase in value between1997 and 1998 was for seeds with stacked traitsof herbicide tolerance and insect resistance,which increased by 1,000% from $3 millionto $33 million. Wood Mackenzie (personalcommunication) estimates that the value of themarket in 1998 for the respective countries wasas follows: USA $1,512 million; Argentina$252 million; Canada $170 million; Australia$10 million; China $7 million; Mexico $5million; Spain $2 million, and South Africa $1million. Given that all the traits introduced todate are crop protection traits, it is appropriateto express the value of total sales of transgeniccrops in 1998 as a percentage of the globalcrop protection market. Wood Mackenzieestimates that transgenic seed in 1998accounted for 6.3% of the $31.25 billion globalcrop protection market at the ex-distributormarket value. The author estimates that,expressed as a portion of the globalcommercial seed market, transgenic seedrepresented approximately 6% of the estimated$30 billion global commercial seed market in1998 (FIS 1999).

Table 7. Estimated value of global transgenic seed market, 1995-1999(US$, millions)

Year Market value $ Increase $ Increase %

1995 1a

1996 152a 151 + 15,100

1997 851a 699 + 459

1998 1,959a 1,108 +131

1999 2,750 � 3,000b 791 � 1,041 + 40 to + 53

Source: a Wood Mackenzie 1999 (personal communication); b Projection by Clive James.

17

For 1999, the author projects the value of thetransgenic seed market at $2.7 to $3.0 billion,when again the largest increase was in the USAfollowed by Argentina, Canada, and China ona country basis. In 1999, from a cropperspective, biggest increases in seed saleswere ranked in descending order of area:soybean, corn, cotton, and canola. For traitsthe highest increase in absolute terms was forherbicide tolerance followed by insectresistance, but with the highest percentage

increase for stacked genes of herbicidetolerance deployed in both corn and cotton.Thus, revenues for transgenic seeds haveincreased from $152 million in 1996 toapproximately $3 billion in 1999. The globalmarket for transgenic seed is currentlyprojected to plateau at about $3 billion in2000, and depending on adoption rates andpublic acceptance, could increase up to $8billion in 2005, and up to $25 billion by 2010.

4. Developments in the Crop Biotechnology Industry

4.1 Acquisitions, Alliances, Mergers,Spin-offs, and Restructuring in theAgribiotechnology Industry

Acquisitions, alliances, mergers, spin-offs, andrestructuring were significant features thatimpacted on the biotechnology industry in1999. These developments influence directlythe level of private sector investments in cropbiotechnology and indirectly impact on thefuture adoption and acceptance of transgeniccrops globally. As in the previous three years,1999 witnessed continued acquisitions,alliances and mergers that contributed tofurther consolidation of the biotechnologyindustry. As a result of the large number ofacquisitions, alliances, and mergers over thelast 5 years, the structure of the private sectorinvolved with biotechnology, seeds, andagricultural chemicals has changeddramatically. In 1999, however, somecorporations chose to spin off their agribiotechcomponent from the pharmaceuticalcomponent with a view to merging theiragribiotech component with a counterpartagribiotech business from like-minded partnercorporations. Restructuring has occurred in alllarge transnationals involved in cropbiotechnology. This has resulted in a refocusingand overall net decrease of resources allocated

to crop biotechnology globally; this willdirectly decrease the rate at which newproducts will become available and increasethe lag time before the public can benefit fromnew products. This decrease in resourcesallocated to crop biotechnology is particularlyimportant for developing countries, whichurgently require improved crops that canproduce more and better quality food tocombat poverty, hunger, and malnutrition.Thus, restructuring has decreased our globalcapacity to increase the quantity and qualityof food in a sustainable way. It is highlyimprobable that the decrease in allocatedresources in the private sector will be offset byan increased allocation of resources by thepublic sector, which in fact continues todecrease resources allocated to agriculture inboth industrial and developing countries.

Table 8 lists 26 acquisitions, alliances, mergers,and spin-offs mainly involving companies fromthe private sector with a few alliances withinstitutions from the public sector. Thetransactions listed in Table 8 range fromcollaborative alliances to support R&D atmodest levels (up to $50 million annually), tomedium-sized acquisitions, and finally mega-mergers of transnationals worth billions ofdollars. The stimulus for these acquisitions,alliances, mergers, and spin-offs are driven by

18

Table 8. Listing of 26 selected biotechnology-driven acquisitions and alliances in1999 of corporations involved in seeds, crop protection, and life sciences

Month/Year Corporations involved and nature of agreement

January 1999 BASF acquired 40 % of Svalof Weibull, a Swedish seed company, tofacilitate implementation of its crop biotechnology initiatives; providedBASF with access to transgenic herbicide-tolerant canola in Canada andgermplasm of other crops including oilseed rape, maize, cereals,sunflowers, and peas.

January 1999 Monsanto signed licensing agreements with Cheminova, Dow AgroSciences, Novartis, and Nufarm for use of glyphosate with selectedtransgenic RR crops including soybean, cotton, and maize.

January 1999 Monsanto completes acquisition of DeKalb.

January 1999 Joint venture between Novartis and Maisadour Semences (France) toshare biotechnology applications with the latter that has seed operationsin maize and sunflowers with seed sales of $70 million/annum.

February 1999 AgrEvo acquires Biogenetic Technologies (Netherlands) which in turnowns PROAGRO, the second largest seed company in Indiaspecializing in maize, millet, sorghum, oilseed rape, sunflower, hybridrice, and vegetables; MISR Hytech in Egypt (vegetables and field crops)is also owned by PROAGRO.

February 1999 Novartis and proprietors of PPO (protoporphyrinogen oxidase)inhibitor-type herbicides, that include Sumitomo and Rhone-Poulenc,discuss possible cooperation to use their PPO-type herbicides onNovartis transgenic herbicide-tolerant crops with the �Acuran� PPOgene.

March 1999 DuPont opted to increase its 20%, $1.7 billion equity position inPioneer to 100%, for an additional $7.7 billion for a total of $9.4billion. Pioneer, the largest seed company in the world, has 42% of theUS maize market and 18% of the US soybean market and recentlypurchased the soybean Brazilian seed company Dois Marcos.

March 1999 Monsanto and Zeneca agreed to a licence that allows Zeneca to use itsTouchdown herbicide (glyphosate trimesium) on various transgenic RRcrops (soybean, maize, and cotton) in the US and to explore globallicenses as opportunities develop.

March 1999 Monsanto and Great Lakes Hybrids (GLH) signed a researchagreement re the new Monsanto gene conferring resistance to maizerootworm. The agreement will allow GLH and its research partner KWSto develop inbreds for production of hybrids projected for field testing in2000/2001.

continued...

19

Table 8 continued. Listing of 26 selected biotechnology-driven acquisitions andalliances in 1999 of corporations involved in seeds, crop protection, andlife sciences


March 1999 Zeneca and Japan Tobacco agreed to a joint venture to improve yieldand quality of rice as a substitute for maize as animal feed.

April 1999 Limagrain and Pau-Euralis established SOLTIS to develop improvedsunflower varieties that will also benefit from Biogemma�sbiotechnology inputs.

May 1999 AgrEvo (through its hybrid vegetable subsidiary Nunza) acquired RioColorado Seeds (California) that specializes in hybrid onion seed.

May 1999 AgrEvo acquired 3 Brazilian companies (Sementes Ribeiral, SementesFartura, and Mitla Perquisa Agricola) for $13 million. The 3companies account for 8% of Brazilian maize seed sales and alsomarket soybean and sorghum.

May 1999 Dow AgroSciences and Danisco formed a joint venture for thedevelopment of canola globally, that will benefit from biotech inputsfrom Dow AgroSciences to improve oil, meal, and agronomic traits.Crop breeding locations will include Canada, Denmark, Germany, andFrance.

June 1999 Novartis acquired the seed activities of Eridamia Beghin-Say which inturn includes assets of Agra (Italy), Agrosem (France), Koipsel Semillas(Spain), and seed operations in Hungary and Poland. The companiesspecialize in field crops and collectively have a turnover of $30 millionannually.

June 1999 Strategic Diagnostics (USA) licensed the PAT protein technology fromAgrEvo to develop test kits for detecting proteins in food/feedingredients.

August 1999 Emergent Genetics (USA) acquired Stoneville Pedigree Seed fromMonsanto. Emergent Genetics is an affiliate of Hicks, Muse, Tate andFurst (USA), and recently acquired the seed companies of Daehnfeldtin Denmark and Indusem in Chile.

September 1999 AgrEvo increases its share from 20% to 95% in PlanTecBiotechnologie which focuses on enhancing carbohydrate metabolism,e.g., developing higher yielding crops with improved starch forenhanced foods and feeds.

September 1999 Rhobio (JV between Rhone-Poulenc and Biogemma) and CSIROAustralia sign a research agreement that provides Rhobio with DNApPlex switches that turn genes on and off, e.g., for insect resistance.

continued...

20

Table 8 continued. Listing of 26 selected biotechnology-driven acquisitions andalliances in 1999 of corporations involved in seeds, crop protection, andlife sciences


October 1999 AgrEvo acquired GeneX and established AgrEvoSeeds Australiawhich will focus on sorghum and maize, with links on maize toPROAGRO, India owned by AgrEvo which also has interest in oilseedrape in Australia.

November 1999 Zeneca and AgriPro Wheat (USA) reached a multimillion-dollar R&Dagreement to develop improved varieties of wheat using biotechnologyto improve and speed up breeding programs.

November 1999 Auxein (a US biotech corporation) and Griffin (JV between Griffin andDuPont) agreed to a joint program using Auxein�s AuxiGro�a plantmetabolic primer that triggers general defense mechanisms to plantdiseases�in combination with Griffin�s conventional fungicides.

December 1999 Novartis and AstraZeneca announced their intent to spin off andmerge their crop protection businesses to form a new companySyngenta which will rank # 1 in global crop protection sales valued at$7 billion of a total 1998 market of $31.2 billion. Approval of deal isprojected for the second half of 2000.

December 1999 Monsanto and Pharmacia & Upjohn announced a $27 billion mergerof equals. 1999 sales are valued at $16.5 billion of which $5.2 billion isagricultural sales in 1999. The agriculture business of Monsanto tobecome a separate business and 20% of it to be floated as an initialpublic offering (IPO) in 2000.

December 1999 Antitrust delays led Monsanto to cancel acquisition of Delta and PineLand who will receive $81million in lieu of cancellation.

December 1999 Aventis started operating on 15 December with 1998 sales estimated at$4.5 billion, ranked #1 in crop protection market, with 15% share.

Source: Complied by Clive James from various sources (1999).

21

agreements signed in 1999 involvingtechnologies related to genomics, whichcontinues to be pivotal to the development ofcrop biotechnology. A discussion of some ofthe major acquisitions and alliances listed inTables 8 and 9 is instructive in that it providesan insight into the commercial issues involvedand illustrates the scale and scope of theinitiatives.

both pharmaceutical and agriculturalconsiderations where the latter is affected bynegative public sentiment regarding cropbiotechnology in Europe, which in turn impactson growth prospects for the future. Transactionsin the private sector have an enormous effecton the future deployment of transgenic cropsand have far-reaching policy and technologyimplications for both industrial and developingcountries. Table 9 lists a sample of 15

Table 9. Agreements signed in 1999 involving plant genomics and relatedtechnologies


February 1999 Dow AgroSciences and Proteome Systems (Australia) agreed tocharacterize a new class of proteins and identify new enzymes andbiosynthesis pathways for developing improved crops. (Note thatProteome is an analog of genome and a fusion word of protein andgenome).

February 1999 Genoplante, a public/private sector Genomics consortium establishedin France in September 1998, is now extended to include INRA,CIRAD, CNRS, IRD, Biogemma, Rhone-Poulenc, and Bioplante.

February 1999 Novartis invested $12.7 million in Diversa Corporation (California) tocollaborate with development of new genes that code for desiredtransgenic traits (quality, performance, and insect resistance).

February 1999 Pioneer and Maxygen (Glaxo-Wellcome subsidiary) signed a $30million plus, 5-year agreement, for Maxygen to develop genesconferring crop protection and quality traits in crops.

February 1999 Rhone-Poulenc and Agritope agreed to a $20 million joint venture infunctional genomics that focuses on input and output traits�the jointventure would involve collaboration with the Salk Institute andUniversity of Edinburgh.

March 1999 Rhobio (Rhone-Poulenc/Biogemma joint venture) and CeleraGenomics (division of Elmer Perkin) signed a 3-year agreement todiscover maize genes that code for desired input and output traits.

March 1999 Plant Biosciences (John Innes Centre) and ExSeed Genetics(Zeneca) signed an agreement that will provide ExSeed Genetics theoption to acquire worldwide rights to improved starch technologies formaize and rice.

continued...

22

There were four major acquisitions, mergers,and spin-offs in the private sector in 1999. Firstwas the announcement by DuPont in March1999 to complete the acquisition of PioneerHi-bred International. Subsequent to DuPontacquiring 20% of Pioneer Hi-bred Internationalin September 1997 for $1.7 billion, DuPontannounced its intent to increase its equityposition in Pioneer in March to 100% for an

additional investment of $7.7 billion, for a totalacquisition price of $9.4 billion. Thisacquisition is of major importance in DuPont�scrop biotechnology strategy which is focusedon developing a portfolio of output quality traitsthat will contribute to improved nutrition andhealth. Pioneer is the largest seed company inthe world with 1998 sales valued at $1.8billion. Pioneer controls about 42% of the US

Table 9 continued. Agreements signed in 1999 involving plant genomics and relatedtechnologies


April 1999 Rhone-Poulenc and the Institute of Molecular Agrobiology (Singa-pore) signed an agreement to study functional genomics of rice,focusing on fungal and bacterial diseases, nutritional qualities, and yieldpotential of rice.

August 1999 Novartis and Genzyme Molecular Oncology agreed to use thelatter�s SAGE technology (Serial Analysis of Gene Expression) to studyplant growth and diseases.

August 1999 Monsanto and Genzyme Molecular Oncology agreed to use SAGEtechnology for constructing gene libraries from crop germplasmprovided by Monsanto.

August 1999 Novartis and Myriad Genetics agreed to a $34 million collaborationon cereal genomics focusing on wheat, barley, oats, rice, and maize, toimprove grain quality and yield. Myriad Genetics uses ultra-highthroughput capillary DNA sequencing technology to develop cropgenomic data.

August 1999 Rhone-Poulenc and Agritope agreed to establish Agrinomics LLC, ajoint venture that will use the AC TTAG Gene Discovery Program ofAgritope to identify genes that code for input and output traits for food,feed, and fiber crops. Rhone-Poulenc will invest $20 million in the jointventure for 5 years.

August 1999 Zeneca and Maxygen agreed to additional collaboration in genomicsfocused on crop protection and quality traits. Zeneca will invest $5million in Maxygen and provide $20 million for R&D over 5 years.

November 1999 AgrEvo and DLO (Dutch Research Institute) agreed for PGS and DLOto enter into a research alliance on functional genomics in Arabidopsis,Brassica oil seed rape, wheat, and rice.

Source: Compiled by Clive James from various sources (1999).

23

maize seed market and 18% of the soybeanmarket and recently purchased the Braziliansoybean seed company, Dois Marcos. Themajor markets for Pioneer are USA (65%)followed by Europe (22%). Pioneer marketshybrid maize seed with Bt licensed fromMonsanto, and soybean with the glyphosatetolerance gene also licensed from Monsanto.Pioneer and DuPont have been conductingcollaborative research under the umbrella oftheir joint venture, �Optimum Quality Grains�(OQG) for 2 years. Specific objectives of OQGare to optimize livestock feed nutritional valueof maize and oil seeds, biofuel production, andnutraceuticals. High oleic acid soybean (80%oleic acid versus 24% in conventional) hasalready been approved by the USA Food andDrug Agency (FDA), and other specific targetproducts are soybean products including lowlinoleic, low saturate, high protein, highsucrose, and high oleic sunflowers. OQG�s firstproduct, developed through conventionalbreeding, is high oil corn (oil content of 7.0-7.5% versus 3.5-4.5% in conventional) whichis efficiently produced through a TopcrossSystem and estimated to occupy about 200,000ha in the USA in 1999. Future products willuse high oil maize as a platform to addenhanced technology through transgenes fortraits such as high lysine, methionine, and highavailable phosphorus to improve swine andpoultry nutrition, and reduce phosphorus levelsin waste. Enhancement of animal feed is a veryimportant market in the USA with 80% of cornbeing used as livestock and poultry feed.

In a presentation to the Chief Executives Clubof Boston on 22 September 1999, DuPontChairman and CEO Charles O. Holliday (1999)described biotechnology as a �critical enablingtechnology that is very broad and offers manyplatforms for building a sustainable futureworld.� He announced that DuPont willestablish a global advisory panel to guide itsactions in biotechnology including regularaudits and public reporting; Dr Florence

Wambugu, Director of ISAAA�s AfriCenter,based in Nairobi, Kenya, has been invited tojoin this panel. Holliday also said that DuPontwill advocate informed consumer choicethrough meaningful information and productassurances based on better science-basedinformation. He committed DuPont togenerating 25% of its revenues fromnondepletable resources by 2010, up from 5%in 1999, and to practicing biotechnology withthe same high safety standards that DuPont hasadhered to over the last 200 years.Summarizing the DuPont portfolio ofgenetically enhanced products, he noted thecommercialization of high oleic acid soybeans,with near-term pipeline products that includehigh oleic corn, high lysine corn and soybeanas well as disease-resistant corn, wheat, andrice. DuPont is using biotechnology to developchemicals and polymers, with the firstcommercial product being a �3GT� polyesterbased on cornstarch rather than petroleum. Theinterface of biotechnology and electronics isalso being explored using DNA-based scienceto miniaturize electronic devices that may be10 times smaller than current technology andalso the use of biosensors to develop moresensitive diagnostics. Holliday reported thatDuPont has invested over $14 billion inbiotechnology and that 20% of total revenuesare projected to be generated from biologicalproducts that would include pharmaceuticals,crop protection products, improved seeds, andfood. DuPont expects growth from theseproducts to be faster than DuPont�s traditionalproducts in the future.

The second major announcement was inDecember 1999 when Novartis and Zenecadeclared their intent to spin off their respectivecrop protection activities and merge them toform Syngenta. As a result of this merger,Syngenta would be ranked # 1 in global cropprotection with consolidated 1998 sales valuedat $7 billion compared with Aventis with salesof $4.5 billion, Monsanto at $3.6 billion, and

24

Dow AgroSciences and DuPont at $2.3 billion(Wood Mackenzie, personal communication1999). Within 3 years, savings of $525 millionare anticipated and the agreement to formSyngenta is planned for completion in the latterpart of 2000, subject to clearance by antitrustauthorities.

The third major announcement in December1999 was Monsanto and Pharmacia & Upjohngiving notice of their intent to merge as equalsin a $27 billion deal. The 1999 sales of thenew company, Pharmacia, are estimated at$16.9 billion (1999 sales), of which $11.3billion will be in pharmaceutical sales and $5.2billion in agricultural sales; the annual R&Dbudget of Pharmacia will be over 2 billion. Theagricultural business of Monsanto will be setup as an independent subsidiary andapproximately 20% of it is planned to beoffered as an initial private offering (IPO) inthe second half of 2000. The merger is plannedfor completion within the first half of 2000 andcost savings of $600 million per year areanticipated. Prior to announcing the merger,Monsanto indicated that because of antitrustdelays, it would cancel the acquisition of thecotton company Delta and Pine Land, whichwill receive $81 million in lieu of cancellation.Monsanto sold Stoneville Pedigree Seed toEmergent Genetics (USA) in August. EmergentGenetics is an affiliate of Hicks, Muse, Tateand Furst (USA), and recently acquired the seedcompanies of Daehnfeldt in Denmark andIndusem in Chile.

The fourth and last major announcement wasthe initiation of business activities by Aventison 15 December 1999. Aventis was formed asa result of a merger between AgrEvo andRhone-Poulenc, and is currently ranked #1 inthe global crop protection market with 1998sales of $4.6 billion. However, if, and whenSyngenta is approved, with estimated 1998sales of $7 billion, Aventis will be ranked #2

with approximately two-thirds of the salesvalue of Syngenta.

In other acquisitions and merger activitiesdetailed in Table 8, BASF has initiated severalactivities that will provide the company withsignificant capacity in crop biotechnology.BASF acquired the Swedish company SvalofWeibull, which will provide it with access totransgenic canola in Canada. BASF has alsoindicated its plan to establish a significant R&Din crop biotechnology. Novartis acquiredMaisdour Semence in France, and the seedactivities of Evidamia Beghin-Say whichincludes Agra (Italy), Agrosem (France),Koipsell Semillas (Spain), and other operationsin Poland and Hungary. Novartis has alsodiscussed cooperation with Sumitomo andRhone-Poulenc to incorporate the Acuran PPOherbicide tolerance genes in various crops.Prior to the formation of Aventis in December,AgrEvo was active in several acquisitionsincluding: Biogenetic Technologies in theNetherlands which in turn owns PROAGRO(India) and MISR HyTech (Egypt); Rio ColoradoSeeds (California); three Brazilian companies�Sementes Ribeiral, Sementes Fartura, and MitlaPerquisa Agricola; GeneX in Australia; andincreased its share from 20% to 95% in PlanTecBiotechnologie in Germany, which specializesin enhancing carbohydrate metabolism, forexample, developing high-yielding crops withimproved starch; AgrEvo also licenses its PATgene to Strategic Diagnostics (USA), which willdevelop test kits for detecting related proteinsin food/feed ingredients. Monsanto signedlicenses with several companies includingCheminova, Dow AgroSciences, Novartis,Nufarm, Zeneca, and Cyanamid for use ofglyphosate on several herbicide-toleranttransgenic crops and signed a researchagreement with Great Lakes Hybrids toincorporate a new Monsanto gene conferringresistance to corn earworm. Zeneca was alsoinvolved in several deals including a jointventure with Japan Tobacco to improve yield

25

and quality of rice as a substitute for maize asanimal feed, and with Agri ProWheat (USA) todevelop improved wheats using biotechnology.Dow AgroSciences formed a joint venture withDanisco (Denmark) to develop improvedcanola for marketing globally, and Limagrainand Pan-Euralis established SOLTIS to developimproved sunflower varieties that will alsobenefit from Biogemma�s biotechnologyinputs. In other private sector negotiations,Rhobio and CSIRO signed an agreement thatprovides Rhobio with DNA pPlex switches thatturn genes on and off, and that confer traitssuch as herbicide tolerance and insectresistance; Auxein and Griffin agreed to theuse of metabolic primers that confer generaldefense mechanisms to diseases.

In summary, 1999 was an active year foracquisitions, alliances, and mergers, with spin-offs being implemented or considered as anoption by several companies. Whereas thegeneral restructuring that has taken place inall large transnationals was designed to providemore focus particularly on quality traits, it hasresulted in a decrease in resources allocatedto crop biotechnology, and several R&Dprograms have been put on hold, or assignedless resources, which will delay delivery of newproducts.

4.2 Genomics

The study of genomes is known as genomicsand involves the mapping, sequencing, andanalysis of genomes to determine the structureand function of every gene in an organism. Forconvenience, genomics research and studiesmay be categorized into three separate butcomplementary components:

Structural genomics - the structure andorganization of genomes

Functional genomics - relating genomestructure and organization to plant function

Application genomics - application of genomicknowledge for the development of improvedplants.

Genomic information can be used to improveuseful plant traits through genetic engineeringto increase food and fiber production, andprovide a safer and healthier environment anda sustainable source of renewable energy andchemicals. A general overview of genomicswas included in Briefs No.8, �Global Reviewof Commercialized Transgenic Crops: 1998�(James 1998). This review covers a progressreport on agreements signed in 1999 involvingplant genomics and related technology (Table9).

Genomics is of strategic importance and is aprerequisite for any organization seeking todevelop a competitive capacity for developingtransgenic crops. It is catalyzing a newgeneration of alliances between transnationalsand smaller genomic companies in the publicsector and some public institutes. Theheightened interest in the human genomeprogram during 1999, and the competitionbetween public and private sector entities tocomplete the project first, has highlighted theimportance of genomes to the public at large.Similarly, increased investments in genomicsfor developing pharmaceuticals has spurredinterest in crop genomes, which has also beenstimulated by public and private sector entitiesvying to complete programs on importantcrops. The interest in genomics is heightenedwith the planned completion of the Arabidopsisprogram in 2000 and the planned completionof the rice genome project brought forwardfrom 2004 to possibly 2002. As progresscontinues in genomic programs, emphasis hasswitched from the early focus on structuralgenomics to functional and applicationgenomics, which are investments that will leaddirectly to improved crops; the agreementslisted in Table 9 reflect the greater emphasison functional and application genomics.

26

Novartis invested in Diversa Corporation todevelop new genes for desired traits and theuse of the Serial Analysis of Gene Expression(SAGE) technology from Genzyme MolecularOncology to study plant growth and diseases.Novartis also has an agreement with MyriadGenetics focusing on quality and yield incereals.

In addition to Novartis, Monsanto also has anagreement with Genzyme MolecularOncology to use SAGE Technology forconstructing gene libraries from cropgermplasm provided by Monsanto. Rhone-Poulenc and Agri Tope established AgrinomicsLLC to develop a gene discovery program forinput and output traits for feed and fiber crops,and through Rhobio (Rhone-Poulenc jointventure with Biogemma) has an agreementwith Celera Genomics to discover maize genesthat code for desired input and output traits.Rhone-Poulenc also has an agreement with theInstitute of Molecular Agribiology in Singaporeto study functional genomics of rice, focusingon fungi and bacterial diseases, nutritionalqualities and yield. Zeneca (Ex Seed Genetics)has signed an agreement with PlantBiosciences (John Innes Centre) to have anoption on the worldwide rights for improvedstarch technologies for maize and rice, andwith Maxygen on genomes of crop protectionand quality traits. Maxygen (Glaxo-Wellcomesubsidiary) also has an agreement with Pioneerto develop genes conferring crop protectionand quality traits. Other corporations that havenegotiated genomic agreements include DowAgroSciences and Proteome Systems Australiato characterize a new useful class of plantproteins; AgrEvo and DLO Dutch ResearchInstitute works on functional genomics in

Arabidopsis, Brassica, oil seed rape, wheat, andrice. Finally, Genoplante, a private/publicsector genomics consortium that includesINRA, CIRAD, CNRS, IRD, Biogemma, Rhone-Poulenc, and Bioplante, was established inFrance.

The complex set of agreements betweengenomic companies providing services totransnationals who are users of the technologyis resulting in an intricate web of proprietarytechnologies, elements of which are owned bymore than one party. The shift of emphasis fromstructural genomes to functional and appliedgenomics has also been accompanied by a shiftin focus from input to output traits. Much moreemphasis on the latter can be expected in thefuture. It is anticipated that genomics willbecome even more pivotal in 2000 and beyondas genomic information for major economiccrops such as rice and maize become availableand used to innovate and accelerate cropbreeding programs. It is vital that private andpublic sector investments in plant genomicscontinue to grow so that global food securitycan fully benefit from the rapid advances ingenomics; it is particularly important for publicsector institutes and international researchorganizations involved in crop improvementto gain a firm foothold in genomics; failure todo so will seriously impact on their continuedcomparative advantage in crop improvementactivities. Most important, scientists fromdeveloping countries, where the need for foodis greatest, must be exposed to these newadvances through collaborative projects andhands-on training so that awareness ofgenomics is increased and capacity in thescience is achieved in countries of the South.

27

5. Overview of the Commercial Seed Industry

the market in developing countries. Six of thetop 10 country markets (Table 10) are in theindustrial countries: USA ($4.5 billion), Japan($2.5 billion), Commonwealth of IndependentStates ($2 billion), France ($1.5 billion),Germany ($1.0 billion), and Italy ($650million). The four developing countries in thetop 10 are China ($2.5 billion), Brazil ($1.2billion), with Argentina and India sharing equal

Given that the seed is the vehicle forincorporating and deploying transgenic traits,it is instructive to characterize the globalcommercial seed market to gain a sense of thescope, scale, and size of the relativesubsegments of the global market classified bycountry, or seed, or exports. The globalcommercial seed market was valued at $30billion in 1998 (FIS 1999) with almost 30% of

Table 10. Estimated values (US$ millions) of commercial markets for seed andplanting materials from selected countries, 1998

Country Internal commercial Country Internal commercialmarket market

USA 4,500 Austria 170China 2,500 Morocco 160Japan 2,500 Sweden 150CIS 2,000 Czech Republic 150France 1,500 Egypt 140Brazil 1,200 Greece 140Germany 1,000 Belgium 130India 900 Chile 120Argentina 900 Slovakia 90Italy 650 Switzerland 80United Kingdom 570 Finland 80Spain 450 Ireland 80Poland 400 Portugal 60Canada 350 Bangladesh 60Mexico 350 Slovenia 30Netherlands 300 New Zealand 30Australia 280 Zimbabwe 30Hungary 200 Kenya 18Denmark 200 Zambia 6South Africa 190Total $ 22,664a

a This total represents the sum of the commercial seed markets of the listed countries. The commercial world seedmarket is assessed at US$30 billion.Source: FIS (1999).

28

markets at $900 million each. Of the ninecountries that grew transgenic crops in 1998,all are in the top 20 countries in terms of seedsales. Nine of the 12 countries growingtransgenic crops in 1999 were in the top 20countries for seed sales with three exceptions�Portugal, Romania, and Ukraine.

Considering seed exports worldwide, theglobal market is valued at $3.5 billionequivalent to about 10% of the global marketvalued at $30 billion (Appendix Table 1A).Maize is the most important seed export,valued at $530 million annually. The top fivecrops that have export sales of more than $75million annually are maize ($530 million),herbage crops ($427 million), potato ($400million), beet ($380 million) and wheat ($75million). Of the top 10 countries based on seedexport, the top eight are industrial countrieswith annual seed exports valued from $700 to$100 million. Given the ongoing debate inEurope on transgenic crops, it is noteworthythat approximately half of the global seedexport sales are from European countries. Outof a total global market of $3.5 billion, the USAis ranked first with $700 million (AppendixTable 2A), followed by six Europeancountries�Netherlands ($620 million), France($532 million), Denmark ($190 million),Germany ($185 million), Belgium ($111million), and Italy ($103 million) for a total of$1.7 billion, and Canada at $100 million. Theother two countries that export seeds aredeveloping countries from Latin America: Chilewith annual sales of $75 million, andArgentina, $44 million.

Seed consumption has been stagnant globallyfor the last 20 years except for Asia whereconsumption increased by 18% (Rabobank1994); one-third of the seed used in Asia isrice, and on a volume basis two-thirds of the120 million t of seeds traded annually are

cereals. The annual sales for major cereals arewheat (35 million t), barley (11.1 million t),and maize (6.8 million t). It is estimated thatthere are 1,500 seed companies globally, ofwhich 600 are based in the USA and 400 inEurope. For 1997, sales of the 20 principalcompanies that are active internationally hada total market of $7.8 billion (Caillez 1997).

Until the 1960s the seed industry comprisedtraditional seed companies that specialized inthe improvement, production, and distributionof seed. During the late 1960s, severaltransnational corporations with activities infarm chemicals and pharmaceuticals acquiredseed companies to capture the range ofproducts and services for the agriculturalindustry within one corporate structure, thusproviding them with the necessary R&D criticalmass and benefiting from economies of scale.After a decade or so, however, some of thetransnationals sold their acquired seedoperations, for several reasons: incompatibilitywith an evolving business strategy, lowermargins than expected in seed operationswhere they lacked business linkages andexperience, and a realization that opportunitiesfor using the seed industry to capture andmarket proprietary transgenic crops was alonger-term venture than they had anticipated.In the 1980s and 1990s, acquisitions andmergers have resulted in fewer but largercompanies with interest in seeds, a trend thatis expected to continue into the next decade.This will ultimately result in a few very largecompanies dominating the internationalmarket; spin-offs from large companies willtend to consolidate agricultural activitiesrelated to chemicals, biotechnology, and seedsin discreet businesses. This trend is fueled bylong-term investments in research that arenecessary to ensure competitiveness and aninternational marketing structure to effectivelycompete in the global market.

29

6. Status of Transgenic Crops in Selected Developing Countries of Asia

From a global perspective, the major impactof transgenic crops to date has been in NorthAmerica (USA and Canada), followed by LatinAmerica (Argentina and Mexico), Asia/Oceania(China and Australia), and South Africa. Asiagained an early lead when Chinacommercialized its first transgenic crops in theearly 1990s. A review of current developmentsin Asia/Oceania provides the basis for cautiousoptimism. China and Australia are bothcommercializing transgenic crops, and animpressive portfolio of products is being fieldtested in China. India has conducted extensivefield tests of transgenic crops, and may approveits first commercial release of Bt cotton onlimited introductory areas in 2000. AlthoughJapan has not commercialized transgeniccrops, by 1998 it had approved 20 productsderived from transgenics for food use, and 15products for feed use (James 1998). The latestinformation confirms that 9 additionaltransgenic crops and their derived foodproducts have been approved for import anduse in Japan, bringing the total to 29 products.

Of the ASEAN developing countries, Thailandwas the first to initiate field testing of transgeniccrops with delayed ripening tomato in 1995,followed by Bt cotton in 1996; the Thailandnational program is expected to have its ownvirus-resistant transgenic papaya ready for fieldtesting in the near term; this is a product froman ISAAA-brokered biotechnology transferproject with the coat protein gene conferringresistance to papaya ring spot virus (PRSV)donated by Monsanto to Indonesia, Malaysia,Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam in aSoutheast Asia Regional Program (Hautea etal 1999). Malaysia has field tested transgenicrubber with the GUS gene and Indonesia hascompleted transgenic field trials of Bt cotton,herbicide-tolerant cotton, herbicide-tolerant

maize, Bt maize, and herbicide-tolerantsoybean. In the Philippines, the first transgeniccrop field trial ever to be conducted in thecountry was planted on 15 December 1999 ata site in General Santos, in Mindanao featuringBt maize for the control of Asiatic corn borer.Thus, of the five rapidly developing countriesof ASEAN, all, except Vietnam, havesuccessfully conducted field trials of transgeniccrops, which is a watershed in the developmentand deployment of transgenic crops.

Asia has 60% of the world�s population andthe greatest need for food, feed, and fiber; it isalso home to 50% of the world�s 1.3 billionpoor, where an estimated 12,000 people a daydie from chronic malnutrition. For thedeveloping countries of Asia, where transgeniccrops can make a vital contribution to foodsecurity, there are indications that a momentumis under way that will facilitate the adoptionof transgenic crops in the region in the nearterm. This momentum is greatly influenced andcan be enriched by sharing the experience ofChina on transgenic crops, particularly Btcotton, with other Asian countries. Theexperience of China is important because itdemonstrates a strong commitment to thescience, tangibly expressed as significant R&Dsupport, and its pragmatism and leadership inassigning a strategic role to biotechnology/transgenic crops in its national food securitystrategy. The experience of at least 1.5 millionsmall farmers in China growing Bt cotton is animportant experience to share with countriesin Asia, because, first it is an Asian experience,second it is a small- rather than a big-farmerexperience, and third it is an experience basedon two different and competing products�onedeveloped and patented by Chinese scientistsfrom the public sector and another by atransnational, Monsanto/Delta and Pine Land.

30

countries. International institutions that canalso assist include multilateral aid agenciessuch as the World Bank, the AsianDevelopment Bank, bilateral agencies ofcountries such as USA, Australia, and Japan,international centers of the Consultative Groupon International Agricultural Research (CGIAR1998), technology transfer organizations suchas ISAAA, and multinationals involved in cropbiotechnology, all of whom are active in theregion.

Asia is unique in that it is a region where onecrop, rice, plays such a dominant role. Of thethree major staples (wheat, rice, and maize),the greatest concentration of a single staple,rice, is in Asia. Over 90% of the world�s 150million ha of rice is grown in Asia.Biotechnology offers unique opportunities forimproving rice productivity ranging from theuse of tissue culture and molecular markers tofacilitate more effective conventional breedingprograms, to incorporation of genes forovercoming biotic and abiotic stresses,improving quality, and improved hybridizationtechnology. National programs such as China,international public sector researchorganizations such as IRRI, transnationalprivate sector and industrial countries such asUSA and Japan, and the Rockefeller RiceBiotechnology Program, collectively, have animpressive portfolio of biotechnologyapplications that could contribute to improvedrice production and nutrition in Asia. Givenrice�s unique role in Asian diets, tradition, andculture, the introduction of transgenic ricecould make a critical contribution to foodsecurity in the region during the next decade.In the following paragraphs four topics whichare relevant to Asia are reviewed: an overviewof crop biotechnology in China, the mostrecent results of Bt cotton field trials in India,an assessment of the potential benefits of Btcorn in the Philippines, and a summary of therecently completed 10-year RockefellerProgram on rice biotechnology.

It would be particularly appropriate andimportant for China to share its Bt cottonexperience with India which is currentlyconsidering commercializing Bt cotton, andwith Indonesia and Thailand which havealready field tested Bt cotton. The Chineseexperience with Bt cotton is encouragingbecause it offers significant agronomic,economic, and environmental benefits; thelatter has resulted in significant benefits togrowers, the society, and the country by almosteliminating the need for large volumes ofpolluting insecticides for the control ofbollworm, and decreasing health hazards tofarmers and society at large.

The prospect of India commercializingtransgenic crops in the near term, plus the factthat most ASEAN countries have nowcompleted transgenic crop field trials, reflectsa growing interest, pragmatism, and maturityamong countries on the evolving role oftransgenic crops to food, feed, and fibersecurity in the region. Asia has a significantadvantage in that many of its national programshave infrastructure that can assimilate andaccelerate the adoption of technology, andtransgenic crops could be adopted in a timelymanner following successful field trials toopenly demonstrate the benefits and the safetyof products to regulators and the public. Theeconomic recovery in Southeast Asia hasfacilitated more R&D in crop biotechnologyand in turn the adoption of transgenic crops.Given that at least half of the 24,000 peoplethat die every day from chronic malnutritionare Asians and that transgenic crops have thepotential to reduce this suffering, countries inAsia deserve the assistance they are requestingfrom international institutions with capabilityin various aspects related to transgenic crops,including access to technology, training,biosafety, food safety, and intellectual propertyrights. Within the region, China is now in aposition to exert leadership by sharing itstransgenic crop experiences with neighboring

31

6.1 Crop Biotechnology in China

China faces a formidable challenge to feed 1.3billion people, equivalent to 20% of theworld�s population, using only 7% of theworld�s cultivable land of 1.5 billion ha.China�s population is expected to peak at about1.6 billion in 2030 when it will require 60%more grain due to increased population andchange in diet, which will depend on moremeat. Given that cultivable land area willremain the same, or decrease slightly,increasing productivity through yield perhectare is the only option for increasingdomestic production; this will allow import ofgrains to be maintained at reasonable levelsrather than the 250 million t per annum of grainimports predicted by some observers. Toachieve the necessary increases in productivity,China is fortifying its conventional technologybase with biotechnology, including transgeniccrops, which represent a strategic element inChina�s food security strategy. China�sinvestment in crop biotechnology startedduring the 6th Five Year Plan (1981 to 1985),when preparatory work was initiated to plannational research programs and the training ofbiotechnologists. During the 7th Five Year Plan(1985 to 1990), the well-publicized 863 High-Tech Program was initiated and biotechnologywas assigned the highest of seven nationalpriorities (Rongxiang 2000). During the 7th FiveYear Plan the first generation of transgeniccrops were generated which included thesingle-construct tobacco mosaic virus (TMV)and double-construct TMV/cucumber mosaicvirus (CMV)-resistant tobacco using coatprotein technology, CMV-resistant tomatousing satellite RNA, insect-resistant tobaccousing the Bt gene, and atrazine-tolerantsoybean using the psb gene. Newtransformation techniques, including thepollen tube method to introduce DNA intocotton as well as PEG mediated transformationof soybean and regeneration procedures weredeveloped.

In the 8th Five Year Plan (1991 to 1995) thecrop biotechnology program was broadenedto include important crops such as rice, maize,cotton, tomato, pepper, papaya, sugar beet,soybean, and poplar. Similarly a broad rangeof traits was targeted including virus resistance,bacterial resistance, insect resistance, herbicidetolerance, salinity tolerance, delayed ripening,male sterility, and various quality traitsincluding enhancement of essential aminoacids. Work was also undertaken on a broaderrange of transformation methods includingAgrobacterium (Ti and Ri), particlebombardment, electroporation, and the use oflaser and ultrasonic techniques. It was duringthe 8th Five Year Plan that the first commercialplanting of transgenic tobacco (TMV) wasundertaken in China which was the firstcountry in the world to grow large areas oftransgenic crops commercially. In 1992,transgenic tobacco, resistant to cucumbermosaic virus incorporating a single coat proteinconstruct, was sown on approximately 40 hafor seed increase. In 1994-95 a doubleconstruct (CMV and TMV) was developed andintroduced into commercial production. Thevirus-resistant transgenic tobacco in Chinaresulted in significant benefits which includeda yield increase averaging 5-7% more leavesfor processing, with savings of 2 to 3 insecticideapplications from the normal program of 7applications.

In July 1996 the Ministry of Agricultureestablished the Office of Genetic EngineeringSafety Administration (OGESA) to regulate fieldtesting, environmental release, andcommercialization of transgenic organisms. InMay 1997 the Safety Committee, which meetstwice a year, started to review applications.Between 1997 and June 1999, out of almost200 applications, 26 had been approved forcommercialization, 59 for environmentalrelease, and 73 for field trials, with 34applications pending. More than 80% of theapplications in 1997 were for crops, with 15%

32

for microorganisms and 5% for animals.Corresponding data for 1998 showed that cropbiotechnology applications continued torepresent the majority (>60%) of applicationswith applications for microorganismsincreasing to 33%. The number ofbiotechnology product applications submittedto OGESA are increasing annually and with afew exceptions, all applications are beingsubmitted by the 100 or more laboratories inthe country that are currently pursuing R&Dwork on various aspects of biotechnology.

The status of transgenic crop productsapproved for commercialization in China issummarized in Table 11 (Chen 1999). In 1999,five transgenic crops were approved forcommercialization: Bt cotton (two products,one from CAAS and the other from Monsanto/Delta and Pine Land), virus-resistant tomato(Peking University), delayed ripening tomato(CCAU), virus-resistant sweet pepper (PekingUniversity), and novel colored petunias (PekingUniversity). Bt cotton area in China in 1999was estimated conservatively at approximately250,000 ha. The actual area could besignificantly greater due to farmer-to-farmerexchange of seed. Individual estimates of areafor the other four transgenic products are notavailable. Chen (1999), however, estimates thatthe total area of commercialized transgeniccrops, including Bt cotton, in China in 1999could have been 400,000 ha.

The transgenic crop products approved forlarge- and small-scale field trials (Table 11)cover a broad range of 12 of China�s mostimportant crops. They include rice with theXa21 gene, which is viewed as a priority, Btcotton, Bt corn for the control of Asiatic cornborer, wheat, (virus resistance and qualitytraits), potato (Bt and quality traits includingimproved starch), tobacco for insect resistance(Bt) and virus resistance, soybean for insectresistance and herbicide tolerance, tomato andsweet pepper for virus and disease resistance,

Table 11. Status of transgenic cropsapproved for commercialization,large- and small-scale trials inChina, as of June 1999

CommercializationBt cottonVirus-resistant tomatoDelayed ripening tomatoVirus-resistant sweet pepperNovel colored petunias

Large-scale field trialsCotton BtTobacco Bt and virus resistancePotato Bt and qualitySoybean Insect resistance and

herbicide toleranceTomato Virus resistance and disease

resistanceSweet pepper Virus resistancePoplar Bt

Small-scale field trialsRice Bacterial disease (Xa21) and

insect resistanceWheat Virus resistance (BYDV) and

qualityCorn Bt and herbicide toleranceOrange Insect resistanceEucalyptus Insect resistance

Source: Chen (1999).

and finally poplar, orange, and eucalyptus forinsect resistance. Sweet potato is conspicuousby its absence, given that China grows 5.8million ha, equivalent to 65% of the globalarea of sweet potato (9 million ha), and thatinsect weevils are serious pests along with virusdiseases. Similarly, rapeseed/canola, which isan important crop in China occupying 6.9

33

million ha (28% of world hectarage of 25million ha) is not reported as approved for fieldtrials although the transgenic applications arewell advanced on this crop.

Table 12 classifies the 121 transgenic cropapplications approved by OGESA from 1997to June 1999 and indicates the relativeimportance of different transgenic crops andtraits. Given that cotton is the major transgeniccrop already commercialized in China, itunderstandably represents the highestpercentage (33%) of approvals forenvironmental release, field testing andcommercialization. Rice is ranked second(26%) and the Xa21 gene that confersresistance to bacterial blight of rice is assignedhigh priority and is a candidate to follow Btcotton as a transgenic crop to have impact atthe national level. Some traits such as virusresistance and delayed ripening in tomato(ranked third at 10%) have already beenapproved for commercialization as is the casewith virus-resistant tobacco (6%) and virus-resistant sweet pepper (5%). Potato (rankedfourth at 7%) is an important crop in China ,occupying 3.2 million ha and can benefit fromBt to control tuber moth, and quality traits toimprove starch and quality. Corn, whichsurprisingly is ranked only an equal fifth withsweet pepper, is an extremely important cropin China where corn yields, that are alreadyhigh, could benefit significantly from controlof Asiatic corn borer. Despite the fact that onlya few applications have been approved forcorn, it is reported that public and private sectorBt products have been developed and it is likelyto be the next transgenic crop along with Btcotton and Xa21 rice that will have impact atthe national level in the near term. Given thatChina has over 20 million ha of corn comparedwith 4 million ha of cotton, the introductionof Bt corn, alongside Bt cotton will pose newchallenges in terms of management of thedurability of Bt and other genes such as CpTiwhich has already been introduced as a

Table 12. Transgenic crops approved forenvironmental release, fieldtesting, or commercializationin China, 1997 to June 1999,categorized by crop and trait

Crop Percentageapproved

Cotton 33Rice 26Tomato 10Potato 7Tobacco 6Corn 5Sweet pepper 5Wheat 1Soybean 1Petunia 1Papaya 1Chinese medical herb 1Peanut 1Melon 1Brassica oleracea var. chinensis 1

Total 100

Trait Percentageapproved

Insect resistance 52Virus resistance 21Bacterial resistance 8Fungus resistance 4Prolonged shelf life 3Nutritional quality 3Herbicide tolerance 2Cold tolerance 2Salt tolerance 2Developmental control 2Mutation 1

Total 100

Source: China National Biotechnology Program(1999).

34

stacked gene to increase durability in the Btcotton developed by Chinese scientists.

In terms of traits, unlike the USA and Canadawhere herbicide tolerance dominates, Table 12shows that for China, the highest percentageof approvals for field testing, environmentalrelease, and commercialization is for insectresistance (52%), followed by virus resistance(21%) and bacterial disease resistance (8%).This ranking of the top three traits reflects themany field experiments conducted prior to thecommercialization of Bt cotton, virus-resistanttobacco, tomato and sweet pepper, and thework under way on Xa21 gene in rice forbacterial resistance and Bt corn. Resistance tofungal diseases (ranked fourth) is assignedmedium priority along with prolonged shelf lifeand nutritional quality (equal at 3%), withfewer applications approved for herbicidetolerance, cold tolerance, and salt tolerance.The availability of labor for hand weeding mayreflect the lower activity in herbicide toleranceat this time, but this could change rapidly asurbanization and industrialization acceleratein China. Conspicuous by their absence aretraits that would confer better resistance todrought, but this reflects the state of thetechnology and the degree of difficulty inidentifying appropriate genes for drought,rather than the importance of productivityconstraints associated with water stress whichis the top priority for China. Major gains inproductivity will result from applyingbiotechnology to develop crops that use watermore efficiently and is particularly importantfor China where 60% of the cultivable land israinfed and subject to a significant degree ofdrought. Hence, development of drought-tolerant crops is the top priority for China thiscentury (Xu 2000) as it is for most othercountries in the world. Although water covers70% of the Earth�s surface, only about 2.5% isfresh water. Only <1% of the fresh water is

readily accessible and this represents about0.007% of all the water on earth (WMO 1997).Agriculture accounts for 93% of the globalconsumptive use of water through irrigationor rainfall. Irrigated agriculture (whichconsumes 70% of global water withdrawals)on 270 million ha (about 17% of 1.5 billionha of cultivable land) produces 40% of worldfood production while the remaining 83% ofcultivable rainfed land, equivalent to 1.230billion ha of rainfed agriculture, produces theother 60% (Borlaug 2000). The UN�s 1997analysis of fresh water resources estimates thatabout one-third of the world�s population livesin countries with moderate to high water stressnow. It is projected that as much as two-thirdsof the world�s population could be under stressconditions by 2025 (WMO 1997).

In summary, China has assigned high priorityto crop biotechnology, which is a criticalelement in its food security strategy. Chen(1999) projects that within the next 10 years,about 20-50% of five of China�s principalcrops, grown on a total of 98.8 million ha,could be planted to transgenic crops to providesustenance for its people. The five crops arerice (31.2 million ha), wheat (28.8 million ha),corn (25.9 million ha), soybean (8.2 millionha), and cotton (4.2 million ha); absent fromthis list is rapeseed, which occupies 6.9 millionha in China. To put the 20-50% adoption ratefor transgenic crops in China into a globalperspective, a 20% adoption rate of transgenicsfor the above five principal crops would beequivalent to half the global transgenic croparea of 39.9 million ha planted in 1999. At a50% adoption rate for transgenics for the samefive crops, China would have a transgenic croparea equivalent to approximately 50 millionha, 10 million ha more than the total globalarea of 39.9 million ha planted to transgeniccrops in 1999.

35

6.1.1 Bt Cotton in ChinaCotton is the most important cash crop in Chinabut is subject to very heavy damage bybollworm (Helicoverpa armigera). In the past,area planted to cotton in China was as high as6.7 million ha, but severe damage due tocotton bollworm reduced this by 40% to anestimated 4.0 million ha in 1999. An importantimplication is that China is now an importerof cotton whereas formerly it was an exporter.Loss due to cotton bollworm in 1992 (Jia 1998)was valued at the national level to be 10 billionRMB equivalent to US$1.2 billion (calculatedat the official 1999 exchange rate of 8.27 RMB= US$1.00).

There are two suppliers of Bt cotton in China.The first is the Chinese Academy of AgriculturalSciences (CAAS) in collaboration withprovincial academies and seed distributionorganizations. CAAS has developed a rangeof Bt cottons products under the aegis of thewell-publicized 863 High-Tech Program. Workon the Bt gene was first undertaken at theBiotechnology Centre of the Chinese Academyof Agricultural Sciences in Beijing. By 1996 atotal of 10 transgenic Bt cotton varieties hadbeen developed and a total of 17 field trialswere conducted occupying 650 ha. In 1997,the Biosafety Committee of the Ministry ofAgriculture approved commercialization of thefirst Bt cotton and the area planted wasextended to 10,000 ha in 1998. The firstcommercial plantings of the CAAS Bt cottonsin 1998 featured a single Bt gene (Cry1B/Cry1C)on 10,000 ha planted in four provinces (Anhui,Shangdong, Shanxi, and Hubei) (Jia 1998,James 1998). By 1999, the CAAS single Btcottons, and the stacked Bt/CpTi cottons(designed to provide more durable resistance),occupied an area 12-fold greater than 1998 tocover a total 120,000 ha, and planted in nineprovinces compared with four in 1998. It isestimated that at least 750,000 small farmersgrew CAAS Bt cottons in 1999, most of whichcarried the single Bt gene. The single Bt cottons

were planted in the nine provinces ofShangdong, Shanxi, Anhui, Jiangsu, Hubei,Henan, Hebei, Xinagjiang, and Lianoning. TheCAAS cotton with stacked genes was plantedin the four provinces of Shangdong, Shanxi,Anhui, and Hubei in 1999 (Jia, personalcommunication 1999). Preliminary estimatesof the benefits associated with Bt cotton in1998 (Jia 1998, James 1998) indicate that thenet benefits to farmers are due to significantlyreduced need for insecticides and associatedlabor costs of applying them. Savings wereestimated at 1,200 RMB to 1,500 RMB perhectare, equivalent to $145 to $182 perhectare. This is a substantial increase in incomefor a small resource-poor farmer who isplanting, on average, approximately 0.15 haof Bt cotton. These preliminary estimates ofeconomic gains do not include the additionalsignificant social, environmental, and healthbenefits associated with reduced applicationsof pesticides, which pose very serious healthhazards to small producers applying manyinsecticide sprays to control cotton bollwormin China. A comprehensive and rigorous surveywas conducted in Shangdong and Hubeiprovinces by CAAS in 1999 to assess theimpact of both CAAS and Monsanto/Delta PineBt cotton grown by 1.5 million small farmers;the study will be published in 2000 and thefindings will be reported in a Brief.

The CAAS Bt cotton is being carefullymonitored to develop the most effective meansfor achieving durable resistance within thecontext of a Bt management strategy. Resultsindicate that field performance of Bt cotton issuperior to non-Bt cotton with no indicationthat resistance to Bt is developing. The multiplecropping system and the spatial distribution ofBt cotton planted on small farms in Chinacontribute to a natural �refuge.� Jia (1998)projects that the current Bt cotton may provideadequate levels of resistance for up to 8 or 9years, during which alternative strategies ofcontrol will be developed and implemented.

36

One of the current alternative strategies beingemployed is the use of the Bt gene inconjunction with the CpTi gene, whichencodes for an insecticidal protein with anindependent mode of action from Bt. Thisstrategy is being employed to provide bettercontrol and delay resistance development .

The second supplier of Bt cotton in China isMonsanto/Delta Pine whose product is basedon the variety 33B, which carries the Cry1A(c)gene. In 1998, this occupied 53,000 ha inHebei province and increased almost 2.5-foldto approximately 125,000 ha in 1999. It isgrown by an estimated 750,000 small farmersand occupy the same area as the Chinese Btcotton in 1999. Unlike the Chinese product,however, the Monsanto/Delta Pine productwas grown in only one province, Hebei, in1999 but with plans to expand to otherprovinces in 2000. Significant benefits in termsof net return per hectare are also being reportedfor the Monsanto/Delta Pine product. Detailsof the planting are planned for publication in2000. Preliminary data indicate that the Btcotton had a yield advantage of 25% overconventional cotton which required 14insecticide sprays compared with an averageof less than 1 spray for Bt cotton, withapproximately 70% of farmers applying noinsecticide sprays on Bt cotton.

Taking into account the Bt cottons deployedby both CAAS and Monsanto/Delta Pine inChina there has been remarkable progress withboth products since the Bt cottons were firstdeployed. In 2 years, Bt cotton in China hasincreased from small introductory areas in1997 to 63,000 ha in 1998, to 245,000 ha in1999 (a 3.9-fold increase in 1 year), with anestimated total of at least 1.5 million smallfarmers benefiting from both CAAS and theMonsanto Bt cotton products. The 245,000 haestimate for 1999 is considered conservativebecause it is based on seed sales. It is difficultto estimate the additional area planted withfarmer-saved and farmer-traded Bt cotton seed

which is judged to be significant. The importantpoint is that at least 1.5 million small farmersgrew Bt cotton in China in 1999. The initial400,000 small farmers who first adopted Btcotton in 1998 derived significant and multiplebenefits from the technology. Because farmerswho adopted Bt cotton in 1998 were verysatisfied with the experience, they were keento continue the practice in 1999 and werejoined by more than 1 million other smallcotton farmers, which in turn led to the plantingof 245,000 ha of Bt cotton in 1999. This isequivalent to 6% of the Chinese national cottonarea of 4 million ha in 1999. Based onexperience to date, the Bt cotton area in Chinais expected to significantly expand again in2000.

6.2 The Cotton Crop in India and thePotential Benefits of Bt Cotton

Cotton is the leading plant fiber crop in theworld and the most important fiber crop inIndia. India has a larger area of cotton thanany other country in the world, approximately9 million ha. This represents 24% of the worldtotal cotton area and occupies 5% of India�stotal cultivated land area. Cotton yield in India,however, averages only 236 kg/ha and is oneof the lowest in the world. As a result of lowyields, cotton production in India representsonly 13% of total world production. It isestimated that the income of approximately 60million people living in India is derived fromthe production, processing, and/or export ofraw cotton and cotton textile goods (Bell andGillham 1989). Some of the major constraintsto cotton production in India are wateravailability at crucial stages of cropdevelopment, inadequate insect and diseasecontrol measures, low fertilizer inputs, andlimited use of hybrid seeds.

India has addressed the need for increasedcotton production under a series of 5-yearplans. The strategy for increasing cotton

37

production has the following thrusts: acceleratethe use of improved technology in bothirrigated and rainfed areas, with emphasis onuse of pure seed, optimum agronomicpractices, and integrated pest management;cultivate more cotton in rice fallow andnontraditional areas; expand the irrigated areaof cotton production; and increase the use ofhybrid cotton. Targets for the 5-year plans havelargely been met and India has graduated frombeing a large net importer of cotton, to being amajor exporter of high-quality cotton suitablefor spinning into higher count yarns. Today,cotton is grown in four regions in Indiaencompassing the states of Punjab, Rajasthan,and Haryana in the north; Maharashtra andMadhya Pradesh in the central region; Gujaratin the northwest coastal region; and AndhraPradesh, Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu in thesouthern region. In the north, cotton is animportant cash crop where approximately 95%of the crop is irrigated, and yields are generallyhigher than the other regions. The principalvariety is J-34, a short staple cotton suitablefor spinning into 24 to 28 count yarns. In thecentral states, cotton is considered the mostimportant cash crop. Even though some of thecotton production in the central area isirrigated, production depends largely onmonsoon rains. The northwest coastal state ofGujarat is also dependent on monsoon rainsfor cotton production, because water salinityprevents extensive irrigation. The southernstates are the most important from thestandpoint of high quality cottons.

The rationale for developing Bt cotton in Indiais that cotton production is constrained bydamage by insect pests, particularlylepidopterans, which are the most important.The most serious pest is the Americanbollworm, which can be very destructive, andis equally damaging to legumes, tomato, andseveral other crops. Annual losses caused bybollworm alone are estimated at approximatelyUS$300 million (King 1994). Other important

lepidopteran insect pests of cotton in India arethe pink bollworm (Pectinophora gossypiella),spotted bollworm (Earias vittella), spinybollworm (Earias insulana), and tobaccocaterpillar (Spodoptera litura). To date,chemical control has been the most commonpractice and is often the only option. It isestimated that insecticides valued at $700million are used on all crops annually in India,of which nearly 50% is used on the cotton cropalone (Dhar 1996). Because of heavy andindiscriminate use of all categories ofinsecticides, pests have developed resistanceto most of the commonly used insecticides inthe country. Conway (1997) reported that 450pest species had developed resistance to oneor more pesticides. Because of the undesirableeffects of chemical pesticides, emphasis is nowplaced on integrated pest management (IPM)where nonchemical crop managementpractices are used in conjunction with selectiveinsecticides for insect pest control. Bt, withappropriate management, provides an effectivealternative and environmentally superiorcontrol of bollworm and other lepidopteraninsect pests of cotton (Wilson et al 1994, Luthyet al 1982). Bt cotton with the Cry1Ac genehas been tested in India for several seasons andresults for 1998-99 are detailed in Table 13.

Extensive and fully replicated field trials of Btcotton have been conducted under theguidance of the Department of Biotechnologyof the Government of India. These trials meetthe requirements of the government forcommercialization. Information from two setsof Bt cotton trials conducted in 1998-99 arereported here (Barwale, personalcommunication 1999). Trial results aresummarized in Table 13. Set A trials wereconducted at 15 sites in seven Indian states in1998-99 featuring four cotton hybrids, onecontaining the Bt gene, and one without Bt.Set B trials featuring one cotton hybrid (MECH-1) with and without Bt, were conducted at 25sites in nine Indian states in kharif 1998-99.

38

Table 13. Summary of Bt cotton trials conducted in India, 1998-99

Trial Yield % yield No. of bollworm Fruiting body(kg/ha) increase larvae/10 plants damage (%)

Bt hybrids 0-60 61-90 0-60 61-90 days from days days days

plantingSet A trials (15 sites)Mean Bt hybrids 1464 40 1.2 1.7 2.5 2.5Mean non-Bt hybrids 1045 - 6.1 6.4 8.7 11.4LSD (0.05) 214 - 2.5 2.4 4.5 7.2

Set B trials (25 sites)Mean Bt hybrid 1694 37 1.0 - 1.7 -Mean non-Bt hybrid 1238 - 7.9 - 9.0 -

Source: Barwale (personal communication 1999).

Results from both studies indicate that Bt cottonhybrids significantly outyielded their non-Btcounterparts by 40% in Set A trials and 37%in Set B trials. Results confirm significantly lessbollworm larvae on Bt cotton hybridscompared with their counterparts during thetwo periods 0-60 days (1.2 vs 6.1) and 61-90days (1.7 vs 7.4) after sowing. Similarly,damage to fruiting bodies was significantlylower for Bt cotton hybrids compared with theircounterparts in both sets of trials. Populationsof sucking pests (aphids, jassids, and whitefly)and beneficial predators (ladybirds, greenlacewing bug, spiders) were monitored in bothBt hybrids and non-Bt hybrids. No differenceswere noted between Bt hybrids and non-Bthybrids. In Set B trials standard cottoncultivation practices were followed at each siteincluding application of insecticides when theeconomic threshold levels for pests wereexceeded. Application of up to seveninsecticides was necessary for non-Bt hybridsat all sites, whereas Bt hybrids required nosprays in most sites except two sites where 1to 3 sprays were applied.

Results from these two sets of extensive Btcotton trials in India in 1998-99 confirm Bt�seffectivity against bollworm, the major insectpest of cotton in India, resulting in significantreduction in insecticides; substantial social,environmental, and human health benefits;increased and more stable yields; andincreased net returns per hectare. Given thatIndia is a large producer of cotton (9 millionha), the importance of providing effectivecontrol of bollworm has significant economicadvantages and positive environmentalimplications for India and the textile industry.

6.3 Potential Benefits of Bt Cornin the Philippines

The first transgenic crop field trial ever in thePhilippines was planted on 15 December 1999in General Santos City in Mindanao. The fieldtrial featured Bt corn and was harvested inMarch 2000. A recent study by Gonzalez(2000) assessed the potential benefits fromapplying biotechnology, more specifically theuse of Bt for the control of Asiatic corn borer

39

(Ostrinia furnacalis). The Philippines producesapproximately 4.5 million t of corn (1.8 milliont white and 2.4 million t yellow) domesticallyevery year, and on average it imports 300,000t at a cost of US$55 million in 1998. Yieldlosses due to Asiatic corn borer in thePhilippines ranged from 8% in the dry seasonto 27% in the wet season (at least twice ashigh as reported for European corn borer lossesin the USA), which resulted in yield losses of327,000 to 881,000 t annually during the wetand dry seasons from 1980 to 1998 (Gonzalez2000). Thus, corn imports, which averaged316,000 t from 1990 to 1998, have thepotential to be more than offset by productionincreases from controlling Asiatic corn borerwith transgenic corn using Bt which is knownto give effective control. In addition, if cornfarmers in the Philippines use Bt corn theywould not have to revert to using insecticideswhich are not only costly ($13/ha, based on0.45 kg of a.i./ha), but are hazardous to thehealth of small resource-poor farmers, anddetrimental to the environment.

Analyses indicated that for every 1% increasein yield due to control of Asiatic corn borer,increase in net farm incomes were 1.3-3.1%higher in 1995-96 and 1.5-55.5% higher in1997-98. Thus, adopting Bt corn for control ofAsiatic corn borer will probably result inmultiple benefits: a high multiplier impact onincomes of one of the poorest groups in thefarming sector�the resource-poor smallfarmers; substitute corn imports resulting insignificant foreign exchange gains averaging$58 million annually; eliminating the need forinsecticides in a food crop consumed by thepoor and a feed crop that is increasinglyimportant for the Philippine economy. Thepotential advantages of eradicating losses dueto corn borer (Ostrinia furnacalis) with Bt in acountry such as the Philippines has much moresignificance and implications than eradicatinglosses due to the European corn borer in theUSA or Canada. Gonzalez (2000) concludes

that the increase in the internationalcompetitiveness of the Philippines in cornproduction, that would accrue from the use ofBt corn, would be significant and criticallyimportant at a time when open internationaltrade protocols will apply under GATT-WTOand APEC agreements.

6.4 The Rockefeller FoundationInternational Rice BiotechnologyProgram

This Rockefeller Foundation Program isparticularly significant to Asia because it isfocused on rice�the principal crop in theregion. In September 1999, RockefellerFoundation (RF) sponsored the last generalmeeting of the International Program on RiceBiotechnology at Phuket, Thailand. Themeeting, attended by 400 scientists active invarious aspects of rice biotechnology, markedthe completion of a 15-year, $100-millioninnovative program, which has proven to beextremely productive. The two-thrust programfirst supported biotechnology researchconducted by leading scientists at 46laboratories in industrial countries. The secondthrust concentrated on training 400 Asianscientists from developing countries in theindustrial laboratories once the technologieshad been developed (Normile 1999). At theoutset of the program 70% of the funding wasprovided to laboratories in industrial countries,falling to 10% in later years when 60% of thefunding was allocated to labs and internationalcenters in developing countries. The remainderwas allocated to training and education. As aresult of the RF program several countries,including China, India, and Korea, havealready integrated biotechnology into theirnational rice improvement program; theparticipation of other countries in the programsuch as the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam,is moving in the same direction. The programhas achieved several successes includingtissue-cultured disease-resistant rice, which is

40

Table 14. Share (%) of world population and arable land

% world % arable Arable land/

population land population ratio

USA & Canada 5.1 17.2 3.4

Former Soviet Union 5.1 16.9 3.3

Other regions 3.4 5.7 1.7

South America 5.6 6.6 1.2

Europe 9.0 9.1 1.0

Africa 12.6 12.6 1.0

Asia 59.2 31.9 0.5

Source: FAO Stats (1999).

already deployed in China. The mostoutstanding technological success, however,was the incorporation of several genessimultaneously that code for beta-carotene, theprecursor of vitamin A, by Dr Ingo Potrykusand Dr Peter Beyer. This breakthrough isdescribed elsewhere in this Brief. TheRockefeller Program has delivered significantmultiple benefits that include technologicalbreakthroughs, capacity building in cropbiotechnology in key national programs inAsia, and establishment of an internationalnetwork of like-minded scientists who can nowcontinue to collaborate to facilitate the transferof knowledge and technology in pursuit ofmutual goals and objectives, and food security.

The Rockefeller Foundation�s future strategywill focus on traits, rather than crops,particularly on the more important andprevalent constraints to productivity such asdrought tolerance, which is pervasive andaffects all crops. The Foundation will alsoassign high priority to facilitating the adoptionof improved varieties by farmers and tobuilding capacity in crop biotechnology innational programs in sub-Saharan Africa.

6.5 Summary

With 60% of the world�s population in Asia(Table 14), IFPRI�s 2020 projections call forincreased cereal demand (for food and feed)for the region because of population growthand rising incomes, with correspondingchanges in diets with more meat. Higherconsumption of meat products will requireincreased livestock herds and poultry, whichin turn will require increased quantities of highquality feeds. Whereas today most Asiancountries are rural, with more than half theirworking population involved in agriculture,this is changing fast. Urbanization is occurringat twice the rate of population growth and it isprojected that most Asian countries will havemore people living in urban areas than the ruralareas in 2020. This migration from rural tourban areas will have a significant impact onagriculture, which will require managementpractices that are less dependent on labor andmore dependent on mechanization. Thechallenge facing Asia is in some ways moreformidable than the corresponding challengein other regions of the world because the ratioof arable land to population (Table 14) is lowest

41

in Asia at 0.5 compared with 1.0 for Africaand 1.2 for South America. As expected thehighest ratios are for USA and Canada at 3.4,which is more than six-fold greater than thosefor Asia, the Soviet Union, and Europe.

Crop biotechnology, including transgeniccrops, has much to offer the developingcountries of Asia and should be an essentialcomponent of an Asian regional food security

strategy that integrates conventional andbiotechnology crop improvement applicationsto produce more food in the continent wherethe need is greatest, and where the welfarevalue of food is the highest. Denying the poorand malnourished in Asia new technologies issynonymous to condemning them to continuedsuffering from malnutrition which eventuallymay deny the poorest of the poor their right tosurvival.

7. Future Biotechnology Traits

The R&D pipeline is full of new and novelproducts that can be commercialized in thenear term from 2000 onwards. The recentrestructuring in the private sector will impacton the scope, scale, and time frame when theseR&D products will be commercialized, but asteady stream of new products is expected tobecome available during the next 5 years. Table15 lists approximately 40 input traits and 30output traits, a proportion of which are likelyto become available in the near term, in thenext 5 years or so. The intent in listing theseproducts in Table 15 is not to provide anexhaustive list, but to provide the reader witha sense of the characteristics of the range andtype of products. Availability of these productswill be significantly influenced by the pace ofdevelopment of transgenic crops during thenext 5 years, the magnitude of investments bythe private and public sectors, and generalpublic acceptance of transgenic products.Public acceptance could be significantlyaffected by the availability of output traits thatoffer healthier and more nutritious foods thatprovide evident benefits to consumers.

7.1 Input Traits

Transgenic crops that are currentlycommercialized incorporate the firstgeneration of traits called �input traits� thatconfer agronomic advantages. These includethe principal trait of herbicide tolerance, withinsect resistance as a second category plus afew virus-resistant products. The listing of inputtraits in Table 15 projects that herbicidetolerance will be extended to crops includingrice, wheat, potato, fodder beet, sugar beet,sugarcane, alfalfa, tomato, lettuce, andsunflower. Similarly, insect-resistant productswill cover a much broader range of pests thatcause economic losses on crops in differentregions of the world. For example, the currentrange of Bt corn products are principallydesigned to control the European corn borer,but also provides some control of other insectpests of corn such as earworm. The next rangeof insect-resistant products for corn will bespecially tailored to control specific pests inparticular regions. Accordingly, Bt and othergene products will be tailored to control fallarmyworm in the USA and Latin America

42

Table 15. Listing of selected potential transgenic crops for commercialization in thenear to midterm, from 2000 onwards

Input traits Benefits

Corn/MaizeRootworm resistance Reduced losses valued at >$1 billion/annum in USA aloneFall armyworm resistance Control of pest in USA and Latin AmericaEarworm resistance Control of pest in USA and Latin AmericaAsiatic corn borer resistance Control of pest in AsiaAfrican stem borer resistance Control of pest in AfricaFungal resistance Control of Fusarium head scab and mycotoxinsCottonSecond generation genes Contributes to more durable deployment of genes for pestfor bollworm resistanceBoll weevil resistance Control of an important and prevalent cotton pestSoybeanInsect resistance Pod borer and looper controlStacked gene Bt/ Reduced yield losses to insect pests and weedsherbicide toleranceCanolaHybridization genes Improved hybridization technologyVirus resistance Control of beet yellow virus and/or turnip yellow virusPotatoesHerbicide tolerance Improved weed controlInsect resistance Control of Colorado beetle for varieties for E. EuropeVirus resistance Control of multiple virusesFodder beetHerbicide tolerance Improved weed controlSugar beetHerbicide tolerance Improved weed controlRiceHerbicide tolerance Improved weed controlBacterial disease resistance Control of bacterial leaf blightInsect resistance Control of rice stem borerDelayed senescence Increased productivity

continued...

43

Table 15 continued. Listing of selected potential transgenic crops forcommercialization in the near to midterm, from 2000 onwards

Input traits Benefits

WheatFungal disease resistance Reduced yield losses due to Fusarium and other

diseasesVirus resistance Control of barley yellow dwarf virusHerbicide resistance Improved weed controlSunflowerInsect resistance Control of Lepidpoteran pestsHerbicide tolerance Improved weed controlFungal disease resistance Control of Sclerotinia and VerticilliumTomatoesInsect resistance Reduced losses to looper, hornworm, and fruitwormVirus resistance Improved control of CMV virus diseaseVirus resistance Improved control of TMV virus diseaseHerbicide tolerance Improved weed controlSugarcaneHerbicide tolerance Improved weed controlInsect resistance Control of sugarcane borerSweet pepperVirus resistance Control of CMV virusSweet potatoInsect resistance Control of sweet potato weevilVirus resistance Control of feathery mottle virusBananasDisease resistance Control of black sigatoka fungal diseaseCassavaVirus resistance Control of cassava mosaic virusAlfalfaHerbicide tolerance Improved weed controlAppleInsect resistance Bt gene for control of insect pestsLettuceHerbicide tolerance Improved weed controlPoplarInsect resistance Bt gene for control of insect pests

continued...

44

Table 15 continued. Listing of selected potential transgenic crops forcommercialization in the near to midterm, from 2000 onwards

Output traits BenefitsCorn/MaizeHigh oleic oil Healthier nutritional profileModified starch Improved qualityHigh lysine Feed with improved nutritional profileHigh methionine Feed with improved nutritional profileHigh tryptophan Feed with improved nutritional profileHigh oil (normal) + other traits Feed with improved nutritional profileLow phytate Reduces need for phosphate supplementsSoybeanHigh oleic oil Healthier and more nutritious food productsImproved proteins Improved flavor and textureHigh stearate Healthier and more nutritious food productsHigher sucrose Healthier and more nutritious food productsLow saturate oil Healthier and more nutritious food productsLow linoleic oil Healthier and more nutritious food productsLow phytate Reduces need for phosphate supplementsEnhanced vitamin E Remedy for vitamin E deficiencyCanolaHigh stearate oil Healthier food productsHigh oleic oil More nutritious food ingredientsLow polyunsaturated oil Healthier and more nutritious food productsHigh beta-carotene Remedy for vitamin A deficiencyPotatoesModified starch Improved qualityImproved storage quality Less postharvest lossesHigher solids Lower water content and absorbs less oil in cookingSunflowerHigh oleic oil Healthier and more nutritious food productsWheatImproved quality Better health profile and processing qualitiesCottonImproved fiber quality Better quality cotton fabricsRiceModified starch Improved qualityEnhanced vitamin A Remedy for vitamin A deficiency � affects 400 millionEnhanced iron content Remedy for anemia � afflicts 3 billion peoplePapayaDelayed ripening Reduces postharvest losses

Source: Compiled by Clive James (1999).

45

where the pest is particularly important.Similarly, specific products will be availablefor the Asiatic corn borer in Asia and theAfrican stem borer in Africa. Products withmore than one Bt gene will increase thedurability of Bt resistance and products withBt and other mechanisms of resistance willprovide further security and offer newpossibilities for optimizing the durability ofdeployed genes. Genes that confer resistanceto insects will be available to cover a broadrange of crops including rice, soybean,sunflower, tomato, sugarcane, sweet potato,apple, and poplar. Many observers have beenjustifiably concerned that most, if not all,transgenic products commercialized to datehave been developed to meet the demands oflarge farmers in industrial countries and notthe small resource-poor farmers in developingcountries. It is therefore noteworthy that someof the new products that are likely to beavailable, such as insect-resistant sweet potatoand virus-resistant cassava, are crops that arealmost exclusively used by small resource-poorfarmers in developing countries.

Virus resistance, which is particularly importantfor developing countries where seedcertification schemes are not very effective, islikely to be available for a broader range ofviruses, and for more crops. Virus-resistantproducts are likely to be deployed for CMVand TMV in tomato, CMV in sweet pepper,barley yellow dwarf virus (BYDV) in wheat,possibly beet yellow virus and turnip yellowvirus in canola/rapeseed, and cassava mosaicvirus in cassava. Some products will becomeavailable for the control of fungal pathogens.Gene discovery programs for pathogens suchas Phytophthora infestans of potato have beenconducted for several years but as yet noproducts have been commercialized. There isa possibility that in the near term, genes maybe available for the control of Fusariumdiseases in corn and wheat that are associatedwith mycotoxins; black sigatoka disease of

bananas; and Sclerotinia and Verticilliumdiseases of sunflower. The Xa21 gene forbacterial blight of rice is also being tested infield trials and could be ready for deploymentin the near term. Genes for delayingsenescence�the stay-green effect�also havesignificant potential for increasing productivityas a result of prolonging photosynthetic activity,and there is a candidate gene that may beavailable in rice. Finally, male sterility, restorerand other hybridization genes being used incanola have potential for many other cropsincluding rice and maize in the near term andwheat in the midterm. Genes for aluminumtolerance have been identified for deploymentin crops growing in acid soils but will probablynot be available until the midterm.

Beyond the near term, preliminary findingslook promising for several traits includingdrought resistance and genes that can increasethe efficiency of fertilizer uptake, morespecifically nitrogen. Fertilizer, particularlynitrogen, played a critical role in both thewheat and rice Green Revolutions initiated inthe 1960s. Undoubtedly the use of nitrogenwill continue to play a key role in manyapplications of new technologies in the firstdecade of the new millennium as the longerterm target of doubling food production by2050 becomes an increasingly pressing need.Of the 130 t of fertilizer used annually on crops,60% of the volume and 70% of the $50 billioncost is represented by nitrogen fertilizers (James1997b). The challenge is to optimize the useof nitrogen fertilizers through developing cropvarieties that are more responsive to nitrogen.A significant increase in the efficiency ofnitrogen uptake would allow food productionto be increased significantly with a minimalincrease in nitrogen fertilizer use; this wouldcoincidentally mitigate the environmentalconcerns resulting from high nitrate levels ingroundwater in areas where very intensiveagriculture is being practiced.

46

Collaborative research at the University ofFlorida and Monsanto led by Robert Schmidtat Florida (Anonymous 1999) has led to theisolation of a gene from the algae Chlorellasorokiniana that may enable crops to usenitrogen more effectively, increasing yields byup to 29%. The research was initiated bySchmidt who postulated that if algae have acomparative advantage over bacteria innitrogen uptake when they are coinhabitantsof a pond, the gene in algae that confers thisadvantage may also confer the same advantageon higher plants. Schmidt found that uponexposure to high levels of nitrogen fertilizerChlorella sorokiniana generated high levels ofthe enzyme glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH).Whereas GDH is also found in higher plantsits involvement in algae is quite different. Inalgae it contributes to increased efficiency ofthe process that converts ammonium intoglutamate in the chloroplast where sunlight isconverted to energy. The GDH gene, isolatedfrom C. sorokiniana at the University of Florida,was incorporated by Monsanto intotransformed wheat. Research findings to dateindicate that the GDH-transformed plants aremore robust, larger, and yield up to 29% moregrain than untransformed wheat, whenexposed to the same level of nitrogen.Alternatively, GDH-transformed plants canyield the same as untransformed plants on lessfertilizer. The implications for this work in bothindustrial and developing countries is farreaching vis-à-vis efficiency of nitrogen uptake,and environmental concerns on high levels ofnitrates in aquifers, rivers, and coastal waterswhere high nitrogen levels are used. Thepotential application of the GDH technologyfor crops generally, particularly in developingcountries where the need to increase foodproduction is urgent, could be extremelyimportant. Developing countries are estimatedto consume almost two-thirds (equivalent to50 million t at a cost of $22 million annually)of the 80 million t of nitrogen, valued at $35billion annually on a global basis (James

1997b). Thus the impact of GDH technology,in conjunction with supplemental nitrogentechnologies, could be enormous. Expectationsof products such as GDH must be temperedby a realistic assessment which acknowledgesthat whereas the product has tremendouspotential, it is still in the early stage of R&Dand must undergo several years ofdevelopment before it qualifies as a candidateproduct for regulatory approval andcommercialization in the midterm.

7.2 Output Traits

The �output traits� represent the secondgeneration of traits for transgenic crops,conferring improved �quality� characteristicsthat will result in benefits to consumers, foodprocessors, and producers. Unlike input traitsthat have delivered multiple agronomic andproductivity-related gains to producers, thebenefits of output traits will be evident toconsumers. Benefits will include improvedshelf life, and more nutritious, healthier, andtastier foods. Because these benefits will beevident to consumers, quality traits have thepotential to positively impact on publicacceptance; this could be particularlysignificant in countries of the European Unionwhere the debate continues on publicacceptance of food products derived fromtransgenic crops. The ability to modify foodspecifications with quality traits also offerssignificant benefits to food processors, who cangain from modifications that will facilitate moreefficient food processing and the developmentof new products.

The first output/quality trait introduced intotransgenic crops was the delayed ripening traitin Flavr Savr tomato. The delayed ripening/altered shelf-life genes have enormouspotential for tropical fruits and vegetables indeveloping countries where postharvest lossesare high because of high temperatures andhumidity, inadequate transportation from farm

47

to market, and lack of appropriate orrefrigerated storage. Delayed ripening genesare being incorporated in papaya in a projectbrokered by ISAAA for five countries inSoutheast Asia with technology donated byZeneca and the University of Nottingham. Thedelayed ripening technology is applicable toa broad range of perishable food products.

For convenience, the quality traits that arelikely to become available in the near term canbe classified into five arbitrary categories. Thefirst category, featuring healthier and morenutritional food and feed products, isexemplified by the high oleic soybean (Table15). The other products listed in Table 15 thatfall into the same category include corn withhigh oleic oil, high lysine, high tryptophan,high methionine, low phytate, and high oilthrough traditional breeding stacked withvarious transgenic quality traits; soybean withhigh oleic oil improved proteins, high stearateoil, higher sucrose, low saturate oil, lowlinoleic oil, and low phytate; canola with highstearate oil, high oleic, low polyunsaturatedoil and low phytate; sunflower with high oleicoil; and potatoes with high solids. The secondcategory includes gene products that are beingdeveloped as potential remedies for vitamindeficiencies. The most advanced product inthis class results from the successful and well-publicized research of Dr Ingo Potrykus andDr Peter Beyer (described elsewhere in thisBrief) who identified genes that coded forhigher levels of beta-carotene (precursor ofvitamin A) and incorporated these in rice (Guru1999). Research is also under way on highbeta-carotene canola and on genes encodingfor vitamin E and preliminary work on vitaminC. The third category includes traits thatenhance levels of microelements and offerpotential remedies for microelementdeficiencies. Again, the work of Dr Potrykuset al in enhancing iron levels in rice is the mostadvanced, and offers a potential remedy foranemia that is estimated to affect up to 3 billion

people. The fourth category includes traits withimproved chemical structure that result inbetter flavor, taste, or structure and/or enhancethe quality or storage of food/feed products likestarch or proteins for food, feed, or industrialprocessing. Products listed in Table 15 in thiscategory include corn with modified starch,potatoes with modified starch and improvedstorage quality, wheat with improved quality,and papaya with delayed ripening. The fifthand final category includes traits that improvefiber qualities, such as improved fiber qualityin cotton.

As in input traits, the list of output traits listedin Table 15 is not intended to be exhaustiveand the reader is referred to the extensiveliterature that is being published in this rapidlydeveloping area of research involving secondgeneration output/quality traits. The mostadvanced output trait product listed in Table15 is high oleic soybean, which is alreadyregistered and approved by the Food and DrugAgency in the USA. The characteristics of higholeic soybeans and potential benefits to theconsumer are briefly summarized here.Vegetable oils and animal fats contain threetypes of fatty acids�saturated (consideredunhealthy), monounsaturated (consideredhealthy), and polyunsaturated (consideredhealthy). Oleic acid is a monounsaturated fattyacid, considered healthy. Conventionalsoybean oil contains relatively low levels ofoleic acid (24%) and 60% polyunsaturated fattyacids. Conventional soybean oil is oxidativelyand thermally unstable. Oxidative instabilityin conventional oil can be overcome byhydrogenation which results in moremonounsaturated fatty acids, and is oftenassociated with fairly high levels of trans-fattyacids. There is increasing evidence that trans-fatty acids, like saturated fatty acids, areunhealthy because they lead to highercholesterol levels, the principal indicator of riskto coronary heart disease.

48

The fatty acid composition of high oleicsoybean oil is substantively different fromconventional commodity soybean oil. Higholeic soybean oil has a 30% lower level ofsaturated fatty acids, a much higher level (80%plus) of monounsaturated fatty acids, and amuch lower level of polyunsaturated fattyacids. Unlike conventional soybean oil, higholeic oil is highly stable. High oleic soybeanoffers the following advantages to theconsumer: 30% lower saturated fat thanconventional soybean oil; provides analternative to other high stability oils or partiallyhydrogenated vegetable oils, which contain

very high levels of saturated or trans-fatty acids(considered unhealthy); decreases the need forchemical hydrogenation which produces trans-fatty acids; it is a product that is oxidativelystable�a natural oil which resists rancidity andprovides a longer shelf life for oil-containingshelf-stable foods; a fatty acid profile similarto that of olive oil and canola oil, consideredimportant for a healthy diet; a product with80% plus oleic acid-high monounsaturates(oleic acid) have been shown to reduce bloodcholesterol levels (lowering of LDL�the badcholesterol, without reducing levels of HDL�the good cholesterol).

8. Past Achievements and Future Potential of Plant Breeding, includingBiotechnology, for Increasing Crop Productivity of the Major Staples:Wheat, Rice, and Maize

any other crop (about 225 million ha), followedby rice (150 million ha), and maize (about 140million ha). In terms of usage as food, 85% ofrice is used directly for human consumptioncompared with 60% of wheat and 25% ofmaize.

First, achievements in wheat breeding arereviewed, with some brief comments on thesuccessful wheat breeding program in the UK,with a more detailed coverage of the CIMMYTInternational Program on Wheat Breeding.Second, an overview is provided of the IRRIInternational Rice Program from the 1960s to1990s. Third, to complete the picture oncereals, the success of maize breeding in theUSA is reviewed. To conclude, pastachievements and future potential of plantbreeding programs in wheat, rice, and maizeare discussed within the context ofunpublished information from IFPRI(Rosegrant, personal communication 1999)which projects world demand for cereals in2025. The challenge that cereal demands in2025 poses to plant breeding in the 21stcentury is evident, considering that global food

It is widely recognized in the internationalscientific and development community thatusing conventional technology alone will notresult in the doubling or tripling of foodproduction in the next 50 years. A combinationof conventional and biotechnologyapplications has the potential to achieve globalfood security. Acknowledging that pastexperience is often the best guide for the future,it is useful to review past achievements toincrease crop productivity through plantbreeding in the context of a seamless web thatcan provide continuity for combining bothconventional and biotechnology applicationsto achieve future food security. Achievementsin conventional plant breeding in the threemost important food crops in the world�wheat, rice, and maize�are reviewed, inconjunction with a discussion of potentialbenefits that future conventional andbiotechnology applications offer. The reviewis appropriate from a food security standpointin that collectively the three major staples total1.5 billion t of grain annually, and supplymankind with almost two-thirds of totalcalories. Wheat is grown on more land than

49

security has to be achieved for 8 billion peoplewhile at the same time protecting theenvironment, natural resources, andbiodiversity.

8.1 Wheat Improvement

Current global wheat production is 560 milliont which represents more than one-quarter ofthe total world cereal output, and is theprincipal source of calories for 1.5 billionpeople. The global area of wheat isapproximately 225 million ha, half of whichis grown in industrial countries and half indeveloping countries. Excluding China, about45% of the wheat area in developing countriesis irrigated. Eighty percent of China and 75%of India�s wheat crop are irrigated. About 90%of the growth in world cereal production since1950 has been generated from gains inproductivity (Mitchell 1997). For the future,virtually all the increase in production will haveto come from increasing yield as opposed tobringing new land into production; there areonly a few areas left worldwide, like thecerrados of Brazil, that offer opportunities forexpanding arable area.

8.1.1 Wheat Breeding in the UKDuring the period 1948 to 1997, average farmwheat yields in the UK increased three-foldfrom about 2.5 t to 7.5 t (Austin 1998). Thisincrease is equivalent to an average annualgain of 110 kg/ha/year, and there is noindication that the rate of increase is slowing.The 110 kg/ha represents not only genetic gain,but also gains from agronomic practices andbeneficial interactions of these factors. Thesegains have been associated with

· the adoption of shorter stature varieties,carrying the rht D16 dwarfing gene, whichare not prone to lodging

· earlier sowing and earlier anthesis thanolder varieties

· high rates of fertilizer application (28 kg in1950 to 185 kg in 1985)

· herbicide applications· fungicide applications

Data from recent trials with promising cultivarsindicate that further genetic gains are beingrealized and improved crop protection wouldlead to even higher yields. For the longer term,significant genetic gain in yield may bepossible though biotechnology if new cultivarscan be developed with faster growth rates andgreater biomass at maturity. Modifying thephotosynthetic enzyme rubisco may achievethis; however, higher levels of nitrogen will berequired to realize higher yields (Austin 1998).

8.1.2 CIMMYT/International WheatProgram

The first semidwarf variety, Pitic 62, wasreleased by CIMMYT in 1962 (Rajaram andBraun 1999). The major milestones in yieldsof CIMMYT wheat during the period 1962 to1996 are summarized in Table 16. Yield, asmeasured under irrigation in Obregon, Mexico,increased from 6.5 t/ha in 1962 to 8.0 t/ha in1980 with the introduction of the Veerys, andto 9.0 t/ha in 1996 with Super Seri. The Veeryyield increases were associated with theintroduction of the 1B/1R translocation fromrye.

Table 16. Major milestones in yields ofCIMMYT spring wheats atObregon, Mexico

Year Yield Variety

1962 6.5 t/ha Pitic 62

1970 7.0 t/ha

1980 8.0 t/ha Veery 1B/1R

1990 8.5 t/ha

1996 9.0 t/ha Super Seri, LR 19

Source: Rajaram (1999), Sayre (1997).

50

Similarly, the yield increase in Super Seri wasassociated with the introduction of the LR19gene for leaf rust introduced from Agropyronelongatum (Reynolds et al 1998). Thus, likethe earlier 1B/1R translocation from rye, yieldincreases have again been associated with thebroadening of the germplasm base, which isconsistent with the science underpinningtransgenic crops. In a separate set ofexperiments at CIMMYT (Sayre et al 1997), itwas estimated that during the period 1964 to1990, yield potential of wheat, as defined byEvans and Fischer (1998), increased by 0.9%/year, equivalent to 67 kg/ha/year, which is animpressive gain over a 26-year period.

The area planted to improved varieties of wheatin all least developing countries (LDC) on allcontinents (Byerlee 1994) increased steadilyfrom 20% in 1970 to 59% in 1983, to 78% in1994 (Table 17). Adoption rates were highestin Asia, increasing from 42% in 1970 to 91%in 1994; this data excludes China where 70%of the wheat area was planted with improvedvarieties in 1990. Latin America had lowerrates of adoption than Asia in 1970 but by the1990s, it had reached similar levels, exceeding90%. The high rates of adoption reflect themultiple benefits that the improved varietiesoffer farmers, including yield stability andimproved tolerance to drought. Dalrymple(1977) estimated that benefits associated withthe early Green Revolution wheat in Asiareleased during the period 1960 to 1973 was

equivalent, in 1973 alone, to an annualproduction increase of 8.7 million t valued at$1.9 billion in 1990 dollars. The benefits inthe post-Green Revolution period, 1977 to1990, have continued and actually increased.Byerlee and Moya (1993) estimated thatbenefits in all LDCs during the period 1977 to1990 were equivalent to an annual increasein production of 15.3 million t valued at $3.0billion in 1990 dollars. The data (Table 18)show that 60% of the global LDC gains werein South Asia, 22% in Latin America, 17% inWest Asia/North Africa, and 1% in sub-SaharanAfrica.

Table 18. Estimated benefits of postGreen Revolution wheatreleased in developingcountries between 1977 and1990

Region Production Value(million t) (1990,

US$millions)

Sub-Saharan Africa 0.1 31

West Asia/North Africa 2.5 515

South Asia 9.3 1,822

Latin America 3.4 662

Total 15.3 3,030

Source: Byerlee and Moya (1993).

Table 17. Area planted (%) to improved varieties of wheat

1970 1977 1983 1990 1994

All LDCs 20 41 59 70 78

Asiaa 42 69 79 88 91

Latin America 11 24 68 82 92a Excluding China with 70% in 1990.Source: Pingali and Rajaram (1998).

51

8.2 Rice Improvement

Rice is largely associated with countries of Asia,extending from Pakistan to Japan.Approximately 95% of the world�s rice isproduced in Asia and it is an integral part ofthe culture of the continent. Rice occupiesapproximately 150 million ha, which is one-tenth of the total cultivated land of 1.5 billionha in the world. In the 40-year period from1950 to 1990, area planted to rice increasedby over 70%, and mean yield increased bymore than 110%, resulting in a tripling of globalrice production (IRRI 1997).

8.2.1 IRRI/International Rice ProgramThe first rice semidwarf, IR8, was released in1966, 4 years after the first wheat semidwarfin 1962. Tall traditional rice had a biomass of12 t/ha with a harvest index of 0.3 and yielded4 t/ha. With the introduction of the semidwarf

IR8 in 1966, biomass was increased to 18 tand the concomitant increase in harvest indexfrom 0.30 to 0.45 allowed the semidwarfs todouble yield potential from 4 to 8 t (Khush1990). From 1966 to 1996, 42 improved ricevarieties have been released by IRRI. Duringthat 30-year period the annual genetic gain inyield has been 75 kg/ha equivalent to 1%/year(Peng et al 1998). The best yield of the latestvarieties is between 9 and 10 t/ha.

The data in Table 19 show that adoption ratesfor improved rice varieties in all LDCsincreased from 30% in 1970 to 74% in 1990(Byerlee 1993). China had higher adoptionrates, increasing from 77% in 1970 to 100%in 1990. Benefits from the initial rice varietiesof the Green Revolution (Dalrymple 1977)released between 1966 and 1973 have beenestimated to increase annual production in1973 by 7.7 million tons valued at $2.2 billionin 1990 dollars. Following the introduction ofhigh-yield rice semidwarfs in the 1960s, worldrice production doubled from 250 million t in1963 (Table 20) to over 500 million t in 1993(IRRI 1997). During the same 30-year period,1963 to 1993, global yield per hectareincreased by almost 75% from 2.0 t/ha in 1963to 3.5 t/ha in 1993.

8.3 Wheat and Rice Summary

In summary, yield increases associated withthe introduction of the semidwarf wheat andrice in the 1960s produced a combined wheat/rice increase in production of 16.4 million t in1973 valued at $4.1 billion in 1990 dollars.This increased production of wheat and rice isestimated to have saved a billion people fromfamine in the 1960s (El Feki 2000) when manyin international development in the 1960s werefearful that triage would be the only outcome.Opportunities for increasing wheat and riceyields in the 21st century will depend on theuse of both conventional and biotechnologyapplications that will focus on

Table 19. Area planted (%) to improvedvarieties of rice

1970 1983 1990

All LDCs 30 59 74

Asiaa 12 48 67

China 77 95 100a Excluding China.Source: Byerlee (1994).

Table 20.Global rice production

Year Total yield Yield(million t) (t/ha)

1963 250 2.0

1973 335 2.4

1983 450 3.1

1993 520 3.5

Source: IRRI Rice Almanac (1997).

52

· continued population improvement forabiotic and biotic stresses and quality

· greater nutrient use efficiency· new ideotypes· wide crosses· hybrids· marker-assisted selection· transgenic crops that will incorporate both

input and output traits

More specifically for rice, input traits willinclude disease and insect resistance, herbicidetolerance, improved hybrid technology basedon male sterility/restorer genes, as well as genesfor delayed senescence which could result insubstantial increases in yield and genes thatenhance photosynthetic activity to increaseyield potential that is currently constrainingincreases in productivity. Output traits for ricewill include enhanced vitamin A (golden rice),enhanced iron content, and modified starch.(See Table 15 for listing of specific input andoutput traits for rice likely to be available inthe next 5 years).

More specifically for wheat, input traits willinclude resistance to fungal diseases such asFusarium scab, virus diseases such as barleyyellow dwarf virus, herbicide tolerance, andpossibly hybridization genes. There is also thepossibility in the midterm of increasingnitrogen efficiency through the incorporationof the glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) geneand genes that code for the activity of enzymessuch as Rubisco that can enhancephotosynthetic activity and productivity.Output traits will focus on various qualityaspects related to bread and pasta qualities, aswell as some quality related to feed wheat. (SeeTable 15 for listing of specific input and outputtraits for wheat likely to be available in thenext 5 years).

8.4 Maize Improvement

Despite the fact that almost twice as much areaof maize is grown in developing countriescompared with industrial countries, productionis 300 million t in industrial and only 250million t in developing countries, for a totalglobal annual production of over 550 milliont. Unlike rice and wheat which are mainlyconsumed as food, maize is used for food andfeed, as well as for industrial processing. Inindustrial countries the majority of maize isused for feed and industrial uses. Maize,however, is an important food staple in manydeveloping countries and is particularlyimportant in sub-Saharan Africa and CentralAmerica where it is often the principal foodsource.

8.4.1 Maize Breeding in the USAIn the 70-year period from the mid-1920s to1990s, farm yields of maize tripled in the USA.In the last 30 years farm-level yields increasedfrom 5 t/ha in 1967 to 8 t/ha in 1997. In aseries of experiments featuring 36 of the besthybrids that have been released during theperiod 1930 to 1991, Duvick (1996) estimatedthat the annual increase from genetic gain was74 kg/ha, equivalent to an average annual gainof approximately 1%; it was estimated thatapproximately half of farm-level gains duringthe same period were due to genetic gains(Duvick and Cassman 1998). Unlike in wheatand rice, dwarf genes did not result insignificant increases in maize yield. Geneticgains achieved in the USA are a result ofimprovements by breeders and associated withthe following traits:

· Heterosis· Higher planting density (30,000/ha to

>80,000/ha)· Tolerance to abiotic and biotic stresses· More erect upper leaves and small tassels

53

· Shorter interval between anthesis andsilking

· Increase in grain starch, decrease in % grainprotein

· Transgenic Bt hybrids in 1996 for controlof European corn borer

· Transgenic herbicide-tolerant hybrids in1997 for improved weed control

· Transgenic hybrids with stacked genes forBt and herbicide tolerance in 1998

Source: Modified from Duvick (1996)

The USA was the first country to commercializetransgenic maize in 1996 (James 1997a) withthe introduction of Bt maize to controlEuropean corn borer. Varieties with herbicidetolerance were commercialized in 1997 andthose with stacked genes of Bt and herbicidetolerance were commercialized in 1998 (James1998). The benefits associated with Bt maizeand herbicide-tolerant maize in the USA in1996 and 1997 are summarized in Table 21.Following the successful introduction of Btmaize in the USA in 1996, six other countrieshave commercialized the product. In 1999,11.1 million ha of transgenic maize weregrown in the following seven countries, listedin order of area grown: USA, Canada,Argentina, South Africa, Spain, France, andPortugal. Transgenic maize represented 28%of the global area of all transgenic cropscommercialized in 1999 having increased from8.3 million ha in 1998 to 11.1 million ha in1999�an increase of 2.8 million ha equivalentto 33% between 1998 and 1999. Of the 140million ha of maize grown worldwide in 1999,8% of the area (11.1 million ha) was plantedwith transgenic hybrids.

Both conventional and biotechnologyapplications have resulted in significant gainsin maize, and both will continue to make vitalcontributions. Biotechnology traits that willbenefit maize in the near term include input

traits that will provide control of the veryimportant pest, corn root worm, that isresponsible for losses of well over $1 billionper year in the USA alone; control of insectpests that are important in different regions ofthe world (listed in Table 15); control of thefungal disease caused by Fusarium head scabwhich in turn will decrease the level ofmycotoxin; and control of other fungal andvirus diseases that are important in the differentcorn-growing regions of the world. Outputtraits for maize will become increasinglyimportant and will focus on enhanced feed,industrial and food qualities of maize featuringsuch products as high lysine corn, high oleicacid, and improved starch, high methionine,and low phytate corn.

Table 21. Attributes of transgenic maizecommercialized in 1996-99

Bt maize

� Effective and targeted control of theinsect pest European corn borer (ECB)

� Reduction of insecticide usage

� Yield increases dependent on infestationlevel

� Reduced mycotoxinsa � safer for humanand animal consumption

Herbicide-tolerant maize

� Flexible crop management � assigned toppriority by growers

� Facilitates conservation tillage � lesscultivation saves fuel

� Better weed control

� Better soil and moisture conservation

� Reduction in herbicide usagea Munkvold et al (1999).Source: Clive James (1999).

54

In summary, it is evident that past genetic gainsfrom plant breeding in wheat, rice, and maizehave been impressive and have made a unique,lifesaving contribution to global food securityand the health and welfare of humanity. Duringthe period 1960 to 1990 genetic gainsgenerated an estimated half of total gains(McCalla 1999) that allowed:

· Doubling of global cereal production from1 to 2 billion t annually

· Per capita food availability to increase 37%· Real food prices to decrease by 50%

Plant breeders are targeting to increase futureproductivity from 0.5% to 2.0% per annum.Much progress has been made in wheat andrice through increases in the harvest index,which is now close to the theoretical limit ofapproximately 60% in both crops. Prospectsfor shifting yield frontiers with conventionaltechnology are greatest in maize, for whichtemperate germplasm developed in industrialcountries is adaptable to temperate areas indeveloping countries such as China andArgentina. There are also some opportunitiesfor shifting the yield frontier of wheat withconventional technology but feweropportunities in rice where there is someevidence to suggest that yield potential maynot have increased since the introduction ofIR8 in 1966 (Peng et al 1998). Most of the gainsto date have been due to conventionaltechnology and nontransgenic biotechnologyapplications such as tissue culture, and marker-assisted breeding that have already contributedto both maize and rice. However, maize hasalready benefited from transgenic technologythat currently is limited to input traits but thatwill be significantly extended to include outputtraits in the near term. The magnitude of currentbiotechnology investments, particularly that ofthe private sector, in maize, rice, and wheat,will largely determine the relative contributionthat biotechnology will make to increased

productivity and nutrition of the three crops inthe near term. It is expected that the majorityof gains due to biotechnology in the near termwill continue to be in maize, reflecting thehighest R&D investments, but withopportunities for rice and wheat acceleratingrapidly as current and significant investmentsin functional and applied genomics generatetechnology that can be applied at the samelevel.

8.5 Global Demand for Cereals in2025�The Plant BreedingChallenge

The most recent data from IFPRI (Rosegrant,personal communication 1999) indicate thatin the 30-year period from 1995 to 2025,global demand for cereals will increase by 805million t from 1.776 billion t in 1995 to 2.581billion t in 2025 (Table 22). Thus, demand willincrease by 45% in 30 years. Eighty-fivepercent of the deficit of 805 million t(equivalent to 679 million t) will be indeveloping countries and 15%, equivalent to126 million t, in industrial countries. It isprojected that only 7% of the increasedproduction will come from additional land arealeaving 93% to be generated from productivitygains. Thus, the global food security challengeis to increase productivity of cereals at the farmlevel by 805 million t between 1995 and 2025.

Table 22. Projected world demand(million tons) for cerealsa

1995 2025 Deficit

Industrial 704 830 126

Developing 1072 1751 679

World 1776 2581 805a Rice, reported as milled rice (0.65% of paddy).Source: Rosegrant (1999 personal communication).

55

The World Bank (McCalla 1999) reports thatworld grain yields at the farm level increasedat an annual rate of 2.1% during the 1980sbut fell to <1.0% in the 1990s. There is someevidence that farm yields are plateauing andeven declining in some cases in the moreintensive rice/wheat production systems inAsia. The situation seems more critical for ricethan wheat, with maize the least affected.Intensification leading to yield decline in ricehas been associated with increased salinity,waterlogging, various toxicities and bioticstresses. Opportunities for increasing yieldthrough closing the yield gap betweenexperimental and farm yields are available formaize, but judged to be few in the highproduction rice irrigated areas and only modestin irrigated wheat (Pingali et al 1999), withareas such as the Yaqui Valley in Mexico andthe Punjab in India already close to maximumachievable yield.

The annual genetic gain in cereal productivityis currently 1%, or less, per year. Although thisfalls short of the increase required to meetdemand over the next 25 years, increasingannual genetic gains and applyingbiotechnology to shift the frontiers of yieldpotential (as defined by Evans and Fischer1998) offer the best probability of success.Given the performance of plant breeding overthe last 30 years and the promise thatbiotechnology offers, there is reason to becautiously optimistic that cereal demands in2025 can be met, provided that three criteriaare satisfied:

· Higher priority and increased resources forcrop improvement activities by public andprivate sectors in industrial and developingcountries, and where appropriate theestablishment of synergistic public-privatesector partnerships.

· Commodity prices and orderly markets thatwill ensure reasonable returns to farmers

on their investment and provide theincentive for adopting improved seeds andagronomic practices that can contribute toincreased productivity and sustainability;a level international playing field in relationto commodity subsidies is necessary tofacilitate equitable competition.

· Adoption of a multiple-thrust global foodstrategy that will include populationcontrol, improved food distribution, andincreased crop productivity that willcapitalize on the full potential that bothconventional and biotechnologyapplications offer, including the timelyapproval of improved varieties byregulatory agencies for early and safeadoption by farmers to optimizeproductivity gains.

If these three criteria are met, there isreasonable probability that technology canincrease cereal productivity by 45% by 2025.Of the three cereals, rice probably offers thegreatest challenge due to multiple and complexconstraints in the highly intensive tropicallowland irrigated production systems in Asia.There are, however, both conventional andbiotechnology applications in rice that offermuch promise. For example, encouragingprogress is being made in developing a newplant type that could increase yield potentialfrom the current 10 t/ha to 12.5 t/ha. Use ofthese new plant types as parents for hybrid ricecould increase productivity, by up to a further20%, to reach 15 t/ha which would help meetthe rice requirements of 2025 (Pingali et al1999). Rice has benefited much frombiotechnology research funded by theRockefeller Foundation and from the ricegenome project, which was to be completedin 2004 but is now expected earlier, possiblyin 2002. A team commissioned by the WorldBank (Kendall et al 1997), led by the late NobelLaureate Dr Henry Kendall concluded thattransgenic technology can contribute 10 to

56

25% increase in productivity in rice in the nextdecade and advocated the appropriate use ofbiotechnology. Whereas the first generation ofbiotech �input� agronomic traits contributesto increased productivity, the secondgeneration of �output� quality traits willenhance food nutrition (Mazur et al 1999).With the support of the Rockefeller Foundationand other donors, a gene encoding for beta-carotene/vitamin A has been incorporated inrice. This has the potential to enhance the dietsof 400 million people in developing countriessuffering from vitamin A deficiency, of whom180 million are children, and results in 2million deaths annually (Conway 1999,Nuffield Council 1999). Producing morenutritious food for developing countries iscritical because today malnutrition affects 840million people. The above examples ofpotential technology in rice offer evidence tosupport the thesis that there is a reasonableprobability that plant breeding can continueto make a significant contribution toproductivity that will allow global cerealdemands in 2025 to be met.

The most compelling case for biotechnologyis its potential contribution to global foodsecurity. It is critical that a combined strategyof conventional and biotechnologyapplications be adopted as the technologycomponent of a global food security initiative.Adoption of such a strategy will allow societyto continue to benefit from the vitalcontribution that plant breeding offers theglobal population as a result of:

· Continued annual increments inproductivity achieved through geneticgains, which will also generate healthierand more nutritious food/feed products.

· A land-saving technology which will allowproduction to be limited to the 1.5 billionha of global cultivable land wheresustainable agriculture can be practiced

while saving fragile ecosystems andenvironments, the in-situ centers ofbiodiversity, wildlife, and forests for futuregenerations. Currently 13 million ha offorest, which are havens of biodiversity andprovide watershed control, are lost everyyear in developing countries.

· More efficient use of external inputs�substitute and develop alternatives toconventional pesticides, which representa potential hazard for producers,consumers, and the environment. Bt cropsalone, deployed on 11.7 million ha in1999, have already substituted a substantialquantity of insecticides that were appliedglobally and valued at $7.823 billion in1998 (Wood McKenzie, personalcommunication 1999). Much moresubstitution is possible with genes otherthan Bt that confer resistance to insect pests.Similarly, promising biotechnologyapplications offer significant savings innitrogen fertilizer usage by increasing theefficiency of fertilizer use on crops whichin turn will reduce additional fertilizerneeds and modulate fertilizer runoff intowatersheds, aquifers, and coastal waters.

· Increased stability of yield�the annals ofhistory record famines that result frominstability of yield due to drought,unfavorable weather patterns, pestinfestations, and disease epidemics.Biotechnology offers the best option forreducing the variability in yield due to bothabiotic and biotic stresses, especially acomplex trait such as drought, which is apervasive constraint that applies to at leastone-third of the 1.5 billion ha of globalcultivable land.

Opponents of biotechnology have posedquestions about the potential environmental,biosafety, and food safety risk of transgeniccrops, to which society has an obligation to

57

respond. Proponents of biotechnology, thescientific community and regulatory bodies,have invested significant resources to generateevidence to assess the pros and cons ofbiotechnology. There is a substantive body ofevidence from North America, whereapproximately 300 million people haveconsumed food from transgenic crops for 4years, that transgenic crops and their derivedfood and feed products pose no more risk topeople and the environment than conventionalfood (Miller and Conko 2000). The countriesof the European Union (EU), however, haveinvoked the �precautionary principle,�claiming that there is insufficient scientificevidence to conclude that there is no risk toconsumers from transgenic crops, or theproducts derived from them. Accordingly, thesovereign states of the EU have prohibitedimports of some varieties of transgenic cropsand have, by and large, halted the planting oftransgenic crops in most member states. In theirpublication �Precautionary Principle� StallsAdvances in Food Technology, Miller andConko (2000) conclude that when applied toagricultural and food biotechnology, theprecautionary principle focuses solely on thepossibility that new products may posetheoretical risks. But this standard ignores thevery real existing risks that could be mitigatedor eliminated by those products. Applying theprecautionary principle in this way often resultsin increasing, not decreasing, overall risk. Forexample, they state that if the precautionaryprinciple had been applied decades ago toinnovations like polio vaccines and antibiotics,regulators might have prevented occasionallyserious, and sometimes fatal, side effects bydelaying or denying approval of thoseproducts. But that precaution would havecome at the expense of millions of lives lost toinfectious diseases.

Thus, to date, the evidence presented insupport of the adoption of transgenic crops andthe consumption of food derived from them,

has not convinced the countries of theEuropean Union, which enjoy surplus andrelatively inexpensive food and are notprepared to accept the potential risk that maybe incurred if they deviate from the status quo.The risk to the poor in developing countries,where 24,000 people a day die from chronicmalnutrition (Hunger Site 2000), however, isquite different. The risk is for people sufferingfrom malnutrition in the Third World ifindustrial countries engage in a process thatdirectly, indirectly, or inadvertently denies ordelays them access to biotechnology that canhelp contribute to alleviation of malnutritionand hunger. Global society must seek equitablesolutions that meet the different needs ofpeople and nations and respect differingopinions. Implementing an equitable policy isa challenge in a world where globalization, aweb of international protocols (such as theBiosafety Protocol), and international trade areall impacting on the ability of sovereign nationsin the developing world to access and usebiotechnology in their national food securitystrategies. The World Trade Organisation(WTO), whose policies and decisions areguided by objective assessments of scientificevidence does not have an advisory body toprovide guidance on transgenic products. Theestablishment of such an advisory body byWTO, as recommended by Miller and Conko,would seem appropriate at this time,particularly to align and rationalize decisionsvis-à-vis the Biosafety Protocol where contraryto WTO guidelines, the precautionary principlecan be invoked to prohibit the use or transferof transgenic crops without furnishing scientificevidence to support the case.

The opportunities and constraints associatedwith public acceptance of transgenic crops areimportant challenges facing the globalcommunity, where agriculture and its relatedindustries, despite modern industrialization, isstill one of, if not the, largest industries in theworld. Because of our thrice-daily dependency

58

on food, agriculture touches the life of everyindividual in the global community of over 6billion. Today, agriculture employs 1.3 billionpeople and produces $1.3 trillion of produceannually (El Feki 2000). In the USA alone,although farming employs only 1% of theworkforce and accounts for <1% of grossdomestic product (GDP), the effect ofagriculture on the US economy is significantbecause of its link to many industries.Consequently, in 1996 the US food and fibersystem (farming and its related industries)employed 23 million people (17% of the laborforce) and accounted for $997.7 billion,equivalent to 13.1% of the $7.6 trillion USGDP in 1996 (Lipton and Manchester 1998).US agricultural exports were valued at $60.4billion in 1996, equivalent to the produce fromalmost one-third of US crop acreage. In 1996US agricultural trade had a surplus of $26.8billion, whereas nonagricultural trade had adeficit of $235.1 billion.

Unlike industrial countries such as the US andcountries of the European Union, with a fewexceptions, all developing countries are netimporters rather than exporters of food, andwhere a high percentage of the populationemployed in agriculture are either smallresource-poor farmers practicing subsistencefarming or the rural landless who aredependent on agriculture for survival; 70% ofthe world�s 1.3 billion poorest people are ruralpeople. Agricultural employment as a percentof total employment was 80% in developingcountries in 1950; it is currently 55%, and isstill projected to be 50% in 2010 when thepopulation of developing countries will be

approximately 6 billion, equivalent to theglobal population of today. Improved cropsderived from appropriate conventional andbiotechnology applications for small resource-poor farmers are vital for increasingproductivity and for providing access to morenutritious food in the food-insecure rural areaswhere the majority of the poverty, hunger, andmalnutrition exists. Crops are not only theprincipal source of food but increased cropproductivity provides more employment andacts as the engine of economic growth in ruralcommunities. Producing more food on smallsubsistence farms has the significant advantagethat the inevitable infrastructural constraintsassociated with transport can, to a large extent,be circumvented because food is produced atthe same location where it is needed andconsumed.

The foregoing does not by any means implythat biotechnology is a panacea.Biotechnology, like any other technology, hasstrengths and weaknesses and need to bemanaged responsibly and effectively.Biotechnology represents one essential link ina long and complex chain that must be in placeto develop and deliver more productive cropsfor small resource-poor farmers. This willrequire the political will, goodwill, andunfailing support of both the public and privatesectors in industrial and developing countriesto work together in harmony. Distributionsystems and organizations that provideextension advice, and manage microcredit andmarketing are critical to success and arecurrently one of the weakest links in the foodsecurity chain.

59

9. Future Prospects for Transgenic Crops

around the world made independent decisionsafter evaluating the technology following theirfirst plantings of transgenic crops in 1996, afterwhich the area increased by an unprecedentedmultiple of >23-fold, speaks volumes for theconfidence and trust farmers have placed intransgenic crops. In China alone, within a shortperiod of 2 years, over 1.5 million smallfarmers, growing an average of 0.15 ha of Btcotton, have embraced the technology afterwitnessing first hand in their own fields thesignificant and multiple benefits it can deliver.

Global area planted to transgenic crops isexpected to continue to grow but will start toplateau in 2000 reflecting the unprecedentedhigh adoption rates to date and the highpercentage of principal crops already plantedto transgenics in the USA, Argentina, andCanada. In 2000, Argentina is expected tomodestly expand the area of transgenic crops,with Brazil, subject to regulatory approval andmarket demand, possibly growing transgeniccrops officially for the first time in 2000. Chinais expected to expand its transgenic crop areaof Bt cotton, with growth and diversification

In the early 1990s many were very skepticalthat transgenic crops, more familiarly knownas genetically modified (GM) crops, coulddeliver improved products and make an impactin the near term at the farm level. There waseven more skepticism regarding theappropriateness of transgenic crops for thedeveloping world, particularly their ability tomeet the needs of small resource-poor farmers.It is encouraging to witness that the earlypromises of crop biotechnology are meetingexpectations of large and small farmers in bothindustrial and developing countries. In 1999,the global area of the four principal crops ofsoybean, canola, cotton, and corn totaled 273million ha, of which 15%, equivalent to 39.9million ha, was planted with transgenicvarieties (Table 23). This is unprecedented andequivalent to more than one and a half timesthe total land area of the United Kingdom; itcomprises 30% of the 72 million ha ofsoybeans planted globally, 14% of the 25million ha of canola, 10% of the 34 million haof cotton, and 8% of the 140 million ha ofcorn. The fact that millions of farmers in 12different industrial and developing countries

Table 23. Transgenic crop area as % of global area of principal crops(million hectares), 1999

Crop Global area Transgenic Transgenic area

crop area as % of global area

Soybean 72 21.6 30

Canola 25 3.4 14

Cotton 34 3.7 10

Corn 140 11.1 8

Others - 0.1 -

Total 273 39.9 15


60

continuing in South Africa and EasternEuropean countries. India has transgenic Btcotton that is ready for commercializationpending final approval by the government. Themajor issues that will modulate adoption in2000 will be public acceptance, which drivesmarket demand, regulation, and commodityprices. These three issues and labeling of foodsderived from genetically modified crops willcontinue to be dominant factors that willimpact on commercial planting of transgeniccrops and consumption of genetically modifiedderived foods in countries of the EuropeanUnion.

As expansion of transgenic crops continues, ashift will occur from the current generation of�input� agronomic traits to the next generationof �output� quality traits, which will result inimproved and specialized nutritional food andfeed products that will satisfy a high-value-added market; this will be a stimulus to de-commoditize grain and oil seed markets. Thisshift will significantly affect the value of theglobal transgenic crop market and also broadenthe beneficiary profile from growers toprocessors and consumers. Food productsderived from transgenic crops that are healthierand more nutritious could in turn haveimportant implications for public acceptance,particularly in Europe where the debate ontransgenic crops continues.

The pace of biotechnology-drivenconsolidations in industry, which is a concernto some, was slower in 1999 than in theprevious 3 years, although there were manyalliances in the area of plant genomics that willcontinue to be of pivotal importance. The largemultinationals with investments in seeds, cropbiotechnology, and crop protection havereviewed their future plans. Some corporationshave already initiated restructuring, and areplanning spin-offs and mergers, which haveresulted in more focus and may affect the scopeand scale of planned delivery of new products.

The global seed industry will continue to playan important role by providing superior andhealthy seed that contributes to increased cropproductivity and stability. It is criticallyimportant that the public sector andinternational development institutions in bothindustrial and developing countries invest inthe new technologies to ensure equitableaccess and benefits from the enormouspotential that transgenic crops offer in termsof increased productivity, more nutritious food,and global food security.

In the global village of tomorrow, if we are touse limited resources in the most effective way,we will have to practice comparativeadvantage and define appropriate roles for thepublic and private sector. Governments mustimplement regulatory programs that inspirepublic confidence and exert leadership incommunicating information and knowledge tothe public on transgenic crops so that societyis well informed and engaged in a dialog aboutthe impact of the technology on theenvironment, food safety, sustainability, andglobal food security. Societies in food-surplusindustrial countries must ensure that access tobiotechnology of developing countries is notdenied or delayed, because the mostcompelling case for biotechnology is itspotential contribution to global food securityand alleviation of hunger in the Third Worldwhere 24,000 people die every day fromchronic malnutrition (Hunger Site 2000). It isvital that the public sector and the private sectorforge partnerships that will allow thecomparative advantages of both parties to beoptimized to achieve the mutual objective ofglobal food security. The seed industry hascomparative advantages in two importantareas. The first is its extensive and effectiveglobal plant breeding activities that harnessboth conventional and biotechnologyapplications to increase the productivity andnutrition of food crops. The second is theoperation of effective seed distribution systems

61

that remain one of, if not the weakest, link infood production chains in developingcountries. The value and importance ofsuperior seed is evident irrespective of whetherit incorporates conventional or biotechnologyimprovements, because superior seed isessential for producing improved crop varietiesthat are, and will continue to be, the most cost-effective, environmentally safe, and sustainable

way to ensure global food security in future.Superior seed, incorporating improvedtransgenic traits, can be a very powerful toolfor alleviating poverty because not only can itcontribute to the sustenance of the rural poor(Wambugu 1999), but the value of superiorseed is known, trusted, and accepted byhundreds of millions of farmers throughout theworld.

Acknowledgments

It is a pleasure to thank many colleagues, toonumerous to mention, from the public andprivate sector, in industrialized and developingcountries, for their kindness in providing adviceand data. Special thanks to Wood Mackenzie,Edinburgh, Scotland (courtesy of Mr FredMathisen), Dr Dale Adolphe, Dr Ariel Alvarez,Dr Klaus Amman, Dr Simon Barber, Mr GaryBarton, Dr Raju Barwale, Ms. Sheena Bethell-Cox, Dr Wally Beversdorf, Dr Norman Borlaug,Dr Kyd Brenner, Dr Zhangliang Chen, DrRonnie Coffman, Dr Michael Colling, Dr Nam-Hai Chua, Dr Philip Dale, Dr Willy De Greef,Dr Keith Downey, Mr Sam Dryden, Dr AdrianDubock, Dr Don Duvick, Ms. Shereen El Feki,Dr Gary Fitt, Dr Richard Flavell, Dr Roy Fuchs,Mr Windsor Griffiths, Dr Michael Gale, Dr ValGiddings, Dr Randy Hautea, Dr Ken Hogugh,Dr Jikun Huang, Dr David Hume, Dr JohnHuppatz, Dr Susan Ilis, Dr Bob Ingratte, DrShi-Rong Jia, Dr Wojciech Kaniewski, Dr JuanKiekebusch, Dr Anatole Krattiger, Dr QuentinKubicek, Dr Richard Manshardt, Dr BarbaraMazur, Dr Morven McLean, Mr Terry Medley,

Dr Ron Meeusen, Dr Gabrielle Persley, Dr JohnPierce, Dr Ernesto Pineiro, Dr Martin Piniero,Dr Carl Pray, Dr Sanjaya Rajaram, Dr ErnstRasche, Dr Mark Rosegrant, Dr Paul Teng, DrGary Toenniessen, Dr Rod Townsend, Dr GregTraxler, Dr Eduardo Trigo, Dr Jasper VanZanten, Dr Marin Velcev, Dr Sally von Wert,Dr Mark Wall, Dr Florence Wambugu, DrGrant Watson, and Dr Robin Woo. Last, butcertainly not least, I would like to give a veryspecial thanks to my wife, Glenys James, forher encouragement, diligence, and patiencein inputting the entire manuscript and to DrRandy Hautea, Ms Sophia Abrenica, Ms FelyAlmasan, and Ms Elizabeth M. Libas foroverseeing and expediting the preparation ofthe manuscript for publication includingformatting all the text, tables, and figures.Whereas the assistance of everyone mentionedabove is sincerely acknowledged and greatlyappreciated, the author takes full responsibilityfor the views expressed in this publication andfor any errors of omission or misinterpretation.

62

References

Anonymous. 1999. Global issues in agriculturalresearch. Vol. 1. Issue No.4.Washington, D.C. USA

Austin, R.B. 1998. Yield of wheat in the UK:recent advances and prospects.Presented at a Special Symposium;Annual Meeting of the Crop ScienceSociety of America, 19 October 1998.

Barwale, R. 1999. Personal communication.Bell and F.E.M. Gilham. 1989. The world of

cotton. ContiCotton, EMR, Washington,D.C. 200001, USA.

Borlaug, N. 2000. Global food security:Harnessing science in the 21st century.D.L. Umali Memorial Lecture. 10 March2000. Manila, Philippines.

Byerlee, D. and P. Moya. 1993. Impacts ofinternational wheat breeding research inthe developing world 1969-90.CIMMYT, Mexico D.F. 135 p.

Byerlee, D. 1994. Modern varieties, productivityand sustainability: Recent experienceand emerging challenges, CIMMYT,Mexico D.F.

Caillez, B. 1997. The twenty leading seedcompanies in 1996. In Cultivar, Mayedition, p 42-43. Paris, France.

CGIAR. 1998. Third System Review of theConsultative Group on InternationalAgricultural Research. CGIARSecretariat, The World Bank,Washington, D.C., USA.

Chen, X. 1999. Agri-biotechnology in Asia-Oceania. Proceedings of the Conference�Agrobiotechnology: The FinancialFuture for the Sector� organized by theFinancial Times, London, UK. 22October 1999.

Conway, G. 1999. Food gains for the world�spoor are being threatened by furor overgenetically modified (GM) foods. Pressrelease from the Rockefeller Foundation,New York, USA.

Conway, G. 1997. The doubly GreenRevolution. Penguin Books. p 209-211.

Dalrymple, D. 1977. Evaluating the impact ofinternational research on wheat and riceproduction in the developing nations. InT.M. Arndt, D.G. Dalrymple, and V.W.Ruttan (eds.). Resource allocation andproductivity in national andinternational agricultural research.Minneapolis, Minnesota: University ofMinnesota Press.

Dhar, B.M. 1996. Pesticides scenario in India.The pesticides world. Volume II, p 42-43.

Duvick, D.N. 1996. What is yield? InProceedings of a Symposium onDeveloping Drought and Low N TolerantMaize. 25-29 March 1996. CIMMYT, ElBatan, Mexico. G.O. Edmeades, M.Baenziger, H.R. Mickelson, and C.B.Pena-Valdivia (tech. eds.). Mexico D.F.:CIMMYT.

Duvick, D.N. and K.G. Cassman. 1998. PostGreen Revolution trends in yieldpotential of temperate maize in theNorth-Central United States. Presentedat a Special Symposium; AnnualMeeting of the Crop Science Society ofAmerica, 19 October 1998.

El Feki, S. 2000. Survey of Agriculture andTechnology. The Economist, 25 March.London, U.K.

Evans, L.T. and R.A. Fischer. 1998. Yieldpotential: its definition, measurementand significance. Presented at a SpecialSymposium; Annual Meeting of the CropScience Society of America, 19 October.p 1998.

FIS. 1999. World Seed Statistics.www.worldseed.org/stat.html.

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of theUnited Nations. 1998. Crop statistics for1998. Rome, Italy.

63

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of theUnited Nations. 1999. Crop statistics for1999. Rome, Italy.

Gonzalez, L.A. 2000. Breaking new ground: theprospects of enhancing the corn sector�sglobal competitiveness throughbiotechnology. Manila, Philippines:Society Towards Reinforcing InherentViability for Enrichment (STRIVE). p 35.

Gura, T. 1999. New genes boost rice �nutrients.�Science 285:994-995.

Hautea, R., Y.K. Chan, S. Attathom, and A.F.Krattiger. 1999. The PapayaBiotechnology Network of SoutheastAsia: Biosafety Considerations andPapaya Background Information. ISAAABriefs No.11. Ithaca, NY: ISAAA.

Holliday, C.O. 1999. Speech to Chief ExecutivesClub of Boston, 22 September 1999.www.dupont.com/corp/whats-new/speeches/chadbiotech.html.

Hunger Site. 2000.h t tp : / /www. thehunge r s i t e . com/hunger.html.

IRRI. 1997. Rice almanac. Los Banos,Philippines 181 p.

James, C. 1999. Global review ofcommercialized transgenic crops: 1999.ISAAA Briefs No.12: Preview. ISAAA:Ithaca, NY. p 8.

James, C. 1998. Global review ofcommercialized transgenic crops: 1998.ISAAA Briefs No.8. ISAAA: Ithaca, NY.p 43.

James, C. 1997a. Global status of transgeniccrops in 1997. ISAAA Briefs No.5.ISAAA: Ithaca, NY.

James, C. 1997b. Progressing public-privatesector partnerships in internationalagricultural research and development.ISAAA Briefs No.4. Ithaca, NY: ISAAA.

James, C. and A.F. Krattiger. 1996. Globalreview of the field testing andcommercialization of transgenic plants,1986 to 1995: the first decade of cropbiotechnology. ISAAA Briefs No.1.ISAAA: Ithaca, NY. p 31.

Jia, S.-R. 1999. Personal communication.Jia, S.-R. 1998. Development of resistance

management strategies for commercialcultivation of Bt cotton in China. InProceedings of 5th InternationalSymposium. The Biosafety Results ofField Tests of Genetically Modified Plantsand Microorganisms, 6-10 September,Braunschweig, Germany.

Kendall, H.W., R. Beachy, T. Eisner, F. Gould,R. Herdt, P. Raven, J.S. Schell, and M.S.Swaminathan. 1997. Bioengineering ofcrops. Report of the World Bank Panelon Transgenic Crops. ESDS MonographSeries: 23. Washington, D.C.: WorldBank. p 30.

King, A.B.S. 1994. Heliothes/Helicoverpa(Lepidoptera, Noctuidae). In Insect pestsof cotton. Mattews, G.A., Tunstall, J.P.(eds.). UK: CAB International. p 39-106.

Khush, G.S. 1990. Varietal needs for differentenvironments and breeding strategies. InK. Muralidhavan and E.A. Siddiq. (ed.).New frontiers in rice research.Hyderabad, India: Directorate of RiceResearch. p 68-75.

Lipton, K. and A. Manchester. 1998. The foodand fiber system: contributing to the USand world economies. AgricultureInformation Bulletin No. 742, USDepartment of Agriculture, Washington,D.C., USA.

Luthy, P., J.L. Cordier, H.M. Fisher. 1982.Bacillus thuringiensis as a bacterialinsecticide: Basic considerations andapplication. 1982. In Microbial and viralpesticides: Kurstak, E. New York: Dekker.p 35-71

Mazur, B., E. Krebbers and S. Tingey. 1999.Gene discovery and productdevelopment for grain quality traits.Science 258. Plant Biotechnology Foodand Feed Review. p 372-374.

McCalla, A.F. 1999. World agriculturaldirections: what do they mean for foodsecurity? Paper presented at CornellUniversity, 30 March 1999.

64

Miller, H.I. and G. Conko. 2000. �Precautionaryprinciple� stalls advances in foodtechnology. Washington LegalFoundation, 26 May 2000, Washington,D.C., USA.

Mitchell, D.O., M.D. Onco, and R.D. Duncan.1997. The world food outlook.Cambridge University Press.

Munkvold, G.P., R.L. Hellmich, and L.G. Rice.1999. Comparison of fumonisinconcentrations in kernels of transgenicBt maize hybrids and non-transgenichybrids. Plant Disease 83(2):130-137.

Normile, D. 1999. Rockefeller to end networkafter 15 years of success. Science,November. 286: 11468-69.

Nuffield Council on Bioethics. 1999.Genetically modified crops: The Ethicaland Social Issues. http://www.nuffield.org/bioethics/publication/modifiedcrops/index.html.

Peng, S., K.G. Cassman, S.S. Virmani, J. Seehyand G.S. Khush. 1998. Yield potentialtrends of tropical rice since the releaseof IR8 and the challenge of increasingrice yield potential. Presented at aSpecial Symposium; Annual Meeting ofthe Crop Science Society of America, 19October 1998.

Pingali, P.L. and P.W. Heisey. 1999. Cereal cropproductivity in developing countries:past trends and future prospects.CIMMYT Economics Paper 99-30.CIMMYT, Mexico D.F.

Pingali, P.L., and S. Rajaranm. 1998. Technicalopportunities for sustaining wheatproductivity growth toward 2020. IFPRIBrief 51. July. Washington, D.C., USA.

Rabobank. 1994. The World Seed Market.Report by the Rabobank Nederland,Netherlands.

Rajaram, S. and H.J. Braun. 1999. Half a centuryof international wheat breeding.(personal communication). Presentationat a Symposium at Reading University,UK. July 1999.

Reynolds, M.P., S. Rajaram, and K.D. Sayre.1998. Physiological and genetic changesof irrigated wheat in the post GreenRevolution period and approaches formeeting projected global demand.Presented at a Special Symposium;Annual Meeting of the Crop ScienceSociety of America, 19 October 1998.

Rongxiang, Fang. 2000. Development oftransgenic plants in China. Presented atChina Agricultural Food andBiotechnology Conference, April 2000.Beijing, China.

Rosegrant, M.W. 1999. Personalcommunication. Revised Global FoodProjections. IFPRI, Washington, D.C.

Sayre, K.D., S. Rajaram, and R.A. Fischer. 1997.Yield potential progress in short breadwheats in North West Mexico. CropScience 37:36-42.

Wambugu, F. 1999. Why Africa needsagricultural biotech. Nature. 1 July.

Wilson, F.D., H.M. Flint, W.R. Deaton, and R.E.Buehler. 1994. Yield, yield components,and fiber properties of insect-resistantcotton lines containing a Bacillusthuringiensis toxin gene. Crop Sci.34:38-41.

Wood Mackenzie. 1999. (Personalcommunication). Edinburgh, Scotland.

World Meteorological Organization. 1997.Comprehensive assessment of thefreshwater resources of the world.

Xu, C. 2000. The multiply Green Revolution: asolution to China�s dilemma ofmaximizing agro-productivity whileconserving the environment. Presentedat China Agricultural Food andBiotechnology Conference. April 2000.Beijing, China.

65

Appendix

Appendix Table 2A. 1998 export of seeds, major exporting countries (US$ millions)

Country Agricultural seeds Horticultural seeds Total

USA 500 200 700

Netherlands 420 200 620

France 432 100 532

Denmark 150 40 190

Germany 150 35 185

Belgium 111 n.a. 111

Italy 73 30 103

Canada n.a. n.a. 100

Chile 50 25 75

Argentina 43 1 44

Total 2,330 1,115 3,445

Source: FIS (1998).

Appendix Table 1A. 1998 seed exports worldwide, by crop (US$ millions)

Crops Seed exports

Maize 530

Herbage crops 427

Potato 400

Beet 308

Wheat 75

Other agricultural crops 590

Horticultural crops 1,115

Total 3,445

Source: FIS (1998).

66US$25.00 ISBN:1-892456-21-4

67

Global Status of Commercialized Transgenic Crops: 1999

by

Clive JamesChair, ISAAA Board of Directors

No. 17-2000

Global area of transgenic crops, 1996 to 1999(million hectares/acres)

Hectares Acres(million) (million)

1996 1.7 4.3

1997 11.0 27.5

1998 27.8 69.5

1999 39.9 98.6

Increase of 44%, 12.1 million hectares or 29.1 millionacres between 1998 and 1999


69

Global Status of Commercialized Transgenic Crops: 1999

by

Clive JamesChair, ISAAA Board of Directors

No. 17-2000

70ii

Published by: The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications(ISAAA).

Copyright: (2000) International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications(ISAAA).

Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercialpurposes is authorized without prior permission from the copyright holder,provided the source is properly acknowledged.

Reproduction for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without theprior written permission from the copyright holder.

Citation: James, C. 2000. Global Status of Commercialized Transgenic Crops: 1999. ISAAABriefs No.17. ISAAA: Ithaca, NY. 65 p.

ISBN: 1-892456-21-4

Available from: The ISAAA Centers listed below. For a list of other ISAAA publications, contactthe nearest Center:

ISAAA AmeriCenter ISAAA AfriCenter ISAAA EuroCenter ISAAA SEAsiaCenter260 Emerson Hall c/o CIP c/o John Innes Centre c/o IRRIc/o Cornell University PO 25171 Colney Lane PO Box 3127Ithaca, NY 14853 Nairobi Norwich NR4 7UH Makati City 1271USA Kenya United Kingdom The Philippines

And From: [email protected] or for Executive Summaries, visit www.isaaa.org

Electronically: Also available in electronic form on AgBiotechNet at:http://agbio.cabweb.org

The electronic versions of ISAAA Briefs are published on behalf of ISAAA byCABI Publishing.

Cost: Cost US$ 25 per copy, including postage.Available free of charge for developing countries.

71

Contents

Executive Summary...........................................................vList of Tables and Figures....................................................ix

1. Introduction..................................................................................................................................12. Overview of Global Status and Distribution of Commercial Transgenic Crops, 1996 to 1999...............3

2.1 Distribution of Transgenic Crops, by Country..................................................................................52.1.1 Countries Growing Transgenic Crops for the First Time in 1999.......................................................7

2.2 Distribution of Transgenic Crops, by Crop.................................................................................................82.3 Distribution of Transgenic Crops, by Trait.................................................................................................112.4 Dominant Transgenic Crops in 1999.......................................................................................................132.5 Summary and Highlights of Significant Changes between 1998 and 1999.........................................14

3. Value of the Global Transgenic Seed Market, 1995-1999..........................................................164. Developments in the Crop Biotechnology Industry.......................................................................17

4.1 Acquisitions, Alliances, Mergers, Spin-offs and Restructuring in the Agribiotechnology Industry.............174.2 Genomics................................................................................................................................................25

5. Overview of the Commercial Seed Industry............................................................................................276. Status of Transgenic Crops in Selected Developing Countries of Asia............................................29

6.1 Crop Biotechnology in China..................................................................................................................316.1.1 Bt Cotton in China.........................................................................................................................35

6.2 The Cotton Crop in India and the Potential Benefits of Bt Cotton.............................................................366.3 Potential Benefits of Bt Corn in the Philippines........................................................................................386.4 The Rockefeller Foundation International Rice Biotechnology Program..................................................396.5 Summary.................................................................................................................................................40

7. Future Biotechnology Traits......................................................................................................................417.1 Input Traits...............................................................................................................................................417.2 Output Traits............................................................................................................................................46

8. Past Achievements and Future Potential of Plant Breeding, including Biotechnology,for Increasing Crop Productivity of the Major Staples: Wheat, Rice, and Maize................................. 488.1 Wheat Improvement................................................................................................................................49

8.1.1 Wheat Breeding in the UK.............................................................................................................498.1.2 CIMMYT/International Wheat Program..........................................................................................49

8.2 Rice Improvement...................................................................................................................................518.2.1 IRRI/International Rice Program.....................................................................................................51

8.3 Wheat and Rice Summary.......................................................................................................................518.4 Maize Improvement................................................................................................................................52

8.4.1 Maize Breeding in the USA............................................................................................................528.5 Global Demand for Cereals in 2025�The Plant Breeding Challenge......................................................54

9. Future Prospects for Transgenic Crops..........................................................................................59Acknowledgments................................................................................................................................61References.........................................................................................................................................62

Appendix..............................................................................................................................................65

iii

73v

Executive Summary

This publication is the fourth in a series ofISAAA Briefs, which characterize the globaladoption of commercialized transgenic crops.A global database for the period 1996 to 1999is presented and 1999 data is analyzedglobally, and by country, crop, and trait. Dataon the global status of transgenic crops arecomplemented with commentaries on relevantkey topics including the value of the globaltransgenic seed market; a review ofacquisitions, mergers, and alliances in thebiotechnology industry including those relatedto genomics; an overview of the commercialseed industry: status of transgenic crops inselected developing countries of Asia; futuretraits in biotechnology; an assessment of thecontribution of conventional andbiotechnology applications to past and futureplant breeding activities in the major staplesof wheat, rice, and maize and the impact onglobal food security; and future prospects fortransgenic crops in 2000 and beyond.

In the early 1990s many were very skepticalthat transgenic crops, more familiarly knownas genetically modified (GM) crops, coulddeliver improved products and make an impactin the near term at the farm level. There waseven more skepticism regarding theappropriateness of transgenic crops for thedeveloping world, particularly their ability tomeet the needs of small resource-poor farmers.It is encouraging to witness that the earlypromises of crop biotechnology are meetingexpectations of large and small farmers in bothindustrial and developing countries. In 1999,the global area of the four principal crops ofsoybean, canola, cotton, and corn totaled 273million ha, of which 15%, equivalent to 39.9million ha, was planted with transgenicvarieties. These 39.9 million ha of transgeniccrops grown globally are unprecedented, and

equivalent to more than one and a half timesthe total land area of the United Kingdom; theycomprise 30% of the 72 million ha of soybeansplanted globally, 14% of the 25 million ha ofcanola, 10% of the 34 million ha of cotton,and 8% of the 140 million ha of corn. The factthat millions of farmers in 12 different industrialand developing countries around the worldmade independent decisions after evaluatingthe technology following their first plantingsof transgenic crops in 1996, after which thearea increased by an unprecedented multipleof more than 23-fold, speaks volumes for theconfidence and trust farmers have placed intransgenic crops. In China alone, within a shortperiod of 2 years, over 1.5 million smallresource-poor farmers growing an average of0.15 ha of Bt cotton, have embraced thetechnology after witnessing first hand in theirown fields the significant and multiple benefitsit can deliver.

Between 1996 and 1999, 12 countries, 8industrial and 4 developing, have contributedto more than a 20-fold (23.5) increase in theglobal area of transgenic crops. Adoption ratesfor transgenic crops are unprecedented and arethe highest for any new technologies byagricultural industry standards. High adoptionrates reflect grower satisfaction with theproducts that offer significant benefits rangingfrom more convenient and flexible cropmanagement, higher productivity and/or netreturns/hectare, and a safer environmentthrough decreased use of conventionalpesticides, which collectively contribute to amore sustainable agriculture. The majorchanges in area and global share of transgeniccrops for the respective countries, crops andtraits, between 1998 and 1999 were related tothe following factors:

74vi

· In 1999, the global area of transgenic cropsincreased by 44%, or 12.1 million ha, to39.9 million ha, from 27.8 million ha in1998. Seven transgenic crops were growncommercially in 12 countries in 1999, threeof which, Portugal, Romania, and Ukraine,grew transgenic crops for the first time.

· The four principal countries that grew themajority of transgenic crops in 1999 wereUSA, 28.7 million ha (72% of the globalarea); Argentina, 6.7 million ha (17%);Canada, 4.0 million ha (10%); China, 0.3million ha (1%); the balance was grown inAustralia, South Africa, Mexico, Spain,France, Portugal, Romania, and Ukraine.

· Growth in area of transgenic crops between1998 and 1999 in industrial countriescontinued to be significant and 3.5 timesgreater than in developing countries (9.4million ha versus 2.7 million ha).

· In terms of crops, soybean contributed themost (59%) to global growth of transgeniccrops, equivalent to 7.1 million ha between1998 and 1999, followed by corn at 23%(2.8 million ha), cotton at 10% (1.2 millionha), and canola at 8% (1 million ha).

· There were three noteworthy developmentsin terms of traits; herbicide tolerancecontributed the most (69% or 8.3 millionha) to global growth between 1998 and1999; the stacked genes of insect resistanceand herbicide tolerance in both corn andcotton contributed 21% equivalent to 2.6million ha; and insect resistance increasedby 1.2 million ha in 1999 representing 10%of global area growth.

· Of the four major transgenic crops grownin 12 countries in 1999, the two principalcrops of soybean and corn represented 54%and 28%, respectively, for a total of 82%of the global transgenic area, with theremaining 18% shared equally betweencotton (9%) and canola (9%).

· In 1999, herbicide-tolerant soybean wasthe most dominant transgenic crop (54%of global transgenic area, compared with

52% in 1998), followed by insect-resistantcorn (19% compared with 24% in 1998),herbicide-tolerant canola (9%), Bt/herbicide-tolerant corn (5%), herbicide-tolerant cotton (4%), herbicide-tolerantcorn (4%), Bt cotton (3%), and Bt/herbicide-tolerant cotton (2%).

· The four major factors that influenced thechange in absolute area of transgenic cropsbetween 1998 and 1999 and the relativeglobal share of different countries, crops,and traits were: first, the substantial increaseof 4.8 million ha in herbicide-tolerantsoybean in the USA (from 10.2 million hain 1998 to 15.0 million ha in 1999,equivalent to 50% of the 30.0 million haUS national soybean crop in 1999),coupled with an increase of 2.1 million hain herbicide-tolerant soybean in Argentina(from 4.3 million ha in 1998 to an estimated6.4 million ha in 1999, equivalent toapproximately 90% of the 7.0 million haof Argentina�s national soybean crop in1999); second, the significant increase of2.2 million ha of transgenic corn (insect-resistant, Bt/herbicide-tolerant, andherbicide-tolerant) in the USA from 8.1million ha in 1998 to 10.3 million ha in1999, equivalent to 33% of the 31.4 millionha of US national corn crop in 1999; third,the increase of 1.0 million ha of herbicide-tolerant canola in Canada from 2.4 millionha in 1998 to 3.4 million ha in 1999,equivalent to 62% of the 5.5 million ha ofthe Canadian canola crop in 1999; andfourth, the 1.0 million ha increase intransgenic cotton in the USA, from 2.2million ha in 1998 to 3.2 million ha in 1999(equivalent to 55% of the 5.9 million ha ofthe US national cotton crop in 1999). The3.2 million ha of transgenic cotton in 1999comprised 1.5 million ha of herbicide-tolerant cotton with the balance of 1.7million ha equally divided between Btcotton and cotton with the stacked gene ofBt/herbicide tolerance.

75vii

· The combined effect of the above fourfactors resulted in a global area oftransgenic crops in 1999 that was 12.1million ha greater and 44% more than1998; this is a significant year-on-yearincrease considering the high percentageof principal crops planted to transgenics in1998. Commercialized transgenic cropswere grown for the second year in twocountries of the European Union (30,000ha of Bt maize in Spain and 1,000 ha of Btmaize in France) with Portugal growingmore than 1,000 ha of Bt maize for the firsttime in 1999. Two countries in EasternEurope grew transgenic crops for the firsttime; Romania grew introductory areas ofherbicide-tolerant soybean (14,250 ha) andplanted <1,000 ha of Bt potatoes. Ukrainealso grew Bt potatoes (<1,000 ha) for thefirst time. An unverified small area of Btmaize in Germany and an introductory areaof herbicide-tolerant corn in Bulgaria werenot included in the global database.

The value of the global market for transgenicseed has grown rapidly from $1 million in 1995to $152 million in 1996, $851 million in 1997,$1,959 million in 1998, and an estimated $2.7-3 billion in 1999. Global area planted totransgenic crops is expected to continue togrow but will start to plateau in 2000 reflectingthe unprecedented high adoption rates to dateand the high percentage of principal cropsalready planted to transgenics in the USA,Argentina, and Canada. In 2000, Argentina isexpected to modestly expand the area oftransgenic crops, with Brazil, subject toregulatory approval and market demand,possibly growing transgenic crops officially forthe first time. China is expected to expand itstransgenic area of Bt cotton, with growth anddiversification continuing in South Africa andEastern European countries. India hastransgenic Bt cotton that is ready forcommercialization pending final approval bythe Government of India. The major issues that

will modulate adoption in 2000 will be publicacceptance, which drives market demand,regulation, and commodity prices. These threeissues and labeling of foods derived fromgenetically modified crops will continue to bedominant factors that will impact oncommercial planting of transgenic crops andconsumption of genetically modified derivedfoods in countries of the European Union.

As expansion of transgenic crops continues, ashift will occur from the current generation of�input� agronomic traits to the next generationof �output� quality traits. This will result inimproved and specialized nutritional food andfeed products that will satisfy a high-value-added market, and will be a stimulus to de-commoditize grain and oil seed markets. Thisshift will significantly affect the value of theglobal transgenic crop market and also broadenthe beneficiary profile from growers toprocessors and consumers. Food productsderived from transgenic crops that are healthierand more nutritious could in turn haveimportant implications for public acceptance,particularly in Europe where the debate abouttransgenic crops continues.

The R&D pipeline is full of new and novelproducts with input and output traits that canbe commercialized in the midterm. Plantbreeding activities in the cereal staples�wheat, rice and maize�have made enormouscontributions to global food security. It iscritical that a combined strategy ofconventional and biotechnology applicationsbe adopted as the technology component of aglobal food security initiative that alsoaddresses other critical issues includingpopulation control and improved distribution.With the adoption of such a strategy, societywill continue to benefit from the vitalcontribution that plant breeding offers theglobal population and global cereal demandsof 2025 can be met. Biotechnology can play acritical role in achieving food security in Asia

76viii

where 50% of the 1.3 billion poor people inthe world reside. China assigns high priorityand a strategic value to biotechnology and wasthe first country in the world to commercializetransgenic crops in the early 1990s. Theexperience of China, where more than 1.5million small farmers benefit from Bt cotton,would be useful to share with other countriesin the region.

The pace of biotechnology-drivenconsolidations in industry, which is a concernto some, was slower in 1999 than in theprevious 3 years, although there were manyalliances in the area of plant genomics that willcontinue to be of pivotal importance. The largemultinationals with investments in seeds, cropbiotechnology, and crop protection havereviewed future plans. Some corporations havealready initiated restructuring, and are planningspin-offs and mergers, which have resulted inmore focus. This may affect the scope and scaleof planned delivery of new products. It iscritically important that the public sector andinternational development institutions in bothindustrial and developing countries invest inthe new technologies to ensure equitableaccess and benefits from the enormouspotential that transgenic crops offer in termsof increased productivity, more nutritious food,and global food security. Governments mustimplement regulatory programs that inspire

public confidence and exert leadership incommunicating information and knowledge ontransgenic crops to the public, so that societyis well informed and can engage in a dialogabout the impact of the technology on theenvironment, food safety, sustainability, andglobal food security. The most compelling casefor biotechnology is its potential contributionto global food security and the alleviation ofhunger in the Third World where 24,000people die every day from chronicmalnutrition. It is vital that the public sectorand the private sector forge partnerships thatwill allow the comparative advantages of bothparties to be optimized to achieve the mutualobjective of global food security. The value andimportance of superior seed is evidentirrespective of whether it incorporatesconventional or biotechnology improvements,because superior seed is essential for producingimproved crop varieties that are, and willcontinue to be, the most cost-effective,environmentally safe and sustainable way toensure global food security in future. Superiorseed, incorporating improved transgenic traits,can be a very powerful tool for alleviatingpoverty because not only can it contribute tothe sustenance of the rural poor, but the valueof superior seed is known, trusted and acceptedby hundreds of millions of farmers throughoutthe world.

77ix

List of Tables and Figures

Table 1. Global area of transgenic crops in 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999........................................4Table 2. Global area of transgenic crops in 1998 and 1999,

industrial and developing countries...................................................................................5Table 3. Global area of transgenic crops in 1998 and 1999, by country..........................................6Table 4. Global area of transgenic crops in 1998 and 1999, by crop..............................................9Table 5. Global area of transgenic crops in 1998 and 1999, by trait.............................................12Table 6. Dominant transgenic crops, 1999....................................................................................14Table 7. Estimated value of global transgenic seed crop market, 1995-1999.................................16Table 8. Listing of 26 selected biotechnology-driven acquisitions and

alliances in 1999 of corporations involved in seeds, crop protectionand life sciences..............................................................................................................18

Table 9. Agreements signed in 1999 involving plant genomics andrelated technologies.........................................................................................................21

Table 10. Estimated values of commercial markets for seed andplanting materials from selected countries, 1998....................................................................27

Table 11. Status of transgenic crops approved for commercialization,large and small-scale trials in China, as of June 1999.....................................................32

Table 12. Transgenic crops approved for environmental release, field testingor commercialization in China, 1997 to June 1999,categorized by crop and trait.........................................................................................33

Table 13. Summary of Bt cotton trials conducted in India, 1998-1999..................................38Table 14. Share (%) of world population and arable land................................................................40Table 15. Listing of selected potential transgenic crops for commercialization

in the near to midterm, from 2000 onwards.....................................................................42Table 16. Major milestones in yields of CIMMYT spring wheats

at Obregon, Mexico.........................................................................................................49Table 17. Area planted (%) to improved varieties of wheat.............................................................50Table 18. Estimated benefits of post Green Revolution wheat released

in developing countries between 1977 and 1990............................................................50Table 19. Area planted (%) to improved varieties of rice.................................................................51Table 20. Global rice production.....................................................................................................51Table 21. Attributes of transgenic maize commercialized in 1996-1999.......................................53Table 22. Projected world demand for cereals................................................................................54Table 23. Transgenic crop area as % of global area of principal crops, 1999....................................59

Appendix Table 1A ........ 1998 seed exports worldwide, by crop.......................................................65Appendix Table 2A.......... 1998 export of seeds of major exporting countries.....................................65

78

Figure 1. Global area of transgenic crops, 1995-1999......................................................................3

Figure 2. Global area of transgenic crops, 1995-1999, by region.....................................................4

Figure 3. Global area of transgenic crops, 1995-1999, by country...................................................6

Figure 4. Global area of transgenic crops, 1995-1999, by crop........................................................8Figure 5. Global area of transgenic crops, 1995-1999, by trait..........................................................11

x

1. Introduction - ISAAA.org · 2007-03-20 · approval for commercial sale of a genetically...

Documents

Transcript of 1. Introduction - ISAAA.org · 2007-03-20 · approval for commercial sale of a genetically...