 |
|||
 |
" I heard it |
||
February 23, 2011
· Biotech crops surge over 1 billion hectares
· Future of GM alfalfa remains uncertain
· Genomic tools to improve crop quality
· New US food standards agency sought
· Pepsi agribusiness deal has social benefits
Biotech crops surge over 1 billion hectares
(Wire Services)
The 1 billionth hectare was planted
in 2010 by one of the 15.4 million farmers in 29 countries who now benefit from
the technology. For comparison, 1 billion hectares is roughly equivalent to the
vast land area of
“Growth remains strong, with biotech hectarage increasing 14 million hectares -- or 10 percent – between 2009 and 2010,” said James. “That’s the second highest annual hectare growth ever – bringing 2010 global plantings to 148 million hectares.”
For the first time, in 2010, the ten largest biotech crop growing countries all had more than 1 million hectares in production, providing a broad and stable base for future growth. In hectarage rank order, they include: USA (66.8 million), Brazil (25.4 million), Argentina (22.9 million), India (9.4 million), Canada (8.8 million), China (3.5 million), Paraguay (2.6 million), Pakistan (2.4 million), South Africa (2.2 million) and Uruguay (1.1 million).
For the second consecutive year,
“Developing countries grew 48 percent of global biotech
crops in 2010 and will exceed industrialized nations in their plantings of
biotech crops by 2015,” said James. “Clearly, the countries of Latin America
and
The five principal developing countries growing biotech
crops –
More than 90 percent of biotech crop growers are small-scale farmers
Of the 15.4 million farmers using the technology in 2010,
14.4 million were small-scale, resource-poor farmers in developing countries;
these farmers are some of the poorest people in the world and biotech crops are
contributing to the alleviation of their poverty, according to James.
More than 1 billion people throughout
“This is important progress,” said James. “Up to 6,000
deaths a day can be prevented with Golden Rice for Vitamin A deficient
populations, which is expected to be available for planting in the
Countries new to biotech crop production, additional crops on horizon
In 2010, three nations grew biotech crops commercially for
the first time, and one nation resumed planting biotech crops. Approximately
600,000 farmers in
James said he expects an additional 12 countries to adopt
biotech crops by 2015 to bring the list of adopting nations to 40 (the number
predicted by ISAAA in 2005), the number of farmers to double to 20 million, and
global hectarage to double to 200 million hectares.
Up to three or four additional countries are expected to grow biotech crops
from each of the three regions of Asia, West Africa, East/Southern Africa and
fewer from Latin/Central America, and Western and Eastern Europe.
James said there is considerable potential for increasing the biotech adoption of the four current large hectarage biotech crops – maize, soybean, cotton and canola – which represented almost 150 million hectares in 2010 from a global potential of double that hectarage at over 300 million hectares.
In the next five years, the timing of commercialized biotech
rice, and drought tolerance as a trait in maize and several other crops are
seminal catalysts for the future adoption of biotech crops globally. Drought
tolerant maize is expected in the
James expects several medium hectarage crops to be approved for commercialization by 2015, including: biotech potatoes resistant to the most important disease of potatoes in the world, “late blight,” the cause of the Irish famine in 1845, sugarcane with improved agronomic and quality traits, disease-resistant bananas, Bt eggplant, tomato, broccoli, and cabbage, as well as some pro-poor crops, such as biotech cassava, sweet potato, pulses and groundnut. The 29 countries which planted biotech crops in 2010 already represent 59 percent of the world population, and James is cautiously optimistic about the contribution that biotech can make to the 2015 Millennium Development Goals of food security and poverty alleviation.
“Biotech crops have played a perhaps underappreciated role in progress toward attainment of the 2015 Millennium Development Goals,” said James. “Their impact by 2015 will be more universally recognized.”
Furthermore, biotech crops have contributed to sustainability and are helping mitigate climate change, said James: “Biotech crops have helped reduce carbon emissions and save land, while helping alleviate poverty for some of the poorest people in the world.”
To provide more of the world’s small and resource-poor farmers access to biotech crops, James says there is an urgent need for appropriate regulatory systems that are responsible and rigorous – but not onerous – for small and poor developing countries.
For more information or the executive summary, log on to www.isaaa.org.
The report is entirely funded by two European philanthropic organizations: the Bussolera-Branca Foundation from Italy, which supports the open-sharing of knowledge on biotech crops to aid decision-making by global society; and a philanthropic unit within Ibercaja, one of the largest Spanish banks headquartered in the maize growing region of Spain.
The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) is a not-for-profit
organization with an international network of centers designed to contribute to
the alleviation of hunger and poverty by sharing knowledge and crop
biotechnology applications. Clive James, chairman and founder of ISAAA, has
lived and/or worked for the past 30 years in the developing countries of Asia,
Latin America and
Future of GM alfalfa remains uncertain
(stltoday.com) – When federal regulators gave farmers the green light to plant genetically modified alfalfa, some growers of the nation's fourth-largest crop celebrated. But others — even those supportive of the technology — responded to the news with mixed feelings.
Over the past five years, the widespread planting of genetically modified alfalfa, developed by Creve Coeur-based Monsanto, has been held up by a protracted court battle that made its way last year to the U.S. Supreme Court — the first case involving genetically engineered plants to land there.
But after the costly court battle, both sides concede that the government's decision last month to allow genetically modified alfalfa on American farmland may not deliver a financial blockbuster.
"Where does this go in the long term?" asked Steve Welker, who heads up Monsanto's alfalfa business. "That's a really good question."
The debate over alfalfa — the nation's fourth-largest crop after corn, soybeans and wheat — has simmered between predictable factions. On one side, Monsanto, the world's largest seed company, along with the hay, or forage, industry, which, for the most part, wants the technology in its farming arsenal; on the other, conventional and organic growers worried about genetically modified crops' cross-pollinating and contaminating their own.
Monsanto and Forage Genetics International, the
Minnesota-based company to which Monsanto licenses the technology, have
acknowledged those concerns. Farmers in
"They asked us to impose a restriction, and we've done that," said Forage International president Mark McCaslin. "That's a contractual obligation that's part of Monsanto's grower agreement."
USAGE IN DOUBT
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, alfalfa is grown on roughly 20 million acres and has a value of about $9 billion a year. Most of the alfalfa goes to dairy cows or export markets.
In 2005, the department allowed unrestricted planting of the modified alfalfa, which is engineered to withstand the herbicide marketed by Monsanto as Roundup. Roundup, generically known as glyphosate, kills weeds but not the modified crops.
American farmers have widely employed the Roundup system for corn, soybeans and cotton, crediting the technology with boosting farm incomes and making Monsanto the dominant force in the business. But, farmers and agriculture experts say, the same wholesale embrace of the system for alfalfa is not as certain.
Only about 7 percent of alfalfa growers use a herbicide to control weeds, according to the Agriculture Department, whereas most corn and soybean growers applied herbicide prior to adopting the Roundup system. That could mean fewer farmers are likely to make the switch.
"There's some awfully good alfalfa varieties out there that … have great yield potential and bred-in resistance," said Darrel Franson, vice president of the Missouri Forage and Grassland Council. "There's some awfully good seed stock already out there."
Cost could prove a factor: The Roundup Ready alfalfa seeds are roughly twice the cost of conventional seeds.
"You hear mixed opinions," said Nolan Kleinboecker, who grows alfalfa in
Mariann Holm runs an organic dairy
in Elk Mound,
"Is there really a market for this product?" Holm asked. "Right now alfalfa is grown without herbicide. It's not like there's a need for this."
The Agriculture Department's analysis suggests that 50 percent of alfalfa growers could switch to genetically modified seeds. Some say that's optimistic.
"I think that's a substantial overstatement of what's
likely," said Charles Benbrook of the Washington-based
LEGAL
After the Agriculture Department's approval in 2005 of Roundup Ready alfalfa, a group of alfalfa growers led by the Washington-based Center for Food Safety, an organization opposed to biotech crops, challenged the department's ruling, saying it had not performed the required environmental assessments. A federal circuit court judge agreed and banned the further planting of Roundup Ready alfalfa.
Ultimately, Monsanto and Forage Genetics took the case to the Supreme Court, which lifted the ban last year. The court said, however, that the department would have to complete an environmental impact statement.
That statement was completed in December, and last month the Agriculture Department announced it would "deregulate" modified alfalfa, meaning farmers can grow it without any government-imposed restrictions.
While opponents of the decision say modified alfalfa may not prove to be hugely popular with farmers, the announcement came as a blow to the Center for Food Safety, which has said it plans to take the matter back to court.
The impact statement, critics point out, cites evidence of cross-contamination, and seed scientists have since said more contamination is inevitable. Alfalfa is a perennial — it grows back every year — and farmers can't control when it blooms. It is also pollinated by bees, whose trajectories and flights aren't containable.
"That makes alfalfa dangerous," said Bill Freese, a science policy analyst for the center.
Dairy farmers, who rely in part on alfalfa to get their animals through winter, could eventually see a drop in hay prices that will help their bottom lines. But organic producers — who have to prove the hay they feed their animals comes from organic-certified growers — could see prices go up if organic hay becomes scarce, they say. Many grow their own organic alfalfa.
"I'd have the cost of testing the field for
contamination. … I'd have the cost of replanting the field," said Loretta Jaus, an organic dairy farmer from Gibbon,
The alfalfa industry, however, points to a strict management plan and its own best practices that will, it says, control contamination. These practices, which include placing fields at strategic distances, are designed to keep contamination to 0.5 percent — a percentage both the industry and critics say is acceptable, but may not be for some export markets.
"There are stewardship requirements, and Monsanto fully supports those," Welker said.
Many alfalfa farmers, including those who were among the 1 percent of growers who planted Roundup Ready alfalfa before the ban, say they're anxious to plant more.
"I think it's a pretty good deal," Kleinboecker said. "I know there's a lot of uproar about it, but it depends what side of the fence you're on."
Monsanto is hoping more farmers feel the way Kleinboecker does.
"Organic and conventional and biotech crops have coexisted for years now," Welker said. "There's no reason to think this can't happen with alfalfa."
The next few spring planting seasons will give the company a sense of just how strong the market might be. But in the meantime, the cows who survive each winter on hay may have the last moo.
"Cows don't really like alfalfa," said Kerry Buchmayer, an organic dairy farmer from Purdin, Mo. "If you have a bale of clover hay, a bale of grass hay and an alfalfa bale, they'll eat the clover bale, then the grass bale, then they'll go hungry a day before eating the alfalfa. I've seen it."
Genomic tools to improve crop quality
(Cornell
University via PhysOrg.com) -- Using powerful genome sequencing tools
created for human genetics, researchers can now exploit the genetic diversity
of crops to improve productivity, sustainability and nutrition, a Cornell
researcher reported at the annual American Association for the Advancement of
Science meeting in
Researchers now have the tools to dissect maize genes, for example, and predict the likelihood of any trait with up to 90 percent accuracy, said Edward Buckler, a U.S. Department of Agriculture--Agricultural Research Service research geneticist in Cornell's Institute for Genomic Diversity, in his presentation, "Dissecting the Genetics of Complex Agronomic Traits for Crop Improvement."
"There are some simple traits, like improving vitamin A content in maize, that work with five or 10 genes, but we can also understand complex traits, like flowering time, that work with over 50 genes, and we can still make very accurate predictions," said Buckler, a Cornell adjunct associate professor of plant breeding and genetics. The researchers have discovered that with such complex traits, individual alleles (or gene variants) each have very small effects, but together they can create a large effect.
Maize has more natural variation in its genes than humans and apes combined, Buckler said. To understand variation, researchers focus on single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), points in the genetic sequence where there is a mutation within a single base pair. While many of these SNPs have no effect, Buckler estimated that corn may still have hundreds of thousands of SNPs with functional effects. By growing out special populations of plants -- something not possible with human genetics -- and then measuring millions of individuals, researchers can explain most of the variation, Buckler said.
With the ability to explain variation and accurately predict which traits exist in a plant, breeders can now cross two plants and predict which offspring will have the traits they desire, without having to grow out tens of thousands of plants. Using genetic markers is much cheaper and cuts the time to advance new varieties to four months for annual species like maize; traditional methods can take five years.
In the coming decades, breeders hope to use genomic tools to create crops that produce twice the yield with the same amount of fertilizer and water; that grow perennially; are drought resistant and utilize nutrients more efficiently; and are biofortified to improve nutrition in the developing world, Buckler said.
"Now is the time to apply these tools to important traits to improve society and sustainability," he said.
New US
(foodproductiondaily.com)
– Researchers writing in the journal Food Policy have called for an independent
The researchers, led by Trenton Smith of Washington State University, said that although the modern industrial food system has its advantages, there are “asymmetric information problems inherent to this system”, referring to consumer reliance upon brand reputation when many aspects of production are no longer able to be observed directly by consumers. They suggest that the only appropriate policy reaction is to provide verifiable quality standards, but that these may reduce profits for large food makers, at least in the short term.
“In light of the food industry’s long history of success at regulatory capture, we propose the formation of a new independent food standards agency devoted to protecting the interests of the American consumer,” they wrote.
Smith and his colleagues claim that there has been a market breakdown in certain segments of the food industry, because producing foods with the highest nutritional quality has become less profitable for food manufacturers; consumers care about nutritional quality enough to pay more for a higher quality product; and product quality is unobserved by the individual consumer.
Part of this problem, they argue, is that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) are charged with protecting the interests of both consumers and producers of foods, and have “often seemingly favored the latter.”
The mission of an American Food Quality Standards Agency should be built upon two main principles, the authors wrote. Firstly, such an agency should take into account the interests of consumers in terms of nutritional quality, rather than what consumers say they like to eat. And secondly, it should err on the side of caution when population-level public health policies could have unintended negative effects.
They wrote: “If an efficient market is the goal, then priority should be placed on revealing (in an easily accessible manner) to consumers product qualities that are most likely to be conducive to long-term good health.”
“Food policy should be conservative,” they added. “…When the scientific questions are unresolved, err on the side of what is natural.”
Pepsi agribusiness deal has social benefits
(The New York Times) SAN GABRIEL, Mexico — In the past, farmers would make the dangerous trek north from this tiny town hidden in the rugged folds of the Jalisco mountain range to the United States, hoping to earn enough money doing odd jobs to cover debts incurred while cultivating the small plots of land that have been in their families for generations.
But more recently, many have managed to avoid the trips, staying home as the result of a new venture with PepsiCo, which buys their crops.
“Some of us used to go north to work to make money to pay off debts, but no longer,” said Martín Ramos Torres, a farmer, adding that at least two members of the cooperative he leads had been caught by United States border patrol agents and deported. “In just three years, everything has changed.”
Mr. Ramos and some 300 small farmers here no longer sell their corn to middlemen but directly to PepsiCo, which guarantees the price it will pay for their crops upfront. The deal enables the small farmers to secure credit to buy seeds and fertilizers, crop insurance and equipment.
“Before, I had to sell my cow to buy what I needed,” said José Guzmán Santana, another farmer selling to Pepsi. “Now I keep the cow and my family has milk while I grow my crop.”
PepsiCo’s work with the corn farmers reflects a relatively new approach by corporations trying to maintain a business edge while helping out small communities and farmers. Begun as a pilot project by the foundation affiliated with the company’s Sabritas snack foods division, it is expanding to about 850 farmers to develop a local source of sunflower oil, which the company needs to improve the nutritional quality of its products.
The corn project saved PepsiCo transportation costs because
the farms were close to two of its factories, and the use of local farms
assured it access to types of corn best suited to its products and processes.
“That gives us great leverage because corn prices don’t fluctuate so much, but
transportation costs do,” said Pedro Padierna,
president of PepsiCo’s operations in
The social benefits of the corn program are obvious in higher incomes that have improved nutritional and educational standards among the participating farmers, not to mention its impact on illegal immigration and possibly even the reduction of marijuana production.
The sunflower farmers are expected to see similar benefits — but PepsiCo insists those benefits are ancillary to the business rationale for the program.
A growing number of major companies have adopted similar
business tacks aimed at profitability that also prove to be economically and
socially beneficial for needy people. One of the earliest examples was Danone’s development of a vitamin-enhanced yogurt product
that sells for 11 cents in
“These are markets,” Harry Verhaar, head of strategic sustainability initiatives at Philips Electronics, said of countries with sizable populations of impoverished consumers.
Philips has begun selling low-cost, solar-powered lighting
products in
The products reduce the use of kerosene, the fuel of choice among the world’s poorest consumers. Because they light homes that previously went dark at sundown, they may enable a child to study longer or a community to enjoy an evening soccer game.
And they have spawned business. “A guy will set up a small shop with a large solar panel on the roof or behind and charge a small fee for recharging the solar light,” Mr. Verhaar said.
“We are seeing an increased focus by companies looking to
see how they can use their core capabilities for public good rather than simply
writing a big check,” said Gaurav Gupta, regional
director for
Mr. Gupta stressed that what was emerging was not “corporate social responsibility,” a loosely defined concept typically driven by corporate marketing departments, which he said was “largely nonsense.”
“This is about a company’s core activity, which is something it is constantly thinking about and working to improve,” he said. “Its impact on business can be defined and measured.”
Derek Yach, the former World
Health Organization official who is now PepsiCo’s senior vice president for
global health and agriculture policy, said firmly: “This is a business. All the
good things we want to do have to be financed out of the profits of the
company, so why not do them while we are doing our
business?” Mr. Padierna described the program in the
state of Jalisco as Act II of a three-act play, which started when the company
needed a way to mitigate its impact on the potato market. Through a guaranteed
purchase system similar to the one it uses with the small farmers, PepsiCo
enticed big agribusinesses to invest in the development of potato varieties
better suited to
Today, the company is the largest buyer of potatoes produced
in
Working with small farmers was a bigger challenge. Mr. Guzmán and Mr. Ramos, for instance, had little experience with pesticides, having previously relied on the local priest to bless away worms.
Nor did they maintain bank accounts, a hurdle to payment by wire transfer. “We didn’t have money to put in the bank,” said Bonifacio Villalvazo, who together with Mr. Guzmán and Mr. Ramos is a member of one of the cooperatives created by the program.
The company teamed up with a Mexican nonprofit group, Fundación Sembrando Trabajo, which extended to farmers in Jalisco a program it
had begun in
A team of engineers from the nonprofit did soil and other tests to determine what seeds and fertilizers would work best. The engineers live nearby and so are frequently on hand to offer farmers advice and services, like delivering the seeds, instructing farmers on how to plant them and counseling on the safe disposal of pesticide containers, which in the past had been re-used to store water and other things.
“They taught us to first triple-wash them and then to poke holes in the bottom so they can’t be reused,” Mr. Guzmán said. “Now we use them to make fences” — which in turn reduces the need to cut down trees, thereby reducing soil erosion.
Other members of the group repeatedly stressed how helpful it was to know they would receive their seeds and supplies on time. In the past, they worked through intermediaries who would sell them what they needed to plant their crops, financing some or all of their purchases.
The intermediaries decided when to deliver seeds and fertilizer and when the farmers would harvest. And almost invariably, the price an intermediary would pay for that crop was less than the amount a farmer owed him — assuming he even agreed to take the crop. “I planted a lot less because I didn’t know if I could sell it and I didn’t want to end up with a big debt,” said Germán Rodríguez Estrada, the youngest member of the cooperative. “Now that I have a secure buyer, I plant twice as much.”
Indeed, the farmers said Pepsi’s purchase guarantee was the most valuable aspect of the program, benefiting even farmers who did not participate. “My neighbors come to me and ask what Sabritas is going to pay me for my crop,” Mr. Ramos said. “Now everyone is getting that price.”
The farmers said the price was higher than they ever got from any intermediary, which means they end up with money in the bank after a crop is harvested. Sembrando Trabajo estimates that while their output has increased by about 160 percent, their incomes have tripled over the three years the program has been in place.
“Well, it depends on the year and the crop, but, yes, we all have higher incomes in general,” said Matías Estrada Figueroa, the treasurer of the cooperative.
They now maintain bank accounts, which Ellis J. Juan,
representative of the Inter-American Development Bank in
Other broad benefits Mr. Juan cited were the program’s
potential to reduce illegal immigration to the
The bank has struck an agreement with PepsiCo to provide up to $5 million in credit guarantees to support a program similar to the corn project. The new project has enlisted farmers in the states of Jalisco and Durango grow sunflowers, the first time since 1970s that the crop has been grown for anything other than floral arrangements and bird seed, according to PepsiCo.
The company will spend roughly $52 million over the next
seven years to buy crops that may eventually produce 40,000 tons of sunflower
oil. That oil will begin replacing the 80,000 tons of palm oil it needs each
year for products made in
As for the
End Transmission