The authors

Kent J. Bradford

Julian M. Alston

Peggy G. Lemaux

Daniel A. Sumner

EDITORIAL OVERVIEW

Challenges and opportunities
for horticultural biotechnology

The term "biotechnology" encompasses a wide array of techniques through which humans employ biological processes to provide useful products. In the broadest sense, it includes the use of yeast in brewing and baking, and the breeding of plants and animals. More recently, the term has come to mean the collection of techniques that allow the direct manipulation of specific pieces of genetic material within and between organisms. Although there are many applications of biotechnology in crop and livestock improvement that do not include gene transfer, it is the ability to transfer genes among different species that has attracted the most controversy.
The application of biotechnology to crops has transformed the landscape of American agriculture for soybeans, corn, cotton and canola by providing genetic resistance to herbicides and insects. Since the first large-scale introduction in 1996, the global area planted to transgenic crops has grown to 167 million acres in 2003, of which 106 million acres (63%) were in the United States. In 2003, biotech varieties providing herbicide or insect resistance represented 81% of soybeans, 73% of cotton and 40% of corn grown in the United States.

Cauliflower and broccoli are derived from the same genetic ancestor, Brassica oleracea, but were developed over many years into individual and very different vegetables through selection and breeding. Biotech-nology can make this process more precise and less time-consuming.

It is evident from these adoption rates that the traits provided through biotechnology are benefiting some farmers. However, biotechnology has had limited commercial success to date in horticultural crops, including fruits, vegetables, flowers and landscape plants the crops that comprise 60% of California's agricultural production value. Even though the first transgenic crop to reach the market was the Flavr Savr tomato, and sweet corn, potato, squash and papaya varieties engineered to resist insects and viruses have been approved for commercial use and marketed, papaya is the only horticultural crop for which transgenic varieties have achieved a significant market share (about 70% of the Hawaiian crop shipped to the continental United States is transgenic).
This issue of California Agriculture examines the challenges and opportunities for commercialization of biotech horticultural crops. A number of technical, economic, regulatory and market factors have combined to create hurdles for the utilization of biotechnology in horticultural crops, which are more diverse than field crops. Horticulture includes hundreds of distinct plants, the majority of which are grown on small acreages and which individually represent relatively small market values. Even the vegetable crops with the largest gross revenues, such as lettuce and tomatoes, are minor crops compared to major field crops like corn or soybeans. Their limited acreage makes it more difficult to recover the research and development costs of any new technology specific to these crops. Because of the limited size of the individual markets, the costs of gaining access to patented genetic-engineering methods and meeting the regulatory requirements for testing and registration of biotech crops represent substantial economic hurdles for horticultural products.
At the same time, consumer concerns and the related reluctance of food processors and marketers to accept new biotech commodities are delaying the introduction of horticultural products already developed. These barriers are exacerbated by the globalization of fresh produce markets and the growing dominance of large supermarket chains, as exporters must meet diverse regulatory requirements in different countries and specific standards set by multinational food marketers. Due to the disappointing past commercial results and current market outlook, many horticultural seed and nursery companies are reducing their investments in genetic engineering research. However, they are continuing to apply biotechnology to support traditional breeding activities.
In March 2002, a workshop was convened in Monterey, Calif. Its purpose was to bring together the spectrum of disciplines and industries involved in horticulture — including development, production, processing and marketing — to assess the current situation with respect to horticultural applications of biotechnology and identify avenues for future progress. Experts considered potential biotech products that would be desired by growers and consumers; identified hurdles limiting the application of biotechnology in horticultural crops; discussed priorities for future research and development; and explored the implications for public and regulatory policy. At the conclusion of the workshop, selected participants were asked to develop the papers that are presented in this issue of California Agriculture.
The themes explored here parallel those of the workshop, beginning with an assessment of the current status of horticultural biotechnology in terms of both the economic "state of the market" (page 80) and the technical "state of the art" (page 89). Sidebars to these articles explore specific issues with respect to changes in the market environment for fresh produce (page 82) and current and potential biotech products (pages 84, 92, 94, 96). The key issue of consumer acceptance of biotech crops is analyzed (page 99), with specific cases illustrating the difficulties in accurately assessing consumer preferences (pages 100, 103). These articles demonstrate the potential benefits that biotechnology could provide to horticultural crops as well as the significant challenges to bring them to the marketplace. Prominent among the latter are regulations specific to transgenic crops that significantly increase the cost of development and commercialization (page 106). Meanwhile, with commercialization stymied in the United States, China, already a major and rapidly growing competitor of California in Asian horticultural markets, is moving forward with the application of biotechnology to improve the efficiency of production and the quality of its horticultural products (page 112).
Public institutions have traditionally played a major research role in horticultural crops, and this is also true of horticultural biotechnology. How should they respond to the declining private interest in biotechnology research? It may be appropriate to increase research support in cases where there is a compelling public interest, such as the development of nutritionally enhanced food products or when a devastating disease threatens a horticultural industry and a biotech-based solution is the most viable option for developing resistant varieties. However, public institutions generally do not have access to the full range of enabling technologies and trait genes, nor the resources to satisfy the regulatory and stewardship requirements needed to develop a commercial biotech variety, making public-private partnerships an attractive avenue for development (page 116).
New licensing structures for enabling technologies developed in universities and public research institutions may be particularly helpful for small-revenue crops as well as for developing countries (page 120). The Public Intellectual Property Resource for Agriculture (PIPRA) soon to be headquartered at UC Davis represents a significant development in this area (page 127).
Public research agendas can also be targeted toward developing new methods for lowering intellectual-property and regulatory barriers and providing access to modern biotechnologies for specialty crops. In addition, the government can play a role in encouraging private research and development and facilitating the adoption of new technologies. For instance, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's IR-4 program, which assists in the registration of agricultural chemicals for specialty crops, could be broadened to support the registration of biotech varieties (page 110).
While recognizing that there are alternative viewpoints, we do not question the potential value that biotechnology can bring to horticulture. The acreage of biotech crops grown worldwide continues to increase annually, and growers clearly recognize the benefits of reduced pesticide use and conservation tillage enabled by these first-generation products. Regulation and monitoring are needed to ensure that novel traits are assessed for both food and environmental safety prior to commercialization. However, such prudent precautions should not be so restrictive as to present insurmountable barriers to the commercialization of horticultural products that could provide significant benefits to producers and consumers as well as to the environment. We believe that the responsible application of biotechnology is compatible with and has much to contribute to agricultural and environmental sustainability while helping to maintain the competitiveness of U.S. horticultural products in the global marketplace. With that view in mind, we have summarized some of the key research and policy objectives that emerged from the Monterey Workshop and that are elaborated in the articles of this special issue (see box).

K.J. Bradford is director, UC Davis Seed Biotechnology Center, and Professor, Department of Vegetable Crops, UC Davis; J.M. Alston is Professor, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, UC Davis, and Associate Director for Science and Technology Policy, UC Agricultural Issues Center; D.A. Sumner is Professor, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, UC Davis, and Director, UC Agricultural Issues Center; and P.G. Lemaux is Cooperative Extension Specialist in Agriculture and Biotechnology, Department of Plant and Microbial Biology, UC Berkeley.