|
Highlights: April-June 2004 California
Agriculture magazine
Whither the Flavr Savr tomato?
Fruits of biotechnology struggle to emerge
The first genetically engineered crop to be sold
in supermarkets was the Flavr Savr tomato in 1994. But a decade
later no biotech tomatoes are for sale in the United States, nor
are virtually any other biotech horticultural crops. Why have
genetically engineered field crops — such as soybeans, corn,
canola and cotton — been wildly successful, each capturing
large market shares, while biotech horticultural crops have all
but disappeared?
 Peer-reviewed
articles published in the April-June 2004 issue of the University
of California’s California Agriculture journal explore the
reasons why genetically engineered field (also called “row”
or “agronomic”) crops have succeeded in the U.S. market,
while the commercialization of horticultural crops has virtually
ground to a halt. Field testing of horticultural crops —
including fruits, vegetables, nuts and ornamentals — has
plummeted. In 1999, 374 field-test permits or notifications were
filed for biotech horticultural crops; in 2003, the number was
94. By contrast, during the same period field permits for biotech
cotton, corn and soybeans remained steady at about 500 annually.
The current issue of California Agriculture, including PDF versions of all peer-reviewed research articles, can be viewed in full online at: http://CaliforniaAgriculture.ucop.edu/0402AMJ/toc.html
“There
are numerous examples of biotech horticultural crops that have
performed well in the laboratory and in field tests, but have
never been brought to market or were removed from the market after
commercialization,” says Kent Bradford, director of the Seed
Biotechnology Center at UC Davis, and faculty co-chair of the
64-page California Agriculture issue. These include fungus-resistant
strawberries, virus-resistant pumpkins and potatoes, and “trap
crops” for tree fruits and nuts, which divert insect pests
from the main crops.
The April-June 2004 California Agriculture delves
into the myriad reasons for this phenomenon, including:
-
Horticultural crops consist of numerous, diverse
varieties (such as dozens of kinds of lettuce), which increases
research and development costs. Field crops, by contrast, often
have fewer varieties that are planted over larger acreages.
-
Too few acres of horticultural crops are planted
to make the business model profitable for large life-sciences
companies, as opposed to millions of acres planted in field
crops.
-
Each gene-insertion “event” —
even in different varieties of the same crop — must receive
separate regulatory approval from three U.S. government agencies,
an expensive and time-consuming process.
-
Commodity groups have been hesitant to pursue
genetically engineered varieties, which they often believe may
jeopardize sales of non-biotech varieties.
-
Intellectual property rights for genetically
engineered crops are owned by many different people and firms,
and are difficult to acquire. Most basic research on biotech
horticultural crops is conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture
and land-grant universities, which generally do not have the
resources to gather and negotiate the necessary patents and
other rights.
Another factor affecting genetically engineered
crops is that those that have been successfully commercialized focus
on traits that benefit growers, such as insect resistance or herbicide
tolerance. The next generation of transgenic traits may be more
consumer-oriented, including improved nutritional value or taste
— potentially attractive in the marketplace.
Also,
while transgenic field crops may be used as food ingredients (such
as oils and meals that may go unnoticed), transgenic horticultural
crops are sold and eaten whole, often involving conscious consumer
choices.
Other news angles in the April-June 2004 California Agriculture:
-
A review of consumer-survey research to date
finds that most consumers are ignorant about agricultural biotechnology,
but those who know about it are evenly split for and against,
with a small group being vehemently opposed. In surveys, most
consumers say they would prefer that biotech foods be labeled.
-
China is aggressively pursuing biotechnology
research for its agriculture, including in horticultural crops.
-
A new national consortium of land-grant universities
and government agencies, called the Public Intellectual Property
Resource for Agriculture (PIPRA), seeks to address the intellectual
property difficulties by pooling resources; the $1 million initiative
will be headquartered at UC Davis.
Media contact: Kent Bradford, Director of the UC Davis
Seed Biotechnology Center: (530) 752-6087 or (530) 752-7049; kjbradford@ucdavis.edu.
California
Agriculture is the
University of California’s peer-reviewed journal of research
in agricultural, human and natural resources.
For a free subscription, click here,
call (510) 987-0044 or write to calag@ucop.edu
|
