Agricultural Biotechnology: The Technology in the Seed

Drew L. Kershen

Earl Sneed Centennial Law Professor

University of Oklahoma

Copyright 2001, all rights reserved

The Seed The agronomic traits are in the seed – no other

input needed to gain access to the technology Similarity to hybrids but hybridization is primarily

about yield and the trait diminished rapidly from one plant generation to the next

Contrast to Green Revolution – fertilizers, irrigation, pesticides, herbicides – extraneous inputs

Structural & Economic Implications

Scale neutral – the seed advantage accrues equally to any sized farmerEconomic calculation – more expensive seed versus

potential return – ordinary calculationHybrid calculation is identical on cost of seed versus

potential returnNo changes in horticultural practices – farm as before

with transgenic seed

Structural & Economic Implications Scale positive – may benefit the smaller farmer more than

larger farmer Minimal learning curve No additional inputs Increased yield Reduced labor requirements Greater security; greater flexibility in farming

Key – access to seeds – assistance for the poorest farmers to acquired the seeds

Structural Stabilization Niche markets – value-added crops

Functional foods; pharmaceuticals; alternative crops

Environmental constraints Adapted for drier climates – Ogallala Aquifer

Environmental compliance – No till cropping Environmental compliance, regulatory compliance is not scale neutral – small

entities adversely affected

May allow smaller farmers to have better risk management and slow the pace of structural change

Structural Legal Relationships

Additional non-farm input – the seed Gene expression technology or gene use restriction

technology Intellectual property rights – seed companies Separate the technology from the structural

changes – agricultural biotechnology is not the cause of these structural changes

Structural Changes Before and regardless of biotechnology Non-farm inputs: Internet, precision agriculture, identity

preservation Hybrids – Semen straws Contract production; vertical integration Concentration – in processing and particularly in food

retail Who captures value? – farmers doing very well in

capturing value of agricultural biotechnology.

Hypothesis If separate the technology from the structural changes

The technology itself appears scale neutral and potentially scale positive

If the hypothesis is accurate Implications for developing world Major constraint is governmental policies that encourage or

discourage adoption

Good reasons for farmers to be positive and early adopters of the technology

Constraints Pressure Groups & Scientific Ignorance

Cartagena Biosafety Protocol Food Scares and Food Aid Codex Alimentarius

Governmental Policies Robert L. Paarlberg, Governing the GM Crop Revolution: Policy

Choices for Developing Countries (Int’l Food Pol. Res. Inst., 2000) Five areas: Intellectual Property Rights, Biosafety, Trade, Food

Safety and Consumer Choice, Public Research Investment China 1.8; Brazil 2.2; Kenya 2.6; India 2.8 – Promotional,

Permissive, Precautionary, Preventive

Constraints Domestic Production vs International Trade

Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom (1999) – the importance of economic freedom and opportunity

Public research investment in domestically important crops – NARS and CGIAR

Capacity-building, institutional development, infrastructure expansion – technical knowledge, appropriate regulation, farmer extension

South Africa (GMO cotton); Kenya (GMO banana) – the small farmers as the beneficiaries

Conclusion

Agricultural Biotechnology – greater benefits to developing nations for food security and food safety

Urgency of the situation Opportunity lost? Ideology triumphant?