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 farmer  Economic calculation – more expensive seed versus potential return – ordinary calculation  Hybrid calculation is identical on cost of seed versus potential return  No 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?