18 cHoicES Fourrh Quarter 1999 7/1 the % ffennium Seeds of

From Hybrids

to Genetically

Modified Crops

by Jorge ineteen ninety-eight marked the two hundredth did natural selection or chance mutations. T he Fernandez­ N anniversaty of Malthus' essay on how geometric Green Revolution of the 1960s and 1970s was Cornejo, population growth and linear food production in­ spurred by traditional breeding and adoption of Margriet creases would jeopardize the future of humanity. T hose high-yielding crop varieties in developing countries. Caswell, and predictions failed to materialize, to a large extent be­ The more recent development of modern biotech­ Cassandra cause research led to unprecedented growth in crop nology, especially genetic engineering, extends these Klotz-Ingram yields and total agricultural productivity over the past processes of biological innovations. sixty years. Figure 1 shows the U.S. record. D espite the promise of benefits, environmental Mechanical, chemical, and biological innovations and consumer concerns currently temper acceptance undergirded this remarkable trend in agricultural of agricultural biotechnology in the United States productivity and the resulting abundance of food. and globally. T he ul timate contributions of bio­ T he development of hybrid crops in the United technology will depend on our abili ry to recognize States in the first part of this century marked the its potential benefi ts and its risks. beginning of a series of biological innovations. Hy­ bridization, a traditional breeding process, crosses The adoption of plant innovations two inbred lines to create seed varieties with greater Plant breeding takes time. Breeders may need many yield potential than exhibited by either pat·en t. H y­ crop generations to successfully transfer a targeted bridization allowed breeders to enhance biological trait to atl elite strain. Superior hybrid corn vat·iet­ characteristics more predictably and quickly than ies, for example, were introduced in the early 1930s HOICE Fourth Quarter 1999 19

.------~--~250

200 !

0 0 1900 '05 '10 '15 '20 '25 '30 '35 '40 '45 '50 '55 '60 '65 '70 '75 '80 '85 '90 '95 "0 en en en en en "gen en en "0 en r:::- Q) C Q) Q) "0 Q) o Q) Q)C ro L{)~ ~ ~ Cl. ·OJ U U ~s o)u u u Q; .5> , ro 0 Q) Q)Q) ~ <1l <1l <1l <1l Q) .0 uE en<1l c.o > C X"O Q)C C C Q) C E Q)c £~ .c;, c: t5 0 0 o 0 0 c~ "0 u u en<1l u U u « 0 <1l u Q)8 C u_ Q) Een Q)Q) Q) Q) 0 0 ~Q) 0 "0 £; ~£ £; ~ t5 c- £; ~ ~~ ~~ Cii >,0 '0 co '0 u ~ o£ 00 '0 en £ ~ U "g "g eft 0 0 ~ E C en~o - "0 C C '0 0 0 0 Q) Q) g> 0 o ~ 0) 0) Ol C"O C 1i>, E "S .Q Q) u~ C C . ~ 0 £ 0 0 '0 u; - en _~E ::J Cl.::J "0 "0 "0 C Cl. en Q) '0 Q) X Q) o C Q) 0 .g m en C en en w u ::J ~Q) ::J u «~ Q)£ 0 ::J a £ ::J Q) .0 _ en 0 (f) :e "0 a Q; Q) "0 .B Q) E 0 <1l ·u ::J "0 ~ "0 « I u.. £ z « .-e ·u Q) Q) :e I u.. Q) I Figure 1. Corn yields and total factor productivity in U.S. agriculture

after more than twenty-five years of research. Adop­ This characteristic of hybrid crops encouraged the tion, toO, took time. The percentage of corn acre­ development of the seed industty. The first seed age planted with hybrid corn in the U.S. grew company to produce hybrid corn was organized in from about 1 percent in 1933 to more than 95 1926 and an increasing number of private firms percent by 1960. The speed of adoption of corn were established in tile 1930s. hybrids differed by region because plant breeders In a practical sense, only corn, sorghum, and had to produce varieties compatible with local sunflower can be hybridized. Thus, Congress en­ growing conditions. The adoption of hybrid corn acted tile Plant Patent Act of 1930 and later the in the U.S. led to a 15 to 20 percent increase in 1970 Plant Variety Protection Act to strengthen average corn yields between 1938 and 1945. Fur­ patent protection and encourage innovation for ther yield gains were facilitated by the adoption of other crop varieties. Moreover, in 1980 the U.S. chemical fertilizer and pesticides (figure 1) . Supreme Court ruled that "living material was pat­ Prior to the development of hybrid technology, entable." Subsequent rulings by the Patent and private firms had little incentive to conduct plant Trademark Office's Board of Appeals and Interfer­ breeding because the seed of improved plants could ences extended protection to all plants and nonhu­ be easily reproduced by farmers. Furthermore, ac­ man animals, expanding Intellectual Property Right cording to the Patent Act of 1790, seeds were con­ (IPR) protection for biological innovations. sidered "products of nature," and could not be As the new millennium begins, U.S. farmers are patented. Hybrid seed technology, however, re­ rapidly adopting genetically engineered crops. Ge­ quired farmers to repurchase seed each year be­ netic engineering modifies organisms by recombi­ cause the seed of hybrid crops did not carry the nant DNA techniques. These techniques allow a vigor of the original hybrid seed. Yields wo uld fall more precise and time-saving alteration of a plant's 15 to 20 percent if farmers planted saved seed. traits, facilitating the development of characteris- 20 CHO[CES Fourrh Quarter 1999 :JIllhe '7lG1fennium

tics not feasible through traditional plant breeding. characteristics and better harvest, transport, and stor­ Genetic engineering also allows scientists to target age properties. But beyo nd the direct applications a sin gle plant trait, thus decreasing the number of of genetic engineering to create new crop varieties, unintended characteristics which often accompany biotechnology techniques can be used to monitor traditional breeding techniques, and increasing the environmental conditions, detect plant and animal speed at which breeders can develop new varieties. diseases, identify food-borne pathogens, and pro­ Some industry observers classify genetically engi­ duce microbes that biodegrade pollutants. These nee red crops into three generations or "waves" biotechnology applications will contribute to the (Panos). The fust generation includes crops with "en­ production of a safe food supply and lower envi­ hanced input uaits," for example, crops carrying genes ronmental degradation. selected for insect control, herbicide resistance, and drought or frost tolerance. The 'second generation Biotechnology raises environmental includes crops with "added value output traits," such concerns as corn with high oil content and nutrient enhance­ Despite the potential benefits, some scientists worry ment oflivestock feed. The third generation includes that genetically engi neered plants will compete or "plant factories" that will produce pharmaceuticals, breed with native populations and disrupt ecosys­ biobased fuels, and other materials. tems. H erbicide-tolerant varieties, for example, may The adoption of genetically engineered crops for pass their genes to weeds, creating "superweeds" insect resistance and herbicide tolerance is growing resistant to herbicides. Although USDA developed rapidly in the U.S. with the promise of higher yields biosafety guidelines to decrease the potential for and lower costs. Genetically engineered cotton con­ negative impacts from the release of biotechnol­ tains a gene derived from the soil bacterium Bacillus ogy-derived plants, some doubts remain about the thuringensis (Bt) that protects cotton from the bud­ abi li ry to guarantee that outcrossing will not occur. worm, bollworm, and pink bollworm. Bt cotton be­ The development and adoption of bioengineered came available to farmers in 1995 and its use ex­ crops could also reduce the availability of many panded rapidly to about 17 percent of the cotton tradi tional varieties, narrowing genetic variation acreage in 1998. Similarly, Bt corn provides protec­ within a species. As a res ult, the more limited vari­ tion from the European corn borer. The Environ­ eties could become more vulnerable to pest infesta­ mental Protection Agency (EPA) approved Bt corn tions and to environmental stress . On the other in August 1995 and its use has grown from about 1 hand, biotechnology product developers depend on percent of corn planted acreage in 1996 to 8 percent the stock of germplasm-there is an incentive to in 1997, and to almost 20 percent in 1998. preserve biodiversiry. We don't yet know if private Adoption rates for herbicide-tolerant crops have in centive will offset oth et market forces leading to been particularly rapid. Herbicide-tolerant soybeans monocultures. Critics made simjlar warnings about became available to farmers in limited quantities in the development and adoption of hybrids. 1996, but its usage expanded to about 17 percent The developrrient of co tton and corn varieties of the U.S. soybean acreage in 1997 and to more containing Bt genes has raised concerns by propo­ than 40 percent of the soybean acreage in 1998. nents of biological pest management methods. T hey The use of genetically engineered crops with pest argue that Bt genetically engineered into a plant will resistance and chemical tolerance traits may reduce hasten pest immunity because Bt plant material will chemical pesticide use. Bt co tton is reported to re­ persist in the environment longer than Bt in foliar duce the need for co nventional chemical insecti­ sprays, extending the time for targeted insect pests cides to control insect pests (Marra, Carlson, and to build Bt resistance. Many agricultural producers, Hubell). Similarly, herbicide-tolerant soybeans may including organic growers, rely on Bt sprays for in­ reduce overall herbicide use because farmers can sect control, but they could lose this option if in­ control weeds by switching to an effici ent sects become resistant. To guard against this con­ postemergent herbicide that previously wo uld have cern, the Environmental Protection Agency's approval destroyed the crop (Fernandez-Cornejo, Klotz­ of the new Bt varieties was conditional on producers Ingram, and Jans). developing resistance management plans. Plans in­ Biotechnology may also be used to develop crop clude subj ecting insects to high doses of Bt to ensure varieti es that tolerate higher levels of environmen­ that few resistant biorypes survive to mate, and set­ tal stress. Such crops could maintain productivity ting as ide refuges to ensure that susceptible biotypes in drought-prone areas or may help farmers adapt outnumber resistant ones. to global climate change, such as increased mean temperatures or extreme weather events. Biotechnology raises food safety Genetic engineering also offers the opportunity concerns to create "designer" foods with enhanced nutritional Genetic engineering can be used to develop healthier 71 opecia!.9s ,ue HOI E Fourth Quarter 1999 21 foods . Food nutrient content can be enhanced be­ fer changes the essence of the receiving species. In yond levels provided by rraditional breeding tech­ addition, some believe genetic engineering inter­ niques. In addition, biotechnology can be used to feres with "nature" and "creation." Scientists argue improve food safety through bener hazard detec­ however, that all plants are genetically modified tion and monitoring. (that is what evolution means) either by natural Still, food safety conc~rns persist, especially in selection from random mutations and recombina­ Europe. Foods with transplanted genes may cause tions, by domestic breeding, or, more recently, by allergic reactions. A gene from a nut inserted into "engineered mutation or recombination" (Panos). another type of food, for example, might trigger Unlike hybrid crops, which were accepted by allergic reactions in susceptible consumers. Some consumers worldwide, some consumer and envi­ critics doubt that the body digests and assimilates ronmental groups demand that genetically engi­ biotechnology-derived foods in the same way as neered foods be labeled and separated fro m other traditional foods. But the Food and Drug Admin­ foods in production processes. They want the char­ istration (FDA) ensures that genetically modified acteristics of the process identified rather than prod­ foods reaching the marketplace are "substantially uct properties alone. equivalent" to current foods, and pose no addi­ tional risk. The FDA would require a label for Biotechnology and the structure of genetically modified foods only if there were known 'agriculture risks, as with traditionally grown foods. Biotechnology is also changing tlle industry struc­ Other critics worty that the essential character­ ture of suppliers of agricultural inputs, particularly istics of food may be changed with the insertion of seed and chemical firms. Protection of intellectual genes from another species. Dietary preferences and property has promoted industry investment, but it' religious strictures would be harder to follow if the also may have contributed to in creased industry consumer did not know about gene transfers. For concentration. Private investment in seeds occurred example, would the insertion of an "antifreeze" gene earliest for hybrid corn because hybridization pro­ from an animal render a vegetable no longer veg­ vided a biological form of protection for intellec­ etarian? Would the use of a single swine gene vio­ tual property embedded in the seed. Thus, the four­ late dietary restrictions for those of Jewish or Is­ firm concentration for corn seed companies reached lamic faiths? All life forms share some identical 57 percent by 1980, compared to only 14 percent genes. It is not yet clear to what extent gene trans- for the seed industry as a whole. Following the 22 CHOICES Fourth Quarter 1999 71llhe %f!enmiJln

Plant Variety Protection Act of 1970 and strengthen­ pend on how successfully the scientific community ing amendments enacted around 1980, more than fifty and government agencies handle the environmen­ seed companies were acquired by pharmaceutical, pet­ tal and consumer concerns. Many environmental­ rochemical, and food firms in the 1970s (Lesser). More ists and consumers have expressed skepticism about recently, the government has further protected intellec­ the ability of the agricultural sector and govern­ rual property for biological inventions, and higher lev­ ment agencies to adequately consider negative ef­ els of private investment in research, along with merg­ fects. Consumer acceptance of biotechnology-de­ ers and acquisitions, have followed. rived products, however, will ultimately determine Genetically engineered products with quality en­ the investments in research and adoption of the hanced traits, such as high-oil corn, enhanced-nu­ technology by farmers. [i trient lives rock feed, and "grown-to-order" foods, will also likely increase grower contracting and prod­ • For more information uct labeling, diminishing standard commodity mar­ kets. Biotechnology firms increasingly work not only Ball, V.E., J.e. Bureau, R. Nehring, and A. Somwaru. with farmers but also with end users and elevators "Agricultural Productivity Revisited. " Amer. J Agr. to create market channels (Renkoski). More prod­ Econ. 79(November 1997):1045-76. uct differentiation, vertical and horizontal integra­ tion, and market segmentation may result, with Fernandez-Cornejo, J. , e. Klotz-Ingram and S. Jans. the potential to significantly alter the structure of "Farm-Level Effects of Adopting Genetically Engi­ The authors are American agriculture. neered Crops in the U.S .A." Presented at the NE-165 with the meeting, "Transitions in Agbiotech: Economics ofStrat­ Economic Biotechnology in the twenty-first egy and Po li cy," Washington DC, 24-25 June 1999. Research century Service, U.S. Department of The role that biotechnology will play in producing Huffman, W.E., and R.E. Evenson. Science for Agricul­ Agriculture. increased supplies of more nutritious foods will de- ture: A Long-Term Perspective. Ames 1A: Iowa State University Press, 1993.

USOAIARS Lesser, W. "Intellectual Property Rights and Concen­ tration in Agricultural Biotechnology." AgBioForum 1, no. 2(Fall 1998):56-61. Available HTTP: http:// www.agbioforum.missouri.edu.

Marra, M., G. Carlson, and B. Hubell. "Economics of the First Crop Biotechnologies." Avai lable HTTP: http:/ Iwww.eg-econ.ncst.edu.

Panos Institute, The. "G reed or Need? Genetically Modi­ fied Crops." Panos Media Briefing No. 30, October 1998. Available HTTP: http://www.oneworld.org/panos/

Renkoski, M.A. "Marketing Strategies of Biotechnol­ ogy Firms: Implications for U.S. Agriculture." J Agr. and Appl. Econ. 29, no. 1(1997): 123-28.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Statistics. Washington DC, various years.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. "A History of American Agriculture 1776- 1990." Available HTTP: http://www.usda.gov/his­ tory2/rext4.htm

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily correspond to the views or policies ofthe Us. Department ofAgriculture .