Agriculture seems to be a work in progress that began 15,000 years ago and will be much different tomorrow than it is today. When the Ice Age survivors had trouble finding food, they intentionally began planting seeds and cultivating cereal grains. When wild animals were too scarce to hunt, domesticated animal provided meat. We’ve come a long way, but there may be a long way to go yet, and biotechnology may be one of the beasts of burden to get us there.

Intentional manipulation of genes through biotechnology has opened up health and agriculture to significant advances in solving problems. For agriculture, it provides the opportunity to expand food production in quantity and quality, as well as making food plants more adaptive to less fertile regions of the world. Thinking about all of that, Iowa State University economist GianCarlo Moschini looks in his rear view mirror, as well as through the windshield to see where we are driving biotechnology. His analysis says biotechnology faces numerous challenges from European-based opponents responsible for “unprecedented regulatory activism.”

Moschini calls agronomic traits the first generation of biotechnology, and says the second generation will have quality attributes such as improved nutritional benefits, plant-made pharmaceuticals and industrial products, as well as biomedical products from animals. Beginning with Roundup Ready soybeans and Bt genes to control corn borers, farmers are using multi-level stacked traits to solve problems, including drought. He says the US and Canadian wheat industries blocked biotech wheat because of anticipated foreign customer rejection, and biotech rice has been similarly slowed, both due to the fact they are human foods, compared to corn and beans that are primarily livestock feeds.

Future biotech traits, which will address nutritional issues, are known as functional foods and will improve health benefits. Included are vegetable oils with improved fatty acid profiles, staple crops with improved protein, mineral, and vitamin content, Golden Rice that contains additional vitamin A, and biomass crops better suited for biofuel production. Meanwhile, opponents have expressed concerns about allergens, environmental harm, ethical considerations, and corporate control of patents. But Moschini says at this point “all of the earlier serious concerns appeared to have been dispelled, at least to the satisfaction of scientists.” He says a strong scientific consensus is emerging that biotechnology itself poses no inherent risk for human health. Additionally, research over the past decade has indicated that biotechnology has not caused any environmental harm. Instead, many Bt crops have resulted in reduced used of pesticides.

The current adaptation of biotechnology is significant:
1) Biotech crops are being produced on 274 million acres (US, Brazil, Argentina.)
2) 51% of soybeans, 31% of corn, 13% of cotton are biotech varieties.
3) 91% of US soybean acreage is biotech, along with 73% of corn and 87% of cotton.
4) By comparison, in Europe only 264,000 acres have biotech crops, with only 1 biotech corn hybrid being grown in 1 country, which is 1% of production.

The concentration of biotech seed and chemical industries and their control of proprietary technology are cited by Moschini as a common source of concern, but he says if private money is used to fund the research, then the privatization of the technology may be inevitable. He says benefits to the research are shared by farmers, consumers, and the biotech companies, with a positive environmental benefit being part of the outcome.

Moschini says the European regulatory environment is holding back advancements in biotechnology, and that stems from skepticism of science, trade protectionism, and protecting European companies that make pesticides. He says there are risks with biotech products and risks with rejecting biotech products, but the real question should be which provides more benefits and less risks. In the midst of the debate is the fact US farmers are producing multiple biotech corn hybrids and European regulators have prohibited their use. Moschini says14 of 24 traits or stacked traits approved for US production have neither European food nor feed approval, and he says that contributes to higher food and feed prices and a loss of competitiveness to the European livestock industry.

Summary:
Biotechnology has provided farmers with improved production opportunities while reducing the use of pesticides, and holds increased future potential for pharmaceuticals and biomedical needs. However, lack of European acceptance has not been based on science, but on trade protectionism, and that has been detrimental to European farmers.