Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T08:06:33.093Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

BIOENGINEERED CROPS AS TOOLS FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT: OPPORTUNITIES AND STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2008

PETER GREGORY ,
ROBERT H. POTTER ,
FRANK A. SHOTKOSKI ,
DESIREE HAUTEA ,
K. V. RAMAN ,
VIJAY VIJAYARAGHAVAN ,
WILLIAM H. LESSER ,
GEORGE NORTON  and
W. RONNIE COFFMAN
PETER GREGORY*
Affiliation:
International Programs, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, 214 Rice Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA
ROBERT H. POTTER*
Affiliation:
International Programs, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, 214 Rice Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA
FRANK A. SHOTKOSKI
Affiliation:
International Programs, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, 214 Rice Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA
DESIREE HAUTEA
Affiliation:
Institute of Plant Breeding, University of the Philippines Los Baños College, Laguna 4033, Philippines
K. V. RAMAN
Affiliation:
International Programs, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, 214 Rice Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA
VIJAY VIJAYARAGHAVAN
Affiliation:
Sathguru Management Consultants, Plot No. 15 Hindi Nagar, Punjagutta Hyderabad, AP 500 034, India
WILLIAM H. LESSER
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Economics and Management, 154 Warren Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, 14853, USA
GEORGE NORTON
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 205-B Hutcheson Hall, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA
W. RONNIE COFFMAN
Affiliation:
International Programs, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, 214 Rice Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA
*
§§Corresponding author. pg46@cornell.edu
‡Agriculture & Biotechnology Strategies, Inc., 106 St John Street, PO Box 475 Merrickville, Ontario K0G1N0Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Crop bioengineering provides unique and dramatic opportunities for international agricultural development. However, we consider the technology not as a ‘silver bullet’ or panacea for crop improvement in the developing world but as an increasingly important tool that can be used to complement conventional methods of crop improvement. The number of bioengineered crops ready for commercial release in developing countries is expected to expand considerably in the next few years. But the multi-national life sciences companies that are leading the research, development and commercialization of bioengineered crops focus primarily on major crops that have high commercial value and extensive international markets. These companies also hold proprietary gene technology for many other crops of extreme importance to subsistence and resource-poor farmers but do not pursue product development and commercialization because of low anticipated returns. Such crops have traditionally been overlooked and are sometimes referred to as ‘orphan crops’ because of the relative lack of research and development applied to them. We propose a strategy for the development and delivery of bioengineered crops, including orphan crops, for developing countries. Consulting local public and private sector stakeholders to determine their highest priority needs for agricultural products is the first step. This ensures local stakeholder buy-in and that we do not invest in technology that is unlikely to be adopted. Next, the feasibility of developing and delivering the product is assessed. If the result is positive, the work is organized into ‘product commercialization packages’ (PCPs) that integrate all elements of the research, development and commercialization processes. The main elements of each PCP include (i) technology development; (ii) policy-related issues such as intellectual property and licensing, as well as gaining regulatory approval by the relevant national authorities; (iii) providing public information to producers and consumers about the benefits, risks and correct management of these new products; and (iv) establishing, or verifying, the existence of marketing and distribution mechanisms to provide farmers access to planting material. Our strategy involves integration of needs-based capacity building, socio-economic impact studies and product stewardship into each PCP. Whenever appropriate, opportunities are sought to create public–private partnerships to help leverage public funds, help absorb development costs and provide a broader distribution channel. To illustrate how our strategy is being translated into action we include, as a case study, examples of work by the US Agency for International Development-funded, Cornell University-led Agricultural Biotechnology Support Project II on the research, development and delivery of bioengineered fruit and shoot-borer-resistant eggplant varieties (Solanum melanogena) for South and Southeast Asia.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 44 , Issue 3 , July 2008 , pp. 277 - 299
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Baral, K., Roy, B. C., Rahim, K. M. B., Chatterjee, H., Mondal, P., Mondal, , Ghosh, D. and Talekar, N. S. (2006). Socio-economic parameters of pesticide use and assessment of impact of an IPM strategy for the control of eggplant fruit and shoot borer in West Bengal, India. Technical Bulletin No. 37. AVRDC publication number 06-673. AVRDC – The World Vegetable Center, Shanhua, Taiwan.Google Scholar
Bayer, J. (2007) GMOs in the Philippines, the costs of regulations. MS. Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, USA.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. I. (2005). Poorer nations turn to publicly developed GM crops. Nature Biotechnology 23: 27–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dhandapani, N, Shelkar, U.R. and Murugan, M. (2003). Bio-intensive pest management in major vegetable crops: An Indian perspective. Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment 1:330–39.Google Scholar
Francisco, S. R. (2006). Ex-ante impact assessment of fruit and shoot borer resistant eggplant in the Philippines, Draft Report, ISAAA and ABSPII.Google Scholar
Islam, S. M. F. and Norton, G. W. (2007). Bt eggplant for fruit and shoot borer resistant in Bangladesh. In Economic and Environmental Benefits and Costs of Transgenic Crops: Ex-Ante Assessment (Eds Ramasamy, C., Selvaraj, K. N., Norton, G. W. and Vijayaraghavan, K.). Coimbatore, India: Tamil Nadu Agricultural University.Google Scholar
James, C. (2006) Global Status of Biotech/GM Crops in 2005. ISAAA Briefs No. 34–2005.Google Scholar
Kolady, DE and Lesser, W.(2006). Who adopts what kind of technologies? The case of Bt eggplant in India. AgBioForum 9:94–103.Google Scholar
Krishna, V. V. and Qaim, M. (2007). Estimating the adoption of Bt eggplant in India: Who benefits from public-private partnership? Food Policy 32:523–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krishna, V. V. and Qaim, M. (2008). Potential impacts of Bt Eggplant on economic surplus and farmers' health in India. Agricultural Economics 38:167–180.Google Scholar
Medakker, A. and Vijayaraghavan, V. (2007). Successful commercialization of insect-resistant eggplant by a public–private partnership: reaching and benefiting resource-poor farmers. In Intellectual Property Management in Health and Agricultural Innovation: A Handbook of Best Practices (Eds A. Krattiger, R. T. Mahoney, L. Nelsen, et al.). MIHR: Oxford, U. K., and PIPRA: Davis, U. S. A. Available online at www.stemglobal.org/ipHandbook.pdfGoogle Scholar
Mishra, S. (2003). Ex ante economic impact assessment of Bt eggplant in Bangladesh, the Philippines, and India. MS. Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, USA.Google Scholar
Naylor, R. L., Falcon, W. P., Goodman, R. M., Jahn, M. M., Sengooba, T., Tefera, H. and Nelson, R. J. (2004). Biotechnology in the developing world: a case for increased investments in orphan crops. Food Policy 29: 15–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, R. J., Naylor, R. L. and Jahn, M. M. (2004). The role of genomics research in improvement of ‘orphan’ crops. Crop Science 44:1901–1904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pray, Carl E., Bengali, P., Ramaswami, B. (2005). The cost of biosafety regulations: The Indian experience. Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture 44:267–289.Google Scholar
Tanksley, S. D. and McCouch, S. R. (1997). Seed banks and molecular maps: unlocking genetic potential from the wild. Science 277:1063–1066CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yarobe, J. M. and Laude, T. P., (2007). Costs and benefits of papaya ringspot virus resistant technology in the Philippines, Draft report, ISAAA and ABSPII.Google Scholar