Volume 5 No.1 Jan-Mar 2012
The National Seed Association of India Magazine
Enhancing Crop Productivity through Biotechnology
1
-A Solution to Food Security Challenges
Agricultural Biotechnology -Prospectus and Challenges for Improving Indian Agriculture
Biotechnology & Agriculture
Innovation in Biotechnology Seeds -Public and Private Initiatives in India and China
53 33
nsa
National Seed Association of India
Message from the desk of President
MESSAGE
Agriculture has undergone significant developments since the days of earliest cultivation. During the past centuries, the characteristics of agriculture witnessed productivity enhancement, contributed by a series of scientific and technological advances. The industry noticed several major breakthroughs like selective breeding, hybrids, fertilizers, pesticides, mechanization and irrigation, which allowed crop yields to improve. Biotechnology in agriculture is one such breakthrough that contributed to significant improvements in production agriculture for some key crops. Altering the genetic makeup of crops by farmers,has been an age old agricultural practice, which began eight to ten thousand years ago. During earlier days, farmers selected plants and seeds to save them for replanting in the coming year. The selection of characters, such as faster growth, higher yields, pest and disease resistance, larger seeds, or sweeter fruits, has dramatically changed domesticated plant species compared to their wild relatives. Plant breeding came into being, when man learnt that crop plants could be cross-pollinated, to be able to improve the characters of the plant. Adoption of agricultural biotechnology provided a sophisticated platform to modify plant genetics, which is being practiced for centuries, by plant breeders through breeding and crossbreeding. A paradigm shift of transferring thousands of genes, from the traditional method to the adoption of biotechnology, facilitated breeders, to transfer only selected genes. Biotechnology enabled the introduction of beneficial traits, that would be difficult to create through traditional breeding methods, by expanding the possible universe of transferable genes of economic significance. Industry identifies important government policies in agricultural biotechnology, that facilitates successful innovation and adoption, like market accessibility, IP protection and an efficient regulatory approval process. Novel and useful traits developed by public and private sectors have stagnated in regulatory approval for long periods, in the absence of effective implementation of policies. Adoption of science based and predictable regulatory approval processes should bring these technologies on to the farm for improving production agriculture. The industry proposed to focus the contents of this issue of the magazine (January – March 2012) on 'Biotechnology and Agriculture'. Moreover, the NSAI Magazine arrives with its new name "Seed Times", this being the inaugural issue of the Magazine. We shall get to read in this issue about biotechnology in agriculture encompassing innovation, advances in biotechnology, opportunities for enhancing productivity through biotechnology, adoption of biotech crops, success of cotton in India and prospects and challenges. I take this opportunity to thank each one of you for making the 3rd Indian Seeds Congress a grand success. Wish each one of you success in the forthcoming season. We would continue in our constant endeavour to be a major contributor in redesigning the destiny of the Indian agriculture.
Dr. K.V. Subbarao President
CONTENTS Message from the desk of President
nsa
Message from the desk of Executive Director Enhancing Crop Productivity through Biotechnology: A Solution to Food Security Challenges - Ramya Rajagopal and Richard Broglie
1-4
7 - 10
Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2011
13 - 32
Innovation in Biotechnology Seeds: Public and Private Initiatives in India and China - Katherine Linton and Mihir Torsekar
33 - 47
Biotechnology : Debates and Caveates - C. D. Mayee
49 - 50
GM Horticultural Crops: Harbinger of Next Green Revolution - C Aswath and Vageesh
51 - 52
Agricultural Biotechnology– Prospects and Challenges for Improving Indian Agriculture - VR Kaundiya
53 - 58
India: Agricultural Biotechnology 2011 - Santosh Singh
59 - 68
Ten Significant Achievements in the First Decade of Bt cotton in India - Bhagirath Choudhary
69 - 74
Breeding for Biotic Stresses (Pest And Herbicidal Tolerance in Field Crops) 75 - 76 - Leela A., Srinivas Parimi, Bharat Char and Usha Barwale Zehr Doubtful Answers - Ajay Vir Jakhar
77 - 78
Biotechnological Advances in Horticulture - Sukhada Mohandas
79 - 83
Genetic Engineering and GM Crops - ISAAA
84 - 88
FAQ’s on Environmental Issues of Agricultural Biotechologies - ISAAA
89 - 93
EVENTS 1. Indian Seed Congress 2012
95 - 102
2. NSAI CEO Conclave
103 - 106
3. Fourth National Seed Congress
107 - 110
Honours & Awards
111 - 115
Seed & Agriculture Statistics
117 - 136
News
137 - 146
New NSAI Members
147
CONTENTS
A Decade of Triumph of India’s Cotton Farmers... The Way Forward - Gaynendra Shukla
National Seed Association of India
ABOUT NSAI National Seed Association of India (NSAI) is the apex organization representing the Indian Seed Industry. The vision of NSAI is to create a dynamic, innovative and internationally competitive, research based industry producing high performance, high quality seeds and planting materials which benefit farmers and significantly contribute to the sustainable growth of Indian Agriculture. The mission of NSAI is to encourage investment in state of the art R&D to bring to the Indian farmer superior genetics and technologies, which are high performing and adapted to a wide range of agroclimatic zones. It actively contributes to the seed industry policy development, with the concerned governments, to ensure that policies and regulations create an enabling environment, including public acceptance, so that the industry is globally competitive. NSAI promotes harmonization and adoption of best commercial practices in production, processing, quality control and distribution of seeds.
NSAI GOVERNING COUNCIL 2011-2013 President
:
Dr. K. V. Subbarao (PHI Seeds)
Vice President
:
Mr. N. P. Patel (Western Agri Seeds)
General Secretary
:
Mr. M. Harish Reddy (Ganga Kaveri Seeds)
Treasurer
:
Mr. K.S. Narayanaswamy (Geo Biotechnologies)
Immediate Past President :
Dr. M. Ramasami (Rasi Seeds)
MEMBERS Mr. G. S. Gill (Monsanto India)
Dr. D.B. Desai (Navbharat Seeds)
Mr. Venkateswarlu Yaganti (Yaaganti Seeds)
Mr. Pawan Kansal (Kohinoor Seeds)
Mr. Bhupen Dubey (Advanta India)
Mr. K. Niranjan Kumar (Garc Seeds)
Mr. M. Sabir (Manisha Agri Biotech)
Dr. Manish Patel (Incotec India)
Dr. P. Sateesh Kumar (Prabhat Agri Biotech)
Mr. Vaibhav Kashikar (Ankur Seeds)
Mr. Aloke Marodia (Pan Seeds)
Mr. Satyanarayan Rathi (Divya Seeds)
Mr. S.K. Roongta (National Seeds Corp.)
NSAI SECRETARIAT Mr. Raju Kapoor
Dr. N.K. Dadlani
Dr. Seema Sehgal
Mrs. Tulika Singh
Executive Director
Director
Asst Director
Asst Director
Dr. N.K. Dadlani & Mrs. Tulika Singh
nsa
National Seed Association of India
MESSAGE
Message from the desk of Executive Director NSAI , in one its core objectives of knowledge dissemination and capacity building, has been bringing out this quarterly magazine, namely, “Indian Seed and Planting Material”. Considering the dynamic environment under which the industry operates and the importance of this instrument as a communication vehicle to promote growth through knowledge dissemination, a need was felt to re-position this important instrument of NSAI. Effective this volume, the magazine is being re-christened as “Seed Times”. The Seed Times has been re-designed to be dynamic, contemporary and more relevant to the seedsmen. The magazine is being provided a new look and feel which I am confident will be taken well by the readers. The magazine will continue to be thematic in nature. The current issue in your hands is focused on the contribution of biotechnology with special reference to seeds to the field of agriculture. As is well known, due to stagnating productivity & increasing demand for food, feed, fodder and fuel, newer breakthroughs in technology front are the prime need of the hour. Among other tools, biotechnology has contributed significantly and is expected to provide important break-throughs in the area of agriculture, nutrition and industrial growth in the times to come. The success of Bt. cotton in India is an example to demonstrate the benefits that the bio-technology users can draw. More than 95% of the area in cotton has shifted to Bt. cotton in less than a decade and has provided significant financial and social well-being to all the stakeholders. This issue is focusing on the newer biotechnological initiatives globally as well as in India, that are expected to bring more significant improvement such as productivity enhancement of crops improving the desirable traits in the agriculture outputs, and addressing climate change challenges. I express my special gratitude to all the contributors to this issue of Seed Times. In order to improve the reach of this magazine, the circulation of “Seed Times” is being doubled. I will be looking forward to your feedback on the concept, design and content of “Seed Times” to improve it further. Wishing you all a successful and rewarding year ahead !!!
Raju Kapoor (Executive Director)
Enhancing Crop Productivity through Biotechnology Ramya Rajagopal
A Solution to Food Security Challenges
Research Scientist, DuPont Knowledge Center, Hyderabad, India
Richard Broglie Research Director, DuPont Agricultural Biotechnology, Wilmington, US
Ensuring food and nutritional security:
dietary patterns imply that food supply will have to increase further to meet the enhanced per capita caloric intake. Hence, in 2050, annual cereal production will need to rise to about 3 billion tonnes from 2.1 billion today and annual meat production will need to rise by over 200 million tonnes to reach 470 million tonnes.
Current issues : Steep increases in food prices in Indian and global markets, in recent years, have led to an expansion in the section of world population that lives in lack of adequate food supply and malnutrition. In India, 80 percent of the rural population lives under the median developing-country poverty line (purchasing power parity of $2) and is regarded as 'calorie-poor'. With the global population expected to further increase from about 7 billion currently to over 9 billion in 2050, ensuring food and nutritional security has become quite an imminent challenge. In addition to growing population, changing Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
While it will be critical to meet the food and other needs of a growing world, it is not likely that the majority of these needs can be met through an increase in cultivable land or availability of water. FAO projects that the increase in arable land by 2050 would be merely about 5 percent. With pronounced water scarcity, supply will be significantly stressed for irrigation especially in areas such 1
as Asia. Therefore, rainfed agriculture will be vital for the future production needs.
2011, over 90 percent, or 15 million, were poor farmers with small land holdings in developing countries. In addition to the economic benefits, the planting of biotech crops also conferred environmental benefits. Since 1997, an 8.7 percent reduction in pesticide usage equivalent of 393 million kg of active ingredient has been observed. This has further reduced the environmental impact quotient (EIQ) associated with pesticide use by 17.1 percent. Biotech crops have also delivered a significant savings in greenhouse gas emissions by enabling a reduction of 17.7 billion kg in carbon dioxide emissions.
To determine the progress of the ongoing efforts to meet future agricultural needs, Global Harvest Initiative (GHI) developed a Global Agricultural Productivity IndexTM (GAP IndexTM). The GAP Index measures the differences between the current rate of agricultural productivity growth and the pace required to meet the future demands. The total factor productivity (TFP), reflected by the amount of inputs used per unit of output, needs to grow to an annual global rate of 1.75 percent to achieve the twofold increase in agricultural output needed by 2050. This is particularly daunting for countries of low TFP growth such as that of Sub-Saharan Africa, and reinforces the need for aggressive agricultural development.
Biotech crops are subject to thorough safety evaluation: Biotech crops and products are subjected to rigorous safety assessments (Figure 1) as per the guidelines published by scientific and regulatory authorities and are released for commercial sale only after biosafety approval. The basic principle of biotech or GE crops is the insertion of a gene that encodes a particular protein thereby imparting a specific biological function or trait. The safety assessments are aimed at characterization of the inserted gene and the encoded protein, and evaluation of potential allergenicity and toxicity of the specific proteins as well as the whole foods derived from the biotech crops such as grains or forage. In addition, the substantial and nutritional equivalence of the biotech crops are determined by analysis of key nutrient parameters and performance of livestock as compared with a non-biotech comparator.12 Thus, the biosafety assessments establish the safety of biotech traits in terms of usage of the crop as food or/and feed and there by enable the commercial release.
Biotechnology: A solution to close the GAP Biotechnology or genetic engineering (GE) in crops has offered a significant solution to foster agricultural development and meet the global future demands of not only food, but also feed, fiber and energy. Substantial gains in farm yield and production have been obtained by adoption of biotech crops. The global land area under cultivation of biotech crops has increased from 1.66 million hectares in 1996 to almost 130 million hectares in 2009-10. As a result, in 2009 alone, the benefit of biotech crops on global farm income was $10.8 billion, a value addition of 4.1 percent to the global production. Since 1996, the total benefit gained from the GE crops has risen to a significant amount of $ 64.7 billion. Further testimony to the benefits and success of GE cultivars comes from the global biotech planting statistics. During the 16 year period of 1996 to 2011, farmers in 29 countries have planted biotech crops. These 29 countries account for about 60 percent of the world population. 6 of the 16.7 million farmers that cultivated biotech crops in
Biotech traits for intensification of agriculture Key biotech traits that have contributed significantly to the increase in agricultural productivity worldwide include insect control (IC) and herbicide tolerance (HT) in four main crops – corn, cotton, soybean and canola (Table 1).
Figure 1. Framework for Safety Assessment Molecular Characterization Enviornmental Safety
Protein Safety Biotech Crop Safety
Nutritional Equivalence
Substantial Equivalence Toxicology Assessment
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
2
Table 1. Biotech Crop Cultivation Worldwide
IC Corn
IC Cotton
HT Soybean
HT Corn
HT Cotton
HT Canola
US
V
V
V
V
V
V
Canada
V
V
V
Argentina
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
Mexico Spain
V
Brazil
V
Honduras
V
Uruguay
V
V
Bolivia
V
South Africa Burkina Faso EU
V V
V
V
V
V V
India
V
China
V
Philippines
V
V V
V
V
Paraguay
Columbia
V
V
Australia
V V
V
V
Source : Brookes and Barfoot, 2011 Currently, IC corn and IC cotton are the two GE IC crops which are cultivated in about 14 countries worldwide. IC corn traits provide protection against target insects such as stem borers, cob borers, root worms etc. and are commercially grown in US, Canada, Argentina, South Africa, Spain, EU countries, Philippines, Uruguay, Brazil, and Honduras. The total gain in farm income in 2009 alone Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
was $3.9 billion on account of IC corn. This gain was mostly derived from improved yields due to reduced pest damage and also reduced expenditure on insecticides. The IC cotton hybrids that confers protection against target lepidopteran pests are cultivated in US, China, Australia, Argentina, Mexico, South Africa, India, Brazil, Columbia, and Burkina Faso. Similar to IC corn, the farm 3
level impact of IC cotton in 2009 was also $3.9 billion, mostly on account of enhanced yield and reduced expenses on crop protection.
through increased efficiency of critical metabolic pathways such as photosynthesis. These traits further hold promise of enhancing productivity both singly and in combination with other traits in the form of stacks.
The HT traits greatly augment management of weeds in farming and include a wide variety of crops such as HT soybeans, HT corn, HT cotton, HT canola, and HT sugarbeet. HT soybeans are cultivated in the US, Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay, Canada, South Africa, Romania, Mexico, and Bolivia. HT corn is commercially cultivated in US, Canada, Argentina, South Africa, and Philippines. The US, Australia, Argentina, South Africa, Mexico, and Columbia cultivate HT cotton; whereas HT canola is grown in Canada, US, and Australia. HT sugarbeets are mainly cultivated in the US. Agricultural gain in 2009 on account of HT traits were over $2 billion, $392 million, $38.1 million, and $362 million, for HT soybean, HT corn, HT cotton, and HT canola, respectively. This gain was facilitated by improved yields on account of improved weed control relative to the weed control achieved by use of conventional farmer practices; and also cost savings on weed management.
Path forward Combating poverty and hunger has become a prime concern worldwide. In India, the National Food Security Bill aims to fight hunger by making the right to food as a legal right for every person. The United Nations Millennium Development Goals target to address and alleviate this concern by the year 2015. Further awareness and adoption of biotech crops will greatly aid such endeavors worldwide. The adoption of biotech traits and crops in the forthcoming years will depend mainly on establishing good and responsible regulatory systems, political will and support, and availability of robust traits in the research and development pipeline globally. In summary, having seen the past benefits of biotech crops, their prospects in the future look encouraging with some forthcoming milestones such as plantation of biotech cultivars in new countries in Asia, Latin America and Africa, upcoming anticipated release of drought tolerant corn and golden rice in North America and Philippines, respectively, in the current decade, a potential of biotech maize cultivation in China in over 30 million hectares, and potential cultivation of IC rice thereby benefitting poor rice households in Asia.
In addition to IC and HT, there are various other biotech traits in different stages of R&D, such as resistance to pathogens, tolerance to abiotic stresses, improved nutrient use, improved fiber, better oil quality, enhanced nutritional value and increased yield and productivity References 1.
Perspectives on Poverty in India (2011). Stylized Facts from Survey Data. The World Bank, Washington D. C., US.
2.
Food Security. U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/agriculture/food_ security.htm.
3.
How to Feed the World in 2050 (2009). Expert Forum, FAO.
4.
GAP ReportTM (2011). Global Harvest Initiative.
5.
Brookes, G. and Barfoot, P (2011). GM Crops: Global socio-economic and environmental impacts 1996-2009. P G Economics Ltd, UK.
6.
James, C. (2011). Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2011. ISAAA Brief 43.
7.
Kovach, J., Petzoldt, C., Degni J. and Tette, J. (1992). A method to measure the environmental impact of pesticides. New York's Food and Life Sciences Bulletin. NYS Agricul. Exp. Sta. Cornell University, Geneva, NY, 139. 8 pp. Annually updated. http://www.nysipm.cornell.edu/publications/EIQ.html
8.
Codex Alimentarius Commission. (2001). Principles for the risk analysis of foods derived from modern biotechnology. CAC/GL 44–2003.
9.
FAO. (1996). Biotechnology and food safety. Report of a joint FAO/WHO consultation, 30 September–4 October, 1996. FAO Food and Nutrition Paper 61, Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome.
10. FAO/WHO. (2000). Safety aspects of genetically modified foods of plant origin. Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Foods Derived from Biotechnology, May 29–June 2, 1996, Rome, Italy. 11. FAO/WHO. (2001). Evaluation of allergenicity of genetically modified foods. Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Allergenicity of Foods Derived from Biotechnology, January 22–25, 2001, Rome, Italy. 12. Delaney, B. (2007). Strategies to evaluate the safety of bioengineered foods. International Journal of Toxicology, 26:389-399. Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
4
Grow with us.
As one of the world’s leading suppliers of veg etable seeds, Nunhems offers 2,500 seed varieties in 28 crops worldwide. While we are dedicated to producing market-oriented varieties and seed products, the company is much more than just seeds. We are oriented towards people, and towards sharing value-added gene tics, services and expertise with our customers to help them succeed. For more information contact: Nunhems India Pvt. Ltd. Phone: +91 (0) 124 3051300 | e-mail: nunhems.gurgaon@bayer.com Customer Service Phone: +91 (0) 124 322 0233 | e-mail: nunhems.customersupport.india@bayer.com
A Decade of Triumph of India's Cotton Farmers‌ ....The Way Forward Dr. Gyanendra Shukla Director, Mahyco- Monsanto Biotech It has been a decade since Bt cotton was introduced in India and well-established by far the biggest infusion of technology in Indian agriculture since the Green Revolution. The adoption of technology has revolutionized India's cotton farms, helped farmers yieldsave-earn more and live better lives and transformed the country from a net importer to the world's second largest producer and leading exporter of cotton. India's cotton revolution is an example of Innovation in improved agri-inputs (seed and biotech) combined improved agronomic practices, and an innovative partnership model leading 60 lakh farmers to double cotton production and make India the world's 2nd largest producer and exporter of cotton. The cumulative benefits of Bt cotton technologies are experienced by many - farmers, farm labour in rural India, ginners, textile industry, exporters, Indian seed industry amongst others. The benefit of in-built insect-protection technologies in high-yielding hybrid cotton seeds along with improving farming inputs and favourable market conditions has helped create Rs. 42,300 crores additional value from 2002-2010 by significantly reducing insecticide usage and increasing yield (ISAAA). Cotton is one of the most important commercial crops cultivated in India, and plays a major role in sustaining the livelihood of lakhs of farmers and people engaged in related activities such as cotton ginning, processing.
the sucking pest insects. As a result of this twin attack, the cotton crop was proving non-remunerative to our farmers. For decades, farmers have used both natural organic and synthetic inorganic insecticides to control insects and protect against yield losses, exposing them to harmful chemicals and resulting in tremendous yield loss.
Prior to the launch of Bt cotton, between 1993-2002, cotton yields, production and area had stagnated in the range of 300 kg. lint per hectare, resulting in total production of 152 lakh bales from 85 lakh hectares. Cotton crop like any other crop requires balanced nutrition, water and protection from pest and diseases. Inspite of all the efforts to grow cotton and relying on use of insecticides, in 80s and 90s farmers were unable to manage the heavy infestation of two main groups of insects. First the biting and chewing type insects known as the bollworm complex, which is responsible for maximum damage to fruiting bodies (upto 80 per cent) in cotton; and second, Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
Positively, over the last decade, India's Bt cotton farmers earned on an avg. Rs. 8,669 (64%) per acre higher additional income, saved avg. Rs. 2,250 per acre on less insecticide usage, and yielded double (400 - 500 kg. per acre) with high yielding hybrid seeds with Bt cotton technologies in comparison with farmers using varietal non-Bt seeds. Cotton farmers feel professional pride in their ability to increase yield and income; and personal pride in their ability to give their families a better life. 7
India's rising population, incomes, expanding retail, and the domestic textile industry's vision to triple in value by 2020, with share of cotton exports targeted to grow to 8 per cent by 2020 (from current the 4.5 per cent) -- all this indicates that farmers need to increase cotton production by approx. 66 per cent in the next decade.
India's global preeminence in cotton is a matter of pride for all Indians, people of India origin, or and participants in Indian agriculture. More and helping farmers enjoy a higher standard of living. Many have bought motorcycles, cars, built pucca and bigger houses, enrolled their children in English medium schools, invested in more life insurance policies, agricultural land and farm equipment like tractors, pipeline, and tube wells and bore wells.
Evidently, India needs to produce more fibre and cotton sustainably. Farmers and the private sector -- the seed and technology, and the textile industry -- need innovations in products and models if India is to seize the impetus, and retain its pre-eminence in cotton. The good news is researchers are testing technologies for better weed management, better insect protection etc to manage the other problems of cotton farmers.
Dozens of independent studies by reputed institutes have also indicated that Bt cotton has contributed significantly to poverty reduction and rural development. Bt cotton adoption have increased returns to labour, especially hired female workers, empowering them financially. Women from Bt cotton households have higher access to maternal care services, and children have higher level of immunization and school enrolment.
However, despite the success of Bt cotton being evidently established over the past decade, there has been constant denial of the success by a certain section of the society who continue to spread fallacies. It is imperative to explain certain fundamentals and place right information in perspective for drawing a big picture of agri-biotech and its unlimited potential in a resource-deficient world.
The rapid increase in the number of farmers and acreage of Bt cotton cultivation is testament to the Indian farmer's faith and trust in this technology, their willingness to embrace new technologies and the significant year-onyear tangible and intangible benefits they experience.
Here are clarifications to address some of them: Bt Cotton is Expensive to Grow: Farmers are intelligent businesspeople and choose the seeds that provide them with the highest value, yield, income and ease of cultivation; and which generate surplus income to meet their personal needs. Historically, they have chosen the crops and seeds that are more suitable for their agronomic conditions and potential income. If cotton was not safe and remunerative why would farmers grow cotton crop on 90 per cent of cotton acres? The recent ISAAA 2011 Report states that India planted the highest-ever cotton hectarage, i.e. 12.1 million hectares in 2011-12, increasing from 7.7 million hectares in 2002-03. This significant increase in hectarage in cotton has been attributed, by and large, to the convenience in insect protection against bollworms from Bt cotton hybrid seeds which have substantially increased the cotton farmers' crop production and income.
Indian farmers are the world's fastest adopters of Bt cotton technology – a testimony to the difference access to innovation and greater choice of seed can make. In the first seven years itself, farmers in India had adopted Bt cotton seeds, a third faster than Chinese farmers and twice as fast as US farmers. Today, farmers plant Bt cotton seeds on nearly 90 per cent of India's cotton acres - helping them save more, yield more and earn more. Indian farmers can choose from over 350 Bt cotton hybrid seed types bred and marketed by over 40 Indian and global seed companies; in addition to non-Bt cotton seeds. Farmers progressively upped cotton acreage by 46 per cent in the last decade, and India's share of world cotton production has doubled to 23 per cent in 2010-11 from 11 percent in 2001-02. The nation earned incremental cumulative Rs. 33,500 crores from cotton exports since 2002. The nation saw a ten-fold increase in exports to a record 85 lakh bales in 2007-08 as against 84,000 bales in 2002.
Any Form of Farming Requires Several Inputs of Production - seed, fertilizer for soil nutrition, insecticides to control insects, fungicides for disease control and labor for field operations (field preparation, weeding, intercultural operation and harvesting). If you divide the costs of cultivation, the fact is seed cost with technology is only 5-7 per cent of the total cost of cultivation, as compared to the other costs of labour, fertilizers etc. which have gone up drastically in the recent past due to rise in energy prices and non-availability and affordability of labour. Labour
India's Cotton Revolution should be rightly credited to farmers, seed and biotech companies, agriculture universities, Centre and State Governments, NGOs, user textile industry who partnered directly and indirectly to help increase production, farmer income, and make India the world's No. 2 cotton producer & exporter within the last decade. Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
8
forms 60 per cent of the farmer's overall input cost; while fertilizers is around 15 per cent; and the remaining 10-15 per cent towards controlling other pests (sucking pests) and diseases. At a fraction of cost, the Bt technology fee is less than 1 per cent per acre relative to the total cost of cultivation.
The fact is West Bengal has the highest suicide rates among poor rice and potato farmers – Bt cotton is not grown here. It is unfortunate that certain groups continue to link farmer suicides with Bt cotton when 90 per cent of farmers grow Bt cotton, and their yields and lives have improved.
Contrary to what the naysayers say, the farmers are aware that Bt cotton seeds which amount to 5 – 7 per cent were supposed to and continue to diligently provide superior control of bollworms and thus help them yield more per acre. The debate should really be on what can be done to improve the efficiency where farmer is spending almost 90-95% of his hard earned money?
Yield of Bt cotton have reduced over the past years: Yield of any crop depends on several factors of production – water, fertilizers, seeds, labour, fungicides etc. Bt cotton is meant to control bollworms and continues to work efficiently. To continue to improve yields year on year we need to provide modern tools to farmers to manage other yield-impacting factors more efficiently. E.g. soil testing can help farmers develop customized fertiliser program based on the soil status or better irrigation infrastructure can help farmers yield more even during less rainfall.
Bt Cotton is Responsible for Farmer Suicides in India: Farmer suicide in India is a tragic phenomenon that takes place for a variety of complex social and economic reasons as established by various independent studies. It is not a biotechnology issue, and these unfor tunate circumstances long pre-date the introduction of biotech cotton in India in 2002. A report from the International Food Policy Research Institute in 2008 concluded that suicides among Indian farmers have not increased as a result of the introduction of GM crops. It also found that the adoption of insectprotected Bt cotton varieties had led to massive increases in yield and a 40% decrease in pesticide use. According to a report on Farmer's suicide and Debt waiver: An Action Plan for Agricultural Development of Maharashtra submitted to the Government of Maharashtra, it concluded that the main reasons for farmer's suicide are a) Indebtedness, b) family disputes, c) addiction and health related problems.
To make farming efficient, managing cost of production is very critical. We need to evaluate modern tools and technologies to reduce the cost of cultivation – today farmers are incurring almost 60 per cent of the total cost to manage field operations. Every enterprise needs to be shielded from the environmental risk and in farming, crop insurance can play an important role. Finally, affordable and easy access to credit is equally critical. Bt Cotton Hybrid Seeds Require More Water: The need of water is a fundamental requirement for every crop, every form of farming and life. Be it non-Bt hybrid seeds or Bt hybrid seeds, irrespective of the Bt trait, hybrid seeds do require water like every other seed. The hybrid seed and Bt cotton trait is like the hardware and software respectively. The Bt cotton trait (software) does not alter the needs of the plant, but only gives it protection from bollworms –
since it is in-built in the seed (hardware). Thus, Bt cotton technology in no way impacts the irrigation requirements for a particular hybrid variety. Seed companies invest in training farmers on buying the right seed based on soil conditions to benefit from optimum resource utilization. Right agronomic practices suggested by seed companies over the years have helped thousands of farmers in India yield higher yields on continual basis.
their intestine is acidic, pH is about 3.5 and there are no receptors. Hence, Bt protein is safe to such non-target organisms. Choice to re-use or refresh seeds: Contrary to the fallacy that is spread, in India, like elsewhere in the world, farmers have the choice to use seeds saved from previous year's harvest or purchase fresh seed which provides higher productivity. Every time a farmer plants saved seeds, it reduces the virility or vigour of the seed to produce yield with every season. In several crops, farmers increasingly understand that one of the best methods to increase yield is by using fresh better quality seeds each year. The Government has been promoting higher seed replacement rates (SRR) through various initiatives at the State level. The Seeds Bill, 2004 clearly states “enhancing seed replacement rates for various crops” as one of its key objectives. The Government has set seed replacement rate (SRR) targets at 30 per cent for self pollinated, 25 per cent for cross pollinated; and 100 per cent for hybrid seeds.
Bollworms have developed immunity to the Bt gene: Resistance is a natural phenomenon and it needs to be managed efficiently for the long-term sustenance of t e c h n o l o g i e s . We n e e d t o c r e a t e p r a c t i c a l recommendations to help farmers achieve the goals on integrated pest management and contribute to the longterm success of technologies. As recommended by the Indian regulatory authorities, seed companies encourage the use of refuge seeds (non-Bt cotton seeds) that are packaged with the branded seeds. The proper use of refuge along with scientific practices by farmers can significantly reduce the development of resistance by the bollworm to Bt technologies.
Lastly, Indian agriculture needs more and newer innovation and partnerships not only in cotton, but in major crops that can help farmers improve the control of insects, weeds, diseases. The public and private sector are investing in research in technologies such as nitrogen efficiency, drought tolerance, sucking pests, better insect protection etc.
Bt Cotton is hazardous to the environment; animals have died after grazing in Bt Cotton fields: Prior to commercial launch, every biotechnology product has to pass through a series of stringent biosafety tests as prescribed by the concerned regulatory authorities in each country, including India. It is only on completion of these tests and being satisfied with the scientific data that it is safe from various perspectives, is official permission granted for its large scale use. For perspective, it takes 8 – 10 years and between US$80 – 100 million to develop and test a single biotechnology product - before it is commercialized.
Given the growing demand for cotton fibre, we need to leverage the available modern communication tools to help farmers learn the latest modern agronomic practices, combined with improved market linkages to catalyze India's cotton productivity enhancements to maintain its preeminence in cotton.
The regulatory committees are comprised of eminent experts who use their collective knowledge and wisdom in scrutinizing such data. It is a very time-intensive process involving multiple and stringent biosafety steps. For example, it took more than 500 field trials and a large number of laboratory studies, spread over 7 years, to generate biosafety data on Bt proteins related to allerginicity, toxicity, effect on non-target organism (animals, birds, fish, earthworms, honey bees, soil organisms, etc.), pollen flow etc. to secure the first approval of Bt cotton by the Government of India in March 2002.
Our political system needs to objectively evaluate the technology options available to Indian farmers as compared to their counterparts in other parts of the world. We should be open and embrace technologies irrespective of whether it comes from the private or public sector – because both have the best interest of the Indian farmers. Several institutions including Indian companies, Indian universities and other research institutes across the country are testing technologies or conducting field trials both independently and in partnership with international private sector companies.
The fact is never before in history has any agriculture product been subjected to such a comprehensive review. The cry 1 classes of proteins (also used in Bt cotton) have selective toxicity to certain category of insects called Lepidoptera. This makes it safe for animals and human as
A predictable and science-based regulatory environment that encourages researchers who invest millions is imperative for the benefit of India's farmers and the future of the country if we have to become a self-sufficient leading contributor.
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
10
Global Status of Commercialized Biotech /GM Crops: 2011 By Clive James Chair, ISAAA Board of Directors
crops the fastest adopted crop technology in the history of modern agriculture.
Introduction 2011 was the 16th year of commercialization of biotech crops, 1996-2011, when growth continued after a remarkable 15 consecutive years of increases; a doubledigit increase of 12 million hectares, at a growth rate of 8%, reaching a record 160 million hectares.
Millions of farmers globally elect to adopt biotech crops due to the benefits they offer The most compelling and credible testimony to biotech crops is that during the 1 6 year period 1996 to 2011, millions of farmers in 29 countries worldwide, elected to make more than 100 million independent decisions to plant and replant an accumulated hectarage of more than 1.25 billion hectares - an area 25% larger than the total
Biotech crops, fastest adopted crop technology A 94-fold increase in hectarage from 1.7 million hectares in 1996 to 160 million hectares in 2011 makes biotech Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
13
land mass of the US or China-there is one principal and overwhelming reason that underpins the trust and confidence of risk-averse farmers in biotechnology biotech crops deliver substantial, and sustainable, socioeconomic and environmental benefits. The 2011 study conducted in Europe confirmed that biotech crops are safe as animal feed.
US$6.3 billion for developed countries.
Stacked traits occupied ~25% of the global 160 million hectares Stacked traits are an important feature of biotech crops 12 countries planted biotech crops with two or more traits in 2011, and encouragingly 9 were developing countries 42.2 million hectares or 26% of the 1 60 million hectares were stacked in 2011, up from 32.2 million hectares or 22% of the 148 million hectares in 2010.
Top ten countries each grew more than 1 million hectares of biotech crops Of the 29 countries planting biotech crops in 2011, it is noteworthy that 19 were developing and 10 were industrial countries (see Table 1 and Figure 1). The top 10 countries each grew more than 1 million hectares providing a broad-based worldwide foundation for diversified growth in the future; in fact, the top nine each grew more than 2 million hectares. More than half the world's population, 60% or ~4 billion people, live in the 29 countries planting biotech crops.
The 5 lead biotech developing countries are China, India, Brazil, Argentina and South Africa they grew 44% of global biotech crops, and have ~40% of world population The five lead developing countries in biotech crops are China and India in Asia, Brazil and Argentina in Latin America, and South Africa on the continent of Africa, collectively grew 71.4 million hectares (44% of global) and together represent -40% of the global population of 7 billion, which could reach 10.1 billion by 21 00. Remarkably, Africa alone could escalate from 1 billion today (~1 5% of global) to a possible high of 3.6 billion (35% of global) by the end of this century in 2100 - global food security, exacerbated by high and unaffordable food prices, is a formidable challenge to which biotech crops can contribute but are not a panacea.
A total of 16.7 million farmers grew biotech crops in 2011, up 1.3 million from 2010 notably, 15 million or 90% were small resourcepoor farmers from developing countries In 2011, a record 1 6.7 million farmers, up 1.3 million or 8% from 201 0, grew biotech crops-notably, over 90%, or 15 million, were small resource-poor farmers in developing countries. Farmers are the masters of risk aversion and in 2011, 7 million small farmers in China and another 7 million small farmers in India, collectively planted a record 14.5 million hectares of biotech crops. Bt cotton increased the income of farmers significantly by up to US$250 per hectare and also halved the number of insecticide sprays, thus reducing farmer exposure to pesticides.
Brazil, the engine of biotech crop growth Brazil ranks second only to the USA in biotech crop hectarage in the world, with 30.3 million hectares, and is emerging as a global leader in biotech crops. For the third consecutive year, Brazil was the engine of growth globally in 2011, increasing its hectarage of biotech crops more than any other country in the world-a record 4.9 million hectare increase, equivalent to an impressive year-overyear increase of 20%. Brazil grows 19% of the global hectarage of 160 million hectares and is consolidating its position by consistently closing the gap with the US. A fast track approval system allowed Brazil to approve 8 events in 2010, and as of 15 October 2011, an additional 6 events were approved in 2011. Brazil approved the first stacked soybean with insect resistance and herbicide tolerance for commercialization in 2012. Notably, EMBRAPA, a public sector institution, with an annual budget of -US$1 billion, gained approval to commercialize a home-grown biotech virus resistant bean, (rice and beans are the staples of Latin America) developed entirely with its own resources, thus demonstrating its impressive technical capacity to develop, deliver and approve a new state-of-the art biotech crop.
Developing countries grew close to 50% of global biotech crops Developing countries grew close to 50% (49.875%) of global biotech crops in 2011 and for the first time are expected to exceed industrial countries hectarage in 2012; this is contrary to the prediction of critics who, prior to the commercialization of the technology in 1996, prematurely declared that biotech crops were only for industrial countries and would never be accepted and adopted by developing countries. In 2011, the growth rate for biotech crops was twice as fast and twice as large in developing countries, at 11% or 8.2 million hectares, versus 5% or 3.8 million hectares in industrial countries. During the period 1996-2010 cummulative economic benefits were the same for developing and developed countries (US$39 billion). For 2010 alone, economic benefits for developing countries were higher at US$7.7 billion compared with Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
14
Table 1. Global Area of Biotech Crops in 2011: by Country (Million Hectares)* Rank
Country
Area (million hectares)
Biotech Crops
1
USA*
69
"Maize, soybean, cotton, canola, sugarbeet, alfalfa, papaya," squash
2
Brazil*
30.3
"Soybean, maize, cotton"
3
Argentina*
23.7
"Soybean, maize, cotton"
4
India*
10.6
Cotton
5
Canada*
10.4
"Canola, maize, soybean, sugarbeet"
6
China*
3.9
"Cotton, papaya, poplar, tomato, sweet pepper"
7
Paraguay*
2.8
Soybean
8
Pakistan *
2.6
Cotton
9
South Africa*
2.3
"Maize, soybean, cotton"
10
Uruguay*
1.3
"Soybean, maize"
11
Bolivia*
0.9
Soybean
12
Australia*
0.7
"Cotton, canola"
13
Philippines*
0.6
Maize
14
Myanmar*
0.3
Cotton
15
Burkina Faso*
0.3
Cotton
16
Mexico*
0.2
"Cotton, soybean"
17
Spain*
0.1
Maize
18
Colombia
<0.1
Cotton
19
Chile
<0.1
"Maize, soybean, canola"
20
Honduras
<0.1
Maize
21
Portugal
<0.1
Maize
22
Czech Republic
<0.1
Maize
23
Poland
<0.1
Maize
24
Egypt
<0.1
Maize
25
Slovakia
<0.1
Maize
26
Romania
<0.1
Maize
27
Sweden
<0.1
Potato
28
Costa Rica
<0.1
"Cotton, soybean"
29
Germany
<0.1
Potato
Total
160
"* 17 biotech mega-countries growing 50,000 hectares, or more, of biotech crops" ** Rounded off to the nearest hundred thousand Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
15
Figure 1- Global Map of Biotech Crop Countries and Mega-Countries in 2011
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
16
reductions in pesticide applied to this very pest-prone but popular vegetable, referred to as the "queen of the vegetables" in India.
The US is the lead producer of biotech crops with 69.0 million hectares (43% of global) The US continued to be the lead producer of biotech crops globally with 69.0 million hectares, (an average adoption rate of -90% across its principal biotech crops) with particularly strong growth in maize and cotton in 2011 and the resumption of the planting of RR速alfalfa-alfalfa is the fourth largest hectarage crop in the US (~8 million hectares) after maize, soybean and wheat; RR速alfalfa currently occupies -200,000 hectares and strong farmerdemand augers well for the future. Adoption could reach as high as 35% to 50% by around 2015 and higher thereafter. RR速sugarbeet, the fastest adopted biotech crop, continues to have a 95% adoption equivalent to 475,000 hectares. Resistance to corn rootworm was reported in the US and collaborative studies to assess the event are underway. It is timely, to again stress that adherence to good farming practices including rotations and resistance management, are a must for biotech crops as they are for conventional crops. Finally, and importantly, from a regulatory viewpoint, virus resistant papaya from the US was approved for consumption as a fresh fruit/food in Japan effective 1 December 2011.
In China, seven million small farmers benefit from 3.9 million hectares of Bt cotton In China, 7 million small resource-poor farmers (average of -0.5 hectare of cotton) grew a record 3.9 million hectares of Bt cotton at the highest adoption rate to-date of 71.5%. Government has reconfirmed the national importance of biotech crops, to be developed under strict biosafety standards. Biotech phytase maize and Bt rice, approved for biosafety in 2009, are undergoing routine field testing. Maize has been accorded priority for commercialization to meet a rapidly growing demand for domestically produced biotech maize as an animal feed in response to a demand for more meat. Higher productivity from domestic biotech maize could serve to offset increasing imports of maize. The expected commercial approval of biotech Golden Rice in the Philippines in 2013/14 will be of significance to China, and also to Vietnam and Bangladesh which are evaluating the product with a view to deployment.
Bt cotton has transformed cotton production in India
Mexico seeks self sufficiency with biotech cotton; biotech maize has the potential to partially offset growing maize imports
In 2011, India celebrated a decade of successful cultivation of Bt cotton, which has achieved phenomenal success in transforming the cotton crop into the most productive and profitable crop in the country. India's Bt cottons are unique in that they are hybrids and not varieties, as used by all other countries planting Bt cotton. In 2011, plantings of Bt cotton in India surpassed the historical milestone of 10 million hectares (10.6) for the first time, and occupied 88% of the record 12.1 million hectare cotton crop. The principal beneficiaries were 7 million farmers growing, on average, 1.5 hectares of cotton. Historically, the increase from 50,000 hectares of Bt cotton in 2002, (when Bt cotton was first commercialized) to 10.6 million hectares in 2011 represents an unprecedented 212-fold increase in 1 0 years. India enhanced farm income from Bt cotton by US$9.4 billion in the period 2002 to 201 0 and US$2.5 billion in 2010 alone (Brookes and Barfoot, 2012, Forthcoming)1. Thus, Bt cotton has transformed cotton production in India by increasing yield substantially, decreasing insecticide applications by -50%, and through welfare benefits, contributed to the alleviation of poverty of 7 million small resource-poor farmers and their families in 2011 alone. Approval of Bt brinjal (eggplant) is pending in India whilst the Philippines is planning for an approval in 2012/13 with a view to benefiting from the substantial
In 2011, Mexico planted 1 61,500 hectares of biotech cotton, equivalent to an adoption rate of 87% and 14,000 hectares of biotech RR速soybean for a country total of 175,500 hectares, compared to 71,000 hectares in 2010; this 146% increase is an impressive performance by any standard. The aim is self-sufficiency in cotton during the next few years. Following productive discussions between the private, social and public sectors to develop a "best practices regulatory system" that would facilitate predictable access to biotech cotton forfarmers in Mexico, approval has been granted to commercialize up to 340,000 hectares of specific biotech cotton (Bollgard Il/Flexand RR Flex) to be planted annually in specific northern states of Mexico. The most significant recent development was the planting of the first biotech maize trials in the country in 2009 and continued in 2010/11. Mexico grows over 7 million hectares of maize but imports about 10 million tons per annum at a foreign exchange cost of US$2.5 billion, which could be partially offset with higher yielding home-grown biotech maize hybrid cultivated in Mexico's northern states. Mexico is estimated to have enhanced farm income from biotech cotton and soybean by US$121 million in the period 1996 to 2010 and the benefits for 2010 alone are US$19 million; the
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
17
potential for the future is substantial (Brookes and Barfoot, 2012, Forthcoming).
hectares of the new biotech quality starch potato named "Amflora" for "seed" production for a total of 114,507 hectares of biotech crops planted in the EU. Bt maize hectarage increased in the three largest Bt maize countries: Spain, Portugal and Czechia, remained the same in Poland, and decreased in Romania and Slovakia. The marginal decreases in Bt maize in Romania and Slovakia, both growing less than 1,000 hectares, was associated with several factors, including disincentives for some farmers due to bureaucratic and onerous reporting of intended plantings of Bt maize. The planned release in 2014, subject to approval, of a new biotech potato named "Fortuna" resistant to late blight, (the most important disease of potatoes), is potentially an important product, that can meet EU policy and environmental needs to make potato production more sustainable by reducing heavy fungicide applications and decreasing production losses estimated at up to US$1.5 billion annually in the EU alone, and US$7.5 billon worldwide.
Progress in Africa with three countries planting, and another three conducting field trials Africa made steady progress in 2011 in planting, regulatory and research activities on biotech crops. The three countries already commercializing biotech crops (South Africa, Burkina Faso and Egypt), together planted a record 2.5 million hectares. An additional three countries (Kenya, Nigeria, and Uganda), conducted field trials, with others like Malawi have already approved pending trials. Trials focusing on Africa's pro-poor priority staple crops including maize, cassava, banana and sweetpotato are making good progress. Examples include drought tolerant maize through the WEMA-Water Efficient Maize for Africa project, with on-going second season trials in three countries, Kenya, South Africa and Uganda.
Argentina and Canada, ranked 3rd and 5th in the world, continue to post gains
A change of heart in Europe - a strongly-worded open letter from 41 Swedish scientists in support of biotech/GM crops - a petition endorsed by UK scientists; Member of African Biotechnology Stakeholders Forum criticizes EU of "hypocrisy and arrogance" \n relation to CM crops
Argentina ranked 3rd, and Canada ranked 5th, retained their world rankings and both posted record hectarage of biotech crops at 23.7 million hectares and 10.4 million hectares, respectively. The largest gain in Argentina was biotech maize increasing by -900,000 hectares, and in Canada herbicide tolerant canola increased by ~1.6 million hectares after Canada reported its largest ever canola crop.
In October 2011, 41 leading Swedish biological scientists, in a strongly-worded open letter to politicians and environmentalists, spoke-out about the need to revise European legislation to allow society to benefit from CM crops using science-based assessments of the technology. A contingent of scientists from the United Kingdom endorsed the Swedish petition. Dr. Felix M'mboyi, A Kenyan national and a member of the African Biotechnology Stakeholders Forum, accused the European Union of "hypocrisy and arrogance" and called for "development bodies within Europe to let African farmers make full use of CM crops to boost yields and feed a world population expected to reach 7 billion by the end of the year." Dr. M'mboyi, stated that "The affluent west has the luxury of choice in the type of technology they use to grow food crops, yet their influence and sensitivities are denying many in the developing world access to such technologies which could lead to a more plentiful supply of food. This kind of hypocrisy and arrogance comes with the luxury of a full stomach."
Australia planted its largest ever hectarage of cotton of which 99.5% was biotech Following an unprecedented drought for three years and then floods, Australia planted its largest ever hectarage of cotton of which 99.5% was biotech, equivalent to 597,000 hectares of which 95% was the stacked trait for insect resistance and herbicide tolerance. In addition, Australia grew ~140,000 hectares of herbicide tolerant canola for a total of over -700,000 hectares for the two biotech crops cotton and canola. There is also significant R & D effort in Australia on biotech wheat and sugarcane.
EU plants record 114,490 hectares of Bt maize, up 26% or 23,297 hectares from 2010 Six EU countries (Spain, Portugal, Czechia, Poland, Slovakia and Romania) planted a record 114,490 hectares of biotech Bt maize, a substantial 26% or 23,297 hectares higher than 2010, with Spain growing 85% of the total in the EU with a record adoption rate of 28%. An additional two countries (Sweden and Germany) planted a token 17
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
In 2011, the Kenyan government published its implementing regulations for environmental release as outlined in the Biosafety Act of 2009, allowing commercial cultivation of CM crops, becoming the fourth African country to explicitly legalize growing of CM crops.
18
France's Council of State, the nation's highest administrative court of appeal, upheld the September European Court of Justice ruling which found that France's 2008 prohibition of Monsanto MON810 variety was out of line on procedural grounds. The Council ruled that France's agriculture minister "has not provided the proof (that can) present a major risk to human or animal health to the environment."
varieties (23.9 million hectares) at 15%. The stacked genes were the fastest growing trait group between 2010 and 2011 at 31% growth, compared with 5% for herbicide tolerance and -10% for insect resistance, this reflects farmer preference for stacked traits. Stacked traits are an increasingly important feature of biotech crops - 12 countries planted biotech crops with stacked traits in 2011, 9 were developing countries.
A University of Reading study in 2011 on the Impacts of the EU regulatory constraints oftransgenic crops on farm income, revealed that "if the areas oftransgenic maize, cotton, soya, oilseed rape and sugarbeet were to be grown where there is agronomic need or benefit, then farmer margins would increase by between â&#x201A;Ź443 (US$575) and â&#x201A;Ź929 million (US$1.2 billion) per year." It was also noted that "this margin of revenue foregone is likely to increase with the current level of approval and growth remains low, as new transgenic events come to market and are rapidly taken up by farmers in other parts of the world."
Need for appropriate, science-based and cost/timeeffective regulatory systems that are responsible, and rigorous and yet not onerous, requiring only modest resources that are within the means of most developing countries There is an urgent need for appropriate, science-based and cost/time-effective regulatory systems that are responsible, rigorous but not onerous, for small and poor developing countries. Lack of appropriate regulation is the major constraint that denies poor countries timely access to biotech crops which can contribute, but are not a panacea, to urgent food security needs, in countries such as those in the Horn of Africa where up to 10 million were at risk from famine triggered by drought in 2011, and exacerbated by many other factors.
Contribution of biotech crops to Food Security From 1996 to 2010, this was achieved by: increasing crop production and value by US$78 billion; providing a better environment, by saving 443 million kg a.i. of pesticides; in 2010 alone reducing CO2 emissions by 19 billion kg, equivalent to taking ~9 million cars off the road; conserving biodiversity by saving 91 million hectares of land; and helped alleviate poverty by helping 15.0 million small farmers who are some of the poorest people in the world (Brookes and Barfoot, 2012, Forthcoming).
Global value of the biotech seed market alone was US$13.2 billion in 2011 with commercial biotech maize, soybean grain and cotton valued at ~US$160 billion, or more for 2011 Global value of biotech seed alone was US$1 3.2 billion in 2011, with the end product of commercial grain from biotech maize, soybean grain and cotton valued at US$160 billion or more per year. A 2011 study estimated that the cost of discovery, development and authorization of a new biotech crop/trait is -US$135 million.
Adoption by crop - biotech soybean remains the dominant crop Biotech soybean continued to be the principal biotech crop in 2011, occupying 75.4 million hectares or 47% of global biotech area, followed by biotech maize (51.00 million hectares at 32%), biotech cotton (24.7 million hectares at 15%) and biotech canola (8.2 million hectares at 5%) of the global biotech crop area.
In 2011, the global market value of biotech crops, estimated by Cropnosis, was US$13.2 billion, (up from US$11.7 billion in 2010); this represents 22% of the US$59.6 billion global crop protection market in 2011, and 36% of the US$37 billion commercial seed market. The estimated global farm-gate revenues of the harvested commercial "end product", (the biotech grain and other harvested products) is much greater than the value of the biotech seed alone (US$1 3.2 billion) - extrapolating from 2008 data, biotech crop harvested products would be valued at approximately US$1 60 billion globally in 2010, and projected to increase at up to 10 - 15% annually.
Adoption by trait - herbicide tolerance remains the dominant trait From the genesis of commercialization in 1996 to 2011, herbicide tolerance has consistently been the dominant trait. In 2011, herbicide tolerance deployed in soybean, maize, canola, cotton, sugarbeet and alfalfa, occupied 59% or 93.9 million hectares of the global biotech area of 160 million hectares. In 2011, the stacked double and triple traits occupied a larger area (42.2 million hectares, or 26% of global biotech crop area) than insect resistant Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
Status of Approved Events for Biotech Crops While 29 countries planted commercialized biotech crops in 2010, an additional 31 countries, totaling 60 have 19
granted regulatory approvals for biotech crops for import for food and feed use and for release into the environment since 1996. Turkey started approving biotech crops for import into the country in 2011. A total of 1,045 approvals have been granted for 196 events for 25 crops. Thus, biotech crops are accepted for import for food and feed use and for release into the environment in 60 countries, including major food importing countries like Japan, which do not plant biotech crops. Of the 60 countries that have granted approvals for biotech crops, USA tops the list followed by Japan, Canada, Mexico, South Korea, Australia, the Philippines, New Zealand, the European Union, and Taiwan. Maize has the most events approved (65) followed by cotton (39), canola (15), potato and soybean (14 each). The event that has received regulatory approval in most countries is herbicide tolerant soybean event GTS-40 -3-2 with 25 approvals (EU=27 counted as 1 approval only), followed by insect resistant maize MON810 with 23 approvals, herbicide tolerant maize NK603 with 22 approvals each, and insect resistant cotton (MON1445) with 14 approvals worldwide.
phenomenon, however, this will change in the future as urbanization continues to increase from its current level of just over half the world's population. In 2011, approximately half of the world's poor were small resource-poor farmers, whilst another 20% were the rural landless who are completely dependent on agriculture for their livelihoods. Thus, 70% of the world's poor are dependent on agriculture - some view this as a problem, however it should be viewed as an opportunity, given the enormous potential of both conventional and the new biotechnology applications to make a significant contribution to the alleviation of poverty and hunger and to doubling food, feed and fiber production by 2050.
Population, Poverty and Hunger The 31st of October 2011 was the world's birthday, when the 7th billion living person was born. The most recent study by the Population Division of the United Nations (UN) has increased its projection of global population from 9.2 to 9.3 billion for 2050.2 More importantly and unlike previous estimates which predicted plateauing in 2050, continuing global growth is now projected until the end of this century to reach 10.1 billion people in 2100. Population growth in Africa, already struggling with food production, will continue to be high and could increase from the current 1 billion representing 15% of global to an extraordinary high of 3.6 billion, representing -35% of global by 2100. "High fertility" African countries represent unprecedented challenges for Africa, where even today, food-deficit countries in the horn of Africa, Somalia, Kenya, Ethiopia and Djibouti, have over 10 million at risk from famine, principally associated with their oldest and most important enemy-a devastating drought. The positive aspect is that a well integrated food security initiative, in which both conventional and crop biotechnology applications feature in a broad multiple thrust strategy (involving policy, population stabilization, food waste reduction and distribution) can make a significant contribution to the formidable task of feeding 10.1 billion people in 2100, of which more than one-third will be in Africa.
The Future On 31 October 2011, the UN declared that the world had reached the important historical milestone of 7 billion living persons, only twelve years after Adnan Nevic was declared to be the 6th billionth living person born on 31 October 1 999. The world needs at least 70% more food by 2050. For the developing countries, where 2.5 billion small resource-poor farmers survive, (representing some of the poorest people in the world), food production needs to be doubled by 2050. Current investments in agriculture in developing countries are woefully inadequate. Current expenditures on agriculture in the developing countries is -US$142 billion per annum and it is estimated that an additional US$57 billion per year, will be required annually for a total of US$209 billion per year in 2009 dollars from now until 2050. Given that the history of the past is one of the essential steps to consider for predicting the future, the current status of biotech crops, and progress to-date during the last 1 6 years since biotech crops were first commercialized in1996, are reviewed as well as their potential contribution to feeding the world in the future, within the context of the Challenges and Opportunities for biotech crops globally.
Prices of Commodities During the food crisis of mid 2008, when prices of food commodities reached an all time peak, hundreds of millions of poor people, who spend more than 70% to 80% of their income on food suffered badly. Food riots were reported in up to 30 countries, two governments fell and exports of commodity crops were banned by many grain exporting countries in order to provide a secure domestic supply. In early 2011, a food crisis similar to 2008 was
Challenges The major goal of ISAAA is to alleviate poverty and hunger, which pervasively pollutes the lives of 1 billion suffering people, a humanitarian condition that is morally unacceptable. Today, poverty is mainly a rural Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
20
witnessed with the food index of the FAO reaching peaks higher than 2008. On the political front, President Sarkozy of France and the group of 20 has assigned top priority to controlling volatility in the price of food, and the philanthropist Bill Gates has focused more funding on agriculture in the developing countries. Observers have opined that the era of cheap food is over with demand for feed stocks exacerbated by increased consumption of meat in Asia, where the creation of a new wealthier middle class is resulting in more demand for both food crops and meat.
2015 to Bangladesh. Given that the GR trait is present in inbred lines, the GR varieties can be saved for replanting and will have a similar cost as current conventional varieties. Golden Rice is expected to be first released in the Philippines in 2013/14.
Contribution of biotech crops to Sustainability Biotech crops are contributing to sustainability in the following five ways: â&#x20AC;˘
The Millennium Development Goal (MDG) Poverty and hunger are inextricably linked and today afflict approximately 1 billion people in the world, mainly in the developing counties. However, during the current economic crisis, even in the US, the most advanced and powerful economy in the world, poverty in 2010 was estimated at 15.1 % of the population (the highest since 1993) equivalent to 46.2 million unemployed, the highest on record. Ten years ago, in 2001, global society made a pledge, The Millennium Development Goal (MDG), to cut poverty by 50% by 2015, with 1990 as the starting benchmark. In 1990, poverty in the developing countries was 46% (World Bank estimate), and by 2005 had decreased to 27% - thus, 23% seems feasible by 2015, four years from now. However, many observers have cautioned that success in halving the percentage of poor people in the developing world should not be attributed to the UN MDG initiative alone, but principally to China for decreasing its poverty rate from 60% in 1990 to 16% in 2005 - an impressive 72% reduction.
Economic gains at the farm level of-US$78 billion were generated globally by biotech crops during the fifteen year period 1996 to 201 0, of which 40% were due to reduced production costs (less ploughing, fewer pesticide sprays and less labor) and 60% due to substantial yield gains of 276 million tons. The corresponding figures for 2010 alone was 76% of the total gain due to increased yield (equivalent to 44.1 million tons), and 24% due to lower cost of production (Brookes and Bar foot, 2012, Forthcoming). â&#x20AC;˘
Conserving biodiversity, biotech crops are a land saving technology Biotech crops are a land-saving technology, capable of higher productivity on the current 1.5 billion hectares of arable land, and thereby can help preclude deforestation and protect biodiversity in forests and in other in-situ biodiversity sanctuaries. Approximately 13 million hectares of biodiversity rich tropical forests, are lost in developing countries annually. If the 276 million tons of additional food, feed and fiber produced by biotech crops during the period 1996 to 201 0 had not been produced by biotech crops, an additional 91 million hectares (Brookes and Barfoot, 2012, Forthcoming) of conventional crops would have been required to produce the same tonnage. Some of the additional 91 million hectares would probably have required fragile marginal lands, not suitable for crop production, to be ploughed, and for tropical forest, rich in biodiversity, to be felled to make way for slash and burn agriculture in developing countries, thereby destroying biodiversity.
Golden Rice, the Road to Commercialization After more than a decade, Golden Rice, a biotech genetically-modified rice that contains enhanced levels of beta carotene, is advancing towards the completion of its regulatory requirements in the Philippines and Bangladesh. In the Philippines, the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) has successfully bred the Golden Rice traits into IR64 and other Asian mega varieties including the variety PSBRc82 in the Philippines, and BRRI dhan 29, a Bangladesh variety. In 2010, IRRI completed one season of confined field tests of IR64-GR and in 2011, the Philippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRice) conducted confined field test of PSBRc82 with the Golden Rice traits. IRRI scientists will be sharing the Bangladeshi varieties with the GR traits for confined field testing at the Bangladesh Rice Research Institute (BRRI). Current field testing and regulatory compliance experiments related to safety for Golden Rice regulatory dossiers are planned for submission in 2013 to the Philippine authorities and in Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
Contributing to food, feed and fiber security and self sufficiency, including more affordable food, by increasing productivity and economic benefits sustainably at the farmer level
â&#x20AC;˘
Contributing to the alleviation of poverty and hunger To-date, biotech cotton in developing countries such
21
as China, India, Pakistan, Myanmar, Bolivia, Burkina Faso and South Africa have already made a significant contribution to the income of ~15 million small resource-poor farmers in 2011; this can be enhanced significantly in the remaining 4 years of the second decade of commercialization, 2012 to 2015 principally with biotech cotton, maize and rice. â&#x20AC;˘
which contribute to a reduction of greenhouse gases and help mitigate climate change in two principal ways. First, permanent savings in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions through reduced use of fossil-based fuels, associated with fewer insecticide and herbicide sprays; in 2010, this was an estimated saving of 1.7 billion kg of CO2, equivalent to reducing the number of cars on the roads by 0.8 million. Secondly, additional savings from conservation tillage (need for less or no ploughing facilitated by herbicide tolerant biotech crops) for biotech food, feed and fiber crops, led to an additional soil carbon sequestration equivalent in 2010 to 17.6 billion kg of CO2, or removing 7.9 million cars off the road. Thus in 2010, the combined permanent and additional savings through sequestration was equivalent to a saving of 19 billion kg of CO2 or removing 9 million cars from the road (Brookes and Barfoot, 2012, Forthcoming).
Reducing agriculture's environmental footprint Conventional agriculture has impacted significantly on the environment and biotechnology can be used to reduce the environmental footprint of agriculture. Progress to-date includes: a significant reduction in pesticides; saving on fossil fuels; decreasing CO2 emissions through no/ less ploughing; and conserving soil and moisture by optimizing the practice of no till through application of herbicide tolerance. The accumulative reduction in pesticides for the period 1996 to 2010 was estimated at 443 million kilograms (kgs) of active ingredient (a.i.), a saving of 9.1% in pesticides, which is equivalent to a 17.9% reduction in the associated environmental impact of pesticide use on these crops, as measured by the Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ) - a composite measure based on the various factors contributing to the net environmental impact of an individual active ingredient. The corresponding data for 2010 alone was a reduction of 43.2 million kgs a.i. (equivalent to a saving of 11.1 % in pesticides) and a reduction of 26.1 % in EIQ (Brookes and Barfoot, 2012, Forthcoming).
Droughts, floods, and temperature changes are predicted to become more prevalent and more severe as we face the new challenges associated with climate change, and hence, there will be a need for faster crop improvement programs to develop varieties and hybrids that are well adapted to more rapid changes in climatic conditions. Several biotech crop tools, including tissue culture, diagnostics, genomics, molecular marker-assisted selection (MAS) and biotech crops can be used collectively for 'speeding the breeding' and help mitigate the effects of climate change. Biotech crops are already contributing to reducing CO2 emissions by precluding the need for ploughing a significant portion of cropped land, conserving soil, and particularly moisture, and reducing pesticide spraying as well as sequestering CO2.
Increasing efficiency of water usage will have a major impact on conservation and availability of water globally. Seventy percent of fresh water is currently used by agriculture globally, and this is obviously not sustainable in the future as the population increases by almost 50% to over 9 billion by 2050. The first biotech maize hybrids with a degree of drought tolerance are expected to be commercialized by 201 3 in the USA, and the first tropical drought tolerant biotech maize is expected by -201 7 for sub-Saharan Africa. Drought tolerance is expected to have a major impact on more sustainable cropping systems worldwide, particularly in developing countries, where drought is more prevalent and severe than industrial countries. â&#x20AC;˘
In summary, collectively the above five thrusts have already demonstrated the capacity of biotech crops to contribute to sustainability in a significant manner and for mitigating the formidable challenges associated with climate change and global warming; and the potential for the future is enormous. Biotech crops can increase productivity and income significantly, and hence, can serve as an engine of rural economic growth that can contribute to the alleviation of poverty for the world's small and resource-poor farmers.
Helping mitigate climate change and reducing greenhouse gases
Climate change and crop production
The important and urgent concerns about the environment have implications for biotech crops, Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) cited by the US ERA (2011), several 22
factors directly connect climate change and crop productivity, and summarized in the six paragraphs below: •
•
•
Increases in average temperature will result in the following effects i) a positive effect in high latitude temperate regions as a result of the lengthening of the growing season, ii) adversely affect crops in low altitude subtropical and tropical regions where summer heat is already limiting productivity, iii) negatively affect productivity due to an increase in soil evaporation rates, and iv) a negative effect due to an increased probability of more frequent and more severe droughts.
Whereas, there could be agricultural gains in some crops in some regions of the world, the overall impact of climate change on agriculture is expected to be negative, and exacerbate the threat of global food security. Populations in the developing world, who are already vulnerable and food insecure, are likely to be the most seriously affected. IFPRI estimated that almost 40% of the world population of 6.7 billion, equivalent to 2.5 billion, rely on agriculture for their livelihood and will thus likely be the most severely affected (IFPRI, 2009; World Bank, 2010).
Change in amount of rainfall and patterns will affect soil erosion rates and soil moisture, both of which are important for crop yields. Precipitation will increase in high latitudes, and decrease in most subtropical low latitude regions - some by as much as about 20%.
The IFPRI analysis suggests that agriculture and human well-being will be negatively affected by climate change, particularly in the developing countries, in the following ways:
Rising atmospheric concentrations of CO2 will boost and enhance the growth of some crops but other aspects of climate change (e.g., higher temperatures and precipitation changes) may offset any beneficial boosting effect of higher CO2 levels.
•
Pollution levels of tropospheric ozone may increase due to CO2 emissions resulting in higher temperatures that will offset the increased growth of crops resulting from higher levels of CO2.
•
Changes in the frequency and severity of heat waves, drought, floods and hurricanes, remain a key uncertain factor in future climate change that may potentially affect agriculture.
•
countries where the constraints are less. Thus, the biggest challenges will be in the developing countries, where poverty and lack of technology and limitations of all resources are much greater than industrial countries.
Climatic changes will affect agricultural systems and may lead to emergence of new pests and diseases. Generally in the higher latitude temperate industrial countries, the impact on agriculture is expected to be less than in low latitude sub-tropical and tropical developing nations, where farmers also have more limited ability to adapt. Indeed, the effect of climate change on world agriculture will depend not only on changing climate conditions, but on the agricultural sector's ability and the speed with which it can adapt and develop new and improved crops to deal with constraints related to climate change. Similarly, there will be a need to adapt crop management practices, to meet the new demands of climate change. Adapting technology and cropping practices will be more of a challenge in the low latitude developing countries than in the higher latitude industrial
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
•
Yield declines in the most important crops, and South Asia will be particularly hard hit.
•
Yields of irrigated crops will vary across regions, but yields for all crops in South Asia will experience large declines.
•
Increasing prices for the most important agricultural crops - rice, wheat, maize, and soybeans. Higher feed prices will result in higher meat prices.
•
Calorie availability in 2050 will decline relative to 2000 levels throughout the developing world, leading to an increase of 20% in child malnutrition. To remedy these negative effects, IFPRI is recommending aggressive annual increases in agricultural productivity investments of US$7.1 -7.3 billion to raise calorie consumption to offset the negative impacts of climate change on the health and wellbeing of children.
Contribution of biotech crops to constraints associated with climate change Given that agriculture is a significant contributor (14%) of greenhouse gases (GHG) and therefore part of the problem in climate change, it is appropriate that biotech crops also be part of the solution. There is credible, peer reviewed and published evidence that biotech crops are already contributing to the reduction of CO2 emissions in the following ways:
23
•
Biotech crops require fewer pesticide sprays which results in savings of tractor/fossil fuel and thus less CO2 emissions.
the green movement, such as Mark Lynas and Stewart Brand, now acknowledge that the green movement opposition to biotech crops is out of sync with current knowledge and thinking, and this has precluded biotech crops from optimizing their contributions for the benefit of society in the strategic areas of food security and climate change.
Increasing productivity on the same current 1.5 billion hectares of crop land, makes biotech crops a land saving technology and reduces deforestation and CO2 emissions - a major bonus for climate change.
Stewart Brand opined that "I daresay the environmental movement has done more harm with its opposition to genetic engineering than with any other thing we've been wrong about. We've starved people, hindered science, hurt the natural environment, and denied our own practitioners a crucial tool... It's worth knowing and remembering who was leading Greenpeace International . . .and Friends of the Earth International. . . when those two organizations went to great lengths to persuade Africans that, in the service of ideology, starvation was good for them." Lynas, Brand and col leagues concluded that the same is true for nuclear power where opposition by the green movement has exacerbated, rather than helped the situation, where the alternate option to nuclear, coal fired power plants, have now become major CO2 generators and polluters, thereby exacerbating, rather than solving, the problems associated with climate change.
Herbicide tolerant biotech crops facilitate zero or notill, which in turn significantly reduces the loss of soil carbon and CO2 emissions. •
Herbicide tolerant biotech crops reduce ploughing, which in turn enhances the conservation of water substantially, reduces soil erosion significantly, and builds up organic matter which locks up soil carbon and reduces CO2 emission.
•
Biotech crops can overcome abiotic stresses (through drought and salinity tolerance) and biotic stresses (weed, pest and disease resistance) in environments made unproductive by climate change because of variations in temperature, water level leading to more damaging epidemics and infestations which preclude the growing of conventionally bred crops (for example, several countries have discontinued growing conventional cotton in some areas due to excessive losses from bollworm).
•
Opportunities In the following paragraphs, the following topics are briefly reviewed:
Biotech crops can be modified faster than conventional crops - thus allowing implementation of a "speeding the breeding" strategy to meet the more rapid changes required by more frequent and severe changes associated with climate change.
Increasing support from environmentalists for biotech crops Whereas, in general environmentalists have been opposed to biotech crops, climate change specialists, tasked with cutting CO2 levels as the only remedy to avoid a future catastrophe, have been supportive of biotech crops because they are viewed as a pragmatic remedy, where the twin goals of food security and climate change can be enjoined in one thrust that "kills two birds with one stone."The supportive views of climate change specialists have in turn positively influenced the views of some environmentalists. Readers are referred to the section on sustainability in this Brief which documents the quantitative contribution that biotech crops are already making to sustainability, and in turn to climate change the potential for the future is enormous. Former leaders of Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
•
Biotech cotton - status, unmet needs and future prospects
•
A biotech potato resistant to late blight - a unique opportunity for the EU to take the global lead in its development and deregulation
•
Public-private sector partnerships and the three streams of technology - private, public-private and public
•
Future prospects 201 2 to 2015, the MDG year
•
Similarities between the Global Food Security Crisis and the Global Economic Crisis
•
Concluding Comments
Biotech Cotton - Status, Unmet Needs and Future Prospects This is a brief overview of the status and major developments in the deployment of biotech cotton overthe past fifteen years as well as a discussion of unmet needs and future prospects. The author benefited from discussions with Dr. Neil Forester and Dr. Kater Hake, and acknowledges their important contributions. Global 24
plantings of cotton reached an all time high of 36 million hectares in 2011, and over 1 50 million hectares of biotech cotton have now been successfully planted in 1 3 countries since 1996.
has been the lead country to adopt biotech cotton, and has consistently exerted leadership in the introduction of new and improved biotech cotton products. Initially in 1996, insect resistance for the bollworm-family of lepidopteran pests, featured only one Bt gene, but relatively quickly this was increased to two genes to achieve more durable resistance. There are now already advanced products in the R&D pipeline with three genes, with different mechanisms of resistance. The three gene products not only significantly decrease the probability of a breakdown in resistance to lepidopteran pests but offer broader control of a wider range of pests. For example, the VIP3A gene provides control of the Spodoptera pests that are important pests in some countries/regions such as Egypt and Central America. Similarly, there are advanced biotech cotton products in the R&D pipeline with more than one herbicide tolerant gene, that provide tolerance to a broader range of herbicides, which in turn allows more effective control of weeds that develop resistance to specific herbicides.
The increase in cotton plantings in 2011 was mainly in response to the meteoritic rise in cotton lint prices to a peak of US$2.05 per pound (US$4.51 per kilo) compared with a low of US$0.59 per pound (US$1.30 per kilo), two years ago. Substantial increases in hectarage were reported in several countries but particularly in India, USA, China, Pakistan, Australia and Mexico, all countries which deploy biotech cotton and benefit from substantial increases in productivity, and which usually require only half as much insecticides as conventional cotton. Biotech cotton was first planted in 1996, the first year of commercialization of biotech crops. Insect resistant cotton, featuring Bt genes, and herbicide tolerant cotton were amongst the first products to be commercialized. Their impact has been substantial in all 13 countries where they have been commercialized, growing from less than one million hectares globally in 1996 to -25 million hectares in 2011. To date, it is clear that of the two traits, insect resistant Bt cotton has been deployed on a larger area, -100 million accumulated hectares in 2011, compared with 38 million hectares for the stacked product and 22.0 million hectares for herbicide tolerant cotton. Bt cotton has been the major contributor to adoption and growth, however, it is the stacked traits of insect resistance (Bt) and herbicide tolerance that have substantial potential for longer term growth in the future. Adoption is expected to continue to increase in the future as new countries adopt biotech cotton plus an increase in the percentage adoption in countries already using the technology. The accumulative area of biotech cotton planted in the 16 year period 1996 to 2011 was ~160 million hectares, equivalent to five times the annual hectares planted to cotton globally.
The increase in income benefits for farmers growing biotech cotton during the 15 year period 1996 to 2010 was US$25 billion and US$5 billion for 2010 alone (Brookes and Barfoot, 2012, Forthcoming).
Unmet needs for biotech cotton The largest group of potential beneficiary countries that have yet to adopt and benefit from biotech cotton are in sub-Saharan Africa where at least 15 countries, each growing more than 100,000 hectares of cotton, for a total of ~4 million hectares of cotton could benefit significantly, plus Egypt in North Africa. Countries in Latin America which could also benefit include Paraguay (which just approved biotech cotton in October 2011), as well as several countries in Central America, which used to grow a significant hectarage but had to discontinue cultivation because insect pest infestations were unmanageable. In Eastern Europe, countries such as Uzbekistan, where pest pressure is generally lower, biotech cotton can also offer benefits as well as in Turkey which grows -650,000 hectares of cotton. In summary, there are probably at least 20 to 25 additional developing or emerging countries globally, which grow a substantial hectarage of 100,000 hectares or more, which could benefit significantly from biotech cotton which is already used effectively in 1 3 countries. This number will grow over time as new traits are introduced. In countries deploying single Bt genes, the challenge is to quickly complete the switch to the two gene products before resistance breaks down - the Australian experience of a complete change-over in one year is an excellent example to emulate. Similarly, the
Of the 13 countries which grew biotech cotton in 2011 four grew more than 1 million hectares viz -: India 1 0.6 million hectares, USA (4.0), China (3.9), and Pakistan (2.6 million hectares). The other nine countries were Australia, Argentina, Myanmar, Burkina Faso, Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, South Africa and Costa Rica. In 2011, biotech hybrid cotton in India, the largest cotton growing country in the world, occupied 10.6 million hectares with an 88% adoption. It is notable that India is the only country utilizing biotech hybrids, as opposed to biotech varieties which are used by all other countries. The USA, the second largest grower of cotton in the world,
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
25
future strategy should be to switch from two to three gene products as soon as these become available for both insect resistance and herbicide tolerance and eventually stacks of those respective products.
potato farmers globally the best opportunity for achieving durable resistance to late blight of potato, the cause of the 1845 Irish famine in which 1 million people perished; remarkably, 150 years later it is still the most devastating disease of potatoes (Haverkort et al, 2008)3. This one disease alone costs global society up to US$7.5 billion annually, of which up to US$1.5 billion is in the EU. Over 50 years of conventional potato breeding has failed to result in durable resistance to this devastating disease which became more aggressive in the 1980s when more virulent strains of the disease evolved. Public and private institutions have joined together, led by EU science, to create a network (Euroblight) dedicated to sharing knowledge and technology, to hasten the demise of late blight in potatoes. Incorporating multigenic resistance into commercially important potato varieties through cisgene transformation is now possible as a practical solution. This is a near term prospect, facilitated by several EU research institutions using innovative technology to develop durable resistance based on cisgenes. However, the value of this unique innovation to farmers in the EU and globally, estimated at up to US$7.5 billion annually, cannot be realized unless the barrier imposed by the implementation of onerous EU regulation can be resolved. This is a unique opportunity for the EU to take the lead globally to develop a workable regulatory framework that will enable commercial production of cisgene crop varieties in a cost/time efficient manner so this technology can reach its full global potential. In brief, the rationale for the EU taking the global lead in this innovative technology, and importantly, the implementation of responsible, science-based and cost/time effective CM crop deregulation, is summarized below:
Future Prospects For the near, mid and long term there are numerous new products at different stages of Rand D development. They include: •
insect resistance - high priority is now being assigned to sucking pests (lygus and mirids) as they understandably have become the next top priority in the absence of the former top priority, bollworm family of pests, now effectively controlled by current biotech insect resistant cotton;
•
disease resistance to the pathogens Fusarium, Verticillium, Rhizoctonia, Pythiumand Cotton Leaf Curl Virus (CLCV) -the latter is critically important in Pakistan and some areas of the Punjab in India; nematode resistance is being explored;
•
products which are more tolerant to abiotic stresses, particularly drought. Unlike maize where the critical stage for drought avoidance is the relatively short period of silking, in cotton it is required over the much longer period of flowering. Even though cotton is one of the most drought tolerant of the major crops, the degree of difficulty of achieving adequate levels of drought tolerance should not be underestimated;
•
improved cotton which is more tolerant to selected abiotic stresses which include salinity, high and low temperatures, and water logging;\
•
improved nutrient use efficiency;
•
quality traits ranging from improved fiber, to better oil quality, and gossypol free seed; and
•
in the longer term increases in yield/productivity, through an accumulative introduction of the above traits and enhancement of yield potential perse by increasing efficiency of critical metabolic pathways such as photosynthesis.
A biotech potato resistant to late blight - a unique opportunity for the EU to take the global lead in the development of an innovative technology and its timely deregulation The deployment of multiple resistance genes from wild potatoes into commercial varieties (cisgenes) offers Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
26
•
It is an innovative technology espoused by the EU in its science policy directives, and it is EU scientists that are exerting global leadership in its development. EU countries which support active R & D programs in biotech potatoes include the Netherlands, United Kingdom, Denmark and Germany;
•
It will confer, for the first time, a sustainable and durable level of resistance to potato late blight, a devastating disease that has plagued the world for over 150 years, which today costs global society up to US$7.5 billion each year and US$1.5 billion in EU countries;
•
Success will result in decreased use of pesticides and contribute to a safer and more sustainable environment. The greatest gains will be in EU countries utilizing more intensive production systems like the Netherlands where 10 to 15
fungicide applications are necessary each season;\ •
Increased potato yield with this technology will contribute to world food security- potato is the fourth most important food crop in the world. Productivity increases will be higher in countries with less intensive cropping systems where fungicide applications are too costly, such as Poland, where current yields are significantly constrained by late blight. Know-how on increasing productivity and controlling late blight could be shared with potatogrowing developing countries, (which grow more than half the potatoes in the world) through EU international development projects with food security and alleviation of poverty, as humanitarian goals;
•
Conventional breeding of potato is very expensive in time and resources, and alone, has not, and will not, result in durable resistance to late blight. The use of biotechnology in conjunction with a conventional breeding program, has the potential to significantly reduce costs and time;
•
Biotech/GM crops, modified with cisgenes technology to incorporate essential multiple markerfree R genes, can confer durable resistance, and is entirely compatible with coexistence. In the EU, there are no wild relatives that can cross-breed with potatoes, and unlike a crop like canola, gene flow due to cross pollination is not an issue in vegetativelypropagated potatoes;
•
The new and urgent challenges associated with climate change, demand faster delivery of improved crops from breeding programs and the new biotechnologies are a tool to meet this need. Climate change results in more pressure and urgency, to counter, for example, more frequent and more severe epidemics, pest infestations, and drought;
•
•
system that would provide a cost/time effective deregulation process for commercialization of a technology which can benefit 500 million EU citizens; importantly EU support would also encourage EU public institutions and companies to practice innovation in food technology and exert global leadership in food security initiatives, consistent with EU policy; •
Several groups in Europe have recently called for a review of CM regulation. In October 2011, 41 leading Swedish biological scientists, submitted a letter to politicians and environmentalists, about the need to revise European regulation to allow society to benefit from CM crops using science-based assessments of the technology. A contingent of scientists from the United Kingdom endorsed the Swedish petition. A recent publication from Europe (Tait and Barker, 2011 )4 also called for a change in EU regulation of CM crops; it focused on European issues related to Global Food Security and the governance of modern biotechnologies and drew the following conclusions:
A unique opportunity exists to rapidly broaden the benefits by building on a successful late blight initiative through the addition/pyramiding of already developed transgenes that code for virus disease and insect resistance; Internationally recognized institutions/companies from the public and private sector in the EU are already engaged in the development of durable resistance to late blight with the first product, "Fortuna" from BASF, expected in 2014/2015. What is urgently needed now is political will and support from the EU to implement a science-based approval
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
Unlike transgenics, cisgenics do not involve cross genera genes and hence regulatory bodies can justifiably apply less onerous science-based requirements that would expedite responsible deregulation. Such appropriate regulations would have enormous impact for a myriad of institutions in the public sector in the EU, and globally, particularly resource-poor developing countries, which are urgently in need of new technologies to ensure food security but are unable to engage in either cisgenics or transgenics because of the prohibitive and longterm cost of gaining deregulation and also import approval to lucrative markets such as the EU.
27
•
"European regulatory systems, instead of scientific progress, will determine whether technology-based solutions are part of the future of agriculture;
•
CM crops are already contributing to increased yields, greater ease and predictability of crop management, a reduction in pesticide use and fewer post- harvest crop losses;
•
there has been a move away from top-down government towards bottom-up governance, with the underlying assumption that this will lead to more democratic decision making;
•
the interaction between the governance-based approach and the precautionary principle has
exposed the decision making process on the regulation of CM crops to influences from politically motivated parties; •
from surveys to focus groups to citizen juries, CM crops have probably been engaged with more than any other technology; and
•
the main concern of the EU should be to enable science and technology to contribute to food security if Europe is to meet its own food security needs and contribute to the food requirements of the rest of the world policy, and regulatory changes will be necessary.”
okra, cabbage, cauliflower and potato which can improve productivity, and deliver significant environmental benefits (substantially less pesticides applied on a food crop), and economic benefits. The Government of India also supports a portfolio of transgenic vegetable projects at its institutes, including brassica, tomato, cabbage, and cauliflower. Thus, there is in India, and similarly in other developing countries, the opportunity to build a portfolio of projects involving both the public and private sector within the context of a need-based national biotech crop strategy, utilizing the respective comparative advantages of the different partners, to facilitate the coincidental development and delivery of three complementary streams of biotech crops:
A full version of the above proposal on potato late blight is included in the full Brief 43, available from ISAAA.
•
a private sector stream of biotech crops from multinationals and national indigenous companies focused on global and home/regional markets respectively, which accounts for the vast majority of the 160 million hectares of first generation biotech maize, soybean, cotton and canola planted globally today, and developed, by and large, by the private sector;
Public-Private Sector Partnerships and the three streams of technology products: private, publicprivate, and public Understandably, public-private sector partnerships is a subject that has evoked much discussion. There are now several working-model projects being implemented, and one of them, involving vegetables, is used here to illustrate some of the challenges and the opportunities. Whereas vegetables are high-cost products and are a good potential fit to absorb the higher costs associated with transgenics, they lack the large hectarage of field crops such as maize, soybean, cotton and canola and may not be assigned priority by multinational companies focused on global macro-markets. This should not be viewed as a problem but as an opportunity for public sector institutes and national indigenous companies in developing countries to develop transgenics for their home-country or regional market. An excellent example is Mahyco's generous and creative Bt brinjal initiative in India where Mahyco seeks to market the Bt brinjal hybrids, whilst coincidentally donating the same Bt technology to public institutes in India for use in open-pollinated varieties of brinjal - eggplant-the queen of the vegetables in India. Mahyco has gone a step further and also donated the same Bt technology for open-pollinated varieties to public institutes in the Philippines and Bangladesh - this is a winwin-win situation.
•
a public-private partnership stream of biotech crops exemplified by the Mahyco Bt brinjal project in India, the Monsanto, and Gates/Buffet Foundations project for Africa to deliver biotech drought tolerant maize by 2017, and the EMBRAPA/BASF project in Brazil which has delivered a herbicide tolerant soybean which has already been approved for commercial planting; and
•
a public sector stream of biotech crops exemplified by the Bt fused-gene cotton, developed by the Chinese Agricultural Academy of Sciences (CAAS) in China, and the biosafety-approved phytase maize and Bt rice that are undergoing standard field production trials in China; the virus resistant papaya commercialized in Hawaii, and developed by Dr. Gonsalvezat Cornell University, and finally the r e c e n t l y a p p r o v e d E M B R A PA 5 . 1 b i o t e c h Phaseolusbean, resistant to Bean Golden Mosaic Virus (BGMV) developed entirely by EMBRAPA in Brazil.
Regulatory delays in approving Bt brinjal in India have denied both farmers and consumers timely access to Bt brinjal and the benefits it offers the country; however the Philippines and Bangladesh are progressing with the approval process. Mahyco has a number of other transgenic vegetables under development, including
The above initiatives represent impressive progress, particularly the leadership exerted by the lead developing countries of E5R1C - Brazil, India and China. Given the substantial and rapidly-increasing biotech budgets in public institutes in the lead developing countries like China and Brazil (the annual budget of EMBRAPA in Brazil is -US$1.1 billion), and their own increasing capacity to
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
28
both develop and approve their own home-grown products, this augers well for the future. Like India, China has a portfolio of transgenic vegetable projects which include tomato, potato, cabbage, sweet pepper, and chili. Of particular importance is the exciting new institutional opportunity of building South-South partnerships including the sharing of knowledge and experience about an array of appropriate biotech applications, ranging from marker-selection to transgenic biotech crops. It is noteworthy that both Brazil and China are increasing their commitments to agricultural development in Africa, which in due course will include transfer of appropriate biotechnology crop applications. There is a high likelihood that technologies developed in the tropical countries of the South, for mega-agricultural environments like the "cerrado" in Brazil, will be more appropriate for Africa than technologies developed in temperate agricultural environments. Furthermore, because both Africa and Brazil are tropical environments they will have an opportunity to build joint projects to address the mutually important new crop production constraints, such as higher temperatures, that will be associated with climate change in the tropics, expected to be the worse affected region worldwide. Africa will need all the partners it can secure as its population more than triples from the current 1 billion to up to 3.6 billion in 2010, soaring from less than one-sixth of the global population in 2010 to more than one-third of the population of 10.1 billion by the end of this century in 2100.
during which up to 10 countries may adopt biotech crops for the first time, bringing the total number of biotech crop countries globally to -40 by -2015. These new biotech countries are likely to include three more countries in Asia, up to 7 countries in sub-Saharan Africa, (subject to regulatory approval), and possibly some additional countries in Latin/Central America and Western/Eastern Europe. Western Europe is a particularly difficult region to predict because the issues are not related to science and technology considerations but are of a political nature and influenced by ideological views of activist groups. A biotech potato resistant to late blight, (discussed earlier) offers an attractive and appropriate opportunity for selected potato-growing countries in the EU to join the growing number of countries benefiting from biotech crops globally. There is considerable potential for increasing the adoption rate of the four current large hectarage biotech crops (maize, soybean, cotton, and canola), which collectively represented 160 million hectares of biotech crops in 2011 from a total global potential of 320 million hectares; thus, there are approximately 150 million hectares for potential adoption, of which 30 million hectares are in China where demand for maize as a feed crop is growing fast, as the country consumes more meat. In the near and mid-term the timing of the deployment of biotech maize and rice, as crops, and drought tolerance as a trait (first in maize and later in other crops) are seminal for catalyzing the further adoption of biotech crops globally. In contrast to the first generation biotech crops that realized a significant increase in yield and production by protecting crops from losses caused by pests, weeds, and diseases, the second generation biotech crops will offer farmers additional new incentives for also improving quality of products. For example, quality traits, such as enhanced Vitamin A in rice, soybean free of trans-fat and reduced saturated fat, and omega-3 rich soybean, will become more prevalent providing a much richer mix of consumer-friendly traits for deployment in conjunction with a growing number of input traits. Five years ago in North America, a decision was made to delay the introduction of biotech herbicide tolerant wheat, but this decision has been revisited. Many countries and companies are now fast-tracking the development of a range of biotech traits in wheat including drought tolerance, disease resistance and grain quality. The first biotech wheat is expected to be ready for commercialization around 2017.
Future Prospects 2012 to 201 5, the MDG year The adoption of biotech crops in the four-year period 2012 to 2015 will be dependent on three factors: first, the timely implementation of appropriate, responsible and cost/time-effective regulatory systems; second, strong political will and enabling financial and material support; and third a continuing wave of improved biotech crops that will meet the priorities of industrial countries and developing countries in Asia, Latin America and Africa. The outlook for biotech crops in the remaining 4 years of the second decade of commercialization, 2012 to 2015, is assessed as cautiously optimistic. Following the bumper year of 2010 when the increase in hectarage of biotech crops was the second highest in history and substantial progress was made on all fronts, the growth in 2011 represents a phase of consolidation of gains to-date, which is expected to continue in 2012, with a new country possibly becoming the 30th country to plant biotech crops globally. The consolidation of gains in 2011 and 2012 is projected to be followed by a more active period
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
In summary, future prospects up to the MDG year of 2015 and beyond, look encouraging: an increase of up to 10
29
new developing countries planting biotech crops, led by Asia and Latin America, and there is cautious optimism that Africa will be well-represented: the first biotech based drought tolerant maize planned for release in North America in 2013 and in Africa by -201 7; Golden Rice to be released in the Philippines in 2013/2014; biotech maize in China with a potential of -30 million hectares and thereafter Bt rice which has an enormous potential to benefit up to 1 billion poor people in rice households in Asia alone. Biotech crops, whilst not a panacea, have the potential to make a substantial contribution to the 2015 MDG goal of cutting poverty in half, by optimizing crop productivity, which can be expedited by public-private sector partnerships, such as the WEMA project, supported in poor developing countries by the new generation of philanthropic foundations, such as the Gates and Buffet foundations.
•
Second, both require urgent action and an unprecedented level of financial and material support to contain a contagion that has already caused devastation to parts of global society and has the potential to seriously destabilize society, if appropriate and urgent remedial action is not taken.
•
Third, unlike the past, the lead emerging countries like Brazil and China have weathered the storm and have fared better than the traditional western countries leading global political organizations.
•
Fourth, the attempts to resolve the crises have resembled a band-aid approach whereas the gravity and urgency of the situation demands immediate major surgery - too little and too late.
•
Fifth and last, the world lacks leadership to spearhead a global campaign that requires a credible and able leader who has the trust and confidence of global society to conduct the leaderless world orchestra assembled to resolve the crises.
Three major and sequential steps are required for resolving the crisis: •
Global society must have an awareness and a common understanding and analysis of the challenge -the importance of sharing knowledge.
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
•
The public and private sectors in industrial, emerging and developing countries must agree and cooperate to execute a common implementation plan.
In the next fifty years the world will consume twice as much food as the world has consumed since the beginning of agriculture 10,000 years ago-a startling statement!! However, regrettably, the vast majority of global society is completely unaware of this formidable challenge of feeding the world of tomorrow and the potential contribution of technology, particularly the role of the new innovative bio-technologies, such as biotech crops, that already successfully occupy 1 60 million hectares or 10% of global arable land. Given this lack of awareness about the challenge and the role of the new innovative crop biotechnologies, ISAAA initiated a program more than 10 years ago to freely share sciencebased knowledge about biotech crops with global society, whilst respecting the right of society to make independent informed decisions about the role of the new technologies. Two initiatives have been particularly successful, the first is ISAAA's Annual Brief on the global status of biotech crops and their impact. The major findings from the latest 2010 ISAAA Brief is estimated to have reached a remarkable 1.8 billion people (a quarter of the world's population) in over 75 countries in over 40 languages - the publication stimulated over 2,000 multimedia reports and the Brief is the most widely quoted publication on biotech crops globally. The second initiative is a weekly email which summarizes the major developments in biotech crops that are of particular interest to developing countries. The free weekly enewsletter, named Crop Biotech Update (CBU), now reaches 1.2 million subscribers in 200 countries and translations are available in more than 10 of the major languages of the world, including Chinese, Arabic, Bahasa Indonesia, Spanish, Portugese and French. In 2011, the number of CBU subscribers grew, on average, at up to 15,000 per month confirming that there is a tremendous thirst for knowledge about biotech crops. About 80% of the CBU subscribers are from the developing countries which are ISAAA's client/partner countries. The subscriber base is made up of the following categories, in descending order of representation; students (35%), faculty and academic staff (32%), scientists and researchers (12%), private sector (9%), government officials (6%), and NGOs and media (6%).
Five aspects of the current global economic crisis are similar to the emerging global food security crisis. First, the principal underlying constraints are political rather than technical.
Define the problem first and then agree to a common solution to the challenge -the two sequential steps in problem-resolution is definition and solution.
Closing Comments
Similarities between the Global Economic Crisis and the Global Food Crisis
•
•
30
ISAAA was founded more than 20 years ago to establish creative new partnerships to facilitate the transfer of crop biotech applications from the industrial countries, particularly the private sector, for the benefit of small resource-poor farmers in the developing countries who represent a significant segment of the poorest people in the world. Subsequent to the founding of ISAAA in 1990 it became evident that the lack of awareness by society of the potential of the new innovative biotech crops was a major constraint to acceptance, exacerbated by wellresourced and extensive mis-information campaigns about biotech crops by opponents of the technology.
played as big a role in development as it could have. Some innovations take hold in rich countries quickly but take decades to trickle down to poor countries. The pace of innovation specifically for the poor has been too slow. But I believe it can be sped up, and the rapidly growing countries of the G20 are especially well positioned to drive this improvement." Gates suggested that the G20 should identify the highest priority innovations for development and indicated that his Foundation would be happy to participate in this process. "With a systematic list of innovations as a starting point, the G20 could help broker agreements in which member countries commit to work together on specific innovations. This approach could accelerate innovation in many key areas of development, including agriculture, health, education, governance, and infrastructure." Gates opined that the capacity to innovate is not just in rich countries and that the "binary model of the developed world on the one hand and the developing world on another has become irrelevant. This unique combination gives them both the insights and the skills to create breakthrough tools for development." Gates called on the G20 to collaborate and "devote significantly more funds to triangular partnerships - made up of traditional donors, rapidly growing countries, and poor countries. In the long run, these provide a model for how to deploy the world's combined resources to benefit the poorest." He concluded that "there's a lot of pressure on aid budgets given economic conditions, but aid is a very small part of government expenditures. The world will not balance its books by cutting back on aid but it will do irreparable damage to global stability, to the growth potential of the global economy and to the livelihoods of millions of people" (Gates, 2017; SciDev, 4 November, 2011).5
In summary, since its founding over 20 years ago ISAAA has championed three causes. â&#x20AC;˘
First - ISAAA has facilitated the sharingof sciencebased knowledge about new crop biotechnology a p p l i c a t i o n s t o i n c re a s e t h e a w a re n e s s , understanding and acceptance by society of new innovative biotech crops which can contribute to food security and the alleviation of poverty in developing countries.
â&#x20AC;˘
Second - ISAAA has established creative and innovative partnerships to share knowledge and facilitate transfer of biotech crops for the benefit of small resource-poor farmers in developing countries.
â&#x20AC;˘
Third - ISAAA recognized that biotech crops are a product of innovation, defined as "the ability to manage change as an opportunity and not as a threat" (James 2010). Whilst biotech crops are not a panacea, they are an essential element in any strategy to feed the world of tomorrow and alleviate poverty which afflicts 1 billion people.
The three causes championed by ISAAA, sharing knowledge, creative partnerships and the critical importance of innovation are consistent with the actions proposed by Bill Gates to the G20 in November 2011 in Cannes, France and summarized in the following paragraphs.
The G20 released a statement at the end of the meeting confirming G20 support for Gates' proposal to "encourage triangular partnerships to drive priority innovations forward.... and to establish a tropical agriculture initiative to enhance capacity-building and knowledge-sharing to improve agricultural production and productivity."
Bill Gates called on the G20 leaders group to invest more in innovation for development characterizing it as "the most powerful force for change in the world... because... innovation fundamentally shifts the trajectory of development." Gates' report, entitled "Innovation with Impact: Financing 21st Century Development", was delivered to G20 leaders, was prepared at the invitation of France's President Sarkozy, with the goal of finding new and creative ways to mobilize more resources for development. Gates concluded that "innovation has not
In response to the proposals by Gates, F. Reifschneider, from Brazil (co-chair of Africa-Brazil Agricultural Innovation Marketplace) confirmed that "The Bill andMelinda Gates Foundation is supporting Brazil and particularly Embrapa to further share its expertise with African countries in different crops. Gates Foundation just joined the Africa-Brazil Agricultural Innovation Marketplace providing the platform with an additional US$2.5 million. Gates is joining forces with FARA, Embrapa, The World Bank, IF AD, DFID and the Brazilian Cooperation
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
31
Agency (ABC/MRE). African participants will identify problems relevant to their countries, and the Brazilians will work with them to devise solutions based on their experience" (http://www.africabrazil.org/). The leadership exerted by Brazil in terms of food security and alleviation of poverty was appropriately recognized in 2011 with President Lula being awarded the World Food Prize.
to productivity, whilst using less resources, and helping to alleviate poverty by 2015 and beyond. There is no better way to contribute to the MDG goal of alleviating poverty, hunger and malnutrition, by 50% by 2015, which coincidentally marks the end of the second decade of commercialization of biotech crops, than to pledge, as individual global citizens, to contribute to a 3D strategy, develop, deregulate and deploy:
The international community involved with biotech crops from the public and private sectors globally, as well as the political, donor scientific communities and partner developing countries have not taken full advantage of the MDG anniversary in 2015, to make global society aware of the gravity and urgency of the impending global food crisis. If global food insecurity is to be averted, and there is no other option, urgent action is required now to make society aware of the humanitarian consequences of inaction, and the important contribution that innovative technology, including biotech crops, can make to food security and the imperative of "the right to food and the alleviation of poverty". The innovative partnership that is proposed would engage all points of the compass, North, South, East and West, embracing both public and private sectors, in a collective effort by committed individuals and institutions to optimize the contribution of biotech crops
â&#x20AC;˘
DEVELOP innovative crop biotechnology applications recognizing that sharing knowledge amongst partners stimulates innovation:
â&#x20AC;˘
DEREGULATE innovative biotech crop applications under the aegis of a science-based, cost and time effective deregulation system; and
â&#x20AC;˘
DEPLOY innovative biotech crop products in a timely mode to minimize opportunity costs and to optimize their contribution to food security, and alleviation of poverty.
The 3D strategy is dedicated to the survival of the world's one billion poor people, recognizing that the indignity that they unnecessarily suffer is unacceptable in a just society.
Source : Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2011 by Clive James Chair, ISAAA Board of Directors. Dedicated by the author to the 1 billion poor and hungry people and their survival
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
32
Innovation in Biotechnology Seeds: Public and Private Initiatives in India and China
- Katherine Linton* - Mihir Torsekar
INTRODUCTION This paper compares and contrasts how innovation—the successful introduction of new products, services, or techniques—is occurring in biotechnology seeds in China and India. We begin with an overview of the agricultural challenges faced by China and India and the substantial investments that both countries are making in agricultural research and development (R&D) and biotechnology to address these challenges. We next describe each country's approach to three factors identified by industry sources as important to innovation in biotech seeds: market access, intellectual property (IP) protection, and regulatory review processes. In considering these three factors, we find a number of problem areas:
discourage private sector activities. Foreign firms are active in seeking patent protections in both countries, but domestic firms are not. The public sector is an important user of IP protection systems, particularly in China.
• Market Access: China significantly limits the market access of foreign firms, while India has liberalized its seed sector and permits foreign and domestic firms to participate on equal terms. However, price restrictions implemented by Indian state governments severely limit the ability of all firms to charge market prices for biotech seeds.
• Regulatory Review: Biotech seeds sponsored by the public and private sectors have languished for long periods in the review pipeline. Both countries consider factors unrelated to biosafety in determining whether to approve new biotech seeds, a practice that causes delays and undermines the predictability of the regulatory process. In addition, both countries have difficulties with the enforcement of IP and regulatory laws. The sale and use of illegal seeds—those that violate IP laws or those
• IP Protection: Both countries have patent and plant variety protection laws that provide some protection for new plant technologies, although with limitations that
* Office of Industries, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington (katherine.linton@usitc.gov) Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
33
support innovation. China and India have made significant investments in this area; they rank third and fourth, respectively, in public sector agricultural R&D spending, behind the United States and Japan. In 2000, the United States invested the equivalent of about $4.4 billion in agricultural R&D, compared to $2.5 billion for Japan, $1.9 billion for China, and $1.3 billion for India (Beintema et al. 2008, 1). Since 2000, agricultural R&D spending has grown much more rapidly in China, reaching $2.6 billion in 2003. By contrast, as figure 1 shows, public sector R&D spending in India remained relatively unchanged during the period.
that have not undergone regulatory review is an ongoing and substantial problem in India and China. We conclude with a case study highlighting how these three critical factors shaped the introduction and adoption of the first widely commercialized biotech crop in China and India, Bt cotton.
Agricultural Challenges in China and India India and China have achieved remarkable economic growth over the last decade, although growth in the agricultural sector has lagged behind growth in the general economy.3 In both countries, the agricultural sector faces the tremendous challenge of producing more with fewer resources. According to the United Nations (2009), global food production must double by 2050 to meet the needs of the world's growing population. Diminishing arable land and water per capita, climate change, plant diseases and pests, pollution, and ecosystems depleted by the application of fertilizers and pesticides present substantial additional challenges (Tuli et al. 2009, 319). To address these challenges, the Chinese and Indian governments have made investing in agricultural R&D, and particularly in agricultural biotechnology, a priority.
FIGURE 1 China and India total public sector agricultural RSD spending (million, PPP S), 2000-03 3,000 Million USD
2,500
1,500 1,000 500 0 2000
Source: ASTI database.
2001 China
2002
2003
India
Within the general field of agricultural R&D, China and India have identified biotechnology as a critical tool for overcoming the significant challenges to increasing productivity. According to an official in India's agricultural R&D program, "The search, characterization, isolation and utilization of new genes through application of biotechnology are essential for the revitalization of Indian agriculture" (Rai 2006). During the years 2002â&#x20AC;&#x201D;06, the Indian Ministry of Science and Technology's Department of Biotechnology (DBT) implemented 481 agricultural biotechnology programs. Going forward, the DBT has identified as R&D priorities the development of biotech crops that are disease and pest resistant, drought and salinity tolerant, and nutritionally enhanced (Government of India, Ministry of Science and Technology 2006, 8, ISO).4 There are few published estimates of India's total R&D expenditures on agricultural biotechnology across relevant agencies. One exception is James (2008, 60) who estimates that India's public sector investments in crop biotechnology R&D have been approximately $1.5 billion over the last five years, or $300 million per year.
Biotechnology is broadly defined as the use of the biological processes of microbes and plant and animal cells for the benefit of humans (USDA, ERS 2009a). Agricultural biotechnology provides a more sophisticated and precise means of modifying plant genetics than that practiced by plant breeders for centuries through breeding and crossbreeding. Instead of transferring thousands of genes using traditional methods, biotechnology enables breeders to transfer only selected genes. Moreover, by expanding the possible universe of transferable genes to include essentially any living organism, biotechnology enables the introduction of beneficial traits that would be difficult or impossible to create through traditional breeding methods (Giddings and Chassy 2009). The first-generation of biotech crops include those that have been genetically engineered to improve resistance to insects and tolerance to herbicides, thus enabling farmers to use less pesticide and obtain higher yields. Genetic engineering to increase a plant's tolerance to drought or to high salinity levels, or to improve the nutritional content of crops, are promising emerging areas of agricultural biotechnology (CEI 2008, 13).
Like India, China has promoted biotechnology as an important tool for boosting agricultural productivity, food security, and rural incomes. Agricultural biotechnology R&D programs are overwhelmingly financed and implemented by China's public sector. As of 2001, there were more than 150 national and local laboratories in more than 50 research institutes and universities working on agricultural biotechnology, under the direction of the
Government Investments in Agricultural Biotechnology Increased agricultural productivity depends on R&D to Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
2,000
34
Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) and the Ministry of Agriculture.5 One important public funding programs for agricultural biotechnology is the National High Technology Research and Development Program (known as the 863 program). Agricultural biotechnology funding under the 863 program has grown significantly, from $4.2 million when the program began in 1986 to $55.9 million in 2003 (Huang et al. 2004, 3, 7).
permitted entry, and import restrictions were substantially lifted. Economy-wide liberalization occurred in India in 1991, including the abolition of the industrial licensing system and the easing of restrictions on foreign direct investment (FDI) (Pray, Ramaswami, and Kelley 2001, 589). These reforms effectively opened the market to private participation. Pray, Ramaswami, and Kelley (2001) found that as a result of the reforms, new foreign and domestic firms entered the market, competition increased, and private sector R&D expenditures grew rapidly as domestic firms spent more on technology to compete with the entry of new research-intensive foreign firms. Another important motivation for firms' increased R&D expenditures has been the market's transition away from open-pollinated varieties (OPVs), which farmers can save and reuse in subsequent years, to hybrids, which cannot be reused without a significant reduction in yield and quality. Farmers' need to purchase seeds each year enables firms to recoup R&D investments (Pray, Ramaswami, and Kelley 2001, 596-97).
In recent years, China has elevated the status of agricultural biotechnology and stressed the importance of developing domestic IP in the field. As Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao stated in 2008, "To solve the food problem, we have to rely on big science and technology measures, rely on biotechnology, rely on GM [genetic modification]" (lames 2008, 93). In July of 2008, the State Council approved a budget increase for government funds allocated to genetically modified crops of $584-$730 million per year. The aims of this new initiative reportedly are for China to "obtain genes with great potential commercial value whose intellectual property rights belong to China, and to develop high quality, high yield, and pest resistant genetically modified new species" (lames 2008, 93; Shuping 2008). Government policies in the IP area have had a significant impact on the course of innovation in agricultural biotechnology in China and India, as set forth below.
U.S. and other global seed companies with a substantial presence in the Indian hybrid and biotech seed markets include Monsanto (United States), Bayer CropScience (Germany), DuPont/Pioneer (United States), Syngenta (Switzerland), and Dow AgroScience (United States). Leading Indian firms include Rasi Seeds, the Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Company (Mahyco), Nuziveedu Seeds, and JK Agri-Genetics (Bayer CropScience 2006). The agricultural biotechnology sector in India reportedly had total revenues of about $318 million in 2008, an increase of 353 percent in the last five years (BioSpectrum2009).
Government Policies Affecting Agricultural Biotechnology Industry sources have identified government policies in three areas as important to successful innovation in agricultural biotechnology in India and China: market access conditions; the availability of IP protections; and the speed and manner in which regulatory systems review new biotech products. In this section we will outline how the two countries stand with regard to these factors.
The Indian seed market is competitive. Murugkar, Ramaswami, and Shelar (2007) found that the cotton seed market, which accounts for about one fourth of the overall seed market, has low levels of market concentration, a diverse group of foreign and domestic firms of various
Private Sector Access to Seed Markets in India and China Until recently, seeds have predominantly been a public sector business in both India and China. And while this is still the case in China, in India the situation has changed dramatically. Until the late 1980s, private firm participation in the seed industry in India was limited by two factors: economy-wide policies that restricted foreign investment and licensing, and seed-specific policies that limited the sector to "small scale" participants and severely restricted imports of research or breeder seeds. With India's implementation of the Seed Policy of 1988, the "small scale" limitation was removed, large domestic and foreign firms were Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
35
sizes, and market leadership that fluctuates over time and across Indian states. Nonetheless, they noted two factors that detracted from healthy competition: state-level price caps placed on biotech cotton seeds, and a substantial market in illegal seeds.
nonlocal firms to access, according to field research conducted by Keeley (2003, 33-34). Fragmentation across functions is also the norm: few firms are vertically integrated across the R&D, breeding, production, sales, and marketing functions (Sanchez and Lei 2009, 5).
The state government of Andhra Pradesh was the first to implement price restrictions. Its 2006 directive capped prices for biotech cotton seeds at less than one-half the prevailing market price. Today, price caps have spread to important cotton-growing states throughout the country including Maharashtra, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, and West Bengal (Mishra 2006). The U.S.-India Business Council (2009, 6) identifies nonmarket-based pricing as one of the most significant disincentives to the commercialization of new biotech seeds by global seed firms in India. According to the founder of Rasi Seeds, continued state government interference in pricing also is harming the ability of indigenous companies to develop and commercialize biotech seeds (Suresh and Rao 2009, 299). Price caps have been found particularly problematic for new domestic firms seeking to enter the market (Murugkar, Ramaswami, and Shelar 2007, 19-21).
FDI restrictions are severe and, not coincidentally arose at the same time that Monsanto began to successfully market its biotech cotton seed in China. In 1997, the year Monsanto's product was first approved, a new seed regulation required that any foreign company wishing to produce and sell cotton and other seeds had to enter into a partnership in which the Chinese partner maintained the controlling interest; invest prescribed amounts of capital; and obtain central government permission (Reddinger 1997, 1). This new regulation required Monsanto to reduce its initial controlling interest in its cotton joint venture, reportedly so that the Chinese partners could obtain more economic benefits from the partnership (Keeley 2003, 33). FDI laws became even more restrictive in 2002 when China's Foreign Investment Guidance Catalogue prohibited any new foreign investment in the development and production of genetically engineered planting seeds (Gifford, Qing, and Branson 2002, 3). These prohibitions are maintained in the most recent FDI catalogue issued in 2007. Moreover, although foreign firms may invest in the development, breeding, and production of new varieties of conventional seeds, their investment must be limited to minority shareholder status in joint ventures with Chinese partners (Petry 2007, 2).
Even with significant price controls, however, India's seed market is more liberalized than that of China. Despite the enactment of a seed law in 2000 creating a role for private firms, China continues to severely restrict FDI and the trading of certain types of seeds (USCIB 2009, 32-33). Moreover, due to the historic role of state planning, Chinese seed markets are fragmented by geography and function. Historically, each province or prefecture had its own seed company, which generally had monopoly rights within its geographic domain. Although the 2000 seed law is intended to facilitate the marketing of seeds across geographic areas, local markets remain difficult for
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
These FDI restrictions reportedly arose out of Chinese government concerns about food security and the competitiveness of its domestic industry in light of the commercial success that Monsanto experienced with its biotech cotton product (Thomas 2007, 55-56). Concerns
36
about multinational companies dominating the seed industry persist today. The Chinese Academy of Science and Technology for Development (CASTED), for example, recently stated that the seed industry is a strategic one and that the opening up of the industry threatens the survival of domestic firms and the security of China's germplasm resources (CASTED 2009).
protection mechanisms: they lose their superior yield potential and other valuable characteristics in subsequent plantings, thus reducing the motivation of farmers to save seed. Moreover, commercial competitors cannot reproduce hybrid seeds without access to the parental lines used to develop them; keeping those lines physically secure reduces the appropriation problem (World Bank 2006, 7-8). However, even these built-in protections have their limitations. Seed production in India and China tends to be concentrated in geographic zones with favorable agronomic conditions; the presence of many competing firms working in a relatively small area creates numerous opportunities for misappropriation (Tripp, Louwaars, and Eaton 2007, 360).
Notwithstanding the market access restrictions, foreign firms have been permitted to undertake several new biotech R&D projects in China. New investments reportedly are permitted if they are limited to research and experimentation, and do not extend to the commercialization of new products." Syngenta, for example, is building a research center in Beijing for the early evaluation of genetically modified traits in key crops, and has a number of ongoing collaborations with Chinese research universities (Syngenta 2008). Bayer CropScience has entered into a memorandum of understanding with the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Science (CAAS) for the "joint development and global marketing of new agricultural products" using the latest plant breeding and biotechnology processes (Bayer CropScience 2008). Although FDI restrictions remain in place, foreign firms appear to have concluded that the R&D they do in China today ultimately will lead to products they can commercialize there in the future.
As WTO members, China and India must make IP protection available for seed-related inventions. The WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) requires that member countries make patents available for inventions, whether products or processes, in all fields of technology without discrimination, subject to the normal tests of novelty, inventiveness, and industrial applicability (TRIPS, art. 27.1). Although there is an exception to this general rule of patentability for plants and animals, it is limited: members must still allow inventors to patent microorganisms and microbiological and non-biological processes for the production of plants and animals. It is left to each member's legislators, courts, and patent offices, however, to define critical terms and to determine if a particular biotechnology product or process is novel, inventive, and has an industrial application.
The Importance of IP Protection IP protection for biotech seeds is an important framework condition for innovation, because the development and commercialization of new products involves large research expenditures, uncertain outcomes, and lengthy and costly regulatory procedures (Maskus 2004, 721). Monsanto, for example, estimates R&D investments for new biotech corn products at $5â&#x20AC;&#x201D;10 million for the proofof-concept phase and $10-15 million for early product development (Monsanto India Ltd. 2009, 7). Kalaitzandonakes, Alston, and Bradford (2007, 510) found that to obtain regulatory approval, global seed firms incurred compliance costs ranging from $7 million to $15 million for herbicide-tolerant and insect-resistant corn submitted to regulators in 10 countries. The initial innovating firms cannot obtain a return on their heavy R&D and regulatory compliance costs if competitors are permitted to free-ride on their work.
Moreover, if a member country does not provide patents for plant varieties, it must provide an effective alternative system (TRIPS, art. 27.3(b)). Some countries, including the United States, offer both patents and an alternative system to protect plants. Most developing countries, including India and China, provide only an alternative system, using the model supplied by the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV).
Patents in India and China Both India and China exclude plants and seeds from patent protection but provide some patent protection for m i c ro o rg a n i s m s a n d f o r n o n - b i o l o g i c a l a n d microbiological processes used to produce plants. However, global seed firms have expressed concern about the actual scope of the coverage given to biotechnology products and processes in both countries. Global firms also have expressed concern about the requirement in both countries that patent applications identify the source and geographic origin of biological materials used to
An additional challenge arises from the "natural appropriation problem" of seeds (Maskus 2004, 722). OPVs can be reproduced simply by cultivating and reusing them, and biotech seeds can be relatively easily copied by competitors employing the latest biotechnology techniques. By contrast, hybrid seeds have some built-in Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
37
make an invention, stating that it is ambiguous and burdensome. Patent law provisions in both countries that permit compulsory licensing under a wide variety of circumstances also give rise to significant industry concerns.
Unlike in India, China's government-supported research institutions and universities are also important players in biotech seed patents. For example, a review of patents and applications related to Bt cotton shows substantial activity by Chinese research institutes and universities (figure 3). The research institutes of CAAS, including the Biotechnology Research Institute (BRI), all hold multiple patents or applications for Bt-related technologies, as do Huazhong Agricultural University and Central-China Agricultural University.14 By contrast, few domestic Chinese firms hold patents or applications in the Bt technology area. China and India are thus similar in limited patenting activities by domestic companies compared with strong patenting by global firms. They differ in that Chinese research institutions and universities do engage in substantial patenting.
India and China have granted some agricultural biotechnology patents. According to online records of the Indian Patent Office, Monsanto holds the largest number of recently granted patents for seed technologies.10 For example, it has obtained a patent for "Cotton Event Monl5985," the genetics underlying the second generation of its biotech cotton seed product, as well as patents for biotechnology processes used in producing plants with herbicide tolerance, improved germination rates, and other valuable traits. Biotechnology patents for improved traits for rice, cotton, corn, and other crops, as well as biotechnology-based seed coatings and treatments, have been issued to Bayer and Syngenta. Global seed firms also have a substantial number of biotechnology patent applications pending.
FIGURE 3 China: Bt-Related Patents and Applications, 1985-2009 26 30
21
25 20
By contrast, most large Indian seed companies, such as Rasi Seeds and Nuziveedu, do not hold patents or pending applications for seed-related technologies. One exception is Mahyco, which has a number of seed biotech applications pending. Public sector research institutions, such as ICAR and the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), also hold few seed biotech patents or applications at the Indian patent office. 12
15
7
5
10 5 0 Foreign
Chinese
Applications
Patents
Source: China Patent Database: http://search.cnpat.com.cn.
Plant Variety Protection in India and China
In China, there is substantial patenting of seed biotechnologies by foreign firms (figure 2).13 Monsanto has the largest number of granted patents and pending applications. For example, it has obtained patents related to its insect-resistant cotton and for genetic sequences in corn, bentgrass, and soybeans that confer tolerance to herbicides, improved trait qualities, and other benefits. Other global seed firms have only a handful of granted patents in China and a larger numbers of applications pending. These pending applications are in areas such as climactic stress tolerance, yield improvement, herbicide tolerance, insect and virus resistance, and other valuable traits.
China and India have enacted plant variety protection (PVP) laws a alternative to offering patent protection for plant varieties. These laws pro marketing rights to developers of new plant varieties that are distinct, unif and stable.15 China enacted its Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA) in and began accepting applications to register new varieties in 1999-10 I enacted legislationâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights 2001 (PPV&FR law)â&#x20AC;&#x201D;in 2001, but did not begin accepting applications fo protection of plant varieties until May 2007. Major differences between PVP laws in India, China, and the United States are highlighted below. Plant variety rights have significant limitations and are generally considered weaker than patent rights (table I).
FIGURE 2 China: Global Firms' Seed Biotech Patents and Applications, 1984-2009 Dow Pioneer Hi-Bred
India provides the shortest term of protection for plant varieties, followed by China and then the United States. China and India are phasing in coverage of the law to include new crops each year; however, because India's law is of recent vintage and its application was delayed several
Syngenta BASF Bayer Monsanto 10
20
30
40
Applications
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
50
60
70
80
90
Patents
38
years, relatively few crops are covered. China did not include cotton on the list of crops entitled to PVP until 2005â&#x20AC;&#x201D;a delay labeled "strategic" by Keeley (2003, 23), as it appears to have been intended to enable the unrestricted spread of the first generation of biotech cotton technologies.
"essentially derived" from a protected variety without sharing the benefits with the source variety's owner. Global seed firms state that the broad farmers' privileges and breeders' exemptions render PVP laws of limited commercial value in both India and China. Perhaps because of this limited value, the dominant users of the PVP systems in India and China are public research institutions and universities, generally seeking protection for conventional hybrids and OPVs rather than biotech plants. In India, most applications have been filed by I CAR (figure 4). The combined share of ICAR and the state agricultural universities (SAUs) equals 54 percent of all applications. Most of the remaining applications are filed by the private sector, which includes both domestic and foreign firms; few applications are filed by farmers.
The most significant difference between PVP laws in the three countries is in the breadth of farmers' privileges. Under India's law, farmers are permitted to save, use, sow, exchange, share, and even sell protected seed. The only limitation is a prohibition on the sale of "branded seed." China's law permits farmers to save and informally exchange seed, but prohibits commercial sales. U.S. law is significantly more restrictive; farmers can save seed only under specific conditions, and a new variety cannot be
TABLE 1 Major differences in PVP laws in India, China, and the United States India 18 years for trees and vines; 15 years for other crops and extant varieties.
China 20 years for vines, fruits, and ornamentals; 15 years for all other crops.
Coverage
18 crops currently eligible.
73 crops currently eligible.
Farmer seed saving and exchange
Seed saving, exchange, and sale by farmers are broadly permitted. Farmers are only prohibited from selling "branded seed."
Farmer seed saving and exchange are permitted, if noncommercial.
Seed saving and sole use by the farmer to produce a crop are permitted, subject to the legitimate interests of the breeder. Farmers cannot sell or share seed without the permission of the breeder and payment of royalties.
Breeder's exemption
Protected varieties may be used for breeding.
Protected varieties may be used for\ breeding.
Breeding activities permitted provided that the benefits of new varieties that are "essentially derived" from protected varieties are shared.
Length of protection
United States 25 years for trees and vines, 20 years for other crops.
Sources : Indian Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act (2001); U.S. Plant Variety Protection Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 2321-2582 (2007); Regulations of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (1999); and World Bank 2006, 7. Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
39
farmers economically. The Indian goal of protecting farmers generally is not part of the regulatory framework in developed countries (Pray et al. 2006, 142-43).
FIGURE 4 Plant variety protection applications filed in India, 2007-present 90
Like the United States, India and China have detailed regulatory frameworks for the review of biotech seeds, encompassing multiple agencies and numerous stages. In China, for example, these stages are intended to take place over a number of years and include laboratory development (variable, 2-4 years), contained field trials (1—2 years), environmental release trials (2—4 years), and pre-production trials (1+ years), followed by the approval or rejection of the product for commercial release (Karplus and Deng 2008, 116; Monsanto 2009, 7). In addition to biosafety review, separate procedures also exist at the state and provincial level for the registration of biotech seeds before they can be marketed. These procedures can add another 2-3 years to the time to market in China (Petry and Bugang 2008, 8).
11 606
577 ICAR
Private Sector
SAUs
Farmers
Source: Indian PPV&FR Authority. Similarly, according to data compiled in China by Hu and others (2006), 66 percent of PVP applications were filed by government research institutes during the period 1999—2004. This figure actually understates public sector involvement, as approximately half of the applications filed by the private sector were for plants developed by the public research institutions and then licensed to private firms for purposes of the application (Hu et al. 2006, 261, 264). Public sector efforts to protect and commercialize IP are not surprising, given that government research institutes in China often are expected to generate a significant portion of their own budgets. Some provincial governments motivate researchers to develop new varieties for commercialization by awarding bonuses or other privileges based on the number of applications filed (Hu et al. 2006, 265).
High costs and lengthy procedures can result in products being withdrawn from consideration if the costs of compliance outweigh the benefits the firm can obtain in a particular market. Bayer CropScience, for example, reportedly withdrew its biotech mustard seed from regulatory consideration in India in 2003 after approximately nine years of review and millions of dollars in costs. Bayer reported that the continued costs, uncertainty about whether the product would ever be approved, and potentially small market size all contributed to the decision not to continue with commercialization of the product in India (Pray, Bengali, and Ramaswami 2005, 273). Moreover, lengthy regulatory proceedings can have the unintended effect of encouraging the growth of illegal seed markets to fill unmet demand during protracted review periods, as occurred in India when illegal versions of Bt cotton reached the market while the legitimate product was still under review (box 1).
The public sector dominance of the PVP system in India and China stands in stark contrast to the situation in the United States, where private firms account for 75 percent of PVP filings, universities and the government only 15 percent, and foreign applicants the remainder (Strachan 2006, 2). The PVP systems in China and India stimulate some private sector R&D of new varieties but also—even more importantly, based on user statistics—motivate public sector participation.
Both the public and the private sectors in India and China have been conducting field trials of new biotechnology crops since the late 1990s. However, no new biotech crops have been approved in India since Bt cotton in 2002. Table 2 identifies crops undergoing field trials in India. In China, Bt cotton, approved in 1996, is the only widely planted biotech crop. According to reports, stress-tolerant rice, disease-resistant cotton, insect-resistant corn, herbicidetolerant soybeans, virus-resistant wheat, improved potato, insect-resistant poplar trees, and many other crops have undergone or completed trials and testing since 1996 (Karplus and Deng 2008, 104). Significant developments occurred in November 2009 when China's Ministry of Agriculture announced that it had issued
Regulatory Review Biotech seeds cannot be marketed until they have been reviewed and approved for release by the regulatory system. The goals of the Chinese and Indian regulatory systems are wide-ranging. In China, they are to promote biotechnology R&D, tighten the safety controls on genetic engineering work, guarantee public health, prevent environmental pollution, and maintain ecological balance. In India, they are to ensure that biotech crops pose no major risk to food safety, environmental safety, or agricultural production, and that they will not harm Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
40
biosafety certificates to domestically developed biotech rice and phytase corn (used for animal feed), although further approvals are required before the crops can be grown on a commercial scale (Batson and Areddy 2009).
whether a global firm would have market exclusivity in the event of an approval and thus the ability to charge particularly high prices. Regulatory approval reportedly has been delayed or denied to avoid such a possibility.
A science-based, efficient, and transparent regulatory system is essential for private and public sector firms seeking to introduce new biotech seed technologies on the market, as well as for farmers and the consuming public. In both China and India, however, regulatory systems reportedly have been used to block market access for global firms and to favor domestic ones. Regulatory review in India has been reported to take into account the way in which a product will be commercialized, including
The product that appears closest to regulatory approval in India is Bt eggplant, which uses technology similar to that in Bt cotton and is sponsored by Mahyco. Mahyco also has donated the Bt eggplant technology to public research institutions in India that are developing OPVs (rather than hybrids) that will be made available to poor farmers for saving and reuse. Mahyco started R&D work on Bt eggplant in 2000, and the product has moved slowly through the regulatory pipeline (Choudhary and Guar
TABLE 2 India : Biotech crops in field trials, 2006-2009 Crop
No. of Public/Private Organizations
Trait
L Eggplant
Public (3) Private (3)
Insect resistance
Cabbage
Private (2)
Insect resistance
Castor
Public (1)
Insect resistance
Cauliflower
Private (2)
Insect resistance
Corn
Private (3)
"Insect resistance, herbicide tolerance"
Cotton
Public (1) Private (4)
"Insect resistance, herbicide tolerance"
Groundnut
Public (1)
Virus resistance Drought tolerance
Okra
Private (4)
Insect resistance
Potato
Public (2)
Disease resistance
Rice
Public (4) Private (3)
Insect resistance Disease resistance Virus resistance Drought tolerance Fortified food Hybrid improvement
Sorghum
Public (1)
Insect resistance
Tomato
Public (1) Private (2)
Virus resistance Insect resistance Drought resistance
Source: Indian GMO Research Information System Web Site; James 2008u. Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
41
2009, 43-45, 54). Although the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) approved the product October of 2009 after lengthy review, shortly thereafter India's environment minister put the approval on hold pending further consultations (GMO Safety 2009).
legitimate seed dominated markets in Hebei and Anhui provinces (where Monsanto's joint ventures had a strong local presence). The prevalence of illegal seeds reduced benefits from the adoption of Bt cotton. Using regression analysis, Hu and others found that farmers who used legitimate seeds used fewer pesticides and obtained higher yields when compared to those who used illegitimate seeds. Moreover, farmers who obtained their seeds from commercial channels rather than from state actors or seed exchange obtained better yields, as did farmers who chose the Monsanto rather than the CAAS varieties (Hu et al. 2009, 801). These empirical results provide strong support for the conclusion that better IP enforcement and regulatory oversight to ensure that farmers are using legitimate and approved products, as well as reform of the seed industry to permit more foreign participation in China, could improve the production efficiency of cotton and other biotech crops.
In China, the Ministry of Agriculture recently announced biosafety approvals for genetically modified phytase corn and rice. Phytase corn, developed by the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Science and sponsored by Origin Agritech, is intended for use in animal feed to limit the need for phosphate supplements, and thereby reduce feed costs and environmental impacts. Origin has noted in its corporate filings that the fact that foreign-funded companies are restricted to early-stage R&D activities has given it a substantial competitive advantage over global biotech companies (Origin Agritech 2008, 69). With regard to biotech rice, the Ministry of Agriculture noted that its recent approval: "is an important achievement in independent intellectual property from our country's research into genetic modification technology" (Batson and Areddy 2009). Both India and China thus have recently focused on moving domestically developed products forward in their regulatory pipelines.
The Adoption of Bt Cotton in India and China: A Case Study Bt cotton has been the first, and only, widely commercialized biotech crop planted in India and China. While the product has been developed and introduced differently in the two countries, one commonality is notable: the accrual of benefits to farmers in terms of increased profits and yields. We begin with a discussion of these benefits, and then turn to a description of the uptake of Bt cotton in both countries, with a focus on the factors identified as important—market access, IP protection, and regulatory review. The paper concludes with a general assessment of the ways the two countries' policy environments support (or fail to support) seed innovation.
Illegal Seeds in India and China The spread of illegal seeds remains a substantial and ongoing problem in China and India. Some illegal seeds violate IP laws while others violate regulatory requirements that biotech products be reviewed and approved before commercial release. Examples of illegal seeds that violate IP laws are those mislabeled to confuse the consumer into believing that he is buying a legitimate product, as well as legitimate products that have been misappropriated, for example by theft from breeders' fields. A description of the market for illegal cotton seeds in India is provided below, box 1.
Benefits from the Adoption of Bt Cotton in India and China
Illegal seeds are also a significant problem in China. With regard to biotech cotton, the problem may be even more prevalent than in India because the genetics were originally inserted into OPVs—which can be saved and reused in subsequent seasons—rather than hybrids. Based on a sample of farmers surveyed in five provinces in Northern China in 1999-2001, Hu and others (2009) measured the incidence of legitimate and illegitimate versions of domestic Bt cotton (the public sector variety developed by CAAS) and foreign Bt cotton (the Monsanto product marketed by Chinese joint ventures). Illegitimate seed was more prevalent than legitimate seed in Henan (83 percent of sampled households), Shandong (60 percent), and Jiangsu (56 percent) provinces, while
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
Bt cotton was approved for commercial release in India in 2002, and farmers grew about 50,000 hectares of it in the first year. Adoption increased rapidly over the next years. By 2008, 7.6 million acres were planted in Bt cotton, representing 82 percent of all cotton planted that year. Increases in yield went hand in hand with increased adoption. Prior to Bt cotton, India had one of the lowest cotton yields in the world—308 kg per hectare in 2001/02; yields are expected to reach 591 kg per hectare in 2008/09 (figure 5). India also moved from being an importer of cotton in 2002 to a substantial exporter by 2008 (lames 2008, 52).
42
studies conducted by the Center for Chinese Agricultural Policy, Bt cotton has increased average yields by 9.6 percent, reduced insecticide use by 60 percent and, at the national level, increased income by approximately $800 million per year (lames 2008, 97). The substantial benefits derived from Bt cotton underscore the importance in both countries of getting the policy environment right for innovation in biotech seeds.
600
100
500
80
400
60
300 40
200
20
100
0
0 2003-04
2004-05 Yield
2005-6
2006-07
Bt Cotton Adoption Rate %
Cotton Yield (Bushels / Hectare)
FIGURE 5 India Cotton Yield and Bt Cotton Adoption Rate, 2003-08
The Impact of Government Policies on the Adoption ofBt Cotton
2007-08
Adoption
Domestic and foreign firms spearheaded the adoption of Bt cotton in India. The Indian public sector had little involvement in the product's R&D and commercialization; the Indian government's Department of Biotechnology (DBT) rejected an offer from Monsanto to collaborate on biotech crops (table 3). In 1995, Mahyco obtained permission to import Bt cotton technology from Monsanto. R&D began, and in 1998 Monsanto purchased a 26 percent share in Mahyco. The two companies then formed Mahyco-Monsanto Biotech (MMB), a 50:50 joint venture to commercialize biotech products in India (Scoones 2003, 7).
Source : Indiastat.com
The increased use of Bt cotton also has coincided with a significant decrease in pesticide use. Historically, cotton had consumed more insecticides than any other crop in India. The market for insecticides for bollworm (the pest to which Bt cotton is targeted) declined from $147 million in 1998 to $65 million in 2006, despite the fact that the total area planted in cotton increased. As a result of the increased yields and the decreased use of pesticides, cotton farmers made more money. The adoption of Bt cotton reportedly generated economic benefits of $3.2 billion from 2002 to 2007 (James 2008, 43, 51).
MMB obtained regulatory approval for Bt cotton in 2002, about six years after it began field testing of the product. Thereafter, MMB licensed the technology to other domestic and foreign firms for use in their own hybrids. Today, Bt cotton products have been commercialized in India by 30 companies in a total of 274 hybrids. Domestic firms also have obtained approval for two new Bt cotton "events,"23 including one sourced from CAAS. In 2008, the Indian public sector obtained regulatory approval for its Bt cotton event, with genetics inserted into OPVs that farmers can save and reuse (lames 2008, 56).
In China, Bt cotton was approved for use in 1996, making China one of the six "founder biotech crop countries" that approved biotech crops in the first year of their global commercialization ([ames 2008, 88). Cotton is primarily grown in the provinces of Hebei, Henan, Shandong, Anhui, Jiangsu, and Shanxi; Bt cotton adoption rates in these provinces are generally above 80 percent. Adoption rates are much lower (about 10â&#x20AC;&#x201D;15 percent) in Xingjiang province, where the cotton bollworm is not considered to be a major problem (lames 2008, 90). Overall, the adoption rate in China has held relatively steady in recent years at about 66 to 69 percent, figure 6.
IP protections did not play a central role in the initial introduction of Bt cotton in India. The MMB Bt cotton events were inserted into hybrids, which have natural, built-in protection mechanisms against appropriation by farmers and competitors. Moreover, patent protections were not available for biotech products at the time Bt cotton was introduced, and the plant variety protection system was not put into place until 2007.
1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0
80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Adoption Rate (1%)
Yield (bushels/hectare)
FIGURE 6 China cotton yield and Bt cotton adoption rate, 1997-2007
The slow-moving regulatory system did give some firstmover advantages to the MMB product. Domestic firms with Bt cotton events did not obtain regulatory approval to commercialize their Bt cotton technologies until 2006, four years after the approval of MMB's first product, Bollgard I. However, delayed approval of the MMB product also fostered a market in illegal seeds to satisfy unmet demand for the technology. Today, Bollgard II is patented
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Yield
Adoption
Source : CEIC China Database
China did not start from the same low levels of productivity in cotton as India and thus has not experienced such dramatic yield increases. Based on Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
43
in India, but illegal seeds are an ongoing problem because of the inadequate enforcement of IP laws and regulatory requirements.
too much of an upper hand in the Bt cotton collaboration (Keeley 2003, 22). CAAS had its own public sector Bt cotton varieties in development simultaneously with the Monsanto product. The CAAS varieties obtained regulatory approval first and over a wider geographic area. However, CAAS had difficulties with marketing its products. As a government research institute, it reportedly did not have the distribution networks or relationships needed to efficiently bring its varieties to market. CAAS addressed the problem by taking a major stake in Biocentury Transgene Corporation, a company formed to handle the sales of Bt cotton seeds (Karplus and Deng 2008, 88). Biocentury received substantial funding from the 863 program and other government funding programs. As a MOST official stated: "We gave them a title, they are a 'National Development Base of the 863 programme,' not an ordinary company, a national development base, that helps their business" (Keeley 2003, 19). Origin Agritech acquired a 34 percent stake in Biocentury in 2006, and now
The public sector has played a much larger role in the development and adoption of Bt cotton in China; the role of foreign firms has been substantially circumscribed (table 4). As in India, Monsanto initially attempted to collaborate with the government on biotech cotton but was turned down (after the technology was shared and field tests conducted). Monsanto and Delta & Pineland (another U.S. firm) then formed a joint venture called Jidai with the Hebei Provincial Seed Company to develop and distribute biotech seeds. The U.S. partners initially held a 67 percent share in the venture. Jidai obtained approval to market the Monsanto variety in 1997. The adoption of the Monsanto varieties was rapid in Hebei and later in Anhui and Shandong provinces (Karpus and Deng 2008, 88-89). In 1997, the Chinese government reduced to 49 percent the stake that a foreign firm could hold in a Chinese seed company, based on concerns that the foreign firms had
TABLE 3 Bt Cotton in India: Chronology of Events Date
Events
1990-1993
Monsanto approaches the Indian government's Department of Biotechnology (DBT) to collaborate on the development and commercialization of Bt technology. Indian government rejects offer.
1995
Mahyco granted permission to import Bt cotton genetics from Monsanto.
1996
Monsanto's Bt cotton approved for commercial release in the United States
1996
Mahyco develops three backcrossed lines using Monsanto genetics and its own cotton hybrids and begins biosafety testing.
1998
Monsanto acquires a share of Mahyco and they form MMB to jointly develop and commercialize biotech products in India.
1996-2002
MMB carries out field and biosafety trials to support the regulatory approval of Bt cotton.
2002
GEAC approves commercial release of MMBâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Bt cotton for a three year trial period in six states.
2006
GEAC approves Bollgard II, the second generation Monsanto product, and genetic events from JK Agri-Genetics and Nath Seeds.
2006-2008
GEAC approves a total of 274 Bt cotton hybrids commercialized by 30 different companies.
2008
GEAC approves Bt cotton genetics developed by public sector and inserted into OPV that can be saved and reused by farmers.
2009
Monsanto obtains Indian patent for genetics underlying the second generation of its Bt cotton product, Bollgard I.I
Sources: Scoones 2003; James 2008. Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
44
markets the CAAS Bt cotton varieties (Origin 2008, 45, 48).
introduction of Bt cotton into China. Plant variety protection has been in place since 1997; however, cotton was specifically excluded from coverage until 2005. Patent protection for biotech products was not available at the time of the initial release of the Monsanto and CAAS products. The fact that the Bt cotton events were in OPVs in China rather than hybrids as in India appears to have encouraged even more widespread use of illegitimate seeds in China.
The market position of the CAAS varieties has improved significantly in recent years. Today, domestic varieties of Bt cotton are estimated to hold 80 percent of the market, although official data are not available (Sanchez and Lei 2009, 5). Keeley attributes much of the CAAS success to strategic decisions by regulators to deny approval to the Monsanto product in a number of provinces, particularly in the Yangtze River cotton region. Although regulatory authorities justified the decisions on biosafety grounds, industry representatives were skeptical (Keeley 2003, 24). FDI guidelines issued in 2002 prohibiting foreign firms from commercializing biotech products further preserve the market dominance of Chinese firms.
Recently, Monsanto, CAAS, and others have obtained patents for their latest Bt cotton events. However, enforcement of IPR laws and regulatory requirements is an ongoing problem. While the initial regulatory approval of the Bt cotton technology occurred more quickly in China than in India, at the provincial level, the Monsanto product faced regulatory delays and denials that appear to have
IP protection did not play a central role in the initial
TABLE 4 Bt Cotton in China: Chronology of Events Date
Events
Early 1990s
Monsanto and the Chinese government's Cotton Research Institute begin a joint research program on biotech cotton. The joint program dissolves in 1995.
Mid-1990s
Monsanto and Delta & Pineland form a joint venture with the Hebei Provincial Seed Company and set up a new company, Jidai, to test, obtain regulatory approval, and commercialize Bt cotton varieties. CAAS begins field-testing and commercialization of its own BT cotton varieties.
1996
Two CAAS Bt cotton varieties are approved for commercialization in nine provinces.
1997
Jidai obtains approval to market Bt cotton in Hebei province only. Rapid adoption of Monsanto product.
1997
Government reduces to 49 percent the maximum foreign ownership in seed companies.
1997-99
Slow initial adoption of CAAS products by local seed companies. CAAS sets up Biocentury Transgene Corporation to manage seed sales and licensing.
2002
CAAS receives marketing approval for its varieties in the Yangtze River Region; Monsanto joint venture does not receive approval.
2002
Chinese government issues FDI guidelines prohibiting foreign firms from setting up new joint ventures to commercialize biotech seeds.
2004-09
Bt cotton-related patents issued in China to CAAS, Monsanto, and other public and private sector firms.
Sources: Karplus and Deng 2008; Keeley 2003. Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
45
been unrelated to biosafety issues. These practices may undermine confidence in the regulatory system's ability to regulate new biotech seeds in a fair and science-based manner.
development and commercialization of genetic events for OPVs that will be made available to farmers at a reduced cost is an exception to otherwise lower levels of public sector participation. The enforcement of IP protections and regulatory requirements also remains a significant problem in India. Significant delays, and decisions that focus on factors other than biosafety, undermine confidence in India's regulatory system. Timely, sciencebased review of products that have languished in the regulatory pipeline for years would be an important improvement in India's innovation policy environment.
Conclusions This paper has compared and contrasted government policies in India and China to support innovation in the field of biotech seeds. Both countries have determined that biotech is an important tool for responding to substantial challenges in their agricultural sectors, and have put in place institutions and funding mechanisms to support R&D in agricultural biotechnology. India and China also have adopted policies in the areas of market access, IP protection, and regulatory review that have both fostered and discouraged innovation in biotech seeds.
References Batson, Andrew, and James T. Areddy. 2009. Beijing gives nod to modified rice. Wall Street Journal, December 1. Bayer CropScience. 2008. Bayer CropScience and the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences signed Memorandum of Understanding. News release, November 4.
China has established a central role for the public sector in controlling biotech seed innovation. Market access for foreign firms is severely limited. China's public sector takes a leading role in R&D and in the formation and support of firms charged with marketing biotech seeds. China's government research institutions and universities also are leading users of the patent and plant variety IP protection systems. China's apparent strategic use of regulatory review to deny market access to foreign firms has also buttressed the position of the public sector and its affiliated firms.
Beintema, Nienke, and Gert-Jan Stads. 2008. Measuring agricultural research investments. ASTI Background Note, October. Beintema, Nienke, P. Adhiguru, Pratap S. Birthal, and A.K. Bawa. 2008. Public agricultural research investments: India in a global context. Policy Brief 27, National Centre for Agricultural Economics and Policy Research, November. BioSpectrum. 2009. BioSpectrum-ABLE industry overview, June. Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO). 2009. India: Effects of tariffs and nontariff measures on U.S. agricultural exports. Written submission to the U.S. International Trade Commission in connection with inv. no. 332 504, India: Effects of tariffs and nontariff measures on U.S. agricultural exports, June 26. Chinese Academy of Science and Technology for Development (CASTED). 2009. Entrance of foreign seed enterprises threatening China's seed security. SinoFile, July 20.
If judged by the strong market position of domestic varieties of Bt cotton, China's strategy of public sector dominance of biotech seeds has been successful. However, the fact that no other biotech products have been widely commercialized in the 13 years since the approval of Bt cotton suggests weaknesses in China's approach. China's recent decision to permit FDI in some biotech seed R&D projects is perhaps a recognition that closing the market to foreign participation also shuts off access to valuable technologies needed to address serious agricultural challenges. More cynically, it may represent an attempt to obtain access for domestic firms to the latest technologies. Improved enforcement of regulatory and IP laws is critical to ensure that only safe and legitimate products are permitted on the market.
Choudhary, Bhagirath, and Kadambini Guar. 2008. Trust in the seed. New Delhi: International Services for the Acquisition of Agribiotech Applications (ISAAA). The development and regulation of Bt brinjal in India. 2009. ISAAA brief 38, ISAAA. Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). 2008. Agricultural biotechnology, July 17. GMO Safety. 2009. India: Dispute about GM Aubergines, October 27. Giddings, Val L., and Bruce M. Chassy 2009. Igniting agricultural innovation. Science Progress, July. Gifford, Ralph, Xiang Qing, and Adam Branson. 2002. China, Peoples Republic of: Food and agricultural import regulations and standards. GAIN report CH2012. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), March 14. Girdhar, Mahesh. 2006. Public private partnership in seed development. Presentation, Bayer CropScience, October 19.
By contrast, India has opened its seed sector to foreign participation on terms equal to those of domestic firms. However, strict price controls at the state level have undermined India's liberal investment environment and undermined the innovative efforts of both foreign and domestic firms. India's public sector has been much less active than China's in R&D and in obtaining IP protection for biotech innovations. The recent focus on the Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
Government of India (GOI). Ministry of Finance. 2008. Economic survey 2007â&#x20AC;&#x201D; 2008. Ministry of Science and Technology. 2006. Report of the working group for the eleventh five year plan (2007-2012). Herring, Ron. 2009. Persistent narratives: Why is the "failure of Bt cotton in India" story still with us? AgBioForum 12 (1): 14-22.
46
Huang, Jikun, Ruifa Hu, Carl Pray, and Scott Rozelle. 2004. Plant biotechnology in China: Public investments and impacts on farmers. Proceedings of the 4th International Crop Science Congress.
moves forward in new technologies. Gain Report CH9138. USDA, FAS. Pray, Carl E., Prajakta Bengali, and Bharat Ramaswami. 2005. The cost of biosafety regulations: The Indian experience. Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture 44 (3): 267-289.
Hu, Ruifa, Carl Pray, Jikun Huang, Scott Rozelle, Cunhui Fan, and Caiping Zhang. 2009. Reforming intellectual property rights and the Bt cotton seed industry in China: Who benefits from policy reform? Research Policy 38:793—801.
Pray, Carl E., Bharat Ramaswami, and Timothy Kelley. 2001. The impact of economic reforms on R&D by the Indian seed industry. Food Policy 26:587—98.
Hu, Ruifa, Jie Huang, Carl Pray, and Jikun Huang 2006. The determinants of plant variety protection applications in China. Journal of Intellectual "Property Rights 11:260-68.
Rai, Mangala. 2006. Harnessing genetic power to enhance agricultural productivity, profitability and resource use efficiency. Twelfth Dr. B.P Pal Memorial Lecture.
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank (World Bank). 2006. Intellectual property rights: Designing regimes to support plant breeding in developing countries. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Ramaswami, Bharat, and Carl E. Pray. 2006. Genetically modified crops and the poor: Can India realize the potential? http://mmv.isid.ac.in/~bharat/Doc/ Indiabellagio_revised(2)MLH-17april.pdf.
International Monetary Fund (IMF). 2009. World Economic Outlook Database, April.
Reddinger, Hattie. 1997. Planting seeds. Post report CH7048. American Embassy, Beijing.
Jaffe, Gregory. 2007. Regulatory slowdown on GM crop decisions. Nature biotechnology 24 (7): 748-49.
Sanchez, Jorge, and ZhangLei. 2009. China, Peoples Republic of: Planting seeds annual 2008. GAIN Report CH9001. USDA, FAS.
James, Clive. 2008. Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2008. ISAAA brief 39, ISAAA.
Scoones, lan. 2003. Regulatory manoeuvres: The Bt cotton controversy in India. IDS Working Paper 197. Institute of Development Studies.
Kalaitzandonakes, Nicholas, Julian M. Alston, and Kent J. Bradford. 2007. Compliance costs for regulatory approval of new biotech crops. Nature Biotechnology 25 (5): 509-11.
Shuping, Niu. 2008. China approves big budget for GMO amid food worries. Reuters, July 10.
Karplus, Valerie J., and Xing Wang Deng. 2008. Agricultural biotechnology in China: rigins and prospects. New York: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.
Strachan, Janice M. 2006. Plant variety protection in the United States. In Encyclopedia of Plant and Crop Science. Boca Raton, FL: CRC/Taylor & Francis.
Keeley, James. 2003. The biotech developmental state? Investigating the Chinese gene revolution. IDS Working Paper 207, Institute of Development Studies.
Suresh, Narayanan, and Ch. Srinivas Rao. 2009. Profiles of four top biotech companies in India. Biotechnology Journal 4:295-300. Syngenta. 2008. Syngenta to build major global biotech research center in Beijing, China. News release, April 17.
Lalitha, N, Carl E. Pray, and Bharat Ramaswami. 2008. The limits of intellectual property rights: Lessons from the spread of illegal transgenic seeds in India. Discussion Paper 08-06, Indian Statistical Institute.
Thomas, Jayan. 2007. Knowledge economies in India, China and Singapore. ISAS Working Paper 18. Institute of South Asian Studies.
Maskus, Keith E. 2004. Intellectual property rights in agriculture and the interests of Asian-Pacific economies. Discussion Paper 59, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University
Tripp, Robert, Niels Louwaars, and Derek Eaton. 2007. Plant variety protection in developing countries. Food Policy 32:354—371. Tuli, Rakesh, Samir Viswanath Sawant, Prabodh Kumar Trivedi, Pradhyumna Kumar Singh, and Pravendra Nath. 2009. Agricultural biotechnology in India: Prospects and challenges. Biotechnology Journal 4'.?>19—328.
Mishra, Sourav. 2006. Monsanto at the receiving end of Bt cotton pricing policy. India Environmental Portal: Knowledge for Change, July 14 Monsanto India Limited. 2009. Annual Report 2007-2008.
United Nations General Assembly. 2009. Food Production must double by 2050 to meet demand from world's growing population. Sixty-fourth General Assembly Second Committee Panel Discussion, October 9.
Murugkar, Milind, Bharat Ramaswami, and Mahesh Shelar. 2007. Competition and monopoly in the Indian cotton seed market. Economic and Political Weekly 62 (37): 3781-89.' Origin Agritech Limited. 2009. Annual report form 20-F for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2008.
United States Council for International Business (USCIB). 2009. Written submission to the United States Trade Representative in connection with public hearing concerning China's compliance with its WTO commitments, September 22.
Petry, Mark. 2007. China, Peoples Republic of: Agricultural situation; China changes agriculture investment restrictions. GAIN report CH7087. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS).
USDA. Economic Research Service (ERS). 2002. Briefing room agricultural biotechnology: Glossary.
Petry, Mark, and Wu Bugang. 2008. China, Peoples Republic of: Biotechnology annual 2008. GAIN Report CH8063. USDA, FAS.
USDA. ERS. 2009. China agricultural and economic data: National data. U.S.-India Business Council. 2009. Written submission to the U.S. International Trade Commission in connection with inv. no. 332-504, India: Effects of tariffs and nontariff measures on U.S. agricultural exports, June 26.
Petry, Mark, and Wu Bugang. 2009. China, Peoples Republic of: Biotechnology annual 2009. GAIN Report. USDA, FAS. Petry, Mark, and Katie Rohm. 2009. China, Peoples Republic of: China
Reproduced from United States International Trade Commission - Journal of International Commerce and Economics, 2010, with the kind permission of the author (Katherine Linton)
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
47
Biotechnology:
Debates & Caveates
C.D. Mayee Former Chairman, Agricultural Scientists Recruitment Board, New Delhi Email: charumayee@yahoo.co.in
C
ommercial release of what would have been India's first genetically modified food crop i.e. Bt-brinjal, quipped with a protein from the bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) that's toxic to lepidopterun pests was approved for planting by the apex regulatory body, GEAC in October 2009. In February 2010, however, the Govt. of India imposed a 'moratorium' on its commercial release. Current events have taken its toll on the morale of scientists all over the country as they felt that the future of biotechnology hangs in the balance and that the entire sector, which is growing parallel to IT all of sudden felt a setback.
genes into important regions from wild relative is becoming part of regular national breeding programmes. More exciting areas are emerging in micropropagation, apomyxis research, Marker assisted breeding etc. We are aware what MAS has done to Basmati rice by incorporating genes imparting resistance to BLB. The cultivation of new Basmati rice has been revolutionized in North and the farmers are largely benefited. Coming back to transgenics and GM crops which find favour amongst biotechnologies as an excellent mechanism of crop improvement for combating menace of pests, diseases, weeds, enhancing N, P use efficiency, better nutrition and development of neutraceuticals, water saving and salinity tolerance and overall to tackle the issue of climate change. Let the debates and caveats continue, it is our firm belief that science and science alone can come to rescue of the food and nutritional security in the world as is historically proven fact. Overall, the general public is languid on accepting a change. We have examples in the past where pasteurized milk was rejected by public. With the first car on road people said it is a killing ehicle and rejected it. In India, first hybrid jowar and bajra were considered to be impotency creator.
Hon'ble Minister of Agriculture recently advised all the scientists during the interactive meeting with Directors and Vice-Chancellors of Agricultural Universities at New Delhi that “Genetically modified crops could solve the country's food security problem. Since land and water resources will be limited, we will have to increase productivity by following modern science and technology that includes biotechnology as well”. He emphasized that scientists must work with double vigor to prove how science can benefit farmers. So let us not get discouraged by 'debates and caveats' and dedicate with honest approach to use biotechnology products for the welfare of farmers.
Bt-gene in Bt-brinjal was compared with scorpion venum gene, which expresses the toxin and even a debate on Marathi channel was so crude on science that the speaker said he isolated cry1 Ac genes from saliva of the sheep and goat. Therefore, acceptance of a technology is always at a cost and it takes time. Dr. Normal Borlaug, the father of green revolution that saved millions of hungry humans said while accepting the Nobel Prize that “the biggest polluter in the world is poverty and that peace can not be achieved with empty stomachs”
Let us first understand what are the options in biotechnology that can boost our efforts of crop improvement, health and environment. The concept of translational biology' has received attention in the field of health, where the focus is on promotion of better collaboration between lab (bench) scientists and clinicians. There are few indications that this concept is taking hold in plant community as well. Plant Genomics is being intensively investigated world over and tools of genomics are being applied for crop improvement. The power of genomics for applied breeding has to be one of the most exciting advances of recent years. Extremely valuable to breeders is the ability to genotype their collection to get a clear picture of their diversity. The use of marker-assisted selection in cases where phenotyping presents a challenge to trace introgression of known Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
When we moved from 'green revolution' to 'gene revolution' using GM technology, one of major concerns expressed relates to safety to humans and environment. Both these issues have been adequately addressed and risk-benefit balance worked out on safety. GM cotton which has been accepted by the farmers and industry has spread to 80 per cent of the area in just eight years, and it has become an engine of economic growth in rural areas. 49
Had the technology been not good, it would have been thrown by farmers like many others which were not acceptable. Farmers who wish to benefit from the advantages that the GM crops pose are entitled to the benefits. Some of the criticisms that are often thrown are whether the GM food is safe. Cotton oil has been in food chain in India for a long enough time like imported GMsoya oil without any known consequences. Let us understand that in biology there is nothing like 'Zero risk'. We had a case of organic product in USA which killed 15 people in an outbreak of salmon. GM-corn is considered safer than non-GM because the insect-damaged tissues of non-GM corn are often colonized by the toxin producing fungi. Did we not have aflatoxin contaminated deaths reported in the country? Critics who speak of the effects on environment should also analyze the data on residue in our food crops due to indiscriminate use of pesticides. The Indian Express (18.02.2010) carried a story on the volume of pesticides used on brinjal in Simuliapara village, 100 km. from Kolkata.
Second green revolution has been talked about by everybody and we are waiting for it to happen. Will this be brought by those who are 80 plus and outdated or young minds of thritees and fortees who were never asked whether GM crops are required in the country or not. Whatever one's opinion on these issues, there seems to be little doubt that the endless and often shrill GM debates and caveats have limited the development of crops that could be relevant to poor farmers in India. In a democracy they cannot be avoided but what can be done is proper communication. I believe that communication is the key. If we have an informed public will know how to make correct decisions and in this media have an essential role. There are many challenges before us in not only the science but also in the art of science communication and commerce of acceptance. It is expected that India will be leader in biotech as we have nearly 10 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 15 crops in pipeline for different traits ready to come to rescue of farmers. They are sure to come. Young scientists should not get disheartened by failures but must remember that most successes lie in major failures.
For every Rs. 10,000 of brinjal crop, the farmer spends Rs. 8,000 on pesticides as the crop need to be sprayed 48 times in six months and once before it heads for the market.
During the last few days, scientists have already expressed their anger and disapproved of placard and demonstration- based decisions. Even when we have sad experiences, scientists have stood up to give helping hand to those who are in trouble without even knowing that extending such helping hand, sometimes one will be dragged in deep water and drowned.
Unfortunately, he or she is illiterate to come into public hearing to express their views as also the young scientists of the country who are the torch bearers of growth of India.
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
50
GM Horticultural Crops: Harbinger of Next Green Revolution
C. Aswath and Vageesh, Division of Biotechnology, Indian Institute of Horticultural Research (IIHR), Bangalore
H
orticulture is the sunrise sector in India and other developing world economies. It is the major foreign exchange earner and provider of food, nutritional and income security. There has been a perceptible shift in people's food habits in the last two decades, which is reflected in the switch from cereal-based to horticultural crops. During this period, economic growth in horticulture has far exceeded that in most agricultural commodities. Annual growth rates for vegetableble Supplies have surpassed cereals by 200% to 800% since the 1970s, accelerating in the 1990s. This trend is attributed largely to changing consumer preferences, powered by increased income and general standard of living-led awareness towards diverse and balanced nutrition. Growth potential for the production of horticultural commodities is strong in developing countries and emerging economies. In the last decade global agricultural production has stagnated at 1.5% amidst a declining agricultural share, horticulture has emerged as the key sector contributing to more than 25 to 30% of the gross value of agricultural inputs. However, productivity and marketable qualities of many horticultural crops suffer from biotic and abiotic stresses and post harvest losses. So far management of crop quality and productivity through conventional methods has not been very satisfactory. Biotechnology has therefore emerged as an important game changer with clear potential to sustainably address the problems of productivity and quality.
Projects, Network Projects and National Agricultural Innovation Project, apart from ad hoc projects on individual crops and problems. Genomic and transgenic platforms in major horticultural areas are underway. An ICAR Network Project on transgenic crops, continuing from 1995, aims to address major concerns of horticultural crops through the development of GM crops in banana, tomato, eggplant, papaya, potato, cassava and cole crops. An array of genes and specific promoters in various gene constructs is being used to develop the transgenics. Generous institutional support for GM research in horticultural crops is being provided and with it, many promising GM horticultural crops are under advanced testing for commercial release. Exciting times are ahead in the field of newer GM vistas with the utilization of nanobiotechnology, genomics and allele mining, high throughput assays, public-private partnerships, customized gene discovery and a streamlined biosafety and commercialization system.
Indian Research Status on GM Horticultural Crops Horticultural research in India is being carried out at 10 Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) institutes along with their associated 24 research stations, 6 directorates and 7 national research centres. Area-specific multidisciplinary research is also being conducted under different plans like All India Coordinated Research
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
51
Current GM-based Challenges in Horticultural Crops However rosy the picture of GM biotechnology in horticulture is, there are many threats present that must be made a priority globally and in India with appropriate GM technology. Some of the issues include: Ralstonia solanacearum resistant vegetables especially tomato
2.
Peanut bud necrosis virus resistance in tomato
Watermelon bud necrosis resistance
4.
Papaya ringspot virus resistance
5.
Banana fungal and viral resistance
6.
Abiotic stress tolerance and climate resilience across horticultural crops
The time has arrived for the GM crop development scientific community to engage policy makers, farming communities, academics, NGOs and all concerned in a participatory way with agricultural biotechnologies to be sensitized about the truly immense benefits of GM crops accrued by present day agriculture and horticulture. Common misconceptions need to be dispelled and certain real issues thoroughly addressed by researchers so there is no room for any doubt about the biosafety of transgenic crops on any front. Realization of solutions to the maladies of society using transgenic horticultural crops is possible with transgenic horticultural crops being the Holy Grail and becoming the beacon and harbinger of the much needed next green revolution. The status of research on transgenic vegetables and fruits for various traits that have been carried out in various laboratories of ICAR, is listed in Table 1.
Insect resistant transgenic research at IIHR. Non-transgenic control tomato fruit destroyed by tomato fruit borer, Helicoverpa armigera (left) and borer-resistant Cry2A-Bt tomato fruit (right).
1.
3.
Reproduced from South Asia Biosafety Program (SABP) Newsletter, April, 2012 Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
52
AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Prospects and Challenges for Improving Indian Agriculture VR Kaundinya Managing Director, Advanta India & Chairman, ABLE-Agriculture Group
S
eed is acknowledged as the most important input that the farmer uses. This is not only because the farmer loses the entire crop and his livelihood if something goes wrong with the seed, but also the seed is the only input that has an inherent genetic potential to increase yields. The plant breeders work continuously to enhance the genetic potential of the seed to increase yields or to develop resistance to pests and diseases. For centuries the farmer himself has been practising a process of selection through which he has been choosing the seed with higher yield potential.
combined the imported varieties and our own varieties and developed even higher yielding varieties locally. The food security and self sufficiency of our country is a result of a free flow of varieties and lines from some of the other countries and some of the International Institutions and the work of the Indian agricultural scientists who combined the best material from India with such lines and produced high yielding varieties and hybrids.
Seed can be a very emotional and political subject, not only in India but also in many parts of the world. Undoubtedly seed is a genetic resource that is passed down from generation to generation of farmers. However we have to keep in mind that the seed does not remain the same from generation to generation. Over many decades and centuries the seed gains and loses shades of certain characters through a natural process of genetics and selection. It is important to keep this fact in mind.
The CGIAR system of the UN, under which there are International Institutes like ICRISAT in India (for millets and sorghum), IRRI in Philippines (for rice), CYMMIT in Mexico (for wheat and corn), AVRDC in Taiwan (for vegetables) helps various countries to exchange genetic material for the common good of the humanity at large. These Institutes work with local agricultural research establishments like ICAR in India, local agricultural universities and private industry to develop varieties and hybrids that benefit the farmers in many countries.
India and Green Revolution Many of us remember that for almost 25 years after independence we used to import food grains, particularly wheat. Under a programme called PL480 we used to get aid in the form of food grains. We just did not have the capacity to produce wheat that was required to feed our population. This tells us something. It tells us that by merely the farmer improving and growing the seed in his field or by the work of the agricultural scientists in isolation in a country, the increasing demand for food will not be met unless we undertake activity to increase the genetic potential of the seed being used by the farmer.
The entire agricultural seed research is a process by which countries gain from accessing each other's material for the overall good of the humanity.
Demand and Supply of Food
It is very easy to evoke emotions about seed but it is important to note that the first breakthrough in our wheat productivity came through the introduction of dwarf Mexican varieties into India. Similarly the revolution in rice productivity came about through the introduction of IRRI varieties from Philippines like IR8, IR 64, etc. Later we Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
It is a well known fact that India is one of the most populous countries in the world. Our challenges of food security can perhaps be compared only with those of China. The enormous progress we made in food production during the 70s and 80s has given us a good sense of food security. However the situation does not 53
look very bright in future as we, as a country, have not controlled our population which is increasing @ 1.38% per annum.
How do we increase productivity of land and water? We have various options to increase availability of food. The most obvious one is to increase the land under cultivation. However it is the mostly unlikely option for us as already 54% of our total land is under cultivation. This is in comparison to 33% in Europe, 43% in USA and 57% in China. We have greater pressure to increase the productivity of our land than any country other than China.
The ICRIER working paper no.209 tells us that by 2020 India has to double its food production. The demand for meat, fish and eggs is expected to go up by 2.8 times, the demand for cereals is expected to double, the demand for vegetables and fruits is expected to go up by 1.8 times and the demand for milk is expected to go up by 2.6 times compared to 2007. All of us know that broadly speaking the production of one unit of meat will need five units of crop based inputs. All these facts would mean that the pressure on land and water in India will increase considerably in the next ten to fifteen years.
Another method to increase availability of food is to save wastage of food grains in supply chain. This is quite high in some areas. However it can not be completely eliminated given the magnitude of the task. We can expect that a maximum of 20% increase in food availability can be achieved using this method.
On the other hand if we look at the crop yields in India it becomes clear to us that in the between 1991 and 2007 the crop yields in India have been stagnant except in the case of cotton. The enormous achievements of our Green Revolution forty years back are left way behind and we are
One of the important ways to increase availability of food is to increase the productivity of land and water in the country. We have to produce more food grain per acre of land and per litre of water.
now faced with new challenges. The data available on the website of the Ministry of Agriculture reveals that during this period of 16 years the yields of crops like wheat, rice, pulses, soybeans and sugarcane have grown in the range of 0.19% to 1.4% per annum. However during the same period the yields of cotton have grown by 4.38% per annum which actually demonstrates the push that was given to this crop through GM technology.
The availability of water for agriculture is going to be an increasing problem in India during this century. Certain parts of the country are more prone to water shortages. We have more than 100m ha of land that is still dependent on rain for agriculture. Similarly about 20m ha of land is saline and the farmers are not able to grow crops in this land. This is an increasing problem in Punjab and Haryana but it is already a problem in W.Bengal, Gujarat and some other states. So increasing the productivity of water and saline soils is another way to increase food availability in the country.
It is clear from the above that this recent rate of growth in crop yields can not help us to meet the challenge of doubling our food production by 2020. We need to think of ways and means to achieve this objective. The food availability is expected to be a major challenge and if we do not act now it can become a crisis. The present situation of high food prices is only an indication of the shape of things to come if we do not act.
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
There are great opportunities to increase crop yields by improving the agronomic practices and through crop improvement. It is estimated that improved agronomic
54
Increasing shortage of farm labour is a major area of concern for the farmers in India. Due to rising income levels and Govt programs like NREGS, the shortage of labour, particularly during critical agricultural operations like transplanting, weeding and harvesting, will emerge as one of the serious problems in Indian agriculture. There is a need to look at technologies that save labour use and costs in the future.
practices can increase yields by about 50% while crop improvement can increase yields by more than 50%. All these measures like minimizing wastage in supply chain, improving the productivity of land, water and saline soils, improving agronomic practices and crop improvement have to be used as a package to make adequate food available to our growing population in the next 25 to 40 years. No single measure can help us to achieve full success.
Seed Industry The Indian seed market is about Rs.9000 crores at the moment. While this is the organized part of the market, it is believed that there is almost an equal value of the unorganized market represented by the informal exchange and farm saved seed.
Seed The details of the seed as a product and as an industry have been more misunderstood than being correctly perceived. The common man and even some of the very senior people in the political class do not appreciate the details of how this sector operates.
The Indian universities have been doing research in various crops and have released many varieties and hybrids over the last 60 years. These are Public Varieties or Public Hybrids which are made available to the private seed industry through the sale of foundation seed. However the public varieties or public hybrids have been the main domain of the operation of the public sector in the last twenty years as more and more private research hybrids and varieties have been introduced in the country by the private industry.
There are two types of seed. One type is the open pollinated varieties (OPV) which the farmers have been traditionally growing. These OPVs can reproduce themselves almost 100% and hence the farmer can save grain from the previous crop and use it as seed for the next crop. On the other hand the plant breeders developed hybrids, mostly in the second half of the last century, which have a higher potential for yield and other parameters like disease tolerance. These hybrids are produced by crossing two inbred lines and they do not reproduce themselves in the next generation. Hence the farmer has to buy hybrid seeds every year.
The National Seeds Corporation was started more than 60 years back. Along with the Seed Corporations of various states, this public sector part of the seed industry has been doing yeomen service to the Indian farmer through a timely supply of the OPV seeds of many of the large volume crops like wheat, rice, mustard, ground nut, soybeans, pulses, vegetables, etc. They are also involved in the production and distribution of various Public Hybrids in various crops like sorghum, pearl millet, corn, cotton, etc. In addition the public sector corporations also operate various subsidy programs of the Governments in different states under which they supply seeds to the farmers under subsidized rates.
But still the farmers prefer to buy hybrids every year in crops like corn, sorghum, millet, cotton, etc and are increasingly preferring to do so in other crops like rice, mustard and vegetables because they recognize the benefits of growing the hybrids. The Indian farmer has been using hybrids in different crops for almost 50 years now. He would not have done this if he was not getting financial benefits. Between the years 2000 and 2008 the yields of corn in India went up by 60% from 1800Kg/ha mainly because of an increase of 46% in the acreage under hybrids during this period. (Source: Ministry of Agriculture)
The public hybrids or public varieties are also produced and supplied by the private seed industry to the market. The public hybrids or varieties go through a process of certification by the State Seed Certification agencies. That is why these are called certified seeds and they carry a tag on each bag of seed that is certified by the agency.
Seed Replacement Rate (SRR) represents the area that is planted with newly purchased / produced seed in a year. This rate would be closer to 100% in case of hybrids and would be anywhere 5% and above in case of OPVs. It is scientifically proved that the quality of seed deteriorates from one generation to the next generation in case of farm saved seed. Hence the Government is also encouraging the farmers to use newly produced seed as much as possible. Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
The private sector or the public sector is also authorized to produce and supply privately developed proprietary varieties or hybrids to the markets without a certification, under the Blue Tag which represents self certification. These are also called Truthfully Labeled seeds. 55
There has been a long history of germplasm exchange between the public institutions and private sector for many decades. Private sector has commercialized various varieties and hybrids developed using germplasm from public institutions like State Agricultural Universities, ICAR Institutions (IARI, IIHR, IIVR, etc.) ICRISAT, etc. Germplasm exchange also happens between various International Institutions under CGIAR and the private industry in India. Free flow of germplasm from International Institutions and National Institutions to the private/public seed sector has been the backbone of the development of high quality seeds in India as well as in many countries around the world.
research investments in the country. The Parliament is also now debating the new Seed Bill which is likely to be passed soon. This bill will make it mandatory to register each seed variety/hybrid before it is commercially introduced. The registration will be based on data generated through trials with the ICAR Institutions. This measure is also likely to help in bringing about higher quality norms in the industry and increased research investments. The GM technology is covered under the Patent Act. Each of the GM traits can be protected under the Indian Patent Act as per the norms provided under the TRIPS agreement. This provides encouragement for investment in biotech research in India as well as to introduce new biotech traits from outside the country.
The industry consists of both Indian and International companies. Some of the prominent Indian companies are Advanta, Ankur, Ganga Kaveri, JK Seeds, Kaveri, Krishidhan, Mahyco, Namdhari Seeds, Nath Seeds, Nuziveedu Seeds, Rasi Seeds, Shriram Bioseed and Vibha Seeds. Among the International companies the prominent ones are Monsanto, Pioneer, Syngenta, Bayer, Devgen and others.
Biotechnology and GM Crops A misconception has been spread that all agricultural biotechnology is Genetic Modification. This is not correct. Agricultural biotechnology consists of many traits and techniques among which the Genetic Modification is the most popular technology. Molecular Marker based selection is the tool that is now extensively used in India and abroad to enhance the speed and the precision of plant breeding.
Legal Framework and Research The seed business is subjected to the Seed Act. There has been no requirement for registration of seeds in India while it is a policy in some of the other countries. This, coupled with the fact that there was no protection for Intellectual Property in seeds, led to a large scale proliferation of products and companies in the seed industry. As a result the seed industry is a highly fragmented industry.
Genetically modified seeds were introduced in the world in 1996. Today they account for about 13 Billion USD sales out of a total global seed market of about 32 billion USD. This share has been growing very rapidly in the last five years as the acceptance of GM crops has gone up at a very quick rate around the world. In 2010 GM crops were planted in an estimated 375 million acres of land in 29 countries around the world.
This is also one of the reasons why research investment in the seed industry has been very low. The research investment in India has been less than 3% of the revenue while in the developed countries it has been prevailing at 10% to 12%. Every seed variety/hybrid is unique. There is nothing like 'generic' seed variety or hybrid. So unless a company's or a breeder's intellectual property is stolen and duplicated by some one else there can not be two products that are exactly the same. In this context we can say that worldwide the seed industry is a research driven industry. In the absence of protection of intellectual property and research investments the industry has not spent enough money on developing high quality seeds that can enhance the yields dramatically in the country.
There are two types of GM traits: They are the input traits and the output traits. The input traits are those which incorporate a character into the plant because of which the way an input is used on the crop is modified. The primary beneficiary with these traits is the farmer. An example is the insect tolerant trait (Bt) which gives the plant the strength to fight the insect pests (Lepidopteran) that attack the crop. This trait modifies the way insecticides are used on the crop. Another example is the herbicide tolerant trait (Round Up Ready, Liberty Link, etc) which modifies the way herbicides are used on the crop. So far Bt cotton is the only GM crop approved for cultivation in India.
Very recently the Plant Varieties Protection and Farmers' Rights Act (PPV and FRA) is implemented by the Government. This is the first step towards encouraging research investments in the seed sector in the country. We are likely to see its impact in the form of enhanced Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
Very exciting input traits are in the pipeline. For example Water Use Efficiency trait (WUE) which will reduce the 56
water requirements of the crops considerably (estimated to be 30% reduction) and can help the vast number of farmers who cultivate rainfed crops in the country in more than 100m ha. Similarly, the Nitrogen Use Efficiency (NUE) trait, which will reduce the use of nitrogenous fertilizer on the crops by an estimated 30%. Another trait that is waiting in the wings is the salt tolerance trait which can help the farmers to grow crops in saline soils of more than 20m ha in India. All these three traits can make a huge difference to the Indian agriculture.
regulatory process for GM crops is very tough in all the countries and the resultant data that is submitted to the Governments is adequate to prove the safety of this technology. The world consists of various activists and scientists who support the safety and benefits of GM technology and perhaps more number of activists and scientists who question the safety and benefits of GM technology. As a result of this conflict that has been going on for the last two decades, extensive studies have been carried out by both the groups and all the information is available in the public domain. Without going into the technicalities of the studies it is sufficient to say that the safety of the technology is well established.
On the other hand the output traits are those which modify the character of the output of the crop. The primary beneficiary with these traits is the consumer. These traits will require identity preserved output management from the field to the fork. Contract farming systems will be important to make this technology successful. An example is the Golden Rice technology which produces Vitamin A enriched rice grain. Similarly there are healthy oils being produced with modified fatty acid profile.
The regulatory process in India is under the supervision of Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) which is located in the Ministry of Environment and Forests. Bt brinjal is the next GM crop that is awaiting regulatory clearance. Various other GM crops using Bt (Rice, vegetables, etc) are in different stages of development. Similarly disease tolerance is under development in various crops.
We also have both input and output traits which are based on non-GM technology. These could be based on techniques like mutation breeding, gene tilling, etc. Herbicide tolerant technology (Clearfield) and High Oleic High Stearic Sunflower Oil (Nutrisun) are examples of these technologies.
GM technology all over the world is developed and licensed out by the technology developers. The seed companies license this technology from the technology providers on a royalty payment basis. The value of the seed has been enhanced because of this technology and the farmer has been benefited through a a very favourable cost:benefit ratio.
Europe has been slow to adopt GM technology, which is one of the reasons quoted by the anti-GM activists for their opposition to the technology. It is worth noting that GM crops are being cultivated in six European countries and another 27 European countries have approved the consumption of GM foods by their population. They import and consume GM food in these countries.
Many misconceptions have been spread by the anti GM activists. Let me try to address some of them here. a) GM seeds have to be bought by the farmer every year and hence he becomes dependent on the company providing the technology. This is completely wrong. GM technology is independent of the farmer's choice to buy seeds every year or save seeds from his crop. As I explained earlier, the hybrid seeds have to be bought every year by the farmer while farm saved seed can be used in case of the OP varieties. The GM technology can be inserted either in hybrids or OP varieties.
Bt cotton has delivered enormous benefits to the Indian farmer. About 5.8 million Indian cotton farmers are now growing Bt cotton in more than 25m acres of land. The cotton yields have doubled since the introduction of the technology in2002. From a net importer of cotton India is now the second largest exporter of cotton. An estimated Rs.9000 per acre of additional revenue is generated for the farmer because of increased yields and reduced pesticide use and this adds up to about Rs.20,000 crores for all the cotton farmers in 2009. This is a phenomenal success achieved in just seven years after the introduction of the technology. Such a large scale uptake of technology can not happen unless the farmer is absolutely happy with it.
b) GM technology leads to loss of biodiversity. The variety of biological and genetic diversity is progressively reduced in the commercial arena because of the process of selection and breeding. It has nothing to do with the use of GM technology. But genetic diversity is maintained in the gene banks of various Governments and Institutes. Such diverse genetic background is available to plant breeders to
The safety of the GM technology is well established through the rigorous regulatory process it goes through all over the world where it is approved for use. The Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
57
be used in their breeding programmes to improve the plant varieties. So it is not lost. However the important point to note is that this has no relation to the use of GM technology.
the farmers in producing the seeds of their products with specific requirements of the quality being met. Much of the seed production in the country happens in Andhra Pradesh. The other important states involved in seed production are Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Gujarat and Rajasthan. More work needs to be done to diversify the production areas to more states, particularly in crops like hybrid rice.
c) GM technology increases the cost of seed to the farmer: The price of any product has to deliver value to the customer. The customer will not buy a product if it falls short of delivering the value expected versus its price. This is the normal market mechanism which applies for all agricultural inputs also. In India the cost of seed is below 5% of the revenue that the farmer earns from one acre of crop. So it is not such a high cost as it is in the developed countries. Even in Bt cotton the original price at which the products were introduced and operated till the unfortunate price control by the state Governments came into force, amounted to less than 5% of the revenue the farmer was earning from one acre of cotton.
India has a great opportunity to become a hub for seed production and export in view of the diversified agro climatic zones of the country. However the country has to learn to produce seed of the highest quality in order to be able to cater to the requirements of the other important countries. Seed production in GM crops is a special skill that needs to be developed. The quality standards in GM seeds is becoming more and more stringent day by day and it will be important for the country to meet these standards if these demands are to be met.
d) GM foods are not safe to human beings: The safety of GM crops is established through various rigorous regulatory data generation work done in different parts of the world including India. Some of the genes like Bt do not get activated in the human gut due to various scientific reasons and hence the question of their causing any harm to the human beings does not arise.
Honouring delivery schedules and honouring contracts is another area that the Indian seed industry has to develop in order to service International clients.
The Future Agricultural productivity improvement will remain the top most priority for the country in the next 50 years. The growth of the seed industry is intrinsically linked to this important requirement of the country. Hybridization and biotechnology will play a crucial role in achieving this.
e) Introduction of GM technology the seeds have to be imported and the Indian farmer will become dependent on foreign countries for seed supply. This is completely wrong. Only the GM gene is brought from outside (if it is from a foreign company) and is from India if it is an Indian company that generated the technology. In either of the cases the actual seed is produced in India by the Indian companies. Even in Bt cotton that is the only GM crop approved and is being used in India, 90% of the seed used by the farmer is produced by Indian companies. No Bt cotton seed is imported and sold to the farmers.
The seed market in India will continue to be one of the fastest growing markets in the world. Hybridization of many crops like rice, mustard, vegetables, etc. will play an important role in the growth of this market. In addition the biotechnology (use of markers and GM technology) will play a crucial role in enhancing the value of this market. The new policy environment like IP protection, product registration, etc will encourage higher research investments. India can become an important production and export hub for seeds if sufficient protection is provided to Intellectual Property.
There are many facts that support the use of GM technology to improve the productivity of our crops. Unfortunately many vested interests have created an air of suspicion among common people by distorting or misrepresenting the facts. It is time to put the record straight.
The above trends are likely to help in further consolidation of the seed industry. Eventually a much smaller number of larger players will have the critical mass to invest in breeding, biotechnology, seed production, quality management and global reach and will drive the growth of this industry to newer heights and to a completely new paradigm.
Seed Production Seed production is always carried out in the farmers fields through contract cultivation. This is a very important strength a seed company must possess. Seed Villages are developed by different seed companies in which they train Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
58
INDIA : Agricultural Biotechnology
2011
Santosh Singh Agricultural Specialist Foreign Agricultural Service. USDA American Embassy, New Delhi
independent, autonomous and professionally led body that would provide a single window mechanism for biosafety clearance of genetically engineered products and processes. The Department of Biotechnology (DBT) under Ministry of Science and Technology (MST) has the responsibility to establish and operationalize the new Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI). After organizing a series of stakeholder consultations and interministerial discussions, DBT has submitted a draft BRAI bill for parliamentary approval. In the meantime, the existing regulatory framework will continue to oversee biotechnology regulations.
Executive Summary: Agricultural trade between the United States and India is estimated at $2.34 billion in CY 2010 - U.S. exports to India estimated at $752 million and imports estimated at $1.59 billion - with the trade balance skewed 2:1 in India's favor. India's major agricultural exports to the U.S. include cashew, spices,essential oils, rice, processed fruits & vegetables, vegetable oils, tea, dairy products, and other consumer oriented products. Major U.S. agricultural exports to India are tree nuts, soybean oil, pulses, cotton, fresh fruits, and other consumer food products. India's trade policy requires that all imports food and a g r i c u l t u r a l p ro d u c t s d e r i ve d f ro m b i o te c h plants/organisms have prior approval from the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC). Refined soybean oil derived from Round-up Ready soybeans is the only biotech food/agricultural product currently approved for import. In CY 2010, U.S. soybean oil exports to India were estimated at $133 million, accounting for nearly 18 percent of total U.S. agricultural exports to India.
Bt cotton is the only biotech crop currently approved for commercial cultivation in India - a total of six events and more than 300 Bt cotton hybrids have been approved for commercial cultivation. In October 2009, the GEAC recommended the approval for environmental release of Bt eggplant for commercial cultivation. A final decision is still pending with the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF). The MoEF organized a series of public consultations and, subsequently on February 9, 2010, announced a moratorium on the approval of Bt eggplant until the government regulatory system can ensure food and environmental safety. MOEF recommended a series of long term studies, but since then, there has been very little progress on the biosafety assessment of Bt eggplant. Meanwhile, on July 22, 2010, the MoEF issued a notification changing the name of the apex biotech regulatory body GEAC from Genetic Engineering Approval Committee to Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee, implicitly limiting the role of the GEAC.
The Environmental Protection Act (EPA) of 1986 lays the foundation for India's biotechnology regulatory framework (see Annex 1). The Indian biotech regulatory system adopts a precautionary approach for the assessment of biosafety of food and agricultural products, both for commercial cultivation and for imports. The EPA outlines the procedures for importing biotech products, both for research and commercial release (See Annex 2). In November 2007, the Government of India released the National Biotech Development Strategy, outlining a plan to set up a national biotech regulatory authority as an Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
59
cotton hybrids are from the two Monsanto events that are already approved in the United States. Other approved events include the GFM event sourced from China and the locally developed Event 1, CICR event and Event 9124. For additional information on Bt cotton in India, please refer to the "Cotton Annual Report" (GAIN INI 131).
Plant Biotechnology Trade and Production: The successful adoption of Bt cotton has encouraged the development of agricultural biotechnology into one of fastest growing segments of the Indian biotech industry. Agricultural biotechnology is now the third largest sector in the domestic biotech industry, with total revenues of Rs. 24.8 billion ($557 million) in FY 2010/11 (April-March), a 28 percent growth over the previous year (Source: BioSpectrum-ABLE Industry Survey 2011). The revenue share of agricultural in the total biotechnology industry revenue has grown over the past five years from less than five percent to over 14 percent in 2010/11. Export revenue from agriculture biotechnology is estimated at Rs. 744 million in 2010/11. The commercial success of Bt cotton is well-documented. Since its introduction in 2002, India's Bt cotton area has grown to over 90 percent of the total cotton area, accounting for over 95 percent of India's cotton production in 2010. As a result, India has emerged as the second largest producer and exporter of cotton in the world. To date, the Government of India (GOI) has approved six cotton events and more than 300 hybrids for cultivation in different agro-climatic zones. Most of the approved Bt Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
In addition to cotton, private Indian seed companies and public sector research institutions (government research institutes and state agriculture universities) are working on the development of various biotech crops mainly for traits like pest resistance, nutritional enhancement, drought tolerance and yield enhancement. The crops currently being developed by public sector institutions
Indian Biotech Industry Revenue (Rs. 172 billion/$3.9 billion) 4% 1% 4% 1% 14% BioPharma
14%
BioServices BioAgri BioIndustrial
19% 62%
Bioinformatics
Source : Bio Spectrum-ABLE Survey 2011
60
updated in 1994. Additionally, in 1998, the DBT issued separate guidelines for carrying out research of biotech plants and imports and shipment of biotech plants for research use. On May 28, 2008, the GEAC adopted new "Guidelines and Standard Operating Procedures for the Conduct of Confined Field Trials." The GEAC also adopted new "Guidelines for Safety Assessment of Foods derived from Genetically Engineered Plants" The EPA Act of 1986, 1989 Rules, and all guidelines and protocols are available online at http://dbtbiosafety.nic.in/.
include banana, cabbage, cassava, cauliflower, chickpea, cotton, eggplant, rapeseed/mustard, papaya, pigeon pea, potato, rice, tomato, watermelon and wheat. The private sector is focusing on cabbage, cauliflower, cotton, corn, rapeseed/mustard, okra, pigeon pea, rice and tomato. There are several new gene events in nine crops undergoing various stages of event selection and field trials for regulatory approval - banana, castor, cotton, corn, rice, tomato, mustard, potato, sorghum, and papaya. On October 14, 2009, the GEAC recommended the approval for the environmental release of Bt eggplant. The recommendation, forwarded to the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF), still waiting for a final decision. The MoEF invited comments from the stakeholders and held series of public consultations on the approval of Bt eggplant. On February 9, 2010, the MoEF announced a moratorium on the environmental release of Bt eggplant until the government regulatory system can ensure human and environmental safety through long term studies. On April 27, 2011, the GEAC held a consultation with experts and scientists on the regulatory process for Genetically Modified Crops as part of Bt eggplant post moratorium follow-up. However, the decision to undertake additional biosafety studies was deferred to a future consultation. Industry sources report that there have not been any further developments on the approval of Bt eggplant.
Role of Various Ministries / State Governments: Ministry of Environment and Forest (MOEF)
Department of Biotechnology (DBT), Ministry of Science and Technology (MST)
Ministry of Agriculture (MOA)
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MHFW)
The only imported biotech food product currently allowed in India is soybean oil derived from Round-up Ready soybeans, which is imported from several countries like Brazil, Argentina and the United States. India exports biotech cotton and cottonseed meal to several countries, but does not export any significant quantity of cotton or cottonseed meal to the United States.
Plant Biotechnology Policy: Regulatory Framework
GEAC is the nodal agency responsible for implementing the Biotech Rules of 1989 under the EPA Act 1986 Provides guidelines and technical support to the GEAC. Evaluates and approves biosafety assessment of biotech product research and development in the country.
Evaluates and approves the commercial release of transgenic crop varieties after conducting field trials for assessing agronomic performance.
Evaluates and approves the safety assessment of biotech crops and products for human consumption.
Various state governments
Monitors the safety measures at biotech research facilities, and assesses damage, if any, due to the release of biotech products.
DBT, MOA, and various state governments
Supports research and development in agnculture biotechnology through various research institutions and state agriculture universities.
Status of Proposed Biotechnology Regulatory Authority
The regulatory framework for biotech crops, animals and products in India is governed by the "Rules for the Manufacture, Use/Import/Export and Storage of Hazardous Microorganisms/Genetically Engineered Organisms or Cells, 1989" under the Environmental Protection Act of 1986. These rules cover the areas of research, development, large-scale use, and import of biotech organisms and their products. These rules identify six competent authorities for handling these tasks (see Annex 1).
On November 13, 2007, the Ministry of Science and Technology released a "National Biotechnology Strategy". One of the cornerstones of this strategy was to reinforce India's biotech regulatory framework by setting up a National Biotech Regulatory Authority (NBRA) that would provide a single window mechanism for biosafety clearance. The Department of Biotechnology (DBT) was entrusted with the responsibility of setting up the authority.
In 1990, the Department of Biotechnology (DBT), in the Ministry of Science and Technology developed Recombinant DNA Guidelines, which were subsequently
In May 2008, the DBT issued a draft "National Biotechnology Regulatory Bill" and a draft "Establishment Plan for Setting up the National Biotechnology Regulatory
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
61
Authority." Following inter-ministerial consultations with different stakeholders, the DBT subsequently drafted a revised "Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India Bill", which is ready for submission in the Parliament for approval. Until the BRAI bill is approved by the parliament, enacted by the government, and the proposed BRAI becomes fully functional, the existing regulatory mechanisms under the EPA 1986 and Rules of 1989 will continue to be in force.
Once an event is approved for commercial use, the applicant can register and market seeds in various states according to the provisions of the National Seed Policy 2002 and other relevant seed regulations specific to each state. Following the commercial release of a biotech crop, the performance in the field is monitored for 3-5 years by the Ministry of Agriculture and by the various state departments of agriculture. In December 2008, the GEAC implemented the (i) Guidelines and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for the Conduct of Confined Field Trials of Regulated Genetically Engineered Plants, 2008 and (ii) Guidelines for Safety Assessment of Foods Derived from Genetically Engineered Plants, 2008. The new guidelines set out various food safety assessment tests to be undertaken before and during the BRL-I and BRL-II trials. On this basis, the GEAC approves (or denies) the environmental clearance of a particular event (see Annex 5).
Field Testing of Biotech Crops In 2008, the GEAC adopted an "event based" approval system, wherein the focus of field testing is on biosafety issues, particularly environmental and health safety, and the efficacy of the event/trait. The responsibility for the agronomic evaluation is with the National Agricultural Research System consisting of Indian Council of Agricultural Research institutions and the state agriculture universities. A stacked event, even if consisting of already approved events, is treated as a new event for approval purposes. The GOI does not have any specific regulations on coexistence between biotech and non-biotech crops.
Seed Policy India's Seed Policy issued by the Ministry of Agriculture in 2002, covers seed use issues relating to transgenic crops. According to Indian seed policy, all biotech crops must be tested for environmental and bio-safety concerns prior to their commercial release as per the regulations and guidelines of the EPA 1986. The National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR) is the designated agency responsible for reviewing and approving the
Due to the various interventions by the Supreme Court of India (see GAIN Report IN8077 page 7), the GEAC continues to be the deciding authority for approval of all field trials. The GOI maintains a policy that the biotech field trials should be conducted on either the applicant's own farm or on an SAU research farm. On January 10, 2007, the GEAC decided not to allow multi-location biotech rice field trials in basmati rice growing areas, especially in the states of Punjab, Haryana and Uttaranchal.
importation of biotech seeds for research purposes. Biotech crops must be tested by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) for at least two seasons to determine the agronomic potential. India's seed policy advocates "protection," of transgenic varieties under the Protection of Plant Variety and Farmers Right Rules, 2003.
Before any biotech event can be approved for commercial use, it must undergo extensive field trials for agronomic evaluation under the supervision of an ICAR institution or a state agriculture university for at least two crop seasons Product developers can conduct agronomic trials in conjunction with biosafety trials, or they can conduct separate trials after the GEAC recommends environmental clearance and the government takes a final decision.
The Seeds Act of 1966, regulates the quality of certified seeds, while the 1983 Seeds Control Order regulates and licenses the sale of seed, including transgenic seeds. A new Seeds Bill (http://agricoop.nic.in/seeds/ seeds_bill.htm) was introduced in December 2004, but is still waiting for final parliamentary approval.
State Permission for ConductinR Field Trial: In early March 2011, the GEAC withdrew permission to conduct Bt corn field trials in the state of Bihar on the request of the Chief Minister of Bihar. Subsequently on July 6, 2011, the GEAC decided that it would issue approval for field biotech crop field trials in a particular state only after the applicant provides a "no objection certificate" (NOC) from the relevant state government. Applications that are already approved by GEAC must also obtain an NOC from the state government before field trials can proceed. Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
In 2001, India enacted the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act to protect new plant varieties, including transgenic plants. The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Right Authority (PPVFRA) was established in 2005, and to date has registered 30 notified crops includinR transRenic cotton hybrids and varieties. The PPVFRA is planning to gradually expand the list of crop species to be notified for registration. 62
Cotton Seed Pricing/Technology Fee
imports of processed biotech food products.
India does not regulate seed pricing or set technology fees. Seed companies are free to fix seed prices, and a technology provider is free to establish its technology fees. Nevertheless, several biotech companies have faced seed pricing and technology fee challenges with individual state governments. In January 2006, the State Government of Andhra Pradesh filed a complaint with the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (MRTPC) contending that the technology fees were too high. The MRTPC asked the technology provider to review technology fees, and urged a more modest pricing structure for sales to farmers.
On May 21, 2010, the FSSAI circulated the 'Draft on Operationalizing the Regulation of Genetically Modified Foods in India' for comments by stake holders (See Gain report IN 1044). However until new regulations are in place, the regulatory system continues to come under the EPA 1986. Food Labeling: In March 2006, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare issued a draft amendment to the 1955 Prevention of Food Adulteration (PFA) Rules, extending a labeling requirement to "Genetically Modified foods" (For more information on the proposed regulation, refer GAIN reports IN6024 and IN6060). Although the draft amendment has not been finalized, the FSSAI is consulting with various stakeholders to consider options under the new Food Safety and Standard Act.
Following the MRTPC order, the Andhra state government issued a directive to all biotech seed companies not to price Bt cotton seeds above Rs. 750 per packet (450 gm Bt seeds and 150 gm non-Bt seeds) in the 2006 season. Subsequently, several other state governments issued similar orders. The pricing order directives have been challenged in the Supreme Court; these cases are still pending.
Cartagena Protocol and Other International Agreements India ratified the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety on January 17, 2003, and has established rules for implementing the provisions of the articles (see Annex 3). A Biosafety Clearing-House (BCH) has been set up within the Ministry of Environment and Forests to facilitate the exchange of scientific, technical, environmental and legal information on living modified organisms (LMOs). The GEAC has the responsibility of approving trade of biotech products, including seed and food products. India has traditionally advocated strict liability and redress to the trans-boundary movement of LMOs, a position that could complicate the movement of Bt cotton seed to neighboring countries.
Food Policy On August 24, 2006, the GOI enacted an integrated food law, namely the "Food Safety and Standards Act of 2006." The Act brings all existing food laws under one single authority the Food Safety and Standard Authority of India (FSSAI). FSSAFs mandate is to establish science-based standards for articles of food, and align Indian food standards with international standards. The new FSSAI also has specific provisions to regulate genetically engineered food products, including processed foods. On August 23, 2007, the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) issued a notification that processed food products derived from genetically engineered products (where the end-product is not an LMO - a living modified organism) do not require approval from GEAC for production, marketing, import and use in India. As processed food products are not replicated in the environment, they are not considered to be an environmental safety concern under the 1989 EPA. However, imports of products that are LMOs will continue to be under the purview of GEAC under EPA 1986.
In Codex Alimentarius discussions, India has supported mandatory labeling of GM foods, requiring a clear declaration whenever food and food ingredients are composed of or contain genetically modified organisms.
Trade Policy In 2006, the Ministry of Environment and Forests published the Procedure for GEAC Clearance for Imports of GM Products. The specific procedures for filing an import application for biotech products are found in Annex 2 of this report.
Given that the FSSAI does not specifically regulate biotech food products, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MHFW) has requested the GEAC to continue to regulating biotech processed food products under the 1989 Rules. Thus the MoEF notification on processed food products has been deferred and the GEAC continues to regulate
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
On July 8, 2006, the Ministry of Commerce and Industries issued a notification that specifies that all imports containing biotech products must have prior approval from the GEAC. This policy also requires a biotech declaration at the time of import. On June 22, 2007, the
63
GEAC gave a permanent approval for importation of soybean oil derived from Roundup Ready soybeans for consumption after refining. No other biotech food products, bulk grain, semi-processed or processed, are officially permitted for commercial importation. The import of biotech seeds and planting material is also regulated by the 2003 "Plant Quarantine Order (PQO Regulation of Import into India)," which came into force in January 2004. The PQO regulates the import of germplasm/bioengineered organisms/transgenic plant material for research purposes. NBPGR is the authorizing authority for issuing import permits. A complete text of this order is available at http://agricoop.nic.in/ gazette/gazette2003.htm.
Plant Biotechnology Marketing Issues: Marketing of biotech crops in India is currently confined to Bt cotton. There are no restrictions in marketing domestically produced biotech cottonseed oil and meal. Imported soybean oil is also authorized for domestic
marketing without any restrictions or labeling requirements.
Animal Biotechnology: Research on genetically engineered animals is at an infancy stage in India. Most of the research work is focused on the genomics of important livestock, poultry and fish species, which can be subsequently used in breeding programs for important traits - production (milk/meat), reproductive, drought/heat tolerance and pest/disease resistance. Research is generally conducted by public sector research organizations like ICAR institutions, Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) institutions, SAUs, and other research organizations supported by DBT. Currently there are no animals or products derived from genetically engineered animals in commercial production. The EPA 1986 governs the development, commercial use and /or import of genetically engineered animals or products.
Note: USDA Foreign Agricultural Service Global Agricultural Information Network ( GAIN) Report No. 1N 1187 (2011). The report contains assessment of Commodity and Trade Issues made by USDA staff and not necessarily statements of officials US Government Policy. Reproduced with the kind permission of USDA - FAS, American Embassy, India.
Section VII. Author Defined: Annex 1: Existing Biotech Regulatory Authorities - Function/Composition Committee
Members
Functions
Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC); functions under Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF).
Chairman-Additional Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF) Co-Chairman - Nominee of Department of Biotechnology (DBT) Members: Representatives of concerned agencies and departments namely Ministry of Industrial Development, DBT, and the Department of Atomic Energy Expert members: Director General-ICAR, Director General- CMR; Director General-CSIR; Director General of Health Services; Plant Protection Adviser; Directorate of Plant Protection; Quarantine and storage; Chairman, Central Pollution Control Board; and few outside experts in individual capacity. Member Secretary: An official from the MOEF
Approve the use of bio-engineered Droducts for commercial applications. Approve activities involving large-scale use of bioengineered organisms and recombinants in research and industrial production from an environmental safety angle. 'onsult RCGM on technical matters relating to clearance of bioengineered crops/products. Approve imports of bio-engineered food/feed or processed product derived thereof, lake punitive actions on those found Violating GM rules under EPA, 1986.
Review Committee on jenetic Manipulation RCGM); function under Department of Biotechnology (DBT).
Representatives from: DBT, Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), Indian Jouncil of Agricultural Research (ICAR), Council of â&#x20AC;˘icientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) Jther experts in their individual capacity.
Develop guidelines for the regulatory process for research and use of bioengineered products from a biosafety angle. Monitor and review all ongoing GM research projects up to the multi location restricted field trial stage. undertake visits to trial sites to ensure adequate security measures. Issue clearance for the import of raw materials needed in GM research projects. Scrutinize applications made to the 3EAC for the import of lio engineered products. Form Monitoring and Evaluation Committee for biotech crop research projects. Appoint subgroups when required in topics of interest to the committee.
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
65
Committee
Members
Functions
Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee (RDAC); function under DBT
Scientists from DBT and other public sector research institutions
Take note of developments in biotechnology at the national and international level. Prepare suitable guidelines for safety in research and applications of GMOs. Prepare other guidelines as may be required by the GEAC.
Monitoring Cum Evaluation Committee (MEC)
Experts from ICAR institutes, State Agricultural Universities (SAUs) and other agricultural/crop research institutions and representatives from DBT.
Mtonitor and evaluates trial sites, inalyze data, inspect facilities and recommend safe and agronomically liable transgenic crops/plants for approval to RCGM/GEAC
Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC); functions at research institution/ Organization level.
Head of the Institution, Scientists engaged in biotech work, Medical Expert, and Nominee of the Department of Biotechnology
Develop a manual of guidelines for the regulatory process on bioengineered organisms in research, use and application to ensure environmental safety. Authorize and monitor all ongoing biotech projects to the controlled multi location field stage. Authorize imports of bioengineered lorganisins/transgenic for research purposes. (Coordinate with district and state level biotechnology committees.
State Biotechnology Coordination Committee (SBCC); functions under the state government where biotech research occurs.
Chief Secretary, State Government; Secretaries, Departments of Environment, Health, Agriculture, Commerce, Forests, Public Works, Public Health; Chairman, State Pollution Control Board; State microbiologists and pathologists; Other xperts.
Periodically reviews the safety and [control measures of institutions handling bio-engineered products. Inspect and take punitive action through the State Pollution Control Boards or the Directorate of Health in case of violations. Nodal agency at the state level to assess damage, if any, due to release of bio-engineered organisms and take pn-site control measures.
District-Level Committee (DLC); functions under the district administration where biotech research occurs.
District Collector; Factory Inspector; Pollution Control Board Representative; Chief Medical Officer; District Agricultural Officer, Public Health Department Representative; District Microbiologists/Pathologists; Municipal Corporation Commissioner; other experts.
Monitor safety regulations in research and production installations. Investigate compliance with rDNA guidelines and report violations to SBCC or GEAC. Nodal agency at district level to assess damage, if any, due to release of bio-engineered organisms and take on-site control measures.
Source: Department of Biotechnology (DBT) and Ministry of Environment and Forest (MOEF), GOI.
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
66
Annex 2; Procedure and Application Formats for Import of Biotech Products
Item
APPROVAL ACCORDING AGENCY
GOVERNING RULES
FORM NO.
LINKS FOR DOWNLOADING
GMOs/ LMOs for R&D
IBSC/RCGM/ NBPGR
Rules 1989; Biosafety guidelines of 1990 and 1998; Plant Quarantine (Regulation of Imports "into India) - Order, 2004 issued by NBPGR;" "and Guidelines for the import of germplasm," 2004 by NBPGR
I
GEAC Form I
GMOs/ LMOs for intentional release (including field trials)
IBSC/RCGM/ GEAC/ICAR
Rules 1989; Biosafety guidelines of 1990 & 1998
II B
GEAC Form II B
GM food /feed as LMOs per se
GEAC
"Provide biosafety & food safety studies, Compliance with the Rules 1989 and Biosafety guidelines of 1990 & 1998
III
GEAC Form III
GM processed food derived from LMOs
GEAC
One time 'event based' approval given based on importer providing the following information: i. List of genes/events approved in the crop species for commercial production in the country of export/country of origin; ii. Approval of the product for consumption in countries other than producing countries; iii. Food safety study conducted in the country of origin; iv. Analytical/compositional report from the country of export/origin; v. Details on further processing envisaged after import; "vi. Details on commercial production," marketing and use for feed/food in the country of export/origin; vii. Details on the approval of genes / events from which the product is derived
IV
GEAC Form IV
Processed food containing ingredients derived from GMO
GEAC
If the processed food contains any ingredient derived from category 2 and 3 mentioned "above, and if the LMO / product thereof has" "jeen approved by the GEAC, no further" approval is required except for declaration at the port of entry. In case it does not have the "approval of GEAC, the procedure mentioned in" category 3 above to be complied.
"IV, if" required
GEAC Fonn IV B
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
67
Annex 3 : India’s Compliance on Various Articles of the Cartagena Protocol Article
Provision
Present Status
Article 7
Application of the Advanced Informed Agreement procedure prior to the first transboundary movement of LMOs intended for direct use as food or feed, or for processing.
Competent authority (GEAC) notified. Border control through NBPGR only for contained use. Projects initiated to strengthen DBT and MOEF's. capabilities to identify LMOs.
Article 8
"Notification - The Party of export shall notify, or require the exporters to ensure notification to, in writing, the competent authority of the Party of import prior to the intentional transboundary movement of LMOs that falls within the scope of Article 7"
Rules 1989 and competent authorities in place.
Article 9
"Acknowledgement of receipt of notification-The Party of import shall acknowledge receipt of the notification, in writing to the notifier"
"Point of contact notified, the regulatory body (GLAC) in place”
Article 10
Decision Procedure-Decision taken by the Party of import shall be in accordance with Article 15
Regulatory body (GLAC) in place
Article 11
"Procedure for LMOs intended for direct use as food or feed, or for processing"
"1989 Rules L11 , DGFL Notification No. 2(RL-2006) ' 2004-2009 [2]"
Article 13
Simplified Procedure to ensure the safe intentional transboundary movement of LMOs
1989 rules
Article 14
"bilateral, regional and multilateral agreements and arrangements"
__
Article 15
lisk assessment
DBT Biosafety Guidelines for research in plants, guidelines for confined field trials guidelines for safety assessment of foods derived from GL plants.”
Article 16
Risk Management
DBT Guidelines for research
Article 17
Unintentional transboundary movements and emergency measures
1989 rules
Article 18
"Handling, transport, packaging and identification"
"989 Rules, guidelines to be developed”
Article 19
Competent National Authorities and National Focal Point
Ministry of Lnvironment and Forests designated as competent authority and national focal point
Article 20
Information sharing and the Biosafety Clearing House
3iosafetv Clearing House (www.indbch.nic.in) has been set up.
Article 21
Confidential information
–
Article 22
Capacity building
"Ongoing capacity building activities by DEL, MOLF, USLDA and USAID-sponsored SABP”
Article 23
Public awareness and participation
"Ongoing, MOLF and DEL have specific websites on biotech developments and regulatory system including website of IGMORIS P] , GLAC [4] , DEL Biosafety [!], etc”
Article 24
Non-Parties (transboundary movements of LMOs between Parties and non-Parties)
1989 rules in place for all import and export
Article 25
Illegal transboundary movements
–
Article 26
Socio-economic considerations
Socioeconomic analysis is an integral part of decision making
Article 27
Liability and redress
National Consultation ongoing
Source: MOEF and Industry Sources.
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
68
Ten Significant Achievements in the First Decade of Bt cotton in India
Bhagirath Choudhary India Biotech Information Centre (India BIC) ISAAA, New Delhi Email: b.choudhary@cgiar.org
2
011 was a special year, which marked the tenth anniversary of a decade of Bt cotton in India, from 2002 to 2011. In the ten years, Bt cotton cultivation, has achieved phenomenal success in transforming the cotton crop into the most productive and profitable crop in the country. In 2011, plantings of Bt cotton surpassed the 10 million hectare mark for the first time, reaching 10.6 million hectares, and occupying 88% of the record 12.1 million hectare cotton crop. The 1.2 million hectare gain in Bt cotton hectares in 2011, was due to an increase from 9.4 million hectares in 2010 to 10.6 million hectares in 2011. The principal beneficiaries were 7 million farmers growing, on average, 1.5 hectares of cotton; this compares with 6.3 million farmers in 2010 growing 9.4 million hectares at an adoption rate of 85 % of the 11 million hectare cotton crop. Thus, in 2011, an additional 0.7 million farmers decided to grow Bt cotton, rather than conventional
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
cotton. Historically, the increase from 50,000 hectares of Bt cotton in 2002, (when Bt cotton was first commercialized) to 10.6 million hectares in 2011 represents an unprecedented 212-fold increase in ten years. The annual global study of benefits generated by biotech crops, conducted by Brookes and Barfoot, estimated that India enhanced farm income from Bt cotton by US$9.4 billion (or Rs. 42,300 crores) in the period 2002 to 2010 and US$2.5 billion in 2010 alone. Thus, Bt cotton has transformed cotton production in India by increasing yield, decreasing insecticide applications, and through welfare benefits, contributed to the alleviation of poverty of 7 million small resource-poor farmers and their families in 2011 alone. India has successfully harnessed the significant benefits that Bt cotton offers (from both single and double Bt genes) and the future holds enormous potential as the next generation of biotech cotton offers
69
India a range of beneficial new traits including stacked Bt/HT, salinity and drought tolerance, disease resistance and other traits.
substantially increased the profitability of cotton production in the country. Coincidentally, the number of cotton farmers cultivating cotton increased significantly from 5 million small and resource poor cotton farmers in 2002-03 to 8 million cotton farmers in 2011-12. Notably, the number of Bt cotton farmers increased from 50,000 farmers in 2002-03 to 7 million Bt cotton farmers in 201112, representing approximately 88% of 8 million cotton farmers in 2011-12 who planted and benefited significantly from Bt cotton hybrids.
The ten-year period, 2002 to 2011, has been referred to by some as the white gold revolution on cotton farms in India which produced impressive mounds of raw cotton, which looked like white gold. Notably, subsequent to 2002, millions of marginal cotton farmers, mostly in rainfed areas, have returned to planting Bt cotton year-after-year. Prior to 2002 these former cotton farmers had become disillusioned and given up cotton cultivation because of the unaffordable high costs of production, particularly expensive and ineffective pest control, and despite the high costs they suffered from very low productivity. However, in the last ten years, the situation has changed with Bt cotton offering a new lease of life to cotton farmers, the cotton industry and the farm economy of the country. Ten-significant milestones were achieved during the first decade, 2002â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2011, of Bt cotton cultivation in India; they are listed below highlighting the spectacular success of Bt cotton flourishing in the small cotton farms in the country;
Second, India plants more Bt cotton than any other country in the world. In the fifth year of Bt cotton adoption, 2006-07, India for the first time eclipsed China by cultivating 3.8 million hectares of Bt cotton, compared to China's 3.5 million hectares. In 2011-12, the adoption of Bt cotton in India, for the first time soared past the 10 million hectare milestone, reaching 10.6 million hectares - almost 3 times the Bt cotton area of China at 3.9 million hectares. Third, India is unique in that it is the only country in the world where cotton hybrids, as opposed to varieties, are the principal commercial crop. The first commercial cotton
Figure 1. A Decade of Adoption of Bt Cotton Hybrids in India, 2002 to 2011.
(Source: Compiled by ISAAA, 2011)
hybrid, H-4 derived from an intra-specific cross (G. hirsutum x G. hirsutum) was released commercially in 1970 in a landmark event. In 2011-12, 88% of the cotton area featured both intra-specific and inter-specific hybrids; this is almost double the 45% adoption level in 2001-02. The rapid increase in hectares of hybrid cotton is credited to the introduction of Bt technology which spurred
First and Foremost, India planted the highest-ever hectarage of cotton, 12.1 million hectares in 2011-12, increasing from 7.7 million hectares in 2002-03. This significant increase in hectarage in cotton has been attributed, by and large, to Bt technology which has
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
70
Figure 2: Technological Leapfrogging and Cotton Productivity in India, 1950 to 2011.
(Source: Compiled by ISAAA, 2011; CICR, 2011) hybridization resulting in an increase from 3 Bt cotton hybrids in 2002-03 to 884 Bt cotton hybrids in 2011-12.
used in 2001-02 to 21% of total insecticide use in India in 2010. The steep decline in the percentage of insecticides applied on cotton relative to total insecticides used on all crops, is a welcome environmental relief, particularly to cotton growers and farm laborers who, prior to 2002, suffered from the intensive usage of insecticides to control the major cotton pest - American bollworm complex, now effectively controlled by Bt.
Fourth, consumption of insecticides, measured in active ingredient, has exhibited a consistent and significant downward trend since the introduction of Bt cotton in 2002-03. Notably, the large scale adoption of Bt cotton halved insecticide usage from 46% of total insecticides
Figure 3. Percentage Reduction of Insecticides on Cotton Relative to Total Insecticides/Pesticides Used in Agriculture in India, 2001 to 2010
(Source: Compiled by ISAAA, 2011; CICR, 2011)
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
71
Fifth, the commercial approval of Bt cotton was a cardinal breakthrough that revived the ailing cotton sector in the country. Prior to 2002 cotton production had stagnated, yields were declining and this resulted in over-reliance on cotton imports for many decades. Coincidental with the steep increase in adoption of Bt cotton between 2002 and 2011, the average yield of cotton in India, (which used to
have one of the lowest lint yields in the world), increased from 308 kg per hectare in 2001-02, to 499 kg per hectare in 2011-12; and cotton production increased from 13.6 million bales in 2002-03 to 35.5 million bales in 2011-12, which was a record cotton crop for India. At the same time, the country was transformed from a net importer of raw cotton until 2002-03 to a net exporter of cotton.
Figure 4. Cotton Hectarage and Production in India, 2002 to 2011
(Source: Compiled by ISAAA, 2011; CAB, 2011)
Sixth, India was traditionally a producer of short, medium and medium-long staple cotton due to the prevalent large-scale cultivation of desi cotton varieties. Thus, the country was deficient in long staple and extra-long staple cotton, which is the major raw material demanded by the cotton mills and the textile industry. The introduction of hybrid technology in the seventies and the deployment of Bt technology in 2002 improved cotton hybrids
substantially, and changed the composition of total cotton production in favor of long staple cotton; in 1947 there was almost no long staple cotton, but this increased to 38% of supply in 2002-03 and to 77% in 2010-11. Furthermore, the volume of long staple cotton production registered a five-fold increase from 5.1 million bales in 2002-03 to 24.1 million bales in 2010-11.
Figure 5. Growth of Long Staple Cotton in India, 2002 to 2011
(Source: Compiled by ISAAA, 2011; CICR, 2011)
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
72
Seventh, over the ten-year period 2002â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2011, Bt cotton has been successfully used as a multiple-purpose crop, to deliver three principal products: firstly in the form of edible oil as food for human consumption; secondly, de-oiled cake as an animal feed; and thirdly, kapas for fiber. Impressively, the production of cotton seed, and its byproducts, oil and meal, has increased three-fold from 0.46
million tons in 2002-03 to 1.31 million tons in 2011-12. As a result, Bt cotton meal (de-oiled cake) contributes one third of the country's total and increasing demand for animal feed, whereas cotton oil also contributes 13.7% of total edible oil production for human consumption in the country.
Table 1: Break-down of Cotton By-products from 2002-03, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 Item
2002-03
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
Cotton production (million bales)
13.6
29.5
31.2
35.5
Cottonseed production @ 3 lOkg/bale (million tons)
4.21
9.15
9.67
11
Retained for sowing & direct consumption (million tons)
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Marketable Surplus (million tons)
3.71
8.65
9.17
10.5
Reduction of washed cottonseed oil (12.5%) (mil lion tons)
0.46
1.08
1.15
1.31
(Source: Compiled by ISAAA, 2011; COOIT, 2010; AICOSCA, 2010) Eighth, the introduction of Bt technology in cotton, (the first genetically modified cotton was approved for commercialization in 2002-03), contributed immensely to the establishment of the vibrant hybrid cotton seed and agri-biotech industry in India. The high adoption rate of Bt cotton by Indian farmers contributed significantly to the steep year-on-year growth in commercial hybrid seeds
and the biotech industry in the country from 2002 to 2011. Agri-biotech industry annual revenues grew consistently at a double/triple digit rate during the 2002 to 2011 period. More specifically, the agri-biotech industry market increased twenty-two-fold from Rs.110 crore (US$25 million) in 2002-2003 to Rs. 2480 crore (US$551 million) in 2010-11.
Figure 6: Bt Cotton Hybrid Market in India (in Rupee Crore), 2002 to 2011
(Source: BioSpectrum, 2003 to 2011)
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
73
Ninth, the large scale adoption of Bt cotton in India was a major contributor to the doubling of cotton production domestically and also contributed significantly to global cotton production from 2002-03 to 2011-12. In 2011, India contributed 10.6 million hectares of biotech cotton (equivalent to approximately 30% of total global cotton area at 36 million hectares) and a substantial 7% to the global total of biotech cotton hectarage of 160 million hectares in 2011. As a result, Indian cotton now accounts for more than one fifth (21%) of the total world cotton production in 2011-12; this is substantially higher than the 14% in 2002-03. As a result of the higher productivity of Bt cotton India overtook the USA in 2006 to become the second largest cotton producing country in the world, after China.
generated by biotech crops, conducted by Brookes and Barfoot, estimated that India enhanced farm income from Bt cotton by US$9.4 billion (or Rs. 42,300 crores) in the period 2002 to 2010 (nine-year period) and US$2.5 billion in 2010 alone. Typically, yield gains are up to 31%, a significant 39% reduction in the number of insecticide sprays, leading to an 88% increase in profitability, and equivalent to a substantial increase of approximately US$250 per hectare. Thus, Bt cotton has transformed cotton production in India by increasing yield, decreasing insecticide applications, and, very importantly, through welfare benefits, contributed to the alleviation of poverty for over 7 million small resource-poor farmers and their families in 2011 alone, and future prospects look encouraging.
Last but not the least, the annual global study of benefits
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
74
Breeding for Biotic Stresses (Pest and Herbicidal Tolerance in Field Crops)
I
n recent years, there has been an increasing pressure on the world agricultural production systems as it is predicted that climate change and human need will diminish the land available for cropping. Concurrently, more than 65% of crop yield losses are attributed to weeds and insect pests. Crop production in field crops such as rice, sorghum, soybean, pigeon pea, cotton, sugarcane, maize, groundnut, wheat, oilseeds etc. is limited by insect pests, diseases and weeds. Several insect pest species
Leela A., Srinivas Parimi, Bharat Char and Usha Barwale Zehr Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd., Jalna
crores based on maximum support price (MSP) fixed by Government of India. Worldwide yield losses attributed to weeds average approximately 10%. Weeds compete with the main crop for light and nutrients and cause reduction in final yields; and may also harbour pests and diseases. Losses due to weed growth in paddy in India range from 9-51 percent and in wheat it is 13%. Cotton crop suffers yield losses of
Therefore, the major objective of the crop breeding programs, in addition to enhancing agronomic yield and quality characteristics, are to produce more from less and incorporating genetic resistance to the major pests, diseases and weeds. attack these crops and cause yield losses of up to 90%. Asia represents about 90% of global rice production and consumption. China and India alone account for more than 50% of the world's rice consumption. In rice alone the yield loss due to insect pests was estimated to be around 30-40%. Between 2009 and 2011, rice production losses from plant hopper outbreaks spread across Asia. Yield losses due to insect pests were estimated and reported to be around 20-87% in Maize, 32% in sorghum, 48% in groundnut, 35-73% in rapeseed/mustard, 29.2% in chickpea, >50% in pigeon pea, around 50% in cotton and 20% in sugarcane. The monetary value of annual yield losses in field crops is estimated to be around Rs. 44976.6
up to 30% when weeds compete during critical weed competition period. In sugarcane weeds not only reduce cane yield by 12-72% but also cause quality reduction in sugarcane. The pest and weed management programs have relied extensively on the use of chemicals (insecticides and herbicides) since the past five decades despite the concerns about health and environment. However, integrated pest/weed management programs use several other methods besides chemical control such as biological, cultural, and host plant resistance. The core idea of integrated pest/weed management approaches is to make the conditions harmful to the pest
and manage it. Accordingly, besides using chemicals, breeding crops for pest resistance form basic component of IPM/IWM programs. Selecting a plant variety that has resistance or tolerance to pests makes it possible to avoid or lessen the use of pesticides or other management tactics. Plant resistance is considered a cornerstone for eco-friendly management of pests. Therefore, the major objective of the crop breeding programs, in addition to enhancing agronomic yield and quality characteristics, are to produce more from less and incorporating genetic resistance to the major pests, diseases and weeds. Post green revolution there was an increased effort to develop pest resistant cultivars by using traditional breeding techniques. Breeding programs in rice, a major staple food of billions in Asia, have focused on developing highyielding varieties since the green revolution. Accordingly, sources of resistance were identified, methods for screening developed, resistance mechanisms studied to develop the pest resistant cultivars. However, scientists
breeding programs in the areas of plant transformation, isolation and characterization of genes of agronomic importance, molecular markers and tissue culture. Novel biotechnological tools are being effectively used for the selection, manipulation and validation of genes. Characterization of the genomes of microbial entomopathogens such as fungi, bacteria, and viruses, has facilitated the identification and deployment of candidate genes in target crops by genetic engineering. The introduction of Bacillus thuringiensis insecticidal protein(s) into crop plants is a major milestone in agriculture, which caused paradigm shift in managing pests. Genes derived from plants have shown promise for pest control by inducing antifeedant activity in target insects. These include proteins that inhibit insect digestive enzymes (trypsins and amylases) and sugar-binding lectins. The alpha-amlyase inhibitors have been specifically effective against stored product pests such as beetles and weevils and plant lectins were found to be
Pest resistant high yielding cultivars were developed in rice, wheat, sorghum, cotton, groundnut and oilseed crops, through conventional breeding programs. face a few major challenges in terms of finding resistant source and/or ability to transfer the resistant trait into germplasm of choice. Many a time the transfer of the resistant trait comes with an unwanted agronomic trait. Pest resistant high yielding cultivars were developed in rice, wheat, sorghum, cotton, groundnut and oilseed crops, through conventional breeding programs.
effective against sap-sucking insects. Genomic information available on insect pests can potentially be used for identification of key physiological or metabolic targets in order to develop novel insect control technologies. Corn, soybean and cotton are the major crops in the world in which biotechnology tools were applied to develop insect and herbicide resistance. Currently there are more than thirty countries in the world where GM crops are approved for cultivation, as food/feed or import. More than 80% of the total GM crops planted in the world is occupied by Herbicide tolerant GM crops (soybean and corn), which included the stacked traits with insect resistance. Cotton is the only crop commercially available for cultivation in India. However, research is in progress in several crops (rice, wheat, cotton, corn, pigeon pea, mustard and groundnut) to incorporate insect resistance and herbicide resistance. Marker assisted selection (MAS) based breeding programs are being used to quickly transfer the pest-resistant traits into high-yielding varieties. MAS tools are being used to develop insect pest and disease resistant high yielding varieties in rice, wheat, corn, cotton and sorghum. We are heading towards an era where biotechnology tools will be used in traditional breeding to develop pest resistant cultivars in shortest time possible with higher precision in transferring the necessary traits.
The discovery of herbicide resistant weeds, reported in 1968 from the U.S.A against triazine in common groundsel (Senecio vulgaris) has triggered an interest in the development of herbicide-resistant crops (HRCs) and has simplified the process of weed management. HRCs have been grown commercially since 1984, when the first triazine-resistant oilseed rape cultivar was developed by conventional breeding. Conventionally-bred herbicide tolerant canola varieties are widespread across Australia. Similar herbicide tolerance systems have also been developed for wheat and maize. Wheat, corn, soybean and canola, resistance to imidazolinone herbicides was selected through mutation breeding and now commercially utilized. Initially, conventional breeding methods based on natural selection, mutation breeding, and breeding for naturally occurring genes were used to produce pest resistant cultivars whereas in recent times the tools available through genetic engineering are used to develop them. Biotechnology has been integrated into field crop
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
76
Doubtful Answers â&#x20AC;&#x153;The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubt.â&#x20AC;? Bertrand Russell.
Ajay Vir Jakhar Chairman, Bharat Krishak Samaj, New Delhi further research. The government and the farmers distrust agriculture input companies when it comes to sharing value and this is not without reason. The problem is that with capping a price of a product, competition is killed and farmers are forced to pay a similar price for a good quality product as well as an inferior quality product. But without the capping the companies would form a cartel and fleece the farmer. Therefore some enabling mechanism is also essential to differentiate between quality of different products. I have no answer for this problem and until then will support a cap on the price of the product. Farmers in adjoining states pay different prices for the same seed, while the selling price for the output product remains the same. That is grossly unfair.
T
here are many possible applications of bio technology in agriculture, but there are many questions neither asked nor answered in the immediate realm of popular use of agri-biotechnology in India. It is beyond doubt that there rages a debate on the use of bio technology in agriculture. Is bio technology essential and is it safe? Answers to the questions will not easily be accepted by those on either side of the fence.
Bio-technology is very expensive. Any new invention and its trials will take 10 -15 years of research to see commercial application. There are many corporations and maverick individuals who have more money than required to invest in such ventures. There is money, but few who will wager that kind of investment in such controversial end Farmers need better products. If that be the quality inputs at case then those who dare The world is not convinced with the present reasonable prices, and the to invest will bear the fruit source of the product is levels of commercial application of bioof their successes. Do we not a concern of s a l u te s u c h v e n t u re technology in agriculture worldwide that it theirs.Definitely the capitalist or grudge them government needs to alone is enough to tide over the crises. for their daring? As a continue to care and think nation in need we need to about the quality, safety be at the forefront of any and about other larger issues. The problem is that the agri-technology revolution. India would actually harm it's government policy makers and those that influence policy interests if the budget allocation for agriculture research is not increased manifold. The government's agenda is to meet the nation's food requirements, while as farmers we want our profession to be profitable and self-sustaining. These appear to be dissimilar goals because of government policy today. Is bio technology the means to achieve both the ends? Most people are unable to fully comprehend the price and value of such interventions. For example in case of BT cotton, in India, various states put a price tag at which a company will sell its products. The government is compelled to do so even when it realizes that it disincentives investment into
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
77
are greatly influenced by non-government players who invariably have vested interests. Farmers are ready to pay a higher price for any input, for example a better quality seed, provided it delivers a better yield per unit cost. At the same time manufacturers needs to be accountable for failure. The problem is that it is difficult to pinpoint the cause of failure in the entire process of agriculture as every crop is dependent on the daily weather fluctuations which itself are unpredictable and beyond control. With changes happening to the climate due to extensive use of fossil fuel, the weather will become more erratic and more extreme other than the planet becoming hotter. The number of pests and insects will increase manifold in addition to reduced availability of water. The world is not convinced with the present levels of commercial application of bio-technology in agriculture worldwide
that it alone is enough to tide over the crises. Another major problem not debated is the use of fossil fuel in agriculture. Without cheap fuel, nitrogen fertilizers could become so expensive that we would not be able to afford its use. India would have unwanted situations of gigantic proportions and we need to focus our agriculture research on such interventions. I am hopeful that research in biotechnology will lead to nitrogen input optimization. Bio technology in agriculture is just another important spoke in the wheel to move ahead which cannot be ignored. The bio technology debate is important, but unfortunately so much else, which is just as important, is being lost with focus on just one topic. Farmers are convinced beyond doubt that we need every available means to be able to tide over our looming problems, including bio technology in agriculture.
Biotechnological Advances in
Sukhada Mohandas Indian Institute of Horticultural Research (IIHR)
Horticulture
B
iotechnology will have a major impact on agriculture in coming decades. A whole spectrum of gene technology is now routinely and successfully applied to a wide range of problems in agriculture and horticulture. Biotechnological tools have revolutionized the entire crop improvement programmes by providing new strains of plants, supply of planting material, more efficient and selective pesticides and improved fertilizers . The major areas of biotechnology which can be adopted for improvement of horticultural crops are â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 1.
In Vitro Technology
2.
Genetic Engineering
3.
Molecular Diagnostics and
4.
Molecular Markers
5.
Development of Beneficial Microbes
particular. It is one of the most widely used techniques for rapid asexual in vitro propagation. This technique is economical in time and space affords greater output and provides disease free and elite propagules. It also facilitates safer and quarantined movements of germplasm across nations. When the traditional methods are unable to meet the demand for propagation material this technique can produce millions of uniformly flowering and yielding plants. This micropropagation technique offers not only means for mass propagation, but also plays an important role to conserve elite or rare plants that are threatened with extinction. Production of virus free planting material using meristem culture has been made possible in many horticultural crops. These technologies are very important to have a true to type propagation technique. On the other hand, it's also possible to use tissue or cell culture to increase genetic variability. Undifferentiated cells obtained from callus, cells or protoplasts culture are produced and submitted to an selective pressure to improve and fix the somaclonal variants. Using large cell
I. In Vitro Technology One of the widest applications of biotechnology has been in the area of tissue culture and micro propagation in Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
79
culture, Embryogenic Cell Suspension (ECS) techniques millions of clones of a plant can be generated. Bioreactors are also used to propagate planting material in large number.
II. Genetic Engineering of Plants
? Embryo Rescue is another area where plant breeders
are able to rescue their crosses which would otherwise abort. Culture of excised embryos of suitable stages of development can circumvent problems encountered in post zygotic incompatibility. This technique is highly significant in intractable and long duration horticultural species. Many of the dry land legume species have been successfully regenerated from cotyledons, hypocotyls, leaf, ovary, protoplast, petiole root, anthers, etc., ? Haploid Generation through anther/pollen culture is
recognized as another important area in crop improvement. It is useful in being rapid and economically feasible. Complete homozygosity of the offspring helps in phenotype selection for quantitative characters and particularly for qualitatively inherited characters making breeding much easier successful isolation, culture and fusion of plant protoplasts has been very useful in transferring cytoplasmic male sterility for obtaining hybrid vigour through mitochondrial recombination and for genetic transformation in plants.
Genetic engineering primarily involves the manipulation of genetic material (DNA) to achieve the desired goal in a pre-determined way. The other terms in common use to describe genetic engineering are Gene manipulation, Recombinant DNA technology
? In Vitro Germplasm conservation is of great
Plant genetic engineering basically deals with the transfer of desired gene (resulting in desired trait) from any source to a plant. The term transgene is used to represent the transferred gene, and the genetic transformation in plants is broadly referred as transgenic plants. Transgenic plants are developed by integrating the application of recombinant DNA technology, gene transfer methods and tissue culture technique. The ultimate goal of transgenics is to improve the crops, with the desired traits. Some of the desired traits are as follows:
significance in providing solutions and alternative approaches to overcoming constrains in management of genetic resources. In crops which are propagated vegetatively and which produce recalcitrant seeds and perennial crops which are highly heterozygous seed storage is not suitable. In such crops especially, in vitro storage is of great practical importance. These techniques have successfully been demonstrated in a number of horticultural crops and there are now various germplasm collection centers. In vitro germplasm also assures the exchange of pest and disease free material and helps in better quarantine.
Resistance to biotic stresses i.e. resistance to diseases caused by insects, viruses, fungi and bacteria. Resistance to abiotic stresses- herbicides, temperature (heat, chilling, freezing), drought, salinity, ozone, intense light. Improvement of crop yield, and quality e.g. storage, longer shelf life of fruits and flowers. Transgenic plants with improved nutrition. Transgenic plants as bioreactors for manufacture of commercial and therapeutic products e.g. proteins, vaccines and biodegradable plastics.
Plant breeders are continually searching for new genetic variability that is potentially useful in cultivar improvement. A portion of plants regenerated by tissue culture often exhibits phenotypic variation atypical of the original phenotype. Such variation, termed somaclonal variation may be heritable i.e. genetically stable and passed on to the next generation. Alternatively, the variation may be epigenetic and disappear following sexual reproduction. These heritable variation are potentially useful to plant breeders.
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
Transgenic plants have covered about 52.6 m hectares in the Industrial and developing countries. Genes for the following traits have been introduced to the crop plants.
80
Using techniques of genetic engineering many useful genes have been introduced into plants and many transgenic plants have been developed in which the foreign DNA has been stably integrated and resulted in the synthesis of appropriate gene product. Transgenic plants have covered more than 65 m hectares in the Industrial and developing countries. Genes for the following traits have been introduced to the crop plants. Biotic Stresses: Varieties resistant to viral, fungal and bacterial diseases as well as insect pests have to be continuously evolved since the disease scenario is also changing. Pathogen-derived resistance would continue to be the strategy and the quest for genes from these sources would have to go on. Antimicrobial peptides from plants are also the candidate genes for fungal and bacterial resistance. Antiapoptopsis genes have also been used to develop Fusarium resistance in Banana. Genes are mined from microbial sources from organisms that are effective biocontrol agents for fungal and insect resistance. For insect resistance, genes for serine, cysteine proteinase inhibitors can be used along the vast arsenal of Bacillus thuringiensis endotoxin genes. Abiotic Stresses : A variety of genes that are expressed by plants in response to abiotic stresses like drought, salinity and cold. Functional analysis of some of these genes have been demonstrated by overexpression in model systems. Such genes could be candidate genes for conferring tolerance to abiotic stresses. These are (a) Dehydration response element (DREB) and C- repeat for induction of rd29A (b) Galactinol synthase (c ) Glyoxalase I & II (d) sp1 (e)9-cis-epoxy carotenoid dioxygenase Several drought resistant genes have been cloned ( avp1, rab7 and nhx1) and transgenic plants have been developed. Increased Shelf Life: Several genes have already been isolated for the manipulation of ripening and shelf-life.
These include genes for enzymes involved in ethylene biosynthetic pathway (ACC synthase, ACC oxidase, SAM decarboxylase and SAM deaminase) and cell wall hydrolysis (polygalacturonase, cellulase, betagalactosidase). The strategy currently being suggested is to manipulate of ethylene responses through modification of ethylene receptors. However, as ethylene is involved in several aspects of plant physiology and development, a number of negative effects are likely to be manifested. The key to effective manipulation of ethylene sensitivity will be the use of tissue-specific or development –specific promoters thereby controlling spatial and temporal expression of the transgenes. In ornamental crops, there is also potential to increase cytokinin synthesis which has been shown to delay leaf senescence resulting in “stay green” phenotypes . Floral Colour : Several ornamental plants have been engineered for modified flower colour. Research has been focused on manipulation of either anthocyanins (red and blue colours) or carotenoids (yellow and orange colours). The crops modified are carnation, rose and gerbera. In carnation, a commercial variety is already available with mauve to violet shades. Floral Scent : Attempts are being made to isolate genes involved in scent production with the objective of “putting the scent back” in flowers that have lost their scent or are without scent. In spite of the vast number of compounds involved, surprisingly only a small number of metabolic pathways are involved, which have been shown to be amenable to manipulation. Two genes responsible for the unique aroma of roses, two O-methyl transferases have been isolated . Nutritional Quality : There are several opportunities to enhance the nutritional value of horticultural products. These include vitamins, minerals and nutraceuticals.
Levels of organic nutrients like tocopherols have been altered through manipulation of gamma-tocopherol methyl transferase activity. Iron content is also manipulated through overexpression. Carotenoid content can be improved in fruit crops like banana as in the case of golden rice. However, holistic understanding of relevant transport and partitioning mechanism is required before attempting genetic manipulation for increasing nutritive quality. This is because a number of whole plant factors like mechanism of acquisition, regulation of deficiency responses and the plant organ that assimilates these nutrients would influence the expression of these nutrients Efforts should be made for increased synthesis of lycopene and beta cantene which act as strong antioxidants in tomato.
probes. Probes are nucleic acid sequences of pathogen causing organisms labeled with certain markers. cDNA probes corresponding to specific regions of the pathogens can be generated using standard recombinant DNA technique. Monoclonal antibodies (McAb): Immunochemical techniques are extremely useful for the rapid and accurate routine detection of plant pathogens and ultimately the diagnosis of plant disease and their relatedness, The introduction of hybridoma technology has provided methods for the production of homologous and biochemically defined immunological reagents of identical specificity which are produced by a single cell line and are directed against a unique epitope of the immunizing antigen. The great potential of McAbs in phytopathological diagnostics is essential because of homogeneous antibody preparations with defined activity and specificity can be produced in large quantities over long periods. Even though hybridoma technology is a laborious and expensive enterprise compared to standard immunization procedures it is going to be widely used for large scale diagnosis.
Tree Architecture and Plant Size : Growth habit of horticultural trees is an important consideration especially with regard to improving productivity per unit area. The horticultural practices currently being used may be enhanced through the introduction of transgenes that play a role in growth and development. The best candidate genes at present are the rol genes A, B, C, D from Agrobacterium rhizogenes which have been shown to influence internodal distance, adventitious rooting, apical dominance and seed set. Manipulation of plant size of ornamental plants is also receiving attention in recent years . Overexpression of GA-20 oxidase gene in Arabidopsis resulted in stem elongation while antisense expression led to dwarfing. It has also been shown that overexpression of Arabidopsis DWF 4 gene in tomato resulted in phenotypes with increased branching.
IV. Molecular Markers
This would entail isolation of specific promoters that could control temporal and spatial expression of transgenes. The rapid advances being made in molecular biology would facilitate more versatile techniques for gene discovery and the years to come would definitely witness the expansion of the repertoire of genes available with us today.
The possibilities of using gene tags of molecular makers for selecting agronomic traits has made the job of breeder easier. It has been possible to score the plants for different traits or disease resistance at the seedling stage itself. The use of RFLP (Restriction Fragment Length polymorphism), RAPD (Random Amplified Polymorphic DNA) , AFLP (Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphism) and isozyme markers in plant breeding are numerous. RFLPs are advantageous over morphological and isozyme markers primarily because their number is limited only by genome size and they are not environmentally or developmentally influenced. Molecular maps now exist for a number of crop plants including corn, tomato, potato, rice, lettuce, wheat, Brassica species and barley. RFLPs have wide ranging applications including cultivar finger printing, identification of quantitative trait loci, analysis of genome
Male Sterility and Fertility Restoration: Production of male sterile plants is helpful in hybrid seed production. Transgenic plants with male sterility and fertility restoration genes have become available in Brassica napus. It facilitates production of hybrid seed without manual emasculation and controlled pollination as often done in maize. Here the translated gene prevents normal pollen development leading to male sterilily.
III. Molecular Diagnostics Nucleic acid probes:- It is now possible to detect the plant diseases even before onset of symptoms by using cDNA Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
82
organization, germplasm introgression and map-based cloning. AFLP is becoming the tool of choice for fingerprinting because of its reproducibility compared to RAPD. Sequence Tagged Microsatellile Markers(STMS) ,or simple sequence repeats (SSR), ISSR and SNPs markers have also become the choice for a wide range of applications in genotyping, genome mapping and genome analysis.
genetically manipulate different strains of these bacteria suitable to different environmental conditions and to develop strains with traits with capacity for better competitiveness and nodulation. ? Biopesticides are biological organisms which can be
formulated as that of the pesticides for the control of pests. Biopesticides are gaining importance in horticulture and in public heatlh programmes for the control of pests. The advantages of using biopesticides are many. They are specific to target pests and do not harm the non target organisms such as bees, butterflies and are safe to humans and live stocks, they do not disturb the food-chain nor leave behind toxic residues.
V. Microbial Biotechnology Indiscriminate and injudicious use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides for the crop production and control of insect-pests has resulted in pollution of the environment deterioration of soil health and development of resistance by many insects and residue problems. Hence there is a great concern world wide to use safer biofertilisers and biopesticdies in the integrated nutrient management and pest management systems and to clone important genes imparting these characters from these microbes.
Some of the microbial pesticides used to control insect pests are Bacillus thuringiensis species to control various insect pests. Insecticidal property of these bacteria are due to crystals of insecticidal proteins produced during sporulation. These proteins are stomach poisons and are highly insect specific. Bt toxins could kill plant parasitic nematode too. Number of baculoviruses (BV) nuclear polyhedrosis virus (NPV) is being developed as microbial pesticides both nationally and internationally, A few examples of these are Heliothis, Spodoptera, Plusia, Agrotis, Trichoplusia, etc.
Biofertilizers are micro-organisms which fix atmospheric nitrogen or solubilise fixed phosphorus in the soil and make more nutrients available to the plant. Some of the organisms providing major inputs are the biological nitrogen fixing organisms like Rhizobium, Azotobacter, Azospirillum and phosphate solubilising organisms like Bacillus polymyxa, B. magaterium, Pseudomonas striata and certain fungal species of Aspergillus and Penicillium.
Biocontrol Agents : These are other microbes which ? are antagonistic to several pathogenic fungus and are good substitutes to fungicides or insecticide. These are Bacillus sps. Pseudomonas fluorescens, Trichoderma, Verticillium sp., Streptromyces sps. etc. These organisms are commercially available.
Phosphate solubilising bacteria are another group of micro-organisms which solubilise the insoluble phosphorus in the soil and make them readily available to the crop. Many of the horticultural crops are benefited by their inoculation. Mixing of important nutrient uptake genes would be helpful in plant transformation.
The extent of commercial application of plant biotechnology is the important mark for measuring the vitality of this newly emerging technology. Small and marginal farmers can adopt less expensive technologies like the use of biofertilizers and biopesticides while capital intensive technologies can be adopted by rich farmers.
Mycorrhiza is the symbiotic association of the roots of crop plants with non-pathogenic fungus. They provide nutrients absorbed from deeper layers of soil to the plants. They help the plants in better plant establishment and growth when inoculated. Many fruit crops like papaya, mango, banana, citrus, pomegranate and vegetable crops are found to be dependent on this association and are greatly benefited by its inoculation in procuring higher phosphate and other nutrient from the soil. These mycorrhizal associations help the plants in overcoming pathogen attack also. They improve soil characters too. Genes responsible for transporting nutrients like phosphate in higher doses are cloned from these organism. ? Genetic Modification of Microbes: By using DNA
recombination technique it has been possible to Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
83
Genetic Engineering & GM Crops O
ver the last 30 years, the field of agricultural biotechnology has developed rapidly due to the greater understanding of DMA as the chemical doublehelix code from which genes are made. Genetic engineering is one of the modern agricultural biotechnology tools that is based on recombinant DMA technology. The term genetic engineering, often interchanged with terms such as gene technology, genetic modification, or gene manipulation, is used to describe the process by which the genetic makeup of an organism can be altered using "recombinant DNA technology." This involves using laboratory tools and specific enzymes to cut out, insert, and alter pieces of DNA that contain one or more genes of interest. The ability to manipulate individual genes and to transfer genes between species that would not readily interbreed is what distinguishes genetic engineering from traditional plant breeding.
In contrast, genetic engineering allows the direct transfer of one or just a few genes, between either closely or distantly related organisms. Not all genetic engineering techniques involve inserting DMA from other organisms. Plants may also be modified by removing or switching off particular genes and genetic controls (promoters).
Application of Genetic Engineering in Crop Production Genetic engineering techniques are only used when all other techniques have been exhausted and when: 1) the trait to be introduced is not present in the germplasm of the crop; 2) the trait is very difficult to improve by conventional breeding methods; and 3) it will take a very long time to introduce and/or improve such trait in the crop by conventional breeding methods (see Figure 7). Modern plant breeding is a multi-disciplinary and coordinated process where a large number of tools and elements of conventional breeding techniques, bioinformatics, biochemistry, molecular genetics, molecular biology and genetic engineering are utilized and integrated.
With conventional plant breeding, there is little or no guarantee of obtaining any particular gene combination from the millions of crosses generated. Undesirable genes can be transferred along with desirable genes or while one desirable gene is gained, another is lost because the genes of both parents are mixed together and re-assorted more or less randomly in the offspring. These problems limit the improvements that plant breeders can achieve, eating time and funds along the way (Figure 6).
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
Source : Agricultural Biotechnology ( A lot more than just GM crops) ISAAA
Development of Transgenic Crops Although there are many diverse and complex techniques involved in genetic engineering, its basic principles are
84
reasonably simple. It is however, very important to know the biochemical and physiological mechanisms of action, regulation of gene expression and safety of gene and gene product to be utilized. The process of genetic engineering requires the successful completion of a series of six steps.
Step 1. Nucleic acid (DNA/RNA) extraction Nucleic acid extraction, either DMA or ribonucleic acid (RNA) is the first step in the genetic engineering process. It is therefore important that reliable methods are available for isolating these components from the cell. In any isolation procedure, the initial step is the disruption of the cell of the desired organism, which may be viral, bacterial or plant cells, in order to extract the nucleic acid. After a series of chemical and biochemical steps, the extracted nucleic acid can be precipitated to form thread-like pellets of DNA/RNA.
Step 2. Gene cloning The second step is gene cloning. There are basically four stages in any cloning experiment: generation of DNA fragments, joining to a vector, propagation in a host cell, and selection of the required sequence. In DNA extraction, all DNA from the desired organism is extracted. This genomic DNA is treated with specific enzymes called restriction enzymes cutting it into smaller fragments with defined ends to allow it to be cloned into bacterial vectors. Copies of the vector will then harbor many different inserts of the genome. These vectors are transformed into bacterial cells and thousands of copies are produced (Figure 8).
Promoters Promoters allow differential expression of genes. For instance some promoters cause the inserted genes to be expressed all the time, in all parts of the plant (constitutive) whereas others allow expression only at certain stages of plant growth, in certain plant tissues, or in response to external environmental signals. The amount of the gene product to be expressed is also controlled by the promoter. Some promoters are weak, whereas others are strong. Controlling the gene expression is an advantage in developing GM plants.
Using information relating to specific molecular marker sequences and the desired phenotype, the vector harboring the desired sequence is detected, selected, isolated and clones are produced. Restriction enzymes are again utilized to determine if the desired gene insert was cloned completely and correctly.
Step 3. Gene design and packaging
Selectable Marker Genes
Once the gene of interest has been cloned, it has to be linked to pieces of DMA that will control its expression inside the plant cell (Figure 9). These pieces of DMA will switch on (promoter) and off (terminator) the expression of the gene inserted. Gene designing/packaging can be done by replacing an existing promoter with a new one, incorporating a selectable marker gene and reporter gene, adding gene enhancer fragments, introns, and organelle-localizing sequences, among others.
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
Selectable marker genes are usually linked to the gene of interest to facilitate its detection once inside the plant tissues. This enables the selection of cells that have been successfully incorporated with the gene of interest, thus saving considerable expense and effort. Genetic engineers used antibiotic resistance and herbicide resistance marker genes to detect cells that contain the inserted gene. Cells that survive the addition of marker
85
agents to the growth medium indicate the presence of the inserted gene. Although increase in antibiotic resistance in humans and animals is unlikely to occur using antibiotic resistance marker, genes coding for resistance to nonmedically important antibiotics are preferred. In addition, alternative types of marker genes have been developed which are related to plant metabolism such as phosphomannose isomerase, xylose isomerase and others.
Particle bombardment Particle bombardment is a mechanical method of introducing the desired gene. The desired genetic sequence is cloned into a plant DMA vector and introduced into the plant using the gene gun or particle gun. As in the common gun, the gene gun uses minute particles of tungsten or gold as the bullet. These particles are coated with the DMA solution and fired to the plant cells through the force of the Helium gas inside a vacuumfilled chamber. The DMA and the tungsten/ gold particles get inside the cell, and within 12 hours, the inserted DMA gets inside the nucleus and integrated with the plant DMA. The tungsten/ gold particles are sequestered to the vacuole and eliminated later.
Reporter Genes Reporter genes are cloned into the vector in close proximity to the gene of interest, to facilitate the identification of transformed cells as well as to determine the correct expression of the inserted gene. Reporter genes that have been used include: the beta glucuronidase gene (gusA gene) which acts on a particular substrate producing a blue product, hence making the transformed cells blue; the green fluorescent protein (gfp) which allows transformed cells to glow under a green light; and luciferase gene that allows cells to glow in the dark, among others.
Transformed cells are cultured in vitro and induced to form small plants (regeneration) that express the inserted gene. Agmbacterium tumefadens-mediated transformation The "sharing" of DMA among living forms is well documented as a natural phenomenon. For thousands of years, genes have moved from one organism to another. For example, Agmbacterium tumefaciens, a soil bacterium known as 'nature's own genetic engineer', has the natural ability to genetically engineer plants. It causes crown gall disease in a wide range of broad-leaved plants, such as apple, pear, peach, cherry, almond, raspberry and roses. The disease gains its name from the large tumor-like swellings (galls) that typically occur at the crown of the plant, just above soil level. Basically, the bacterium transfers part of its DMA to the plant, and this DMA integrates into the plant's genome, causing the production of tumors and associated changes in plant metabolism.
Enhancers Several genetic sequences can also be cloned in front of the promoter sequences (enhancers) or within the genetic sequence itself (introns, or non-coding sequences) to promote gene expression. An example is the cloning of the cauliflower mosaic virus promoter enhancers in front of the plant promoter. Once the gene of interest is packaged together (with the promoter, reporter and the marker gene (Figure 10)), it is then introduced into a bacterium to allow for the creation of many copies of the gene package. The DMA isolated from the bacterial clones can then be used for plant cell transformation using particle bombardment. If however the use of bacteria Agrobacterium tumefaciens is preferred in the plant transformation, the whole gene package should be cloned in between two border sequences (left and right border) of a binary vector. This will allow processing of the Agrobacterium so that only the transfer DMA (T-DNA) will be incorporated into the plant genome.
Molecular biologists have utilized this biological mechanism to improve crops. The genes that cause the galls are removed and replaced with genes coding for desirable traits. Plant cells infected with the bacterium will not form galls but produce cells containing the desired gene, which when cultured in a special medium will regenerate into plants and manifest the desired trait. The main goal in any transformation procedure is to introduce the gene of interest into the nucleus of the cell without affecting the cell's ability to survive. If the introduced gene is functional, and the gene product is synthesized, then the plant is said to be transformed. Once the inserted gene is stable, inherited and expressed in subsequent generations, then the plant is considered a transgenic.
Step 4. Transformation The most common methods used to introduce the gene package into the plant cells in a process called transformation or gene insertion, include biolistic transformation using the gene gun and Agrobacteriummediated transformation (Figure 11).
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
86
Step 5. Detection of Inserted Genes Molecular detection methods have been developed to determine the integrity of the transgene (introduced gene) into the plant cell. Polymerase chain reaction or PCR is a quick test to determine if the regenerated transgenic cells or plants contain the gene. It uses a set of primers (DMA fragments) - forward and backward primers, whose nucleotide sequences are based on the sequence of the inserted gene. The primers and single nucleotides are incubated with the single stranded genomic DMA and several cycles of DMA amplification is conducted in a PCR machine. Analysis of the PCR products in agarose gel will show if the plants are really transformed when DMA fragments equivalent in size with the inserted gene is present and amplified. Southern blot analysis determines the integrity of the inserted gene: whether the gene is complete and not fragmented, at the correct orientation, and with one copy number. The DMA coding sequence is the probe binding to the single stranded genomic DMA of the transgenic plant which is implanted on a nitrocellulose paper. Autoradiography will reveal the transgenic status of the plant. Northern blot analysis determines whether the transcript or the messenger RNA (mRNA) of the introduced DMA is present and is correctly transcribed in the transgenic plant. The messenger RNA of the transgenic plants are isolated
and processed to bind to the nitrocellulose membrane. Labeled DMA is used to bind to the mRNA and can be visualized through autoradiography. Western blot analysis or protein immuno blotting is an analytical technique used to detect whether the transgenic plants produce the specific protein product of the introduced gene. Protein samples are extracted from the transgenic plants, processed into denatured proteins and transferred to a nitrocellulose membrane. The protein is then probed or detected using the antibodies specific to the target protein.
Step 6. Backcross Breeding (if needed) Genetic transformation is usually conducted in elite or commercial varieties which already possess the desired agronomic traits but lacks the important trait of the transgene. Thus, once successfully conducted, the genetically modified plant will be easily recommended for commercialization if it shows stability in several generations and upon successfully passing and fulfilling varietal registration requirements. However, some plant transformations may have been performed in plant varieties which are amenable to genetic transformation but are not important in the target country, or in a variety adapted only in the country where the transformation was conducted. There may also be sterility problems in the transgenic plant. In such cases, conventional plant breeding is performed where the transgenic plant becomes the pollen source in the breeding program and the elite lines or commercial varieties as the recurrent parent. Backcross breeding enables the combination of the desired traits of the
recurrent parent and the transgenic line in the offsprings.
Sources:
The length of time in developing transgenic plant depends upon the gene, crop species, available resources and regulatory approval. It varies from 6 to 15 years before a new transgenic plant or hybrid is ready for commercial release.
Alfonso, A. 2007. Rice Biotechnology. Presentation during the PhilRice R&D. March 13-15, 2007. Biotech Mentor's Kit. 2003. Produced by ISAAA, PCARRD and SEARCA-BIC DANIDA.2002. Assessment of potentials and constraints for development and use of plant biotechnology in relation to plant breeding and crop production in developing countries.
Commercially available crops improved through genetic engineering
Working paper. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Denmark Gelvin S. B. 2003. Agrobacterium-mediated plant transformation: the Biology behind the "Gene-Jockeying" Tool. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews. Vol. 67. No. 1 pp.
There has been a consistent increase in the global area planted to transgenic or GM crops or biotech crops from 1996 up to the present. ISAAA's Annual Global Status Repor t downloadable at the ISAAA website: http://www.isaaa.org presents an up to date record of the number of countries planting GM crops, the hectarage planted, the benefits derived from the biotech crops, farmer accounts of planting biotech crops as well as future prospects and directions of the technology. Transgenic crops which are planted commercially are herbicide tolerant soybean, maize, canola, cotton; insect resistant maize and cotton; and virus resistant squash and papaya.
16-37. http://mmbr.asm.Org/cgi/reprint/67/l/16 Goto, R, Yoshihara, R., Shigemoto, N., Toki., S., and Takaiwa, F. 1999. Iron fortification of rice seed by the soybean ferritin gene. Nature Biotechnology 17, 282-286. Lemaux, Peggy G. 2008. Genetically Engineered Plants and Foods: A Scientist's Analysis of the Issues (Part 1). Annual Review of Plant Biology. Vol. 59: 771-812 http://arjournals. annualreviews.org/eprint/9Ntsbp8nBKFATMuPqVje/full/ 10.1146/annurev.arplant.58.03280
With genetic engineering, more than one trait can be incorporated into a plant and are called stacked traits. These are currently corn and cotton crops with both herbicide and insect tolerance traits. Transgenic crops with combined traits are also available commercially such as the herbicide tolerant and insect resistant maize and cotton.
6.103840?cookieSet=l Lemaux, Peggy G. 2008. Genetically Engineered Plants and Foods: A Scientist's Analysis of the Issues (Part 11). Annual Review of Plant Biology. Vol. 60: 511-559. http://arjournals. annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.arplant.043 008.092013 Lopez-Bucio, J., Martinez de la Vega, 0., Guevara-Garcia, A., And Herera-Estrella, L. 2000
New and future initiatives in crop genetic engineering
Enhanced phosphorous uptake in transgenic tobacco plants that overproduce citrate.
To date, commercial GM crops have delivered benefits in crop production, but there are also a number of products in the pipeline which will make more direct contributions to food quality, clean environment, pharmaceutical production, and livestock feeds. Examples of these products include: rice with higher levels of iron and beta carotene (an important micronutrient which is converted to vitamin A in the body); long life banana that ripens faster on the tree and can therefore be harvested earlier; maize with improved feed value; delayed ripening papaya; papaya ringspot virus resistant papaya; tomatoes with high levels of flavonols, which are powerful antioxidants; drought tolerant maize and wheat; maize with improved phosphorus availability; arsenic-tolerant plants; insect resistant eggplant and rice; edible vaccines from fruit and vegetables; low lignin trees for paper making among others. Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
Nature Biotechnology 18, 450-453. Overview of Crops Genetic Engineering, http://croptechnology.unl.edu/download.cgi Robinson, C. 2001. Genetic modification technology and food: Consumer health and safety. ILSI Europe Concise Monograph Series. Tabien, R. 2000. Biotech for Agriculture. Presentation during the PhilRice Farmers' Forum. July 17, 2000. Ye, X, Al-babili S, Kloti A, Zhang J, Lucca P, Beyer P, Potrykus I. 2000. Engineering the provitamin A (beta-carotene) biosynthetic pathway into (carotenoid-free) rice endosperm. Science. 287:303-305.
88
Frequently Asked Questions on Environmental Issues of
Agricultural Biotechnology 1. Will insect resistance to Bt be developed with the widespread use of Bt crops? Resistance of insects against synthetic insecticides and Bt toxins in sprays occur and this will be true for GE crops. To slow this development in GE crops, several strategies have been developed. First generation GE crops produced only one Bt toxin in each plant. Planting refuges of non-Bt crops near Bt crops in the field is the primary strategy of delaying insect resistance. This is based on the idea that insects feeding on plants in the refuge are not selected for resistance. Insect resistance to Bt toxins is recessive. The heterozygous offsprings produced when homozygous resistant insects mate with susceptible insects are killed by the Bt crops. This high-dose/refuge strategy creates plants that produce Bt toxin concentrations high enough to kill heterozygous insects, making resistance functionally recessive. Insect resistance to Bt toxins can thus be postponed substantially. Another approach is called the pyramid or stacking strategy that combines two or more toxins in a single plant, each with different modes of action. An example is Bollgard II cotton producing CrylAc and Cry2b, which targets the same pest in two different ways. Other
Source : Agricultural Biotechnology ( A lot more than just GM crops) ISAAA
approaches to delaying insect development are: 1.
Mixing seeds of Bt and non-Bt varieties are under small scale experiments
2.
The use of inducible promoter to drive Bt gene expression only during insect attack.
3.
Use of modified toxins to kill resistant insects, as exemplified by the use of modified Bt toxin that will not be affected by the mutations in the midgut cadherins. Cadherins promote toxin oligomerization of CrylA protein which has alpha helix in the binding site. Modified CrylA which does not contain the alpha helix are independent of the cadherins and can thus be effective with insects which has developed resistance due to mutated or silenced cadherins
To date, the elapsed time before the first cases of field resistance of insects to Bt crops were reported has been longer than what was predicted under worst-case scenarios, suggesting that management strategies may have delayed resistance development. Despite documented cases of resistance, Bt crops remain useful against most target pests in most regions. As insect resistance to Cry toxins currently deployed in Bt crops increases, other strategies to create GE crops resistant to insects are being developed.
domesticate corps. The introduction of modern agricultural technologies including new varieties; competition between local and introduced varieties led to a displacement of local varieties; and displacing local varieties eroded genetic variability of regional crop populations. Extensive plant breeding in the early 1960s to feed the tremendous increase in the population produced high-yielding varieties of major food crops, resulting in yield increases but also significant displacement of traditional varieties and a concomitant loss in genetic diversity, particularly landraces of cereals and legumes. Recognition of this fact led to establishment of genebanks across the globe with focus on specific crops.
2. Can genetically engineered crops cause adverse effects on non target organisms? Have there been adverse effects on nontarget organisms caused by GE crops? Effects on GE crops on non target organisms have been studied with focus on: a.
Monarch butterflies and black swallow tails. USA Environmental Protection Agency have concluded based on two studies that Bt corn was not a significant factor in field deaths of monarch larvae, particularly relative to factors such as the widespread use of pesticides and destruction of the butterfly's winter habits.
b.
Non target soil microorganisms. Studies on four maize varieties with two different Bt proteins (CrylAb and CryBBbl) versus near isogenic non-Bt varieties reveal that although numbers and types of microbes and enzyme activities differ from season to season among varieties, no statistically significant differences were seen in number of different microbes, enzyme activities, or pH. Similar results were found comparing Bt and non-Bt cotton, and no Cry2Ab protein was detected in the rhizosphere in the field grown with Bt cotton.
c.
Non-target arthropods. Studies on foliagedwelling arthropods on Bt maize expressing CrySBbl compared with those of conventional insecticide treated maize show that there is no adverse impacts on abundance of any non target arthropods. Insecticide treated arthropods however reduced the number of non target insects: ladybird beetles, lacewings, and damsel bugs.
d.
One issue on diversity is the gene flow from GE crops to wild and weedy relatives which could render selective advantage of recipients in certain environments. Gene flow can also happen naturally in conventionally bred and commercialized crops. This is addressed by the adoption of measures needed in cultivating GE crops near centers of origin depending on the nature of the trait and the frequency of its introduction into an ecosystem. Currently, studies on impact assessment of transgenes moving into wild relatives and the potential to change ecosystem dynamics are requested in environmental impact statements before any GE plant is released. It provides insights into the possible outcomes on the environment. Certain impact assessments of some GE crops are also monitored even after deregulation.
4. Can herbicide-tolerant (HT) crops lead to superweeds? Development of herbicide-tolerant weeds has occurred with both traditionally-bred and GE crops. This phenomenon reduces the effectiveness of certain weed control strategies and decreases weed management options. Strategies have been developed to minimize the development of herbicide tolerant weeds, such as:
Microbes and non target water insects. Water sediments and surface water after labeling genomic DNA of GE Bt corn revealed that sediments had more DNA than surface water. In addition, the CrylAb protein was not detectable in both samples.
3. Could the use of genetically engineered crops result in the population decline of other organisms? Population decline of other organisms has been an ongoing phenomenon since man learned how to
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
90
a.
Use of HT cultivars with resistance genes for herbicides with alternative modes of action that can be used in rotation,
b.
Use of restriction technologies to prevent gene passage to the next generation through the pollen, i.e. transgenes can be targeted to the cytoplasmic organelles, not in the pollen,
c.
Rotate the use of HT crops with different modes of action or with non HT crops.
A few points to consider in using HT crops are: Weeds can also escape herbicide treatment on the basis of application rate, weed age and size, spray volume adjuvants used, water quality and interactions with other herbicides that affect efficacy. Late germination of weeds can also escape herbicide application, thus a second pass of sprays can be done.
herbicide applications increased with HT soybean but use shifted to more environmentally friendly herbicides. Reduction in pesticide use can also be achieved by using the best methods and tools available, including integrated pest management, biocontrol, organic production methods, and GE organisms to reduce El while achieving adequate production levels.
5. What is the effect of using GE crops in pesticide use?
6. Would Bt crops need additional insecticide applications?
Having crops tolerant to herbicides and pest attack increases pest management options and can also reduce the number and strength of pesticide applications. Growth of GE HT crops also allows topical application of herbicide to crops and weeds, which replaces spraying between crop rows and mechanical removal of weeds, both of which can damage crops and result in environmental damage. Reducing mechanical tillage lowers fuel consumption and helps conserve soils prone to erosion and compaction. HT crops can also lead to more flexible herbicide treatment regimes.
Bt or Cry toxins are toxic to susceptible larvae when cleaved to generate their active form, which then binds to specific receptors in the midgut and creates holes that cause lepidopteran larvae to die. The first BT GE crops introduced into corn and cotton were targeted to control European corn borer, corn rootworm and cotton armyworm. Some pests belong to groups insensitive to Bt have to be sprayed to prevent crop damage. With the commercial introduction of corn and cotton varieties with two stacked Bt genes, i.e. CrylAc and Cry2Ab in cotton, bollworms and secondary armyworm pests were controlled.
The National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy published surveys on U.S. pesticide usage on GE crops. In 2004, HT canola, cotton, maize and soybean as well as Bt cotton and maize showed reductions in herbicide active ingredient (Al) of 25 to 30%. In a 2006 publication, the USDA National Statistics Service found that from 1996 to 2002, Al use rates for HT cotton and corn, and Bt corn declined as adoption of Bt and HT cotton, corn, and soybeans increased and concurrent shifts occurred towards less environmentally persistent herbicides such as pendimethalin, trifluralin, and metolachlor.
New developments to target different insect pests are: corn with six insect resistant genes against lepidopteran (CrylF, CrylA.105, Cry2Ab2) and rootworm (Cry34Abl + Cry 35Abl, modified by CryBBbl) pests; the use of a hybrid Cry protein with two binding domains to target lepidopteran and coleopteran pests of potato; use of plant defense proteins such as alpha amylase inhibitors from legumes; use of insecticidal compounds from nematodes, bacterial cholesterol oxidase, avidin, volatile communication compounds, and RNAi approaches targeted to specific insect proteins. Even with GE approaches, other methods of insect control will be needed, e.g., chemical pesticides, biocontrol, integrated pest management, or organic approaches, because insects are plentiful and ever changing.
The Environmental Impact Quotient (IEQ) assessment which takes into account the pesticide Al and the environmental impact (El) of GE crops resulted in significant reductions in the global El of production agriculture; such that since 1996, the overall El associated with pesticide use on HT soybean, corn, cotton, canola, and Bt cotton decreased by 15.3%.
7. Would the introduction of virus-resistant genetically engineered plants lead to novel viruses?
Cultivation of GE HT crops has also had other positive effects on the environment, i.e. increases in low-or no-till practices and use in combination with integrated pest management schemes, which were made possible because early season pesticide sprays could be eliminated, allowing beneficial insects to establish. Most reports indicate pesticide use and cost decrease following adoption of Bt varieties. In Argentina, numbers of
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
Development of GE crops with resistance to viral diseases has been conducted in squash and papaya using a viral coat protein gene. The USDA APHIS has already deregulated the GE squash allowing commercial production after the virus was shown not to infect wild squash varieties; the resistance gene gave no advantage
91
to wild squash varieties, and the presence of the coat protein gene did not increase viral competitiveness. For GE papaya with the viral coat protein, concerns on viral recombination became a concern since from analyses of viruses, homologous and non homologous recombination could occur between viruses and between viral genomes and plant genes. Experimental results indicate however that most recombinant viruses are not fully virulent because the new gene combinations are not fully compatible, leaving new hybrids at a competitive disadvantage. To compete effectively, recombinant viruses must have functional recombinatorial ability, capacity to establish systemic infection, and ability to compete with their progenitors during replication. These requirements place powerful negative selection pressure on newly evolved viruses. Reduced viral replication capacity could also negatively affect recombination frequency in transgenic plants.
resistant bacteria in the soil by increasing the levels of kanamycin in the soil concludes that natural soil conditions rarely would have the selective pressure necessary to keep nptll in the bacterium. Data from this and other studies indicate that homologous recombination and integration of plant genes into competent soil bacteria could occur, but at very low frequencies, and the environmental significance would depend on selective pressure for the trait.
9. What happens when pollen moves from genetically engineered crops to wild relatives or non-genetically engineered varieties? In areas of genetic diversity? Gene flow or the movement of pollen from one plant to another is made possible when the parental plants (a) flowers at the same time;
Large-scale field releases of plants engineered with viral genes are necessary to obtain realistic assessments of the types and recombination frequencies that might occur. Currently, no novel viruses have been reported resulting from GE plants in the field, but likely they would be detected only if their appearance had adverse effects. At present, the only commercially propagated plants engineered with viral coat protein genes, GE squash, and papaya are grown on small acreages.
(b) close enough to allow a vector (insect, wind, or animal) to transfer pollen to receptive females; and (c) produce pollen that can result in embryos developing into viable seeds and germinating. Successful pollination also depends on the longevity of pollen viability, pollen travel distance and the mode of pollination the plant has, whether self or cross-pollinated. Gene flow may present significant economic or environmental risks for either conventionally bred or GE crops on a case-by-case evaluation. Crop-to-wild relative gene flow could result if the plants grow in overlapping regions resulting in new combinations of genes that can improve, harm, or have no effect on the fitness of recipient plants. Genes can also flow from wild relatives to cultivated crops, introducing new traits into the next generation seeds, but only affect the crop if it is replanted.
To minimize the possibility for gene exchange among the viruses, strategies such as RNAi-mediated viral resistance is employed. There is no protein introduced, and the RNAi construct is used to silence a gene from bean golden mosaic virus in Phaseolus vulgaris leading to virusresistant plants.
8. Can genes from genetically engineered plants move to bacteria in the field?
Planting of GE varieties in areas of genetic diversity of plants needs additional precautions to reduce possible impacts of introgression of GE traits and the potential significant environmental consequences. To minimize this occurrence, planting of GE crops near wild species should be avoided or other technologies could be used to prevent gene(s) from moving to wild varieties.
Horizontal gene transfer is the process of transferring genes among non-sexually related organisms such as from plants to bacteria. Sequence analyses of genes and proteins show that some genes have transferred from plants to bacteria over a very long evolutionary time frame. This transfer can only be simulated in the laboratory using optimized conditions - situations which are difficult to replicate in natural settings. If, however it were to happen in the field, it would be at very low frequencies and the gene would need to provide a selective advantage to survive.
Gene flow could also occur when compatible plants are present within the vicinity. GE varieties like conventional plants can also persist in the environment. Organic farmers should be aware of these occurrences to be able to adopt the necessary precautions of spatial and temporal isolation.
An experiment to determine the persistence of kanamycin
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
92
has been widely accepted and the manner to fulfill this may vary.
10. Can organic, conventional and genetically engineered cropping systems coexist?
Conventional farming has led to impressive gains of between 70 and 90% of increases in food production in the last few decades. Unfor tunately, these were accompanying environmental impacts as well as sizeable consumption of fossil fuels, unsustainable rates of water use and topsoil loss, and contributions to environmental degradation, air pollution, soil erosion, reduced biodiversity, pest resistance, pollution of lakes and streams, and overuse of surface and ground water.
Farmers are used to planting different varieties and planting strategies in order to develop farm products that meet the requirements of the consumers. They are used to planting white and yellow maize, hot and sweet peppers, high and zero erucic acid rapeseed, and still achieve purity standards dictated by certified seed specification. Coexistence strategies must be devised to allow neighbor farmers to farm in an economically viable manner. This can involve alerting each other to their plans and modifying them to accommodate each others' needs. When GE crops are grown next to organic farming operations, certain practices that minimize synthetic pesticide drift can also limit GE gene flow, such as spatial separation of fields, staggered planting dates, and planting varieties with different maturity dates and those that are not sexually compatible. Other crops-specific methods have been devised to aid coexistence strategies. Gene flow is not only the means for GE to commingle with conventional or organic crops; crops must also be segregated during harvest, shipping and processing. Methods limiting such commingling have in some cases been implemented.
Achieving agricultural sustainability can be addressed through numerous agricultural practices such as: integrated pest management (IPM), biological control, organic methods, and use of GE plants, coupled with selected conventional agricultural methods, can play important roles in future sustainable agricultural practices. Biological control can be a part of an IPM strategy and neither biological control nor IPM specifically excludes the use of GE organisms. Organic production relies on practices, such as cultural and biological pest management, that can include IPM and biological control but excludes the use of synthetic chemicals and GE organisms. The use of GE organisms can also contribute to sustainable practices by augmenting and replacing certain conventional practices. For example, plants can be created that increase water use, and fertilizer efficiencies, that remediate soil contaminants, increase no-till or lowtill practices to help reduce greenhouse gases and produce higher yields without increasing land usage, particularly in developing countries. To achieve true sustainability agriculture must use the best of all practices.
With the use of various production methods comes the mixing of permissible inputs and methods, whether with their own farms with products from neighboring farms, or during harvest and processing. The commingling or adventitious presence (AP) is the unintended occurrence of materials other than specific crops and can include weed seeds, seeds from other crops, dirt, insects, and other foreign materials such as stones or plastics. Different countries have set rules on the degree of AP. In the U.S., for seed crops, rules for AP are specified by the Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies (AOSCA), where a level of 0.5% seed of other varieties and 2% AP of inert materials is permitted in "pure seed" of hybrid corn.
Sources: Lemaux, Peggy G. 2008. Genetically Engineered Plants and Foods: A Scientist's Analysis of the Issues (Part 1). Annual Review of Plant Biology. Vol. 59: 771-812
11. Can use of genetically engineered crops or organic farming lead to more sustainable agricultural production systems?
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/ eprint/9Ntsbp8nBKFATMuPqVje/full/10.1146/annurev.ar plant.58.032806. 103840?cookieSet=l
Sustainable agricultural systems should meet the basic needs of the population while preserving the resources for future generations. The United Nation's Millennium Development Goals to "Ensure environmental sustainability by integrating principles of sustainable development into a country's policies, and programs to reverse the loss of environmental resources." This need
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
Lemaux, Peggy G. 2009. Genetically Engineered Plants and Foods: A Scientist's Analysis of the Issues (Part 11). Annual Review of Plant Biology. Vol. 60: 511-559. http://arjournals.annual reviews.org / doi/abs/10.1146/ annurev.arplant. 043008.092013.
93
EVENTS
INDIAN SEED CONGRESS-2012 Indian Seed Congress 2012 (ISC'12) â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the third edition of the mega NSAI event was held at Pune (in the state where the Indian seed industry started) on 10 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 11 February 2012. The theme of this year's event was 'Seeding Rural Prosperity'. As in previous years it brought together the Indian seed industry, who with the inputs from seed industry professionals from some other countries and senior Government officials, both from scientific institutions, as well as the policy makers, reviewed the current status of the industry and the suggestions for its future growth.
financial organizations; seed related ancillary industries; etc. participated in ISC'12. The Congress was inaugurated by Shri Radhakrishna Eknathrao Vikhe- Patil, Hon'ble Minister for Agriculture & Marketing, Govt. of Maharashtra, in the presence of Prof. Abhijit Sen, Member, Planning Commission, Govt. of India; Shri Satej Patil, Hon'ble Minister of State for Home, Food & Rural Development, Govt. of Maharashtra; Dr. K. V. Subbarao, President, NSAI; Shri M. G. Shembekar, Chairman ISC'12 National Organising Committee, and Shri Nandkishore Kagliwal, senior industry member. Prof. Abhijit Sen presented the Key Note Address. Shri N.K. Kagliwal presented an overview of the industry, setting the stage for the Congress.
More than 500 seed professionals from 15 countries representing seed companies; researchers; policy makers;
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
95
A
contributions to the development of the Indian seed industry and honoured with the NSAI Award for 2012. These included Dr. C. D. Mayee, eminent agricultural scientist; National Seed Corporation (for celebrating 50 years of service); Mr. Suresh Aggrawal (Bejo Sheetal); Mr. S.U. Baig (Nath Seeds) and Namdeo Umaji (the oldest seed company in India). A small cultural programme depicting the culture of Maharashtra state through a dance drama, preceded the Inaugural function.
t the Inauguration, three publications, namely 'Seed Industry Handbook'; book entitled 'Seeds of Change â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Growth of the Indian Seed Industry, 1961 and beyond' (W.H. Freeman & B.R. Barwale); and 'Indian Seed Congress 2012 Souvenir', were released by the dignitaries. A special component of the Inaugural Session was the time when as per the ISC tradition, five individuals / organizations were recognized for their significant
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
1
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
96
T
Bahuguna, Additional Secretary (Agri), Govt. of India, chaired the Panel which was moderated by Dr. K.V. Subbarao, President, NSAI. The panelists for the session included, Dr. Sudhir Goel; Dr. S.R. Rao; Dr. K.C. Bansal; Dr. J.S. Sandhu; and Ms. Smriti Sharan.
he 'International Conference' â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the mainstay of the ISC'12, was structured to include five sessions. The first session on 'Creating an enabling environment for growth of the Indian seed industry', was convened as a discussion session by a panel of experts. Mr. Ashish
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
97
T
he second session on 'Role of Indian seed industry in meeting national food security needs', chaired by Dr. C.D. Mayee had presentations made by Mr. M. Prabhakar Rao (Nuziveedu Seeds); Mr. Prashant Belgamwar (Syngenta India) and Mr. Rajvir Rathi (Bayer). The next session on 'New technologies for increasing agricultural productivity' , besides presentations by industry experts also included a Panel Discussion on 'Regulatory Challenges for introduction of new technologies'. The Session was chaired by Dr. P. L. Gautam, Chairperson of Protection of Plant Varieties & Farmers' Rights Authority (PPV & FRA). The presentations in the first part of the session were made by Dr. Edwin van der Vossen (); Dr. William Neibur (Pioneer, China) and Dr. Usha Barwale
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
98
(Mahyco). The panelists for discussing the regulatory challenges included Dr. K.K. Tripathi (DBT); Dr. Ved Kamboj (RCGM); Dr. T.A. More (MPAU); Mr. Sharad Joshi (Shetkari Sangathan) and Mr. Ajay Jakhar (Bharat Krishak Samaj). Session 4 on 'Moving to the next level' was chaired by Dr.T.A. More, Vice Chancellor, Mahatma Phule Agricultural University and had presentations by Mr. Vimal Chawda (VNR Seeds); Dr. William Neibur (Pioneer, China) and Mr. Ashudeep Garg (Rabo Bank). The last session on 'Current Challenges and road ahead' was an industry session where the members reviewed various constraints for industry's growth and planned a way forward. The Conference was coordinated by Dr. Paresh Verma and Dr.F.B. Patil.
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
99
I
n addition to the 'International Conference', ISC'12 also included an 'Exhibition', where the member companies and others showcased their new technologies and services for the seed sector under nearly fifty stalls. The
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
'Exhibition' was also inaugurated by the Chief Guest, Hon'ble Agriculture Minister of Govt. of Maharashtra, Shri Vikhe Patil, who spent considerable time at the exhibition interacting with the exhibitors.
100
B
esides sharing new knowledge through the Conference sessions and the exhibition, the ISC'12 delegates used the trading sessions for business development and networking. In addition to the general
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
trading tables, premium trading space (separate rooms etc.) was also provided by the organizers to the sponsors and other major players.
101
The ISC'12 delegates relaxed in the evenings at the special dinner sessions arranged with enjoyable entertainment programmes, which was well appreciated.
O
rganisation of this mega event was facilitated by generous sponsorship support from various industry members. ‘Vibha Seeds’ was the 'Principal Sponsor' for the event this year also. While 'Syngenta' was the 'Diamond Sponsor', the list of 'Platinum Sponsors' included ‘Mahyco’; ‘Nuziveedu Seeds’ and ‘Pioneer’. The
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
'Gold Sponsors' included Ajeet Seeds; Bioseed; Bejo Sheetal; Bayer Bioscience; Incotec; Key Gene; Monsanto; Nath Biogene and Rasi Seeds. Advanta; East West Seeds; Green Gold Seeds; GSP Crop Science; Kaveri Seeds; Namdeo Umaji; Seed Works; Tulasi Seeds and Western Agri provided support as 'Silver Sponsor'. The 'Gala Dinner' was hosted by Ankur Seeds.
102
NSAI CEO Conclave
O
ne of the key objectives of NSAI is to promote collective growth of the Indian seed industry and capacity building for its members. In this endeavor, a new initiative was launched this year targeting at the Chief Executive Officers and the top leadership of the seed industry. This initiative of CEO Conclave was designed to achieve the following primary objectives:(i)
To deliberate on collective growth of the seed industry.
(ii)
To promote experience sharing amongst NSAI members and to promote growth and transition of the Indian seed companies.
(iii)
To bring an outside in perspective for expanding the visions of the top leadership of seed industry; and
(iv)
To introduce newer concept in leadership.
The CEO Conclave drew excellent feedback from the participants and wanted more of it in the coming years.
The CEO Conclave was organized as the pre-Congress event, a day prior to the Indian Seed Congress 2012 on 9th February, 2012. The galaxy and distinguished faculty including Dr. Ireena Vittal, Dr. Indira J Parikh, Mr. Chetan Bhagwat who presented their concepts and ideas before the CEOs. Their presentations were followed by intense discussions and question-answer sessions to bring further clarity to the members.
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
The presentations were followed by a panel discussion where the distinguished industry leaders such as Mr. M.Prabhakar Rao, Mr. Shekhar Natarajan, Mr. Santosh Attawar shared their experience on vision of growth and their perspective for the future. The panel discussion was anchored by Shri Harish Reddy. There was a very interesting presentation by renowned Writer and Social Worker Mr. Chetan Bhagat who presented his idea on the concept of leadership and growth in his humorous style. This CEO Conclave was attended by 86 top leadership level Executives, CEOs and MDs of more than 56 companies in India.
Dr. K.V.Subbarao, President NSAI and Shri S.L. Kagliwal, Co-convenor of the Indian Seed Congress 2012 acknowledged the contributions made by Mr. Raju Kapoor, Executive Director, NSAI, & Ms. Sonia Kagliwal. The CEO Conclave concluded by a vote of thanks proposed by Mr. Raju Kapoor, Executive Director, NSAI to Faculty, participants and all others. The efforts and contribution of NOC of Indian Seed Congress 2012 and NSAI Secretariat staff was highly appreciated.
103
Indira J. Parikh emphasized on the importance of talent acquisition, grooming and retention for growth. She highlighted the importance of attracting quality talent to the seed sector without which it will be difficult to sustain growth. Capacity building and facilitation of employee growth should be the major focus of the CEOs.
Ireena Vittal brought out in a very analytical presentation that while the Indian seed market at ` 8,500 crores is way below the US market of ` 55,000 Crores, or China at ` 31,500 Crores, it has enough scope to grow to a level of ` 20,000 crores by the year 2020. She brought out that farming is becoming more profitable and this is raising the expectations of the farmers. She emphasised that significant value is to be created in the seed business which can grow on to ` 25,000-30,000 crores by the year 2030. M Prabhakar Rao shared his experience on how to scale up the seed business and expected the market to grow to ` 14,500 crores by 2015-16 (assuming the current growth rate of 12%). However, at the desired SRR levels the market of ` 20,000 crores is easily attainable. He highlighted how, through strong & focused R&D, a dynamic and growth oriented supply chain support & differential marketing strategy, the company has grown to become one of the largest players in the seed industry. He identified that physical, cultural & policy articulation and pursuit has provided NSL the requisite growth momentum.
Shekhar Natrajan shared his thoughts on the strategies for growing businesses. He stated that challenges are opportunities and â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;growingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; is challenging both for farmers and the seed industry and the job of CEOs must be to convert every challenge into an opportunity and every opportunity into a growth story. He shared the three mantras to ensure the growth of the Indian seed industry in which firstly, the objective must be to help farmers and make sure farmer makes money; secondly, focus must be on market development and on right agronomic practices and thirdly on developing round the season relationship with the farmer as it is important to engage with him holistically.
Santosh Attavar spoke on "Managing Transition" with special reference to family owned businesses and brought out from his experience, key imperatives required for making profitable & sustainable transitions. He brought out that strict financial control over the existing systems, regular review on the manpower rationalization and keeping the R&D focused were the key catalysts in the transition process.
Chetan Bhagat, a renowned writer in his typical and humorous style brought out 3 key components that the CEOs of 2020 must imbibe: Innovation across products, businesses and self. Product innovation should be kept in the focus by tracking the percentage to total sales of the products introduced less than 5 years ago. Business innovation should be focused by tracking the new things that the divisional heads have done in the last year. A leader must enhance his time management skills and work towards a wholesome life rather than a work family life alone. People must be the focus for managing growth and it is important to track the quality of employees & employee pulse. Knowledge, communication & convenience must be leveraged through technology. Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
104
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
105
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
106
FOURTH NATIONAL SEED CONGRESS
T
he Fourth National Seed Congress, organised by National Seed Research & Training Centre (NSRTC), Varanasi, and Haryana State Seed Certification Agency (HSSCA), at Chandigarh on 23-25 January 2012 focussed on the theme 'Quality Seed for Food Security'. The Congress was inaugurated by Shri Bhupinder Singh Hooda, Hon'ble Chief Minister of Haryana, in the presence of Guest of Honour, Dr. Ram Charan Mahant, Hon'ble Union Minister of State for Agriculture & Food Processing Industries and Special Guest' Shri Sukhbir Kataria, Hon'ble Minister for Sports & Agriculture, Govt. of Haryana. Shri
More than three hundred participants representing policy makers, developmental officials, researchers, seed company professionals, students, etc. deliberated on critical issues for development of seed industry. The technical programme of the Congress was structured over nine sessions, including the 'Plenary' and two sessions devoted to presentation of posters on seed research. Invited Lead papers and selected contributed papers covering the theme areas related to: 'Issues impacting seed production, access to quality seed and international
G.C. Pati, Addl. Secretary (Agriculture), Govt. of India; Shri S.K.G. Rahate, Joint Secretary (Seeds), Govt. of India and Director, NSRTC and Shri Roshan Lal, Financial Commissioner & Principal Secretary (Agri.), Govt. of Haryana, also graced the Inaugural Function. Ms. Smriti Sharan, Director (Seeds), Govt. of India, Dr. S.S. Dahiya, Director, HSSCA and Dr. Vilas Tonapi, Head, Seed Science & Technology, IARI, New Delhi, also participated in the Inaugural Function. Inaugurating the Congress, Shri Hooda exhorted the scientists to develop technologies to mitigate the impact of climate change and provide nutritional security.
seed trade'; 'GM crops for food security'; 'Seed policy and seed quality'; 'Public Private Partnership'; and 'Seed systems and Plant variety Protection' were presented and discussed.
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
The sessions were chaired / co chaired by eminent seed experts and officials namely, Shri G.C. Pati; Dr. M. S. Sandhu; Dr. N. Seetharama; Dr. R.K. Choudhury; Dr. Malavika Dadlani; Dr. Rajendra Prasad; Mr. Raju Kapoor; Dr. P.K. Agrawal and Dr. Jagvir Singh Sindhu. The lead presentations were made by Dr. B.S. Dahiya; Dr. P.K. Agrawal; Dr. Vilas Tonapi; Dr. M. Bhaskaran;
107
Ms. Rajeshwari; Dr. P. Anand Kumar; Dr. N. Seetharama; Dr. R.K. Trivedi; Mr. Selvaraj; Dr. D.D.K. Sharma; Dr. R.K. Choudhury; Dr. Malavika Dadlani; Dr. Arvind Kapoor; DR. Rajendra Prasad; Dr. Manish Patel; Dr. N.K. Dadlani; Dr. Ravinder Reddy; Dr. L.V. Subbarao; Dr. Deepal Roy Choudhary and Dr. Jagvir Singh Sindhu.
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
108
The recommendations of the Congress were finalised in the 'Plenary Session' chaired by Shri Roshan Lal. The major recommendations which emerged from the Congress included: 1.
All the recommendations of seed congress held previously be summarized and time bound action plan for their implementation be ensured by DAC
2.
The contribution of seed Technologies and seed Industry to the national economy should be
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
highlighted among the stake holders, policy makers and the government to usher in better policies for making available better quality seeds to the farmer. 3.
The issues related to impact and climate change on seed production and seed quality should be addressed on war footing and new areas for seed production explored.
4.
The impediments in seed bill that restrict the operational issues such as performance trials, testing systems and changes should be addressed and the provisions of Seeds Act need to be implemented uniformly across all the states.
5.
The capacity building for facilitating OECD System and seed certification need to be initiated.
6.
The seed net portal needs to get linked to all the stake holders to upload the data to be made available in public domain.
7.
The Government needs to provide the favourable policy environment to facilitate the release of GM food crops to usher in Food Security. The states must be engaged to promote GM seed testing and field trials.
8.
All the state holders need to address the issue of better science communication and outreach to sensitize the end user on the need for GM Crops and their benefits.
9.
Better scientific journalism and confidence building measures are needed to enhance acceptance of new technology.
10.
There is a need to re-visit and update the Indian Minimum Seed Certification Standards to enable better seed quality.
11.
Maintenance breeding should be strengthened including compulsory grow out test for all classes and crop varieties to ensure rolling plan of generation system of seed multiplication
12.
The Government needs to bring in more favourable policy and liberalized rules and regulations for the growth of seed industry through sustained engagement with researchers, policymakers and Industry.
13.
The plant Quarantine System needs to have better harmonization of plant quarantine regulations with NPSD
14.
Research on practical seed quality enhancement technologies need to be on fast track for the benefit of seed industry.
109
15. The public private partnership should be revitalized by creation of seed industry researchers interface. Four major initiatives that need to be addressed immediately are: ? Access of germplasm and exchange. ? Capacity buildings ? Information Sharing ? Outreach Programmes ? Revitalize the existing PPP Committee
comprising of DAC, ICAR and NSAI to identify and facilitate joint initiatives. 16. The community seed banks should be strengthened to promote the access to better quality seed of open pollinated varieties. 17.
It is recommended to promote block level seed storage infrastructure with funding from Government for better availability of seeds at block levels on PPP mode.
18.
Seed Congress needs to provide a common platform for deliberations on policy, research and commerce of seed. Hence there is need to have integrated efforts on the part of DAC, NSRTC and ISST in liaison with the NSAI to capture the voices of all stakeholders.
19.
There is an urgent need to have uniformity and expeditious clearances
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
related to biodiversity, germplasm use and plant variety protection. 20. Expeditious clearances of plant variety protection applications are needed to facilitate introduction of quality seed of new varieties at faster pace. There is an urgent need to promote accelerated adoption of hybrid rice in Eastern India through better outreach programmes and financial incentives to growers. 21.
Seed Certification and Seed testing institutions be strengthened with enhanced budgetary support from the DAC and state.
22
Awareness programs in PPV & FR needs to be strengthened. National database be enriched with contribution from both public and private varieties. All Stakeholders should have access to the database.
A small Exhibitionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; showcasing the new technologies was organised with the Congress
110
Naional Seed Association of India honoured five of its senior members for their contribution to the growth and development of the Indian Seed Industry at the Indian Seed Congress on 10 February 2012 at Pune. Recipients of this special honour were Mr. Suresh Aggarwal, Mr. Mohammed Samadullah Baig, Dr. C. D. Mayee, National Seed Corporation and Namdeo Umaji. The citations for these awards are given below.
Mr. Suresh Agrawal
M
r. Suresh Onkardas Agrawal, Chairman and Founder of Bejo Sheetal Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Jalna, is a true visionary, who has guided his enterprise to blossom into a leading vegetable seed company engaged in research, production, marketing and exports of hybrid vegetable seeds. The vision of young Mr. Suresh Agrawal, who has pursued his goal of developing quality vegetable seeds for the farmers of India and its neighboring countries, is credited with starting the first Joint Venture in seed sector, when he joined hands with leading international vegetable seed company Bejo Zaden, bv of Holland, to add further value to the technologies being developed by his company. Today, assisted by a strong team of over hundred highly qualified and devoted agricultural scientists, Bejo Sheetal has developed 700 hybrids of major tropical vegetable crops, mainly tomato, chilli, egg plant, onion, okra, melons and gourds. Bejo Sheetal chilli hybrids have secured for the company nearly one third of the national market share in the crop. Bejo Sheetal onion hybrids also have been appreciated in the country and have earned Mr. Agrawal, the 'Life Time Achievement Award for Onion Development' from Directorate of Onion & Garlic Research (ICAR). Eager to add new innovative products into his farmers' basket, Bejo Sheetal developed True Potato Seed (TPS), which has become popular in India and is being exported to Africa and other countries. Exposed to new and advanced technologies, during his regular visits to countries with well developed seed industry, Mr. Agrawal has introduced several agri biotech products, in association with many national and international research institutes. His desire to take the support to farmers to the next level, encouraged Mr. Agrawal to set up the Bioscience
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
111
Foundation, a non profit organization for research and training, in collaboration with Michigan State University, USA. National Seed Association of India is pleased to honour Mr. Suresh Agrawal for his outstanding contributions to the growth and development of the Indian seed industry.
Shri Mohammed Samadullah Baig
S
hri Mohammed Samadullah Baig was born in Basmathnagar, in Hingoli District of Maharashtra. After graduating in Agriculture from Parbhani (now Marathwada Agriculture University) in 1968, Shri Baig has associated himself with the development of the Indian seed industry. Shri Baig joined the leading seed company MAHYCO in 1968 and during eleven years of his association with the company, has introduced hybrid seed production of Bajra, Jowar, Maize and Cotton in the states of Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Gujarat. His pioneering role in developing areas in Andhra Pradesh for seed production of several field crops has contributed to the state being recognised today as the 'Seed Hub' of India. It was due to his relentless efforts that Chickballapur in Kolar District of Karnataka became the biggest centre for hybrid seed production for Jowar during 1975 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 1980. After contributing significantly in laying the foundation for hybrid seed production in several states, Shri Baig shifted to Nath Seeds in 1979, where for the last more than three decades, he has been deeply associated with building the capacity of the farmers all over India for hybrid seed production for both field and vegetable crops. During this period, he also led the Nath Joint Venture with Royal Sluis of Netherlands for more than 17 years. He visited several countries and used his global learning and experience in building up the hybrid seed industry in India. He also guided the seed policy for Maharashtra as a Member of the State Seed Committee during 1990s. The young seedmen in the country envy Shri Baig for his energy and active pursuit of promoting the Indian seed industry's growth. National Seed Association of India is pleased to honour Shri Mohammmed Samadullah Baig, as recognition of his outstanding contributions to the development of Indian seed industry.
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
112
Dr. C. D. Mayee
D
r. Charudatta Digambarrao Mayee is an eminent agricultural scientist, renowned for his work in agricultural research and development. Son of a cotton farmer in Vidarbha, he has contributed significantly to cotton farming through his technological interventions. After completing his B.Sc. and M.Sc. from Nagpur, Dr. Mayee first joined a leading seed company, where during his very short stay he got truly baptised into the technological needs of the farmers. After completing his Ph.D. from IARI, New Delhi and advanced Post Doctoral trainings in Germany, Dr. Mayee started his journey of serving the farmers' cause through various positions in agricultural R & D. He is among few agricultural scientists, who has held leadership positions in both agricultural research and development. His term as Director, Central Institute of Cotton Research, Nagpur during early part of this century, brought him back in close touch with cotton farmers and revived his resolve to make cotton farming more remunerative. Through his guidance for research at CICR and in various Govt. of India Expert Committees, he steered the policies to support farming population in general and cotton farmers in particular. Today, he is recognised as a foremost international expert on cotton and holds executive positions in global cotton research initiatives. As President of the Indian Society of Cotton Improvement, he made the cotton community proud with successful organisation of the 5th World Cotton Research Conference in India in November 2011. A strong promoter of technology, he strongly supported the biotechnological interventions for cotton improvement in the form of use of Bt Cotton and guided the associated policy formulations as a senior Expert on the related Govt. of India's committees (Genetic Engineering Approval Committee; Pesticide Registration Committee; Pesticide Banning Committee; etc.). As Chairman of the Committee for deregulating the event based hybrids in cotton, he helped the seed industry to promote technology in a short span of time. As Agriculture Commissioner, Govt. of India, Dr. Mayee very ably used his wide learnings from his many visits abroad and interactions with farming community across the world, in developing appropriate agricultural development programmes for the nation. Dr. Mayee has always strived to guide and develop necessary human resource to support the agricultural development programmes in the country. After his terms as Professor (MAU, Parbhani); Associate Dean (PDKV, Akola); and Vice
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
113
Chancellor (MAU, Parbhani), he got the opportunity to guide human resource development programmes of ICAR, as Chairman of the Agricultural Scientists' Recruitment Board (ASRB). During his seven years stay at ASRB, he developed recruitment policies and implemented wide reaching reforms. A Fellow of the National Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Dr. Mayee has held Executive management positions in several leading scientific societies and has been a recipient of several national and international awards and recognitions. He has been conferred Doctor of Science (Honoris Causa) by four agricultural universities in Bihar, Orissa, Assam and Chattisgarh. He has guided more than 50 post graduate students for their M.Sc. / Ph.D. programmes and published more than 200 scientific papers and books / monographs, etc. National Seed Association of India is proud to honour Dr. C. D. Mayee for his outstanding contributions to agricultural research and development, which have benefitted scores of farmers all over the country.
National Seeds Corporation
T
he Government of India, recognising the need for an institutional set up for production and distribution of quality seeds for supporting the agricultural development programmes in the country, established National Seeds Corporation (NSC) in 1963. This initiative laid the foundation of the Indian seed industry. Beginning with production of 30 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 40 tonnes of foundation seed of maize in 1963-64, NSC is now engaged in production and distribution of more than 1.75 million tonnes of seed of 600 varieties in 60 crops including all major food, fodder, fibre and oilseed crops. NSC participated actively in supporting the 'Green Revolution' programme through import and distribution of 18,000 tonnes of dwarf Mexican wheat seeds with the technical guidance of CIMMYT during 1967. With the experience gained in steering the seed production and supply system in the country, NSC became the nodal organisation to guide the setting up of nine State Seed Corporations under the World Bank assisted National Seeds Project, during 1970s. Along with these nine and six State Seeds Corporations set up subsequently, NSC constitutes the public seed supply system in the country. NSC has the widest network for production and marketing with 10 Regional and 74 Area offices; 8000 registered seed producers and 2800 dealers.
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
114
A major contribution of NSC has been development of human resource for the seed sector through regular training programmes organised for seed personnel of state departments of agriculture, state agricultural universities and state seed corporations, besides the seed producing farmers. NSC is the nodal agency for implementing the Government of India's seed development programmes for building up the country's seed processing and storage infrastructure in both the public and private sector. National Seed Association of India is pleased to congratulate National Seeds Corporation on completing fifty years of its journey for ensuring availability of quality seed to support the country's agricultural development.A
Namdeo Umaji
N
amdeo Umaji Agritech (India) Pvt. Ltd., is a name trusted by farmers of Maharashtra for more than a century. The small shop selling seeds started in 1885 by late Shri Namdeo Umaji Bhalinge, has today grown into an integrated agriculture business enterprise making available to the farmers across the country all basic inputs for agriculture. This huge growth has come about due to the vision of its promoters, founder Namdeo Umaji, and later his son Shri Ramchandra, grandsons Shri Gajananrao and Shri Madhukarrao and the present CEO Shri Sachin Madhukarrao Bhalinge, and the trust of their large customer base across the country. Namdeo Umaji have always been guided by their motto: 'Seeding with trust, Harvesting with smile'. Over the years, the Namdeo Umaji Team visits their grower farmers across the country, guide them with new technological inputs, as also suggest associated avenues for income enhancement. These interactions have helped the company very useful and focused feed back, which they have used for developing their service further. Generations of farmers have appreciated this personalized service support and have looked up to them for expanding their enterprise. Considering the growth of the sector, Sachin, a agriculture graduate, who took over the reigns of the company in its hundredth year, developed it into a private limited company in 2000. They have since expanded their business to other countries in Asia and Africa, through exports of seeds. National Seed Association of India, through this award, is pleased to place on record the outstanding contributions of their oldest seed enterprise in developing the seed industry of the country.
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
115
Three Largest Producing States of Important Crops during 2009-10 Production : Million Tonnes
Group of Crops
Crops
States
I. Foodgrains
Rice
West Bengal Punjab Uttar Pradesh All - India
14.34 11.24 10.81 89.09
Wheat
Uttar Pradesh Punjab Haryana All - India
27.52 15.17 10.50 80.80
Maize
Karnataka Andhra Pradesh Maharashtra All - India
3.01 2.76 1.83 16.72
Total Coarse Cereals
Maharashtra Karnataka Rajasthan All - India
6.29 5.90 3.91 33.55
Total Pulses
Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Uttar Pradesh All - India
4.30 2.37 1.90 14.66
Total Foodgrains
Uttar Pradesh Punjab Madhya Pradesh All - India
43.20 26.95 16.02 218.11
Groundnut
Gujarat Andhra Pradesh Tamil Nadu All - India
1.76 1.01 0.89 5.43
Rapeseed & Mustard
Rajasthan Haryana Madhya Pradesh All - India
2.95 0.85 0.85 6.61
II .Oilseeds
Production
Cont... @ : Production in million bales of 170 kgs. each. $ : Production in million bales of 180 kg. each. "Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation."
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
117
Three Largest Producing States of Important Crops during 2009-10 (Contd...) Production : Million Tonnes
Group of Crops
Crops
States
Soyabean
Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Rajasthan All - India
6.41 2.20 0.91 9.96
Sunflower
Karnataka Andhra Pradesh Maharashtra All - India
0.30 0.27 0.11 0.85
Total Oilseeds
Madhya Pradesh Rajasthan Gujarat All - India
7.64 4.41 3.10 24.88
III. Other Cash Crops Sugarcane
Uttar Pradesh Maharashtra Karnataka All - India Cotton
Gujarat Maharashtra Andhra Pradesh All - India
Jute & Mesta
West Bengal Bihar Assam All - India
@ : Production in million bales of 170 kgs. each. $ : Production in million bales of 180 kg. each. "Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation."
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
118
Production
117.14 64.16 30.44 292.30 7.99 5.86 3.23 24.02 9.40 1.28 0.74 11.82
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
119
1.49
1.21
3.21
1.47
1.00
0.68
1.45
0.23
1.75
41.92
Karnataka
Haryana
Bihar
Maharashtra
Jharkhand
Gujarat
Madhya Pradesh
Kerala
Others
All India
100.00
4.18
0.56
3.45
1.62
2.37
3.51
7.67
2.87
3.55
8.76
5.95
4.40
10.41
8.21
12.37
6.68
13.43
% to All - India
89.09
3.35
0.60
1.26
1.29
1.54
2.18
3.60
3.63
3.69
4.11
4.34
5.67
6.92
10.54
10.81
11.24
14.34
2009-10 Production
100.00
3.77
0.67
1.41
1.45
1.73
2.45
4.04
4.07
4.14
4.61
4.87
6.36
7.76
11.83
12.13
12.61
16.10
% to All - India
2125
@
2557
872
1903
1546
1485
1120
3008
2482
1120
1737
3070
1585
3062
2084
4010
2547
Yield
45.54
1.75
0.23
1.68
0.75
1.68
1.52
3.50
1.21
1.51
3.73
2.48
1.93
4.45
4.39
6.03
2.74
5.94
Area
"'@ - Since area/ production is low in individual states, yield rate is not worked out. " Note: States have been arranged in descending order of percentage share of production during 2009-10. * Provisional "Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation."
3.67
4.37
Orissa
Chattisgarh
3.44
Andhra Pradesh
2.50
5.19
Uttar Pradesh
Assam
2.80
Punjab
1.85
5.63
West Bengal
Tamil Nadu
Area
State
100.00
3.85
0.51
3.69
1.64
3.70
3.34
7.68
2.66
3.32
8.20
5.46
4.24
9.78
9.63
13.25
6.01
13.03
% to All - India
99.18
3.56
0.59
1.56
1.30
3.42
2.28
5.59
3.30
3.80
4.39
4.01
5.18
6.81
14.24
13.10
11.00
15.04
2008-09 Production
100.00
3.59
0.60
1.57
1.31
3.45
2.30
5.64
3.33
3.83
4.43
4.04
5.23
6.87
14.36
13.20
11.09
15.16
% to All - India
Area - Million Hectares Production - Million Yield - Kg./ Hectare
2178
@
2519
927
1744
2031
1501
1599
2726
2511
1176
1614
2683
1529
3246
2171
4022
2533
Yield
58.7
-
72.2
17.8
63.3
2.2
26.4
57.2
99.9
74.7
32.7
5.3
93.3
46.8
96.8
78.8
99.5
48.4
Area Under Irrigation(%) 2008-09*
Area, Production and Yield of Rice during 2008-09 and 2009-10 in major Producing States alongwith coverage under Irrigation
All-India Area, Production and Yield of Rice alongwith coverage under Irrigation Area - Million Hectares Production - Million Tonnes Yield - Kg./Hectare
Year
Area
Production
Yield
Area Under Irrigation(%)
1950-51
30.81
20.58
668
31.7
1960-61
34.13
34.58
1013
36.8
1970-71
37.59
42.22
1123
38.4
1980-81
40.15
53.63
1336
40.7
1990-91
42.69
74.29
1740
45.5
1991-92
42.65
74.68
1751
47.3
1992-93
41.78
72.86
1744
48.0
1993-94
42.54
80.30
1888
48.6
1994-95
42.81
81.81
1911
49.8
1995-96
42.84
76.98
1797
49.9
1996-97
43.43
81.74
1882
51.0
1997-98
43.45
82.53
1900
50.8
1998-99
44.80
86.08
1921
52.3
1999-00
45.16
89.68
1986
53.9
2000-01
44.71
84.98
1901
53.6
2001-02
44.90
93.34
2079
53.2
2002-03
41.18
71.82
1744
50.2
2003-04
42.59
88.53
2077
52.6
2004-05
41.91
83.13
1984
54.7
2005-06
43.66
91.79
2102
56.0
2006-07
43.81
93.36
2131
56.7
2007-08
43.91
96.69
2202
56.9
2008-09
45.54
99.18
2178
58.7
2009-10
41.92
89.09
2125
NA
2010-11*
42.56
95.33
2240
NA
2011-12**
39.47
87.10
2207
NA
* Fourth Advance Estimates as released on 19.07.2011. **First Advance Estimates released on 14.09.2011. Note : The yield rates given above have been worked out on the basis of production & area figures taken in '000 units. "Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation."
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
120
Cont...
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
121
9.67
3.52
2.49
4.28
2.39
2.19
0.88
1.08
0.32
0.40
0.35
0.29
0.28
0.10
0.06
0.16
28.46
Uttar Pradesh
Punjab
Haryana
Madhya Pradesh
Rajasthan
Bihar
Gujarat
Maharashtra
West Bengal
Uttarakhand
Himachal Pradesh
Jammu & Kashmir
Karnataka
Jharkhand
Assam
Others
All India
100.00
0.56
0.21
0.35
0.99
1.02
1.24
1.39
1.11
3.80
3.09
7.71
8.41
15.03
8.76
12.38
33.97
% to All - India
80.80
0.25
0.06
0.17
0.25
0.29
0.33
0.85
0.85
1.74
2.35
4.57
7.50
8.41
10.50
15.17
27.52
2009-10 Production
100.00
0.31
0.08
0.21
0.31
0.36
0.40
1.05
1.05
2.15
2.91
5.66
9.28
10.41
12.99
18.77
34.06
% to All - India
2907
@
1090
1541
918
1735
1520
2003
2490
1483
2377
2043
3175
1723
4390
4462
3002
Yield
27.75
0.14
0.05
0.10
0.27
0.28
0.36
0.40
0.31
1.02
1.09
2.16
2.29
3.79
2.46
3.53
9.51
Area
"@ - Since area/ production is low in individual states, yield rate is not worked out. " Note: States have been arranged in descending order of percentage share of production during 2009-10. * Provisional "Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation."
Area
State
100.00
0.50
0.18
0.36
0.97
1.00
1.30
1.43
1.11
3.68
3.93
7.78
8.27
13.64
8.87
12.71
34.28
% to All - India
80.68
0.21
0.05
0.15
0.25
0.48
0.55
0.80
0.76
1.52
2.59
4.41
7.29
6.52
10.81
15.73
28.55
2008-09 Production
100.00
0.26
0.07
0.19
0.31
0.60
0.68
0.99
0.95
1.88
3.21
5.47
9.03
8.08
13.40
19.50
35.39
% to All - India
Area - Million Hectares Production - Million Yield - Kg./ Hectare
2907
@
1090
1541
918
1735
1520
2003
2490
1483
2377
2043
3175
1723
4390
4462
3002
Yield
91.3
-
-
85.8
53.6
29.1
19.8
56.2
74.0
74.8
89.8
91.7
99.4
83.8
99.3
98.6
97.8
Area Under Irrigation(%) 2008-09*
Area, Production and Yield of Wheat during 2008-09 and 2009-10 in major Producing States alongwith coverage under Irrigation
All-India Area, Production and Yield of Wheat alongwith coverage under Irrigation Area - Million Hectares Production - Million Tonnes Yield - Kg./Hectare
Year
Area
Production
Yield
Area Under Irrigation(%)
1950-51
9.75
6.46
663
34.0
1960-61
12.93
11.00
851
32.7
1970-71
18.24
23.83
1307
54.3
1980-81
22.28
36.31
1630
76.5
1990-91
24.17
55.14
2281
81.1
1991-92
23.26
55.69
2394
83.7
1992-93
24.59
57.21
2327
84.2
1993-94
25.15
59.84
2380
84.8
1994-95
25.70
65.77
2559
85.2
1995-96
25.01
62.10
2483
85.8
1996-97
25.89
69.35
2679
86.2
1997-98
26.70
66.35
2485
85.8
1998-99
27.52
71.29
2590
85.8
1999-2000
27.49
76.37
2778
87.2
2000-01
25.73
69.68
2708
88.1
2001-02
26.34
72.77
2762
87.4
2002-03
25.20
65.76
2610
88.0
2003-04
26.60
72.16
2713
88.4
2004-05
26.38
68.64
2602
89.4
2005-06
26.48
69.35
2619
89.6
2006-07
27.99
75.81
2708
90.2
2007-08
28.04
78.57
2802
90.9
2008-09
27.75
80.68
2907
91.3
2009-10
28.46
80.80
2839
NA
2010-11*
29.25
85.93
2938
NA
* Fourth Advance Estimates as released on 19.07.2011. **First Advance Estimates released on 14.09.2011. Note : The yield rates given above have been worked out on the basis of production & area figures taken in '000 units. "Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation."
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
122
Cont...
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
123
1.24
0.78
0.79
0.63
1.10
0.24
0.83
0.71
0.30
0.50
0.31
0.14
0.10
0.16
0.43
8.26
Karnataka
Andhra Pradesh
Maharashtra
Bihar
Rajasthan
Tamil Nadu
Madhya Pradesh
Uttar Pradesh
Himachal Pradesh
Gujarat
Jammu & Kashmir
Punjab
West Bengal
Jharkhand
Others
All India
100.00
5.17
1.98
1.18
1.68
3.76
6.02
3.58
8.58
10.07
2.96
13.28
7.65
9.61
9.48
15.01
% to All - India
16.72
0.65
0.19
0.39
0.48
0.49
0.53
0.54
1.04
1.05
1.14
1.15
1.48
1.83
2.76
3.01
2009-10 Production
100.00
3.88
1.14
2.30
2.84
2.91
3.19
3.25
6.21
6.25
6.84
6.85
8.84
10.93
16.52
18.02
% to All - India
2024
@
1169
3943
3417
1566
1072
1839
1465
1256
4686
1044
2341
2302
3527
2430
Yield
8.17
0.41
0.22
0.09
0.15
0.32
0.50
0.30
0.80
0.84
0.29
1.05
0.64
0.66
0.85
1.07
Area
"@ - Since area/ production is low in individual states, yield rate is not worked out. " Note: States have been arranged in descending order of percentage share of production during 2009-10. * Provisional "Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation."
Area
State
100.00
4.98
2.64
1.11
1.85
3.86
6.10
3.64
9.78
10.29
3.51
12.88
7.84
8.01
10.42
13.08
% to All - India
19.73
0.64
0.30
0.34
0.51
0.63
0.74
0.68
1.20
1.14
1.26
1.83
1.71
1.56
4.15
3.03
2008-09 Production
100.00
3.23
1.54
1.74
2.60
3.21
3.75
3.43
6.07
5.80
6.37
9.27
8.69
7.91
21.04
15.35
% to All - India
Area - Million Hectares Production - Million Yield - Kg./ Hectare
2414
@
1407
3782
3404
2005
1481
2273
1499
1361
4389
1736
2676
2382
4873
2833
Yield
25.2
-
2.4
17.4
64.5
7.3
9.6
8.8
34.5
1.8
47.9
1.3
60.6\
14.7
49.4
41.3
Area Under Irrigation(%) 2008-09*
Area, Production and Yield of Maize during 2008-09 and 2009-10 in major Producing States alongwith coverage under Irrigation
All-India Area, Production and Yield of Maize alongwith coverage under Irrigation Area - Million Hectares Production - Million Tonnes Yield - Kg./Hectare
Year
Area
Production
Yield
Area Under Irrigation(%)
1950-51
3.16
1.73
547
11.4
1960-61
4.41
4.08
926
12.6
1970-71
5.85
7.49
1279
15.9
1980-81
6.01
6.96
1159
20.1
1990-91
5.90
8.96
1518
19.7
1991-92
5.86
8.06
1376
22.5
1992-93
5.96
9.99
1676
21.5
1993-94
6.00
9.60
1602
22.4
1994-95
6.14
8.88
1570
20.5
1995-96
5.98
9.53
1595
22.6
1996-97
6.26
10.77
1720
20.6
1997-98
6.32
10.82
1711
20.6
1998-99
6.20
11.15
1797
21.7
1999-00
6.42
11.51
1792
22.9
2000-01
6.61
12.04
1822
22.4
2001-02
6.58
13.16
2000
20.5
2002-03
6.64
11.15
1681
19.5
2003-04
7.34
14.98
2041
19.1
2004-05
7.43
14.17
1907
20.5
2005-06
7.59
14.71
1938
21.1
2006-07
7.89
15.10
1912
21.5
2007-08
8.12
18.96
2335
23.5
2008-09
8.17
19.73
2414
25.2
2009-10
8.26
16.72
2024
NA
2010-11*
8.49
21.28
2507
NA
2011-12**
7.27
15.86
2181
NA
* Fourth Advance Estimates as released on 19.07.2011. **First Advance Estimates released on 14.09.2011. Note : The yield rates given above have been worked out on the basis of production & area figures taken in '000 units. "Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation."
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
124
Cont...
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
125
0.16
0.19
0.72
0.07
0.01
0.02
7.79
Gujarat
Uttar pradesh
Rajasthan
Haryana
Orissa
Others
All India
100.00
0.25
0.12
0.92
9.23
2.45
2.09
3.06
4.94
5.73
17.58
53.63
% to All - India
6.70
0.02
0.01
0.04
0.10
0.17
0.17
0.22
0.44
0.56
1.41
3.57
2009-10 Production
100.00
0.25
0.09
0.54
1.56
2.52
2.55
3.31
6.52
8.43
20.99
53.24
% to All - India
860
@
644
500
145
885
1049
929
1135
1267
1027
854
Yield
7.53
0.03
0.01
0.08
0.58
0.19
0.17
0.26
0.28
0.48
1.38
4.07
Area
"@ - Since area/ production is low in individual states, yield rate is not worked out. " Note: States have been arranged in descending order of percentage share of production during 2009-10. * Provisional "Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation."
0.24
0.45
Madhya Pradesh
Tamil Nadu
1.37
Karnataka
0.39
4.18
Maharashtra
Andhra Pradesh
Area
State
100.00
0.33
0.12
1.08
7.66
2.56
2.31
3.44
3.70
6.39
18.35
54.06
% to All - India
7.25
0.02
0.01
0.04
0.33
0.20
0.21
0.21
0.44
0.57
1.63
3.59
2008-09 Production
100.00
0.32
0.08
0.57
4.59
2.69
2.87
2.95
6.02
7.93
22.48
49.50
% to All - India
Area - Million Hectares Production - Million Yield - Kg./ Hectare
962
@
629
506
577
1010
1195
827
1563
1193
1179
881
Yield
8.9
-
-
70.4
0.4
0.7
16.3
9.9
9.2
0.1
11.2
9.1
Area Under Irrigation(%) 2008-09*
Area, Production and Yield of Jowar during 2008-09 and 2009-10 in major Producing States alongwith coverage under Irrigation
All-India Area, Production and Yield of Jowar alongwith coverage under Irrigation Area - Million Hectares Production - Million Tonnes Yield - Kg./Hectare
Year
Area
Production
Yield
Area Under Irrigation(%)
1950-51
15.57
5.50
353
3.0
1960-61
18.41
9.81
533
3.6
1970-71
17.37
8.11
466
3.6
1980-81
15.81
10.43
660
4.7
1990-91
14.36
11.68
814
5.6
1991-92
12.36
8.10
655
6.5
1992-93
13.04
12.81
982
6.1
1993-94
12.71
11.41
895
6.2
1994-95
11.51
8.97
779
6.7
1995-96
11.33
9.33
823
6.8
1996-97
11.43
10.93
956
6.7
1997-98
10.80
7.53
697
7.3
1998-99
9.79
8.42
859
8.1
1999-00
10.25
8.68
847
7.7
2000-01
9.86
7.53
764
7.9
2001-02
9.80
7.56
771
8.3
2002-03
9.30
7.01
754
8.5
2003-04
9.33
6.68
716
7.5
2004-05
9.09
7.24
797
9.1
2005-06
8.67
7.24
880
9.0
2006-07
8.47
7.15
844
8.6
2007-08
7.76
7.93
1021
8.5
2008-09
7.53
7.25
962
8.9
2009-10
7.79
6.70
860
NA
2010-11*
7.06
6.74
956
NA
2011-12**
2.68
3.00
1117
NA
* Fourth Advance Estimates as released on 19.07.2011. **First Advance Estimates released on 14.09.2011. Note : The yield rates given above have been worked out on the basis of production & area figures taken in '000 units. "Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation."
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
126
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
127
0.17
0.31
0.05
0.05
0.02
0.01
8.90
Madhya Pradesh
Karnataka
Tamil Nadu
Andhra Pradesh
Jammu & Kashmir
Others
All India
100.00
0.11
0.20
0.51
0.61
3.43
1.86
11.61
7.55
6.57
9.52
58.05
All - India
% to
6.51
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.08
0.15
0.25
0.77
0.83
0.93
1.39
2.03
100.00
0.15
0.17
0.81
1.26
2.35
3.80
11.77
12.73
14.32
21.35
31.28
All - India
% to
731
@
626
1178
1513
502
1495
741
1232
1593
1638
394
Yield
8.75
0.02
0.02
0.06
0.06
0.27
0.18
0.87
0.70
0.61
0.81
5.17
Area
"@ - Since area/ production is low in individual states, yield rate is not worked out. " Note: States have been arranged in descending order of percentage share of production during 2009-10. * Provisional "Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation."
1.03
0.59
Haryana
Maharashtra
0.85
Uttar Pradesh
0.67
5.17
Rajasthan
Gujarat
Area
State
2009-10 Production
100.00
0.17
0.20
0.67
0.65
3.04
2.00
9.88
8.04
6.97
9.24
59.12
All - India
% to
8.89
0.02
0.01
0.06
0.08
0.19
0.24
0.66
0.96
1.08
1.30
4.28
2008-09 Production
100.00
0.20
0.12
0.68
0.95
2.10
2.71
7.45
10.81
12.14
14.65
48.20
All - India
% to
1015
@
592
1017
1483
703
1373
765
1365
1769
1609
828
Yield
Area - Million Hectares Production - Million Tonnes Yield - Kg./ Hectare
9.4
-
0.3
26.3
11.1
15.1
0.2
5.5
22.1
37.0
7.8
5.2
Area Under Irrigation(%) 2008-09*
Area, Production and Yield of Bajra during 2008-09 and 2009-10 in major Producing States alongwith coverage under Irrigation
All-India Area, Production and Yield of Bajra alongwith coverage under Irrigation Area - Million Hectares Production - Million Tonnes Yield - Kg./Hectare Year
Area
Production
Yield
Area Under Irrigation(%)
1950-51
9.02
2.60
288
3.4
1960-61
11.47
3.28
286
2.8
1970-71
12.91
8.03
622
4.0
1980-81
11.66
5.34
458
5.5
1990-91
10.48
6.89
658
5.1
2000-01
9.83
6.76
688
8.0
2001-02
9.53
8.28
869
6.3
2002-03
7.74
4.72
610
9.0
2003-04
10.61
12.11
1141
6.3
2004-05
9.23
7.93
859
8.3
2005-06
9.58
7.68
802
8.9
2006-07
9.51
8.42
886
9.0
2007-08
9.57
9.97
1042
9.5
2008-09
8.75
8.89
1015
9.4
2009-10
8.90
6.51
731
NA
2010-11*
9.43
10.08
1069
NA
2011-12**
8.39
9.15
1091
NA
* Fourth Advance Estimates as released on 19.07.2011. **First Advance Estimates released on 14.09.2011. Note : The yield rates given above have been worked out on the basis of production & area figures taken in '000 units. "Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation."
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
128
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
129
19.32
6.50
12.46
6.24
4.54
6.67
12.11
13.27
7.96
6.63
5.41
3.03
3.69
4.86
2.70
1.62
1.01
3.31
121.33
Uttar Pradesh
Punjab
Madhya Pradesh
West Bengal
Haryana
Andhra Pradesh
Maharashtra
Rajasthan
Karnataka
Bihar
Orissa
Tamil Nadu
Gujarat
Chhattisgarh
Assam
Jharkhand
Uttarakhand
Others
All India
100.00
2.73
0.83
1.33
2.22
4.01
3.04
2.50
4.46
5.47
6.56
10.94
9.98
5.49
3.74
5.14
10.27
5.36
15.92
% to All - India
218.11
5.35
1.80
2.15
4.48
4.90
5.76
7.51
7.55
10.15
10.96
12.35
12.59
15.30
15.36
15.74
16.02
26.95
43.20
2009-10 Production
100.00
2.45
0.82
0.99
2.05
2.25
2.64
3.44
3.46
4.65
5.02
5.66
5.77
7.01
7.04
7.22
7.34
12.36
19.80
% to All - India
1798
@
1780
1330
1662
1008
1560
2477
1397
1530
1377
931
1039
2294
3383
2522
1285
4144
2236
Yield
122.83
3.33
1.03
2.43
2.67
4.96
4.06
3.19
5.43
6.92
7.46
13.21
11.42
7.44
4.61
6.54
11.91
6.46
19.76
Area
"@ - Since area/ production is low in individual states, yield rate is not worked out. " Note: States have been arranged in descending order of percentage share of production during 2009-10. * Provisional "Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation."
Area
State
100.00
2.71
0.84
1.98
2.17
4.04
3.31
2.60
4.42
5.63
6.07
10.75
9.29
6.06
3.75
5.32
9.70
5.26
16.08
% to All - India
234.47
6.31
1.77
4.19
4.14
5.17
6.48
7.10
7.40
12.22
11.28
16.68
11.43
20.42
15.61
16.30
13.91
27.33
46.73
2008-09 Production
100.00
2.69
0.75
1.79
1.77
2.20
2.76
3.03
3.16
5.21
4.81
7.11
4.87
8.71
6.66
6.95
5.93
11.66
19.93
% to All - India
1909
@
1715
1720
1551
1041
1595
2225
1363
1766
1511
1263
1001
2744
3388
2493
1168
4231
2365
Yield
48.3
-
42.9
5.4
4.9
27.6
44.7
63.1
33.6
63.4
28.5
26.4
16.8
63.9
87.6
48.2
44.5
98.1
75.9
Area Under Irrigation(%) 2008-09*
Area - Million Hectares Production - Million Bales of 170 Kgs. Each Yield - Kg./ Hectare
Area, Production and Yield of Foodgrains during 2008-09 and 2009-10 in major Producing States alongwith coverage under Irrigation
Season-wise Area, Production and Yield of Foodgrains A - Area in Million Hectares P - Production in Million Tonnes Y - Yield in Kg./Hectare.
Year
Kharif
Rabi
Total
A
P
Y
A
P
Y
A
P
Y
1966-67
78.21
48.89
625
37.09
25.34
683
115.30
74.23
644
1970-71
82.36
68.92
837
41.96
39.50
941
124.32
108.42
872
1980-81
83.21
77.65
933
43.46
51.94
1195
126.67
129.59
1023
1990-91
80.78
99.44
1231
47.06
76.95
1635
127.84
176.39
1380
1991-92
78.02
91.59
1174
43.85
76.79
1751
121.87
168.38
1382
1992-93
77.92
101.47
1302
45.23
78.01
1725
123.15
179.48
1457
1993-94
75.81
100.40
1324
46.94
83.86
1787
122.75
184.26
1501
1994-95
75.19
101.09
1344
48.67
90.41
1858
123.86
191.50
1546
1995-96
73.60
95.12
1292
47.42
85.30
1799
121.02
180.42
1491
1996-97
75.34
103.92
1379
48.24
95.52
1980
123.58
199.44
1614
1997-98
74.15
101.58
1370
49.70
90.68
1825
123.85
192.26
1552
1998-99
73.99
102.91
1391
51.18
100.69
1967
125.17
203.60
1627
1999-00
73.24
105.51
1441
49.87
104.29
2091
123.11
209.80
1704
2000-01
75.22
102.09
1357
45.83
94.73
2067
121.05
196.81
1626
2001-02
74.23
112.07
1510
48.55
100.78
2076
122.78
212.85
1734
2002-03
68.56
87.22
1272
45.30
87.55
1933
113.86
174.77
1535
2003-04
75.44
117.00
1551
48.01
96.19
2004
123.45
213.19
1727
2004-05
72.26
103.31
1430
47.82
95.05
2004
120.08
198.36
1652
2005-06
72.72
109.87
1511
48.88
98.73
2020
121.60
208.60
1715
2006-07
72.67
110.58
1522
51.04
106.71
2091
123.71
217.28
1756
2007-08
73.56
120.96
1644
50.51
109.82
2174
124.07
230.78
1860
2008-09
71.43
118.14
1654
51.40
116.33
2263
122.83
234.47
1909
2009-10
69.49
103.95
1496
51.84
114.15
2202
121.33
218.10
1798
2010-11*
72.12
120.20
1667
53.61
121.36
2264
125.73
241.56
1921
2011-12**
70.49
123.88
1757
-
-
-
-
-
-
* Fourth Advance Estimates as released on 19.07.2011. **First Advance Estimates released on 14.09.2011. "Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation."
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
130
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
131
0.44
0.46
0.61
0.10
0.07
10.13
Rajasthan
Karnataka
Madhya Pradesh
Tamil Nadu
Others
All India
100.00
0.70
1.03
6.03
4.51
4.39
5.00
5.04
14.48
34.50
24.32
% to All - India
24.02
0.17
0.23
0.86
0.87
0.90
1.93
2.01
3.23
5.86
7.99
2009-10 Production
100.00
0.69
0.94
3.56
3.61
3.76
8.02
8.35
13.43
24.39
33.25
% to All - India
403
@
368
238
323
345
646
667
374
285
551
Yield
9.41
0.07
0.11
0.62
0.41
0.30
0.46
0.53
1.40
3.15
2.35
Area
"@ - Since area/ production is low in individual states, yield rate is not worked out. " Note: States have been arranged in descending order of percentage share of production during 2009-10. * Provisional "Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation."
0.51
1.47
Andhra Pradesh
Haryana
3.50
Maharashtra
0.51
2.46
Gujarat
Punjab
Area
State
100.00
0.75
1.22
6.64
4.35
3.22
4.89
5.60
14.87
33.44
25.02
% to All - India
22.28
0.16
0.19
0.86
0.87
0.73
1.86
2.29
3.57
4.75
7.01
2008-09 Production
100.00
0.73
0.84
3.84
3.89
3.26
8.34
10.26
16.02
21.33
31.49
% to All - India
Area - Million Hectares Production - Million Bales of 170 Kgs. Each Yield - Kg./ Hectare
403
@
279
233
360
408
694
737
434
257
507
Yield
35.3
-
27.7
41.2
20.1
93.5
99.5
100.0
18.2
2.7
56.7
Area Under irrigation (%) 2008-09*
Area, Production and Yield of Cotton during 2008-09 and 2009-10 in major Producing States alongwith coverage under Irrigation
All-India Area, Production and Yield of Cotton alongwith coverage under Irrigation Area - Million Hectares Production - Million Bales of 170 Kgs. of each Yield - Kg./ Hectare Year
Area
Production
Yield
Area Under Irrigation(%)
1950-51
5.88
3.04
88
8.2
1960-61
7.61
5.60
125
12.7
1970-71
7.61
4.76
106
17.3
1980-81
7.82
7.01
152
27.3
1990-91
7.44
9.84
225
32.9
2000-01
8.53
9.52
190
34.3
2001-02
9.13
10.00
186
34.0
2002-03
7.67
8.62
191
33.1
2003-04
7.60
13.73
307
27.1
2004-05
8.79
16.43
318
36.9
2005-06
8.68
18.50
362
36.1
2006-07
9.14
22.63
421
35.0
2007-08
9.41
25.88
467
35.1
2008-09
9.41
22.28
403
35.3
2009-10
10.13
24.02
403
NA
2010-11*
11.14
33.43
510
NA
2011-12**
11.99
36.10
512
NA
* Fourth Advance Estimates as released on 19.07.2011. **First Advance Estimates released on 14.09.2011. Note : The yield rates given above have been worked out on the basis of production & area figures taken in '000 units. "Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation."
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
132
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
133
0.18
0.25
9.73
Karnataka
Others
All India
100.00
2.55
1.89
1.60
8.00
31.01
54.95
% to All - India
9.96
0.24
0.08
0.13
0.91
2.20
6.41
2009-10 Production
100.00
2.36
0.82
1.29
9.18
22.05
64.29
% to All - India
1024
@
446
827
1175
728
1198
Yield
9.51
0.22
0.13
0.14
0.83
3.06
5.12
Area
"@ - Since area/ production is low in individual states, yield rate is not worked out. " Note: States have been arranged in descending order of percentage share of production during 2009-10. * Provisional "Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation."
0.16
Andhra Pradesh
3.02
Maharashtra
0.78
5.35
Madhya Pradesh
Rajasthan
Area
State
100.00
2.30
1.41
1.49
8.72
32.21
53.88
% to All - India
9.91
0.21
0.09
0.19
0.81
2.76
5.85
2008-09 Production
100.00
2.10
0.92
1.96
8.13
27.83
59.06
% to All - India
Area - Million Hectares Production - Million Yield - Kg./ Hectare
1041
@
679
1366
971
900
1142
Yield
0.7
-
16.8
10.8
-
0.4
0.3
Area Under Irrigation(%) 2008-09*
Area, Production and Yield of Soyabean during 2008-09 and 2009-10 in major Producing States alongwith coverage under Irrigation
All-India Area, Production and Yield of Soyabean alongwith coverage under Irrigation Area - Million Hectares Production - Million Tonnes Yield - Kg./Hectare
Year
Area
Production
Yield
Area Under Irrigation(%)
1970-71
0.03
0.01
426
NA
1980-81
0.61
0.44
728
NA
1990-91
2.56
2.60
1015
NA
1991-92
3.18
2.49
782
NA
1992-93
3.79
3.39
894
2.6
1993-94
4.37
4.75
1086
2.5
1994-95
4.32
3.93
911
2.9
1995-96
5.04
5.10
1012
3.7
1996-97
5.45
5.38
987
2.7
1997-98
5.99
6.46
1079
2.6
1998-99
6.49
7.14
1100
2.5
1999-00
6.22
7.08
1138
1.6
2000-01
6.42
5.28
822
1.4
2001-02
6.34
5.96
940
1.7
2002-03
6.11
4.65
762
0.8
2003-04
6.56
7.82
1193
1.4
2004-05
7.57
6.87
908
1.8
2005-06
7.71
8.27
1073
1.7
2006-07
8.33
8.85
1063
1.1
2007-08
8.88
10.97
1235
1.2
2008-09
9.51
9.91
1041
0.7
2009-10
9.73
9.96
1024
NA
2010-11*
9.55
12.66
1325
NA
2011-12**
9.95
12.57
1264
NA
* Fourth Advance Estimates as released on 19.07.2011. **First Advance Estimates released on 14.09.2011. Note : The yield rates given above have been worked out on the basis of production & area figures taken in '000 units. "Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation."
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
134
Cont...
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
135
0.79
0.35
0.22
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.05
1.48
Karnataka
Andhra Pradesh
Maharashtra
Bihar
Haryana
Tamil Nadu
Uttar Pradesh
Others
All India
100.00
3.70
0.47
0.97
1.02
1.53
14.83
23.70
53.78
% to All - India
0.85
0.07
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.11
0.27
0.30
2009-10 Production
100.00
8.35
1.88
2.23
2.94
3.73
13.40
31.74
35.74
% to All - India
576
@
2286
1329
1667
1403
521
771
383
Yield
1.81
0.05
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.26
0.42
1.00
Area
"@ - Since area/ production is low in individual states, yield rate is not worked out. " Note: States have been arranged in descending order of percentage share of production during 2009-10. * Provisional "Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation."
Area
State
100.00
2.85
0.50
1.42
1.10
1.24
14.56
23.11
55.22
% to All - India
1.16
0.07
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.16
0.33
0.50
2008-09 Production
100.00
5.66
1.47
2.96
2.85
2.69
13.39
28.15
42.83
% to All - India
Area - Million Hectares Production - Million Yield - Kg./ Hectare
639
@
1889
1329
1650
1388
587
778
496
Yield
30.6
-
97.3
78.2
100.0
82.9
25.5
38.7
22.6
Area Under Irrigation(%) 2008-09*
Area, Production and Yield of Sunflower during 2008-09 and 2009-10 in major Producing States alongwith coverage under Irrigation
All-India Area, Production and Yield of Sunflower alongwith coverage under Irrigation Area - Million Hectares Production - Million Tonnes Yield - Kg./Hectare
Year
Area
Production
Yield
Area Under Irrigation(%)
1970-71
0.12
0.08
653
NA
1980-81
0.12
0.07
555
NA
1990-91
1.63
0.87
535
NA
1991-92
2.11
1.19
565
NA
1992-93
2.09
1.18
567
19.6
1993-94
2.67
1.35
505
17.7
1994-95
2.00
1.22
610
18.2
1995-96
2.12
1.26
593
21.0
1996-97
1.93
1.25
646
21.1
1997-98
1.74
0.89
548
21.6
1998-99
1.82
0.94
517
20.1
1999-00
1.29
0.69
538
23.3
2000-01
1.07
0.65
602
27.6
2001-02
1.18
0.68
577
24.1
2002-03
1.64
0.87
531
22.9
2003-04
2.01
0.93
464
15.4
2004-05
2.17
1.19
549
26.0
2005-06
2.34
1.44
615
24.9
2006-07
2.16
1.23
567
26.4
2007-08
1.91
1.46
765
31.8
2008-09
1.81
1.16
639
30.6
2009-10
1.48
0.85
576
NA
2010-11*
0.90
0.62
696
NA
2011-12**
0.25
0.16
640
NA
* Fourth Advance Estimates as released on 19.07.2011. **First Advance Estimates released on 14.09.2011. Note : The yield rates given above have been worked out on the basis of production & area figures taken in '000 units. "Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation."
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
136
Cont...
NEWS Clause India Opens New Vegetable Breeding Station in Bangalore
technology into the area for better productivity and also creating new job opportunities in a remote area." Mr Matthew Johnston , CEO HM CLAUSE said: " Because the ultimate shareholders of our company are farmers, we understand the needs of farmers and we breed varieties adapted to the local needs and agro-climatic conditions. India is for us a focus country and this new research station will benefit from the science developed in 22 similar research stations we have around the world .Technologies like marker-assisted breeding, pathology, double haploid and in-vitro culture will help speed-up the release of high yielding and disease resistant varieties for the Indian farmer." Source : Clause India Pvt. Ltd.
Bejo Sheetal Bio-Science Foundation Inaugurated
C
lause India recently expanded its research activity with the inauguration of a new full fledged Research and Breeding station in the village Arjunabettahali, Bangalore, Karnataka on 17th of February 2012 . Founded in 2001, Clause India, a subsidiary of Clause France with head office in Hyderabad (AP) has been known for more than ten years for its cauliflower Madhuri, carrot Nantindo F1 and other crops in the Indian market. Dr Narendra Singh , Research Director Asia for Clause said: "This new facility will allow us to create innovative new varieties to meet the needs of the Indian farmer. An excellent office will give suitable working environment to the employees, along with phyto pathology laboratory and a farm equipped with drip irrigation and modern equipment on 30 acres of land on long term lease from nearby farmers. To support research and breeding activities for vegetable crops, presently 902sqm area has been developed to raise nursery and disease screening which is going to increase many fold in the coming years." He added: "This station will mainly be used for research and development of vegetable crops: Tomato, Hot pepper, Okra, Eggplant, Watermelon, Cucumber and gourds and for evaluation of other vegetable hybrid crops for adaptation. This centre is not only developing innovative products for the markets but also spreading new Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
N
ewly constructed Bejo Sheetal Bio-Science Foundation in B.T Park, Addl. Ml DC Jalna was inaugurated by Mr. Rajesh Tope, Honurable Minister for Higher and Technical Education Government of Maharashtra. Mr. Suresh Agrawal welcomed the guests. While Explaining the aims and objects of the organization Mr. Sameer Agrawal said a post Graduate course in Biotechnology will be completed in 3 sessions. Initial 3 Months students will be taught about Agri biotech technologies by Bejo Sheetal Bio Science Foundation. On Second Session Mumbai Educational Trust will teach 137
management studies in Agri Biotech. In third session students will be sent to Michigan State, University in America for getting knowledge of Agri Biotech industry along with internship program in some industries. Mr sameer Agrawal added that further collaboration training may be planned with Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri, Marathwada Agriculture University, Parbhani and Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Aurangabad Honourable Minister Shri Rajesh Tope Congratulated Mr. Agrawal and said that Maharashtra Government is promoting Bt park and Bt industries and offering lucrative incentives. He welcomed foundationin educational sector and promised to give full co-operation as Higher Educatin Minister. Shri Kailash Gorantyal MLA, Shri Santosh Sambre MLA, Shri Arjun Khotkar (ex Minister), Dr. Swapan Datta (DDG ICAR), Dr. V.M.Pandharipande vice ChancellorDr. BAMU, Aurangabad) Dr. Douglas Buhler, Dean Michigan State University were present on this occasion. The function was graced by the presence of eminet scientists and Dignitories like Dr. Karim Maredia.Dr. K.K. Tripathi, Dr. Malavika Dadlani Dr. P. Ananda Kumar, Dr. Narendra Tutuja.Dr. M.V. Rajam.Dr. Indranil Dasgupta.Dr. RajBhatnagar, Dr. P. Balasubramanian, Dr. Vibha Dhawan & Mr. Vijay Page. Shivkumar Baijal Conducted the program while Kamal Zunzunwala proposed vote & than ks Source : Bejo Sheetal Seeds Pvt. Ltd.
NSC Bags Scope Excellence Award
N
ational Seeds Corporation (NSC), a Central PSU under the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India is in the businessof production & distribution of certified seeds of all crops including Cereals, Oilseeds, Pulses, Fiber, Fodder & Vegetables etc. since 1963.During the year 2010-11, NSC was upgraded from Schedule “C” to Schedule “B” CPSE and also conferred with the status of Miniratna Category-I by Department of Public Enterprises/Ministry of Agriculture, GOI for its significant performance during last five years. During this period, the production of certified seeds, sales turnover and net profitof the Corporation increased by 367%, 602% and 861% respectively. The turnover and net profit of the Corporation during 2010-11 was Rs. 633.34 crores and Rs. 37.38 crores respectively. Today, NSC is the largest producer of certified seed of field Crops in the country which has been possible with the guidance received from Department of Agriculture & Cooperation and technical supports from ICAR/SAUs and other research institutions.
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
National Seeds Corporation Ltd (NSC) a Central Public Sector Undertaking under the Department of Agriculture & Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture, GOI has bagged the prestigious SCOPE Award for Excellence and Outstanding Contribution to Public Sector Management for the year 2009-10.Shri S. K. Roongta, Chairman cum Managing Director, NSC received the Award from Honourable Prime Minister of India Dr. Manmohan Singh on 31st January, 2012 at Vigyan Bhawan, New Delhi. Source : National Seed Corporation
ICAR Proposes New Bt Cotton Project
T
he Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) has proposed a Rs 150-200 crore nationwide project to develop genetically modified (Bt) cotton, with genes to provide multiple protection against virus, fungi, etc, beside being reusable. This has gone to the ministry of agriculture for clearance. The idea is to involve a pan-India network of major agricultural institutes and universities like the Ludhianabased Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana; the University of Agriculture Sciences, Dharwad; the Govind Ballabh Pant Agricultural University, Pantnagar; the Central Institute of Cotton Research, Nagpur, and so on. The idea is to also apply the esons learnt from the controversy over the 'Bikaneri Narma', the first indigenously developed Bt cotton. ICAR stopped its production and sale (in 2009) after allegations that some of its seeds contained a variety earlier patented by Monsanto, the private chemicals company. An inquiry is underway, being conducted by S K Sopory, vicechancellor of Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi. “The idea is that one incident of small contamination or misinformation cannot hinder indigenous research on genetic biotechnology,” Swapan Datta, deputy directorgeneral of crop sciences in ICAR told Business Standard. Adding: “Bikaneri Narma had not even reached one per cent of all cotton farmers before its production and sale was stopped. Hence, any chance of it contaminating the existing seeds is virtually non-existent.” The new programme seeks to address all discrepancies raised at the time of the Bikaneri Narma issue. “The project will not only look at domestically produced advanced genetically modified cotton, but also better varieties of organic cotton,” Datta said. 138
He said patenting of genes produced by ICAR scientists will help in profit-sharing with private companies with germplasm patents and also sub-licensing of the patented genes developed by ICAR scientists. India's per hectare cotton yield has risen 60 per cent since the introduction of Bt cotton in 2002. Source: http://business-standard.com
Centre's Panel Approves New Bt Cotton Seed
I
n a major boost to Gujarat's big farmers, the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) of the Government of India has approved commercial distribution of a new variety of Bt Cotton seed, developed jointly by US multinational Monsanto,Gujarat Seed Supply Corporation (GSSC) and Navsari Agricultural University. The new seed is expected to raise cotton productivity by up to 30 per cent as against the current Bt Cotton yield of 11 quintals per acre. The new seed has been developed by injecting Bt genes into two premium local cotton seed varieties called Sankar 6 and Sankar 8. “Both Sankar 6 and Sankar 8 are old hybrid varieties, which were more prevalent than other seeds because these were environmentally friendly till Bt Cotton seeds made an entry into Gujarat through private players," a senior official said, adding, "With Monsanto's Bt genes being injected into Sankar 6 and Sankar 8, farmers will no more have to depend on private players for getting Bt cotton seeds. They will get cheaper and better variety of Bt cotton seeds from the state-owned GSSC, forcing the private players to bring down present high seed prices.” Two other states have received GEAC approval for commercial distribution of the new variety of seeds Rajasthan and Maharashtra. But as the seeds will be exclusively "exported" from Gujarat, the state will be the "net gainer and will be in a monopoly position", insiders said. This year alone, the Gujarat government estimates, it will begin distributing new variety of Bt seeds, starting with one lakh packets, each of 450 grams. "Next year, plan is to distribute more than 10 lakh packets, making things tough for the private players", sources said. In Gujarat, as of today, 40 lakh packets are sold by 35 private players, that too at a high price of Rs 930 per packet. Expectation is, with GSSC's new variety coming in at a price which may be 25 per cent cheaper, many private players will have to move out. In fact, officials said, Sankar 6 and Sankar 8 are not the end of the seeds journey. "We have entered into an agreement with Monsanto to inject Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
Bt genes into even higher variety of Sankar 10 and Sankar 12 hybrid cotton seeds, taking a technological leap of 15 years," a senior state official said. Already, there is ray of happiness among the cotton growers of Gujarat. Raghavendrasinh Jadeja, a progressive farmer from Kotda-Sangani, about 20 km from Gondal, a pioneer of Bt cotton, said, "Injecting Bt gene into Sankar is more environmentally friendly and is suited to our climate. We expect it to be more pest resistant compared to other Bt cotton varieties. It will give a bigger boll-size, and the number of bolls on each cotton plant will also go up." Sources said, experiments in Sabarkantha suggest that the number of bolls from Bt-injected Sankar seeds were 85-90 compared to 65-70 bolls in other varieties. Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com
Center to Hold Talks with States on GM Crops Trials
G
enetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC), the apex authority for approval of large-scale field trials and commercialisation of GM crops, has decided to hold “dialogue” with state governments to iron out irritants being faced in the grant of no objection certificates (NOC) for GM crops' trials. The development comes after the Centre's Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation and GM seed industry association petitioned the GEAC regarding the delay or denial of NOC for field trials by some states. They said the reluctance on the states' part had forced companies to shift field trials to non-traditional cropgrowing states. The states granting permissions had done so to non-suitable areas, unlikely to provide correct results. The issue was discussed in a GEAC meeting in December where it was concluded that the reluctance of state governments to grant NOC was mainly due to lack of clarity on their role as also lack of awareness on technical issues associated with biotechnology and biosafety measures. Agriculture Ministry officials said Tamil Nadu, Chhattisgarh, Bihar, West Bengal and Madhya Pradesh have indicated their reluctance to grant NOCs for field trials. Earlier, GEAC chairman M F Farooqui, who is also Additional Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests, wrote to Agriculture Ministry offering to address state agriculture department representatives during a conference to sensitise them regarding their role in the 139
approval process. “There is a lack of clarity on the role of state governments, especially with respect to concerns that should have bearing on whether to grant NOC or not. Therefore, there is an urgent need for a dialogue on the issue,” Farooqui wrote to Agriculture Secretary P K Basu. Rules concerning the regulation of GM crops notified under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, did not provide states any role in the approval process earlier, but the GEAC, in July 2011, made NOC from states mandatory for field trials. Source: http://www.indianexpress.com
Wheat exports to more than double in 2012-13 on record harvest
W
heat exports from India, the world's secondbiggest producer, is expected to more than double to 1.5 million tonnes in the 2012-13 marketing year on account of back-to-back record harvest, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) said in a report.
“India has sufficient domestic supplies to export 5- million tonnes of wheat, especially if the Government allows export of Government wheat in case international prices exceed total cost,” it observed. The cost of Government wheat is prohibitively high at $346 a tonne compared to current global prices, it added. Due to record procurement this year, the stocks in Government godowns as on April 1, 2012 are forecast higher at 18.5 million tonnes, compared with 15.36 million tonnes in the same period of 2011. Thus, the ending stocks in 2011-12 are nearly three times the Government's desired stocks of 7 million tonnes, the report said. According to the USDA, the Government's wheat procurement is expected to be over 32 million tonnes in the 2011-12 marketing year due to record production and higher support price. Wheat production is estimated to be bumper at 87.5 million tonnes this year, higher than consumption of 85 million tonnes, it added. Source: http://www.thehindubusinessline.com
“Assuming the current export price parity for Indian wheat vis-a-vis other origins, 2012-13 marketing year wheat exports are forecast at 1.5 million tonnes,” the report said. In 2011-12 marketing year (April-March), wheat shipments are estimated to touch only 7,00,000 tonnes because prices remained very uncompetitive in the global market since exports were allowed in September 2011, it said. Wheat export prospects can improve if there is a sharp increase in global prices, it said, adding that the actual export volumes will depend on the competitiveness of Indian wheat during the marketing year. Due to the considerable delay in the decision to allow wheat export, India could not take advantage of high global wheat prices in the early part of this year, the USDA said quoting market sources. In 2012-13, the USDA mentioned that wheat exports will mostly be “limited to private exports” to neighbouring Bangladesh, West Asia, Africa and South Asia. Pointing out that the Indian Government will be under tremendous pressure of inadequate storage facilities for the new wheat crop, the USDA said: “The Government is unlikely to subsidise exports of Government wheat due to local political and World Trade Organisation commitment concerns. Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
Bangalore Declaration Calls to Remove Checks on Biotech R&D
C
lose on the heels of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's call for enhancing “efforts to rid the country of the scourge of malnutrition” through increased production of food grains, biotechnologists and social scientists have tried to affirm the role that biotech crops will play in ensuring food security. Unveiling 'The Bangalore Declaration' on Monday, they asked the Centre to take measures to “remove unjustified and arbitrary constraints that jeopardise the functioning and development of the Indian agribiotech R&D”. Lauding Prime Minister's recent statement on Bt brinjal, the scientists said their belief stands vindicated with an “assertion by PM on efficacy of genetic engineering in increasing production in agriculture.” Today many developed and developing countries are using agribiotech to address their food needs and challenges of hunger and malnutrition. India, the scientists say, must capitalise on the opportunities of agribiotech to ensure adequate food for its teeming millions. They dismissed apprehensions on biosafety as baseless and lacking scientific rigors. Citing global references, they said
140
all progressive countries are using agribiotech. For instance, India has only approved six events of Bt Cotton as against 37 events in China in crops including canola, cotton, maize, papaya, petunia, poplar, rice, soybean, sweet pepper and tomato. C Kameswara Rao, Secretar y, Foundation for Biotechnology Awareness & Education (FBAE), said it is imperative that constraints like “requirement of the permission of state governments even for field testing of biotech crops approved by the regulator, and the threat of legal action against the use of indigenous germplasm to develop biotech crops for indigenous use” are removed expeditiously. The declaration also urged the government to “Accept the GEAC recommendation of October 14, 2009, on commercial release of Bt brinjal and lift the moratorium.” They called for fpassing the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) Bill without further delay. The Prime Minister had on February 20 while speaking at the Indian Agriculture Research Institute Golden Jubilee celebrations argued for “greater injection of science and a knowledge-based approach to increasing incomes and productivity” in the farm economy. “It is estimated that we would need an addition of nearly 50 million tonnes of food grains in the next 10 years to meet domestic demand. Increased production of food grains is an important plank of food security and our efforts to rid the country of the scourge of malnutrition,” Singh had added. Taking a swipe at opposition to a progressive technology by some, renowned social scientist of Cornell University, known for his work on agriculture in South Asia, Ronald Herring said, “A perennial puzzle in the study of social movements is the success of relatively small numbers with compelling ideas defeating more numerous or powerful opponents. But why do only some ideas have power?” Echoing his concerns and allaying fears on safety of biotech crops, Klaus Ammann, Honorary Professor for Biodiversity and former Director of the Botanical Garden, University of Bern, Switzerland, said, “A large number of scientific papers demonstrate the environmental safety of GM crops; they are as safe as conventional crops.” Outlining the need for a biosafety protocol B Sesikeran, Director, National Institute of Nutrition, Hyderabad, and who was a member of the Expert Committee constituted by GEAC to study and review the findings of the large scale trials of Bt brinjal, said, “The primary need of biosafety evaluations is to identify the various components of biosafety protocols, on a case to case basis.” Source: http://www.business-standard.com Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
Govt Bans Cotton Exports
T
he Centre on Monday banned with immediate effect exports of raw cotton, catching shippers, industry and growers by surprise. In a notification issued early in the morning, the Directorate General of Foreign Trade said even exports of cotton for which registration certificates have been issued will not be allowed. The ban follows registration of over 12 million bales (of 170 kg each) of cotton for exports. At a meeting last week, when the issue cropped up, the textile industry said that it had no problem in such large exports since it was facing recession. Textile mills in the South, particularly Tamil Nadu, have been affected badly by power shortage. Cotton production this season ending September is projected to be a record 35.5 million bales against 32.5 million bales last year. The export ban comes at a time when cotton prices are ruling low. During the weekend, prices of Shankar 6, mainly in demand for exports, ruled at 34800-35000 a candy of 356 kg. The ban is likely to lead to crash in prices. "Too much of cotton will now be chasing too little demand," said Mr A. Ramani, cotton analyst. Export of at least 3 million bales will now be affected, according to trade sources. Cotton futures price in New York are likely to gain. Source: http://www.thehindubusinessline.com
World Breakthrough on Salt-tolerant Wheat
A
team of Australian scientists involving the University of Adelaide has bred salt tolerance into a variety of durum wheat that shows improved grain yield by 25% on salty soils. Using 'non-GM' crop breeding techniques, scientists from CSIRO Plant Industry have introduced a salt-tolerant gene into a commercial durum wheat, with spectacular results shown in field tests. Researchers at the University of Adelaide's Waite Research Institute have led the effort to understand how the gene delivers salinity tolerance to the plants. 141
The research is the first of its kind in the world to fully describe the improvement in salt tolerance of an agricultural crop - from understanding the function of the salt-tolerant genes in the lab, to demonstrating increased grain yields in the field. The results are published today in the journal Nature Biotechnology. The paper's senior author is Dr Matthew Gilliham from the University's Waite Research Institute and the ARC Centre of Excellence in Plant Energy Biology. Lead authors are CSIRO Plant Industry scientists Dr Rana Munns and Dr Richard James and University of Adelaide student Bo Xu. "This work is significant as salinity already affects over 20% of the world's agricultural soils, and salinity poses an increasing threat to food production due to climate change," Dr Munns says. Dr Gilliham says: "Salinity is a particular issue in the prime wheat-growing areas of Australia, the world's secondlargest wheat exporter after the United States. With global population estimated to reach nine billion by 2050, and the demand for food expected to rise by 100% in this time, salt-tolerant crops will be an important tool to ensure future food security." Domestication and breeding has narrowed the gene pool of modern wheat, leaving it susceptible to environmental stress. Durum wheat, used for making such food products as pasta and couscous, is particularly susceptible to soil salinity. However, the authors of this study realised that wild relatives of modern-day wheat remain a significant source of genes for a range of traits, including salinity tolerance. They discovered the new salt-tolerant gene in an ancestral cousin of modern-day wheat,Triticum monococcum. "Salty soils are a major problem because if sodium starts to build up in the leaves it will affect important processes such as photosynthesis, which is critical to the plant's success," Dr Gilliham says. "The salt-tolerant gene (known as TmHKT1;5-A) works by excluding sodium from the leaves. It produces a protein that removes the sodium from the cells lining the xylem, which are the 'pipes' plants use to move water from their roots to their leaves," he says. Dr James, who led the field trials, says: "While most studies only look at performance under controlled conditions in a laboratory or greenhouse, this is the first study to confirm that the salt-tolerant gene increases yields on a farm with saline soils.
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
Field trials were conducted at a variety of sites across Australia, including a commercial farm in northern New South Wales. "Importantly, there was no yield penalty with this gene," Dr James says. "Under standard conditions, the wheat containing the salt-tolerance gene performed the same in the field as durum that did not have the gene. But under salty conditions, it outperformed its durum wheat parent, with increased yields of up to 25%. "This is very important for farmers, because it means they would only need to plant one type of seed in a paddock that may have some salty sections," Dr James says. "The salt-tolerant wheat will now be used by the Australian Durum Wheat Improvement Program (ADWIP) to assess its impact by incorporating this into recently developed varieties as a breeding line." Dr Munns says new varieties of salt-tolerant durum wheat could be a commercial reality in the near future. "Although we have used molecular techniques to characterise and understand the salt-tolerant gene, the gene was introduced into the durum wheat through 'nonGM' breeding processes. This means we have produced a novel durum wheat that is not classified as transgenic, or 'GM', and can therefore be planted without restriction," she says. The researchers are taking their work a step further and have now crossed the salt-tolerance gene into bread wheat. This is currently being assessed under field conditions. This research is a collaborative project between CSIRO, NSW Department of Primary Industries, University of Adelaide, the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics and the ARC Centre of Excellence in Plant Energy Biology. It is supported by the Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC) and Australian Research Council (ARC). Source: http://www.seedquest.com/news
Record Indian Crop Expected to Boost World Wheat Output at 690mt
H
elped by a record output in India, global wheat production is estimated to be the second highest ever at 690 million tonnes (mt) in 2012, United Nation's body FAO has said. 142
World production of the essential food commodity is estimated at a record high of 700 mt in 2011, the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) said in its latest report. “FAO's first forecast for world wheat production in 2012 stands at 690 mt, 10 mt less than last year's record high, but still the second largest crop,” FAO's quarterly Crop Prospects and Food Situation report said. Plantings remain high in response to favourable price prospects but yields are assumed to return to average after bumper levels last year in some countries, it added. “In Far-East Asia, prospects for the 2012 wheat crop are generally favourable with output expected to reach last year's record level due in particular to good gains in India,” the global body on farm sector noted. In India and Pakistan, record high crops are expected, reflecting adequate supplies of water for these mostly irrigated crops and good price prospects encouraging an increased use of inputs to boost yields, it added. According to FAO, wheat production in India is expected to rise by almost 2 per cent to 88.3 mt in 2012 from 86.9 mt in 2011. The Agriculture Ministry in its second advance estimate has pegged wheat output in the country at 88.31 mt in the 2011-12 crop year (July-June) from 86.87 mt in the yearago period. Similarly in Pakistan, output of the essential commodity is pegged to rise marginally to 24.4 mt in 2012 from 24.3 mt in 2011, it added. In China, however, no significant change in acreage is expected and output may fall slightly from last year's record high, assuming a return to average yields after the bumper 2011 levels, FAO said. Wheat output in China is forecast to decline by 2 per cent to 115.5 mt in the current year from 117.9 mt in 2012, it added. Source: http://www.thehindubusinessline.com
From a Net Importer in 2010, the Country Turned Exporter of the Sweetener in the Year 2011.
T
he agriculture sector performed exceedingly well in 2011, with record food grains production of over 240 million tonne giving enough leeway for the government to lift a ban on exports of wheat and non-basmati rice and Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
introduce the Food Security Bill in Parliament. Farmers' long-standing demand for crop loans at a 4 per cent rate of interest was met during the year, although with a rider that the facility would be available to only those farmers that pay their crop loans on time. A sharp rise in the farm credit target by Rs 1,00,000 crore to Rs 4,75,000 crore and the launch of new schemes with a total outlay of Rs 1,500 crore to raise production of nutricereals, fodder, palm oil, vegetables and protein supplements were the other major highlights of the year. These items and not wheat and rice were the major contributors to food inflation, which remained high almost throughout the year before falling sharply to nearly a four-year low of 1.81 per cent for the week ended December 10. Helped by timely and bountiful rains last year, the agriculture sector bounced back with a record harvest of 241.56 million tonne of foodgrains in the 2010-11 crop year, with production of wheat, pulses and coarse cereals touching an all-time high. In the 2009-10 crop year (July-June), foodgrains production fell by 16 million tonnes to 218 million tonne due to a severe drought in 2009. A noteworthy performance was seen in pulses and oilseeds production, on which the government has focused its efforts to make India self-sufficient and reduce dependence on imports. The country produced 18.09 million tonne of pulses and 31.1 million tonne of oilseeds during the year, an all-time high for both these essential items. The development had an immediate and positive impact on imports, which declined by 6 per cent in the case of vegetable oils, while inward shipments of pulses fell by over 20 per cent. Sugarcane output also improved and as a result, sugar production exceeded domestic output after two years. From a net importer in 2010, the country turned exporter of the sweetener this year. The bumper farm production was reflected in the growth numbers. The agriculture sector grew by a healthy 6.6 per cent in the 2010-11 fiscal, as against 0.4 per cent in the previous year. Record foodgrains production, coupled with overflowing stocks in FCI godowns, prompted the government to allow exports of wheat and non-basmati rice under Open 143
General Licenses (OGL) in September this year after a long gap. While wheat exports were banned in early 2007, overseas rice shipments were restricted in April, 2008, as part of the Centre's measures to tame high inflation. At the fag end of the year, the UPA government tabled the landmark National Food Security Bill, 2011, in the Lok Sabha, thus fulfilling the promise made by the Congress Party in its election manifesto in 2009. The proposed Act seeks to give a legal right to cheaper foodgrains to 63.5 per cent of the population up to 75 per cent of rural citizens and up to 50 per cent of urban dwellers. Eligible persons falling in the priority households category namely the below poverty line (BPL) families under the current public distribution system would get 7 kg of rice, wheat and coarse grains per month at Rs 3, Rs 2 and Re 1 per kg, respectively. Source: http://www.business-standard.com
look for exports of seeds. Gujarat and Maharashtra are sensitive to vagaries of rainfall, and if seed production goes down, the entire planning goes for a toss," Dadlani said. The seed association had witnessed a similar situation last year, when due to limited rainfall, seed production from units went down and the state government had asked the companies to first distribute seeds within their state and then to areas outside the state. To avoid similar situation, the seed association needs to have more seed production farms in the country to overcome situations like this, he said. Kapoor said, "The seed industry is facing another major debate from genetically modified seeds, which are opposed by many organizations. There is a need to understand the science behind the technology and its implementation. The two-day conference will also focus on these issues and will attempt to satisfy queries of the people if any." Shembekar said, "The seed market in the world is worth $6 billion of which $2 billion is only in India. The seed industry is growing at an annual growth rate of 15%-20%."
More Land Needed for Seed Production
Source: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com
T
o meet the growing demand for seeds in the country, seed companies are in search of agricultural land for setting up seed production units. Besides the existing units in Gujarat, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, more units are likely to come up in Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand, where the availability of water is better, said N K Dadlani, director, National Seed Association of India. Dadlani was addressing a news conference to announce the third national level Indian seed congress that will be held in the city on Friday and Saturday. Chief minister Prithviraj Chavan and state agriculture minister Radhakrishna Vikhe Patil will inaugurate the congress. Raju Kapoor, executive director, National Seed Association of India, M G Shembekar, chairman of Indian Seed Congress 2012, and Satish Kagliwal, managing director of Nath Biogene (I) Ltd, were also present at the conference. Gujarat, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka produce almost all types of seeds required in the country, he said. "With more agricultural land coming under seed production, especially from Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand where water scarcity or rainfall is not a major problem, the country can have excess seed production and can also Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
China Cotton Imports Down 1 mn Bales
C
hina will cut its cotton imports one million bales to 16 million bales of cotton in 2012-13 from the previous year, the US Agriculture Department (USDA) said yesterday, as world cotton consumption rises for the first time in three years. At its annual Outlook Forum, USDA said China's domestic support price, which is higher than projected world prices, “is likely to constrain consumption growth and support demand for imported raw cotton and yarn, as well as synthetic fibers.” USDA estimated China would grow 30.5 million bales of cotton in 2012, import 16 million bales, use 45 million bales and have ending stocks of 19.5 million bales. By comparison, the 2011-12 outlook is a crop of 33.5 million bales, imports of 17 million, use of 44 million bales and end stocks of 18.05 million bales. “Declining world cotton prices will enable cotton to regain competitive advantage with respect to other fibers in 2012-13,” said USDA. “A significant portion of the decline in cotton consumption in recent years has been a shift to competing fibers, mainly polyester.” 144
GM Research Being Conducted on 72 Plant Species
a number of R&D projects with ultimate aim to identify important genes and manipulate these for generating transgenic plants with improved agronomic character and resistance against various pathogens/stresses," he added.
R
esearch work related to genetic modification (GM) in the agriculture sector is being conducted on 72 crops/plant species, Parliament was informed. "According to information available with ICAR (Indian Council of Agricultural Research), research related to genetic modification is currently being carried out in 72 crops/plant species," Minister of State for Agriculture Harish Rawat said in a written reply to Lok Sabha. GM research is being carried in cotton, soyabean, rice, maize, wheat, sorghum, potato, brinjal, tomato, sugarcane, castor, blackgram, sunflower, jute, coffee, mustard, onion, ginger, tobacco, and chilli, among others, he added. "The traits being examined in these crop plants are abiotic and biotic stresses resistance, nutritional quality improvement, yield improvement etc," the minister said. Rawat said all research work related to genetic engineering requires regulatory approval of the Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation (RCGM) and the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) since 2002. Replying to a separate question in the house on area under transgenic crops in the country, Rawat said Bt cotton is the only crop approved for commercial cultivation in nine states by GEAC as per provisions of Rules 1989. "The area under Bt cotton is targeted to be around 95.04 lakh hectares for 2011-12," he added.
Source: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com
SC Directs National Seeds Corporation to Compensate Farmers
T
he Supreme Courton Wednesday directed a state-run company to compensate farmers for supplying defective seeds to them. The court rejected the plea of National Seeds Corporation that it was not liable to pay compensation as it was governed by the provisions of the Seeds Act 1966 and not the Consumer Protection Act 1986. A bench comprising Justices GS Singhvi and AK Ganguly said there is nothing in Seeds Act that indicates that provisions of the Consumer Act do not apply to farmers, who are covered under the wide definition of 'consumer' under Section 2(d) of the CPA. In fact, any attempt to exclude farmers from the ambit of the Consumer Act by implication will make the Seeds Act "vulnerable to an attack of unconstitutionality on the ground of discrimination". It dismissed a bunch of appeals of the company saying the disputes between it and the farmers were regulated by the provisions of the Seeds Act, 1966. The bench, however, pointed out that though the Seeds Act had provisions on imposition of punishment on a person found guilty selling substandard seeds, the legislature has not put in place any adjudicatory mechanism for compensating farmers. Source : articles.economictimes@indiatimes.com
Answering another question in Lok Sabha on central assistance for promoting the use of GM seeds, the minister said, "The Government of India does not provide any financial assistance in the form of subsidy for promoting the use of GM seeds." However, since 2005-06, the Department of Agriculture and Cooperation is implementing a component 'Use of Biotechnology in Agriculture', he added. The component is being implemented under central sector scheme 'Development and Strengthening of Infrastructure Facilities for Production and Distribution of Quality Seeds', Rawat said. "Also, Department of Biotechnology (DBT) has supported
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
Monsanto opens seed breeding center
T
he facility will develop and test new hybrid seed varieties, says MD
With a tinge of frustration and anger, Monsanto India's Managing Director Amitabh Jaipuria clarified that the breeding station inaugurated in Chikkaballapur on Monday will not violate the Bio Diversity Act and will be a non-biotech centre. The Rs 25 crore facility will develop and test new hybrid seed varieties of corn, tomatoes, watermelon, cabbage,
145
to grow seeds other than Monsanto's.
cauliflower, cucumber, pepper, onions and beans. With research and development, labs, trial fields and greenhouses under one roof, the breeding station located in Kallinayakanahalli is second of its kind in India, the other being in Aurangabad.
During a tour around the facility, Kishore explained the importance of the Double Haploid Research Lab housed in the breeding station. “Natural process of breeding may take up to six years.
The breeding centre is spread over 118 acres of which 100 acres was leased out from local farmers. The remaining 18 acres is owned by Monsanto.
Whereas with high-end technology, this time period is reduced to a maximum of two years, after which varieties can be tested in fields,” he said.
At least 50 households in the vicinity of the station have consented to give away their agricultural fields to Monsanto for testing its hybrid seeds. The process of attaining consent has been purely through legal methods and the farmers have signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Monsanto, claimed V K Kishore, R&D Lead – Vegetables.
The Mega Breeding Station will soon have polyhouses with climate control and pathology labs for developing disease resistant crops. Around 25 scientists will be working here full time, apart from 150 labourers. The produce of crop varieties from Karnataka's breeding station will be sold across markets and states in India, while tomato seeds will be concentrated in southern states.
“The yield will be purely the farmers' to sell in the market. We use their land to test our products and they benefit without any cost. Monsanto also bears any other expenditure the land owner incurs during the testing period,” said Kishore. He added that farmers partnering with Monsanto in Chikkaballapur have complete freedom
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
A mega breeding station on similar lines is expected to come up in two years in north India (near Punjab), announced Amitabh. Source: http://www.deccanherald.com
146
NEW MEMBERS ORDINARY MEMBERS
Dayal Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Near Partapur Flyover, Partapur, Meerut-250103 (U.P)
Shri Seeds (India) Farms Pvt. Ltd. 227/228, Ellora Commercial Centre, Salapose Road, Nr. G.P.O. Ahmedabad-380001
Tropica Seeds Pvt. Ltd. 2/77, Kannimangala Village, Bangalur, Hosur Taluk-635103 Krishnagiri District, T. Nadu
Mangalam Seeds Limited 202, Sampada Complex, B/H Tulsi Complex, Mithakhali's Six Roads, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009
Classic Hybrid Seeds Co. 105, Kaling Nr.Bata Show Room, B/h Mount Carmel School, Ashram Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad
Gujarat Hybrid Seeds 202, "Aagman" Mayur Colony, Mithakhali Six Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-9
Leela Seeds 401, Sheel Complex, 4, Mayur Colony, Mithakhali Six Road, Ahmedabad-380009
Ganesh Agri Seeds 109, Ashwamegh Avenue, Nr. Mithakhali Underbridge, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009
ASSOCIATE MEMBERS Strategic Decisions MGMT Consultants Pvt. Ltd. 6th floor, JMD Regent Square, Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon-122002
Sasya Gentech Pvt. Ltd. 15/2A, Ganakallu, Srinivasapura- Kengeri Post, Bangalore-560060
Trimurti Plant Sciences Pvt. Ltd. 6-3-347/22/b, Dwarakapuri Colony, Punjgutta, Hyderabad-500082 (A.P)
PUBLIC SECTOR Derivium Tradition Securities (India) Pvt. Ltd. Eucharistic Congress Bldg. No.III, 10th floor, 5th Convent Road, Colaba, Mumbai-400039
Seed Times Jan. - Mar. 2012
State Farm Corporation of India Farm Bhavan, 14-15, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019 Shri V.K. Gaur
147
ADVERTISE WITH US MAGAZINE ADVERTISEMENT TARIFF Back Cover
Rs. 40,000
Inside Cover (Front)
Rs. 30,000
First Page (Full)
Rs. 30,000
Inside Cover (Back)
Rs. 30,000
Inside Page (Full)
Rs. 25,000
Inside Page (Half)
Rs. 15,000
Inside Page (Quarter)
Rs. 8,000
Full Year Booking 25% off on website advertisement of 6 months Full Year Booking (4 issues) - 15% discount on the total Amount
WEBSITE ADVERTISEMENT TARIFF 3 Months
6 Months
1 Year
Left Rectangle Space
21,600
40,800
75,800
Center Rectangle Space
21,600
40,800
75,800
Leader Board Banner
30,000
51,000
96,000
Bottom Rectangle Space
24,300
45,900
88,800
Horizontal Strips Space
8,100
15,300
28,800
1 year or 6 months booking entitles you to a single insertion full page or half page colour advertisement at a discount of 50% respectively on in the NSAI Magazine