| Keywords: | Genetic engineering; United States of America; China Peoples Republic; Canada; Argentina; Australia; Plant breeding; Disease/pest resistance; Herbicide/pesticide tolerance; Soya bean; Maize; Tobacco; Cotton; Rapeseed/Canola; Fruits and nuts. |
| Correct citation: | James, C. (1998), "Global Status and Distribution of Commercial Transgenic Crops in 1997." Biotechnology and Development Monitor, No. 35, p. 9-12. |
A transgenic crop is a crop in which a gene from another organism has been incorporated by methods other than traditional breeding. Genetic engineering of crops has been a controversial subject since 1971, when the first genetically modified organisms were developed. With the commercialization of transgenic crops, biotechnology has attained a firm place in agriculture. This article gives an overview of the global use and development of commercial transgenic crops.
Distribution by country, crop and trait
While the first field trials of transgenic crops were conducted in
the USA and France, the People’s Republic of China was the first country
to commercialize transgenic crops in the early 1990s with the introduction
of virus resistant tobacco. In 1994 the USA followed when the US company
Calgene obtained approval to commercialize the genetically modified
Flavr Savr delayed ripening tomato. From then onwards, the development
and use of transgenic crops gained momentum. In 1997, the global area under
transgenic crops was 12.8 million hectares - a 4.5 fold increase from the
2.8 million hectares in 1996 (see table 1). The largest
increase in transgenic crops in 1997 occurred in the USA, followed by Argentina
and Canada. The USA continued to be the principal grower of transgenic
crops in 1997. China, in 1997, still retained its 1996 ranking as the country
with the second largest area. On a global basis, the proportion of transgenic
hectareage grown in industrial countries increased from 57 per cent in
1996 to 74 per cent in 1997. It decreased in developing countries from
43 per cent in 1996 to 25 per cent in 1997.
There were also significant changes in the absolute and relative area
occupied by the 7 transgenic crops in 1996 and 1997 (see
table 2). The relative areas occupied by the four transgenic traits
were also significantly different in 1996 and 1997 (see
table 3). Herbicide tolerance, the third ranking trait in 1996 moved
to the top ranking position in 1997. Insect resistance was fairly stable,
with virus resistance decreasing. Quality traits occupied less than 1 per
cent in both 1996 and 1997.
The major changes in global share of transgenic crops were correlated
with the following features:
| Global area of transgenic crops in
1996 and 1997 by country
(millions of hectares) |
||||
| Region |
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| USA |
|
|
|
|
| China |
|
|
|
|
| Argentina |
|
|
|
|
| Canada |
|
|
|
|
| Australia |
|
|
|
|
| Mexico |
|
|
|
|
| total |
|
|
|
|
|
rounded figures
Source: James, 1997 |
||||
| Global area of transgenic crops in
1996 and 1997 by crop
(millions of hectares) |
|||||
| Crop |
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
||
| tomato |
|
|
|
|
|
| potato |
|
|
|
|
|
| soya bean |
|
|
|
|
|
| maize |
|
|
|
|
|
| tobacco |
|
|
|
|
|
| cotton |
|
|
|
|
|
| canola |
|
|
|
|
|
| total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
rounded figures
Source: James, 1997 |
|||||
Adoption of transgenic crops and status of the technology
The current generation of commercialized agronomic input traits, such
as herbicide tolerance or insect and disease resistance, will continue
to expand, according to initial indication for 1998. Output traits,
that will improve the nutritional content of foods and feeds, are expected
to become increasingly important. This will initially occur in the industrialized
countries where there is a bigger consumer demand for specialized food
products and will ultimately extend to the more advanced developing countries.
Adoption rates for transgenic crops such as soya bean, maize, canola,
cotton, and potato are expected to increase, but will be subject to resolution
of issues in relation to labelling, freedom of choice, use of antibiotic
resistant markers, and other considerations. Public acceptance constraints,
however, mainly apply to Europe. An increase in investments in agri-biotechnology
R&D will have its effect on introduction of new transgenic crops. The
lack of operational biosafety regulations in many developing countries
currently precludes the critical step of field testing transgenic crops.
In North America, companies have developed different strategies to market
their new transgenic seed. Most companies do this in exactly the same way
as for traditional hybrids and varieties. In these cases the price of the
improved transgenic seed has been determined taking into account the additional
benefits that are conferred through the incorporation of transgenic traits.
Other corporations, for example the US company Monsanto, charge
a separate fee for the transgenic technology. In the USA, for the Bt traits,
contracts between the vendors of the transgenic seed and farmers have been
introduced. These contracts ensure the planting of a refuge crop (see
also Monitor No. 29). The concept of a refuge crop is based on the
assumption that the development of resistance in the pest is a likely event
in any pest control programme. Including a refuge crop which is susceptible
to the targeted pest reduces the pressure of the pest to develop resistance.
This maximizes the durability of the Bt gene.
A review of products being tested in field trials confirms that the
R&D pipeline is full of new transgenic products that are likely to
be available in the near term. For example, products in field trials in
China will probably expand the number of commercial transgenic crops there
from 3 to more than 10. These include insect resistant cotton, maize, rice
and soya bean; virus resistant papaya and sweet pepper; disease resistant
potato, and tobacco and herbicide tolerant soya bean. Whereas single traits
currently predominate, it is noteworthy that double traits have already
been introduced in canola and are expected in several of the major crops
in the near future.
Global investments and markets in agricultural biotechnology
Sales of agricultural biotechnology products in the USA were US$ 100
million in 1995, increased to US$ 304 million in 1996 and are expected
to continue growing at 20 per cent per year (Ernst & Young 1995). It
is estimated that of the US$10.8 billion total sales of biotechnology products
in the United States in 1996, agriculture represented 3 per cent of total
sales (Ernst & Young 1996). The global market for agricultural biotechnology
was less than US$ 500 million in 1996, and is projected to increase to
US$ 2 to 3 billion by the year 2000 and US$ 20 billion by 2010 (James 1997).
Whereas a high proportion of the R&D investments in agri-biotechnology
are undertaken by the private sector, various public institutions and organizations
that serve domestic and international interests are assigning higher priority
to biotechnology. The World Bank has lent US$ 100 million in support
of biotechnology, whilst the Rockefeller Foundation and bilateral
agencies, including those in the USA, UK and the Netherlands, have invested
US$ 200 million during the last decade (Brenner 1996). National research
agencies such as the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA),
the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC)
in the UK, and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
(CSIRO) in Australia, have made significant investments in biotechnology.
The research centres of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural
Research (CGIAR) estimate that their biotechnology expenditures are
currently US$ 22.4 million per year. US$ 10 million of this is spent on
animal biotechnology and the balance of approximately US$ 12 million on
crop biotechnology by a total of eight centres. However this is only a
small figure compared to, for instance, the USA where the 1995 R&D
expenditure on agricultural biotechnology products amounted to US$ 2 billion.
| Global area of transgenic crops in
1996 and 1997 by trait
(millions of hectares) |
|||||
| Trait |
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
||
| herbicide tolerance |
|
|
|
|
|
| insect resistance |
|
|
|
|
|
| virus resistance |
|
|
|
|
|
| insect resistance & herbicide tolerance |
|
|
|
|
|
| quality traits |
|
|
|
|
|
| total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
rounded figures
Source: James, 1997 |
|||||
International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), P.O.Box 427 SAV, Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands. E-mail cjames@CandW.ky
Sources
C. Brenner (1996), Integrating Biotechnology in Agriculture: Incentives,
Constraints and Country Experiences. OECD Development Centre, Paris,
France: OECD.
Ernst and Young (1995), Biotech 96. Pursuing Sustainability. The Tenth Industry Annual Report. Palo Alto, CA, USA: Ernst and Young.
Ernst and Young (1996), Biotech 97. Alignment. The Eleventh Industry Annual Report. Palo Alto, CA, USA: Ernst and Young.
C. James (1997), Global Status of Transgenic Crops in 1997. ISAAA Briefs No 5. ISAAA: Ithaca, NY, USA: ISAAA.
H.W Kendall, R. Beachy, T. Eisner, F. Gould, R. Herdt, P. Raven, J.S.
Schell and M. S. Swaminathan. (1997), Bioengineering of Crops. Report
of the World Bank Panel on Transgenic Crops. ESDS Monograph Series: 23.
World Bank, Washington DC, USA: Worldbank.
|
![]() |
| back to top |
|
|
|
|