California Agriculture
California Agriculture
California Agriculture
University of California
California Agriculture

Archive

California Agriculture, Vol. 58, No.2

Fruits of biotechnology struggle to emerge
Cover:  To learn more about citrus floral development genes, UC Riverside scientists are inserting them into tomato plants (inset), whcih express them rapidly. The goal is to improve citrus breeding by producing early-flowering citrus seedings, which normally do not flower for 5 to 13 years.Photo by Martha Orozco-Cardenas.
April-June 2004
Volume 58, Number 2

Peer-reviewed research and review articles

Horticultural biotechnology faces significant economic and market barriers
by Julian M. Alston
| Full text HTML  | PDF  
High costs for R&D and regulatory approval — as well as market resistance, small acreages and diverse varieties — limit the scope for profitable investments in hort biotech.
Technological change has driven economic progress in agriculture and will continue to play a crucial role in the 21st century. The latest wave of technological change in agriculture is based in molecular biology. Will horticulture participate? Genetically engineered crop varieties have been adopted on a wide scale in some agronomic crops, but horticultural crops face larger hurdles. High costs for research, development and regulatory approval combined with the small acreages planted and the diversity of varieties, will limit the potential for profitable applications of biotechnology to many fruits and vegetables, tree fruits and nuts, and nursery crops. In addition, there are market barriers. Like most important changes in agriculture, modern biotechnology has met with spirited political opposition from some quarters. Threats of political action may discourage food manufacturers and retailers from adopting biotech products that are wanted by some consumers and may be profitable for growers.
Sidebar: Transgenic produce slow to enter evolving global marketplace
by Roberta L. Cook
Full text HTML  | PDF  
Sidebar: Diversity of horticultural biotech crops contributes to market hurdles
by Kent J. Bradford, Julian M. Alston
Full text HTML  | PDF  
Despite benefits, commercialization of transgenic horticultural crops lags
by David Clark, Harry Klee, Abhaya Dandekar
| Full text HTML  | PDF  
Food crops are transformed for built-in pest control and delayed ripening, while flowers and ornamentals have improved colors, scents and life spans.
The acreage of agronomic crops (soybean, cotton, corn and canola) developed using recombinant DNA technology has expanded dramatically since their introduction in 1996, while the commercialization of biotech horticultural crops (vegetables, fruits, nuts and ornamentals) has languished. This is not due to a lack of both current and potential traits that could be utilized in horticultural crops, as ongoing research is identifying a diverse array of applications. However, commercialization is stalled by market reluctance to accept biotech products, particularly in the absence of clear benefits to consumers. High regulatory costs and restricted access to intellectual property create additional hurdles for specialty crops. These challenges are causing the horticultural industry to forego a number of current benefits. New products with clear advantages for producers, marketers and consumers may be required before the potential of biotechnology can be realized.
Sidebar: Virus-resistant transgenic papaya helps save Hawaiian industry
by Dennis Gonsalves
Full text HTML  | PDF  
Sidebar: Biotechnology expands pest-management options for horticulture
by Leonard Gianessi
Full text HTML  | PDF  
Sidebar: Transgenic trap crops and rootstocks show potential
by John Driver, Javier Castillón, Abhaya Dandekar
Full text HTML  | PDF  
Consumer knowledge and acceptance of agricultural biotechnology vary
by Jennifer S. James
| Full text HTML  | PDF  
Telephone surveys reveal limited awareness and knowledge of agricultural biotechnology.
Results from consumer surveys reveal some basic conclusions about consumer attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology. First, consumers do not agree about whether biotech foods are good or bad. Second, a small group of people strongly opposes them. Third, the majority of consumers are uninformed about the technology and how food is produced. Relatively small but vocal anti-biotechnology activist groups are successful at influencing public opinion because of consumers' lack of knowledge, creating a role for universities and government agencies to provide clear, objective and accessible information.
Sidebar: Words matter
by Robert Herrmann, Rex Warland, Arthur Sterngold
Full text HTML  | PDF  
Sidebar: Consumers purchase Bt sweet corn
by J.S. James
Full text HTML  | PDF  
Regulatory challenges reduce opportunities for horticultural biotechnology
by Keith Redenbaugh, Alan McHughen
| Full text HTML  | PDF  
New transgenic varieties must meet a bevy of requirements, often raising costs so that development for horticultural crops is uneconomical.
Development of transgenic horticultural crops has slowed significantly in recent years for several reasons, including the European Union's moratorium on biotech approvals, lack of tolerance levels for adventitious (accidental) presence in food and seed, significantly increased regulatory costs and decreased acceptance by food wholesalers and retailers. While progress in the United States has slowed and approvals in the European Union stopped, some countries such as China continue to develop biotech products for their internal and external markets that will affect the U.S. and California industry. Within a few years, China will emerge as the leader in biotech horticultural crops.
Sidebar: IR-4 Project targets specialty crops
by Robert E. Holm, Daniel Kunkel
Full text HTML  | PDF  
Sidebar: China aggressively pursuing horticulture and plant biotechnology
by Jikun Huang, Scott Rozelle
Full text HTML  | PDF  
Public-private partnerships needed in horticultural research and development
by Gordon Rausser, Holly Ameden
| Full text HTML  | PDF  
Consortia of horticulture companies and university researchers can aid biotech product development; partners must respect academic freedom.
University-industry partnerships are proliferating in the United States, as public funding for high-level research continues to decline yet knowledge plays an increasingly important role in industrial processes. The horticulture industry benefits from such arrangements by influencing research directions and gaining access to innovations and complementary research in agri-cultural biotechnology. Given the nature of this industry, the obstacles to developing effective partnerships are substantial. Private horticulture institutions should form consortia of both small- and medium-sized firms, and they should understand the need for faculty and academic freedom. More enterprising members of a consortium can capitalize on the research contacts and pursue firm-specific, applied-research partnerships. Potential drawbacks are the exclusion of smaller firms and inequitable benefits-sharing within the consortia.
Access to intellectual property is a major obstacle to developing transgenic horticultural crops
by Gregory D. Graff, Brian D. Wright, Alan B. Bennett, David Zilberman
| Full text HTML  | PDF  
Biotech crop developers must compile intellectual-property rights from myriad sources; a new group will improve IP access for public-sector research.
Inefficiencies in accessing intellectual property (IP) appear to be hindering otherwise valuable research and development (R&D) in horticultural crop varieties. While leading private-sector agricultural biotechnology firms with strong IP positions and commercial freedom to operate (FTO) see insufficient incentives in the small, fractured markets of horticultural products, researchers with public-sector support for horticultural projects but weak IP positions may find that the best way of gaining FTO and moving forward is to band together and provide mutual access to one another's technologies. The Public Intellectual Property Resource for Agriculture (PIPRA), headquartered at UC Davis, is a new coalition of U.S. universities and foundations committed to this strategy.
Sidebar: Nonprofit institutions form intellectual-property resource for agriculture
by Deborah Delmer
Full text HTML  | PDF  

Editorial, News, Letters and Science Briefs

Challenges and opportunities for horticultural biotechnology
by Kent J. Bradford, Julian M. Alston, Peggy G. Lemaux, Daniel A. Sumner
Full text HTML  | PDF  
Transgenic acreage grows amid changing regulation
by Robin Meadows
Full text HTML  | PDF  
UC researchers evaluating genetically engineered alfalfa
by Jeannette Warnert
Full text HTML  | PDF  
Letters
From our readers
Full text HTML  | PDF  
Webmaster Email: wsuckow@ucanr.edu

Thank you for visiting us at California Agriculture. We have created this printable page for you to easily view our website offline. You can visit this page again by pointing your Internet Browser to-

http://calag.ucanr.edu/archive/index.cfm?issue=58_2

California Agriculture, Vol. 58, No.2

Fruits of biotechnology struggle to emerge
Cover:  To learn more about citrus floral development genes, UC Riverside scientists are inserting them into tomato plants (inset), whcih express them rapidly. The goal is to improve citrus breeding by producing early-flowering citrus seedings, which normally do not flower for 5 to 13 years.Photo by Martha Orozco-Cardenas.
April-June 2004
Volume 58, Number 2

Peer-reviewed research and review articles

Horticultural biotechnology faces significant economic and market barriers
by Julian M. Alston
| Full text HTML  | PDF  
High costs for R&D and regulatory approval — as well as market resistance, small acreages and diverse varieties — limit the scope for profitable investments in hort biotech.
Technological change has driven economic progress in agriculture and will continue to play a crucial role in the 21st century. The latest wave of technological change in agriculture is based in molecular biology. Will horticulture participate? Genetically engineered crop varieties have been adopted on a wide scale in some agronomic crops, but horticultural crops face larger hurdles. High costs for research, development and regulatory approval combined with the small acreages planted and the diversity of varieties, will limit the potential for profitable applications of biotechnology to many fruits and vegetables, tree fruits and nuts, and nursery crops. In addition, there are market barriers. Like most important changes in agriculture, modern biotechnology has met with spirited political opposition from some quarters. Threats of political action may discourage food manufacturers and retailers from adopting biotech products that are wanted by some consumers and may be profitable for growers.
Sidebar: Transgenic produce slow to enter evolving global marketplace
by Roberta L. Cook
Full text HTML  | PDF  
Sidebar: Diversity of horticultural biotech crops contributes to market hurdles
by Kent J. Bradford, Julian M. Alston
Full text HTML  | PDF  
Despite benefits, commercialization of transgenic horticultural crops lags
by David Clark, Harry Klee, Abhaya Dandekar
| Full text HTML  | PDF  
Food crops are transformed for built-in pest control and delayed ripening, while flowers and ornamentals have improved colors, scents and life spans.
The acreage of agronomic crops (soybean, cotton, corn and canola) developed using recombinant DNA technology has expanded dramatically since their introduction in 1996, while the commercialization of biotech horticultural crops (vegetables, fruits, nuts and ornamentals) has languished. This is not due to a lack of both current and potential traits that could be utilized in horticultural crops, as ongoing research is identifying a diverse array of applications. However, commercialization is stalled by market reluctance to accept biotech products, particularly in the absence of clear benefits to consumers. High regulatory costs and restricted access to intellectual property create additional hurdles for specialty crops. These challenges are causing the horticultural industry to forego a number of current benefits. New products with clear advantages for producers, marketers and consumers may be required before the potential of biotechnology can be realized.
Sidebar: Virus-resistant transgenic papaya helps save Hawaiian industry
by Dennis Gonsalves
Full text HTML  | PDF  
Sidebar: Biotechnology expands pest-management options for horticulture
by Leonard Gianessi
Full text HTML  | PDF  
Sidebar: Transgenic trap crops and rootstocks show potential
by John Driver, Javier Castillón, Abhaya Dandekar
Full text HTML  | PDF  
Consumer knowledge and acceptance of agricultural biotechnology vary
by Jennifer S. James
| Full text HTML  | PDF  
Telephone surveys reveal limited awareness and knowledge of agricultural biotechnology.
Results from consumer surveys reveal some basic conclusions about consumer attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology. First, consumers do not agree about whether biotech foods are good or bad. Second, a small group of people strongly opposes them. Third, the majority of consumers are uninformed about the technology and how food is produced. Relatively small but vocal anti-biotechnology activist groups are successful at influencing public opinion because of consumers' lack of knowledge, creating a role for universities and government agencies to provide clear, objective and accessible information.
Sidebar: Words matter
by Robert Herrmann, Rex Warland, Arthur Sterngold
Full text HTML  | PDF  
Sidebar: Consumers purchase Bt sweet corn
by J.S. James
Full text HTML  | PDF  
Regulatory challenges reduce opportunities for horticultural biotechnology
by Keith Redenbaugh, Alan McHughen
| Full text HTML  | PDF  
New transgenic varieties must meet a bevy of requirements, often raising costs so that development for horticultural crops is uneconomical.
Development of transgenic horticultural crops has slowed significantly in recent years for several reasons, including the European Union's moratorium on biotech approvals, lack of tolerance levels for adventitious (accidental) presence in food and seed, significantly increased regulatory costs and decreased acceptance by food wholesalers and retailers. While progress in the United States has slowed and approvals in the European Union stopped, some countries such as China continue to develop biotech products for their internal and external markets that will affect the U.S. and California industry. Within a few years, China will emerge as the leader in biotech horticultural crops.
Sidebar: IR-4 Project targets specialty crops
by Robert E. Holm, Daniel Kunkel
Full text HTML  | PDF  
Sidebar: China aggressively pursuing horticulture and plant biotechnology
by Jikun Huang, Scott Rozelle
Full text HTML  | PDF  
Public-private partnerships needed in horticultural research and development
by Gordon Rausser, Holly Ameden
| Full text HTML  | PDF  
Consortia of horticulture companies and university researchers can aid biotech product development; partners must respect academic freedom.
University-industry partnerships are proliferating in the United States, as public funding for high-level research continues to decline yet knowledge plays an increasingly important role in industrial processes. The horticulture industry benefits from such arrangements by influencing research directions and gaining access to innovations and complementary research in agri-cultural biotechnology. Given the nature of this industry, the obstacles to developing effective partnerships are substantial. Private horticulture institutions should form consortia of both small- and medium-sized firms, and they should understand the need for faculty and academic freedom. More enterprising members of a consortium can capitalize on the research contacts and pursue firm-specific, applied-research partnerships. Potential drawbacks are the exclusion of smaller firms and inequitable benefits-sharing within the consortia.
Access to intellectual property is a major obstacle to developing transgenic horticultural crops
by Gregory D. Graff, Brian D. Wright, Alan B. Bennett, David Zilberman
| Full text HTML  | PDF  
Biotech crop developers must compile intellectual-property rights from myriad sources; a new group will improve IP access for public-sector research.
Inefficiencies in accessing intellectual property (IP) appear to be hindering otherwise valuable research and development (R&D) in horticultural crop varieties. While leading private-sector agricultural biotechnology firms with strong IP positions and commercial freedom to operate (FTO) see insufficient incentives in the small, fractured markets of horticultural products, researchers with public-sector support for horticultural projects but weak IP positions may find that the best way of gaining FTO and moving forward is to band together and provide mutual access to one another's technologies. The Public Intellectual Property Resource for Agriculture (PIPRA), headquartered at UC Davis, is a new coalition of U.S. universities and foundations committed to this strategy.
Sidebar: Nonprofit institutions form intellectual-property resource for agriculture
by Deborah Delmer
Full text HTML  | PDF  

Editorial, News, Letters and Science Briefs

Challenges and opportunities for horticultural biotechnology
by Kent J. Bradford, Julian M. Alston, Peggy G. Lemaux, Daniel A. Sumner
Full text HTML  | PDF  
Transgenic acreage grows amid changing regulation
by Robin Meadows
Full text HTML  | PDF  
UC researchers evaluating genetically engineered alfalfa
by Jeannette Warnert
Full text HTML  | PDF  
Letters
From our readers
Full text HTML  | PDF  

University of California, 1301 S. 46th St., Bldg. 478 Richmond, CA
Email: calag@ucanr.edu | Phone: (510) 665-2163 | Fax: (510) 665-3427
Please visit us again at http://californiaagriculture.ucanr.edu/