EEP101_lecture21biotech - E E P 1 0 1 -C O N T A IN M E N T...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: E E P 1 0 1 -C O N T A IN M E N T O F R IS K S & T H E E V O L U T IO N O F B IO T E C H N O L O G Y D a v id Z ilb e rm a n State of ag biotechnology T h e c u p i s h a l f fu l l = H i g h a d o p ti o n r a te s i n m a j o r c r o p s i n U .s . A r g e n ti n a ,C h i n a H a l f e m p ty practical ban in Europe &Japan Restrictions slowed adoption and product development Under-development of technology in minor crops& developing countries Concern about risk major reason for resistance P r e s u m e d P o i n ts o f F a i l u r e 1. Productivity: Biotechnology aims to solve problems of the North; will not make a difference in the South. 2. Access: Biotechnology is controlled by corporations; will not be accessible on feasible terms to poor peasants. 3. Risks: Damage to environment and human health, contamination of native genetic materials, and loss of crop biodiversity Impacts of ag bio tech on productivity A g b i o te c h w a s d e v e l o p e d i n th e n o r th , w i th a p p l i c a ti o n to c r o p a n d v a r i e ti e s o f d e v e l o p e d c o u n tr i e s It m o s tl y s e r v e d to r e d u c e p e s ti c i d e s u s e a n d i m p r o v e p r o fi ta b i l i ty . Is th e fi r s t g e n e r a ti o n o f b i o te c h a p p r o p r i a te to d e v e l o p i n g c o u n tr i e s -will it increase yields? How will it affect crop biodiversity? Ag biotech and development W e w i l l a d d r e s s th e s e i s s u e s h e r e Theory: Impacts of ag biotechnology vary The impacts of ag biotechnology on yield depends on where it is applied How it is applied What was used before The management of the crop before and with biotech depend on socio economic situations and institutional arrangement associate with biotechnology Two important factor The extent of use of chemicals The varieties that are being modified P r o d u c ti v i ty : Y i e l d - In c r e a s i n g P o te n ti a l Yield = potential output x (1 - damage) damage = f (pest, pest control) (p Combination of high pest pressure and minimal existing use of pest control potential for yieldincreasing effect Attractive features of pest-control agricultural biotechnologies Simplicity of use Reduction in use of chemicals or labor Expansion of weather conditions where crop grow A d o p ti o n o f G M O m a y e n ta i l a s w i tc h fr o m l o c a l v a r i e ty to g e n e r i c v a r i e ty T h i s s w i tc h m a y r e d u c e y i e l d s Technology, variety changes and Technology, yield effect !Y = Y potential Generic (1 " DamgBiotech ) " Y potential Local vaariety (1 " Damgno biotecg ) Y i e l d g a i n = R e d u c ti o n o f p e s t d a m a g e o f g e n e r i c v a r i e ty - D i ffe r e n c e i n n e t y i e l d b e tw e e n tr a d i ti o n a l a n d g e n e ric Example 1 P o te n ti a l y i e l d l o c a l v a r i e ty = 4 to n / h e c ta r e P o te n ti a l Y i e l d g e n e r i c v a r i e ty 3 to n s / h e c ta r e Dam age 50% B t re d u c e d a m a g e b y 1 0 0 % Y i e l d e ffe c t o f m o d i fi e d l o c a l v a r i e ty 4 - 4 * ( 1 - .5 ) = 2 Y i e l d e ffe c t o f g e n e r i c v a r i e ty 3 -2 =1 P r o d u c ti v i ty : E v i d e n c e fo r B t C o tto n G a i n s Bt cotton in: United States: yield effect 0 – 15% China: yield effect 10% South Africa: yield effect 20%-40% India: yield effect 60 – 80 % In every country have reduction in chemical usage F i e l d tr i a l s i n 2 0 0 1 - 2 h a s y i e l d e ffe c t o f 8 0 % Some Indian Stories w i th g e n e r i c v a r i e ty a n d 8 7 % w i th l o c a l G M V P e s ti c i d e s u s e d e c l i n e b y 7 0 % N o w o n d e r y ie ld lo s s c a n b e 6 0 % In 2 0 0 2 - 3 w h e n a c tu a l c o tto n w a s p l a n te d y i e l d e ffe c t w a s b e tw e e n - 1 0 % - 3 0 % Law pest pressure In some locations a wrong variety was introduced T h e y ie ld g a in in 2 0 0 3 -4 w a s h ig h e r-h ig h e r p e t dam age Robin hood and GMV In G u j j a r a t a l o c a l b r e e d e r i n tr o d u c e d i l l e g a l l y B t c o tto n w i th s p e c ta c u l a r r e s u l t A u n h o l y a l l i a n c e o f e n v i r o n m e n ta l i s ts a n d c o m p a n i e s w a n te d th e c o tto n to b e b u r n e d F a r m e r d e m o n s tr a te d a n d th e c o tto n s a v e d a n d B t le g a liz e d It i s m e a n i n g l e s s t p s p e a k a b o u t y i e l d e ffe c t Bt as insurance s in c e p e s t d a m a g e is a ra n d o m v a ria b le a n d y i e l d e ffe c t v a r i e s A s w i tc h to g e n e r i c G M V m a y r e d u c e y i e l d i n a g o o d y e a r b u t i n c r e a s e i t s u b s ta n ti a l l y i n a bad one B t in c re a s e s m e a n y ie ld b u t re d u c e s v a ria n c e a n d e s p e c ia lly d o w n s id e ris k -w h e re p e s ti c i d e s a r e c o s tl y a n d y i e l d l o s s e s s ti l l m a y r e s u lt in b a n k r u p tc y Example 2 P o te n tia l y ie ld : 6 lo c a l v a r ie ty 4 g e n e r ic v a r ie ty D a m a g e 2 5 % w ith 5 0 % p r o b a b ility 5 0 % w ith 5 0 % p r o b a b ility B t e lim in a te s p e s t d a m a g e A d o p tio n o f g e n e r ic B t R e d u c e s y ie ld f r o m 4 .5 to 4 w ith 5 0 % p r o b a b ility I n c r e a s e s y ie ld f r o m 3 . 0 to 4 w ith 5 0 % p r o b a b ility A d o p tio n o f lo c a l B t I n c r e a s e s y ie ld f r o m 4 . 5 to 6 w ith 5 0 % p r o b a b ility I n c r e a s e s y ie ld f r o m 3 . 0 to 6 w ith 5 0 % p r o b a b ility Biotech risk and farm size T h e g a i n i n te r m s o f r i s k b e a r i n g c o s t i s m a i n r e a s o n fo r a d o p ti o n e v e n i n U S S m a l l fa r m e r s th a t h a v e l i ttl e a c c e s s to i n s u r a n c e a n d fo r m a l c r e d i t m a r k e t m a y b e b e n e fi c i a l o f l o w e r r i s k S e e d te c h n o l o g y h a s m i n i m a l e c o n o m i c s o f s c a l e , r e d u c e n e e d to i n v e s t i n p e s t c o n tr o l e q u ip m e n t a n d r e d u c e m o n ito r in g tim e - th u s m a y b e a p p e a l i n g to s m a l l fa r m e r i f a ffo r d a b l e a n d M o d if ic a t io n is d o n e w it h a g o o d v a r ie t y Predicted yield effects of pest controlling Biotech Availabili Region Pest pressure ty of chemical alternativ es Developed countries Lowmed L.Am (commercial) China medium medium medium medium high high low -med lowmed\ L.Am(noncommercial) South Asia Africa high low low high & S o. e ast high low -med low -med medium low -med low med high high high high low Adoption of chemicals Yield effect GM crops of E n v i r o n m e n t: R e l a ti v e to M o d e r n B r e e d i n g B i o te c h C a n E n h a n c e C r o p B i o d i v e r s i ty M a in p r e m is e : A g b io t e c h a llo w s m in o r m o d if ic a t io n o f e x is t in g v a r ie t ie s a n d u n d e r a p p r o p r ia t e in s t it u t io n a l s e t u p c a n b e a d o p t e d w h ile p r e s e r v in g c r o p b io d iv e r s it y C o n v e n tio n a l b r e e d in g in v o lv e s o fte n m a s s iv e g e n e tic c h a n g e s , a n d a d ju s tm e n ts to a c c o m m o d a te b io d iv e r s ity a r e c o s tly a n d W e ll fu n c tio n in g IP R s y s te m c a n le a d to c r o p b io d iv e r s ity p r e s e r v a tio n F ie ld d a ta s u p p o r t th is c la im Ag biotech and crop bio diversity Table 1. Number of available varieties for different Table GM technologies in selected countries (2001/2002) Country USA Technology RR soybean Bt corn Bt cotton Argentina RR soybean Bt corn Bt cotton China India Mexico South Africa Bt cotton Bt cotton Bt cotton Bt cotton Area under technology (ha) 22 million 7 million 2 million 10 million 0.7 million 22,000 1.5 million 40,000 28,000 20,000 Number of local varieties/hybrids a >1,100 >700 19 45 15 0 22 3 0 1 Number of imported varieties/hybrids 0 0 0 11 6 2 5 0 2 2 Environment: Biodiversity scenarios in the field Strong IPRs, strong breeding sector, and low transaction costs. (US) Private technology owner will license the innovation to different seed companies, who incorporate it into many or all crop varieties, so that crop biodiversity is preserved. Strong IPRs, strong breeding sector, but high transaction costs. (EU) If an agreement cannot be reached, companies will bypass breeding sector, directly introduce GM crop varieties that are not locally adapted. Environment: Biodiversity scenarios in the field Weak IPRs and a strong breeding sector. (China) Many different GM varieties are available Farmers and consumers are beneficiaries. SR social optimum. Weak IPRs and a weak breeding sector. (Africa) If foreign GM crop varieties are even introduced, are done directly without adaptation. A loss of local crop biodiversity. B i o te c h C o u l d E n h a n c e C r o p B i o d i v e r s i ty Conventional breeding led to wholesale replacement of land races with elite line monocultures Biotechnology could provide precise improvements to traditional land races Could lead to reintroduction of new “technologically Could competitive” land races - ”Jurasic garden” Access and Access development Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Registrations A c c e s s : B i o te c h n o l o g i e s i n th e S o u th Most IP is generated by research in the North Transfer of public sector’s rights to the private sector provides incentives for development and commercialization Companies have little incentive to invest in applications specific to the South A c c e s s : B i o te c h n o l o g i e s i n th e S o u th Companies are willing to give technologies for use in South; good PR Companies worry about liability, transaction costs Universities with rights to technology will also be open to transferring to South applications Needed institutional mediation: IP clearinghouse A c c e s s : O b j e c ti v e s o f c l e a r i n g h o u s e fo r IP R Reduce search costs to identifying set of technologies accessible Reduce transaction cost for the commercialization of innovations Increase transparency about ownership of IPR Provide mechanisms to manage negotiation of access to IPR Improve technology transfer mechanisms and practices (mostly in public sector institution) A c c e s s : M o d e l o f a c le a r in g h o u s e f o r I P R IP p r o v id e r s : Member organizations Non-member organizations Assignment, license, or option for full or limited fields of use D ir e c t lic e n s in g t r a n s a c tio n s “Re-packaging” Pooled sub-licensing Single patent sub-licensing IP u s e r s : Non-member IP users Member organization IP users Non-member IP users Why Under investment in ag biotech Regulatory constraints, IPR concerns reduce investment Size of markets lead to under investment in minor crops Lack of investment is because of prices of ag products Development of ag technology is cyclical depend on market condition Crisis leads to change Developing countries & minor c rop Most ag biotech is developed for major crops in the north Private companies in developed countries hold IPR for many GMO innovations There is a risk that Africa will miss the gene revolution as it missed the green revolution. Specialty crops may not attract investment in agricultural biotech & under-utilize it C o n t in u e d in v e st m e n t in p u b lic r e se a rc h Risk of under investing in public research and development Public sector research complement private sector . Through technology transfer there is continuity. Public sector research contributes to competitiveness Public sector R&D is essential in developing countries and minor crops Private & Public research P u b l i c s e c to r r e s e a r c h e m p h a s i z e g e n e r a l i z e d b a s i c i n n o v a ti o n s P r i v a te s e c to r r e s e a r c h i s p r o d u c t fo c u s T h e r e i s c o m p l e m e n ta r i l y b e tw e e n s e c to r s T e c h n o l o g y tr a n s fe r i s c r u c i a l l i n k P r i v a te s e c to r u n d e r R & D a n d th a t a ffe c ts m in o r c ro p s Diversification of research paradigm T h e r e i s a r i s k o f o v e r e m p h a s i z i n g b i o te c h N e e d p u b l i c r e s e a r c h i n a l te r n a ti v e s o l u ti o n s th a t i s n o t e m b o d i e d i n p r o d u c ts N e e d r e g u l a to r y r e s e a r c h - w i th i n te r n a ti o n a l c o o p e r a ti o n a n d e x c h a n g e o f k n o w le d g e . A c c e s s : R e d u c i n g R e g u l a to r y C o n s tr a i n ts Registration should be efficient. Excessive requirements may be used as a source of political economic rent seeking. Borders are arbitrary. Countries can take advantage of regulatory clearances granted elsewhere and concentrate on addressing unique local problems and risks. Countries should develop regional alliances for regulation and establish mechanisms for easy transfer of regulatory information. Regulatory design-tougher is not better R e g u l a ti o n h a s a r o l e r i s k c o n tr o l a n d s c r e e n i n g P o s t r e g u l a ti o n m o n i to r i n g c a n c o r r e c t m i s ta k e s - i r r e v e r s i b i l i ty h a p p e n s - b u t n o t a l w a y s T o u g h r e g u l a ti o n m a y l e a d to Concentration Delay of introduction of technologies Reduced research and investment and retardation of technology N e e d to o p ti m i z e r e g u l a ti o n Impacts of regulation strategies Im F o r p l a n t th a t r e p r o d u c e s e x u a l l y - o n c e a G M V v a r i e ty i s d e v e l o p e d ( a n e v e n t) th e g e n e i s i n s e r te d to o th e r s th r o u g h b a c k c r o s s i n g T o u g h r e g u l a ti o n o f e a c h v a r i e ty l e a d to r e d u c e c h o i c e a n d s w i tc h i n g a w a y fr o m l o c a l v a r i e ti e s a s m a l l n u m b e r o f v a r i e ti e s w i l l b e u s e d a n d m u c h o f th e p o te n ti a l o f i n n o v a ti o n l o s t R e g u l a ti o n s o f e v e n ts i n c r e a s e c h o i c e - c o s t o f m o d i fy i n g s p e c i fi c v a r i e ti e s s m a l l e r Regulation and pace of change V a r i e ti e s m a y c h a n g e r a th e r fa s t w i th c o n v e n ti o n a l b r e e d i n g S l o w r e g u l a to r y p r o c e s s m a y r e s u l t i n i n s e r ti o n o f G M V s i n o l d e r v a r i e ti e s a n d l o s s o f b e n e fi ts o b ta i n e d th r o u g h c o n v e n ti o n a l b re e d in g S l o w r e g u l a to r y p r o c e s s s l o w i n n o v a ti o n a s i t i s r e d u c i n g r e tu r n s to a n d th u s i n v e s tm e n t i n i n n o v a ti o n A c c e p ta n c e Europeans attitude to Gmo L a c k o f tr u s t i n g o v e r n m e n t- B s e F & m o u th In s u ffi c i e n t fo o d s a fe ty r e g u l a ti o n S tr e n g th o f e n v i r o n m e n ta l m o v e m e n t B i o te c h i s A m e r i c a n te c h n o l o g y B a r r i e r to tr a d e S c i e n ti s ts a n d s o c i e ty d o n o t w a n t to fa l l b e h in d A cce p ta n ce Progress of ag biotech depends on broad bio acceptance Consumers have right to discriminate according to the way products are produced. This discrimination should not be used to form trade barriers A global Academy of science needed for dispute resolution Regulatory constrained needed for acceptance. Concerns may be valid. Labeling Reasonable labeling is a reasonable regulatory requirement Product tracing will reduce cost of safety maintenance. Labeling will benefit industry in the long run.Enable product differntiation Should be done privately subject to government monitoring Risks Risks R isk C o n t a in m e n t A p p r o a c h fo r P o lic y m a k in g R isk = P r o b a b ilit y o f a b a d e v e n t o c c u r r in g d u r in g a p e r io d o f t im e . r isk m a n a g e m e n t t o d e sig n p o lic ie s t o 1 )m a x im iz e r isk r e d u c t io n w it h in a g iv e n c o n st r a in t o n so c ia l c o st s. O r 2)maximize social welfare subject to r isk c o n st r a in t s R isk c o n t a in m e n t c a n b e p r a c t ic e d lo c a lly & g lo b a lly Precaution in technology development P r e c a u t io n i s n o t a v o id in g r isk s. It m e a n s c o n t a in in g r isk s in a n a d a p tiv e p r o c e ss o f c o n t in u o u s le a r n in g .. T h e r e a r e g a p in g h o le s in sc ie n t ifi c k n o w le d g e , b u t it is t h e b e st w e h a v e . P r o g r e ss r e q u ir e s g r a d u a l e x p a n sio n o f c a p a c it y c o n t a in in g r isk s a s w e v e n tu r e t o n e w t e r r it o r ie s. Even risk averse individuals take risk T h e re a re m a n y ris k m a n a g e m e n t s tr a te g i e s i n c l u d i n g : Diversification Insurance experimentation N o t ta k i n g r i s k s i d r i s k y Multiplicity Of Risks Individual risks can not evaluated in isolation. There are trade-offs in risk taking Some of the risks associated with food policies include: Food shortages Environmental degradation Market concentration Poverty Political instability The Relations between risks and time R i s k s m a y b e c o r r e l a te d . H i g h l i k e l i h o o d o f F o o d s h o r ta g e s i s l i n k e d w i th h i g h p o v e r ty p r o b a b i l i ty . G o v e rn a n c e d e s ig n s h o u ld h a v e a lo n g te r m p e r s p e c ti v e . D y n a m i c p r o c e s s e s c o n tr i b u te to g e n e r a ti o n o r r e d u c ti o n o f r i s k s . Population growth may increase food shortage risk Food grew faster than population throughout most of the 20th century Food productivity growth is sluggish-but population is expected increase and food demand to double. Food availability can meet the challenge by: Malthusian scenario&agricultural Malthusian technology Increased productivity increase intensification Expansion of agricultural land and resource base Intensification and the In environment Alternative practices were introduced to reduce damages (IPM, Low Tillage, precision farming) with varying results Intensive use of chemicals(pesticides and fertilizers), multiple cropping and intensive plowing leads to risks to human and animal health Contamination of bodies of water, Soil erosion Current ag biotech practices were invented to replace chemicals E x p e c ta ti o n o f s tr i c t p e s ti c i d e s r e g u l a ti o n s m o ti v a te d i n tr o d u c ti o n o f p e s t c o n tr o l a g - b i o te c h Its a d o p ti o n i s fa s t b e c a u s e o f c o n v e n i e n c e a s w e l l a s p r o fi ta b i l i ty . Underreporting of GMO use in India B r a z il, a n d C h in a . Environment: Sound Basis for Risk Analysis Is the Precautionary Principle a sound basis for risk analysis? There are always trade-offs between risks and benefits, and between risks and risks. In A fr ic a , d o e s r is k o f “ g e n e tic c o n ta m in a tio n ” e x c e e d r is k o f s ta r v a tio n ? Agricultural biotechnology should be evaluated in comparison to pesticides and other real alternatives. In tr o p ic s , in c r e a s e d p r o d u c tiv ity w o u ld r e d u c e p r e s s u r e fo r d e fo r e s ta tio n . G m o ’ s a r e n o t p e r fe c t G m o ’ s h a v e p r o b l e m s - r e s i s ta n c e b u i l d u p , d a m a g e to s e c o n d a r y p e s ts , g e n e ti c c o n ta m i n a ti o n . R e fu g i a , m o n i to r i n g o f i m p a c ts , r e s tr i c ti o n o f u s e i n s o m e l o c a ti o n s c a n a d d r e s s th e s e p r o b l e m s p a r ti a l l y - b u t a l te r n a ti v e s h a v e p r o b l e m s a n d r i s k s th a t h a v e to b e c o n s i d e r e d . A g r i c u l tu r a l b i o te c h i s i n i ts i n fa n c y - b u i l t u p o f h u m a n c a p i ta l a n d a c c u m u l a ti o n o f - w i l l l e a d to e l i m i n a ti o n s o f m a n y b u g a n d l e a d to b e tte r te c h n o l o g i e s Current ag biotech & risks Realized risks of agricultural biotechnology thus far is small(in spite Monarch Butterfly) Experimentation with agricultural biotech is vast(100million acres + annually), Each year without a major incidence adds confidence to the use of the technology. yet monitoring is needed to continue. Loss of ag bio-diversity is reduced when a diversity of GMO varieties is introduced. New ag bio-technologies D e v e lo p m e n t o f c u rre n t G M O p ro v id e d to o l s fo r m o r e a ttr a c ti v e fu tu r e G M O i m p r o v i n g n u tr i ti o n a l c o n te n ts a n d h e a l th . It m a y u se p la n t s a s la b s fo r c h e m ic a ls a n d m e d ic in e s .T h a t m a y n e c e s s it a t e g r o w in g g e n e t ic a lly m o d ifi e d p la n t s t h a t a r e n o t e d ib le in o r d e r t o p r o t e ct o u r so u r ce s o f fo o d Bio tech and environment G M O l e a d s to g a i n s i n te r m s o f p e s ti c i d e s u s e r e d u c ti o n a n d r e d u c e a c r e a g e a s y i e l d s in c re a s e G e n e fl o w i s a p o te n ti a l p r o b l e m - n e e d to b e m o n i to r e d T h e r i s k d e p e n d s o n th e g e n e i n s e r te d - B t a n d v i ta m i n C p r o d u c i n g g e n e s m a y b e r a th e r b e n i g n - b u t g e n e s c a n p r o d u c e to x i n s - r e g u l a ti o n s s h o u l d v a r y The Price of Excessive Regulatory The Caution The regulatory process of ag chemicals and biotechnology designed to respond to concerns of environmentalists, but also benefited agribusiness Reducing environmental risks increases concentration risks Led to concentration Reduced solutions available for small crops & reduce diversity &specialization of farming. Farm land expansion& the environment Without increase in yield per acre population and demand growth will lead to expansion of agricultural resource utilization-deforestation, depletion of water resources,air and water pollution Productivity increasing innovations crucial for protection of natural resources U.S agricultural acreage has decreased throughout the century due to innovation& intensification. Conclusions Conclusions A g b io t e c h n o lo g y h a s s ig n if ic a n t p o t e n t ia l f o r d e v e lo p in g c o u n t r ie s ; t h e c h a lle n g e is t o r e a liz e t h a t p o t e n t ia l : P r o d u c tiv ity : y ie ld e ffe c t o f b io te c h n o lo g y te n d s to b e la r g e r in d e v e lo p in g c o u n tr ie s A c c e s s : in s titu tio n s c a n r e d u c e IP a n d r e g u la to r y c o s ts fo r d e v e lo p in g c o u n tr ie s R is k s : c r o p b io d iv e r s ity c a n b e p r e s e r v e d a n d c o u ld e v e n b e r e s to r e d w ith b io te c h n o lo g y A g b i o te c h i s m o r e th a n G m o ’ s . It w i l l e v o l v e - a l te r n a ti v e m o l e c u l a r a p p r o a c h e s w ill b e d e v e lo p e d -b u t knowledge will not be accumulated without experience Development may be dependent on public and private sector funding Ag bio tech is only part of the solution A g b i o te c h m u s t b e p u r s u e d a s p a r t o f a p o r tfo l i o o f te c h n o l o g y a n d k n o w l e d g e to o l s a i m i n g to e n h a n c e p r o d u c ti v i ty a n d e n v i r o n m e n ta l s u s ta i n a b i l i ty o f a g r i c u l tu r e . Europeans attitude to Gmo L a c k o f tr u s t i n g o v e r n m e n t- B s e F & m o u th In s u ffi c i e n t fo o d s a fe ty r e g u l a ti o n S tr e n g th o f e n v i r o n m e n ta l m o v e m e n t B i o te c h i s A m e r i c a n te c h n o l o g y B a r r i e r to tr a d e S c i e n ti s ts a n d s o c i e ty d o n o t w a n t to fa l l b e h in d A cce p ta n ce Progress of ag biotech depends on broad bio acceptance Consumers have right to discriminate according to the way products are produced. This discrimination should not be used to form trade barriers A global Academy of science needed for dispute resolution Regulatory constrained needed for acceptance. Concerns may be valid. Labeling Reasonable labeling is a reasonable regulatory requirement Product tracing will reduce cost of safety maintenance. Labeling will benefit industry in the long run.Enable product differntiation Should be done privately subject to government monitoring C o n s id e r 250 million Americans are the “guinea pigs” for agricultural biotechnology. Northern countries also took the risk with cars and with modern chemicals. Africa missed the Green Revolution; will it also miss the Gene Revolution? Epilog Differences in attitudes US vs EU- is it consumers antagudes? ch threatens t t it e in Biote U .S . r e l a ti v e a d v a E u r o p e a n d o m i n a n c e i n c h e m i c a l p e s t c o n tr o l m a r k e ts Innovative capacity: Innovative Forward citations to US agbiotech patents B y n a tio n a lity o f le a d in v e n to r a n d g r a n t d a te o f c ite d p a te n t 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 1984 1985 1986 North American European 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 Japanese 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Innovative capacity: Innovative Forward citations to US agrochemical patents B y n a tio n a lity o f le a d in v e n to r a n d g r a n t d a te o f c ite d p a te n t 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 North American European Japanese 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Market incentives: Market Global crop protection market, sales US $ millions $35,000 $30,000 1 yr. % change 2000 to 2001 -10.2 % agchem a g b i o/ seed $25,000 Others Japanese corporations +12.9 % $20,000 US corporations $15,000 -1.2 % agchem a g b i o/ seed $10,000 European corporations $5,000 -1.0 % agchem $0 1991 2001 Data Sources: Wood Mackenzie Agrochemicals, in Chemistry & Industry, November 1993 and Phillips McDougall, AgriFutura Newsletter, March 2002 In n o v a ti v e c a p a c i ty : c o m p a r in g c it a t io n b a s e d in d ic e s o f p a t e n t q u a lit y Behavioral evidence: Behavioral Double standards for the “ b recautionary principle” tr Douple standards applied to intra-EU ?ade relations and external EU trade relations (Majone, 2003) As applied to chemicals vs. biotechnologies? Possible metrics? Sources? B e h a v io ra l e v id e n c e : C o n s p ic u o u s in d u s t r y a b s e n c e f r o m p o lic y p r o c e s s ? “When GM products came to the market in Europe, we were faced with contradictory statements or even silence both from regulators and from industry. This contributed substantially to the lack of confidence now present.” - Dirk-Arie Toet Nestec Ltd., 2001 Conclusions R e g u l a te n o t b a n te c h n o l o g i e s E ffe c ti v e & tr u s te d r e g u l a ti o n e s s e n ti a l fo r i n n o v a ti o n R e fo r m IP R i n tr o d u c e c l e a r i n g h o u s e . C o m p e n s a te fo r b i o g i v e r s i ty C o n ti n u e s u p p o r t fo r p u b l i c r e s e a r c h ...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online