Agricultural Biotechnology:

The Technology in the Seed

Drew L. Kershen
Earl Sneed Centennial Law Professor
University of Oklahoma
Copyright 2001, all rights reserved
 The Seed
 The agronomic traits are in the seed – no other
input needed to gain access to the technology
 Similarity to hybrids but hybridization is primarily
about yield and the trait diminished rapidly from
one plant generation to the next
 Contrast to Green Revolution – fertilizers,
irrigation, pesticides, herbicides – extraneous
inputs
 Structural & Economic Implications
 Scaleneutral – the seed advantage accrues equally
to any sized farmer
 Economic calculation – more expensive seed versus
potential return – ordinary calculation
 Hybrid calculation is identical on cost of seed versus
potential return
 No changes in horticultural practices – farm as before
with transgenic seed
 Structural & Economic Implications
 Scale positive – may benefit the smaller farmer more than
larger farmer
 Minimal learning curve
 No additional inputs
 Increased yield
 Reduced labor requirements
 Greater security; greater flexibility in farming

 Key – access to seeds – assistance for the poorest farmers

to acquired the seeds
 Structural Stabilization
 Niche markets – value-added crops
 Functional foods; pharmaceuticals; alternative crops
 Environmental constraints
 Adapted for drier climates – Ogallala Aquifer
 Environmental compliance –
 No till cropping
 Environmental compliance, regulatory compliance is not scale neutral – small
entities adversely affected
 May allow smaller farmers to have better risk management and slow
the pace of structural change
 Structural Legal Relationships
 Additional non-farm input – the seed
 Gene expression technology or gene use restriction
technology
 Intellectual property rights – seed companies
 Separate the technology from the structural
changes – agricultural biotechnology is not the
cause of these structural changes
 Structural Changes
 Before and regardless of biotechnology
 Non-farm inputs: Internet, precision agriculture, identity
preservation
 Hybrids – Semen straws
 Contract production; vertical integration
 Concentration – in processing and particularly in food
retail
 Who captures value? – farmers doing very well in
capturing value of agricultural biotechnology.
 Hypothesis
 If separate the technology from the structural changes
 The technology itself appears scale neutral and potentially scale
positive
 If the hypothesis is accurate
 Implications for developing world
 Major constraint is governmental policies that encourage or
discourage adoption
 Good reasons for farmers to be positive and early adopters
of the technology
 Constraints
 Pressure Groups & Scientific Ignorance
 Cartagena Biosafety Protocol
 Food Scares and Food Aid
 Codex Alimentarius

 Governmental Policies
 Robert L. Paarlberg, Governing the GM Crop Revolution:
Policy Choices for Developing Countries (Int’l Food Pol. Res.
Inst., 2000)
 Five areas: Intellectual Property Rights, Biosafety, Trade, Food
Safety and Consumer Choice, Public Research Investment
 China 1.8; Brazil 2.2; Kenya 2.6; India 2.8 – Promotional,
Permissive, Precautionary, Preventive
 Constraints
 Domestic Production vs International Trade
 Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom (1999) – the importance
of economic freedom and opportunity
 Public research investment in domestically important crops –
NARS and CGIAR
 Capacity-building, institutional development, infrastructure
expansion – technical knowledge, appropriate regulation, farmer
extension
 South Africa (GMO cotton); Kenya (GMO banana) – the small
farmers as the beneficiaries
 Conclusion
 AgriculturalBiotechnology – greater benefits to
developing nations for food security and food
safety
 Urgency of the situation
 Opportunity lost? Ideology triumphant?