CONSUMER AND THE FUTURE OF BIOTECK FOODS IN THE UNITED STATES

Consumers and the Future of Biotech Foods in 

the United States

Biotechnology is often associated with promise…promise to feed the world, promise to reduce environmental harm, promise to expand agricultural markets and production possibilities, promise to create products that consumers want.

Farmers in the United States seem to be sold on these promises. Although first generation biotech crops have been in commercial use for only 8 years, farmers have rapidly adopted them because of their ability to survive herbicides and/or pests. In 1996, fewer than 5 percent of U.S. soybean acres were planted to herbicide-tolerant (HT) seeds; in 2002, 75 percent of soybean acres were planted to HT soybeans—a 1,400-percent increase in just 6 years. Adoption rates of biotech commodities that are used for nonfood purposes—animal feed and textiles, for example—have also increased rapidly.

Seed development, chemical, and pharmaceutical firms seem to be sold, too. Anticipating significant returns from both agricultural and pharmaceutical biotechnology, these firms acquired small biotech start-up firms (and their biotech patents) in the 1990s and transformed themselves into large “life science” companies. While some pharmaceutical firms have since divested their agricultural holdings after failing to realize adequate returns on their investments, large agricultural biotechnology companies—like Monsanto—have maintained agbiotech research and development programs, partly because of expected greater returns on second- and third-generation biotechnology.

  

But, are American consumers sold? Unlike their European counterparts, American consumers have, so far, not been vocal about their opinions on biotech food, though they have been eating them. Biotech grains, in the form of cornmeal, oils, and sugars, are used as ingredients in many foods that Americans consume, such as corn chips. Because these foods are deemed substantially equivalent to their nonbiotech counterparts, they are not labeled as “biotech.” As such, consumers are largely unaware they are eating products derived from biotechnology. But that may change when the new generation of products in the pipeline actually hits grocery stores.

These new products may be substantially different from their nonbiotech counterparts or, in some cases, completely new. When consumers are made aware that these products are biotech, how will they react? As the largest market for U.S. producers, American consumers will render the ultimate verdict on the future of agricultural biotechnology in the United States.

Biotech Products Reap Multiple Benefits

Much of what we know about agricultural biotechnology stems from our experience with the first generation of biotech products, mainly crops with enhanced agronomic traits, such as pest resistance or herbicide tolerance. These products help farmers by reducing production costs or increasing yields.

Only about a third of the first-generation biotech products are in commercial use; many more are expected to come through the pipeline in the next few years (see “What’s in the Pipeline?”). The second generation of biotech products, currently being developed, are mostly food products that offer benefits beyond the farm gate, such as enhanced nutritional value. Golden rice, for example, contains beta-carotene, a source of vitamin A. The products of the third generation will also offer benefits to consumers and others through a wide range of nonfood uses—from edible vaccines to environmental cleanup to reducing the spread of malaria from mosquitoes.

Most farmers using first-generation products have generally benefited from modest increases in yields and net returns from reduced use of insecticides and herbicides. Users of HT crops have seen increased yields and returns, but users of bacillus thuringiensis crops (Bt crops, which are toxic to certain pests) have 

had more mixed results. The financial benefits of Bt crops depend on the

presence or persistence of pests. Farmers also realize nonfinancial benefits in

the form of convenience and reduced management time. Many farmers who work

off the farm rely on Bt crops to make more time available for off

farm work.

And U.S. farmers aren’t 

the only ones who

benefit. Based on an

analysis of three biotech

crops (Bt cotton, HT

cotton, and HT

soybeans), the financial

benefits to U.S. farmers

accounted for no more

than a third of the

estimated total benefits associated with biotech

crops in 1997. And, the

distribution of benefits

varies by crop. Larger

shares of the benefits

went to the

biotechnology

developers in the form

of technology fees or to

domestic and foreign consumers through lower commodity prices. Although the results depend on a number of factors, including the estimated cost savings associated with biotech adoption and the sensitivity of supply and demand for each commodity to price changes, they do suggest that consumers capture many of the financial benefits associated with more efficient production. When we consider benefits to consumers in terms of stable or declining food prices, we see that agricultural biotechnology is part of a long line of agricultural technologies that continue the secular trend of ever-increasing agricultural productivity and declining real agricultural commodity prices. 12 Desember 2008 Internet).

Penulis : Drs.Simon Arnold Julian Jacob