Regulating the New Agricultural Biotechnology by Managing Innovation Diffusion

Abstract

After 15 years of promise, the new agricultural biotechnology is now being planted in farmers'fields and is found in America's food supply. Taken together with the promise of reduced pesticide use and the resulting healthier environment, the adoption and proper management of this technology, as well as public acceptance of it, is highly important for its continued use. This article considers objective attributes and subjective factors in the adoption and management of new technologies and applies them to a much-vaunted and widely used agricultural biotechnology that promises chemical pesticide reduction but threatens biological pollution of the environment: crops genetically engineered to express Bacillus thuringiensis. Analysis of user workshops in Chicago and Memphis during the summer of 1999 suggests that difficulties may lie not with the seeds themselves but with the adoption of management practices that preserve the pesticidal capabilities of the plants.The products of the new agricultural biotechnology have left the lab, passed through farmers' fields, and now line grocers' shelves. Estimates suggest that genetically engineered crops cover one quarter, or 90 million acres, of U.S. cropland, with over 35% of all corn, 55% of all soybeans, and nearly half of all cotton being genetically engineered. Estimates also suggest that over two thirds of the food bought by average consumers, unbeknownst to them, contains genetically engineered components ("Seeds of Change," 1999). Additionally, many other genetically engineered products have undergone regulatory review and are entering the market.The great majority of genetically engineered crops are altered for herbicide tolerance and pest resistance. These characteristics benefit farmers by enhancing production and benefit the public through reduced chemical input use. At a time when the range of registered pesticides is being reduced by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA), the health and environmental benefits of genetically engineered crops are being touted by the corporations producing them and welcomed

On Butterflies and Frankenstein: A Dynamic Theory of Regulation

“…If the US producers' interest group has sufficient political power, they succeed in obtaining the regulatory status quo, which allows using GM technology. Charles (2001) also argues that the Reagan administration was very much opposed to additional regulations, and according to Stewart et al (2002) the Bush administration explicitly decided to push for GM technology. These factors put higher political weight on producers' interests in the US which, according to our model, leads to a continuation of the approval of GM technology in the US, even if US consumers would oppose it, and causes regulatory hysteresis.…”

Strategies and External Relationships of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises in the US Agricultural Biotechnology Sector

“…For example, in 1996, US agricultural exports to the EU earned $9022 million but this decreased to $6420 million in 2001. The US domestic consumption of agro-bio products by farmers has been fairly consistent, but this may change if end users reject GM products (Stewart et al, 2002). The lawsuit involving Aventis StarLink Õ corn shows how Aventis did not adequately inform farmers that segregation of crops was necessary.…”