Introduction
A range of technologies is applied under the umbrella of agricultural biotechnology to improve many areas of food and agriculture (including animals, crops, fish, and forest trees). This conglomeration of technologies consists of scientific tools that are very diverse and sometimes highly controversial, often posing ethical challenges requiring substantial debate among policy makers, researchers, and the public at large. In agricultural biotechnology, an array of tools is utilized to introduce or delete a particular gene or genes with the objective to produce plants, animals, and microorganisms with value-added novel traits. The process of genetic manipulation is called "genetic engineering" and the product with altered genetic trait(s) is known as a genetically modified organism or GMO. Such organisms with altered traits are generated by the direct intervention of human ingenuity and the application of both traditional breeding methods and modern biotechnology. Agricultural biotechnology includes a myriad of techniques and products and GMOs are but one of these products. For the purpose of simplicity, this discussion will consider only genetically engineered crops.

Agricultural biotechnology (AB) is an important subject for the developing world on three fronts: 1) consumers in developing countries spend a majority of their disposable income on food (The amount of money spent on food could be reduced if the benefits of modern AB were made available to them. This would double or triple their earnings and give people more purchasing power to enhance their quality of life.); 2) AB can bring economic prosperity, which in turn can bring political stability in some of the critical areas of the developing world; and 3) protecting the environment for future generations by reducing the amount of pesticide spray.

Background of Transgenic Technology
The creation and commercialization of transgenic crops exhibiting resistance to insects and herbicides was a landmark in agricultural biotechnology. Transgenic crops have changed the way we look at agriculture, food security, and food's impact on society. These changes also bring unprecedented economic potential and controversy on the subject. Some controversies are legitimate and have infused lively discussions on the subject, but, generally, most of the controversies lack scientific fervor and claim. Many agricultural scientists agree and support AB research and the economic returns that AB brings to the world economy. Over 3400 scientists worldwide, including 24 Nobel Prize winners, affirmed their commitment to the use of biotechnology to improve agriculture through research and development of genetically engineered crops in the developing world, according to Agbioworld, a non-profit organization based in the US. One main goal of implementing AB is to produce sufficient food in order to provide nutritional and food security to the growing world population. The available transgenic technology is efficient and can be carried out in a wide variety of organisms with great success. Many value-added traits such as Golden Rice, rich in vitamin A, and corn with low phytate, etc., are already incorporated and commercialized into varieties of rice and corn. Modern biotechnology is a tool that allows scientists to select a single gene for a desired trait and incorporate that desired trait into the plant cells. In many ways, biotechnology is simply a "high-tech" version of traditional plant breeding. The process is more efficient as the use of biotechnology prevents millions of genes from being mixed and potentially producing undesirable traits. On the other hand, the application of biotechnology allows scientists to incorporate genes from unrelated species--something that cannot be done via conventional plant breeding, such as the introduction of Bt gene. The gene was cloned from Bacillus thuringiensis bacteria and inserted into corn, cotton, and other crop plants to provide resistance to certain insects. This makes biotechnology a very powerful tool to incorporate value-added traits in a wide variety of species.

The Status of Biotech Crops and Benefits
As early as 1980, the first genetically engineered crops were developed for resistance to herbicides and insects. These two traits, herbicide and insect resistance, account for the majority of biotech crops grown worldwide. Plant biotechnology and genetic engineering is now a significant part of plant breeding on all continents. The addition of genomic technologies (gene identification) allows for the identification of genes that have the potential for revolutionizing crop production and making agriculture a more exciting industry in the 21st century. Biotech crops reached a 10-year milestone in 2005 with the cultivation of genetically enhanced crops in 400 million hectares worldwide. Some 10.3 million farmers in 22 countries (9.3 million of which were considered subsistence farmers) grew biotech crops in 2006, a 13 percent increase over 2005. Worldwide acreage for the main crops carrying the new biotech genes is soybean (56 percent), maize (14 percent), cotton (28 percent), and canola (19 percent). Together, these crops occupy nearly 30 percent of the global area devoted to agricultural production. Biotechnology has improved productivity and income with biotech crops reporting a yield increase of 5% to 40% in production.

The United States led the cultivation of biotech crops with 48 million hectares, followed by Argentina, 16 million hectares, Canada, 6 million hectares, Brazil, 4.8 million hectares, and China, 4 million hectares. In terms of dollars, biotech crops are a $5 billion business, accounting for 16% of the global seed market shares. In addition, growing biotech crops is more affordable by requiring fewer pesticides, conserving soil, and providing a sustainable environment. As per recent data from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the annual income of poor farmers in the developing world has increased significantly from the use of biotech crops. An encouraging note-most of the value-added traits have benefited farmers in the developing world rather than the technology providers who invested huge amount of resources into developing the technologies.

Farmers make a difference around the world by adopting biotech crops, thus resulting in higher yields and reliable harvests to provide food security and global stability. Agricultural biotechnology plays an important role in the farm economy with increased yields, improved weed control, and reduced chemical application. Even in the developed world, such as the U.S., farmers realize the payback by planting biotech varieties as reported by the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy in Washington, D.C. A brief summary of direct income derived from planting transgenic varieties is enumerated:

• Roundup Ready soybeans: decrease herbicide use by 28.7 million lbs. (13,018.3 metric tons)/year; $1.1 billion/year savings in production costs.

• BT cotton: decrease insecticide use by 1.9 million lbs. (861.8 metric tons)/year, 185 million lbs. (83,916 metric tons)/year increase in cotton production.

• BT maize varieties: decrease insecticide use by over 16 million lbs. (7,257.6 metric tons)/year, 3.5 billion lbs. (1,587,600 metric tons)/year increase in production volume.

• Papaya: Virus-resistant biotech papaya saved the Hawaiian papaya industry $17 million/year in 1998, from the devastating effects of ringspot virus.

As one can see from above, there is an incredible spin-off in protecting the environment, a vast reduction in pesticide use. The increase in production and savings in production costs is equally dramatic. While biotech results vary from farm to farm, the economic payback obviously has been significant. These benefits are realized not only by farmers, but also by the environment and to consumers in general.

Approximately 8.5 million farmers in 21 countries grew biotech crops in 2005, up from 8.25 million farmers in 17 countries in 2004. About 90% of the farmers benefited were from the developing world. Viruses and insects impose economic havoc on tropical crops more so than to those in the temperate regions because they thrive better in the warmer tropics. A majority of developing countries are predominantly located in tropical regions. Protecting tropical crops from these organisms can be a costly endeavor for the people of a region with limited resources. The introduction of genetically modified crop varieties containing genes that confer resistance to insects and viruses has been an economic godsend for these regions.

From a nutritional security stand point; rice with enhanced nutritional content such as Golden Rice was developed to remedy one of the most devastating causes of malnutrition due to vitamin A deficiency. Golden Rice, rice genetically enhanced with added beta-carotene that converts into Vitamin A in the human body, is an excellent example of an agricultural biotechnology success. Another research break-through is the development of a rice variety that has elevated levels of digestible iron. Rice is the diet of more than 3 billion people worldwide, but includes inadequate levels of essential vitamins and minerals such as Vitamin A and iron. Deficiency in just these two micronutrients can result in severe anemia, impaired intellectual development, blindness, and even death. The development of transgenic rice varieties containing enhanced levels of Vitamin A and iron may remedy this deficiency and can transform economically backward rural poor in the developing world and provide nutritional security.

Another important application of biotechnology appearing on the research horizon is the development of abiotic (non biological factors stress-tolerant plants.). Meanwhile, promising research is underway covering a cross-section of crop species. With better molecular understanding of stress resistance mechanisms, the development of stress resistant plants are virtually becoming a reality by using AB. The number of experimental releases of stress-tolerant plants (especially for drought) is rapidly increasing. These crops offer significant advantages in the reliability of food production in large areas of the tropics where farming is regularly disrupted by unpredictable rainfall. It is also possible that these innovations will help to relieve pressure on scarce irrigation resources. As biotechnology advances, more innovative applications will become possible. Strategies for production of genetically modified (GM) vaccines for farm animals are well underway; and, in fact during the early nineties, a recombinant vaccine for the control of rabies was the first example of a commercial scale release of a GMO.

The Controversy
Agricultural biotechnology has added significant economic impact to the world economy during the past decade. Unprecedented scientific and economic advancement experienced in agriculture during this period is due largely to AB. Nevertheless, the technology has met with strong public resistance in Europe while widely adopted in the United States with little public attention or controversy. The implementation of AB will continue to foster public debate for years to come. The European Union will continue to see more than its share of controversy and overtones. As regulatory policies, AB remains in flux with political posturing and positioning among advocates and opponents. Activists on both sides of the issue will continue to push for their agenda regardless of scientific research findings. The adoption of a stable regulatory project report will not reduce or end the controversy. In the US, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was recently sued by a US environmental and religious coalition for allegedly violating religious freedom and endangering public health through its labeling policy. The controversy is far from resolved since there are extreme views on both sides that remain diametrically opposed to one another; such controversy exists due to the political persuasion of some activists who are out to discredit genuine research findings and products that are declared safe for human.

Universities and their scientists are at the center of this debate, both as developers of the technology and for engaging the public and policymakers regarding the ethical, social, and legal issues of the application of biotechnology. Universities are therefore confronted with a public communication dilemma. When dealing with an issue like GMOs that is heavy with political controversy and scientific uncertainty, what strategies of successful public engagement and communication can these institutions pursue? Can the public institutions such as the universities and government funded research foundations objectively referee the debate over the safety of GM products without bias? Will the critics of AB readily accept the safety argument set forth by publicly funded agencies such as the FDA? Alternatively, where can the critics take their debate and obtain a satisfactory answer to the controversy? Is there an institution or agency that is above reproach to referee the GM controversy?

A recent incident with Bayer CropScience Liberty Link Rice 601 (LLRICE601) is an excellent example of this controversy. LL601 is a transgenic rice variety genetically modified to contain the herbicide resistant Liberty Link gene. The variety was approved by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) for limited field trial, and subsequently declared safe for consumption by the FDA. Bayer however chose to drop the LL601 from product launch but retained the variety in their possession. (It should be stated that the LL601 produces the same protein as other LL rice events approved by the FDA for commercial sale). Several months later, traces of LLRICE601 were detected in the commercial rice conveyor. This created heated debate over the safety of the food supply chain, even to the point that the European Union banned all US rice import without rigorous testing and with a zero tolerance for LL601.

Even though the FDA declared the product safe for human consumption, the controversy remains. It is important to sort out the facts from myths in the debate, not to politicize the issues or to emotionally charge the matter. While the debate continues without a winner, the greatest losers are the farmers and consumers in the developing world. Most of the controversies and debate about GM crops thrive well in the affluent Western society where there is abundance of food. The people who are in the greatest need of biotech products don't care about the controversies concerning GMO's. It is also true that the government leadership of certain developing countries, such as Zimbabwe, is misinformed about GMOs and has refused to harness the benefits of GM crops. It is important that we know the extent of GMO contamination and identify the different traits present in the food supply chain in order to make informed decision concerning the risks associated with eating GMO food. However, the process to identify precise levels of GMO contamination involves a series of tests that requires professional and specialized training in the field. Alternatively, commercial testing labs are available and can determine the precise level of GMO traits present. In this regard, I advocate the use of approved commercial testing labs to determine the extent of GMO contamination. Commercial testing labs can play a vital role in providing testing data and benchmarks that can be used to make important decisions whether to reject or accept a given shipment of grain. Information on the extent of GM contamination should serve as the basis of GMO debate and should help settle the GMO controversy.

Agricultural Biotechnology in India
Agriculture in India is one of the most prominent sectors in that country's economy. Agriculture and allied sectors such as forestry, logging, and fishing account for 18.6% of the GDP in 2005, employing 60% of the country's population, and making up for 8.6 % of India's exports. About 43% of India's land use is attributed to agricultural activity. Despite a steady decline in its share in the GDP, agriculture is still the single largest economic sector and plays a significant role in the overall socio-economic development of India. Unlike the Western world, the average agricultural land holding in India is very small and not more than one hectare per household. Moreover, these lands are inadequately maintained and may be classified as below the threshold of production levels. Since land holding is limited, continued increases in population make any attempts to increase agriculture production an important topic in modern India with its teeming millions. Countries like India, where land holding is not expandable, must resort to other means of increasing their agriculture production in order to feed their ever-growing population. Agricultural biotechnology with its potential and promises may be one answer to providing food and nutritional security to the ever-expanding population of India. With appropriate strategy and proper implementation of new technologies, countries such as India, can benefit from AB. The overall economic impact of implementing new technologies is yet to be realized.

India with its emerging democracy and growing economic power has seen a shift in the last few decades in the way business is conducted. The Federal government is more willing to venture into a market economy by privatizing financial institutions. As a consequence of this move, capital is more readily available to the common people and is being invested in new businesses. India, on the other hand, is also one of the largest agriculture-based economies in the world. With her agriculture output continuing to decline for the last decade, many factors have been attributed to this decline: the effects of disease, pests, and weeds, unprecedented climatic conditions, limited water, poor land conditions, drought, and heat. But a recent report by the National Commission on Farmers strongly suggests that the hope for the future increases in productivity, sustainability, and profitability for the farmer lies in agricultural biotechnology.

The recent successes of AB in India can be attributed to the introduction of Bt cotton in 2002. Cotton is an important crop in India and shared 25% of world acreage under cotton cultivation. The cotton business engaged some 60 million people, whose life depends on cotton. India's textile industry accounts for the single largest export but add up to only 12% of the world's cotton. India has seen a tremendous growth in cotton production since the introduction of Bt cotton technology. Bt cotton brings significant benefits to Indian farmers in the following ways: 1) reducing the costs of spraying of pesticides, 2) increasing overall yields, and 3) bringing benefits in terms of economic security and environmental safety, and thereby peace of mind to the farmers. India for the first time had more land (3.8 million hectares) under GM cotton than China (3.5 million hectares) according to the International Services for the Acquisition of Agribiotech Applications. In a nutshell, Indian farmers are continuing to expand acreage under Bt cotton because it delivers consistent benefits in terms of reduced pesticide use and increased income. The farmers welcome the commercial production of genetically modified cotton as a miracle solution for hard-hit cotton growers. Director of Public Affairs, Monsanto India, filed the following report as a direct benefits derived from planting Bt cotton in India:

1. The planting of Bt cotton with the proper implementation of pest management strategies as suggested by Central Institute Cotton Research (CICR) can delay resistance by 30-40 years.





2. The department of biotechnology at CICR research concluded that Bt technology is good for pest management and helps farmers, but the technology needs to be refined.





3. The Indian Institute of Management study has concluded that the net profit per hectare to farmers from Bt cotton cultivation has more than doubled. As an added bonus, the spraying against bollworm was reduced on average by 4-5 sprays, a saving of US $25 per acre.





4. According to the Indian Market Research Bureau, farmers who have planted Bt cotton in 2006 are more likely to earn an additional US $1.5 billion in income, based on an estimated planting of 8.6 million acres, and the rural income is expected to increase by 36 per cent.





5. Since its introduction in 2002, Bt technology has witnessed a phenomenal increase in Bt cotton acreage with more than 2 million farmers adopting the technology. This increase in acreage is a positive statement about the continuing success and acceptance of the technology in India.

Another application of AB is to develop genetically modified crops that can be used as raw materials for biofuel, which can be an engine of economic growth. India with its increasing middle class with growing buying power is seeing passenger cars becoming an essential part of life. India with its teeming millions with little natural fuel reserves of its own can use an additional supply of biodiesel. But the available domestic fuel reserve cannot meet daily needs. It can help reduce poverty, promote rural development, strengthen trade and economy and agricultural sustainability, and also deliver direct benefits to farmers and consumers. Meanwhile, companies are reinvesting their profits to develop future products that include drought tolerance varieties.

The Green Revolution Versus the GMO Revolution
The term "Green Revolution" is applied to successful agricultural experiments in many Third World countries. It is a general term referred to a period from 1967 to 1978 marked by quantitative expansion of farmlands and increased agricultural production. It is not specific to India, but the program was most successful in India. Three basic criteria characterized the success of the Green Revolution: 1) the use of genetically improved seeds; 2) the continued expansion of agricultural farm areas; and 3) the application of double cropping.

Several years of rigorous research efforts by the Indian Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR) yielded genetically superior seeds. The agency developed new varieties of high yield value (HYV) seeds, mainly wheat and rice, and to some degree millet and corn. Dwarf varieties and dependence on artificial fertilizers characterized the new high yielding varieties of wheat and rice. On the surface, the green revolution may have been impressive, but several limitations were observed which make the green revolution inferior to the GMO revolution. The limitations of the green revolution are: 1) the long-term achievement failed to bring India the status of being totally and permanently self-sufficient in food, 2) the varieties' dependence on heavy doses of fertilizers fails to make it cost effective, 3) the failure to extend the high-yield value seeds to all crops, 4) the failure to expand the benefits of the green revolution to all regions of the country, 5) the heavy requirement of chemical fertilizers by high yielding varieties, and 6) no provision for the protection of the environment under the green revolution plan.

For a country such as India with massive population and small land holding per family, the prospect for the GMO revolution is brighter than those achieved under the green revolution. Under the GMO plan, the genetic traits are transferable across crop species irrespective of whether the species are cross compatible. The rewards are realized mainly by planting genetically superior seeds. The seeds can be packaged potentially to contain all the desirable traits. Traits like resistance to insect pests, diseases, herbicides, etc., can be packaged in seeds. Carefully packaged seeds with multi-traits are available to any one who is engaged in agriculture irrespective of their land holdings and will benefit from it. Seeds can easily be transported and sold to farmers across the country and can cover every region of India. This was one point with the green revolution that kept it localized to the northwestern part of India. Since the seed contains its own protection mechanisms, reduced or no chemical spray applications will be needed thereby protecting the environment from excessive exposure to artificial chemicals. In summary, higher returns, a longer expansion, and friendly to the environment are attributes of the GMO revolution and GM products. On the other hand, the Green Revolution was short-lived, mechanical, costly, and does not sufficiently meet the sustainability of the food supply for India.

The debate is still ongoing when GMOs are discussed. Regardless of the controversies debated by scholars, politicians, professionals, and activists, GMO products are changing our world. And for many in the world, the average farmer sees these changes as being for their good, their family's good, and for bettering their land. Despite the GMO controversy, growth in genetic engineering continues. Biotechnology along with Information Technology may be the prominent economic force in the 21st century. One final note, Agricultural Biotechnology is the dreams and hope of subsistence farmers, and for those who put tireless efforts to see the developing world transform into a stable self-reliant world.

Citation
Transgenic crops in the pipeline - THE HINDU (India) October 1, 2006 - Pawar

Impacts of US agriculture of biotechnology-derived crops planted in 2003. National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy in Washington, D.C., October 2004.

Why Green Revolution - limitations of green revolution -- ICAR Publication